4 ms·

I have webpass with 1gb for 550 a year. I've had it for 7 years or so. The bummer is- it's actually cheaper than Google charges in other cities- hopefully the

• spikels 10y ago
  Webpass does not serve houses or smaller and/or older apartment buildings. This substantially lowers their install costs per customer relative to business models, like Fiber, that serve almost everyone n an area.
  • rayiner 10y ago
    It's a brilliant business model: expand slowly based on demand only to dwelling units dense enough to be economically viable.
    • techsupporter 10y ago
      It definitely is and a bunch of small companies are doing an amazing job of it (Seattle has three such companies, for example). It is also one big reason why I really want municipal fiber. There are a lot more "houses or smaller and/or older apartment buildings" than there are new condo or high-end apartment buildings. It would be nice to have some competition in those dwellings alongside the cable company, usually with caps, and (maybe) the telephone company, usually DSL with very slow speeds.
      • rayiner 10y ago
        Municipal fiber wouldn't be "competition" in any meaningful sense of the term. The Chatanooga rollout cost about $5,000 per subscriber and was heavily supported by cross-subsidies from electricity ratepayers. I'd support municipal fiber as a complete government monopoly in places that have shown themselves capable of operating public infrastructure (e.g. NYC). But billing it as "competition" is disingenuous. You can't meaningfully "compete" with an entity that gets non-market revenue.
        • tssva 10y ago
          I have Verizon FiOS. Installation of it was subsidized by targeted tax breaks, use of government owned right of ways, and laws which substantially limited their liability for property damaged done during installation. I'm also pretty sure Verizon used funds gained from their other services to pay for the installation.
          • rayiner 10y ago
            In most places FiOS deployment involves huge taxes, such as franchise fees and forced build-out into neighborhoods that will be unprofitable. (Tax breaks, to the extent they exist, are often carrots for the latter). Also, in many (most?) places Verizon pays the utility pole or conduit owner (usually the power company) for access to those rights of way. In Virginia, for example, you'll get a line-item on your bill for the right-of-way fee.
            • warfangle 10y ago
              In most places telephone deployment involved huge taxes and forced build-out into counties that would be unprofitable. Also, the telephone company paid non-discriminatory fees to the pole/conduit owner. This was often paid for / subsidized by the Universal Service Fund, because telephone service was seen as something absolutely necessary for modern life. Back in 1934. ISPs, unfortunately, are not able to be subsidized by the Universal Service Fund. AFAIK.
              • rayiner 10y ago
                Note that the Universal Service Fund is funded by a tax on telecommunications service. So a big company like Bell Atlantic (Verizon's predecessor) never received a net subsidy--the government just forced it to take money from some of its subscribers to offer below-cost service to other subscribers. That said, the USF is a big step up from the "forced build-out" into unprofitable areas, which is what used to happen with telephone, and still happens with broadband. It highly distorts the market. E.g. if build-out requirements were imposed on Webpass, it'd basically ban their business model.
      • OrwellianChild 10y ago
        Fellow Seattleite - who is doing this here? I have a personal interest... :-)