5 ms·

I'd sure be interested in what those efficiency gains could be. The ISP business isn't exactly a gold mine and margins are pretty thin. It's only at (massive) s

I'd sure be interested in what those efficiency gains could be. The ISP business isn't exactly a gold mine and margins are pretty thin. It's only at (massive) scale that things start to look better. I'm sure it'd be much easier if people just moved into their closest DC. That last mile really is such a drag.

CyberDildonics 10y ago
> The ISP business isn't exactly a gold mine and margins are pretty thin. Whoa, who told you that? Lets think about this in simplified terms, if you could run a coax cable to houses around you without caring about it being buried or hidden and start earning $50-$100 a month would you do it? I would be doing nothing else until I collapsed. I would go up and down the street with cable spools of cable putting posts in the ground to split it to people's houses. In one long day you could be earning what you would get from a minimum wage job. In a week you would be middle class. In a month you would live like a lawyer, in two you would live like a doctor, and you would never have to work again to make the same amount of money. Gold mines don't even do this well.
- toomuchtodo 10y ago
  You are entirely wrong. --- Building networks is, to no one's surprise, expensive. Financial analysts last year estimated that Google had to spend $84 million to build a fiber network that passed 149,000 homes in Kansas City, with the cost per home at $500 to $674. That figure did not include additional costs for actually connecting each home that requests service. A national Google Fiber build out passing 15 percent of US homes would cost $11 billion a year for five years, Wall Street analysts have estimated. Montgomery discussed the challenge of finding what some people call "patient capital," or investors who are willing to put money into companies that might take five or 10 years to make a big profit. "Costs are fixed. You're going pay your staff and maintenance people whether you have one customer or 10,000. All your costs are basically going to be the same," he said. "For a fiber network, you need to reach about 30 percent of the local market within a couple of years, or you're going to go out of business." --- "One big reason we lack Internet competition: Starting an ISP is really hard Creating an ISP? You'll need millions of dollars, patience, and lots of lawyers." http://arstechnica.com/business/2014/04/one-big-reason-we-lack-internet-competition-starting-an-isp-is-really-hard/ http://arstechnica.com/business/2014/04/one-big-reason-we-la...
  - Spooky23 10y ago
    "Patient capital" is desperate for moderate returns over time. Ask any pension or endowment investor -- they are screwed now because there is no way for their funds to earn yield. The reason AT&T was able to gobble up the entire country in the 20th century was in part their ability to sell convertible securities that delivered premium returns with low/moderate risk.
    - toomuchtodo 10y ago
      I thought it was the billions of dollars AT&T took from the federal government, as recently as two years ago (although traditional financing played a part): http://www.dslreports.com/shownews/ATT-Takes-Billions-in-FCC-Subsidies-For-Broadband-Expansion-134949 http://www.dslreports.com/shownews/ATT-Takes-Billions-in-FCC...
      - Spooky23 10y ago
        Sorry I was unclear. I'm talking about the old, 20th century AT&T.
- stvswn 10y ago
  24/7 operations team at the NOC. Billing. Collections. Technical support. Physical support. Lawyers. Local easements. Sales and Advertising. Cost of capital. Goes on and on. If you're a cable company who already built all of that, it's marginally very profitable to layer on internet service. If you think that you can go run a coax cable to someone's house and start collecting a monthly check from them, and collect routinely, without a) billing issues, b) collections issues, c) service outages, etc. etc. -- I mean, maybe for 3 neighbors it would work. But not at scale.
  - CyberDildonics 10y ago
    I think you completely misunderstood my point. Btw 'at scale' all the overhead you mentioned decreases. I doubt it costs $70 a month per customer. You see issues constantly, but how big is the customer base? 100k? That's 7 million a month. With bandwidth costs of around $1 per person I'm going to guess there is a lot of room for profit.
Spooky23 10y ago
No way. ISPs that own infrastructure are capital intensive business that print money over long time horizons. Their operating margins are like 97% profit, and depending on the maturity of the network, the costs on debt service are something like 25% to 90% of costs. It's a business that generates consistent long term profit and cash flow.
- amazon_not 10y ago
  The trick is to both come up with the money and survive over long time horizons. Neither is that easy.
njharman 10y ago
In the last 10mi of course. Don't dig cable, don't push tv, have members buy and deploy the mesh network. Also don't pay lobbyists, don't pay for advertising, installers Cust support, CEO salaries, etc. Cable companies make bank btw.
- amazon_not 10y ago
  You ever tried building a wireless mesh network?

CyberDildonics 10y ago

> The ISP business isn't exactly a gold mine and margins are pretty thin. Whoa, who told you that? Lets think about this in simplified terms, if you could run a coax cable to houses around you without caring about it being buried or hidden and start earning $50-$100 a month would you do it? I would be doing nothing else until I collapsed. I would go up and down the street with cable spools of cable putting posts in the ground to split it to people's houses. In one long day you could be earning what you would get from a minimum wage job. In a week you would be middle class. In a month you would live like a lawyer, in two you would live like a doctor, and you would never have to work again to make the same amount of money. Gold mines don't even do this well.

toomuchtodo 10y ago
You are entirely wrong. --- Building networks is, to no one's surprise, expensive. Financial analysts last year estimated that Google had to spend $84 million to build a fiber network that passed 149,000 homes in Kansas City, with the cost per home at $500 to $674. That figure did not include additional costs for actually connecting each home that requests service. A national Google Fiber build out passing 15 percent of US homes would cost $11 billion a year for five years, Wall Street analysts have estimated. Montgomery discussed the challenge of finding what some people call "patient capital," or investors who are willing to put money into companies that might take five or 10 years to make a big profit. "Costs are fixed. You're going pay your staff and maintenance people whether you have one customer or 10,000. All your costs are basically going to be the same," he said. "For a fiber network, you need to reach about 30 percent of the local market within a couple of years, or you're going to go out of business." --- "One big reason we lack Internet competition: Starting an ISP is really hard Creating an ISP? You'll need millions of dollars, patience, and lots of lawyers." http://arstechnica.com/business/2014/04/one-big-reason-we-lack-internet-competition-starting-an-isp-is-really-hard/ http://arstechnica.com/business/2014/04/one-big-reason-we-la...
- Spooky23 10y ago
  "Patient capital" is desperate for moderate returns over time. Ask any pension or endowment investor -- they are screwed now because there is no way for their funds to earn yield. The reason AT&T was able to gobble up the entire country in the 20th century was in part their ability to sell convertible securities that delivered premium returns with low/moderate risk.
  - toomuchtodo 10y ago
    I thought it was the billions of dollars AT&T took from the federal government, as recently as two years ago (although traditional financing played a part): http://www.dslreports.com/shownews/ATT-Takes-Billions-in-FCC-Subsidies-For-Broadband-Expansion-134949 http://www.dslreports.com/shownews/ATT-Takes-Billions-in-FCC...
    - Spooky23 10y ago
      Sorry I was unclear. I'm talking about the old, 20th century AT&T.
stvswn 10y ago
24/7 operations team at the NOC. Billing. Collections. Technical support. Physical support. Lawyers. Local easements. Sales and Advertising. Cost of capital. Goes on and on. If you're a cable company who already built all of that, it's marginally very profitable to layer on internet service. If you think that you can go run a coax cable to someone's house and start collecting a monthly check from them, and collect routinely, without a) billing issues, b) collections issues, c) service outages, etc. etc. -- I mean, maybe for 3 neighbors it would work. But not at scale.
- CyberDildonics 10y ago
  I think you completely misunderstood my point. Btw 'at scale' all the overhead you mentioned decreases. I doubt it costs $70 a month per customer. You see issues constantly, but how big is the customer base? 100k? That's 7 million a month. With bandwidth costs of around $1 per person I'm going to guess there is a lot of room for profit.

Spooky23 10y ago

No way. ISPs that own infrastructure are capital intensive business that print money over long time horizons. Their operating margins are like 97% profit, and depending on the maturity of the network, the costs on debt service are something like 25% to 90% of costs. It's a business that generates consistent long term profit and cash flow.

amazon_not 10y ago
The trick is to both come up with the money and survive over long time horizons. Neither is that easy.

njharman 10y ago

In the last 10mi of course. Don't dig cable, don't push tv, have members buy and deploy the mesh network. Also don't pay lobbyists, don't pay for advertising, installers Cust support, CEO salaries, etc. Cable companies make bank btw.

amazon_not 10y ago
You ever tried building a wireless mesh network?