
Harvard Study Shows Why Big Telecom Is Terrified of Community-Run Broadband - owens99
https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/d345pv/harvard-study-shows-why-big-telecom-is-terrified-of-community-run-broadband
======
mnzaki
We can easily be running our own internet. I recenlty discovered CJDNS[1]
(protocol for encrypted p2p address allocation and routing for mesh networks,
so essentially OSI layer 3) and project Hyperboria[2] (a community of local
WiFi initiatives) while exploring scuttlebutt[3]. Confirmed my suspicions that
we could probably be getting waaay better internet connectivity at way lower
prices.

Decentralized tech is going to be the future. Now if we can only figure out
how to not get squashed down by the powers that be.

[1] [https://github.com/cjdelisle/cjdns](https://github.com/cjdelisle/cjdns)

[2] [https://hyperboria.net/](https://hyperboria.net/)

[3] p2p social network [https://scuttlebutt.nz](https://scuttlebutt.nz)

~~~
msla
> CJDNS[1] (protocol for encrypted p2p address allocation and routing for mesh
> networks, so essentially OSI layer 3) and project Hyperboria[2] (a community
> of local WiFi initiatives)

None of this addresses the big point, which is the backhaul, the transit
networks, the big networks which knit together all of the smaller community
networks and make them more useful.

In short: If you make a nice little mesh network in your small town (New York
City, say) you still haven't solved the problem of getting access to websites
in Los Angeles, let alone Doha.

Nobody talks much about that. Probably because it isn't possible for _that_ to
be decentralized or open in any meaningful sense, and it's certainly
impossible for hobbyists to build it.

~~~
jessaustin
There's no monopoly in backhaul, in fact various market shenanigans have
reduced long-distance data profits to pennies. The internet is designed
entirely with the idea of making it easy to connect the first mile to the
rest; that is a solved problem. In USA the remaining problem is local service
provided by monopolists. This problem will persist in general until FCC is
forced, kicking and screaming, into allowing more equitable use of the radio
spectrum. Until then, as TFA notes, this problem will be solved piecemeal in
those communities who are allowed to run their own services.

~~~
saas_co_de
Yes, wholesale broadband rates are dirt cheap and falling like a rock forever
because of improvements in technology.

What you pay for for broadband in the home is: 1) last mile connection
(expensive to install) 2) bribes (sorry, "franchise fees") 3) advertising to
maintain the illusion of competition 4) customer support to help you deal with
your anger and cancel/activate you when you switch between various shitty
providers to maintain the illusion of competition

~~~
jdeibele
What kills me about the advertising are three things:

1) It creates a huge barrier to entry because new ISPs have a hard time
getting any name recognition.

2) Newpapers, radio stations, and television stations probably wouldn't want
to say anything bad about telephone or cable providers. Imagine the phone call
an NBC TV station would get if it attacked Comcast. That advertising is a good
chunk of money.

3) Advertising is rolled into the PUC-approved "cost of doing business" and
the cable or telephone companies get to add their profits on top of that.

~~~
woah
We’re working on www.altheamesh.com to create networks where participants
within the network can compete with one another to provide better service
without the end consumers having to switch providers.

This is accomplished by adding a price metric to the routing protocol so that
packets are routed along the best and cheapest paths.

So if you notice that a certain neighborhood has bad service, you can set up
some kind of connection to it and sell into that network to make a profit. No
advertising. The end users will only notice their internet access getting
cheaper and or better.

------
acd
Most broadband providers work with overbooking / contention ratios, so if you
sell 100/100mbit you buy 20:1 to 50:1 less from the upstream provider.
Overbooking ratios for consumer internet can be between for example 20:1 to
50:1. That means for 20mbit of bandwith to consumers you buy 1 mbit of
bandwidth from a upstream provider.

Buying one megabit of uplink at current market rate is typically less than a
dollar from upstream providers.

Contention ratio of Uk broadband.
[https://web.archive.org/web/20070930041720/http://www.ofcom....](https://web.archive.org/web/20070930041720/http://www.ofcom.org.uk/research/technology/spectrum_efficiency_scheme/ses2003-04/ay4463a/rp_anx/ay4463a_anx.pdf)

You can buy commercial Internet uplink and link up your neighbours for cheaper
than broadband ratios. Digging fibre in the ground is fairly expensive but
gives more stable connection and most bandwidth. A cheaper route is to go Wifi
mesh networking but on normal wifi access points one radio per access point
you get halving of bandwidth for each mesh hop. If you go open source mesh
with 3 radios per AP you can get better bandwidth.

Nasa study of Mesh networks. Mesh hops vs bandwith
[https://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/201400...](https://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20140011882.pdf)

~~~
bronco21016
I think you’re mis-interpreting the overbooking ratios. My understanding is
that a 20:1 ratio means that for 1 mbit you can serve 20 customers 1 mbit.

Your point still stands though. That means if 1 mbit cost $1 then it costs
$0.04/customer.

The real cost is in deploying the wires and countless studies have shown the
ROI on that, especially given the exorbitant rates, is typically 5 years or
less per hookup. Can you imagine how much Comcast etc have made per house
they’ve run coax to? The ROI must be mind boggling.

~~~
Jemmeh
But we taxpayers already paid $400 billion to have fiber ran throughout the
US, just never happened. ISPs took payment but didn't deliver.

[https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/6c5e97/e...](https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/6c5e97/eli5_how_were_isps_able_to_pocket_the_200_billion/)

~~~
toomuchtodo
Right. So what can be done about telcos taking that money, and giving it to
shareholders instead of delivering the infrastructure they committed to? Very
little. That money is gone.

~~~
otakucode
It can be observed that they are a hostile party who have no place in our
local communities and are not welcome. They can have their exclusive contracts
to pole access and provision of telecom services revoked by municipalities who
then construct an ISP as a regulated public utility like water or power. A
private company runs the utility, one legally required to base their fees upon
the actual cost of providing the service (which guarantees it drops as fast as
tech costs drop - fast), has to appeal to a utilities commission if they wish
to raise rates, while providing legitimate justification based upon an
increase in the cost of providing the service, etc.

Overnight government would be able to mandate universal service availability,
and count on citizens having Internet access. That would mean being able to
close physical government offices and let the clerks work from home. Billions
saved right off the bat. It would mean less spying, as municipal people are
not going to just bend over when the feds show up, they will actually demand
to see a warrant - unlike any large American company who derives large amounts
of their own income from being granted government contracts. It would mean no
ridiculous upcharging for "business" connections (just like we don't charge
restaurants more for tap water because they make soup out of it and sell it).
It would also mean no more asynchronous connections which only exist to prop
up the expensive business connections. It would mean an ISP that serves as
infrastructure that improves society in a multitude of ways rather than a
luxury good fed off of by a greedy tick that was lucky enough to hold
exclusive sway over pole access rights and telecom rights when their single
biggest competitor, the Internet, appeared on the scene.

Letting companies like Comcast, Time Warner, etc run ISPs is sheer madness.
They are media distribution companies. Their empires were built on that. And
the Internet makes media distribution worthless. Any clever kid can run
circles around them and provide a better service. And we let them have their
hands on its throat?

~~~
toomuchtodo
The very government you expect to mandate universal service availability is
the government that approves exclusive franchise agreements with predatory
cable/internet providers.

Unless you're ready to run for local office and champion municipal/coop
internet, or find incumbents who support your cause, you will not succeed.

> Any clever kid can run circles around them and provide a better service. And
> we let them have their hands on its throat?

A bit of an exaggeration of course; running an ISP is hard, and the margins
are razor thin unless you have regulatory capture. It _can_ be done, but
that's a governing issue. See what I said above.

TL;DR Run for office. Fix the problem.

~~~
otakucode
>A bit of an exaggeration of course; running an ISP is har

I think you misunderstood me. I did not mean to say that being an ISP was
something a clever kid could pull off. I meant to say that a clever kid can
run circles around the established players when it comes to media
distribution. That clever kid can upload whatever media needs to be
distributed to a CDN and it's done. The entrenched players have to manage
maintaining a byzantine maze of distribution agreement contracts that they
entered into long ago, invent ways in which they will prevent becoming a
"simple dumb pipe" (as they call it), manage how the availability of the
content will affect the success of their other media properties, etc.

And you are correct about the municipalities being the ones who granted those
exclusive contracts originally, and that is where change needs to happen. And
it has in a few places! A friend of mine works for a municipal ISP in Florida.
But.... each and every single municipality that has ever tried to go that
route faces years and years of protracted litigation. Comcast and their
compatriots litigate vigorously in their attempt to prevent the establishment
of municipal ISPs. Many municipalities simply can't afford to spend 10 years
and $100 million just to get out of a contract they foolishly agreed to that
gave exclusive rights to providing telecom services to a company for 99 years
(a common arrangement).

~~~
toomuchtodo
I misunderstood, thanks for clarifying. Agree that anyone can be Netflix/do
media distribution these days with transcoding + storage + CDN all commodities
now.

------
rndmize
The prequalification walls stuff is bullshit and should be illegal. Twice now
I've moved to a recently constructed place where it was impossible to get any
information on offerings or prices before completion - and putting in
neighbor's addresses is an infuriating process of trying to find one who has
ISP A instead of B repeatedly until I don't get a "this address already has
service please login" message.

So help me God I will get involved in local government if for no other reason
that to advocate for municipal broadband and requiring fiber be laid for all
new construction.

------
creeble
The monopoly broadband providers are extremely good at spreading FUD based on
(incorrect) market-based economies: that public-sector solutions are usually
more expensive and less efficient than private-sector ones.

This is only true in the presence of healthy competition, which is generally
absent in US broadband. Broadband providers tend to point to their (at most)
single competitor as evidence of a competitive market.

It doesn't take collusion to fix prices if you only have one competitor.

------
asabjorn
Living in Oakland I wish I could replace my slow, expensive and high-latency
Comcast broadband connection with Fiber. It is crazy that we in silicon valley
practically have no competition.

~~~
aeontech
Not that I am a big fan of AT&T, but they have started offering fiber gigabit
in Oakland over the past year. I switched from Comcast in December. Wish Sonic
or Monkeybrains would become available here.

~~~
asabjorn
What did you switch to?

~~~
aeontech
To AT&T fiber, for now, pending a better option.

------
sethrin
I have for many years suspected that the US telecoms have colluded to set a
price floor for broadband service at $60/mo, and for mobile data services at
$40/mo. It strains credulity that data services would be markedly cheaper in
nearly every other country.

------
gz5
The only way to get the last mile competition we need in the US, and make net
neutrality irrelevant, is for org-run fiber builds in which the org doesn't
offer services. The org operates a multi-tenant fiber infrastructure in which
you and I can pick (n) "service providers"...part of what I am hoping is a
2018 full of decentralization and distribution:
[https://goo.gl/DkpmU5](https://goo.gl/DkpmU5)

~~~
walshemj
Or just unbundle the local loop as we do in the UK

~~~
gz5
yes although can be harder to retrofit, e.g. i don't believe many of the US
fiber architectures were built to be multi-tenant with (n) service providers
behind 1 operator. especially because the duopoly's control most of them.
enter the muni-fiber and similar projects...but built to a different
commercial model...

~~~
gnopgnip
For the urban, and dense suburban areas fiber is a great option and has much
higher potential. But there will always be a large portion of the US that is
not profitable to run fiber, and already has phone service. We already have
multitenant access in the US for all phone service. Just extending the current
regulation to cover DSL is all that is needed to allow for competition and
improved internet speed. You can get up to 76mbps with VDSL2 over copper wire,
just modern modems and provider side equipment. And there is newer technology
that provides even better speeds over the same copper wire.

~~~
mnzaki
In the less dense areas the most economical solution for great connectivity is
definitely mesh networks. They are even being deployed in very rural areas at
a very low cost!
[http://owni.fr/files/2011/09/Building_a_Rural_Wireless_Mesh_...](http://owni.fr/files/2011/09/Building_a_Rural_Wireless_Mesh_Network_-
_A_DIY_Guide_v0.7_65.pdf)

Obviously there are better (commercial, prepackaged) mesh network solutions

~~~
amazon_not
Mesh networking hasn't really worked out. WISPs, i.e. Wireless Internet
Service Providers, do a great job at serving rural (and other) areas.

~~~
mnzaki
Hmmm I think it's a bit of a stretch to say mesh networking hasn't really
worked out. It just hasn't spread far enough yet.

Have you heard of CJDNS[1]? or BATMAN[2]?

Hyperboria[3] is multiple sizeable deployments of CJDNS. Maybe you heard of
Freifunk[4] in Germany, with over 40k access points so far.

[1] [https://github.com/cjdelisle/cjdns](https://github.com/cjdelisle/cjdns)

[2]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B.A.T.M.A.N](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B.A.T.M.A.N).

[3] [http://hyperboria.net/](http://hyperboria.net/)

[4]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freifunk](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freifunk)

~~~
amazon_not
Yes, I've heard of them and others, but I think dboreham already put the
matter conclusively at rest:

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16138402](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16138402)

------
abandonliberty
I see two factors:

1\. 'Big Telecom', has all the problems of publicly traded large companies:
Focus on creating shareholder value, complexity, inertia, etc. This is
inefficiency due to objectives and organization.

2\. Payoff horizon. It's easy/cheap to buy technology and set up a network for
today, but are they charging enough to update all the hardware in a few years
when technology improves? In Canada, even with aggressive government
subsidization, multiple attempts to create new independent wireless
carriers(Fido, Wind) have failed when they could not afford to grow their
network beyond initial investments.

It'll be very interesting to see how this develops and find out whether 1
trumps 2: will small community organizations be sufficiently efficient, or
will they struggle with faster obsolescence than expected and be forced to
acquire more capital.

------
Gys
'community-owned broadband networks provide consumers with significantly lower
rates than their private-sector counterparts'

~~~
tooltalk
is it cheap and fast because they are run efficiently? or because they are
subsidized by taxpayers or they are not burdened by the same rules that
potential competitors have to hoop through?

Having worked for a small gov't agency in NYC and personally witnessed all
sorts of waste and incompetence, I'm a bit skeptical that this is at all
possible. I don't think efficiency or cost-effectiveness is not something that
comes to my mind when someone talks about gov't services.

~~~
timdellinger
The community-owned options are only considered cheap and fast because they're
being compared to monopoly or near-monopoly ISPs, which can get away with
inflated prices and poor service because they have no competition.

And while it's true that government bureaucracies tend to drift toward
inefficiency, private monopolies are very similar. Comcast is basically so bad
that they're unfixable.

------
analog31
Ask HN: If I wanted to create a very small cooperative ISP for my family and a
handful of neighbors, it doesn't seem like rocket science, except...

At some point it has to connect to the Internet, meaning I have to buy some
sort of connection. How's that work?

~~~
afeezaziz
I have been wondering about this. Appreciate it if anyone provide some idea.

I mean it it quite easy nowadays to set up a network both wired and wireless
to share among neighbours. I did that. But lastly, it needs to be connected to
the internet/first mile. If I can negotiate enough numbers and do the fiber
laying work myself, how can i get the internet connection at wholesale?

~~~
amazon_not
You can buy wholesale Internet bandwidth from most larger ISPs. Get quotes by
contacting the carriers in your area. Expect to pay a few grand per month for
the pleasure.

Give me a shout for more details.

~~~
afeezaziz
Hi, is this applicable even for outside US?

~~~
amazon_not
Yes, this is pretty much how is works everywhere.

------
eksemplar
Several Danish municipalities have begun running their own WANs on loraWAN
tech because it’s virtually free once the initial fee of setting it up has
been paid. It’s not real internet, but it’s the only way we can connect our
IOT and smart city stuff in a way that is economically feasible because we
can’t afford to pay fees on connections for thousands of devices.

We could set up our own internet, and I think we should, unfortunately this
would be illegal as the large telecoms have lobbied their way into legislation
ensuring that people pay, what is essentially a private tax, on their
utilities.

------
pmarreck
These shenanigans are why telcos/cell networks, and not ISP's/cable networks,
are probably going to end up controlling all Internet traffic someday

------
RichardBennett
Not so much. @HighTechForum: Berkman at Harvard study finds public networks to
be nearly 7 Mbps slower than commercial ones; but hey, they’re often cheaper!
See Community Broadband is Cheaper – and Slower”
[http://hightechforum.org/community-broadband-cheaper-
slower/](http://hightechforum.org/community-broadband-cheaper-slower/)

------
quantum_state
Very interesting possibilities ... network is really same as physical highways
... should be funded and run by the locales and federated into a wider network
... let’s start the journey ...

------
doggydogs94
Government entities are fine for running utilities based on slow moving
technologies (e.g. community sewer system). They would also be good for
version 1 of your community internet service. But what about version 2? By the
time the government is ready to roll out the version 2 internet backbone, it
will be obsolete.

~~~
amazon_not
Fiber lasts for decades. It does not go obsolete. If you want something faster
or better change the electronics on each end.

If you are worried about the governed not keeping up, let the government put
in the fiber and have somebody else light it.

------
tomkat0789
Useful resource for checking how many ISPs you have in your area:
[https://broadbandnow.com/](https://broadbandnow.com/)

Though I'm skeptical at how accurate their maps are. It SAID that another
provider covered my area, but when I called them that turned out to not be the
case.

------
rsbartram
I hope new technology continues to provide new options and services for
consumers. [https://latechnews.org/eliminate-dropped-
calls/](https://latechnews.org/eliminate-dropped-calls/) Read about ABWN and
their new tech to eliminate dropped calls.

------
duncan_bayne
It'd be nice to use terminology that distinguishes between infrastructure that
is provided and maintained voluntarily, and infrastructure that is
compulsorily funded by taxpayers.

The difference is relevant from economic, moral and design perspectives.

------
maxxxxx
I always why there are MVNOs that can use the big cell networks but no
alternative providers on cable. Was there regulation that forced cell
providers to open their networks to third party sellers?

~~~
jessaustin
No regulation needed for this. MNOs make a profit from their MVNO business,
and it allows them to overbid for spectrum in a relatively risk-free manner.
Even if ATT can't get enough fools to sign up for their overpriced gold-plated
mobile service to use all the spectrum they bought, they can tune the prices
they charge MVNOs to fill the rest of the pipe. This arrangement also allow
them to enjoy various other anticompetitive benefits like dictating
"acceptable" marketing to MVNOs and forcing them to sign one-sided backhaul
deals.

------
pixelpp
This article basically said that water is wet.

------
lordnacho
Would it be possible to shut out such community ISPs by not peering with them?
Is that something that might cause concern?

~~~
cinquemb
Id say its a concern in the short run, but that would incentivize neighboring
communities to invest in shared infrastructure and to peer with each other in
the long run, esp if their only other option is to be shut out of the market
entirely.

~~~
notmetoday3426
peering with each other is no good - you need to peer with a Tier 1 who is in
the IPX or you have no internet.

------
Overtonwindow
I think it's quite obvious and doesn't require a "Harvard" study. Community
broadband can offer customers something big telecom won't: Reliable, honest,
responsive service.

~~~
singhrac
That's not entirely fair. There's plenty of reasons why this wouldn't be
obvious - if there's limited demand for local broadband because of e.g.
bundling agreements (you want TV + internet + phone, but the local broadband
can only provide internet), or because the infrastructure costs on the last
mile make it impossible for small players to charge low prices (so they
operate with premium service as their sell instead).

------
baby_wipe
Are community-run broadband providers cheaper because they are subsidized by
taxes?

~~~
mschuster91
> Are community-run broadband providers cheaper because they are subsidized by
> taxes?

No, they are cheaper because the local monopolists/duopolists can charge the
customers through the nose, as they don't have any alternative. Any form of
competition leads to a reduction in costs for the consumer.

In addition, stuff like eight-digit compensations (Comcast: 37.5M $ for the
CEO alone, [https://www1.salary.com/Stephen-B-Burke-Salary-Bonus-
Stock-O...](https://www1.salary.com/Stephen-B-Burke-Salary-Bonus-Stock-
Options-for-COMCAST-CORP.html)), marketing (TV ads, but also sponsoring, e.g.
Comcast/ESL) or the costs associated with running e.g. decades-old mainframe
stuff for CRM/financial systems or simply maintaining even older copper lines
vs brand new fibre stuff sums up to quite a bunch of money - humble local ISPs
don't have all that crap and therefore can pass on the savings to customers.

~~~
pascalxus
And let's not forget their grand incompetence as well. At&t and comcast spend
huge amounts on wasted advertisement. I get ads for At&T all the time. I hate
them so much, I repeat click on their ads just to waste more of their
marketing dollars. Obliviously, they keep sending me the same ads.

~~~
Consultant32452
They don't advertise to get more customers. Why do you think Lockheed Martin
et. al. advertise? How many people watching football on Sunday are interested
in buying an F-22? They advertise to stop the media company from running
negative stories about them. They don't give a shit about advertising to you.
It's a pay-off.

------
jdlyga
They saw what happened to AOL, and they know it can happen to them too.

------
nixpulvis
Obviously. This is Econ 101.

