Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Comcast has a lot to lose if municipal broadband takes off

arstechnica.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–130 of 131 posts

Re: Comcast has a lot to lose if municipal broadband takes off

#121

Post by wool_gather »

rayiner wrote: post #95
s73ver_ wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Considering municipal is not an option in most of the country, franchise agreements are the only other way.

Most states don't have any restrictions on municipal broadband: https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/qkvn4x/the-21-law... . Even out of the 21 states that do have restrictions, most don't create really major impediments. E.g. in Pennsylvania: > [C]ities need to approach their current ISP with a detailed broadband plan. The ISP then has 60 days to take that plan and implement it or reject it. If the company agre…

> Most states don't have any restrictions on municipal broadband:

Well, they don't until municipalities actually try to start a program. Witness Tennesse a couple of years ago: https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2016/03/tennessee-kills-...

Re: Comcast has a lot to lose if municipal broadband takes off

#122

Post by libertyEQ »

JBlue42 wrote: post #104
s73ver_ wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You are, of course, entirely right.

Honestly, I think all the "anti-government" people I've come across (normal ones, not moneyed SV people) would be ok if they could legitimately see and hear about how their local, state, and federal tax dollars are at work in some easy way. The news doesn't cover it, and probably can't, well enough, but the data has to be there because it's public. And also, taxes are the number one thing people want to complain abou…

One of the founding principles of the US was individual liberty. The more the government is involved, the less liberty is possible. Now, most "anti-government" people I know differentiate between federal and state/local and it is the strong federal government we object to. Centralizing power is dangerous (as we've seen with social networks) because when some group of people whose ethics you strongly disagree with take control, you have no choice except to leave. Cannabis is currently legal in 5 states despite being illegal at the federal level.

These topics were extensively discussed in the Federalist Papers and Anti-Federalist Papers over 200 years ago, and I would suggest everyone read them.

Re: Comcast has a lot to lose if municipal broadband takes off

#123

Post by eldavido »

asdfaefasdf wrote: post #65
eldavido wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think people misunderstand Comcast. They're arguably more in the business of retailing/financial services than anything having to do with TCP/IP or DOCSIS. Americans as a whole are horrible at managing money. They don't pay their bills on time, have tons of credit card debt, etc. This isn't my opinion, it's cold hard reality: look at the subprime crisis, debt burden, charge-offs/delinquencies, etc. Frankly, the cro…

I have literally no idea how you could have reached the idea that you would be an indentured servant/bill collector. Is this some sort of post-truth propaganda?

Come on dude, be nice.

All I'm saying is that, whenever people complain about Comcast, it's inevitably about some problem with either their network, or customer service.

Comcast is a huge, scaled organization that deals with "the public". They deal with people who don't pay. They follow up when bills get lost. They deal with people who forget to return their routers. They provide level-1 tech support for people who accidentally switch their modems off and call to complain. They handle shitty premises wiring problems induced by home DIYers who crimp RG-6 connectors with pliers. They handle support cases where people spill Coke on their routers and complain that it "stopped working".

All I'm saying is, it's just incredibly naive to look at the problem of an ISP as just "network operations". Like, we can build/operate a better network=profit. That's an incredibly naive view that neglects all the ancillary work of premises provisioning, bill/payment management, 24/7 customer support, pretty much the entire "customer" side of running a large-scale retail ISP.

I mean really, what is "community broadband"? Are we just going to magically assume that, because we aren't dealing with Comcast, all of this work will somehow magic itself away? I don't get it.

Re: Comcast has a lot to lose if municipal broadband takes off

#124

Post by eldavido »

jancsika wrote: post #113
asdfaefasdf wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have literally no idea how you could have reached the idea that you would be an indentured servant/bill collector. Is this some sort of post-truth propaganda?

I understand why people are greying out that comment. On the other hand, the idea that municipal services lead residents to literally collect payment from their neighbors is such a novel complaint that I'd love to hear more details. eldavido- can you give some more information about any news stories that cover this happening?

I'm not saying anyone is collecting bills from their neighbors. I think people are reading my comment a lot more literally than I intended.

What I'm saying is that, we have large-scale utilities like power and water companies that are able to provide individual, metered service to households over a geographically distributed area. In order to to this, there is a large amount of unpleasant, schleppy work required that most analyses of smaller-scale alternatives conveniently sweep under the rug.

Either we assume (a) another large-scale operator will provide broadband, which will probably be something like Comcast (maybe not), or (b) it will be done at a smaller scale, say, a company for 1000 residences. Does (b) actually exist?

Re: Comcast has a lot to lose if municipal broadband takes off

#125

Post by s73ver_ »

libertyEQ wrote: post #122
JBlue42 wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Honestly, I think all the "anti-government" people I've come across (normal ones, not moneyed SV people) would be ok if they could legitimately see and hear about how their local, state, and federal tax dollars are at work in some easy way. The news doesn't cover it, and probably can't, well enough, but the data has to be there because it's public. And also, taxes are the number one thing people want to complain abou…

One of the founding principles of the US was individual liberty. The more the government is involved, the less liberty is possible. Now, most "anti-government" people I know differentiate between federal and state/local and it is the strong federal government we object to. Centralizing power is dangerous (as we've seen with social networks) because when some group of people whose ethics you strongly disagree with tak…

I cannot disagree more. The private market would choose to not service lower income neighborhoods. That may be an exercising of their liberty, but it comes at an expense of all the people living in those areas.

Re: Comcast has a lot to lose if municipal broadband takes off

#126

Post by jancsika »

eldavido wrote: post #124
jancsika wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I understand why people are greying out that comment. On the other hand, the idea that municipal services lead residents to literally collect payment from their neighbors is such a novel complaint that I'd love to hear more details. eldavido- can you give some more information about any news stories that cover this happening?

I'm not saying anyone is collecting bills from their neighbors. I think people are reading my comment a lot more literally than I intended. What I'm saying is that, we have large-scale utilities like power and water companies that are able to provide individual, metered service to households over a geographically distributed area. In order to to this, there is a large amount of unpleasant, schleppy work required that…

Why assume anything?

Chattanooga's municipal broadband exists and delivers speeds as fast as any in the U.S. Salisbury, NC has a municipal broadband service that was grandfathered in before the state law banning municipal broadband.

As far as b: I live in a small town that started a municipal wireless service after Wheeler's FCC tried to override the state law banning it. Fast, affordable, symmetric. I didn't attend the meeting but am certain a clear and detailed cost-benefit analysis was presented and voted on (as well as being made available to the public per state law).

Re: Comcast has a lot to lose if municipal broadband takes off

#127

Post by pavel_lishin »

corey_moncure wrote: post #29
pavel_lishin wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just about every internet provider has shitty service. Time Warner Cable - the only option in many parts of New York City - is the bane of our existence. Literally, literally every time we move, we've tried to cancel the internet at our old apartment and set it up at our new apartment - and had them end up canceling the internet at the new place. (What happens with the old internet is different every time; either it…

Do you then have to pay the "installation fee" of $50 so a guy in a truck and a polo shirt can come out to your house and enter the numbers from the back of your modem into a cellphone?

Nah, we paid the self installation fee, so that guy doesn't track dirt all over our apartment and try to drill a hole through a wall because he doesn't notice the coax cable we already plugged into the modem.

Re: Comcast has a lot to lose if municipal broadband takes off

#128

Post by libertyEQ »

s73ver_ wrote: post #125
libertyEQ wrote: post #122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

One of the founding principles of the US was individual liberty. The more the government is involved, the less liberty is possible. Now, most "anti-government" people I know differentiate between federal and state/local and it is the strong federal government we object to. Centralizing power is dangerous (as we've seen with social networks) because when some group of people whose ethics you strongly disagree with tak…

I cannot disagree more. The private market would choose to not service lower income neighborhoods. That may be an exercising of their liberty, but it comes at an expense of all the people living in those areas.

I'm trying to figure out who it is you're responding to exactly. My comment was more a general discussion of first principles in an attempt to answer my parent comments' query. You seem focused on a specific implementation detail, choosing to focus on the tree, not the forest.

Re: Comcast has a lot to lose if municipal broadband takes off

#129

Post by eldavido »

jancsika wrote: post #126
eldavido wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not saying anyone is collecting bills from their neighbors. I think people are reading my comment a lot more literally than I intended. What I'm saying is that, we have large-scale utilities like power and water companies that are able to provide individual, metered service to households over a geographically distributed area. In order to to this, there is a large amount of unpleasant, schleppy work required that…

Why assume anything? Chattanooga's municipal broadband exists and delivers speeds as fast as any in the U.S. Salisbury, NC has a municipal broadband service that was grandfathered in before the state law banning municipal broadband. As far as b: I live in a small town that started a municipal wireless service after Wheeler's FCC tried to override the state law banning it. Fast, affordable, symmetric. I didn't attend…

Interesting. Care to tell me a little more? How many people live in your town? Is it a socially cohesive place? What would people qualified enough to run the ISP do if not work at the ISP?

I always think of that last point (what else would people do) when people mention how "the Soviet Union had such great math teachers OMG WHAT IS WRONG WITH THE US". The US has SILICON VALLEY, hedge funds, world-class universities, etc. - US primary/secondary ed has to compete with these places for talent and frankly, they often lose.

I have a hard time believing that a small operator could offer anything that stacks up against Comcast product-, service- and price-wise, but I'm willing to be shown I'm wrong about this. Maybe I shouldn't be so cynical ;)

Re: Comcast has a lot to lose if municipal broadband takes off

#130

Post by therealdrag0 »

loeg wrote: post #111
linsomniac wrote: post #63

Comcast and CenturyLink: You've shown you do not want to invest in fiber to the home, so you don't have any right to stop the city from doing it. I don't hate Comcast as much as others, but I'm really looking forward to Fort Collins starting the process of doing municipal fiber. Comcast and CenturyLink have neglected upgrading infrastructure for decades, and so if they aren't going to do it I don't see why the city s…

CenturyLink has finally rolled out fiber to my home (Seattle area). It's taken a long damn time and until they did, they weren't remotely competitive with Comcast. But now I get about 600 Mbps down and 900 Mbps up for $100/mo, which beats Comcast slightly.

What will you do with all that power? I've been on 200+mbps subscriptions for a couple years (in practice at least over 100), and I've never needed more.
Post reply on HN