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

Obama calls for municipal broadband

vox.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 289 posts

Re: Obama calls for municipal broadband

#21

Post by justizin »

jfb wrote: post #6

Really, he's calling for the FCC to prevent rent-seeking by local ISP monopolies by allowing the option of municipal networks. It's a really good idea; you can tell because of how stridently Comcast/Verizon/AT&T oppose it.

I definitely agree, and this is one reason I advocate against overly harsh or vindictive rules that are unbalanced against ISPs because of our feelings about AT&T, Verizon, Comcast, Time Warner - it would bite us later if we have a massive shift to municipal broadband. Sure, we can change the law, but we would have regulations in place that could interfere with the government entering the market, we might have gotten the big providers to agree to stricter rules if we promised never to try municipal broadband. This could be a perfect storm for conservatives, because they can wave their arms about how "liberals" are always asking for regulation and now that a "liberal industry" is regulated we don't like it and blah blah.

I far prefer to just obsolete the big providers and to implement internet as a real public utility. Even if private companies end up contracted to provide it in some cases, those would be regulated monopolies, not regulated free market businesses.

I far prefer that we build the case that even a city's own infrastructure would unlikely work without the internet, and that they should have at least some infrastructure that does not rely on commercial providers.

San Francisco's water power plant on the Russian River is a great example of this, it provides power for muni trains and electrified buses, maybe _some_ streetlights and a few other public things. If we have a full PG&E failure, we might still have running trains and lit streets. I'm not sure it doesn't all flow into the same grid, SF being one of the oldest power grids, but if that isn't fully the case now, there is enough power independence to ensure that such a thing would work.

Re: Obama calls for municipal broadband

#22

Post by ayuvar »

debacle wrote: post #12
ayuvar wrote: post #5

Municipal broadband is a great idea. A town near me, Olds, just rolled out gigabit fiber to the curb for $57/mo. Considering most of the other nearby municipalities have to live with dialup or (agonizingly slow) satellite internet, it's been a big draw to the area. I think it absolutely makes a ton of sense for rural areas; if I had a remote job it would be very tempting to head out there and get an acreage. I feel l…

> to the curb for $57/mo. What's the setup fee to run fiber 100 feet and into your house to set up the box? Because Verizon did it for free. I still think private competition is better here. Verizon only did it for free because they're trying to tread on Time Warner, which is the way it should be.

According to the provider, the setup fee is $100.

http://o-net.ca/about-us/o-net-myth-busting/

Re: Obama calls for municipal broadband

#23

Post by Alupis »

ayuvar wrote: post #5

Municipal broadband is a great idea. A town near me, Olds, just rolled out gigabit fiber to the curb for $57/mo. Considering most of the other nearby municipalities have to live with dialup or (agonizingly slow) satellite internet, it's been a big draw to the area. I think it absolutely makes a ton of sense for rural areas; if I had a remote job it would be very tempting to head out there and get an acreage. I feel l…

> Municipal broadband is a great idea. A town near me, Olds, just rolled out gigabit fiber to the curb for $57/mo.

I do wonder if Olds is just covering their costs (likely) or are turning a profit (unlikely) (most municipal initiatives I've seen aimed to provide bandwidth at cost)?

The infrastructure is new and shiny now, and works well, but in 15 years what will it look like? Most state highways systems are in atrocious condition, let alone federal interstates. If the municipal is not turning a profit (even a slight one), there might not be incentive/budget to continuously upgrade the infrastructure as new technology becomes available.

I think I would prefer a system in-which municipals lay and operate fiber throughout the city, but don't connect to the end users -- instead leaving that up to small ISP's to make the final termination and provide bandwidth (pay for the upstream, etc). This way the fiber can be available to a greater many small ISP's and give them a good footing to compete with the BIG5 and more, while simultaneously providing an incentive to keep the infrastructure current (better than the small ISP's could lay themselves and upgrades paid for by leasing fees from downstream).

Something along those lines would spur small business (small ISP) growth while forcing the BIG5 to play more fair since consumers would have a significantly larger selection of ISP's in a relatively short time.

Re: Obama calls for municipal broadband

#24

Post by walterbell »

From a decentralization point of view, it's usually not good when a larger construct (federal) wants to impose regulation on a smaller construct (state). But in this case, the proposed federal regulation would encourage more decentralization, as it would empower an even smaller construct (municipality).

Re: Obama calls for municipal broadband

#25

Post by pyre »

ayuvar wrote: post #5

Municipal broadband is a great idea. A town near me, Olds, just rolled out gigabit fiber to the curb for $57/mo. Considering most of the other nearby municipalities have to live with dialup or (agonizingly slow) satellite internet, it's been a big draw to the area. I think it absolutely makes a ton of sense for rural areas; if I had a remote job it would be very tempting to head out there and get an acreage. I feel l…

> if I had a remote job it would be very tempting to head out there and get an acreage.

This sounds nice in theory, but some people wouldn't be able to deal with the isolation. When it comes to working remotely, it becomes too easy to just get stuck in your own world, so you need to force yourself to get out and connect with others. It's one of those things that you probably won't find out until you actually start living in the middle of nowhere and/or working remotely.

Re: Obama calls for municipal broadband

#27

Post by Torgo »

nostromo wrote: post #11

Municipal governments are a big part of the problem. They make it nearly impossible for companies to build new ISPs. Municipal governments: the cause of, and solution to, your ISP woes. It reminds me of housing. 1) Governments restrict new housing. 2) Housing becomes unaffordable. 3) Government builds public housing because "the free market has failed."

Ten years ago my hometown built a municipal ISP. It since then has done the bare minimum to keep the network going, and is total crap. There is one other cable ISP, but they effectively have to compete with the terrible speeds and service of the muni, which conspires to improve nothing. State laws preventing municipal ISPs should be gotten rid of, but some people seem to think that a municipal ISP will solve all their problems, and it won't.

Re: Obama calls for municipal broadband

#28

Post by Someone1234 »

The ultimate solution is for the government (federal and local) to run the physical side of the internet (e.g. run wires to homes/business, manage the exchanges, etc) but let private companies actually sell the data access directly to the public.

As an analogy this is like the Greyhound Bus Line. When you buy a ticket to go from A to B on Greyhound you pay the bus company money and they provide you the service (and support as required), but the buses actually run on government constructed and maintained roads, bridges, and related infrastructure.

The internet would work the same way, the government does the physical side of things, and that gets paid for through tax and rental fees from the ISPs. Then the ISPs upsell the rental fees to cover support, advertising, and so on to provide end users with the actual service (e.g. they pay $.20/Gps to the government to maintain the physical bits, but charge $.40/Gps to the public).

This is how BT is kind of run in the UK. BT does the physical side of things, but then five or six different ISPs (including BT themselves) all resell internet using that physical infrastructure. Those ISPs then pay BT for the pleasure (and BT pays itself).

This would be one use of eminent domain that I would happily support.

Re: Obama calls for municipal broadband

#29

Post by ayuvar »

pyre wrote: post #25
ayuvar wrote: post #5

Municipal broadband is a great idea. A town near me, Olds, just rolled out gigabit fiber to the curb for $57/mo. Considering most of the other nearby municipalities have to live with dialup or (agonizingly slow) satellite internet, it's been a big draw to the area. I think it absolutely makes a ton of sense for rural areas; if I had a remote job it would be very tempting to head out there and get an acreage. I feel l…

> if I had a remote job it would be very tempting to head out there and get an acreage. This sounds nice in theory, but some people wouldn't be able to deal with the isolation. When it comes to working remotely, it becomes too easy to just get stuck in your own world, so you need to force yourself to get out and connect with others. It's one of those things that you probably won't find out until you actually start li…

It is a small town, but yeah, even in my larger city this is my primary fear of a pure-remote position.

Re: Obama calls for municipal broadband

#30

Post by jfb »

NoPiece wrote: post #14
jfb wrote: post #6

Really, he's calling for the FCC to prevent rent-seeking by local ISP monopolies by allowing the option of municipal networks. It's a really good idea; you can tell because of how stridently Comcast/Verizon/AT&T oppose it.

What do you think the federal policy on torrents will be? Ask Disney.

Who cares? The Feds here are not in the business of bandwidth provision; they're acting to counterbalance the elephantine mass of Comcast by preventing them from overpowering municipal politics.
Post reply on HN