4 ms·

Actually government intervention is the only way to solve it. The problem is that in a city there's limited space to run the wires to each home. Also if you w

by takeda 5y ago

Actually government intervention is the only way to solve it. The problem is that in a city there's limited space to run the wires to each home. Also if you want to have 10 competitors is really silly to expect having 10 fiber optic cables going to every home when majority of people wouldn't use more than one ISP at the time. Then 9 fibers will be then unused and degrading. When Internet was reclassified to Title II, Wheeler specifically excluded Title II's provision that required existing ISPs to lease their infrastructure to competitors. Back in late 90s, early 2000s we had tons of ISPs to chose from, exactly because of that provision. This needs to change if we want to get competition back. Or we would need cities to build such infrastructure which is even harder and more expensive thing to do. Either way it requires government intervention.

billytetrud 5y ago
Limited space? For wires? You know how small wires are right?
- Ekaros 5y ago
  They probably won't share conduits, and probably just in case want more than one pair... So it does add up.
- zaphar 5y ago
  For wires that need too run out in the elements around a quarter inch or higher, plus you need conduit, and backup wires. So about an inch or more with just naive napkin estimation. I'm probably underestimating it actually.
- majormajor 5y ago
  Take away the government intervention and you take away the property easements that allow utilities to put up poles and run wires through yards, etc, to get to all the houses. Good luck with your "let everyone run their tiny wires wherever without the government being involved" plan. You've heard of NIMBYism, right? How many times do you think you'll be allowed to rip up the street?
  - smolder 5y ago
    In countries that are very light on regulation there (I think I recall Brazil having this) you'll see messes of Ethernet hanging around, with dead cables still present. Unsurprisingly, they do provide a lot of bandwidth for a small price, comparitively.
    - takeda 5y ago
      That's also how Romania is (or at least was) one of countries with fast and cheap internet. It started with the government telco not being interested in Internet. So people started running Ethernet cables, first to neighbors, then to other buildings. It started as having local networks to share files. Eventually those network got connected to Internet. If the price or quality of service provided is not satisfactory they can switch to another ISP. The bad part as you said is the huge number of ugly looking wires[1] [1] https://www.alamy.com/stock-photo-many-internet-cables-on-lamp-post-in-bucharest-romania-36410414.html https://www.alamy.com/stock-photo-many-internet-cables-on-la...
  - hakfoo 5y ago
    I've been surprised there's been nobody acquiring legacy telcos just for their easements. The existing POTS and similar infrastructure are probably worth less now as a going business than if you were to just rip out all the copper and sell it for scrap. On the other hand, they still have pre-negotiated entry into every house and business in town, and the conduit already sunk. It would probably be cheaper, and certainly faster, to buy a firm like Frontier than to negotiate a comparable footprint from scratch. I suspect there's some significant legal continuity-of-service obligations that poison the proposal.
- ceejayoz 5y ago
  Individually? Sure. They add up, though. https://www.ecmweb.com/safety/media-gallery/20902083/crazy-wiring-nepal-edition https://www.ecmweb.com/safety/media-gallery/20902083/crazy-w...
kevincox 5y ago
In Canada the network owners are also required to lease the infrastructure to other operators but the situation is similar (although IIUC not quite as bad). It seems to me that city-owned is actually the best option in this case. If it is optimal to have one set of infrastructure than it makes sense to have that infrastructure owned by the city which operates for the common good. As much as I am hesitant to trust the government to run the network I have no issues with my water or electricity utilities and the prices seem quite fair.
- jollybean 5y ago
  Owning 'infrastructure' is a different than being service provider. I actually would strongly support municipalities owning the last mile as part of their services, but I'm less interested in them actually providing service. The problem is the monopoly still exists. My father lives in a small town ironically with a tiny little ISP not owned by one of the majors. But the water - they pay $200 a month for water (!), because they are making major expansions to the water stations to support new building. The town council was pushed to do this by the builders with a lot of wining and dining. So the local, fairly poor townspeople are paying ridiculous rates. Since amalgamation, the town does not have it's own mayor, they do 'regional' groupings, so the individual town can't punt the program. Due to monopoly situation in the town, the townspoeple are stuck paying massive rates to subsidize a rich builders exploits. These things are common and guaranteed to happen. The idea is to have some degree of socialization where absolutely necessary, and then to try to provide real competition on that infrastructure. If the construction and maintenance of the infrastructure can be competitive (like roads) then great. For electricity transport, it can become a problem, as the semi-private agencies that manage the electrical grid are often very inefficient. Every town should take control of the 'last mile gear' but I suggest your ISP actually should be one of many private players. Definitely more than the physically limited Choice of Comcast + 1 other.
  - JoshTriplett 5y ago
    > I actually would strongly support municipalities owning the last mile as part of their services, but I'm less interested in them actually providing service. Exactly. Municipalities should run fiber to the nearest meet-me room, and license at a defined rate to anyone who wants to light up that fiber.

by takeda 5y ago

billytetrud 5y ago

Limited space? For wires? You know how small wires are right?

Ekaros 5y ago
They probably won't share conduits, and probably just in case want more than one pair... So it does add up.
zaphar 5y ago
For wires that need too run out in the elements around a quarter inch or higher, plus you need conduit, and backup wires. So about an inch or more with just naive napkin estimation. I'm probably underestimating it actually.
majormajor 5y ago
Take away the government intervention and you take away the property easements that allow utilities to put up poles and run wires through yards, etc, to get to all the houses. Good luck with your "let everyone run their tiny wires wherever without the government being involved" plan. You've heard of NIMBYism, right? How many times do you think you'll be allowed to rip up the street?
- smolder 5y ago
  In countries that are very light on regulation there (I think I recall Brazil having this) you'll see messes of Ethernet hanging around, with dead cables still present. Unsurprisingly, they do provide a lot of bandwidth for a small price, comparitively.
  - takeda 5y ago
    That's also how Romania is (or at least was) one of countries with fast and cheap internet. It started with the government telco not being interested in Internet. So people started running Ethernet cables, first to neighbors, then to other buildings. It started as having local networks to share files. Eventually those network got connected to Internet. If the price or quality of service provided is not satisfactory they can switch to another ISP. The bad part as you said is the huge number of ugly looking wires[1] [1] https://www.alamy.com/stock-photo-many-internet-cables-on-lamp-post-in-bucharest-romania-36410414.html https://www.alamy.com/stock-photo-many-internet-cables-on-la...
- hakfoo 5y ago
  I've been surprised there's been nobody acquiring legacy telcos just for their easements. The existing POTS and similar infrastructure are probably worth less now as a going business than if you were to just rip out all the copper and sell it for scrap. On the other hand, they still have pre-negotiated entry into every house and business in town, and the conduit already sunk. It would probably be cheaper, and certainly faster, to buy a firm like Frontier than to negotiate a comparable footprint from scratch. I suspect there's some significant legal continuity-of-service obligations that poison the proposal.
ceejayoz 5y ago
Individually? Sure. They add up, though. https://www.ecmweb.com/safety/media-gallery/20902083/crazy-wiring-nepal-edition https://www.ecmweb.com/safety/media-gallery/20902083/crazy-w...

kevincox 5y ago

In Canada the network owners are also required to lease the infrastructure to other operators but the situation is similar (although IIUC not quite as bad). It seems to me that city-owned is actually the best option in this case. If it is optimal to have one set of infrastructure than it makes sense to have that infrastructure owned by the city which operates for the common good. As much as I am hesitant to trust the government to run the network I have no issues with my water or electricity utilities and the prices seem quite fair.

jollybean 5y ago
Owning 'infrastructure' is a different than being service provider. I actually would strongly support municipalities owning the last mile as part of their services, but I'm less interested in them actually providing service. The problem is the monopoly still exists. My father lives in a small town ironically with a tiny little ISP not owned by one of the majors. But the water - they pay $200 a month for water (!), because they are making major expansions to the water stations to support new building. The town council was pushed to do this by the builders with a lot of wining and dining. So the local, fairly poor townspeople are paying ridiculous rates. Since amalgamation, the town does not have it's own mayor, they do 'regional' groupings, so the individual town can't punt the program. Due to monopoly situation in the town, the townspoeple are stuck paying massive rates to subsidize a rich builders exploits. These things are common and guaranteed to happen. The idea is to have some degree of socialization where absolutely necessary, and then to try to provide real competition on that infrastructure. If the construction and maintenance of the infrastructure can be competitive (like roads) then great. For electricity transport, it can become a problem, as the semi-private agencies that manage the electrical grid are often very inefficient. Every town should take control of the 'last mile gear' but I suggest your ISP actually should be one of many private players. Definitely more than the physically limited Choice of Comcast + 1 other.
- JoshTriplett 5y ago
  > I actually would strongly support municipalities owning the last mile as part of their services, but I'm less interested in them actually providing service. Exactly. Municipalities should run fiber to the nearest meet-me room, and license at a defined rate to anyone who wants to light up that fiber.