11 ms·

> As a private citizen, can I (snip) just lay a super long fiber cable straight to (the internet). Yes. I worked on a startup ISP for a few years, which attemp

> As a private citizen, can I (snip) just lay a super long fiber cable straight to (the internet). Yes. I worked on a startup ISP for a few years, which attempted to do this. It's actually really easy to do : 1) Pick a point where you can get connection to the internet. (Backhaul). This is usually a phone companies central office, but it can also be at a data centre or other point of presence. 2) Run fiber cable from there to your customers. (You can also use wireless gear instead for a WISP. I don't like this approach, it's very 1990s despite all the newer better gear, but it's much cheaper than fiber and if your careful it can work out OK) 3) Setup some light network management. Some cities / municipalities have signed agreements for monopoly rights to a telephone or cable provider. Many (but not all) of them can be worked around by simply not selling telephone or TV service. The land between you and your customers is owned. You'll need space in public property (or 'right of way') to connect to them. This also varies based on city/county/state/local laws, but in Michigan there are somewhat decent rules around this. (Set rates for underground conduit access or utility pole access, rules about what can/can't be blocked, etc). The only real roadblock is money. Fiber ISPs are super cheap at scale, but are effectively impossible to bootstrap unless you are already a millionaire. In Michigan, I could easily offer everyone residential 500mbps to the home via fiber for $50/month and cover all costs, no problem. But only after we already had a few thousand customers. The cost for your very first customer is somewhere north of $50k/each, and prices don't become reasonable until your in the thousands. In most areas, the only thing you really need to start an ISP is (1) Lots of money, and (2) perseverance. There's not really any rules that prevent it, and the regulations aren't unreasonable. But the upfront cost is so high, it rules out basically any honest person from having the chance to do it.

DigitalJack 9y ago
I wonder if this would be feasible at the neighborhood level via Home owners association. The neighborhood gets a tower and microwave link to a backhaul station, and provides internet via wifi or wires to the neighborhood. I think our neighboorhood is about 130 houses. probably not enough to make it cost effective. On the flip side, maybe starting a local company to provide LOS microwave hookups to the various neighborhoods in the area could make it work.
- maxsilver 9y ago
  If you can somehow convince your HOA to let you put up a tower, then yes, it's feasible. And if you are doing microwave link only, it's pretty cheap. You can rent space on a nearby cell tower for a pricy-but-not-insane monthly fee, and they'll usually have decent backhaul already present. (American Tower had a WISP sales program specifically for this at one point, I'm not sure if they still do). Run point-to-point from there to your neighborhood via some microwave WISP gear. If you had a volunteer from the HOA willing to setup and manage it (a bigger ask than it sounds like), and if all 130 houses would agree to pay $50/month, then the math would work out OK (at least, using pricing I got in suburban Michigan about 4 years ago).
  - CodeWriter23 9y ago
    I think you have a flawed assumption that the big telcos that own the tower and backhaul aren't going to charge content providers for access to that tower.
    - maxsilver 9y ago
      > you have a flawed assumption that the big telcos that own the tower and backhaul Most cell towers are owned by a third party (not a big telco), and they'll lease to anyone if you have the cash, and the site has the capacity (physical space, weight/wind requirements, etc). You can lease from American Tower, Crown Castle, SBA, etc. The existing backhaul is often owned by existing monopoly telecom providers. But not always. And competitive non-big-telco commercial operators will often install service to a site for you, if you are willing to pay for it. For example, I'm looking at a cell site in Michigan right now, that's deep in AT&T territory, but Sprint fiber is actually the installed backhaul provider, and four other commercial providers will install service there for a price. You can know all of this upfront, before you sign anything, so there's very little risk in terms of tower space or backhaul availability. People have been doing this for decades now, it's not as ill-defined as it might seem.
      - CodeWriter23 9y ago
mbil 9y ago
Based only on this description it sounds like a Kickstarter-esque model might work. E.g. get tens to hundreds of dollars from thousands of would-be customers, then start building once the funding goal is reached. Contributors would get X GBs or Y months of service once the utility is operational.
okreallywtf 9y ago
I'm having trouble finding it now, but didn't the FCC overturn the rule that says ISP's have to sell bandwidth to other ISP's? If they do not, or they are able to make it to where they do not have to, they could pretty easily prevent people from doing this or charge some huge amount for a contract to connect directly to a backbone.
- maxsilver 9y ago
  Yes absolutely, but it's not really a problem on the commercial market because there's enough competition there. In my small city in Michigan, for example, there's exactly one phone company and one cable company for residential uses. But there are 4 different local companies selling commercial bandwidth backhaul, in addition to nationwide major providers like Level3 and AT&T. If you're somewhere truly rural, this can be an issue, the local monopoly might not let you buy commercial (re-sellable) bandwidth. But in most cities -- even small ones, it's probably not a major issue. At the moment, commercial ISP services are still somewhat competitive. It's the residential ones that are completely monopolized.
  - dsnuh 9y ago
    Please don't be offended, I am only pointing this out because you are obvious very intelligent and expert in the field. >If your somewhere *you're I only point it out because I know some people discount comments that have grammar and spelling errors. Thanks for the super informative posts! Edit: I guess I offended, based on the downvotes. I only pointed it out since it was used incorrectly in the posts. I was trying to be helpful, apologies if I was being a dick.
    - davrosthedalek 9y ago
      As a non-native speaker, I appreciate if somebody corrects me like this, even if they hurt a little bit. I think you wrote it in a very nice manner.
      - dsnuh 9y ago
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
onezerozeroone 9y ago
Crowdsourceable? If you need a couple thousand users, would it be possible to run a marketing campaign, get pre-purchase commitments of $100-200, and give some rewards to early adopters? If you raise enough funding, you're good, if not, just cancel the campaign.
- dhimes 9y ago
  I was thinking a co-op but, yeah this.
- danesparza 9y ago
  This article might give you some inspiration: https://www.pri.org/stories/2016-08-09/tired-waiting-high-speed-internet-farm-towns-build-their-own https://www.pri.org/stories/2016-08-09/tired-waiting-high-sp...
  - tobych 9y ago
    Sweet. That's from Yes! Magazine, headquartered just up the road from me here on Bainbridge Island, WA.
- burkemw3 9y ago
  Google Fiber did some variety of this: > Google Fiber works better when communities are connected together. So we’ve divided Kansas City into small communities we call “fiberhoods.” We’ll install only where there’s enough interest, and we’ll install sooner in fiberhoods where there’s more interest. https://fiber.googleblog.com/2012/07/how-to-get-google-fiber.html https://fiber.googleblog.com/2012/07/how-to-get-google-fiber...
  - notyourday 9y ago
    Google fiber was a flop as those of us who played in the ISP land knew it was going to be. Being an ISP is running an sewage treatment network. It is not sexy.
    - 9y ago
bhntr3 9y ago
About the wireless approach, Monkeybrains (https://www.monkeybrains.net/residential.php https://www.monkeybrains.net/residential.php) in SF seems to do this. I believe I read somewhere that they're planning on replacing the wireless stuff with fiber for areas where they have high customer density. They're awesome, the service is good (except when it rains. Thanks california), it's cheap ($35) and I've been pretty happy with it. I wonder if that could work to bootstap an isp. Obviously the wireless thing won't work in less dense areas and is subject to weather but maybe a successful business in the city could provide enough capital to expand to the suburbs.
equalunique 9y ago
"Some cities / municipalities have signed agreements for monopoly rights to a telephone or cable provider. Many (but not all) of them can be worked around by simply not selling telephone or TV service." Isn't it ironic that the only way for a startup ISP to get around the local monopoly agreement is to not provide services which are regulated by the FCC? Yet somehow, Google, Amazon, and Facebook have convinced most young people that FCC regulation of ISPs is a good idea. The sad part is, the only thing between a mass of young voters and 1984-style internet is just 3 more years of Trump/Pai, who most of them hate. Hopefully the FTC's renewed authority over "information service" can be demonstrated for the virtue it is before it's too late.
- rayiner 9y ago
  These are not "monopoly agreements" (which are illegal). If you actually read them, you'll see each one says it's "non-exclusive." E.g. http://charmtv.tv/sites/all/themes/charmtv/pdf/comcast-franchise-agreement-and-renewal.pdf http://charmtv.tv/sites/all/themes/charmtv/pdf/comcast-franc.... What not offering telephone or television service gets you is avoiding the need to negotiate with the city for a television franchise. These agreements are usually stuffed with grab-bags for the municipal government (e.g. per-user fee, 5% of revenue off the top, offer XYZ public-access channels, build out to XYZ neighborhoods). All of this is imposed by the local government, not the FCC. If you just want to run an ISP, build out where you think you can make a profit, and don't want the city to skim off the top, you can avoid that by not offering television or phone service. On the other hand, not offering television makes it hard to compete. People really do care about television service. I lived in an apartment building in Baltimore that had both cable and FiOS. FiOS was internet-only, because Verizon couldn't get a television franchise in the city. I found out I was the first one on my floor (of dozens of apartments) that had subscribed to fiber since the building was built 4-5 years before. All because people really love their television bundles. (There is a reason Google Fiber offered television service.)
  - equalunique 9y ago
    Cool. Thanks for the clarification & details. Do you think the "monopoly" concept may still apply when looked at through the Net Neutrality argument that ISPs may throttle/block services which compete with their own (possibly franchised) services? I too live in the DMV area and am on the lookout for an apartment with decent internet.
snowpanda 9y ago
Thank you maxsilver, this is one of the most informative posts I've seen on HackerNews. Question, you said: This is usually a phone companies central office Are there risks involved with that? Like for example, they could start playing games with you by saying 'sorry we're doing construction for a week, you can't access your office' ? Maybe a bad example, but I mean, would it make more sense to do it outside of their office?
- maxsilver 9y ago
  > Are there risks involved with that? Like for example, they could start playing games with you by saying 'sorry we're doing construction for a week, you can't access your office' ? Probably? I've never written up a plan using an actual monopoly telco's CO, exactly for this reason. It's easier to find anywhere else to start from, and usually cheaper too. I only mention it because my experience is mostly suburban / small city related, and I know the majority of small ISP / WISP guys are hyper-rural. They may not have any other options available to them.
  - snowpanda 9y ago
    Got it! Thank you.
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
pnash 9y ago
You've covered the "last mile", but there is the upstream world to take into consideration. 1) Connecting into a CO is one thing, but your fiber is going to need to connect into something. Who is paying for your optics, is there a port or line card that can accept those optics? Does the CO actually have enough bandwidth upstream? This is a real issue. Back in the 90s, I helped set up an ISP in Boston proper and our main competition had well over a 1000 customers attached to a single T1 (1.5mb/s) link. Everyone wanted 28.8k speeds (lol), but would normally get ~300 to 2400bps. The competition had a bunch of modems with a single upstream link. No one wanted what we were selling - guaranteed bandwidth / true 28.8 bandwidth all the time. People wanted $19.99/unlimited all you can eat. People still want that today. Back to the CO, maybe you are lucky and they have some open ports. Worst case scenario, they want you to plop down a router and you'll do 10gb/e between. You can go with a homemade box and hope that it is stable, or you can buy expensive network gear. 2) To your customers, that "CO" is the "internet", but to that vendor/telco, it is just a single point of presence (POP). That CO has to connect to other POPs that are owned by them, and that costs real money. Eventually through a unknown number of hops, your traffic will hit an exchange point or carrier hotel. This is where your traffic exits their network and is taken up by another provider and/or company (google has their own fiber plan, for example). The amount of bandwidth at these peering/access points is finite and providers choose to peer with each other, usually at no charge, if there is an equitable distribution of traffic. The last thing that you want is for one company to take up all of the (finite) bandwidth at a peering point. An ISP connects to multiple carriers (l3, cogent, comcast, att,verizon, etc) so that your customers have quick access to the websites/services that they want to visit - which most likely have to traverse one of those other providers. Similarly, their customers will want to access services that you are hosting, so you will take in a similar amount of ingress traffic. With the fiber network that you are connecting your customers to, they'll most likely want to access bandwidth intensive services. You better hope that your CO has upstream capacity and a fast path to netflix/hulu/facebook/google/akamai/etc. Or you, as a internet service provider, try and peer directly with the content providers if they allow it. If there are only 2-3 hops between you and Netflix, your users will love you. If they have to bounce around the country a couple of times, your customers will go back to Comcast (because they have a well connected backbone). 3) This doesn't even cover where you are going to get your IP addresses, if your upstream provider will announce them in BGP for you, etc. Or maybe you connect in to two carriers, get an ASN and announce your networks yourself. You are still at the mercy of your upstream providers. I think a lot of these details are often overlooked when someone talks about network neutrality. I think network neutrality is a glib term for a number of issues: - filtering of traffic and/or inability to access a service - loss of freedom to host stuff "for free" on the internet - lack of competition in "the last mile". The FCC/TitleII stuff, from what I've heard, negatively impacted small WISPs that were trying to start up, by assuming that they were the same size as major wireless providers. A $20k fine because your lawyer failed to properly submit paperwork can wipe you out if you are a simple provider that is trying to provide access to a small community. You aren't AT&T, but title II will assume that you are - and penalize you accordingly. For more information, read some of these filings/papers: https://ecfsapi.fcc.gov/file/10717113433056/FCC-17-108%20Restoring%20Internet%20Freedom%20ICG%20comments.pdf https://ecfsapi.fcc.gov/file/10717113433056/FCC-17-108%20Res... and in particular: http://www.interisle.net/sub/FCC-14-28%20NN%20Interisle%20Comment.pdf http://www.interisle.net/sub/FCC-14-28%20NN%20Interisle%20Co... -Paul
topspin 9y ago
"In Michigan" People in Michigan are getting fed up with this situation. Lyndon Township passed a 20 year millage to fund a municipal fiber network. The vote passed 2-1 with almost 50% turnout in a non-general election year. The tax will cost every $200K household about $300/year; $6000 total. That's on top of the monthly fees they intend to pay for the service. People want good fixed broadband Internet. They are willing to pay for it. The telcos and cable operators don't care; they're happy with the customer base they have and their horizon is measured in quarters, not decades, so they're entirely uninterested in the effort and investment needed to build out such systems. They want the low hanging low effort fruit. This NN outcome won't change any of that; whatever ambition these companies have is now focused on the windfalls they'll make from the peering agreements they're going to negotiate with Netflix et al. and none of that money will find its way to build outs. http://www.mbcoop.org/lyndon-township/ http://www.mbcoop.org/lyndon-township/
just1nn 9y ago
I have this right now. First in a small mountain town, and now in Longmont, CO, USA. $49.99/mo for 1Gb/1Gb no caps, no extra charges.
- stilldavid 9y ago
  Me too :) I think it was easier for Longmont as it's part of "Longmont Power and Communications" - they were able to run a lot of fiber in existing infrastructure, and right of way was essentially a non-issue.
  - jrnichols 9y ago
    power companies seem to be in the best position to offer awesome internet. a local provider here has 1000/1000 for $99/mo. but unfortunately they haven't laid fiber in all of the neighborhoods, especially the older ones. so it's only the newer subdivisions that are getting it. :/ i'd be all over it. one less bill to worry about too. (just bundle internet + power)
qxi 9y ago
> In Michigan, I could easily offer everyone residential 500mbps to the home via fiber for $50/month and cover all costs, no problem. But only after we already had a few thousand customers. The cost for your very first customer is somewhere north of $50k/each, and prices don't become reasonable until your in the thousands. Sounds like you could benefit from and ICO to gauge interest and raise the capital necessary for infrastructure development ;)
collinmanderson 9y ago
> Pick a point where you can get connection to the internet. (Backhaul). This is usually a phone companies central office, but it can also be at a data centre or other point of presence. You could try searching for your city on peeringdb to find good places to get the internet connection from. https://www.peeringdb.com/advanced_search https://www.peeringdb.com/advanced_search
unclebucknasty 9y ago
>The cost for your very first customer is somewhere north of $50k/each, and prices don't become reasonable until your in the thousands. Sounds ripe for a crowdfunded startup.
glass_of_water 9y ago
What's the breakdown of the $50k/month/customer at the very beginning? Is most of the cost the equipment or leasing the backhaul connection?
mulletbum 9y ago
Acenteck has been doing this in Michigan for the past few years in the Grand Rapids area. They keep pulling lines to new rural neighborhoods coming in. Basically get everyone on the block in one shot because Comcast/Charter have such a bad name.

DigitalJack 9y ago

I wonder if this would be feasible at the neighborhood level via Home owners association. The neighborhood gets a tower and microwave link to a backhaul station, and provides internet via wifi or wires to the neighborhood. I think our neighboorhood is about 130 houses. probably not enough to make it cost effective. On the flip side, maybe starting a local company to provide LOS microwave hookups to the various neighborhoods in the area could make it work.

maxsilver 9y ago
If you can somehow convince your HOA to let you put up a tower, then yes, it's feasible. And if you are doing microwave link only, it's pretty cheap. You can rent space on a nearby cell tower for a pricy-but-not-insane monthly fee, and they'll usually have decent backhaul already present. (American Tower had a WISP sales program specifically for this at one point, I'm not sure if they still do). Run point-to-point from there to your neighborhood via some microwave WISP gear. If you had a volunteer from the HOA willing to setup and manage it (a bigger ask than it sounds like), and if all 130 houses would agree to pay $50/month, then the math would work out OK (at least, using pricing I got in suburban Michigan about 4 years ago).
- CodeWriter23 9y ago
  I think you have a flawed assumption that the big telcos that own the tower and backhaul aren't going to charge content providers for access to that tower.
  - maxsilver 9y ago
    > you have a flawed assumption that the big telcos that own the tower and backhaul Most cell towers are owned by a third party (not a big telco), and they'll lease to anyone if you have the cash, and the site has the capacity (physical space, weight/wind requirements, etc). You can lease from American Tower, Crown Castle, SBA, etc. The existing backhaul is often owned by existing monopoly telecom providers. But not always. And competitive non-big-telco commercial operators will often install service to a site for you, if you are willing to pay for it. For example, I'm looking at a cell site in Michigan right now, that's deep in AT&T territory, but Sprint fiber is actually the installed backhaul provider, and four other commercial providers will install service there for a price. You can know all of this upfront, before you sign anything, so there's very little risk in terms of tower space or backhaul availability. People have been doing this for decades now, it's not as ill-defined as it might seem.
    - CodeWriter23 9y ago

mbil 9y ago

Based only on this description it sounds like a Kickstarter-esque model might work. E.g. get tens to hundreds of dollars from thousands of would-be customers, then start building once the funding goal is reached. Contributors would get X GBs or Y months of service once the utility is operational.

okreallywtf 9y ago

I'm having trouble finding it now, but didn't the FCC overturn the rule that says ISP's have to sell bandwidth to other ISP's? If they do not, or they are able to make it to where they do not have to, they could pretty easily prevent people from doing this or charge some huge amount for a contract to connect directly to a backbone.

maxsilver 9y ago
Yes absolutely, but it's not really a problem on the commercial market because there's enough competition there. In my small city in Michigan, for example, there's exactly one phone company and one cable company for residential uses. But there are 4 different local companies selling commercial bandwidth backhaul, in addition to nationwide major providers like Level3 and AT&T. If you're somewhere truly rural, this can be an issue, the local monopoly might not let you buy commercial (re-sellable) bandwidth. But in most cities -- even small ones, it's probably not a major issue. At the moment, commercial ISP services are still somewhat competitive. It's the residential ones that are completely monopolized.
- dsnuh 9y ago
  Please don't be offended, I am only pointing this out because you are obvious very intelligent and expert in the field. >If your somewhere *you're I only point it out because I know some people discount comments that have grammar and spelling errors. Thanks for the super informative posts! Edit: I guess I offended, based on the downvotes. I only pointed it out since it was used incorrectly in the posts. I was trying to be helpful, apologies if I was being a dick.
  - davrosthedalek 9y ago
    As a non-native speaker, I appreciate if somebody corrects me like this, even if they hurt a little bit. I think you wrote it in a very nice manner.
    - dsnuh 9y ago

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]

onezerozeroone 9y ago

Crowdsourceable? If you need a couple thousand users, would it be possible to run a marketing campaign, get pre-purchase commitments of $100-200, and give some rewards to early adopters? If you raise enough funding, you're good, if not, just cancel the campaign.

dhimes 9y ago
I was thinking a co-op but, yeah this.
danesparza 9y ago
This article might give you some inspiration: https://www.pri.org/stories/2016-08-09/tired-waiting-high-speed-internet-farm-towns-build-their-own https://www.pri.org/stories/2016-08-09/tired-waiting-high-sp...
- tobych 9y ago
  Sweet. That's from Yes! Magazine, headquartered just up the road from me here on Bainbridge Island, WA.
burkemw3 9y ago
Google Fiber did some variety of this: > Google Fiber works better when communities are connected together. So we’ve divided Kansas City into small communities we call “fiberhoods.” We’ll install only where there’s enough interest, and we’ll install sooner in fiberhoods where there’s more interest. https://fiber.googleblog.com/2012/07/how-to-get-google-fiber.html https://fiber.googleblog.com/2012/07/how-to-get-google-fiber...
- notyourday 9y ago
  Google fiber was a flop as those of us who played in the ISP land knew it was going to be. Being an ISP is running an sewage treatment network. It is not sexy.
  - 9y ago

bhntr3 9y ago

About the wireless approach, Monkeybrains (https://www.monkeybrains.net/residential.php https://www.monkeybrains.net/residential.php) in SF seems to do this. I believe I read somewhere that they're planning on replacing the wireless stuff with fiber for areas where they have high customer density. They're awesome, the service is good (except when it rains. Thanks california), it's cheap ($35) and I've been pretty happy with it. I wonder if that could work to bootstap an isp. Obviously the wireless thing won't work in less dense areas and is subject to weather but maybe a successful business in the city could provide enough capital to expand to the suburbs.

equalunique 9y ago

"Some cities / municipalities have signed agreements for monopoly rights to a telephone or cable provider. Many (but not all) of them can be worked around by simply not selling telephone or TV service." Isn't it ironic that the only way for a startup ISP to get around the local monopoly agreement is to not provide services which are regulated by the FCC? Yet somehow, Google, Amazon, and Facebook have convinced most young people that FCC regulation of ISPs is a good idea. The sad part is, the only thing between a mass of young voters and 1984-style internet is just 3 more years of Trump/Pai, who most of them hate. Hopefully the FTC's renewed authority over "information service" can be demonstrated for the virtue it is before it's too late.

rayiner 9y ago
These are not "monopoly agreements" (which are illegal). If you actually read them, you'll see each one says it's "non-exclusive." E.g. http://charmtv.tv/sites/all/themes/charmtv/pdf/comcast-franchise-agreement-and-renewal.pdf http://charmtv.tv/sites/all/themes/charmtv/pdf/comcast-franc.... What not offering telephone or television service gets you is avoiding the need to negotiate with the city for a television franchise. These agreements are usually stuffed with grab-bags for the municipal government (e.g. per-user fee, 5% of revenue off the top, offer XYZ public-access channels, build out to XYZ neighborhoods). All of this is imposed by the local government, not the FCC. If you just want to run an ISP, build out where you think you can make a profit, and don't want the city to skim off the top, you can avoid that by not offering television or phone service. On the other hand, not offering television makes it hard to compete. People really do care about television service. I lived in an apartment building in Baltimore that had both cable and FiOS. FiOS was internet-only, because Verizon couldn't get a television franchise in the city. I found out I was the first one on my floor (of dozens of apartments) that had subscribed to fiber since the building was built 4-5 years before. All because people really love their television bundles. (There is a reason Google Fiber offered television service.)
- equalunique 9y ago
  Cool. Thanks for the clarification & details. Do you think the "monopoly" concept may still apply when looked at through the Net Neutrality argument that ISPs may throttle/block services which compete with their own (possibly franchised) services? I too live in the DMV area and am on the lookout for an apartment with decent internet.

snowpanda 9y ago

Thank you maxsilver, this is one of the most informative posts I've seen on HackerNews. Question, you said: This is usually a phone companies central office Are there risks involved with that? Like for example, they could start playing games with you by saying 'sorry we're doing construction for a week, you can't access your office' ? Maybe a bad example, but I mean, would it make more sense to do it outside of their office?

maxsilver 9y ago
> Are there risks involved with that? Like for example, they could start playing games with you by saying 'sorry we're doing construction for a week, you can't access your office' ? Probably? I've never written up a plan using an actual monopoly telco's CO, exactly for this reason. It's easier to find anywhere else to start from, and usually cheaper too. I only mention it because my experience is mostly suburban / small city related, and I know the majority of small ISP / WISP guys are hyper-rural. They may not have any other options available to them.
- snowpanda 9y ago
  Got it! Thank you.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]

pnash 9y ago

You've covered the "last mile", but there is the upstream world to take into consideration. 1) Connecting into a CO is one thing, but your fiber is going to need to connect into something. Who is paying for your optics, is there a port or line card that can accept those optics? Does the CO actually have enough bandwidth upstream? This is a real issue. Back in the 90s, I helped set up an ISP in Boston proper and our main competition had well over a 1000 customers attached to a single T1 (1.5mb/s) link. Everyone wanted 28.8k speeds (lol), but would normally get ~300 to 2400bps. The competition had a bunch of modems with a single upstream link. No one wanted what we were selling - guaranteed bandwidth / true 28.8 bandwidth all the time. People wanted $19.99/unlimited all you can eat. People still want that today. Back to the CO, maybe you are lucky and they have some open ports. Worst case scenario, they want you to plop down a router and you'll do 10gb/e between. You can go with a homemade box and hope that it is stable, or you can buy expensive network gear. 2) To your customers, that "CO" is the "internet", but to that vendor/telco, it is just a single point of presence (POP). That CO has to connect to other POPs that are owned by them, and that costs real money. Eventually through a unknown number of hops, your traffic will hit an exchange point or carrier hotel. This is where your traffic exits their network and is taken up by another provider and/or company (google has their own fiber plan, for example). The amount of bandwidth at these peering/access points is finite and providers choose to peer with each other, usually at no charge, if there is an equitable distribution of traffic. The last thing that you want is for one company to take up all of the (finite) bandwidth at a peering point. An ISP connects to multiple carriers (l3, cogent, comcast, att,verizon, etc) so that your customers have quick access to the websites/services that they want to visit - which most likely have to traverse one of those other providers. Similarly, their customers will want to access services that you are hosting, so you will take in a similar amount of ingress traffic. With the fiber network that you are connecting your customers to, they'll most likely want to access bandwidth intensive services. You better hope that your CO has upstream capacity and a fast path to netflix/hulu/facebook/google/akamai/etc. Or you, as a internet service provider, try and peer directly with the content providers if they allow it. If there are only 2-3 hops between you and Netflix, your users will love you. If they have to bounce around the country a couple of times, your customers will go back to Comcast (because they have a well connected backbone). 3) This doesn't even cover where you are going to get your IP addresses, if your upstream provider will announce them in BGP for you, etc. Or maybe you connect in to two carriers, get an ASN and announce your networks yourself. You are still at the mercy of your upstream providers. I think a lot of these details are often overlooked when someone talks about network neutrality. I think network neutrality is a glib term for a number of issues: - filtering of traffic and/or inability to access a service - loss of freedom to host stuff "for free" on the internet - lack of competition in "the last mile". The FCC/TitleII stuff, from what I've heard, negatively impacted small WISPs that were trying to start up, by assuming that they were the same size as major wireless providers. A $20k fine because your lawyer failed to properly submit paperwork can wipe you out if you are a simple provider that is trying to provide access to a small community. You aren't AT&T, but title II will assume that you are - and penalize you accordingly. For more information, read some of these filings/papers: https://ecfsapi.fcc.gov/file/10717113433056/FCC-17-108%20Restoring%20Internet%20Freedom%20ICG%20comments.pdf https://ecfsapi.fcc.gov/file/10717113433056/FCC-17-108%20Res... and in particular: http://www.interisle.net/sub/FCC-14-28%20NN%20Interisle%20Comment.pdf http://www.interisle.net/sub/FCC-14-28%20NN%20Interisle%20Co... -Paul

topspin 9y ago

"In Michigan" People in Michigan are getting fed up with this situation. Lyndon Township passed a 20 year millage to fund a municipal fiber network. The vote passed 2-1 with almost 50% turnout in a non-general election year. The tax will cost every $200K household about $300/year; $6000 total. That's on top of the monthly fees they intend to pay for the service. People want good fixed broadband Internet. They are willing to pay for it. The telcos and cable operators don't care; they're happy with the customer base they have and their horizon is measured in quarters, not decades, so they're entirely uninterested in the effort and investment needed to build out such systems. They want the low hanging low effort fruit. This NN outcome won't change any of that; whatever ambition these companies have is now focused on the windfalls they'll make from the peering agreements they're going to negotiate with Netflix et al. and none of that money will find its way to build outs. http://www.mbcoop.org/lyndon-township/ http://www.mbcoop.org/lyndon-township/

just1nn 9y ago

I have this right now. First in a small mountain town, and now in Longmont, CO, USA. $49.99/mo for 1Gb/1Gb no caps, no extra charges.

stilldavid 9y ago
Me too :) I think it was easier for Longmont as it's part of "Longmont Power and Communications" - they were able to run a lot of fiber in existing infrastructure, and right of way was essentially a non-issue.
- jrnichols 9y ago
  power companies seem to be in the best position to offer awesome internet. a local provider here has 1000/1000 for $99/mo. but unfortunately they haven't laid fiber in all of the neighborhoods, especially the older ones. so it's only the newer subdivisions that are getting it. :/ i'd be all over it. one less bill to worry about too. (just bundle internet + power)

qxi 9y ago

> In Michigan, I could easily offer everyone residential 500mbps to the home via fiber for $50/month and cover all costs, no problem. But only after we already had a few thousand customers. The cost for your very first customer is somewhere north of $50k/each, and prices don't become reasonable until your in the thousands. Sounds like you could benefit from and ICO to gauge interest and raise the capital necessary for infrastructure development ;)

collinmanderson 9y ago

> Pick a point where you can get connection to the internet. (Backhaul). This is usually a phone companies central office, but it can also be at a data centre or other point of presence. You could try searching for your city on peeringdb to find good places to get the internet connection from. https://www.peeringdb.com/advanced_search https://www.peeringdb.com/advanced_search

unclebucknasty 9y ago

>The cost for your very first customer is somewhere north of $50k/each, and prices don't become reasonable until your in the thousands. Sounds ripe for a crowdfunded startup.

glass_of_water 9y ago

What's the breakdown of the $50k/month/customer at the very beginning? Is most of the cost the equipment or leasing the backhaul connection?

mulletbum 9y ago

Acenteck has been doing this in Michigan for the past few years in the Grand Rapids area. They keep pulling lines to new rural neighborhoods coming in. Basically get everyone on the block in one shot because Comcast/Charter have such a bad name.