3 ms·

San Francisco Passes Ordinance to Protect ISP Competition

5 points by DiabloD3 10y ago

bsimpson 10y ago
I wonder if this is specifically to address MonkeyBrains hanging antennas on building roofs. Are there any other local ISPs that would need building permission for subscription?
- wahern 10y ago
  Sonic's fiber service. They've done in two years what Comcast, AT&T, and others refused to do for over a decade. Their footprint in the city is huge, now. My Sonic fiber install should happen before the year is out. I can't wait to drop Comcast. I'll have 1GB/s fiber and still pay $20 less per month ($69 vs $49). I always wanted to try MonkeyBrains but they still don't cover the Outer Richmond. And with Sonic fiber out here now they probably never will.
wahern 10y ago
I wouldn't pat the city on the back. They've allowed NIMBYs and parochial interests within the public utilities departments to block fiber roll-out for years. Sonic has been rolling out their fiber service for almost 2 years now, but only after spending years in the regulatory gauntlet. And because San Francisco refuses to permit micro-trenching, Sonic can only profitably deliver fiber service where they can string fiber on utility polls. Folks closer to downtown with underground utilities will be stuck with Comcast for quite some time. AT&T wants to roll-out fiber-to-the-node (FTTN), but that currently requires large ground-level cabinets that NIMBYs are fighting tooth-and-nail, block-by-block. And in any event AT&T will surely still charge a huge premium, not only just to cover the cost of the expensive new infrastructure, but just because they're AT&T. This is classic San Francisco politics to pretend to do something by placing another mandate on landlords. I mean, the mandate makes perfect sense, don't get me wrong, and is hardly a burden. But in the context of San Francisco politics, being seen as sticking it to landlords will give the city enough capital to continue ignoring the fundamental problems. The notion there's some kind of pervasive problem with landlords hindering ISP choice is ridiculous. Large buildings often enter exclusive contracts with Comcast and AT&T, but the vast majority of apartments in the city are in smaller buildings run by small-time landlords. Often you wouldn't even bother informing the landlord; you'd simply give the technician access to the utility room yourself. The landlord would probably be more bothered by wasting his time trying to coordinate with him. As long as you don't break anything, why would he care? It only improves the value of his property. Because of rent control, most landlords are supremely passive and often have full-time jobs doing something else.

5 points by DiabloD3 10y ago

I wonder if this is specifically to address MonkeyBrains hanging antennas on building roofs. Are there any other local ISPs that would need building permission for subscription?

wahern 10y ago
Sonic's fiber service. They've done in two years what Comcast, AT&T, and others refused to do for over a decade. Their footprint in the city is huge, now. My Sonic fiber install should happen before the year is out. I can't wait to drop Comcast. I'll have 1GB/s fiber and still pay $20 less per month ($69 vs $49). I always wanted to try MonkeyBrains but they still don't cover the Outer Richmond. And with Sonic fiber out here now they probably never will.

wahern 10y ago

I wouldn't pat the city on the back. They've allowed NIMBYs and parochial interests within the public utilities departments to block fiber roll-out for years. Sonic has been rolling out their fiber service for almost 2 years now, but only after spending years in the regulatory gauntlet. And because San Francisco refuses to permit micro-trenching, Sonic can only profitably deliver fiber service where they can string fiber on utility polls. Folks closer to downtown with underground utilities will be stuck with Comcast for quite some time. AT&T wants to roll-out fiber-to-the-node (FTTN), but that currently requires large ground-level cabinets that NIMBYs are fighting tooth-and-nail, block-by-block. And in any event AT&T will surely still charge a huge premium, not only just to cover the cost of the expensive new infrastructure, but just because they're AT&T. This is classic San Francisco politics to pretend to do something by placing another mandate on landlords. I mean, the mandate makes perfect sense, don't get me wrong, and is hardly a burden. But in the context of San Francisco politics, being seen as sticking it to landlords will give the city enough capital to continue ignoring the fundamental problems. The notion there's some kind of pervasive problem with landlords hindering ISP choice is ridiculous. Large buildings often enter exclusive contracts with Comcast and AT&T, but the vast majority of apartments in the city are in smaller buildings run by small-time landlords. Often you wouldn't even bother informing the landlord; you'd simply give the technician access to the utility room yourself. The landlord would probably be more bothered by wasting his time trying to coordinate with him. As long as you don't break anything, why would he care? It only improves the value of his property. Because of rent control, most landlords are supremely passive and often have full-time jobs doing something else.