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

161–170 of 258 posts

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

#161

Post by throw0101b »

ta8645 wrote: post #35
jerf wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"I'm guessing yours doesn't support IPv6 because most fiber providers don't." Yeah, what's up with that? I just got switched on to fiber and the CGNAT for IPv4 doesn't shock me much, but what's with the no IPv6 in 2025? I know enough to deal with it, but what's the deal? Is there something systematic here?

Everybody can muddle along without IPv6, so it's easy to make it a very low priority. Especially for small shops that are struggling just to create a viable business. IPv6 needs something more to motivate it, a web destination or application that is only available on IPv6.

> IPv6 needs something more to motivate it, a web destination or application that is only available on IPv6.

How about not having to pay for (as) beefy CG-NAT hardware because people that go to Youtube, Netflix, MetaFace, TikTok, etc, can directly connect via IPv6.

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

#162

Post by adambatkin »

kube-system wrote: post #3

I've seen a few articles about folks who started an ISP and they always talk about the physical infrastructure. But in today's world where ISP ads are touting the speeds of their wifi, it really makes me wonder what the support burden ends up being like. What's the breakdown for actual ISP issues vs issues with customer equipment?

My electricity and water is much more reliable than my Internet service. Then again, I've never called my ISP about an issue that wasn't 100% on them, but the HN crowd is more exceptional in that sense than most people.

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

#163

Post by baby_souffle »

jacobgkau wrote: post #156
rcleveng wrote: post #135

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

How much more was it than if you weren't leasing their modem?

It used to be 30/month for me. I was not renting their modem and got charged more for it.

If starlink ever gets more capacity, I'll probably switch. Right now I think the only way to get gigabit down on starlink is with four or five accounts and manually bonding the dishes together. As soon as that obstacle goes away, Comcast will have competition in my area and I intend take advantage of that.

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

#164

Post by massysett »

bcrl wrote: post #62
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…

I've had less than 0.5% of customers ask for IPv6 from my fibre ISP. It's not worth supporting as a result. The main reason is that any service that is not widely used will have gremlins that result in poor customer experience, and if it's always the same handful of customers hitting problems or finding quirks, there is a real risk of poor word of mouth incident reporting that can harm the business. At least if somet…

> I've had less than 0.5% of customers ask for IPv6 from my fibre ISP. It's not worth supporting as a result.

Big, evil, hated Comcast has full ipv6, and I doubt any of its customers asked for it either. Instead people complain they’re only getting a /60.

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

#165

Post by amethyst »

simoncion wrote: post #142
amethyst wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

*parts of the Bay Area. I'd say the majority of areas are still monopolized by Comcast, including my neighborhood of course.

If you haven't already, check to see if either Google Fiber or Monkeybrains is available in your area. Last I checked, the regs are still in place that prevent landlords from denying you access to an ISP of your choice.

Google Fiber isn't rolled out to most of the bay area. Monkeybrains is wireless with speeds significantly slower than what Comcast offers me. I've checked just about every wired ISP possible, and Comcast is the only option that services my neighborhood.

And FWIW, I own my house in the east bay — I am the landlady ;)

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

#166

Post by baby_souffle »

frollogaston wrote: post #144
xmprt wrote: post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you think internet in the bay area is shit then you haven't seen how bad it can get. Even other large cities within California like LA and SD are worse.

Having lived in all three mentioned areas, none seemed particularly bad unless your standard is fiber straight to home. And seemed like Bay Area had more of that if anything.

I am absolutely not defending Comcast here but its worth pointing out that every anecdotal bit of evidence about performance and reliability can be true.

Network performance in that last mile can differ by block and even by season. An otherwise functional run of coax might have intermittent ingress but only shortly after it's rained while cold out.

This isn't even counting all of the flaky performance anecdotes that really boil down to overcrowded Wi-Fi or poorly configured consumer gear or anything else that isn't strictly the fault or problem of Comcast.

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

#167

Post by [deleted] »

nkellenicki wrote: post #55
gs17 wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Checking Comcast's site now, it seems that they now offer "unlimited" data. Interesting, that option wasn't there 6 months ago. It's been there since they announced the data cap. I thought the unlimited bundled with leasing their higher end hardware came first, but the email from 2016 announcing that our plan was getting the cap mentions being able to pay for unlimited.

You've always had the _option_ of paying extra for unlimited data, however its only in the past month or two that they've started offering unlimited data as standard (in select markets). https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2025/06/stung-by-custome...

[deleted]

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

#168

Post by kjellsbells »

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 worked in this space for a while, in the US. Outside of the major cities, Internet service falls off extremely quickly. Like, shockingly so: you can be as close as fifty miles from, say Philly or Flagstaff and have zero fiber, zero cell coverage, just nothing.

The people who attempt to fill these gaps are commonly rural telephone companies, electric cooperatives, tribal entities, or mom and pop shops where the owner grew up on a Ditch Witch and only knows as much IP networking as essential to light up the fiber and get the packets flowing upstream.

They are enormously resource constrained in ways you might not expect, too, eg operations can grind to a halt because everyone is out with a chainsaw after a storm, or because the Guy that Knew Stuff about their network died suddenly.

They are very, very unlikely to decide to run an IPv6 network just because. There's no upside that makes the juice worth the squeeze for them.

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

#169

Post by dlgeek »

icedchai wrote: post #59
teeray wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

ISPs are weird: You don’t call the water department if your sink is backed up—you call a plumber. You also don’t call the electric company when you want to wire your finished basement—you hire an electrician. ISPs somehow became responsible for absolutely every aspect of consuming their service though. Why isn’t “home internet plumber” a thing?

After fixing internet for some neighbors and older relatives, I've wondered if people would pay for a home network / internet handyman service. It's super frustrating, especially for older folks. They often confuse their email passwords, ISP passwords, wifi setup, etc. Also I could save them a bunch of money getting rid of services they don't use, like moving their landlines to VOIP.

> After fixing internet for some neighbors and older relatives, I've wondered if people would pay for a home network / internet handyman service.

That's what I did for pocket as a kid in high school (in the mid-2000s).

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

#170

Post by ta8645 »

throw0101b wrote: post #161
ta8645 wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Everybody can muddle along without IPv6, so it's easy to make it a very low priority. Especially for small shops that are struggling just to create a viable business. IPv6 needs something more to motivate it, a web destination or application that is only available on IPv6.

> IPv6 needs something more to motivate it, a web destination or application that is only available on IPv6. How about not having to pay for (as) beefy CG-NAT hardware because people that go to Youtube, Netflix, MetaFace, TikTok, etc , can directly connect via IPv6.

Hadn't thought of that, but it might not be a huge savings unless you were to go ipv6 only. If you're still going to support ipv4 anyway, the hardware savings might not be too significant.
Post reply on HN