6 ms·

Could certain cities make laws requiring last mile competition? Somebody in this thread mentioned that this is true in areas of Europe. In the US, maybe the e

Could certain cities make laws requiring last mile competition? Somebody in this thread mentioned that this is true in areas of Europe. In the US, maybe the easiest place to start doing that would be on a smaller scale and in urban areas. What cities are under a stranglehold of ISP monopolies? Do we have any maps of ISP coverage? If we had some data and a map we could pinpoint which areas have high density and low competition.

rayiner 9y ago
Cities don't have any leverage. I used to live in Baltimore (quite dense east coast city). Comcast has a de facto monopoly there. Verizon has fiber in most of Maryland, and all the surrounding suburbs, and wanted to build in Baltimore. Baltimore demanded full coverage of the city, and the numbers didn't work out so Verizon didn't build. Baltimore begged Google to build fiber but Google categorically doesn't agree to build out requirements.[1] What is Baltimore going to do? You can regulate all you want but you can't make companies build. The big dense cities best suited for fiber also tend to be broke, so municipal fiber isn't in the card either. There are no restrictions to municipal fiber here in Maryland--parts of Anne Arundel (heavily rural county around Annapolis) that don't have FiOS are getting municipal fiber. But Baltimore, like most larger US cities, is poorly managed and has no money. [1] Baltimore is in some ways a great candidate for fiber. The 740 miles of conduit under the city is owned by the city itself; utilities and telcos all rent conduit space per linear foot from the city. It's a significant east coast telecom hub. But fully 1/4 of residents are at or below the poverty line. Very few neighborhoods have enough higher income people who could afford to subscribe to $70/month fiber service. Outside of a handful of rich, heavily gentrified places like D.C., NYC, and SF, most of the dense cities (the ones best suited for fiber) in the US are also extremely poor. (That is in stark contrast to London or Paris, where wealthier people tend to live in the city while lower income people live in close suburbs).
- studentrob 9y ago
  > Cities don't have any leverage I don't buy that. Cities have people with voting rights. Average income is higher in the US than in Asia, and coverage in Asia is pretty good. You can regulate to encourage a non-monopolistic system, particularly when businesses like Comcast are gouging to the sole benefit of investors who have already made theirs back. Two other commenters noted that competition is forced by law in the last mile of networks in Europe [0] [1]. Would ISPs really be put in dire straits if they were required to be a bit more competitive? I doubt it. It is very far fetched, particularly under this administration, that such regulation would happen. We can still discuss it now because we see a potential loss of quality in internet content. If that comes to pass, we can refer back to our earlier ideas and have another plan in mind. These days, I think we all see the need for less silos, not more. [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14230705 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14230705 [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14231436 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14231436
  - nickpsecurity 9y ago
    City law doesn't override private property law in most cases. The companies, their assets, their lines, and their plans are all private in that sense. National and state law currently favor the ISP's bribing them. A city might try passing laws and might succeed but it's risking a fight with state and national levels. Those levels that control things like highway funding and where jobs are created with tax revenue. I'd like to see more try just to see what happens. Meanwhile, there are cities whose energy companies are investing in bringing broadband to consumers. It's partly a result of ISP bribes to states to ban tax-funded Internet where some compromised allowing at least energy companies to do it. Most don't care but some do. In Tennessee near me, they did municipal broadband in 8 cities with Chattanooga doing a gigabit at $70/mo and 10Gbps at $300/mo.
    - studentrob 9y ago
      > Meanwhile, there are cities whose energy companies are investing in bringing broadband to consumers. It's partly a result of ISP bribes to states to ban tax-funded Internet where some compromised allowing at least energy companies to do it. Most don't care but some do. In Tennessee near me, they did municipal broadband in 8 cities with Chattanooga doing a gigabit at $70/mo and 10Gbps at $300/mo. That's cool, thanks for sharing. Hope to see more pushback against current ISPs and their monopolistic tendencies. If it needs to be public first -- so be it. I think there's still room to argue the ISPs made use of public infrastructure to lay lines. Anyway, I think we all agree that these monopolies are producing bad businesses and we ought to disrupt them before they do more harm in rolling back net neutrality.
      - nickpsecurity 9y ago
        "If it needs to be public first -- so be it. I think there's still room to argue the ISPs made use of public infrastructure to lay lines. " Oh, they did. They like to act like it's an entirely private thing. What they'll say is it was given willingly for that purpose but doesn't mean that it should happen again. A bullshit argument but one that will prevent legal coercion in states with lawmakers they're paying off.
- webmaven 9y ago
  Cities technically do have leverage: at a minimum, they control the right-of-ways that are being used, and may actually own a dark fiber network (this is how Google was able to cut deals with cities for Google Fiber), and can even create (or threaten to create) a municipal broadband service that competes directly with the ISP(s), especially when the cable and phone companies aren't interested in providing FTTH. Unfortunately, in most states where this has happened, the state legislature has passed laws forbidding (effectively, if not explicitly) local government from competing with the private sector in this way. So far 19 states have passed such laws. Maine is the latest state where such a law has been proposed. This map provides a good entry point to the subject: https://muninetworks.org/communitymap https://muninetworks.org/communitymap Since Maryland doesn't have such laws, and Baltimore owns the conduit and charges rent for it's use, Verizon can be presented with the option of building out FTTH across the city or face rent increases in order to fund the creation of a municipal fiber network (Verizon can also allow the use of their own fiber for this purpose to offset some of those rents).
  - rayiner 9y ago
    > Unfortunately, in most states where this has happened, the state legislature has passed laws forbidding (effectively, if not explicitly) local government from competing with the private sector in this way. So far 19 states have passed such laws. Maine is the latest state where such a law has been proposed. Some municipal broadband laws amount to an effective ban, but the number is a lot less than 19: https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/the-21-laws-states-use-to-crush-broadband-competition https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/the-21-laws-state.... That site lists 21 state laws, but most aren't a really significant restriction. E.g. California has no restrictions on municipalities building networks, but they must sell or lease it to a private company if one shows up willing to maintain and operate it. In Pennsylvania, the municipality has to prepare a broadband plan and take it to the existing ISP, which can agree to build it within one year, or if not the municipality can build itself. Washington State is listed as "restricted" on that list, but the only restriction is that the municipality has to be a "code city" (which is basically any city organized enough to be able to pass its own municipal ordinances). I think we should federally preempt laws that create an effective ban on municipal networks, but the issue is a red herring. The vast majority of the population lives in states without significant restrictions on municipal broadband, including residents of the 10 largest U.S. cities. > Since Maryland doesn't have such laws, and Baltimore owns the conduit and charges rent for it's use, Verizon can be presented with the option of building out FTTH across the city or face rent increases in order to fund the creation of a municipal fiber network I strongly suspect it would be illegal for the city to charge a discriminatory rate to a single entity for a municipal service used by many different kinds of utilities, as leverage in a separate negotiation. Especially considering that Verizon is legally precluded from doing anything but agree to the increased rent--its not allowed to decide not to rent space from the city anymore and discontinue its phone service.
Stranger43 9y ago
Any law regulating last mile could potentially conflict with the telcos property rights and might actually be unconstitutional(despite the fact that to some extend US was founded to get away from the communications monopoly of the British East India company). Europe gets around this by the fact that all of the telcos i descended from a state monopoly and bound by contract to behave like a common carrier and allow 3rd party raw cable access.
- studentrob 9y ago
  Yes I think Americans are still pretty aware of not wanting to fall prey to too many monopolies. I realize a constitutional amendment protecting open internet access is a moon shot, particularly under this admin, but, what else can we do but speak our minds on how this rollback of net neutrality may negatively impact education and communication in the future? We still have our vote, and we can try to make this an issue over time, perhaps many many more years.

rayiner 9y ago

Cities don't have any leverage. I used to live in Baltimore (quite dense east coast city). Comcast has a de facto monopoly there. Verizon has fiber in most of Maryland, and all the surrounding suburbs, and wanted to build in Baltimore. Baltimore demanded full coverage of the city, and the numbers didn't work out so Verizon didn't build. Baltimore begged Google to build fiber but Google categorically doesn't agree to build out requirements.[1] What is Baltimore going to do? You can regulate all you want but you can't make companies build. The big dense cities best suited for fiber also tend to be broke, so municipal fiber isn't in the card either. There are no restrictions to municipal fiber here in Maryland--parts of Anne Arundel (heavily rural county around Annapolis) that don't have FiOS are getting municipal fiber. But Baltimore, like most larger US cities, is poorly managed and has no money. [1] Baltimore is in some ways a great candidate for fiber. The 740 miles of conduit under the city is owned by the city itself; utilities and telcos all rent conduit space per linear foot from the city. It's a significant east coast telecom hub. But fully 1/4 of residents are at or below the poverty line. Very few neighborhoods have enough higher income people who could afford to subscribe to $70/month fiber service. Outside of a handful of rich, heavily gentrified places like D.C., NYC, and SF, most of the dense cities (the ones best suited for fiber) in the US are also extremely poor. (That is in stark contrast to London or Paris, where wealthier people tend to live in the city while lower income people live in close suburbs).

studentrob 9y ago
> Cities don't have any leverage I don't buy that. Cities have people with voting rights. Average income is higher in the US than in Asia, and coverage in Asia is pretty good. You can regulate to encourage a non-monopolistic system, particularly when businesses like Comcast are gouging to the sole benefit of investors who have already made theirs back. Two other commenters noted that competition is forced by law in the last mile of networks in Europe [0] [1]. Would ISPs really be put in dire straits if they were required to be a bit more competitive? I doubt it. It is very far fetched, particularly under this administration, that such regulation would happen. We can still discuss it now because we see a potential loss of quality in internet content. If that comes to pass, we can refer back to our earlier ideas and have another plan in mind. These days, I think we all see the need for less silos, not more. [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14230705 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14230705 [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14231436 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14231436
- nickpsecurity 9y ago
  City law doesn't override private property law in most cases. The companies, their assets, their lines, and their plans are all private in that sense. National and state law currently favor the ISP's bribing them. A city might try passing laws and might succeed but it's risking a fight with state and national levels. Those levels that control things like highway funding and where jobs are created with tax revenue. I'd like to see more try just to see what happens. Meanwhile, there are cities whose energy companies are investing in bringing broadband to consumers. It's partly a result of ISP bribes to states to ban tax-funded Internet where some compromised allowing at least energy companies to do it. Most don't care but some do. In Tennessee near me, they did municipal broadband in 8 cities with Chattanooga doing a gigabit at $70/mo and 10Gbps at $300/mo.
  - studentrob 9y ago
    > Meanwhile, there are cities whose energy companies are investing in bringing broadband to consumers. It's partly a result of ISP bribes to states to ban tax-funded Internet where some compromised allowing at least energy companies to do it. Most don't care but some do. In Tennessee near me, they did municipal broadband in 8 cities with Chattanooga doing a gigabit at $70/mo and 10Gbps at $300/mo. That's cool, thanks for sharing. Hope to see more pushback against current ISPs and their monopolistic tendencies. If it needs to be public first -- so be it. I think there's still room to argue the ISPs made use of public infrastructure to lay lines. Anyway, I think we all agree that these monopolies are producing bad businesses and we ought to disrupt them before they do more harm in rolling back net neutrality.
    - nickpsecurity 9y ago
      "If it needs to be public first -- so be it. I think there's still room to argue the ISPs made use of public infrastructure to lay lines. " Oh, they did. They like to act like it's an entirely private thing. What they'll say is it was given willingly for that purpose but doesn't mean that it should happen again. A bullshit argument but one that will prevent legal coercion in states with lawmakers they're paying off.
webmaven 9y ago
Cities technically do have leverage: at a minimum, they control the right-of-ways that are being used, and may actually own a dark fiber network (this is how Google was able to cut deals with cities for Google Fiber), and can even create (or threaten to create) a municipal broadband service that competes directly with the ISP(s), especially when the cable and phone companies aren't interested in providing FTTH. Unfortunately, in most states where this has happened, the state legislature has passed laws forbidding (effectively, if not explicitly) local government from competing with the private sector in this way. So far 19 states have passed such laws. Maine is the latest state where such a law has been proposed. This map provides a good entry point to the subject: https://muninetworks.org/communitymap https://muninetworks.org/communitymap Since Maryland doesn't have such laws, and Baltimore owns the conduit and charges rent for it's use, Verizon can be presented with the option of building out FTTH across the city or face rent increases in order to fund the creation of a municipal fiber network (Verizon can also allow the use of their own fiber for this purpose to offset some of those rents).
- rayiner 9y ago
  > Unfortunately, in most states where this has happened, the state legislature has passed laws forbidding (effectively, if not explicitly) local government from competing with the private sector in this way. So far 19 states have passed such laws. Maine is the latest state where such a law has been proposed. Some municipal broadband laws amount to an effective ban, but the number is a lot less than 19: https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/the-21-laws-states-use-to-crush-broadband-competition https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/the-21-laws-state.... That site lists 21 state laws, but most aren't a really significant restriction. E.g. California has no restrictions on municipalities building networks, but they must sell or lease it to a private company if one shows up willing to maintain and operate it. In Pennsylvania, the municipality has to prepare a broadband plan and take it to the existing ISP, which can agree to build it within one year, or if not the municipality can build itself. Washington State is listed as "restricted" on that list, but the only restriction is that the municipality has to be a "code city" (which is basically any city organized enough to be able to pass its own municipal ordinances). I think we should federally preempt laws that create an effective ban on municipal networks, but the issue is a red herring. The vast majority of the population lives in states without significant restrictions on municipal broadband, including residents of the 10 largest U.S. cities. > Since Maryland doesn't have such laws, and Baltimore owns the conduit and charges rent for it's use, Verizon can be presented with the option of building out FTTH across the city or face rent increases in order to fund the creation of a municipal fiber network I strongly suspect it would be illegal for the city to charge a discriminatory rate to a single entity for a municipal service used by many different kinds of utilities, as leverage in a separate negotiation. Especially considering that Verizon is legally precluded from doing anything but agree to the increased rent--its not allowed to decide not to rent space from the city anymore and discontinue its phone service.

Stranger43 9y ago

Any law regulating last mile could potentially conflict with the telcos property rights and might actually be unconstitutional(despite the fact that to some extend US was founded to get away from the communications monopoly of the British East India company). Europe gets around this by the fact that all of the telcos i descended from a state monopoly and bound by contract to behave like a common carrier and allow 3rd party raw cable access.

studentrob 9y ago
Yes I think Americans are still pretty aware of not wanting to fall prey to too many monopolies. I realize a constitutional amendment protecting open internet access is a moon shot, particularly under this admin, but, what else can we do but speak our minds on how this rollback of net neutrality may negatively impact education and communication in the future? We still have our vote, and we can try to make this an issue over time, perhaps many many more years.