> more revenue is the solution to all problems at a company (give or take). I think Fiber is proof that that isn't strictly true. Revenue is still a solution,

> more revenue is the solution to all problems at a company (give or take). I think Fiber is proof that that isn't strictly true. Revenue is still a solution, but you have to use it differently. People who just see all the technical problems their current ISP has assume that running an ISP is a technical problem; if you dig a little further (pun intended), it looks like an infrastructure problem, but that's not the root of it. Google Fiber is proof that running an ISP is fundamentally a political problem: how do you work around the many many things all trying to stop or kill you? (Hypothesis for one reason why ISPs are mostly terrible: the ones that exist were not optimized for good technology or good customer service, they were optimized for surviving politics, or built by companies who already had.) There was a broader spectrum of decent ISPs when modems were cutting-edge, because then you "just" need to run a dial-in service. There were at least some decent ISPs when DSL was cutting-edge, because in theory you can buy your service from anyone. But now that fiber is cutting-edge, there's no solution anymore, because fiber wasn't treated as infrastructure from day 1. There's a major reason why many "technology first" companies look into wireless and satellite to reach people. Not because those provide fundamentally better experiences or technologies, but because they can dodge the vast majority of local politics. In an ideal world, we'd have fiber to every home as infrastructure, connected to a local meet-me room, and you could contract any ISP you like to light up that fiber, with a tiny flat fee going to cover the infrastructure. And then we'd have a spectrum of ISPs again, from budget to full-service to tech-friendly.