Live data from Hacker News

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

motherboard.vice.com

51–60 of 151 posts

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

#51
post #2

Living in Oakland I wish I could replace my slow, expensive and high-latency Comcast broadband connection with Fiber. It is crazy that we in silicon valley practically have no competition.

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.

I switched a couple of months ago from DSL to AT&T fiber and it's been fantastic. Helped that I was already an AT&T phone customer, but the fiber hasn't been available for that long, so it was nice discovery when I went to pick up my wife's iphone.

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

#52
post #16

The only way to get the last mile competition we need in the US, and make net neutrality irrelevant, is for org-run fiber builds in which the org doesn't offer services. The org operates a multi-tenant fiber infrastructure in which you and I can pick (n) "service providers"...part of what I am hoping is a 2018 full of decentralization and distribution: https://goo.gl/DkpmU5

Another pie-in-the-sky option: pick a UHF television channel and de-license that portion of the spectrum. The IEEE would develop a standard (like what was done for Wi-Fi) that lets anyone be a local broadcaster or service provider

We already have this. It's called white space technology and has so far amounted to pretty much nothing. The technology is immature and expensive plus it provides very little bandwidth.

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

#53
post #42
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…

There's no monopoly in backhaul, in fact various market shenanigans have reduced long-distance data profits to pennies. The internet is designed entirely with the idea of making it easy to connect the first mile to the rest; that is a solved problem. In USA the remaining problem is local service provided by monopolists. This problem will persist in general until FCC is forced, kicking and screaming, into allowing more equitable use of the radio spectrum. Until then, as TFA notes, this problem will be solved piecemeal in those communities who are allowed to run their own services.

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

#54
post #16

The only way to get the last mile competition we need in the US, and make net neutrality irrelevant, is for org-run fiber builds in which the org doesn't offer services. The org operates a multi-tenant fiber infrastructure in which you and I can pick (n) "service providers"...part of what I am hoping is a 2018 full of decentralization and distribution: https://goo.gl/DkpmU5

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

Already had that in the US until the Supreme Court decided we shouldn't have that in the Brand X case.

It's very, very unlikely to come back.

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

#55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Another pie-in-the-sky option: pick a UHF television channel and de-license that portion of the spectrum. The IEEE would develop a standard (like what was done for Wi-Fi) that lets anyone be a local broadcaster or service provider

We already have this. It's called white space technology and has so far amounted to pretty much nothing. The technology is immature and expensive plus it provides very little bandwidth.

What segments of the spectrum allow this technology for public use? How do those compare to what ATT/VZN own?

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

#56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Already had that in the US until the Supreme Court decided we shouldn't have that in the Brand X case. It's very, very unlikely to come back.

Yeah there aren't enough suckers willing to invest in firms to "compete" with the monopolists to fall for that regulatory bait-and-switch again.

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

#57
post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think you’re mis-interpreting the overbooking ratios. My understanding is that a 20:1 ratio means that for 1 mbit you can serve 20 customers 1 mbit. Your point still stands though. That means if 1 mbit cost $1 then it costs $0.04/customer. The real cost is in deploying the wires and countless studies have shown the ROI on that, especially given the exorbitant rates, is typically 5 years or less per hookup. Can you…

But we taxpayers already paid $400 billion to have fiber ran throughout the US, just never happened. ISPs took payment but didn't deliver. https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/6c5e97/e...

Right. So what can be done about telcos taking that money, and giving it to shareholders instead of delivering the infrastructure they committed to? Very little. That money is gone.

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

#58
post #16

The only way to get the last mile competition we need in the US, and make net neutrality irrelevant, is for org-run fiber builds in which the org doesn't offer services. The org operates a multi-tenant fiber infrastructure in which you and I can pick (n) "service providers"...part of what I am hoping is a 2018 full of decentralization and distribution: https://goo.gl/DkpmU5

Open access networks are the way to go. It keeps all the incentives in the right place to allow for capital investments to improve the network, prevent overbuilding, and encourage competition.

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

#59
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?

No regulation needed for this. MNOs make a profit from their MVNO business, and it allows them to overbid for spectrum in a relatively risk-free manner. Even if ATT can't get enough fools to sign up for their overpriced gold-plated mobile service to use all the spectrum they bought, they can tune the prices they charge MVNOs to fill the rest of the pipe. This arrangement also allow them to enjoy various other anticompetitive benefits like dictating "acceptable" marketing to MVNOs and forcing them to sign one-sided backhaul deals.

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

#60
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…

"trying not to get squashed by the powers that be" is the future. Only going to get harder each year.
Post reply on HN