Obama calls for municipal broadband • Hacker News Board

Re: Obama calls for municipal broadband

#241

Post by broadband432 » Thu, Jan 15, 2015, 1:45 PM UTC

FireBeyond wrote: post #201

redi90000 wrote: post #172

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't understand why people are using monopoly to describe ISPs. Looking at http://www.broadbandmap.gov , can anyone find one city without multiple broadband providers?

Ehhh... For my home, 2.5mi from the Capital Building in Washington State, I'm offered four wired broadband providers: 1. Comcast, "advertised 100mbps to 1gbps" (true enough, although you can only get 150mbps, so I'm not sure if that's bracketing) 2. CenturyLink, "25-50mbps" (CenturyLink's own website says "Our systems indicate that our High Speed Internet is not currently available at your service address." I tried s…

For Olympia, WA,

http://www.broadbandmap.gov/internet-service-providers/olymp...

There's Comcast, Verizon, ATT, T-Mobile and a host of others.

EDIT: Facts deserve downvotes?

Re: Obama calls for municipal broadband

#242

Post by wnevets » Thu, Jan 15, 2015, 1:45 PM UTC

biot wrote: post #117

jrochkind1 wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> but they effectively have to compete with the terrible speeds and service of the muni, which conspires to improve nothing Wait, shouldn't that be easy for them to compete with, then? You say it like terrible speeds and service are somehow challenging competition for the cable company? Of course, they would prefer no competition at all, as all companies would.

> Wait, shouldn't that be easy for them to compete with, then? Oh, but it is. If the municipal service can only offer 1.5Mbps for $40/month, the private ISPs can offer 2.5Mbps for $70/month, 5Mbps for $125/month, 10Mbps for $199/month, or the ultimate in performance of 25Mbps for $350/month. They're effectively free to gouge people if the only alternative is the crappy, low-speed government service.

why is an awful alterative worse than no alternative?

Re: Obama calls for municipal broadband

#243

Post by broadband432 » Thu, Jan 15, 2015, 1:47 PM UTC

jdmichal wrote: post #181

redi90000 wrote: post #172

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't understand why people are using monopoly to describe ISPs. Looking at http://www.broadbandmap.gov , can anyone find one city without multiple broadband providers?

That site has... Interesting data. It seems to be granulated based on zip code. It shows, for mine: 1 cable provider 2 ADSL providers It shows FiOS also, but I can almost guarantee that there is no residence within this zip code that can get it. So, the real question is, how much do you consider ADSL "broadband"?

What is your zip code? I am quite certain there's just not one residential broadband provider in your area.

Re: Obama calls for municipal broadband

#244

Post by broadband432 » Thu, Jan 15, 2015, 1:55 PM UTC

jeffbush wrote: post #214

redi90000 wrote: post #172

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't understand why people are using monopoly to describe ISPs. Looking at http://www.broadbandmap.gov , can anyone find one city without multiple broadband providers?

In my ZIP, four of the entries are cell phone providers (don't count), AT&T DSL which is listed as 10Mbps+ (I had it; it was only 900kbps), one that is business only (dedicated lines), and a "fixed wireless" provider that is pretty slow and expensive ...and Comcast, which is what I have because it's the only >5Mbps solution available to customers in my neighborhood. I live 15 minutes away from Google's main campus, s…

Why don't they count? AT&T and Verizon are also broadband providers. They're not dial up services. Isn't that the definition of broadband? The cell providers are listed under "Advertised Speeds Above 3 Mbps Data" or above. Just because Comcast has the fastest service doesn't mean it has a monopoly on broadband services. The vast majority of the American population don't need 100Mbps+ anyway. If they did, there would be more competition in that market.

Re: Obama calls for municipal broadband

#245

Post by broadband432 » Thu, Jan 15, 2015, 1:58 PM UTC

pgrote wrote: post #177

redi90000 wrote: post #172

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't understand why people are using monopoly to describe ISPs. Looking at http://www.broadbandmap.gov , can anyone find one city without multiple broadband providers?

For wired connections my zip code shows 4 providers. This was exciting since there is only 1 right now that is equipped for high speed internet. The other 3 are dedicated business telecom companies and do not offer residential service. It appears broadbandmap.gov doesn't differentiate between residential and business. Looking at the wireless I was excited to see Wimax offered in my zip code according to the site. Whe…

If you give me your zip code or a surrounding zip code, I can assure you that I'll find more than 1 residential broadband provider in your area.

Re: Obama calls for municipal broadband

#246

Post by fnordfnordfnord » Thu, Jan 15, 2015, 2:00 PM UTC

redi90000 wrote: post #172

shmerl wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Even if private companies end up contracted to provide it in some cases, those would be regulated monopolies, not regulated free market businesses. I guess you meant those would be regulated monopolies and not unregulated monopolies ;) ISP scene is quite far from free market at the moment.

I don't understand why people are using monopoly to describe ISPs. Looking at http://www.broadbandmap.gov , can anyone find one city without multiple broadband providers?

Technically, I have four, maybe five choices, only one of which is practical.

Wireless - Poor reception, technicians unable to connect to uplink/head-end equipment

Cellular - Too expensive, data caps, and poor reception (really).

DSL - I used this for four years at my home and was generally satisfied with my private DSL reseller's service. I only left because their service only allowed 1.5Mb, which was no longer satisfactory. Ironically, AT&T now offers 6Mb/s service in my area but DSL resellers apparently aren't permitted to resell "U-verse" even though it is provided via an industry standard protocol, ITU G.992.3

Cable - I have cable now 15Mb, the highest speed they offer. They keep promising to roll out higher speeds, but have yet to do so.

Satellite - Does that count as broadband? Not for me. High latency and low uplink speed rules it out, and expense.

This is an especially crazy situation for me considering that I live near a major internet backbone corridor (0.5mi from my home).

So, strictly speaking there is no monopoly, but the result is hard to distinguish from that of a monopoly/cartel situation.

Re: Obama calls for municipal broadband

#247

Post by Marazan » Thu, Jan 15, 2015, 2:04 PM UTC

xamuel wrote: post #167

davidgerard wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes. This works really well in the UK. OpenReach, the bit of BT that operates the infrastructure, is part of a private company, but operates like part of the civil service. They are completely impartial. It is so illegal for OpenReach to offer BT anything they don't offer anyone else, that both BT Broadband and OpenReach staff cringe at the very concept. tl;dr public wires that many ISPs can supply service over.

Internet in the UK has downsides too (I learned when I moved here). BT lets all these other ISPs use its infrastructure, but the actual installation is still BT, and they've no incentive to do it in a timely manner. It can take weeks or months after requesting service before you get connected. In my case it took three weeks after signing up with an ISP, despite living a stone's throw from London. Especially bad for f…

OpenReach legally cannot prioritise BT over other providers.

Re: Obama calls for municipal broadband

#248

Post by fnordfnordfnord » Thu, Jan 15, 2015, 2:05 PM UTC

broadband432 wrote: post #244

jeffbush wrote: post #214

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In my ZIP, four of the entries are cell phone providers (don't count), AT&T DSL which is listed as 10Mbps+ (I had it; it was only 900kbps), one that is business only (dedicated lines), and a "fixed wireless" provider that is pretty slow and expensive ...and Comcast, which is what I have because it's the only >5Mbps solution available to customers in my neighborhood. I live 15 minutes away from Google's main campus, s…

Why don't they count? AT&T and Verizon are also broadband providers. They're not dial up services. Isn't that the definition of broadband? The cell providers are listed under "Advertised Speeds Above 3 Mbps Data" or above. Just because Comcast has the fastest service doesn't mean it has a monopoly on broadband services. The vast majority of the American population don't need 100Mbps+ anyway. If they did, there would…

The expense and severe limitations of cellular data service rule it out as an equivalent or practical home ISP. It is superior to satellite based service, but that's not saying much.

Re: Obama calls for municipal broadband

#249

Post by mhurron » Thu, Jan 15, 2015, 2:15 PM UTC

broadband432 wrote: post #245

pgrote wrote: post #177

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For wired connections my zip code shows 4 providers. This was exciting since there is only 1 right now that is equipped for high speed internet. The other 3 are dedicated business telecom companies and do not offer residential service. It appears broadbandmap.gov doesn't differentiate between residential and business. Looking at the wireless I was excited to see Wimax offered in my zip code according to the site. Whe…

If you give me your zip code or a surrounding zip code, I can assure you that I'll find more than 1 residential broadband provider in your area.

And of course, if one person in a zip code can get it, everyone can.

I could give you my old Zip code, it would include a small city that had DSL providers and Cable. Where I lived there was one provider, 3mb DSL. That finally showed up about 4 years ago.

Re: Obama calls for municipal broadband

#250

Post by fnordfnordfnord » Thu, Jan 15, 2015, 2:18 PM UTC

broadband432 wrote: post #241

FireBeyond wrote: post #201

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ehhh... For my home, 2.5mi from the Capital Building in Washington State, I'm offered four wired broadband providers: 1. Comcast, "advertised 100mbps to 1gbps" (true enough, although you can only get 150mbps, so I'm not sure if that's bracketing) 2. CenturyLink, "25-50mbps" (CenturyLink's own website says "Our systems indicate that our High Speed Internet is not currently available at your service address." I tried s…

For Olympia, WA, http://www.broadbandmap.gov/internet-service-providers/olymp... There's Comcast, Verizon, ATT, T-Mobile and a host of others. EDIT: Facts deserve downvotes?

Select "wired" and you're back to what FireBeyond said. One provider. As I replied to you earlier in another thread, cellular internet isn't equivalent, nor is it priced comparably.

http://www.broadbandmap.gov/internet-service-providers/olymp...

re: EDIT: I didn't DV you but you shouldn't be surprised. There probably isn't a single HN'er without direct experience shopping for an ISP, and thus few without the knowledge that the many promises of "broadband" service are often mere pie in the sky.