8 ms·

I greatly respect the initiative and scrappy-ness of someone doing this. And the legacy providers are clearly sitting on their monopoly position in a way that

I greatly respect the initiative and scrappy-ness of someone doing this. And the legacy providers are clearly sitting on their monopoly position in a way that makes their pathetic alternative so starkly unattractive. But isn't it also true that once his network grows above a certain customer base (and gets into the maintenance phase), he will start to see all the effects that eat into being able to do this cheaply? Namely: -- customers who don't behave as well or kindly as before -- customers who need 24 hour customer service -- maintenance that can't be done himself, and he has to employ people -- customers and vendors who sue you for breach of contract, or other simply nuisance lawsuits -- upgrading the network to the next technology requirement, or when he's unable to get 2nd-hand parts so cheaply, etc. -- or a natural disaster that unexpectedly forces replacement of (and charging for) equipment that wasn't anticipated in the original subscriber price Maybe none of this rises to the level of making it fundamentally different or unsustainable? But it seems to me the honeymoon phase doesn't last long, and it's got to hit some unavoidable realities soon. At least, if you think you can replicate this, it requires finding people and neighbors who are willing to do actual work and investment/concern to make something like this possible, and not simply pay a vendor a premium to phone it in. It must be treated like a neighbor-to-neighbor community project, not a faceless commercial transaction with its attendant obligations.

margarina72 4y ago
Not everything need to scale. A good way to handle this kind of project is keep it at a certain community size, and if people want in, beyond a certain threshold, they need to build their own. This is how federated internet providers work usually.
kalleboo 4y ago
There are lots of ISPs that don’t suck
- samstave 4y ago
  FblQ00Ho That was my first ISP password assigned to me from San Jose based ix.netcom.com (Also the city I was grounded a month for running a $926 long distance bill calling into BBSs to play trade wars and the pit) But the best ISP I ever had was a 56K dial-up in Seattle. To play Diablo. I am looking to build an ISP.
  - iforgotpassword 4y ago
    It's like setting up a giant LAN party, but for grown-ups, doing serious grown-up stuff.
  - quercusa 4y ago
    I feel old having to hear netcom.com explained.
    - samstave 4y ago
      If you know my social and this netcom passwd, you may know my secrets...
wmf 4y ago
Hopefully with the government funding he can turn it into a real business.
- Victerius 4y ago
  I wouldn't be surprised to see his business pop up on HN's "Who wants to hire" thread.
colechristensen 4y ago
In Minneapolis there is a local fiber provider which charges about the same for the same level of fiber connectivity. I think it's pretty sustainable. It looks like his revenue is going to be $50k/mo in not so long and that's more than enough to have a couple of people willing to work on an as-needed hourly rate and to cover whatever issues come up.
dimitrios1 4y ago
> -- customers who don't behave as well or kindly as before Easy. Refuse service. You aren't legally obligated to offer your service to assholes. Any business has the right to do or not do business with whoever they want, provided they’re not refusing service for a reason that violates local, state, or federal law. > -- customers who need 24 hour customer service Also easy. You are under no obligation to meet peoples unrealistic demands or needs. > -- maintenance that can't be done himself, and he has to employ people He already is familiar with third party contracting. > -- customers and vendors who sue you for breach of contract, or other simply nuisance lawsuits Frivolous lawsuits are a risk in any business in America. > -- upgrading the network to the next technology requirement, or when he's unable to get 2nd-hand parts so cheaply, etc. What is this "next technology requirement"? My area cable company still runs most their network on 30 year old lines. > -- or a natural disaster that unexpectedly forces replacement of (and charging for) equipment that wasn't anticipated in the original subscriber price Cost of doing business, doesn't matter the size. I think people don't understand just how profitable municipal broadband can be. It's why big players spend so much lobbying and bribing so they can keep their established position running and keep the gravy train running, but really the economics of it are fantastic once you've done the initial digging and running the lines, which sounds like he has here. At $55 /mo for 400 households he's bringing in $22,000 a month plus whatever federal and local government subsidies and grants. The odds of a disaster, or one of the other scenarios you mentioned happening anytime soon is low, so he will have runway to build a decent sized war-chest to be able to easily afford handling any of these scenarios with third party contractors. The more houses he brings on line, the better it gets.
- jedberg 4y ago
  Right, but that's OPs point. If he does what you say, he's no better than Comcast, ignoring customers and telling them to screw themselves at the first sign of trouble.
  - Handytinge 4y ago
    I seem to see this a lot especially with American business owners. You don't have to service every customer market. If you offer only certain speeds or certain hours of support, despite being able to support otherwise, that's fine. Not every customers fits your target market.
connorlads 4y ago
Not sure how Canada compares but these concerns haven't stopped the biggest telecoms in Canada from providing subpar service under very restrictive terms and conditions with no accountability. Namely, a 12 hour complete outage by Rogers to which the reply was basically a big shrug. If they can get away with that I am sure a small independant provider can get away with that as well.
chriscappuccio 4y ago
With a fiber based service he would be getting very few calls
- linsomniac 4y ago
  Except, potentially, for locates. In my conversation with one of our local ISPs that for a while was doing fiber builds but then stopped, locates were quite a nuisance for them. This was in a less rural location though.
  - lillecarl 4y ago
    What's a "locate"?
    - quercusa 4y ago
      That's when you call the "Call Before You Dig" number and a bunch of guys with spraypaint show up to mark where the buried gas, electric, phone, fiber... lines are.
    - rasz 4y ago
      The Modern Rogue How to Decode Utility Graffiti (Those Spray-Painted Codes on Streets) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X6yBXkspLrE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X6yBXkspLrE
kevin_nisbet 4y ago
I'm not convinced this is the case. The big thing that makes telco's such profit making machines is that wires in the ground are generally a large capital expense that doesn't really provide a great marketplace for competition. But once you've got that infrastructure, it's hard to duplicate. The rest of the equipment and employees relatively aren't that expensive. So the power is on the provider here, there isn't really another choice for customers if the article is to be believed, no matter how good or bad the company is. Sure there might be disputes with vendors, but that's just part of any business. The biggest threat IMO is probably some sort of competition. Maybe a big telco decides to wire up the area, although then they would be the second player in the market trying to steal customers who may not be interested in switching. Or if this really is a rural area, things like wireless last mile (basically LTE), Starlink, OneWeb, etc may start to be more compelling options if they get the capacity, latency, and price point to the right spot to be competitive.
- treis 4y ago
  Telcos aren't really that great of profit making machines. It's a capital intensive business that requires a lot of scale before making money. Look at what this guy is doing. Many millions to get 600 customers paying <$100 a month.
  - ninju 4y ago
    As the old adage goes...it takes money to make money. A couple mill up front to get 500k+/yr means ROI of 5 years. It's a sustainable model as long as you don't get greedy and I don't think this guys is doing this to be a 'gazillionare' :-)
    - vlovich123 4y ago
      It’s not even his millions. > Jared Mauch gets $2.6 million from gov't to expand fiber ISP in rural Michigan
  - vineyardmike 4y ago
    His millions were funded by the government.. and the legacy providers also could bid on the contracts. It’s not clear if he’s expected to pay off those funds or not (I assume not). As the saying goes, the best money is someone else’s.
pessimizer 4y ago
I'm going to skate past the fact that difficult customers and maintenance aren't why monopolies are expensive, in fact they're the things that are most amenable to economies of scale, so bigger gets cheaper. The real question is: why does he have to get larger than the 600 homes in his nearby rural area, ever? Why does his goal have to be to defeat and replace Comcast rather than to supply internet service to his neighbors?
- toomuchtodo 4y ago
  He doesn’t of course. Local/muni/coop last mile is a well worn path. It’s your local volunteer fire department, but for internet, and local self reliance is not a bad thing. It doesn’t have to grow, it doesn’t have to constantly evolve, it just has to work and be reliable. That is what infrastructure does, and when it does so, it’s mostly invisible (and I argue, that is its most beautiful form). https://ilsr.org/broadband-2/ https://ilsr.org/broadband-2/ https://muninetworks.org/ https://muninetworks.org/
- Willish42 4y ago
  Exactly. There are tons of smaller businesses not focused on infinitely growing that get by just fine. Especially in rural areas like these
  - devmunchies 4y ago
    for every small business that "gets by", there are 2 (probably more) that go out of business due to not having grown sufficiently by the time they face some competition.
    - JadeNB 4y ago
      > for every small business that "gets by", there are 2 (probably more) that go out of business due to not having grown sufficiently by the time they face some competition. If your goal is to fight a monopoly, then the mere existence of competition means that you've accomplished your goal.
    - 4y ago
bentobean 4y ago
I, too, greatly respect the scrappy-ness of this individual. Kudos to him for sticking it to Comcast. That said, I'm not wild about the notion of dropping $30K of our collective money on running fiber to a single home out in the country.
- ncmncm 4y ago
  He was getting that money regardless. He decided to drop it on that.
- devmunchies 4y ago
  This was during covid lockdowns, right? It wouldn't be fair for the govt to enforce a lockdown and not provide funds/grants for internet infra.
  - syklep 4y ago
    Government money is still our collective money.
    - deleted 4y ago
      [deleted]
    - devmunchies 4y ago
      Agree, but then the alternative is to offer exemptions to lockdown. If they can't be provided for, the govt must allow them to provide for themselves.
- autoexec 4y ago
  I don't see anything wrong with "collectively" deciding that every American citizen should have access to high speed internet access and putting our money where our mouth is. Especially remote areas that are expanding and will become increasingly populated to take advantage of the infrastructure. For most of us, it doesn't cost anywhere near that much to get access so we can handle the rare costs to build out to remote areas where it's more expensive. That's the benefit of collective money. No one person has to shoulder the burden alone and together we each only chip in a small amount to achieve a massive goal. America should be heavily investing in building out select remote areas now because we're going to be getting much more crowded in the decades ahead. Climate change is going to force people inland, away from the western US, and cause hundreds of millions of climate refugees from around the planet to seek relocation. The US is going to have to do our part to help take many of them in. MI is a pretty good place to expand.
chiefalchemist 4y ago
I have to presume his marketing costs will be close to zero. On tge other hand, in my area (central NJ) both Comcast and Verizon spend a ton on marketing. He'll also have zero churn. So that's got to help the bottomline. Finally, I'm willing to bet it helps raise local home prices as those who had to have proper broadband were effectively excluded from that market. The point being, some homes will be able and will to pay more. Certainly the future will be different, the comparison to traditional ISPs might not be reliable either.
Rackedup 4y ago
Are you saying that Comcast provides decent customer service? because I think it is probably the first or second reason everyone hates them... another one could be the doubling cost yearly unless you call them and are serious about cancelling. Where I'm at Comcast is very reliable but I've had different experiences.

margarina72 4y ago

Not everything need to scale. A good way to handle this kind of project is keep it at a certain community size, and if people want in, beyond a certain threshold, they need to build their own. This is how federated internet providers work usually.

kalleboo 4y ago

There are lots of ISPs that don’t suck

samstave 4y ago
FblQ00Ho That was my first ISP password assigned to me from San Jose based ix.netcom.com (Also the city I was grounded a month for running a $926 long distance bill calling into BBSs to play trade wars and the pit) But the best ISP I ever had was a 56K dial-up in Seattle. To play Diablo. I am looking to build an ISP.
- iforgotpassword 4y ago
  It's like setting up a giant LAN party, but for grown-ups, doing serious grown-up stuff.
- quercusa 4y ago
  I feel old having to hear netcom.com explained.
  - samstave 4y ago
    If you know my social and this netcom passwd, you may know my secrets...

wmf 4y ago

Hopefully with the government funding he can turn it into a real business.

Victerius 4y ago
I wouldn't be surprised to see his business pop up on HN's "Who wants to hire" thread.

colechristensen 4y ago

In Minneapolis there is a local fiber provider which charges about the same for the same level of fiber connectivity. I think it's pretty sustainable. It looks like his revenue is going to be $50k/mo in not so long and that's more than enough to have a couple of people willing to work on an as-needed hourly rate and to cover whatever issues come up.

dimitrios1 4y ago

> -- customers who don't behave as well or kindly as before Easy. Refuse service. You aren't legally obligated to offer your service to assholes. Any business has the right to do or not do business with whoever they want, provided they’re not refusing service for a reason that violates local, state, or federal law. > -- customers who need 24 hour customer service Also easy. You are under no obligation to meet peoples unrealistic demands or needs. > -- maintenance that can't be done himself, and he has to employ people He already is familiar with third party contracting. > -- customers and vendors who sue you for breach of contract, or other simply nuisance lawsuits Frivolous lawsuits are a risk in any business in America. > -- upgrading the network to the next technology requirement, or when he's unable to get 2nd-hand parts so cheaply, etc. What is this "next technology requirement"? My area cable company still runs most their network on 30 year old lines. > -- or a natural disaster that unexpectedly forces replacement of (and charging for) equipment that wasn't anticipated in the original subscriber price Cost of doing business, doesn't matter the size. I think people don't understand just how profitable municipal broadband can be. It's why big players spend so much lobbying and bribing so they can keep their established position running and keep the gravy train running, but really the economics of it are fantastic once you've done the initial digging and running the lines, which sounds like he has here. At $55 /mo for 400 households he's bringing in $22,000 a month plus whatever federal and local government subsidies and grants. The odds of a disaster, or one of the other scenarios you mentioned happening anytime soon is low, so he will have runway to build a decent sized war-chest to be able to easily afford handling any of these scenarios with third party contractors. The more houses he brings on line, the better it gets.

jedberg 4y ago
Right, but that's OPs point. If he does what you say, he's no better than Comcast, ignoring customers and telling them to screw themselves at the first sign of trouble.
- Handytinge 4y ago
  I seem to see this a lot especially with American business owners. You don't have to service every customer market. If you offer only certain speeds or certain hours of support, despite being able to support otherwise, that's fine. Not every customers fits your target market.

connorlads 4y ago

Not sure how Canada compares but these concerns haven't stopped the biggest telecoms in Canada from providing subpar service under very restrictive terms and conditions with no accountability. Namely, a 12 hour complete outage by Rogers to which the reply was basically a big shrug. If they can get away with that I am sure a small independant provider can get away with that as well.

chriscappuccio 4y ago

With a fiber based service he would be getting very few calls

linsomniac 4y ago
Except, potentially, for locates. In my conversation with one of our local ISPs that for a while was doing fiber builds but then stopped, locates were quite a nuisance for them. This was in a less rural location though.
- lillecarl 4y ago
  What's a "locate"?
  - quercusa 4y ago
    That's when you call the "Call Before You Dig" number and a bunch of guys with spraypaint show up to mark where the buried gas, electric, phone, fiber... lines are.
  - rasz 4y ago
    The Modern Rogue How to Decode Utility Graffiti (Those Spray-Painted Codes on Streets) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X6yBXkspLrE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X6yBXkspLrE

kevin_nisbet 4y ago

I'm not convinced this is the case. The big thing that makes telco's such profit making machines is that wires in the ground are generally a large capital expense that doesn't really provide a great marketplace for competition. But once you've got that infrastructure, it's hard to duplicate. The rest of the equipment and employees relatively aren't that expensive. So the power is on the provider here, there isn't really another choice for customers if the article is to be believed, no matter how good or bad the company is. Sure there might be disputes with vendors, but that's just part of any business. The biggest threat IMO is probably some sort of competition. Maybe a big telco decides to wire up the area, although then they would be the second player in the market trying to steal customers who may not be interested in switching. Or if this really is a rural area, things like wireless last mile (basically LTE), Starlink, OneWeb, etc may start to be more compelling options if they get the capacity, latency, and price point to the right spot to be competitive.

treis 4y ago
Telcos aren't really that great of profit making machines. It's a capital intensive business that requires a lot of scale before making money. Look at what this guy is doing. Many millions to get 600 customers paying <$100 a month.
- ninju 4y ago
  As the old adage goes...it takes money to make money. A couple mill up front to get 500k+/yr means ROI of 5 years. It's a sustainable model as long as you don't get greedy and I don't think this guys is doing this to be a 'gazillionare' :-)
  - vlovich123 4y ago
    It’s not even his millions. > Jared Mauch gets $2.6 million from gov't to expand fiber ISP in rural Michigan
- vineyardmike 4y ago
  His millions were funded by the government.. and the legacy providers also could bid on the contracts. It’s not clear if he’s expected to pay off those funds or not (I assume not). As the saying goes, the best money is someone else’s.

pessimizer 4y ago

I'm going to skate past the fact that difficult customers and maintenance aren't why monopolies are expensive, in fact they're the things that are most amenable to economies of scale, so bigger gets cheaper. The real question is: why does he have to get larger than the 600 homes in his nearby rural area, ever? Why does his goal have to be to defeat and replace Comcast rather than to supply internet service to his neighbors?

toomuchtodo 4y ago
He doesn’t of course. Local/muni/coop last mile is a well worn path. It’s your local volunteer fire department, but for internet, and local self reliance is not a bad thing. It doesn’t have to grow, it doesn’t have to constantly evolve, it just has to work and be reliable. That is what infrastructure does, and when it does so, it’s mostly invisible (and I argue, that is its most beautiful form). https://ilsr.org/broadband-2/ https://ilsr.org/broadband-2/ https://muninetworks.org/ https://muninetworks.org/
Willish42 4y ago
Exactly. There are tons of smaller businesses not focused on infinitely growing that get by just fine. Especially in rural areas like these
- devmunchies 4y ago
  for every small business that "gets by", there are 2 (probably more) that go out of business due to not having grown sufficiently by the time they face some competition.
  - JadeNB 4y ago
    > for every small business that "gets by", there are 2 (probably more) that go out of business due to not having grown sufficiently by the time they face some competition. If your goal is to fight a monopoly, then the mere existence of competition means that you've accomplished your goal.
  - 4y ago

bentobean 4y ago

I, too, greatly respect the scrappy-ness of this individual. Kudos to him for sticking it to Comcast. That said, I'm not wild about the notion of dropping $30K of our collective money on running fiber to a single home out in the country.

ncmncm 4y ago
He was getting that money regardless. He decided to drop it on that.
devmunchies 4y ago
This was during covid lockdowns, right? It wouldn't be fair for the govt to enforce a lockdown and not provide funds/grants for internet infra.
- syklep 4y ago
  Government money is still our collective money.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
  - devmunchies 4y ago
    Agree, but then the alternative is to offer exemptions to lockdown. If they can't be provided for, the govt must allow them to provide for themselves.
autoexec 4y ago
I don't see anything wrong with "collectively" deciding that every American citizen should have access to high speed internet access and putting our money where our mouth is. Especially remote areas that are expanding and will become increasingly populated to take advantage of the infrastructure. For most of us, it doesn't cost anywhere near that much to get access so we can handle the rare costs to build out to remote areas where it's more expensive. That's the benefit of collective money. No one person has to shoulder the burden alone and together we each only chip in a small amount to achieve a massive goal. America should be heavily investing in building out select remote areas now because we're going to be getting much more crowded in the decades ahead. Climate change is going to force people inland, away from the western US, and cause hundreds of millions of climate refugees from around the planet to seek relocation. The US is going to have to do our part to help take many of them in. MI is a pretty good place to expand.

chiefalchemist 4y ago

I have to presume his marketing costs will be close to zero. On tge other hand, in my area (central NJ) both Comcast and Verizon spend a ton on marketing. He'll also have zero churn. So that's got to help the bottomline. Finally, I'm willing to bet it helps raise local home prices as those who had to have proper broadband were effectively excluded from that market. The point being, some homes will be able and will to pay more. Certainly the future will be different, the comparison to traditional ISPs might not be reliable either.

Rackedup 4y ago

Are you saying that Comcast provides decent customer service? because I think it is probably the first or second reason everyone hates them... another one could be the doubling cost yearly unless you call them and are serious about cancelling. Where I'm at Comcast is very reliable but I've had different experiences.