4 ms·

I definitely think we shouldn't give another dime in tax credits to broadband providers - a signed contract with aggressive enforcement provisions would be in o

I definitely think we shouldn't give another dime in tax credits to broadband providers - a signed contract with aggressive enforcement provisions would be in order, and if the current major ISPs don't want to build the infrastructure we should find someone else who will.

jdhawk 6y ago
vote for people who don't take funds from them. Its almost impossible.
rayiner 6y ago
> current major ISPs don't want to build the infrastructure we should find someone else who will. There are no such people. Both Baltimore and Los Angeles put out bids asking for companies willing to build fiber networks on certain terms. Nobody volunteered. E.g. https://la.curbed.com/2018/1/9/16863352/free-internet-los-angeles-wifi-network https://la.curbed.com/2018/1/9/16863352/free-internet-los-an... > Los Angeles officials planned to build up a network through a public-private partnership, passing off the costs of the ambitious infrastructure project to an outside provider. Blumenfield announced last year that the city never received a workable proposal from a private company to build out the network.
- misiti3780 6y ago
  why though?
  - rayiner 6y ago
    There's no money in wired broadband. Investors have been trying to get Verizon to divest itself of FiOS pretty much since the beginning. It's probably profitable at this point, but barely. (Verizon's entire wireline division has a 5% or less profit margin.) Chatanooga Tennessee charges about $60/month for 300 mbps fiber. It is probably financially sustainable, but: 1) Tennessee is a low-cost, right-to-work state; 2) the capital costs of the fiber network were shared with the electric "smart grid" so some of the capital costs are being recouped from electric ratepayers. You couldn't make the same thing work in New York, San Francisco, etc. at the $60 price point. But at a much higher price point than that, you're talking about something quite expensive for what's supposed to be a public utility. Wired broadband, unlike water or electricity, is an optional service for most people. (1 in 6 high-income households only have cellular service.) If it costs you closer to $100 to have the same service in an expensive northern city, many people will opt out, and that will cause the per-household costs to skyrocket. It's a really tough mathematical equation to work out.
    - misiti3780 6y ago
      thank you!
- grandinj 6y ago
  Baltimore is a basket case, so no surprise there. LA is probably too big for a single company. Normally when these tenders fail it is because the terms need to be tweaked. Probably want you really want is simply to allow individual suburbs to set up their own little broadband networks, and have the city just run some central hub. But big city beauracrats are never keen on giving up control.
- dv_dt 6y ago
  I think this is odd because a lot of the major ISPs seemed to have outsourced the actual physical and electronic construction work to third parties. It's a different thing setting up the accounts and operation, but the building part seems accessible.
pizzazzaro 6y ago
Screw it. I guess those cities have to build it for themselves. And if they buy it, its theirs to maintain and use. Your "free" market has failed. I wonder where I can send a resumé for this...

jdhawk 6y ago

vote for people who don't take funds from them. Its almost impossible.

rayiner 6y ago

> current major ISPs don't want to build the infrastructure we should find someone else who will. There are no such people. Both Baltimore and Los Angeles put out bids asking for companies willing to build fiber networks on certain terms. Nobody volunteered. E.g. https://la.curbed.com/2018/1/9/16863352/free-internet-los-angeles-wifi-network https://la.curbed.com/2018/1/9/16863352/free-internet-los-an... > Los Angeles officials planned to build up a network through a public-private partnership, passing off the costs of the ambitious infrastructure project to an outside provider. Blumenfield announced last year that the city never received a workable proposal from a private company to build out the network.

misiti3780 6y ago
why though?
- rayiner 6y ago
  There's no money in wired broadband. Investors have been trying to get Verizon to divest itself of FiOS pretty much since the beginning. It's probably profitable at this point, but barely. (Verizon's entire wireline division has a 5% or less profit margin.) Chatanooga Tennessee charges about $60/month for 300 mbps fiber. It is probably financially sustainable, but: 1) Tennessee is a low-cost, right-to-work state; 2) the capital costs of the fiber network were shared with the electric "smart grid" so some of the capital costs are being recouped from electric ratepayers. You couldn't make the same thing work in New York, San Francisco, etc. at the $60 price point. But at a much higher price point than that, you're talking about something quite expensive for what's supposed to be a public utility. Wired broadband, unlike water or electricity, is an optional service for most people. (1 in 6 high-income households only have cellular service.) If it costs you closer to $100 to have the same service in an expensive northern city, many people will opt out, and that will cause the per-household costs to skyrocket. It's a really tough mathematical equation to work out.
  - misiti3780 6y ago
    thank you!
grandinj 6y ago
Baltimore is a basket case, so no surprise there. LA is probably too big for a single company. Normally when these tenders fail it is because the terms need to be tweaked. Probably want you really want is simply to allow individual suburbs to set up their own little broadband networks, and have the city just run some central hub. But big city beauracrats are never keen on giving up control.
dv_dt 6y ago
I think this is odd because a lot of the major ISPs seemed to have outsourced the actual physical and electronic construction work to third parties. It's a different thing setting up the accounts and operation, but the building part seems accessible.

pizzazzaro 6y ago

Screw it. I guess those cities have to build it for themselves. And if they buy it, its theirs to maintain and use. Your "free" market has failed. I wonder where I can send a resumé for this...