Comcast rejected by small town, residents vote for municipal fiber instead • Hacker News Board

Re: Comcast rejected by small town, residents vote for municipal fiber instead

#161

Post by rayiner » Wed, Dec 12, 2018, 7:17 PM UTC

xoa wrote: post #120

bronco21016 wrote: post #86

I hate Comcast with a passion and have always fantasized about living in a progressive municipality that provides fiber to the home. However, a few years ago I bought a home and it’s only been over the last 6 months or so I’ve realized how horribly corrupt and mismanaged small city governments can be. We’re being sucked dry by our mayor who hired her cousin as city manager for an exorbitant compensation package. They…

> is the panacea we all hope for I have never seen "panacea" used by anyone except those opposed to any public infrastructure, and while you sound like you're speaking in all good faith and I appreciate that I still have trouble seeing this as something other then a strawman. Of course governments can have issues too. Public roads can have potholes. Bridges have not been kept up. Public parks aren't always maintained…

Your post is based on a premise that is simply false:

> And whatever else the fact is that privatized information infrastructure simply has not worked overall.

"Worked" compared to what? The U.S. is in the top 10 for average connection speeds: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_Internet_.... It is far ahead of France, Germany, the U.K., Italy, and Spain (which is 70%+ of the EU population). That's all the result of private infrastructure.

> Of course governments can have issues too.

This is a huge understatement. Our roads are full of potholes. Amtrak is never on time. WMATA is on fire. New York spends 5-7x as much money to build a mile of subway as London or Paris.[1] Our water infrastructure is poisoning children with lead.[2] That's our public infrastructure.

I travel to Germany and Japan for business, and when I come home, it's not broadband that I'm steamed about. Our broadband is fine (better than Germany, worse than Japan), especially here on the east coast. But our public, government-run infrastructure is total shit in comparison. After riding Japanese trains around, I get on the D.C. Metro and it makes me actively mad.

To me, the correct premise seems to be exactly the opposite of the one you're applying. U.S. state and local governments are so completely awful at building and maintaining infrastructure, that even a private monopoly with no competition is preferable to a government-run system.

[1] https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/28/nyregion/new-york-subway-...

[2] https://www.chicagotribune.com/news/watchdog/ct-chicago-wate...

Re: Comcast rejected by small town, residents vote for municipal fiber instead

#162

Post by nonce413 » Wed, Dec 12, 2018, 7:18 PM UTC

microcolonel wrote: post #150

theptip wrote: post #143

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I have never seen "panacea" used by anyone except those opposed to any public infrastructure This is a good point; seems like an isolated demand for rigor. The bar we should be aiming to be above is "better than Comcast", which is a quite low standard. > Corruption is simply something that has to be fought, period, but we do have the tools to do so more easily at the local government level then for more widely dist…

> This is a good point; seems like an isolated demand for rigor. The bar we should be aiming to be above is "better than Comcast", which is a quite low standard. The problem is that in many cases, the common folk in a town have to pay at least somewhat for the municipal broadband even if they do not use it; so it'd better be worth using. I can understand municipal cable conduits and such, since they are somewhat anal…

> the common folk in a town have to pay at least somewhat for the municipal broadband even if they do not use it; so it'd better be worth using.

Just anecdotally, there are Whip City Fiber signs up all over (you get a discount if you let them put one on your lawn with installation). We're long past the days where Internet access is desired by only a subset of the population. I think $70/mo is a little above what "everybody" wants to pay. I am hoping after the initial financials have settled, they will offer a lower tier.

> actively excluding competition (Comcast in this case, if the title is anything to go by)

If you read the article, what Charlemont rejected was the town paying Comcast for a build out. That's a significant point that's glossed over in most of these public vs private debates - with low population density, private communications companies do not nobly invest their own money, but get the government to pay for the infrastructure that they end up owning.

Re: Comcast rejected by small town, residents vote for municipal fiber instead

#163

Post by rmrfrmrf » Wed, Dec 12, 2018, 7:20 PM UTC

Spivak wrote: post #105

rmrfrmrf wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm kind of shocked that you'd openly admit to this kind of behavior. You're lobbying for the public to foot the bill for public infrastructure to be used solely by private entities, then intentionally introducing inefficiencies by leasing usage out to said private entities. I'm guessing after customers pay more taxes and still have the same internet bill, you'll then lobby that public internet is a failure and advoc…

> You're lobbying for the public to foot the bill for public infrastructure to be used solely by private entities By this token this describes basically all public infrastructure then. It's not like roads were built with the idea that only public employees would use them. > then intentionally introducing inefficiencies Compared to the inefficiency of having ISPs have to build multiple separate physical networks? This…

> By this token...

This would be like NYC building a road exclusively for Uber and Lyft, who can then charge you whatever for access via their transport. NYC loses because it then becomes dependent on ride sharing companies to justify its investment, so these companies can negotiate leases toward zero with the constant threat of pulling out.

> ...internet is priced based on how much people value it...

Yes, and it should absolutely not be. It's literally a series of ~~tubes~~ low-voltage power lines.

> Any promise that this will reduce prices...

Which is why it's a terrible idea. Residents should not be footing the bill for infrastructure that exists to create an artificial marketplace of identical (or worse, artificially differentiated) services. Being an ISP is not mysticism and is easily achievable by local government precisely because the majority of being an ISP is owning the wires. It also gives residents the ability to democratically determine what their own priorities are and adjust local QoS based on their own needs.

Re: Comcast rejected by small town, residents vote for municipal fiber instead

#164

Post by egypturnash » Wed, Dec 12, 2018, 7:22 PM UTC

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #15

epoch_100 wrote: post #2

Good! By allowing individual municipalities to manage their own Internet infrastructure, we can help keep the Internet from becoming effectively owned by the likes of Comcast, AT&T, and Verizon.

> By allowing individual municipalities to manage their own Internet infrastructure, we can help keep the Internet from becoming effectively owned by the likes of Comcast, AT&T, and Verizon I'm nervous about how thoughtlessly we're embracing public ISP ownership. Local governments are notoriously corrupt, in both politics and police. These referenda expand their power without rebalancing any checks or balances. We ju…

At least if the corruption is local, there's more likelihood for the money to stay in the local economy. A big corporation siphons the money out of zillions of towns and concentrates it in one place.

Re: Comcast rejected by small town, residents vote for municipal fiber instead

#165

Post by DenisM » Wed, Dec 12, 2018, 7:25 PM UTC

Me, I'm rooting for 5G broadband. Verizon started the rollout already, T-Mobile can't be far behind. If AT&T joins the fray Comcast will get the bill for all the negative goodwill they were snowplowing on their way to profits.

https://www.verizonwireless.com/5g/home/

https://www.fiercewireless.com/5g/new-t-mobile-s-plans-for-h...

Re: Comcast rejected by small town, residents vote for municipal fiber instead

#166

Post by [deleted] » Wed, Dec 12, 2018, 7:27 PM UTC

dd36 wrote: post #147

rayiner wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A lot of the cost is pulling wires, but the equipment on both sides is also a major expense. FiOS scaled up from 75 mbps to 1 gbps over the same passive infrastructure, but the cost of upgrades was substantial. BPON line cards were upgraded to GPON linecards, and an upgrade to NGPON2 is in the works. As bandwidth went up, the number of customers per line card had to go down. 1G router ports had to be upgraded to 10G…

Why would it cost the government more to do that than Verizon? Half joking: is it because the government gave Verizon billions of dollars?

[deleted]

Re: Comcast rejected by small town, residents vote for municipal fiber instead

#167

Post by eszed » Wed, Dec 12, 2018, 7:29 PM UTC

microcolonel wrote: post #150

theptip wrote: post #143

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I have never seen "panacea" used by anyone except those opposed to any public infrastructure This is a good point; seems like an isolated demand for rigor. The bar we should be aiming to be above is "better than Comcast", which is a quite low standard. > Corruption is simply something that has to be fought, period, but we do have the tools to do so more easily at the local government level then for more widely dist…

> This is a good point; seems like an isolated demand for rigor. The bar we should be aiming to be above is "better than Comcast", which is a quite low standard. The problem is that in many cases, the common folk in a town have to pay at least somewhat for the municipal broadband even if they do not use it; so it'd better be worth using. I can understand municipal cable conduits and such, since they are somewhat anal…

> the common folk in a town have to pay at least somewhat for the municipal broadband even if they do not use it

Keep in mind here that this was the Comcast model, as well. The town was going to pay to expand the infrastructure, then Comcast was going to use it.

I take your overall point, though, about encouraging competition among service providers. Unfortunately, this is something that in many places cannot be accomplished at the local level, as Comcast (along with other large providers) have been lobbying and colluding at state and regional levels to prevent competitors from entering the market. Municipal broadband, for some localities, may be the only effective solution available.

Re: Comcast rejected by small town, residents vote for municipal fiber instead

#168

Post by OrwellianChild » Wed, Dec 12, 2018, 7:38 PM UTC

technobabble wrote: post #104

bronco21016 wrote: post #86

I hate Comcast with a passion and have always fantasized about living in a progressive municipality that provides fiber to the home. However, a few years ago I bought a home and it’s only been over the last 6 months or so I’ve realized how horribly corrupt and mismanaged small city governments can be. We’re being sucked dry by our mayor who hired her cousin as city manager for an exorbitant compensation package. They…

I highly recommend The Dictator's Handbook in order to fully understand the de facto politics going on in governments.

Seconded. There are municipalities doing things right, but The Dictator's Handbook is an excellent set of case studies in how it can go very wrong. (Also discusses actual dictators, corporate governance, and other related scenarios.)

Re: Comcast rejected by small town, residents vote for municipal fiber instead

#169

Post by rayiner » Wed, Dec 12, 2018, 7:41 PM UTC

theptip wrote: post #143

xoa wrote: post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> is the panacea we all hope for I have never seen "panacea" used by anyone except those opposed to any public infrastructure, and while you sound like you're speaking in all good faith and I appreciate that I still have trouble seeing this as something other then a strawman. Of course governments can have issues too. Public roads can have potholes. Bridges have not been kept up. Public parks aren't always maintained…

> I have never seen "panacea" used by anyone except those opposed to any public infrastructure This is a good point; seems like an isolated demand for rigor. The bar we should be aiming to be above is "better than Comcast", which is a quite low standard. > Corruption is simply something that has to be fought, period, but we do have the tools to do so more easily at the local government level then for more widely dist…

> This is a good point; seems like an isolated demand for rigor. The bar we should be aiming to be above is "better than Comcast", which is a quite low standard.

Is it really? Compared to what? If the government-run train I use to get to work were as reliable as the Comcast service I've had in the past, I'd be so so happy. I'd cry with happiness.

Where do people live that they think Comcast is as bad as it gets in terms of infrastructure service. I assume these folks don't take BART or Metro to work.

Re: Comcast rejected by small town, residents vote for municipal fiber instead

#170

Post by vkou » Wed, Dec 12, 2018, 7:46 PM UTC

onlyrealcuzzo wrote: post #146

xoa wrote: post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> is the panacea we all hope for I have never seen "panacea" used by anyone except those opposed to any public infrastructure, and while you sound like you're speaking in all good faith and I appreciate that I still have trouble seeing this as something other then a strawman. Of course governments can have issues too. Public roads can have potholes. Bridges have not been kept up. Public parks aren't always maintained…

Is private sector waste a big thing? I wonder if there's something simple we're missing for a way to stop public spending that goes to corruption/waste.

> Is private sector waste a big thing?

As anyone who has ever spent any time working in the private sector will tell you:

Absolutely. Large companies routinely piss millions, and billions of dollars away on ego projects, inter-department fighting, building things that are counterproductive to the company's goals, bloating their bureaucracy, and other corporate politics bullshit.

Not to mention that any income that's left is skimmed off the end, by shareholders. I get that they want a profit on their investment, but from the customer's perspective, dividend payments are a great example of waste.