Live data from Hacker News

Study: 40.2% of Consumers Would Consider Switching to Municipal Broadband

reviews.com

91–99 of 99 posts

Re: Study: 40.2% of Consumers Would Consider Switching to Municipal Broadband

#91
post #67
post #42

I assume the percentage would be higher if it just showed an actual comparison of upload/download speeds, bandwidth caps, and price. This poll may be just showing whether the consumers even know what "municipal broadband" means. Probably also colored with people's perceptions of how sticky "bundles" they already have for TV and phone are, how they would get their cable channels, etc.

I am super happy with my AT&T fiber in Houston. $60/month for gigabit, friendly union techs that came out the next day when I cut through the line in the wall by accident. It bothers me that it's only available in the fancier (whiter) parts of the city, but I have no complaints about the service or price.

Thankyou so much for mentioning unions and whiteness. Please, we need more people like you moving to Texas

Re: Study: 40.2% of Consumers Would Consider Switching to Municipal Broadband

#92
post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This involves politics so it's never going to be uncontentious and there's a valid concern about how well something will be operated. Your opinion of your local water utility, for example, probably varies a lot from someone who lives in Flint. As we've seen in other areas, it would not be impossible for the “municipal” option in some cases to end up being a no-bid contract with little accountability. I don't think th…

I think you are mixing two forms of government and their incentives. The above poster was talking about local government which has an incentive to establish local network effects and raise property values. Flint was caused by the state of Michigan taking over their water management and ignoring warnings of what would happen. It feels like states are much more beholden to telecommunications lobbies than the local area…

> I think you are mixing two forms of government and their incentives.

> The above poster was talking about local government which has an incentive to establish local network effects and raise property values.

Respectfully, this isn't a real distinction. The problem of people making decisions where they personally benefit from something which leaves the larger community worse off isn't specific to a level of government or the sector. I agree that the problems get worse at the state level (where money is focused) but that doesn't mean that it can't happen elsewhere.

I do agree that it's better to keep services local and really want to see municipal broadband (living in a city which has had tons of fiber deployed since the 2000s but hasn't made it available to individuals). My point was that we should go into this with our eyes open and make sure that there's good public visibility — the problem is a deal happening in the dark — and knowledgeable people make sure their elected representatives hear from someone who isn't selling things (whether that's services, equipment, etc.).

Re: Study: 40.2% of Consumers Would Consider Switching to Municipal Broadband

#94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It definitely strikes me as a low quality poll. Or, at least not enough information reported here. I have Verizon Fios. The day-to-day service is fine and I get roughly what I pay for (200/200 for $39/month with an option to go quite a bit faster if I want to pay more). But, I'd love to have some competition and downward price pressure. Don't much care if it's municipal or private, I just want an option. And I live i…

200/200 for $39 in the US? You don't know how lucky you are! I personally have gigabit up/down for $70/mo, but I would happily slash my rates to 200/200 for 50% off or so. However, I wouldn't want to go below 100 up/down for any amount of savings since at some point you're actually hurting download speeds for OS/game updates and 4k video. Where in the US do you live? My only experience with Fios was in NYC, and the l…

Northern VA. Not far from IAD. I think gigabit is about the same price as you. 200/200 is the lowest tier in this area.

Most neighborhoods that have Fios also have a cable internet provider, so there’s a little competition. But, not everywhere has Fios.

Re: Study: 40.2% of Consumers Would Consider Switching to Municipal Broadband

#96
post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The government should govern and have multiple providers serving generally non-overlapping regions. Based on how well they serve their regions their region can be enlarged or shrunk, or they be given new regions to serve.

This combines all the weakest attributes of market and planned economies together. It would make sense if the exclusive non-overlapping regions were for maintenance contracts on common infrastucture, but it makes zero sense for last-mile.

I'd like to see the numbers on that. If the non-empty threat of allowing your competitor to take more share doesn't improve effectiveness more than the duplicate development on the smaller sections handed between them. Once they both have infrastructure in a given area it's efficiently handed over.

Also a good way of allowing new technologies to enter a market. If the incumbents don't innovate, a newcomer will be given a corner to start.

Re: Study: 40.2% of Consumers Would Consider Switching to Municipal Broadband

#97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I also don't want the government tracking my internet history in any fashion. The government already can compel your ISP to hand over that data.

I'm sure they can but there is a big difference between the two situations to me. One makes the data readily available. The other requires effort on behalf of the government on a case by case basis.

The data is currently readily available.

In the case of municipal broadband, you could vote for local politicians that are against dragnet surveillance.

Also, paradoxically, the 4th prevents the government from gathering data, but not purchasing it. In the case of municipal broadband, there is a strong argument to be made that you are constitutionally protected against invasive privacy policies, such as logging or selling personal information.

Re: Study: 40.2% of Consumers Would Consider Switching to Municipal Broadband

#98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Thanks for the clarification; that's exactly what I was referring to. I'd like to see fibre included in that since it's likely to be the physical medium that will last a century or more, regardless of the protocols on top of it.

This would be better, but exactly what is the purpose of last-mile-only competition? It feels like LARPing capitalism because we are embarrassed natural monopolies exist.

The purpose is to align incentives so that there is competition for customers on both ends of the fiber cable.

The fiber cable itself is enough a commodity that it can be structured (from a business perspective) more like roads or water lines.

This is actually how ISP’s worked at the dawn of home Internet in the US. There’s no way the incumbent monopolies would have given people access to raw TCP/IP if not for decentralized competition. (Look at Prodigy, AOL and Compuserve’s behavior for the decade prior for hard evidence). Historically, the phone company in the US could even block the usage of answering machines and modems. It took anti-trust action to eliminate those bans. We see the same thing today, with AT&T’s crappy FTTN routers, intentional cable modem buffer bloating, and the abomination that is IPTV cable service.

Last mile only competition eliminates all those things.

Re: Study: 40.2% of Consumers Would Consider Switching to Municipal Broadband

#99
The reality is that getting municipal broadband in the US is very challenging.

Even if you get the political good will early on, the fight that big players bring on is significant. One recent effort I was involved in was almost there after years of planning and having just completed a pilot build out, but got derailed by a commercial provider responding to an RFP for service by sending the municipality a non-response notice along the lines of "It's great that you're building out FTTH, but we plan on doing a full FTTH deployment of our own and it will be done within a year, just thought you'd like to know." This in itself was enough to kill any further funding, without any evidence that the company will actually follow through, because nobody has the appetite for the politics of holding the bag. They effectively got to the right people to kill the effort. Now the community is trying to see if that provider will buy a lease on what's been built so it's not a black eye in front of tax payers.

The best solution is not the one that established corporations want to see:

1. The municipality owns and deploys dark fiber using an open access FTTH model in an Active Ethernet design (e.g. every household or building has a dedicated strand, no GPON). The prevents people from being locked in to a specific speed, technology, or provider. If someone needs 100G the fiber will support it just fine. 2. The municipality maintains fiber concentration points and equipment huts or facilities for providers to co-locate equipment and service customers directly (allows choice and competition). 3. An anchor non-profit ISP (established as a 501(c)(3) and managed under a member-owned Credit Union model) is funded via a grant to provide day-1 service, but any commercial provider is free to make use of the fiber to service any location using a fair and published fiber strand fee that is presented to the customer as part of their bill (usually $10 a mo.) 4. The initial build-out is fully funded as a universal service (every property in the community, not just the high margin locations) through low-interest municipal bonds (10 year) and paid for using a modest property tax increase like any other municipal infrastructure effort. Fee collection covers ongoing maintenance and if adoption is good can cut the tax burden down by as much as half.

In other words we need to start thinking of dark fiber as a public utility the same way we think about water or electricity, but we also need to do it in a way where that utility doesn't get in the way of service delivery. The fiber is the road, and the delivery trucks that drive on it are the ISP.

Everything here is easy to do. The problem is you can almost never win the political fight to make any of it happen, at least not at the municipal level when going up against national corporations that bring in more money in one month than your annual budget.

There is no reason cost-driven for people to not have symmetrical gigabit as a baseline level of connectivity. Under the model described above, you can deliver gigabit service for about $50 a mo.

Post reply on HN