Secondly, does anyone think it wise to bond $145m as the city did with wireless advances on the horizon? Especially when so far only a couple dozen homes have been connected?
I suppose Comcast can and will fight on multiple fronts, so going after municipal services isn’t mutually exclusive to 5G, but both seem like a losing battle for ‘ye olde Comcast. I just wonder if in 10 years we’ll hear a story about how Comcast “saved” a city $150m by lobbying against a fiber project and prevailing but all the residents ultimately left Comcast for a wireless provider.
Always found it amazing how the US is so far ahead on tech yet is so terrible at actual internet penetration.
My building hit that price/speed level maybe 3-4? Places with actual fast internet like S Korea probably much sooner.
I'm in the US and I've had fiber since '01. Not all places are equal in the US when it comes to internet penetration.
The US is BIG, with a lot of rural areas.
Arguably, as a muni utility, you don’t care about turning a profit versus Comcast and other for profit enterprises. And you have local governance over the infra and how it’s operated through local government. But it still takes a lot of effort; effort that can be distributed across the country, but effort that needs to be expended nevertheless.
"New York Votes to Kick Spectrum Cable Out of the State" https://fortune.com/2018/07/29/spectrum-communications-kicke...
"New York City sues Verizon for not completing citywide fiber network" https://techcrunch.com/2017/03/14/nyc-sues-verizon/
Europe is bigger by area actually, but yes I hear you on the practicality front.
We can argue reasons all day long - point is US consumer internet seems pretty terrible from an outsider perspective, esp when considering the US's overall tech role.