Live data from Hacker News

Sixteen U.S. states still ban community-owned broadband networks

techdirt.com

121–130 of 170 posts

Re: Sixteen U.S. states still ban community-owned broadband networks

#121

A hundred years ago on irc someone from Russia was describing their internet connection, which was ethernet, while I had only ever heard of dial up outside of large companies. It was just people had set up their own hubs and switches in their appartment buildings and strung cables between buildings. This blew my mind. They just ran themselves ethernet and everyone got a drop from a switch in their building. It wasn't…

> Unimaginable in the US.

Not at all.

Even in the US, rural folk have been beaming directional wifi to each other for a couple decades now (at least), and sharing utilities by personally running electrical, coax, telephone, or ethernet throughout a shared building or across houses stretches back for as long as those services have been available.

Sharing ("stealing") Cable TV by just running coax around was huge before those systems transitioned from simply using sometimes-encrypted broadcasts to a more authenticated/addressable scheme. For decades, party lines (for the telphone) were both official installations from the telephone company and de facto local networks run by one's handy neighbors. Countless people punched ethernet between walls in apartment units just the way you describe to share upstream connections. Same goes for power in squatted urban units or among trailers/shacks where they would be clustered tightly.

What made it unfamiliar to you (and perhaps many here) was probably just the class and finances of your family and the people they mingled with.

Re: Sixteen U.S. states still ban community-owned broadband networks

#122
post #80

Community-owned _ broadband networks _ I'm not sure about. Community-owned _ physical infrastructure _ (especially last-mile — fiber & copper going to everybody's house) … that needs to be the default. And if it's not community-owned, it needs to be regulated with open access requirements. Yes you can theoretically build a second fiber network and hook up people's houses. Yes it has happened in actual practice. But i…

What you're talking about is called local loop unbundling - the government owns the last-mile infrastructure, then leases access on FRAND terms to ISPs. It's a perfect alignment of incentives and a huge win for customers, so naturally ISPs fiercely oppose it and look to immediately crush any move in that direction whenever they can.

It's not a perfect alignment because it gives the government monopoly power, to raise the price, decrease the service level, and reduce consumer surplus. That said, you can also make the case that governments (in most places) already have that power because of their permitting powers, and ownership of many poles or conduits.

Re: Sixteen U.S. states still ban community-owned broadband networks

#123
I don't think community broadband should be banned, but if we're talking about municipalities, they really don't know what they are doing. My town is installing municipal broadband, and the contractors they hired are ripping up people's lawns, punching holes in gas, water, and sewer lines, and generally making a huge mess in a way that would never be tolerated if ATT or Comcast were doing it. Only time will tell if the service will be any good, once all the collateral damage is mended.

Re: Sixteen U.S. states still ban community-owned broadband networks

#124

I don't think community broadband should be banned, but if we're talking about municipalities, they really don't know what they are doing. My town is installing municipal broadband, and the contractors they hired are ripping up people's lawns, punching holes in gas, water, and sewer lines, and generally making a huge mess in a way that would never be tolerated if ATT or Comcast were doing it. Only time will tell if t…

AT&T uses the same contractors your municipality would have.

Re: Sixteen U.S. states still ban community-owned broadband networks

#125
post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Genuinely wondering, why are so many people on HN allergic to any mention of decentralized solutions? It was precisely the opposite in 2014. Now, anything that smells of BFT consensus, open decentralized protocols, smart contracts, distributed computing, gets lumped with “Web3” and downvoted to oblivion. I was surprised Freenet got through the other day without being associated with it, despite having WASM smart cont…

Where are you seeing a "decentralized solution"?

another decentralizedish community solution in nyc is https://nycmesh.net/ which I used for years and volunteered on an install. biggest issue with nyc and why I can't use it anymore is you need line of sight to a hub node.

Re: Sixteen U.S. states still ban community-owned broadband networks

#126

Once space-based broadband Internet becomes widely available, I predict shortsighted ISPs will join the ranks of Kodak and Blockbuster.

? What does "space-based broadband" offer that's so attractive?

Musk

Re: Sixteen U.S. states still ban community-owned broadband networks

#127

I don't think community broadband should be banned, but if we're talking about municipalities, they really don't know what they are doing. My town is installing municipal broadband, and the contractors they hired are ripping up people's lawns, punching holes in gas, water, and sewer lines, and generally making a huge mess in a way that would never be tolerated if ATT or Comcast were doing it. Only time will tell if t…

AT&T uses the same contractors your municipality would have.

Perhaps, but if they were running amok like they are, there would be riots at the mayor's office and outraged citizens at the city council meetings. But because it's "municipal" it all gets a shrug and a pass.

Re: Sixteen U.S. states still ban community-owned broadband networks

#128
post #122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What you're talking about is called local loop unbundling - the government owns the last-mile infrastructure, then leases access on FRAND terms to ISPs. It's a perfect alignment of incentives and a huge win for customers, so naturally ISPs fiercely oppose it and look to immediately crush any move in that direction whenever they can.

It's not a perfect alignment because it gives the government monopoly power, to raise the price, decrease the service level, and reduce consumer surplus. That said, you can also make the case that governments (in most places) already have that power because of their permitting powers, and ownership of many poles or conduits.

The term "monopoly" doesn't really make sense for a government, they don't operate in a commercial/economic space where 2 governments could compete with each other. Also luckily a lot of us live in democracies where you have at least some degree of control over what the government does.

(Edit: eh, I'm too tired, I guess you're arguing there is a monopoly on last-mile infrastructure then, which theoretically doesn't need to be a monopoly. Okay. In most cases it's a monopoly anyway because "over-building" existing last-mile connectivity won't be used by everyone and is thus less profitable.)

Re: Sixteen U.S. states still ban community-owned broadband networks

#130
post #62
post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

These are state laws, the Presidential election has nothing to do with this.

Congress could do it, either directly or by granting more authority to the FCC.

Does the FCC have authority over fiber and cable? That's not using any public airwaves/broadcast bandwidth.
Post reply on HN