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

Two guys hated using Comcast, so they built their own fiber ISP

arstechnica.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

131–140 of 258 posts

Re: Two guys hated using Comcast, so they built their own fiber ISP

#131

Post by jkl12 »

beeb wrote: post #43

Wow the US really has it bad when it comes to home internet. In many European countries, you can get symmetric Gbit internet for 30-40 EUR (probably less in some places), and I haven't seen a data cap in forever.

Would it make you jealous if I tell you, that I get 10 Gbit symmetric fiber here in Switzerland (greater Zurich area) for roughly 80 USD/month with no data cap? And I can use my own router and could even go up to 25 Gbit if I want ;-) Oh, and did I mention no CGNAT and it comes with a static /48 IPv6 net?

Re: Two guys hated using Comcast, so they built their own fiber ISP

#132

Post by simoncion »

dilyevsky wrote: post #92
PantaloonFlames wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Pardon my ignorance but what is the benefit to ipv6 for local, consumer internet?

For regular folks there isn't much benefit tbh. Mainly I think it simplifies ISP architecture and offers slightly faster (like 10%) performance but ISPs have to support IPv4 stack for foreseeable future anyway so kinda moot point. If you game a lot p2p (i don't) you should, in theory, see lower lag. For me personally, I work on networking startup so I'd like to be able to run IPv6 stack from my home network to test t…

If you don't currently have IPv6 service, have you looked into something like Hurricane Electric's IPv6 tunnel broker? [0] It's how I got my first IPv6 subnet, and worked really well for me. I stopped using it when Comcast finally got around to providing IPv6 for non-business accounts.

[0] https://tunnelbroker.net/

Re: Two guys hated using Comcast, so they built their own fiber ISP

#133

Post by universa1 »

mschuster91 wrote: post #93
bcrl wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's a huge downside to poles where I'm based: permit shenanigans by pole owners that delay projects and allow incumbents to destroy competitors. Granted, some municipalities do the same thing. One local municipality I have to deal with responds to permit requests almost instantly, while another takes weeks of pestering to acknowledge even the most basic of permit requests. For anyone starting out today, I would s…

Meh, here in Germany you got the same issue with trenches. It takes ages to coordinate digging them, I think the worst example simmered for two years until the permits arrived. And then, it's a nightmare because you can't just cut off people's courtyards and parking spots for any time longer than absolutely required, so as soon as you're at depth you gotta cover the trench with steel plates so cars and pedestrians ca…

The fiber installing crews around here go street by street and usually do one street section per day/or two.

Re: Two guys hated using Comcast, so they built their own fiber ISP

#134

Post by simoncion »

kayge wrote: post #104
boredtofears wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Which is why comcast goes to such great lengths to ensure they own as much of your network stack as they can - in my area at least, their support is capable of fully managing your router and WiFi remotely if you're leasing their equipment. I imagine this is a great boon for their ability to provide tech support (and includes a host of other "features" that don't serve direct customer needs such as a non-optional gues…

If only 'shibboleet' had caught on -.- https://xkcd.com/806/

Back when Comcast made it absolutely mandatory to have a technician come to the house to do the install, I just chatted with the tech about computer networking and our respective home setups. This usually got me the phone number for the local tech support office along with a "Call this if the service is giving you any real issues.".

Re: Two guys hated using Comcast, so they built their own fiber ISP

#135

Post by rcleveng »

dietr1ch wrote: post #99
PantaloonFlames wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’m sorry I still don’t get it. Could you explain that in different phrasing ? A comcast customer always had the option to pay for unlimited data. I get that part. What is the 2nd part? “Started offering it as standard” means what?

In the Bay Area Comcast offered (2017-2023 at least) internet with a default 1-1.2TiB/mo data cap that you can lift for the month for an extra 10-20usd (I don't recall, my roommate who played CoD was the one paying for this by himself on every month with huge updates). There's barely any competition here. You can pretty much chose from Comcast Business or XFinity, which both are just Comcast because of a free market…

Really 10-20 more? When I asked, and I'm in the Bay Area, the unlimited plan was $5 a month more than it would cost if I leased their modem.

Re: Two guys hated using Comcast, so they built their own fiber ISP

#136

Post by spandrew »

I have to admit, everytime I hear the "Two guys hated x, so they built their own!" I see the XCKD cartoon https://xkcd.com/927/

It's not a fair comparison; competition can drive price down, but I pessimistically just see two guys who'll inevitably join the Comcast billionaires club. That's just where these "small guys" end up.

Re: Two guys hated using Comcast, so they built their own fiber ISP

#137

Post by rayiner »

wmf wrote: post #123
rayiner wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’ve been hearing about “captured government” with respect to fiber deployment for two decades now and the folks on that soap box have made absolutely zero progress on improving deployment of fiber infrastructure in that time. Tilting at that windmill isn’t working, because for the most part that’s not the real problem. Why isn’t the Bay Area a hot bed of fiber deployment? You think Comcast in Philly has more pull wi…

I guess Comcast doesn't need to capture the local government in places where it's already illegal to build anything. But in other places it has definitely happened.

In most places, permitting is the most direct and immediate roadblock. If you don't start there, you won't make any progress on the issue.

I live in a blue state that actively encourages municipal and cooperative fiber deployment: https://mdbc.us. It's had approximately zero impact outside some rural parts of the state.

Re: Two guys hated using Comcast, so they built their own fiber ISP

#138

Post by ToucanLoucan »

bigstrat2003 wrote: post #66
WarOnPrivacy wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I'm one of their customers. It's pretty good - their provided router is locked down to hell and they're on a cgnat This sounds like mine. I'm guessing yours doesn't support IPv6 because most fiber providers don't. For the router, I already build firewalls so that. I pay $10/mo to escape their cgnat. I've also alerted them to expect regular haranguing from me about deploying IPv6. Especially since bgp.he.net shows t…

For me, no IPv6 = no business. I don't think it's acceptable to build a network on IPv4 only at this point, it speaks to being willing to cut corners and not do things the right way just because it's easier.

I agree in principal but if the only other option is Charter/Spectrum/Comcast, you bet I'm going with the "lazy" person's fiber.

I have spent most of my career under the thumb of fucking cable and I'd sooner slam a car door on my nuts than go back to paying so much money for such garbage service.

Re: Two guys hated using Comcast, so they built their own fiber ISP

#139

Post by frollogaston »

rayiner wrote: post #76
WarOnPrivacy wrote: post #25

"Everything that we're doing is all underground." This indicates that their local and state governments aren't (at this time) captured by the incumbent cable provider. A captured state gov will pass laws to thwart new infra deployment, commonly written by ISP interests. A captured local gov will never approve deployment or slow-walk permitting in an attempt to bankrupt the upstart. more explainers: New suburban fiber…

I’ve been hearing about “captured government” with respect to fiber deployment for two decades now and the folks on that soap box have made absolutely zero progress on improving deployment of fiber infrastructure in that time. Tilting at that windmill isn’t working, because for the most part that’s not the real problem. Why isn’t the Bay Area a hot bed of fiber deployment? You think Comcast in Philly has more pull wi…

Maybe it's good enough that not very many people care. I moved around San Jose, Mountain View, Berkeley, and Sunnyvale, never noticed problems with Comcast or AT&T. Was expecting flakiness after hearing all these bad stories, but no, it was reliable.

What you don't get often is fiber-to-home, or great upload speeds. But most people aren't running big home servers.

Re: Two guys hated using Comcast, so they built their own fiber ISP

#140

Post by simoncion »

immibis wrote: post #112
teddyh wrote: post #9

I am always baffled by these things. Say there’s a huge company with a monopoly in your area. My first thought is “How did they get that monopoly? What happened to all the other people who must surely have had the idea to compete with them?” But no, these stories are always treating “Hey, let’s start a competing company!” like some revolutionary idea that nobody has thought of before, and that success is assured.

In the specific case of ISPs I think it's always because you won't make enough money to justify it as a big company, yet the task is too big and complicated to do it as an individual nerd. The worst part appears to be the physical wiring. If your government has implemented loop unbundling, you're already set (probably need to do some bureaucracy and pay some affordable-at-a-stretch fees to get access to it). Otherwis…

> ...you only have to install plant (physical infrastructure) at the customer's house and one central location, not all the places leading up to the customer's house.

In a rural environment, yeah, sure. Based on what I'm seeing in San Francisco, in an urban environment, you're going to be negotiating for roof space for many transceivers on many separate roofs. (I do absolutely agree that even that annoying tasks is certainly way less work than dealing with a local or state government that wants it to be impossible to run fiber through or along streets and sidewalks.)

Post reply on HN