This is the way that it works best for walkways, roads, and even utilities like power and water where (at least I've only ever seen) one single option exists and is highly regulated. In the case of power that's true for 'transmission' but there have been times I've had options for generation.
IMO laws like the ones in Washington State that were put in place by entrenched and abusive commercial monopolies (like the cable companies and telephone companies) harm competition, by restricting existing and new utilities from partnering with the people to create these last mile platforms, and allow competition on top of them. Just as how there is competition in package delivery service on top of the roadways.
When we moved to SF a few months ago, Sonic wasn't available in our building so we had to get AT&T. I'm paying almost double what Sonic charges for basically the same service.
In both cases, where buildings had exclusivity agreements or had the fiber providers lay the fiber themselves, residents are worse off. Buildings should be running their own fiber and letting residents hook up to whoever they want.
Same thing with residential house internet; cities should own the last mile infrastructure (sure, pay providers to dig it and run it if you have to).
Especially since we're migrating off of copper and onto fiber; this is the chance to get it right for the next few decades!
I'm in Toronto, thank goodness this is becoming more common, not less. I was recently condo hunting and I noticed most new buildings had Beanfield or their competitor, FibreStream. The building we ended up with has the latter, so we're getting 500Mbps symmetric/no cap.
Yay for not having to annually fight with Bell for a "promotional" rate anymore!
I suppose maybe the cable networks are more optimized for average user behaviour (far more download than upload), but maybe there's also a fundamental limitation with the cable infrastructure that prevents faster uploads, perhaps to do with cable's legacy delivering television broadcasts? Whereas with fibre, almost everything I've seen available comes with symmetric speeds by default.
DOCSIS 3.0 (I think that's the latest) allocates a particular ratio of download vs upload frequencies, so even when speeds increase the asymmetry is still the same. I heard the next version of DOCSIS might change that though. Ideally there'd be enough fiber to not require DOCSIS anyway, but I don't have my hopes up for that.
Hopefully with a lot more WFH arrangements people start demanding symmetric connections. But
Anything more than that, especially in gigabit range is just gimmicks, IMO.
However, there was a technical issue I had some months ago with a faulty Arris modem provisioning file that disabled upstream bonding across most of their models. It took an email to the CEO to sort it out (after a Reddit and DSLReports post on the matter).
Previously I had been on a 50/10 tier and when the new business class tiers were released they blamed my trusted old SB6121s for being too old, so I bought 2 newer ones in the SB series and had same issues. After writing the CEO and CC'ing all the techs I spoke to and including links to the threads they gave me a direct engineering contact that confirmed the issue. For the trouble they credited me out 2 months of service.
I can get up to 1gbit connection for 15 EUR,
100mbit for 7 EUR because of competitive market
We usually only have one or two competing provider per building, but their prices are still low(same as yours).
This is an opportunity for wireless. I've lived in buildings with exclusive internet agreements. I was able to bypass those in some cities back when WiMax was still available. I got double the speed for half the price when I was living in an AT&T building, and the same speed for half the price when I was in a Qwest building.
I'm not a fan of the new breed of satellite internet startups, but if they put fear into the wired/fibered carriers, then at least some good will come out of them.
The dystopian future is here.
What cost that company $200,000 in 1998 and took up an entire rack now can be bought for about $2,000 from Ubiquiti and mounted in a few U in a rack. They even have the software available to run your own ISP!
Builders get big providers to pay for communications wiring, in some cases including that of their competitors, for the privilege of exclusive advertising rights. Those same big providers need to provide (some level of) service to all the people in their geography.
Between influences like these and regulation, the big providers have to shoulder significant costs which they pass on to their consumers. The upstarts don't have these costs and can offer much better pricing.
The regulators and politicians can then step in and gain voter favor by going after these big, "bad" providers by enabling new entrants into the market with must better cost structures (e.g. regional service only) or even just outright subsidizing them, ultimately seeming to go after a problem that they actually created.
Whether this public/private capitalist mess is more cost effective than a public entity is unclear, but it does succeed in shifting accountability away from the government.
In the end the citizens pay for it all, just inequitably. Perhaps it is a capitalist victory that a price sensitive consumer can invest the time to find a better deal and opt out of subsidizing rural communities.
So the expenses around lobbying, wining and dining a few politicians etc. are totally worth it.
Disclosure: I work for sonic, and this is my personal understanding of the strategy, which may have other nuances.
I'd love it if the fiber in the building was public so I could just pay 1/2 what I pay AT&T for Sonic instead.
Basically, the companies which received the contracts were required to not act as ISPs, instead to wholesale access to their fibre network to any ISP interested. Maximum rates and minimum level of service are set by the Commerce Commission (the govt), though the fibre holders are free to reduce prices or improve services, which they are (we now can get gigabit internet nationwide for less than 100NZD - an excellent price considering there's no competition for the last mile itself).
This is true for our old copper network too. It was built by Telecom, the old govt monopoly, in the 20th century. In 2009(?) the copper network was spun off into its own company, Chorus, and Chorus was bound by the same wholesale and non-ISP regulations.
As a result of these enlightened regulations, NZ now has a super-competitive ISP market. ISPs are super cheap to set up - you basically just need to provide the core network and lease the last mile and backbone.
I'd advise anyone campaigning for better ISP regulations in any other country to look at the NZ example. The free market may work better for extremely high density cities, but these regs are great for any markets where there is only demand for one last-mile network.
The deal was struct, Tony was suddenly the "wonderkid" that could do no wrong and Fox News made sure the whole world heard his name. He was promptly elected by retired country morons who've never heard of the Internet but watched Fox on the telly every evening.
Tony licked Rupert's boots like a good little boy and did his best to kill the NBN: https://delimiter.com.au/2012/07/06/australia-doesnt-need-th...
Thankfully his power didn't last long, but his short stint nonetheless had lasting damage: https://thenewdaily.com.au/news/national/2019/01/10/rupert-m...
We can now (as of just a few weeks ago!) get gigabit on the Australian NBN, except that instead of NZD 100 it costs AUD 150 monthly. You also have to be one of the lucky 19% to be on the FTTH network that was built before Tony stopped its construction: https://thenewdaily.com.au/finance/property/2019/01/28/what-...
Fuck Rupert Murdoch. Seriously. He is one of the most evil, vile, hateful, greedy, self-centered cunts alive on this planet.
Subsidised. Private funding covered much of the cost.
To ensure that the prices are fairly calculated, we have a public authority which checks that the prices are correct.
What happened was that the ILECs all managed to come up with the same excuses: sorry, no lines available in that office. And, mysteriously, working CLEC lines would stop working, and it would be blamed on a "bad cable", but there wouldn't be a spare cable to switch to... and the ILEC had just installed a customer.
Regulation needs to be enforced.
I had the local ILEC repair my home POTS line so many times, I finally gave up and switched to VOIP. Now a year of service costs me less than a month used to...
In 2003 and 2005 the market was deregulated and all the tiny independent ISP's went under as they were unable to throw wires up on the poles nor able to use the incumbents.
OFCOM sets the price Openreach is allowed to charge for FTTC or LLU access and that’s that. Hence we have tens of ISPs available in most areas that compete on cost and customer service.
And wireless providers are now competing pretty effectively with consumer-grade fibre. (I'm happy getting 400 Mbit and streaming 1080p Stadia lag-free on Vodafone 5G for £30 a month - who even needs fibre!)
My city is placing a similar proposal on the ballot this November (https://connectkaysville.com/).
Often localities are hindered by their state governments thanks to lobbying from the incumbents. I would prefer to see more local governments actively rolling their own telecom infrastructure to inter-city/state endpoints (should they choose to). From a security standpoint I feel that most locations should have two options at the least.
I'd also like to see any civil funding start and end at the local municipalities. The feds don't do well managing these things as noted in TFA.
I recall hearing something about a former apartment complex mentioning how costly (letting an additional provider) in was for them; but I never did learn the details of _what_ was costly about that. Having said data out in the bright sunlight of public records would make planning a beneficial change to the status quo much easier.
Communication must be transported through some medium. That could be air, copper, fiber, etc. For the sake of this discussion, let's focus on fiber.
To connect everybody with fiber, the utility has to bury fiber under property it doesn't own. (Or it could run it arial over property it doesn't own.) For the little section that runs from the street through my property to the network interface device attached to my house, I am more than happy to give the utility permission to trench and bury fiber. But they own the fiber and are responsible for its maintenance.
If there is ever any maintenance issue with that small portion buried in my yard, they don't have an easement to dig it up and service it. They need my permission. Because it is directly affecting my internet connection, I'm usually happy to grant permission. But when it runs under my driveway, I don't want them digging up my driveway. We work together to find some option that isn't too expensive, but doesn't involve the destruction of my driveway.
Let's say I want to switch providers. The new provider can't just reuse the fiber in my yard because it doesn't belong to them, nor to me. So each potential provider has to bury their own across my yard without disturbing the others.
Because this seems suboptimal to me and because I take the long view, I have my network interface device moved to the curb, and I own the fiber in my yard. But now the burden is on me to have the right kind of fiber and the right type of fiber connects and to fix any issues.
Now let's say that my neighbor's connection also runs through my yard. Neither my neighbor nor the utility want to be beholden to me for maintenance. They will want an easement that gives them the right to do whatever it takes to fix the fiber in my yard. But if my neighbor ever wants to switch providers, the new provider will need another easement.
Generally most of the property across which the fiber is installed is publicly owned. Each utility has their own easements through that property. Aside from the obvious duplication of infrastructure with its associated price inflation, there is another problem. There is only a limited space for easements. If there are multiple water utilities and multiple power utilities and multiple gas utilities and multiple telecom utilities, the easement corridor gets pretty crowded and could conceivably even be exhausted. How do you decide which private company gets a free easement and which doesn't. Should we start charging for the easements?
Also, it stands to reason that if there are 25 utility easements under main street, there is a much higher probability on any given day that one of them will dig up main street for maintenance than if there were only 5 utility easements.
So in the end, I think all private utilities should have equal access to easements on public land. You can do that by auctioning those easements every set interval. Kind of like we do with spectrum. But I'm not very satisfied with how that has worked in the past. It is impossible for any little guy to get a foot over that hurdle. The only acceptable alternative I have encountered is to deny easements to them all.
We still need transmission lines and those will still need easements on public property. One obvious solution is to have those lines be publicly owned. Just like I took ownership of that hypothetical fiber running through my yard.
In the case of fiber, you could run 144 x 144 fiber in very nearly the same space it takes one utility to run 144 fiber. So you could conceivably rent out fiber to utilities. But that doesn't work as well for water utilities. With telecom, we can mingle data on the same fiber. That doesn't work so great for water. It is probably practical to have a different solution for water or gas than for telecom. Power may require a solution of its own.
Through this line of reasoning I have come to believe that public ownership of transmission lines across public property is the best arrangement for telecom. Any provider that wants to buy up private property or buy up easements across private property is still free to do so.
NYC Mesh puts a fiber connected node with a laser receiver on a tall building. You install a laser receiver on top of your building. Anyone with line of sight to the node now has fast, affordable internet access. They don't have to deal with mega telecoms anymore.
If you already have line of sight I don't see a reason this couldn't be replaced with a 60ghz 802.11ad link, which should give you 4.6 gigabits.
If you have line of sight though and a fixed point to point link the range is much greater, since there's nothing in the way and an dish antenna gives you huge gain.
"Ideal for high-throughput connectivity with a range of up to 500 m".
For reference, that approximately two blocks in NYC.
Anyway, I looked up the Ubiquiti LiteBeam AC Gen2 since I wasn't familiar with it, and I think OP might have the wrong impression. It's a LiteBeam, not a LightBeam. The LiteBeam is just bog standard 5 GHz 802.11ac with a high gain antenna. That explains the data rates.
Given that, there seems to be no disadvantage to using the 60 GHz solution if you're close enough to the next building where it's still faster (probably close to 2 miles). It's only ~$200 more, which spread out over a building is basically nothing.
MikroTik makes some 60Ghz point to point gigabit radios that can supposedly go for 2km.
Finally, many commercial providers of E-band devices (licensed 70-80Ghz spectrum) sell gigabit capable radios that can go a couple of miles.
Any of those seem like good options for an urban building in need of better internet service.
Wireless internet makes for a very poor product to sell, because the service is unreliable, and often has problems exactly when people want it most (during inclement weather). Also, customers often have a problem dissassociating problems that should be expected with the service from problems with the service provider. It's probably not very gratifying to provide what is often the only option people have for high speed internet to have some subset of them that don't understand the reality, or are just too upset to care, disparage your name online. It also probably doesn't lead to securing additional contracts easily, and as soon as other connectivity does become available, your customers will leave at the earliest opportunity (there's not a lot of friction to signing up somewhere else when the service is currently down).
(No affiliation with NYC folks, just a WISP guy handing out the basics)
It cannot be understated how badly the more rural parts of the country are being screwed by big telecom right now.
LOL. My mom lives in an older house in a formerly-rural area where she's now surrounded by suburb-style new development. She wanted cable internet, and it cost her about $8000 and endless hours of haranguing Cox and chasing down service vans just to get a hook up. Literally she would see a Cox van at a construction site and stop and ask the person, because no one would talk to her on the phone. She eventually found one guy who gave her his business card and cell number, and knew a few people in the construction department who would help. The woman who took her credit card number over the phone to charge for the service told her she knew absolutely nothing about the process, and could make no guarantees about when it would happen. My mom was so desperate, she gave her her credit card number anyway. It took nearly a year to run maybe 100 yards of cable down her driveway from the street to her house, but she finally does have broadband now.
I’m going to guess that 80% of the US can’t get that.
The actual bandwidth used by a 300M customer and a 1000M customer is usually the same. The provider's upstream contracts would not change much if they put every one of their customers on 1000M.
But their pricing is regulated. The arm and a leg they charge for 1000M service is largely a function of that regulation, even though it hardly affects their costs otherwise. You might think that if the infrastructure costs are the same for 1M or 1000M and that the infrastructure costs are 90% of all costs, 1M and 1000M could be priced within 25% of each other. It might seem that a price jump from $100/50M to $1000/1000M is unreasonable. But the U.S. government right now is handing out $billions to rural providers to build out fiber, then requiring them to charge ridiculously high prices.
Correct. I have a gig/gig symmetrical connection and a family of four information-devouring people. In the last 30 days we used 1 TB of data... which is to say, an average of just over 3Mb/s. We probably peaked at about 600Mb/s a few times.
This is asymmetric with no disclaimer on their advertising page from an entrenched local monopoly in the north east (a small one)
It’s a weird situation. Windstream lies to the federal government and says they offer broadband to my area, when they don’t offer any service at all. The only actual provider (South Slope), which offers fiber elsewhere, is therefore shut out of the usual federal programs to finance upgrades to the completely antiquated and over-provisioned DSL lines. I’m 3 miles line of sight from their headquarters.
My parents live in the near Chicago suburbs, have 1 choice for high speed Internet, and pay $80/month for 100Mbps down and 6Mbps up.
So, rural internet options are actually better than urban in some areas.
It would be totally illegal and you'd probably go to prison forever if you started a company to do it. And annoying people with scissors would be cutting them every day (not to mention glass-eating wasps! a real thing!).
But I'd pay for it.
Since my friends and I had all just moved into a brand new apartment building together, I picked up a spool of ethernet and some ends and we literally strung the wires from window to window (wireless was far too expensive). The building was blue so I used blue wires and the owner either didn't notice or didn't care, because no one said a thing about it.
We all split the cost of the initial supplies and then everyone paid me whatever they could for the internet and I covered the rest. We had 10 people and I ended up paying about $40/mo for it personally.
On the plus side, since I controlled the gateway (and old computer the University threw out) I could do fun stuff like traffic shaping and setting up a web server to be a bulletin board for us. Also I got everyone to install one of those enterprise notification things on their Windows machines so we could send blast messages to each other about going to the city or down to the local cafe for dinner.
Direct-burying of fibre in the countryside is cheap, doesn't require permission (beyond getting access to the land etc.) Landowners are generally hugely supportive, as they get better internet too (and being rural, have useless connectivity to begin with).
You can get street works permits fairly easily, for the "last half-mile", through access to "code powers" . That also helps you bypass certain planning rules. And you can just do a regular premises installation - nothing cloak and dagger here!
A tiny fraction of our fiber was mounted above ground (eight miles out of over 700 IIRC) but it was taken down by tornados/wind shear twice in the first three years after it was lit.
That is probably why the wireless packet mesh networks are more popular since there's no physical infra in other people's property (spectrum as "property" sounds odd, but even that is a commons for some fraction of it).
It only exists when it is used and just disappears when it isn't & is easily moved around.
I assume the illegality would be its own reward sometimes. Didn't El Chapo run his own cellphone network?
There's a whole plot line in "Person of Interest" about this happening in NYC, hiding in plain sight as regular TV antennas (the Panopticon episode).
They do have good service tho, not sure about the esthetics
I would imagine that if you would run fiber to the nearest POP they probably wouldn't mind connecting you, since anything wrong with it would be on you.
My fear for open access is where the open market ISPs and the natural monopoly fiber demux meet -- we should fear attempts at collusion and market manipulation.
Note that cable companies were exempt (which is because they had better politicians) and telcos had a lot of runway to put up barriers for a clec to provide services. In the end, the telcos moved the goal posts, could subsidize customer equipment better and could delay your installs.
In general, this is how massive new laws in USA work. Lots of consumers/citizens/normal people are somewhat dissatisfied with the status quo, and so some public-interest people start pushing through a big change to benefit humanity at the slight expense of entrenched interests. Lobbyists for entrenched interests aren't stupid; they know you don't step in front of a speeding train. Instead, they flip all the right switches (i.e. they pay massive bribes) to direct the train along the tracks they prefer. "Oh, we're going to have competition in wired telecommunications, are we? Yes, let's pretend that, just for fun..."
The Universal Service Fund was established mid-'90s to get fund telecommunications connections to schools and libraries in rural areas (in the same way the Rural Electrification Act did in the early 1900s). Funds were paid out through 2000 or so but I haven't heard of any contracts being built using USF funds since then. I will however point out that you can still see this surcharge on your phone bill. I also agree that these contracts tended to favor huge CLECs (versus huge cable companies back then) and that more consideration should be given to "mom and pop" shops.
EDIT: The focus on schools and libraries was an effort to get service into these geographic areas with the idea that once it was there, consumers would be targeted as customers who could then "just connect". That's when we also learned that the "last mile" was way more expensive (often politically) than anticipated. In the cable industry, the response was to upgrade plant equipment and create/adopt the DOCSIS standard for data transmission over coax.
DISCLAIMER: I was a member of two of the committees that helped write specific portions of the DOCSIS 2.0 specification.
I have high hopes for Starlink, personally, but my first choice would absolutely be gigabit fiber to the homestead.
It is absolutely the worst company I have ever had the displeasure of doing business with, and I'm so happy I had the option of switching to Comcast.
My last call with Ziply 2 weeks ago to upgrade my 50/50 to 100/100 was a great experience. I'm not saying every call is going to be great, just that it can be.
Unfortunately I don't remember the name, but you could probably find it on one of the FCC maps.
I think you're being too kind. That map is a disgrace. The 'latest public release' is from June 2019, a whole year out of date. One self-reported hookup in a census block is enough to mark the entire block as 'having service', which is a ridiculous metric, particularly in rural areas as you said.
This map was designed by the incumbents as something to point at when they are criticized for the sub-par and overpriced services they provide. And the FCC went along with it, which is just regulatory capture.
A real broadband map would
a) not rely on self-reporting or have really serious fines if companies deliberately provide incorrect information
b) give an indication of what is actually installed (1 house out of the 100 in this census block has fiber from Verizon? Great, 1% actually installed).
c) give an indication of what is actually available. 95 buildings out of 100 can't get the Verizon fiber service? That's 95% of the census block that does not have service. The telcos have this information (they all have a way to look up a physical address on their website to see if you can get service), they are just not sharing it.
The FCC broadband map is about as bad as the cell phone carrier's coverage maps, which are also a complete joke.
For those, though, there are crowdsourced and way more accurate alternatives (e.g. opensignal.com, cellmapper.net).
- When I upgraded my plan the first person to notice it was my mom in India. Her internet is so much better that the increase in my upload speed was visibly apparent to her. I realised I was the bottleneck.
- I appreciated the local control in the US a lot. But I now know it’s a huge detriment to develop and improve basic infrastructure. The goal is to keep things the way they are. In that sense even San Francisco is extremely conservative.
Because the city doesn't want to pay for it. And the companies, having the money to dig the road up don't want to make their competitor's jobs easier. So pretty classic market failure.
What needs to happen, IMO, is that the last mile should be utility infrastructure, and ISPs should connect to that. Then the ISPs pay the city for use of the last mile on a endpoint by endpoint basis. Lowers the barrier for new ISPs since they don't have to dig up new last mile, and the city is encouraged to upkeep the last mile since it's a revenue stream with a few high paying representatives of customers (so no tragedy of the commons), but the low barrier to entry for ISPs means that the city won't get too connected to individual ISPs.
And yeah, if you're in barely first world conditions where you're struggling to hook sewer up to your residents near a major municipality, you obviously have systemic issues that get in the way of proper utility work of nearly any scale.
Almost entirely rural. These people aren't digging up roads, but it's purely a right of way issue on the poles (if they're getting real high speed internet either way).
> In vastly more of the country, existing water and sewer infrastructure is crumbling and needs replacement.
Yes, the united states is devolving into a third world country when it comes to infrastructure. My scheme is obviously predicated on not being in one of the municipalities that are actively trying to run the concept of government into the ground.
> Sure, you can pass bonds, but how do you get people to vote for those bonds when you also need to issue bonds for all this other higher priority infrastructure?
So you don't get to have works like this until you have the basics of potable water covered.
Like for real, 10 minutes outside of Annapolis should be able to have sewer covered.
That bit is covered by my first response:
> Almost entirely rural. These people aren't digging up roads, but it's purely a right of way issue on the poles (if they're getting real high speed internet either way).
The part you seem to take issue with is the part where I think I had reduced the subset to people who have an issue getting current infrastructure, probably because it hasn't been maintained properly (thinking of flint like situations). I'm admitting that there are cases where they have bigger utility issues and systemic problems managing those utilities, and probably don't have the bandwidth to deal with a new one.
Totally agree about cities owning last-mile fiber. Though I think more than that would be needed for rural areas where folks might not live in city limits. That’s where fast internet is most needed. I think my folks still only get 3mbps down and much less up living about a half mile away from where the cable company run ends
Across the (small private) road in front of our house, 50 feet away, the neighbor was on city water. To the side of us, across the creek that bordered out property, was a large public High School (which I went to). To the other side of the property was an on-ramp to an elevated freeway. This is an hour north of SF.
That's hardly rural. There are still select properties on well water all around even in cities, it's just not always obvious.
Because the city doesn't want to pay for it.
What needs to happen, IMO, is that the last mile should be utility infrastructure, and ISPs should connect to that
...so, the cities won’t shell out to build conduits, but they’ll happily pay to build out conduits + fiber?
You can see this model in very similar markets, where some countries run the cell network as a national utility. But your actual carriers are a large choice of companies connected to that network that differentiate on service, price, and added on features, rather than the amount of capital available for infrastructure investment.
Additionally, AT&T has not upgraded their lines in these areas, so we're stuck with Comcast or DSL...
One town decided they didn't like this beige box on a main street so they painted over it with a color that fit better. Turns out, that paint was important for cooling it: within a few days gear overheated and hundreds were out of service.
Texas has shared transmission lines and a choice of electrical suppliers. It’s high past time we applied the same model to data.
I was flying a private airplane (am a pilot) and the monthly GIS database updates and PNG map tiles required to fly with an app rather than paper maps go well into the tens of gigs, which is usually quite painful on hotel wifi.
I set the update going on my iPad one night in the hotel before going to bed, took a shower, and was pleasantly surprised after coming out of the bathroom a few minutes later to see that it was done!
Proof that private ownership of infrastructure is bullshit, and utilities (including internet lines) should not be owned by profit-seeking organizations.
The entire state is basically those two islands, and 4 highways to get back and forth from the northeast. The rest is mountains and nothing filled with people fighting over scraps while getting snooty about the, 'dangerous high tax cities.'
Source, grew up in the nothing part of the state. Hit the road for Pittsburgh as soon as I could afford it and never looked back.
I pay about same amount for an unreliable 50Mbps cable internet connection at my home in US, and for 1Gbps Fibre internet connection at my home in Japan.
Last mile infrastructure is always a winner takes all market.
Even if all the barriers to entry are removed, you won't have 20 different providers competing in a single city. Only 1 or 2 providers will survive. This is because operational costs for running your own lines will be constant, but you will always have only a fraction of the customers if you are competing with 20 other providers.
I've commented on this topic in a previous HN thread. But I believe the solution to the problem is a bidding system. Companies bid to build infrastructure. And companies bid to maintain it for short period of time (3 years).
UTOPIA, a consortium of cities in Utah, operates under an open access model. You pay a $30 fee to the city for the line and then choose from 12 different ISPs . A symmetrical 1Gbps plan is around $50, so $80 total. You can even get a 10Gbps plan for $200. If you're having problems with the ISP you're using, you just go online and change it.
Could you explain your point in a bit more detail. I am kinda curious.
It doesn't matter how fair the bidding and/or selection process is, you'll only end up with service in the profitable areas anyways. The bidding winner will most likely in most places be the incumbent, since they have a leg up.
A similar concept is gerrymandering where you manipulate district boundaries to get the desired election results.
And in fact both of these things can be done the same way: by obtaining some bids and giving the task to the best bidder.
Profitability should be automatically part of the bid. It doesn't mean the bidders pay the government, it could be the other way around too.
Except that the gov't picks and pays for the contract (construction), instead of the local residents.
For service and maintenance contract the gov't would subsidize the monthly fees (which are expected to bee higher than a high density city)
Our software is as cheap as 0.1 USD per user per month and has a large list of features and we're provisioning over a million connections all over India from villages to large cities like Mumbai.
Would love to hear from you if you have any feedback or questions.
If a city extends their subway network, they dont demolish all buildings on top, lay the tracks, and then rebuild. They do it without any major interference to the surface. Similarly for mountain tunnels, you dont start by demolishing a mile of rock. We just dig the tunnel.
Couldn't someone invent a robot to dig fibre tunnels? Then we wouldnt need to bother any shop owners or neighbours with noise and inconvenience?
Kreis Minden Lübbecke
A city-led effort to install underground conduit duct banks could be federally funded while also allow new ISPs to come along and lease empty conduit. Thats where I would focus my grass roots efforts.
In Memphis, its rumored to cost some $3B to bury all overhead power lines (estimated by the local public utility), therefore infeasible. I say, excellent, get to work on the easiest 50% of the scoop that over the next decade!
In a world that highlights individuals, and where everyone has been taught their time is more valuable than other people's.
People hate infrastructure. That’s the only explanation.
However it seems to be a much better outcome for all compared to the 'wild-west-shoot-from-the-hip' method where anyone digs anywhere with minimal regulation and oversight.
Not having an infrastructure and building it slowly is better in my opinion than degrading public infrastructure and then having citizen foot the bill to clean up the mess left by some fast and loose startups.
I mention this in this particular context of building and transforming physical installations who affect the general public.
At least that's the feeling I'm getting now. A friend of mine recently moved into a new building, which isn't too far from a fiber central. It's also out in the suburbs, so no extensive infrastructure like you'd find in the middle of a city...well, he requested a quote, and the company said - "hey, it'll cost you around $20k for [short stretch], but we're also offering wireless broadband for only [2-3 times the price of fiber, and 1/5th the speed)"
Speed and ability to get the service varies greatly by distance and LOS to the tower.
Wages are very high, costs of goods are high, but telecom services are inexpensive and very high quality.
In Lugano, I was paying $40 / month for 10 GB symmetric fiber to the home, and another $40 / month for truly unlimited 4G cell service. They gave me a $10 discount for bundling.
Fiber is universally wired to new buildings, and you have your choice of ISPs. There were cheaper options.
Whatever the reason, the US has been unable to figure this out. It’s not the urban nature of Europe. Small villages have the same setup.
Rent seeking delenda est
I don't want 3 different sewage companies ripping up my block to put in 3 different sewage lines. Similarly, I don't want a bunch of different internet providers having to do that.
Once again, this only makes sense in a functional government. Not in a lobbyist hacked representative democracy turned oligarchy.
Especially if you can show up with some like-minded people in the same jurisdiction, and keep after it until the change has actually happened and is too late for the incumbents to undo.
Representation such that someone says: "Hey what about people who are too busy to show up to these meetings? How do we get their input?"
At this point, the lobbyists have very, very, very obviously gotten root. The steps involved with reversing this (without beheadings) are unprecedented afaik.
Our representation was lobbied away, like, 2 decades ago. Now they're just mocking us.
Go vote anyways.
Did anyone vote on that? Just sending innocent civilians to die so some rich fuck could get richer?
How about "Corporations are people"? Was that for the good of the American public?
What about this current administration? Pretty much everyone in power doesn't belong there and does more to serve those who pay them (through lobbying) than the public.
Vote anyways because it's good for PR and slows down the spread of corruption.
If this was a computer system, then they managed to leverage lobbying until they were able to move enough pieces to be able to turn money into real systemic changes, and at this point they've reached the top. They've also reached the bottom in the sense that if this was a pure democracy, they'd still get majority vote through manipulating non-experts.
The government is a system, and you're a "hacker." Honestly, how much further could the wealthy escalate their privileges?
P.S. Go vote anyways.
Sure lobbyists have a lot of influence. That doesn't make the United States an oligarchy.
i'm hoping Elon Musk's Starlink will give us the high speed that we hope for that is not control by monopoly like Comcast and ATT.
The author is correct.
Sure it makes sense for ISPs to use it for infrastructure but the link from their switch to my equipment should be made of copper. It’s so easy to mess those cables up and having a contracted fish around in your walls just so you can have your <1Gig connection back is stupid.
When I first got a connection here it took the guy an extra few hours to deal with exactly this kind of problem.
So, if you have to have a person punch holes and fish around in walls anyway, you might as well get a nice fiber connection out of it, right?
The link from their switch to your equipment should not be made of copper, because copper does not provide electrical isolation between the endpoints and is susceptible to interference.
Fiber does provide electrical isolation between endpoints and is not susceptible to interference.
Fiber also supports significantly higher throughput.