5 ms·

In the US there are usually limits on who can get on a pole to run cables to homes to provide cable based broadband. Utilities, cable TV companies, telephone co

by mfer 5y ago

In the US there are usually limits on who can get on a pole to run cables to homes to provide cable based broadband. Utilities, cable TV companies, telephone companies, and municipalities. This is why people want municipal broadband. You can't just start an ISP and get on the pole with your cable. > - Municipal broadband is a government handout. It artificially lowers prices. There are many places where municipal broadband is at cost rather than subsidized or a hand out. With little to no competition the higher prices vs at cost can look funny. > - Municipal broadband expands the role of government. It's an extra program for the municipality to manage. Totally. If ISPs could get on poles to run lines to peoples homes I expect there would be a lot less of a call for them as there would be more capability for competition. > - Expanding government programs is a tax on residents, even if they don't benefit from broadband access. I'm not sure about this. If it's at cost or close to it than I'd be curious to see the case. > - Municipal broadband is hostile to business. Companies cannot reasonably compete with a service that the government pumps money into. Who can do broadband is constrained by law which is hostile to business. You can't just start and ISP and run lines to homes. That's against the law most places. Municipal broadband is often a work around to the other hostile laws that benefit telephone companies and cable tv companies which have staked out local monopolies most places.

hardtke 5y ago
Your first point is important. Governments have protected citizen's quality of life by restricting the number of wires going around on poles and/or digging up of the streets. This is why local governments created regulated telephone and cable monopolies in the first place. Unfortunately the regulated telephone and cable infrastructure later become much more valuable due to the emergence of broadband internet. The companies that owned this infra then loaded up on debt based on the skyrocketing value of this infrastructure and we are forced to pay for this debt.
viraptor 5y ago
> In the US there are usually limits on who can get on a pole to run cables to homes to provide cable based broadband. Utilities, cable TV companies, ... I wonder if we'll ever see anyone trying to technically sidestep this requirement. "We're a TV company, you can go to this url to see our 'clear sky 24/7' channel. Also we provide internet access."
- throwawayboise 5y ago
  To GP's point, the poles are privately owned. The Cable TV company put them there, or the telephone, or other utility. If you want to use space on their poles, you have to rent it, or install your own poles. Both happen. On the road I live on, there are power lines on one side of the road which also carry telephone lines. Cable TV (Comcast) has poles on the other side of the road.
- 737maxtw 5y ago
  It's more complicated than that. - Many poles are owned by power companies, or telephone companies. You can absolutely get a JPA (joint pole attach) agreement with most of these companies in theory. - In practice, your first problem is that most poles are horribly maintained. And if you are a new attachee, you will often find yourself having to share in the cost to make an already non-compliant pole compliant and with enough room for you to attach. - If you are dealing with, say, Verizon poles and are trying to attach for a competing cell service, your make ready costs are oddly inflated, and they may go as far as expect you to split the cost 50/50 for a pole that is already out of spec. - In many municipalities, the kickbacks of 'franchise agreements' cause a lot of inertia. This is mostly the case with CATV, the industry of 'how can we be minmax our monopoly'. Essentially, the cable provider pays the city X dollars per subscriber, gives them a couple public access channels, and in return gets exclusivity. I used to do HFC design for Xfinity Fraudband, as well as fiber design/permitting for other CATV providers and cell carriers. Its a corrupt and abusive industry, the entire contractor/subcontractor system is made to shield the companies both from overall liability as well as prevent unionization. Also, any of the SV folks speaking up about social injustice would have a heart attack in a week or two. Being in that climate for so long made me numb to a lot of injustice, and it took years to recover.
  - _carbyau_ 5y ago
    Seem like the municipality needs to own and control it's own poles more than anything.
s1artibartfast 5y ago
>I'm not sure about this. If it's at cost or close to it than I'd be curious to see the case. One of the bad examples that is often brought up is iProvo municipal internet. The city raised 40 million in bonds, ran up another 10 million in operating deficit, placed monthly internet bills on all residents even if they weren't connected. The city ultimately gave up and sold the infrastructure to google for $1. https://reason.org/news-release/think-tank-iprovos-losses-at-8/ https://reason.org/news-release/think-tank-iprovos-losses-at...
gnopgnip 5y ago
The fix for the first point would be local loop unbundling. Statutory rates for leasing access preserves the incentive to continue investing in infrastructure. This allows for competition without requiring a duplication of last mile infrastructure requiring huge costs. And without giving a significant advantage to a government endorsed group over private companies

by mfer 5y ago

hardtke 5y ago

Your first point is important. Governments have protected citizen's quality of life by restricting the number of wires going around on poles and/or digging up of the streets. This is why local governments created regulated telephone and cable monopolies in the first place. Unfortunately the regulated telephone and cable infrastructure later become much more valuable due to the emergence of broadband internet. The companies that owned this infra then loaded up on debt based on the skyrocketing value of this infrastructure and we are forced to pay for this debt.

viraptor 5y ago

> In the US there are usually limits on who can get on a pole to run cables to homes to provide cable based broadband. Utilities, cable TV companies, ... I wonder if we'll ever see anyone trying to technically sidestep this requirement. "We're a TV company, you can go to this url to see our 'clear sky 24/7' channel. Also we provide internet access."

throwawayboise 5y ago
To GP's point, the poles are privately owned. The Cable TV company put them there, or the telephone, or other utility. If you want to use space on their poles, you have to rent it, or install your own poles. Both happen. On the road I live on, there are power lines on one side of the road which also carry telephone lines. Cable TV (Comcast) has poles on the other side of the road.
737maxtw 5y ago
It's more complicated than that. - Many poles are owned by power companies, or telephone companies. You can absolutely get a JPA (joint pole attach) agreement with most of these companies in theory. - In practice, your first problem is that most poles are horribly maintained. And if you are a new attachee, you will often find yourself having to share in the cost to make an already non-compliant pole compliant and with enough room for you to attach. - If you are dealing with, say, Verizon poles and are trying to attach for a competing cell service, your make ready costs are oddly inflated, and they may go as far as expect you to split the cost 50/50 for a pole that is already out of spec. - In many municipalities, the kickbacks of 'franchise agreements' cause a lot of inertia. This is mostly the case with CATV, the industry of 'how can we be minmax our monopoly'. Essentially, the cable provider pays the city X dollars per subscriber, gives them a couple public access channels, and in return gets exclusivity. I used to do HFC design for Xfinity Fraudband, as well as fiber design/permitting for other CATV providers and cell carriers. Its a corrupt and abusive industry, the entire contractor/subcontractor system is made to shield the companies both from overall liability as well as prevent unionization. Also, any of the SV folks speaking up about social injustice would have a heart attack in a week or two. Being in that climate for so long made me numb to a lot of injustice, and it took years to recover.
- _carbyau_ 5y ago
  Seem like the municipality needs to own and control it's own poles more than anything.

s1artibartfast 5y ago

>I'm not sure about this. If it's at cost or close to it than I'd be curious to see the case. One of the bad examples that is often brought up is iProvo municipal internet. The city raised 40 million in bonds, ran up another 10 million in operating deficit, placed monthly internet bills on all residents even if they weren't connected. The city ultimately gave up and sold the infrastructure to google for $1. https://reason.org/news-release/think-tank-iprovos-losses-at-8/ https://reason.org/news-release/think-tank-iprovos-losses-at...

gnopgnip 5y ago

The fix for the first point would be local loop unbundling. Statutory rates for leasing access preserves the incentive to continue investing in infrastructure. This allows for competition without requiring a duplication of last mile infrastructure requiring huge costs. And without giving a significant advantage to a government endorsed group over private companies