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

Harvard Study Shows Why Big Telecom Is Terrified of Community-Run Broadband

motherboard.vice.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 151 posts

Re: Harvard Study Shows Why Big Telecom Is Terrified of Community-Run Broadband

#41

Post by notmetoday3426 »

rainbowmverse wrote: post #29
bronco21016 wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

According to NRTC [1] fiber deployments to the premises cost approximately $800/deployment. Ignoring uptake, operational expenses etc that’s $13/mo per deployment to recover cost in 5 years. I have no idea what the average consumer pays their residential provider but I would estimate it’s over $100/mo on average. It seems like it would be fairly easy to get return in 5 years. These are numbers for fiber. [1] https://…

Less of that three digit cable bill goes to the company than you might expect. Content providers don't give it away for free. ESPN is notorious for eating a huge % of the bill.

Not just content, also peering and data transit; you pay at the IPX, or you have no internez for selling. You need a customer services organisation - perhaps minimal, but people will write to the CEO so you need some way of handling contact. You need billing, you need security, you need repair and diagnostics, and you need capital ready to meet unexpected expenses, like storm damage, or power surges. Oh Oh I forgot, power, power costs also.

But true point: none of the above is competitive in the current market. To compete you need content, many customers are willing to pay for football. Some customers don't give a toss about football, but not enough customers don't care about content and do care about good internet to make things work.

Believe me - it makes me sad.

Re: Harvard Study Shows Why Big Telecom Is Terrified of Community-Run Broadband

#42

Post by msla »

mnzaki wrote: post #31

We can easily be running our own internet. I recenlty discovered CJDNS[1] (protocol for encrypted p2p address allocation and routing for mesh networks, so essentially OSI layer 3) and project Hyperboria[2] (a community of local WiFi initiatives) while exploring scuttlebutt[3]. Confirmed my suspicions that we could probably be getting waaay better internet connectivity at way lower prices. Decentralized tech is going…

> CJDNS[1] (protocol for encrypted p2p address allocation and routing for mesh networks, so essentially OSI layer 3) and project Hyperboria[2] (a community of local WiFi initiatives)

None of this addresses the big point, which is the backhaul, the transit networks, the big networks which knit together all of the smaller community networks and make them more useful.

In short: If you make a nice little mesh network in your small town (New York City, say) you still haven't solved the problem of getting access to websites in Los Angeles, let alone Doha.

Nobody talks much about that. Probably because it isn't possible for that to be decentralized or open in any meaningful sense, and it's certainly impossible for hobbyists to build it.

Re: Harvard Study Shows Why Big Telecom Is Terrified of Community-Run Broadband

#43

Post by notmetoday3426 »

gz5 wrote: post #25
walshemj wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Or just unbundle the local loop as we do in the UK

yes although can be harder to retrofit, e.g. i don't believe many of the US fiber architectures were built to be multi-tenant with (n) service providers behind 1 operator. especially because the duopoly's control most of them. enter the muni-fiber and similar projects...but built to a different commercial model...

Well, ours wasn't either, but now it is. Note, the difficult bits aren't unbundled. We have market 1, market 2 .. The nice places mostly have cable too (which is not unbundled).

Also OFCOM hasn't got a clue.

Sorry venting... I keep meeting people who have build national broadband networks (from their opinions) at dinner parties and it's really got to me.

Re: Harvard Study Shows Why Big Telecom Is Terrified of Community-Run Broadband

#44

Post by FireBeyond »

maxxxxx wrote: post #22

I always why there are MVNOs that can use the big cell networks but no alternative providers on cable. Was there regulation that forced cell providers to open their networks to third party sellers?

> Was there regulation that forced cell providers to open their networks to third party sellers?

In many places, yes, because the spectrum is limited.

Re: Harvard Study Shows Why Big Telecom Is Terrified of Community-Run Broadband

#45

Post by notmetoday3426 »

cinquemb wrote: post #12
lordnacho wrote: post #9

Would it be possible to shut out such community ISPs by not peering with them? Is that something that might cause concern?

Id say its a concern in the short run, but that would incentivize neighboring communities to invest in shared infrastructure and to peer with each other in the long run, esp if their only other option is to be shut out of the market entirely.

peering with each other is no good - you need to peer with a Tier 1 who is in the IPX or you have no internet.

Re: Harvard Study Shows Why Big Telecom Is Terrified of Community-Run Broadband

#46

Post by a1371 »

msla wrote: post #42
mnzaki wrote: post #31

We can easily be running our own internet. I recenlty discovered CJDNS[1] (protocol for encrypted p2p address allocation and routing for mesh networks, so essentially OSI layer 3) and project Hyperboria[2] (a community of local WiFi initiatives) while exploring scuttlebutt[3]. Confirmed my suspicions that we could probably be getting waaay better internet connectivity at way lower prices. Decentralized tech is going…

> CJDNS[1] (protocol for encrypted p2p address allocation and routing for mesh networks, so essentially OSI layer 3) and project Hyperboria[2] (a community of local WiFi initiatives) None of this addresses the big point, which is the backhaul, the transit networks, the big networks which knit together all of the smaller community networks and make them more useful. In short: If you make a nice little mesh network in…

The mesh networks target the last mile problem. That is the big point to be addressed as it causes the affordability issues and is the main connectivity bottleneck. To improve the existing system full decentralisation is not necessary.

Re: Harvard Study Shows Why Big Telecom Is Terrified of Community-Run Broadband

#47

Post by aeontech »

asabjorn wrote: post #35
aeontech wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not that I am a big fan of AT&T, but they have started offering fiber gigabit in Oakland over the past year. I switched from Comcast in December. Wish Sonic or Monkeybrains would become available here.

What did you switch to?

To AT&T fiber, for now, pending a better option.

Re: Harvard Study Shows Why Big Telecom Is Terrified of Community-Run Broadband

#48

Post by singhrac »

Overtonwindow wrote: post #8

I think it's quite obvious and doesn't require a "Harvard" study. Community broadband can offer customers something big telecom won't: Reliable, honest, responsive service.

That's not entirely fair. There's plenty of reasons why this wouldn't be obvious - if there's limited demand for local broadband because of e.g. bundling agreements (you want TV + internet + phone, but the local broadband can only provide internet), or because the infrastructure costs on the last mile make it impossible for small players to charge low prices (so they operate with premium service as their sell instead).

Re: Harvard Study Shows Why Big Telecom Is Terrified of Community-Run Broadband

#49

Post by djtriptych »

a1371 wrote: post #46
msla wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> CJDNS[1] (protocol for encrypted p2p address allocation and routing for mesh networks, so essentially OSI layer 3) and project Hyperboria[2] (a community of local WiFi initiatives) None of this addresses the big point, which is the backhaul, the transit networks, the big networks which knit together all of the smaller community networks and make them more useful. In short: If you make a nice little mesh network in…

The mesh networks target the last mile problem. That is the big point to be addressed as it causes the affordability issues and is the main connectivity bottleneck. To improve the existing system full decentralisation is not necessary.

Exactly. It would allow companies like Google to get involved by leasing out their fiber backbone at cost for long-distance comms.

Right now they're restricted by last mile costs, but otherwise they're incentivized to simply provide the fastest bandwidth to the most people, as their revenue simply scales with internet usage as a whole.

Re: Harvard Study Shows Why Big Telecom Is Terrified of Community-Run Broadband

#50

Post by mnzaki »

msla wrote: post #42
mnzaki wrote: post #31

We can easily be running our own internet. I recenlty discovered CJDNS[1] (protocol for encrypted p2p address allocation and routing for mesh networks, so essentially OSI layer 3) and project Hyperboria[2] (a community of local WiFi initiatives) while exploring scuttlebutt[3]. Confirmed my suspicions that we could probably be getting waaay better internet connectivity at way lower prices. Decentralized tech is going…

> CJDNS[1] (protocol for encrypted p2p address allocation and routing for mesh networks, so essentially OSI layer 3) and project Hyperboria[2] (a community of local WiFi initiatives) None of this addresses the big point, which is the backhaul, the transit networks, the big networks which knit together all of the smaller community networks and make them more useful. In short: If you make a nice little mesh network in…

I believe it is already being done: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Long-range_Wi-Fi#Large-scale_d...

We'll still need big orgs to take care of those undersea cables, for now at least; but even with that still out of reach for hobbyists or community projects, the situation can already be much better than what is being forced on us.

On another note, if you are using p2p tech like scuttlebutt and DAT[1] and Beaker[2] browser then just having good neighbourhood and city wide meshes will already be a YUUUGE boon :D since they share data locally, and for a lot of uses you don't really need access to servers across the oceans

[1] https://datproject.org/

[2] https://beakerbrowser.com/

Post reply on HN