
The FCC Can't Save Community Broadband, But We Can - dwaxe
https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2016/08/community-broadband-and-fcc-net-neutrality-still-begins-home
======
beerbajay
In Sweden, when I moved into a new apartment I was able to get fiber broadband
from one of EIGHT providers. This was because the fiber network was owned by a
corporation created by the city. The result? For $65/mo I could get 500/100
Mbit/s connectivity. On Time-Warner in NYC, $65 only gets me "up to 300
Mbit/s".

In Sweden, I could get symmetric 1 Gbit for $93/mo; I don't even have that
option in NYC. Installation? I just connected my computer, chose a plan via my
web browser and had everything working within 20 minutes.

~~~
hanklazard
Meanwhile, stateside, I have ONE internet service provider available in my
building (Comcast). After talking with mgmt about allowing other ISPs, I was
told that Comcast actually wired the building, so there will not be any other
options. To no one's surprise, I'm being gouged for barely 5 Mbps down.

~~~
MichaelBurge
The downside would be that if your city did the wiring, you'd be paying for it
through higher property taxes.

A counterargument might be that both the city and Comcast could both raise
money through munipical or corporate bonds from investors, so local citizens
might not need to pay any extra taxes as long as the city breaks even charging
for its wiring.

~~~
hanklazard
I was thinking that the property/building owner could have just paid an
independent contractor to wire the building when it was built (it's only 10
yrs old), much the same way various subcontractors are used for different jobs
when building a house. That way, data streams could come in through the cable
lines that run to the building or one of the new wireless options that are
being offered in my city.

That was just my very basic thought about how this could feel less anti-
consumer/monopolistic--I don't actually know how these types of things are
usually done so feel free to let me know if you have more expertise!

~~~
amazon_not
It isn't enough to just wire the house, you have to install the fiber optic
cables all the way to the central office or data center.

It's a good model, but unfortunately there have been few takers to date.

~~~
hanklazard
I'm specifically referencing wireless options such as Webpass--that service
does not require cables all the way to the data center, right?

What building management told me is that Comcast actually owns the data pipes
inside my apartment building, thus preventing Webpass (or any other ISP) from
ever being an option. I'm looking to move soon, in part because of this
situation.

~~~
amazon_not
> I'm specifically referencing wireless options such as Webpass--that service
> does not require cables all the way to the data center, right?

It still requires cables all the way to the data center. Webpass may use
wireless for the last hop or a few hops, but sooner or later you need wireline
infrastructure to backhaul all the traffic to the data center.

There are a few reasons for this:

\- there are, if any, 10G wireless links

\- wireless requires line of sight to work

\- wireless is less reliable than fiber

> What building management told me is that Comcast actually owns the data
> pipes inside my apartment building, thus preventing Webpass (or any other
> ISP) from ever being an option.

Comcast may or may not own the inside wiring. Comcast obviously has no
incentive to either disprove the claim or let anybody else use the cabling or
install new cables, but probably neither has management either as they may be
getting kickbacks from Comcast.

Here's a good article on what monkey business is going on behind the scenes:

[https://backchannel.com/the-new-payola-deals-landlords-
cut-w...](https://backchannel.com/the-new-payola-deals-landlords-cut-with-
internet-providers-cf60200aa9e9#.sw0iphrdp)

------
JoshTriplett
The term "community broadband" here seems misleading.

As far as I can tell, most of the ISP objections to such efforts involve a
local government effectively creating its own ISP. Objecting to that doesn't
seem particularly unreasonable; a government ISP has inherent anti-competitive
properties (such as tax funding), even if it doesn't go even further and
ignore regulations it applies to everyone else. Imagine trying to compete with
a competitor that everyone has to pay for (in whole or in part) whether they
use it or not, and that gets to set the rules you have to follow but that it
can choose not to.

I don't think any of the ISP objections or court cases would hold up against
an actual _community_ effort, as opposed to a _government_ effort. If a group
of people got together and decided to start a community ISP, nothing should
stop them.

~~~
pdkl95
> a government ISP has inherent anti-competitive properties

That's the point - as a natural monopoly, _ISPs_ are inherently anti-
competitive. They _should_ be government (or quasi-government) entities just
like every other utilities.

> Imagine trying to compete with a competitor that everyone has to pay for

Imagine trying to compete for last-mile water or electric service.

~~~
techsupporter
> Imagine trying to compete for last-mile water or electric service.

It is funny that you write that. As you probably know, but to inform others,
electric service in several states is competitive. Customers choose a supplier
and that supplier puts enough power on the grid to serve their needs.
Suppliers are generally unregulated in terms of pricing and customer
selection. The last mile poles and wires are owned by a regulated company with
that company's rates subject to oversight and a requirement to serve every
subscriber.

That's how we should do internet connectivity.

------
sathackr
I've always had a problem with Governments(who don't pay tax on their profits)
operating in environments where they may compete directly with private
industry(who must pay tax on their profits)

We have two cities nearby that run their own power companies and all areas
around the cities are supplied by a much larger private company. Power rates
in both cities are higher than the surrounding areas, and outages are far more
common in the city-ran areas.

I know of several cities that have attempted to provide city-wide wi-fi
service. I do not know of any that were successful. Most of them bought the
mesh-networking koolaid and disaster was the result.

~~~
amazon_not
Municipal utilities pay a fee to the local government which is equal or more
than what they'd pay in taxes as a private company.

It's called PILOT, payment in lieu of taxes.

~~~
sathackr
Hmm interesting...I wasn't aware of that. Must research.

------
greggman
I hate the anti competitive structure we have in the USA now but I can't see
how government run ISPs could ever be w good thing.

1\. Network tech advances at breakneck pace. Do you really think government is
going to update aging infrastructure every few years? Sure the current ISPs
might not to that now. Proper competiton might fix that. Government ISPs will
make that even worse.

2\. Censorship seems far more likely on government ISPs . Someone will lobby
"the government shouldn't allow X on government run things". You'll have no
recourse. Proper competiton would solve this. Government ISPs won't.

3\. Spying: governemts want to spy. What better way to spy than with their own
systems.

Yes there is a problem with the current local monopolies but I don't see how
government run ISPs is the right solution.

~~~
brians
I think on 2 and 3 you're mistaken: it is often much harder today for law
enforcement or intelligence parts of the government to get data from other
parts of the government, who can ignore them or tie them up in bureaucracy,
than from companies.

On the first point—yes, I think you're quite right. But maybe FTTH is enough
for many years to come?

