7 ms·

While I agree wholeheartedly with the sentiment of having a single last mile connection to each home, IMHO I think giving the government a role is a really bad

While I agree wholeheartedly with the sentiment of having a single last mile connection to each home, IMHO I think giving the government a role is a really bad idea. As a FTTH engineer that has deployed millions of feet of last mile optical fibers, I can tell you government is clueless as to how best do this (as I might add are the MSO's). The majority of small FTTH ISP's have received funding through the USDA RUS, which has specific engineering requirements. Those requirements are prehistoric and dramatically inflate the cost of deployment. For example, one of the better topologies is to implement fast spanning tree to each home over 2 route-diversified connections back to a municipal ring. This dramatically reduces cost vs a star topology build-out (typically endorsed by RUS), and increases fault tolerance. The RUS estimates cost per home well in excess of $1,800 while it is possible to reduce that to well under $1,000 using appropriate engineering. One of the big problems is that most larger organizations (e.g. MSO's) have separate departments for physical networking (buried/aerial cable) and for Ethernet networking (spanning tree etc). As these departments do not communicate well at the design/planning stage, they do not enjoy engineering economies. The MSO's actually believe quite sincerely that their cost of FTTH is at least an order of magnitude higher than it is - they are just plain wrong.

dbcurtis 6y ago
Dude, I live in the heart of Silicon Valley and have dealt with AT&T and two different offices and my home. And I can tell you that AT&T are both utterly clueless and shameless liars when it comes to FTTH and FTTN installations. You can not imagine the depth of my anger with those clowns. I have no idea who you work for. But my personal experience with trying to get fiber from AT&T in what is supposed to be one of the most tech-forward regions of the world is laughable. The government may not be better, but at least I know where to aim my pitchforks and torches.
- e40 6y ago
  I'm sitting here on a Comcast connection that is expensive and AT&T has FTTH in my neighborhood. I just can't seem to pull the trigger on the order because of the horror stories I've heard, and from personal experience. When I had ADSL from AT&T, they absolutely could not give me a connect that didn't drop randomly 2-10 times a day. I had 10+ visits from them over several years and at one point they told me "don't call us anymore" because I was too expensive for them. This, after being told by someone that put a device on my line and found the problem was in the drop cable (from the pole to the house). The new drop cable was ordered and a guy shows up 2 hours later and tells me it's not the drop cable (he didn't measure anything). When pressed, he told me it was too expensive to replace the drop cable. A subsequent tech told me to have a "tree trimming accident" where the drop cable was severed. I was worried I would be charged many thousands of $'s so I didn't do it and just switched to Comcast. (I have had my own issues with Comcast, and I hate them with a passion.) The situation with home internet is just so shitty.
  - stevenjgarner 6y ago
    In addressing this at a political/regulatory level it became clear to me that while it is convenient to beat up on Comcast (however deserving they may be of such treatment), the real problem on the east coast corridor are the trade unions. They have raised the cost of doing business by at least an order of magnitude. It is a heartbreak for me personally - my grandfather was highly involved in the labor movement back in his day and today he would roll over in his grave at the rampant corruption.
    - bagrow 6y ago
      Citation needed. Comcast for one is _vehemently_ anti-union. I see only right-wing media claiming unions drive up internet costs.
  - setpatchaddress 6y ago
    FWIW, I have had the exact opposite situation in multiple locations across the country -- every DSL (and, once, FTTH) connection I've had has been rock solid -- every Comcast internet connection has been flaky -- in one place, the connection went down every afternoon. Multiple Comcast technicians couldn't figure out the problem. I so agree with your last statement. If you're in an area they serve, getting Sonic is much better, BTW. They can operate over AT&T FTTH and DSL. It's a tad more expensive, but the customer service is unbeatable.
    - e40 6y ago
      Sonic uses AT&T in my area, so I will definitely check them out. Thanks. It's a little annoying I have to get a landline, which basically adds $15-20 to the price. <sigh> I have an asterisk/freepbx system that I will continue to use. I wonder if their TOS require you to hook up a phone. Not looking forward to reading that...
  - beamatronic 6y ago
    Without debating the technical/cancer type of issues... Isn't 5G supposed to finally make wires obsolete? You'll put a device in your house (from say, Verizon) which speaks 5G on one side, and maybe has an ethernet jack and/or speaks Wi-Fi on the other side.
- stevenjgarner 6y ago
  I totally agree. The prevailing perception that Silicon Valley (the original MAE-West) and Virginia's MAE-East are the touchstones of high bandwidth Internet is not true either - while they are the peering points for (inter)national networks, the local access Internet offerings in those regions are indeed laughable. Meanwhile the small rural towns in fly-over country tend to enjoy networks that are gigabit to the home or better for under $100 MRC. I know of businesses in Philadelphia that had to relocate to Winona, Minnesota simply to lower their Internet costs from thousands of dollars per month (with Comcast) to under $200 MRC for a direct gigabit optical Internet connection.
  - oivey 6y ago
    Gigabit Internet in small rural towns is very unusual.
    - stevenjgarner 6y ago
      I disagree. It would be an exaggeration to say it is ubiquitous, but it is more common than you think: https://www.rd.usda.gov/programs-services/all-programs/telecommunications-programs/telecom-maps https://www.rd.usda.gov/programs-services/all-programs/telec.... Certainly not VERY unusual.
- fossuser 6y ago
  I'm in Palo Alto - sounds like maybe you are too? The best networking option available is Comcast Gigabit Pro (2gbps both up and down). I wrote up details here: https://www.reddit.com/r/HomeNetworking/comments/fs6un2/comcast_gigabit_pro/ https://www.reddit.com/r/HomeNetworking/comments/fs6un2/comc... These two articles are also helpful: - https://binaryimpulse.com/2019/11/comcast-gigabit-pro-install/ https://binaryimpulse.com/2019/11/comcast-gigabit-pro-instal... - https://medium.com/@Gtwy/comcasts-2000mbit-fiber-to-the-home-f106d64d5f51 https://medium.com/@Gtwy/comcasts-2000mbit-fiber-to-the-home... If you're not looking to spend that much, Comcast gigabit (non-pro) is cheap and gets you 1gbps down, but only 35mbps up. They're annoying to interact with, but once it's set up it's reliable. Pro-tip: Ignore the Comcast website prices/packages. The only way to work with them is to call and get a friendly sales rep, then ask them to look through their options to find the best gigabit only plan (they have a lot more promotions available than they list online). This might take a few tries if you get someone on the phone that isn't very good. Comcast Twitter support is also pretty helpful. You should be able to get something around ~$80, but it might require a multi-year contract to lock in the price. I also had to add $50/month to remove the 1TB cap because of this: https://www.reddit.com/r/Comcast/comments/dqwsnj/comcast_data_usage_doubles_for_no_obvious_reason/ https://www.reddit.com/r/Comcast/comments/dqwsnj/comcast_dat...
  - stevenjgarner 6y ago
    That is not gigabit. That is 35MB. Big difference. Internet MUST be symmetrical. There are too many essential peer-to-peer technologies for it to be anything but symmetrical.
    - easton 6y ago
      Gigabit Pro is symmetrical, normal Gigabit is not. Gigabit Pro is FTTH (whereas all of Comcast's other plans go over copper/DOCSIS3), and is symmetrical 2Gbps. For $300 per month with a mandatory $2k install, I might add. You have to call them to get a quote, but here's a good blog post with the important info: https://binaryimpulse.com/2019/11/comcast-gigabit-pro-install/ https://binaryimpulse.com/2019/11/comcast-gigabit-pro-instal...
    - 6y ago
- jackson1442 6y ago
  > AT&T are both utterly clueless and shameless liars Seconded. We had AT&T Fiber a few years ago, and were having techs out just about every week to fix it and were given a nonsense reason like "this cable was loose" each time. Once we got fed up and canceled service, the tech told us that corporate fucked up the install for the whole neighborhood so they'd basically send techs out, tell them to lie, and have them add whatever bandaid was needed to fix it for just a little longer.
tw04 6y ago
>IMHO I think giving the government a role is a really bad idea. You've described why the government shouldn't be the entity making sole architectural decisions - you haven't explained why the government shouldn't own and fund the last-mile fiber. My county "owns" all the roads around me - city employees aren't building the roads and more often than not aren't the ones architecting them either (slope, water mitigation, etc). They do maintain them after they're in place (plowing the roads/mowing the ditches). Why would fiber need to be any different? I don't think anyone expects city employees to actually trench the fiber, that would all be outsourced. If they're a large enough entity they could very easily train and hire some fiber splicers to fix cut lines.
- stevenjgarner 6y ago
  I've got no problem with government owning and funding the Last Mile. The problem arises when government demands they specify the network design because of that ownership and funding. They are not qualified to make that decision, and usually senior telecommunications engineers are not qualified either. There is simply too much controversy over what is optimal. If the government could simply specify that a network needs to deliver 10Gbps per customer, then that would work, but when they specify HOW those packets need to be delivered then that is when things become non-competitive. There is a huge difference in cost between trenching from a central office to every home in a star topology vs trenching from a municipal network (already paid for by schools, hospitals, large business etc) to homes in a fast spanning tree ring. At least an order of magnitude difference in cost.
  - mulmen 6y ago
    Are there examples of municipalities where the government made the "how" demand? Or is this a hypothetical? Honest question, I don't know the answer.
  - tw04 6y ago
    In my (limited) experience, that fear is unfounded. I work with about a dozen local government entities and every last one of them reaches out to consultants when making architecture decisions. I've never once run across one that pulls the "it has to be this way because we say so" in the tech realm. They'll absolutely provide requirements, but they won't dictate how those requirements are met. I guess I would be shocked to find out there is any significant number of local governments out there that demand to dictate architecture of something they have no expertise in. If ANYTHING, the times I see them get out over their ski's is when they trust a vendor consultant TOO much. See: every Oracle implementation ever.
pydry 6y ago
If local government put a contract out to tender for implementing last mile so that small companies could bid on it then the $1k company would win over the $1,800 company. This is how most things should work in local government (corruption aside) . A competitive market with a relatively low barrier to entry for last mile cable would benefit everybody. Everybody except AT&T and Comcast that is (& their millionaire shareholders in congress). Even a nationally owned and run last mile would be better than what we have now though.
- dtech 6y ago
  I don't know about the US, but in the EU a tender has requirements. The topology of a network is a perfectly reasonable requirement so they couldn't compete on that (even if it's wrong) A tender for a brick house is, rightly, not going to be won by a wooden house proposal, even if it's cheaper and the company argues it's just as good.
  - pydry 6y ago
    And local government can hire (or borrow from national government) the expertise to be able to make this decision.
- nickff 6y ago
  If a local government is managing the build-out, you'll end up with $3200 companies (owned by a councilor's sibling).
paxys 6y ago
The government also has no idea how to build roads or power plants. They contract it out, and then take responsibility for owning and maintaining the infrastructure long term.
- stevenjgarner 6y ago
  And this does not work so well either. The problem with many government contracts is not just that they are usually cost plus, but that they do not take the total cost of ownership into account. In your example of roads, if the government put out requests for proposals based on the lowest total cost of ownership of a road over say 100 years, we would have roads engineered to a much higher standard that would not need to be rebuilt at such a high cadence. Whenever government thinks they know how to specify the best engineering method to solve a user requirement, they are generally wrong.
  - karmelapple 6y ago
    Get into government and start making that the way these things are done. Or vote for people who are interested in this.
    - missedthecue 6y ago
      That sounds like a bad solution to a bad problem. The better way to set things up is to devise a process in which the incentives are from the default set up to benefit the most people. People are upset at what trump is doing in relation to the USPS. Why would we want his administration in charge of broadband as well?
  - paxys 6y ago
    The system isn't perfect but we somehow do have a world-class interstate highway system and electricity grid. The same cannot be said for broadband.
  - mulmen 6y ago
    We have exactly the system we asked for. 100 year roads are expensive. I will be dead by then.
mulmen 6y ago
Thanks for sharing the knowledge here. It's not clear to me how the MSOs misunderstanding of FTTH/Last Mile costs means government can't do the job. I read this as what we have right now isn't working, which to me suggests we should try something new.
- stevenjgarner 6y ago
  LOL because the MSO's own the government. One of the most powerful lobbying forces in the US. They control the FCC. Under the current administration they have finally overthrown net neutrality - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Net_neutrality#United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Net_neutrality#United_States
charwalker 6y ago
Comcast in Seattle came out to fix a signal issue at my apartment and ended up possibly needing to redo a rats nest of cables chained together just to find the line running to my place. Maybe the connection to the building was good, but the infrastructure inside (all Comcast built) was 12-15 years old and flaky at best. At least with federal ownership we can mandate maintenance and repair requirements or timetables along with budgeting to do so in a timely manner. Or at least stop passing free money to ISP CEOs by giving millions of taxpayer dollars to them for upgrades and expansions that never come. I'd rather give a billion dollars to the Army CoE or a similar group to get things installed and maintained instead of profit to an ISP and at best slow expansion and data caps.
js2 6y ago
> government is clueless as to how best do this Wilson, NC figured it out when Comcast refused to put down fiber in town: https://www.greenlightnc.com/about-us/history https://www.greenlightnc.com/about-us/history
maedla 6y ago
if government has a monopoly then the people who know what they are doing will be working for it
Spooky23 6y ago
The key thing is ownership. I was part of a large government network buildout a long time ago that was like an ISP for state/local that also provided secure connectivity. We owned lots of fiber, which was managed by third parties. The downstream customers benefited from better terms and buildout of the last mile infrastructure before private entities were doing it. If we had the political environment that allowed for old style utility regulation, I would agree that commercial utilities would be better - the old dial up ISP market demonstrated how robust and effective competitive market prices were. But we do not have that environment today.
bnjms 6y ago
Interesting comment! I think you’re describing a surmountable barrier. If local governments can own the roads and power utilities are forced to share power infrastructure there is no reason municipalities shouldn’t be able to own their last mile installation.

dbcurtis 6y ago

Dude, I live in the heart of Silicon Valley and have dealt with AT&T and two different offices and my home. And I can tell you that AT&T are both utterly clueless and shameless liars when it comes to FTTH and FTTN installations. You can not imagine the depth of my anger with those clowns. I have no idea who you work for. But my personal experience with trying to get fiber from AT&T in what is supposed to be one of the most tech-forward regions of the world is laughable. The government may not be better, but at least I know where to aim my pitchforks and torches.

e40 6y ago
I'm sitting here on a Comcast connection that is expensive and AT&T has FTTH in my neighborhood. I just can't seem to pull the trigger on the order because of the horror stories I've heard, and from personal experience. When I had ADSL from AT&T, they absolutely could not give me a connect that didn't drop randomly 2-10 times a day. I had 10+ visits from them over several years and at one point they told me "don't call us anymore" because I was too expensive for them. This, after being told by someone that put a device on my line and found the problem was in the drop cable (from the pole to the house). The new drop cable was ordered and a guy shows up 2 hours later and tells me it's not the drop cable (he didn't measure anything). When pressed, he told me it was too expensive to replace the drop cable. A subsequent tech told me to have a "tree trimming accident" where the drop cable was severed. I was worried I would be charged many thousands of $'s so I didn't do it and just switched to Comcast. (I have had my own issues with Comcast, and I hate them with a passion.) The situation with home internet is just so shitty.
- stevenjgarner 6y ago
  In addressing this at a political/regulatory level it became clear to me that while it is convenient to beat up on Comcast (however deserving they may be of such treatment), the real problem on the east coast corridor are the trade unions. They have raised the cost of doing business by at least an order of magnitude. It is a heartbreak for me personally - my grandfather was highly involved in the labor movement back in his day and today he would roll over in his grave at the rampant corruption.
  - bagrow 6y ago
    Citation needed. Comcast for one is _vehemently_ anti-union. I see only right-wing media claiming unions drive up internet costs.
- setpatchaddress 6y ago
  FWIW, I have had the exact opposite situation in multiple locations across the country -- every DSL (and, once, FTTH) connection I've had has been rock solid -- every Comcast internet connection has been flaky -- in one place, the connection went down every afternoon. Multiple Comcast technicians couldn't figure out the problem. I so agree with your last statement. If you're in an area they serve, getting Sonic is much better, BTW. They can operate over AT&T FTTH and DSL. It's a tad more expensive, but the customer service is unbeatable.
  - e40 6y ago
    Sonic uses AT&T in my area, so I will definitely check them out. Thanks. It's a little annoying I have to get a landline, which basically adds $15-20 to the price. <sigh> I have an asterisk/freepbx system that I will continue to use. I wonder if their TOS require you to hook up a phone. Not looking forward to reading that...
- beamatronic 6y ago
  Without debating the technical/cancer type of issues... Isn't 5G supposed to finally make wires obsolete? You'll put a device in your house (from say, Verizon) which speaks 5G on one side, and maybe has an ethernet jack and/or speaks Wi-Fi on the other side.
stevenjgarner 6y ago
I totally agree. The prevailing perception that Silicon Valley (the original MAE-West) and Virginia's MAE-East are the touchstones of high bandwidth Internet is not true either - while they are the peering points for (inter)national networks, the local access Internet offerings in those regions are indeed laughable. Meanwhile the small rural towns in fly-over country tend to enjoy networks that are gigabit to the home or better for under $100 MRC. I know of businesses in Philadelphia that had to relocate to Winona, Minnesota simply to lower their Internet costs from thousands of dollars per month (with Comcast) to under $200 MRC for a direct gigabit optical Internet connection.
- oivey 6y ago
  Gigabit Internet in small rural towns is very unusual.
  - stevenjgarner 6y ago
    I disagree. It would be an exaggeration to say it is ubiquitous, but it is more common than you think: https://www.rd.usda.gov/programs-services/all-programs/telecommunications-programs/telecom-maps https://www.rd.usda.gov/programs-services/all-programs/telec.... Certainly not VERY unusual.
fossuser 6y ago
I'm in Palo Alto - sounds like maybe you are too? The best networking option available is Comcast Gigabit Pro (2gbps both up and down). I wrote up details here: https://www.reddit.com/r/HomeNetworking/comments/fs6un2/comcast_gigabit_pro/ https://www.reddit.com/r/HomeNetworking/comments/fs6un2/comc... These two articles are also helpful: - https://binaryimpulse.com/2019/11/comcast-gigabit-pro-install/ https://binaryimpulse.com/2019/11/comcast-gigabit-pro-instal... - https://medium.com/@Gtwy/comcasts-2000mbit-fiber-to-the-home-f106d64d5f51 https://medium.com/@Gtwy/comcasts-2000mbit-fiber-to-the-home... If you're not looking to spend that much, Comcast gigabit (non-pro) is cheap and gets you 1gbps down, but only 35mbps up. They're annoying to interact with, but once it's set up it's reliable. Pro-tip: Ignore the Comcast website prices/packages. The only way to work with them is to call and get a friendly sales rep, then ask them to look through their options to find the best gigabit only plan (they have a lot more promotions available than they list online). This might take a few tries if you get someone on the phone that isn't very good. Comcast Twitter support is also pretty helpful. You should be able to get something around ~$80, but it might require a multi-year contract to lock in the price. I also had to add $50/month to remove the 1TB cap because of this: https://www.reddit.com/r/Comcast/comments/dqwsnj/comcast_data_usage_doubles_for_no_obvious_reason/ https://www.reddit.com/r/Comcast/comments/dqwsnj/comcast_dat...
- stevenjgarner 6y ago
  That is not gigabit. That is 35MB. Big difference. Internet MUST be symmetrical. There are too many essential peer-to-peer technologies for it to be anything but symmetrical.
  - easton 6y ago
    Gigabit Pro is symmetrical, normal Gigabit is not. Gigabit Pro is FTTH (whereas all of Comcast's other plans go over copper/DOCSIS3), and is symmetrical 2Gbps. For $300 per month with a mandatory $2k install, I might add. You have to call them to get a quote, but here's a good blog post with the important info: https://binaryimpulse.com/2019/11/comcast-gigabit-pro-install/ https://binaryimpulse.com/2019/11/comcast-gigabit-pro-instal...
  - 6y ago
jackson1442 6y ago
> AT&T are both utterly clueless and shameless liars Seconded. We had AT&T Fiber a few years ago, and were having techs out just about every week to fix it and were given a nonsense reason like "this cable was loose" each time. Once we got fed up and canceled service, the tech told us that corporate fucked up the install for the whole neighborhood so they'd basically send techs out, tell them to lie, and have them add whatever bandaid was needed to fix it for just a little longer.

tw04 6y ago

>IMHO I think giving the government a role is a really bad idea. You've described why the government shouldn't be the entity making sole architectural decisions - you haven't explained why the government shouldn't own and fund the last-mile fiber. My county "owns" all the roads around me - city employees aren't building the roads and more often than not aren't the ones architecting them either (slope, water mitigation, etc). They do maintain them after they're in place (plowing the roads/mowing the ditches). Why would fiber need to be any different? I don't think anyone expects city employees to actually trench the fiber, that would all be outsourced. If they're a large enough entity they could very easily train and hire some fiber splicers to fix cut lines.

stevenjgarner 6y ago
I've got no problem with government owning and funding the Last Mile. The problem arises when government demands they specify the network design because of that ownership and funding. They are not qualified to make that decision, and usually senior telecommunications engineers are not qualified either. There is simply too much controversy over what is optimal. If the government could simply specify that a network needs to deliver 10Gbps per customer, then that would work, but when they specify HOW those packets need to be delivered then that is when things become non-competitive. There is a huge difference in cost between trenching from a central office to every home in a star topology vs trenching from a municipal network (already paid for by schools, hospitals, large business etc) to homes in a fast spanning tree ring. At least an order of magnitude difference in cost.
- mulmen 6y ago
  Are there examples of municipalities where the government made the "how" demand? Or is this a hypothetical? Honest question, I don't know the answer.
- tw04 6y ago
  In my (limited) experience, that fear is unfounded. I work with about a dozen local government entities and every last one of them reaches out to consultants when making architecture decisions. I've never once run across one that pulls the "it has to be this way because we say so" in the tech realm. They'll absolutely provide requirements, but they won't dictate how those requirements are met. I guess I would be shocked to find out there is any significant number of local governments out there that demand to dictate architecture of something they have no expertise in. If ANYTHING, the times I see them get out over their ski's is when they trust a vendor consultant TOO much. See: every Oracle implementation ever.

pydry 6y ago

If local government put a contract out to tender for implementing last mile so that small companies could bid on it then the $1k company would win over the $1,800 company. This is how most things should work in local government (corruption aside) . A competitive market with a relatively low barrier to entry for last mile cable would benefit everybody. Everybody except AT&T and Comcast that is (& their millionaire shareholders in congress). Even a nationally owned and run last mile would be better than what we have now though.

dtech 6y ago
I don't know about the US, but in the EU a tender has requirements. The topology of a network is a perfectly reasonable requirement so they couldn't compete on that (even if it's wrong) A tender for a brick house is, rightly, not going to be won by a wooden house proposal, even if it's cheaper and the company argues it's just as good.
- pydry 6y ago
  And local government can hire (or borrow from national government) the expertise to be able to make this decision.
nickff 6y ago
If a local government is managing the build-out, you'll end up with $3200 companies (owned by a councilor's sibling).

paxys 6y ago

The government also has no idea how to build roads or power plants. They contract it out, and then take responsibility for owning and maintaining the infrastructure long term.

stevenjgarner 6y ago
And this does not work so well either. The problem with many government contracts is not just that they are usually cost plus, but that they do not take the total cost of ownership into account. In your example of roads, if the government put out requests for proposals based on the lowest total cost of ownership of a road over say 100 years, we would have roads engineered to a much higher standard that would not need to be rebuilt at such a high cadence. Whenever government thinks they know how to specify the best engineering method to solve a user requirement, they are generally wrong.
- karmelapple 6y ago
  Get into government and start making that the way these things are done. Or vote for people who are interested in this.
  - missedthecue 6y ago
    That sounds like a bad solution to a bad problem. The better way to set things up is to devise a process in which the incentives are from the default set up to benefit the most people. People are upset at what trump is doing in relation to the USPS. Why would we want his administration in charge of broadband as well?
- paxys 6y ago
  The system isn't perfect but we somehow do have a world-class interstate highway system and electricity grid. The same cannot be said for broadband.
- mulmen 6y ago
  We have exactly the system we asked for. 100 year roads are expensive. I will be dead by then.

mulmen 6y ago

Thanks for sharing the knowledge here. It's not clear to me how the MSOs misunderstanding of FTTH/Last Mile costs means government can't do the job. I read this as what we have right now isn't working, which to me suggests we should try something new.

stevenjgarner 6y ago
LOL because the MSO's own the government. One of the most powerful lobbying forces in the US. They control the FCC. Under the current administration they have finally overthrown net neutrality - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Net_neutrality#United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Net_neutrality#United_States

charwalker 6y ago

Comcast in Seattle came out to fix a signal issue at my apartment and ended up possibly needing to redo a rats nest of cables chained together just to find the line running to my place. Maybe the connection to the building was good, but the infrastructure inside (all Comcast built) was 12-15 years old and flaky at best. At least with federal ownership we can mandate maintenance and repair requirements or timetables along with budgeting to do so in a timely manner. Or at least stop passing free money to ISP CEOs by giving millions of taxpayer dollars to them for upgrades and expansions that never come. I'd rather give a billion dollars to the Army CoE or a similar group to get things installed and maintained instead of profit to an ISP and at best slow expansion and data caps.

js2 6y ago

> government is clueless as to how best do this Wilson, NC figured it out when Comcast refused to put down fiber in town: https://www.greenlightnc.com/about-us/history https://www.greenlightnc.com/about-us/history

maedla 6y ago

if government has a monopoly then the people who know what they are doing will be working for it

Spooky23 6y ago

The key thing is ownership. I was part of a large government network buildout a long time ago that was like an ISP for state/local that also provided secure connectivity. We owned lots of fiber, which was managed by third parties. The downstream customers benefited from better terms and buildout of the last mile infrastructure before private entities were doing it. If we had the political environment that allowed for old style utility regulation, I would agree that commercial utilities would be better - the old dial up ISP market demonstrated how robust and effective competitive market prices were. But we do not have that environment today.

bnjms 6y ago

Interesting comment! I think you’re describing a surmountable barrier. If local governments can own the roads and power utilities are forced to share power infrastructure there is no reason municipalities shouldn’t be able to own their last mile installation.