5 ms·

Having access to fast municipal internet is going to be a requirement for every home I buy going forward. That restricts my possible relocation options, but it

Having access to fast municipal internet is going to be a requirement for every home I buy going forward. That restricts my possible relocation options, but it's worth it to not have to deal with monopoly companies that can simply dictate whatever terms they like. Imagine if other utilities were private and had similar powers.

taylodl 3y ago
From a consumer perspective it's the worst of both worlds - they operate like a utility in that there's physical infrastructure needed to provide service to your home, but unlike a utility there's little to no regulation and oversight.
gottorf 3y ago
> That restricts my possible relocation options You're underselling the problem! That would limit you to a handful (or a fistful, if we're being generous) of municipalities in the whole country. I've lived in places where there was no municipal internet, but had two or three competing broadband providers. That kept prices down and services fast, and may be a suitable alternative.
ChrisMarshallNY 3y ago
There's been a couple of stories about people (usually fairly young couples) that brought houses, on the specific guarantee from their local "broadband" monopoly, that they would have the service, and found out only after moving in, that they did not, in fact, have the service, and would need to pay many thousands of dollars, to get substandard service. The companies that made the guarantees were allowed to say "oops, we goofed. Our bad.", without having to pay a dime, or even say sorry.
- barbazoo 3y ago
  How would one get such a guarantee, surely it's not just the availability check by address because I wouldn't expect that to be binding.
  - ChrisMarshallNY 3y ago
    I am quite sure that there was never anything binding.
  - spamizbad 3y ago
    Well, story time. Because I went through this process. I purchased a condo in a building that Comcast (A cable internet ISP) claimed to service. I even called ahead before putting an offer on the unit to verify I'd have them as an option, since they were the only high speed internet option available besides slow DSL or 4G. Sure enough, Comcast told me they service that address. Fast forward to near the move-in date, I call Comcast to transfer my service to this location. They tell me sorry, we can't do that, we don't service this address. I tell them this is impossible, because not only am I on your coverage map, but I called a month ago and you told me you service it. They said sorry, nothing they could do, and that I should try Comcast business or pay something like $4000 for a build-out. Well, I was desperate and called Comcast business to see if I could get a business line in my very residential condo. Weirdly, they allowed it. But I had to pay $200 for a setup fee and then roughly $100/month for what was basically 50mbps internet, locked in a 2 year contract. I had no choice, so I ate the cost - which looked much better than the $4000 option. But then Comcast said "Hey, we want to install a distribution box in your building, can we do that?" and I had to wrangle with the condo board to get that thing installed. About 3 months later I finally had Comcast internet, locked into an expensive contract. But because Comcast had installed a distribution box in the building, at least my neighbors could now actually get the service Comcast claimed they offered on the map (even for regular home internet). After 2 years my contract was up and I was able to switch to residential internet at a lower rate. I suspect if this was a SFH rather than a single unit in a 28-unit condo building I'd be screwed and have to shell out the $4K.
    - em-bee 3y ago
      probably not easy to achieve, but i think the contract needs to be made with the property owners, that is, if their property doesn't have the required internet service, they need to pay to fix it or allow you to cancel the contract.
  - 3y ago
- foobarian 3y ago
  > the specific guarantee Ah, so it was in writing and backed up by an escrow account? :-D
  - ChrisMarshallNY 3y ago
    Very doubtful. Probably a Web site, and, in one that I read, actual verbal assurance, by sales person.
- tw04 3y ago
  This literally happened to me. Looked at a house, Comcast said they serviced the address. First I checked online, then I called in on top of that just to make absolutely sure. Bought the house, ordered my Comcast, tech shows up on the day of install and says: "Sorry, we don't actually service this address, not sure what happened". I call in and they basically said tough shit, there's no way we're ever running service to that neighborhood.
  - zlg_codes 3y ago
    Wow, the gall of those people. It should be punishable for a business to lie to you like this. You made a financial decision based on information that the business should have on file.
    - jmholla 3y ago
      > It should be punishable for a business to lie to you like this. Agreed. Are there routes to sue these corporations? I think there are laws against financial decisions dependent on information provided by others.
    - ChrisMarshallNY 3y ago
      Apparently, the reason they do it, is that it qualifies them for some kinds of favors/kickbacks, if they are listed as serving an area, and it also may prevent rivals from serving that area. They tend to have a lot of local politicians in their pocket. Ars Technica tends to cover this crap. They were not fans of Ajit Pai.
  - tguvot 3y ago
    Before I bought house I opened access panel on a side of the house to make sure that there is coax/etc going into the house and asked neighbors about availability of the service
ilyt 3y ago
Honestly infrastructure itself like fiber to the homes should be operated separately from the ISPs. Would be far easier to have a competition if new player in town would have to only get their connectivity up to some central spot and then pay per client connected, rather than have to manage their fiber anywhere they go.
- gottorf 3y ago
  Yeah, there's a good argument to be made that the wire (be it fiber, coax, or whatever) itself should be treated as a public utility, since it is a natural monopoly. Several countries do operate like that.
  - tialaramex 3y ago
    This is in effect the regime in the UK for example. The incumbent Telco, BT Openreach, are regulated to offer "last mile" for the same fee to their closely related customer business BT and to third parties. In rural areas BT are required to offer service, if you live somewhere really crazy (like up a mountain) they can make you pay costs, but they can't say "No". On the other hand in a city where a dozen outfits might want to run cable, BT automatically are allowed, everybody else needs to get an OK. It's not perfect but it means that for the actual Internet stuff it's irrelevant, everybody can get a choice, I pay a lot for great customer service, static IPv4 and v6 and zero censorship, there are cheaper options, there are options with so-called "unlimited" usage, but the choice doesn't impact the cable in the ground. Because I live in a city I could buy faster but crappier service from a cable company, or a dedicated fibre Internet company but that wouldn't be an option in a village somewhere. And yes, nobody is building new copper. If a company tells you fibre is too expensive they're telling you they can't afford to be a Telco, they're a badly run business, chances are the unacceptable costs are in their C-suite not buried in the street.
    - rjsw 3y ago
      This isn't true everywhere in the UK. Neither Openreach nor City Fibre have laid fibre in my area of a big city, the only date given for when they will do it is sometime before 2026. A dedicated fibre internet company has cabled my street though. I just switched from an ISP that uses the Openreach infrastructure, probably the same one you are using from your description, to the dedicated fibre internet company as it was the only way I could get a faster connection.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
syradar 3y ago
Come live in Sweden! Most cities have a "City Net" which is municipal fiber. I recently moved apartments and the new place had both coax and fiber. I just went on an ISP website input my apartment details and two days later I had 500/500 Mbps for $39.14 / month. One can also use a compare service like Bredbandsval ("val" means both choice and whale) https://www-bredbandsval-se.translate.goog/?_x_tr_sl=sv&_x_tr_tl=en&_x_tr_hl=en-US&_x_tr_pto=wapp https://www-bredbandsval-se.translate.goog/?_x_tr_sl=sv&_x_t...

taylodl 3y ago

From a consumer perspective it's the worst of both worlds - they operate like a utility in that there's physical infrastructure needed to provide service to your home, but unlike a utility there's little to no regulation and oversight.

gottorf 3y ago

> That restricts my possible relocation options You're underselling the problem! That would limit you to a handful (or a fistful, if we're being generous) of municipalities in the whole country. I've lived in places where there was no municipal internet, but had two or three competing broadband providers. That kept prices down and services fast, and may be a suitable alternative.

ChrisMarshallNY 3y ago

There's been a couple of stories about people (usually fairly young couples) that brought houses, on the specific guarantee from their local "broadband" monopoly, that they would have the service, and found out only after moving in, that they did not, in fact, have the service, and would need to pay many thousands of dollars, to get substandard service. The companies that made the guarantees were allowed to say "oops, we goofed. Our bad.", without having to pay a dime, or even say sorry.

barbazoo 3y ago
How would one get such a guarantee, surely it's not just the availability check by address because I wouldn't expect that to be binding.
- ChrisMarshallNY 3y ago
  I am quite sure that there was never anything binding.
- spamizbad 3y ago
  Well, story time. Because I went through this process. I purchased a condo in a building that Comcast (A cable internet ISP) claimed to service. I even called ahead before putting an offer on the unit to verify I'd have them as an option, since they were the only high speed internet option available besides slow DSL or 4G. Sure enough, Comcast told me they service that address. Fast forward to near the move-in date, I call Comcast to transfer my service to this location. They tell me sorry, we can't do that, we don't service this address. I tell them this is impossible, because not only am I on your coverage map, but I called a month ago and you told me you service it. They said sorry, nothing they could do, and that I should try Comcast business or pay something like $4000 for a build-out. Well, I was desperate and called Comcast business to see if I could get a business line in my very residential condo. Weirdly, they allowed it. But I had to pay $200 for a setup fee and then roughly $100/month for what was basically 50mbps internet, locked in a 2 year contract. I had no choice, so I ate the cost - which looked much better than the $4000 option. But then Comcast said "Hey, we want to install a distribution box in your building, can we do that?" and I had to wrangle with the condo board to get that thing installed. About 3 months later I finally had Comcast internet, locked into an expensive contract. But because Comcast had installed a distribution box in the building, at least my neighbors could now actually get the service Comcast claimed they offered on the map (even for regular home internet). After 2 years my contract was up and I was able to switch to residential internet at a lower rate. I suspect if this was a SFH rather than a single unit in a 28-unit condo building I'd be screwed and have to shell out the $4K.
  - em-bee 3y ago
    probably not easy to achieve, but i think the contract needs to be made with the property owners, that is, if their property doesn't have the required internet service, they need to pay to fix it or allow you to cancel the contract.
- 3y ago
foobarian 3y ago
> the specific guarantee Ah, so it was in writing and backed up by an escrow account? :-D
- ChrisMarshallNY 3y ago
  Very doubtful. Probably a Web site, and, in one that I read, actual verbal assurance, by sales person.
tw04 3y ago
This literally happened to me. Looked at a house, Comcast said they serviced the address. First I checked online, then I called in on top of that just to make absolutely sure. Bought the house, ordered my Comcast, tech shows up on the day of install and says: "Sorry, we don't actually service this address, not sure what happened". I call in and they basically said tough shit, there's no way we're ever running service to that neighborhood.
- zlg_codes 3y ago
  Wow, the gall of those people. It should be punishable for a business to lie to you like this. You made a financial decision based on information that the business should have on file.
  - jmholla 3y ago
    > It should be punishable for a business to lie to you like this. Agreed. Are there routes to sue these corporations? I think there are laws against financial decisions dependent on information provided by others.
  - ChrisMarshallNY 3y ago
    Apparently, the reason they do it, is that it qualifies them for some kinds of favors/kickbacks, if they are listed as serving an area, and it also may prevent rivals from serving that area. They tend to have a lot of local politicians in their pocket. Ars Technica tends to cover this crap. They were not fans of Ajit Pai.
- tguvot 3y ago
  Before I bought house I opened access panel on a side of the house to make sure that there is coax/etc going into the house and asked neighbors about availability of the service

ilyt 3y ago

Honestly infrastructure itself like fiber to the homes should be operated separately from the ISPs. Would be far easier to have a competition if new player in town would have to only get their connectivity up to some central spot and then pay per client connected, rather than have to manage their fiber anywhere they go.

gottorf 3y ago
Yeah, there's a good argument to be made that the wire (be it fiber, coax, or whatever) itself should be treated as a public utility, since it is a natural monopoly. Several countries do operate like that.
- tialaramex 3y ago
  This is in effect the regime in the UK for example. The incumbent Telco, BT Openreach, are regulated to offer "last mile" for the same fee to their closely related customer business BT and to third parties. In rural areas BT are required to offer service, if you live somewhere really crazy (like up a mountain) they can make you pay costs, but they can't say "No". On the other hand in a city where a dozen outfits might want to run cable, BT automatically are allowed, everybody else needs to get an OK. It's not perfect but it means that for the actual Internet stuff it's irrelevant, everybody can get a choice, I pay a lot for great customer service, static IPv4 and v6 and zero censorship, there are cheaper options, there are options with so-called "unlimited" usage, but the choice doesn't impact the cable in the ground. Because I live in a city I could buy faster but crappier service from a cable company, or a dedicated fibre Internet company but that wouldn't be an option in a village somewhere. And yes, nobody is building new copper. If a company tells you fibre is too expensive they're telling you they can't afford to be a Telco, they're a badly run business, chances are the unacceptable costs are in their C-suite not buried in the street.
  - rjsw 3y ago
    This isn't true everywhere in the UK. Neither Openreach nor City Fibre have laid fibre in my area of a big city, the only date given for when they will do it is sometime before 2026. A dedicated fibre internet company has cabled my street though. I just switched from an ISP that uses the Openreach infrastructure, probably the same one you are using from your description, to the dedicated fibre internet company as it was the only way I could get a faster connection.

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

syradar 3y ago

Come live in Sweden! Most cities have a "City Net" which is municipal fiber. I recently moved apartments and the new place had both coax and fiber. I just went on an ISP website input my apartment details and two days later I had 500/500 Mbps for $39.14 / month. One can also use a compare service like Bredbandsval ("val" means both choice and whale) https://www-bredbandsval-se.translate.goog/?_x_tr_sl=sv&_x_tr_tl=en&_x_tr_hl=en-US&_x_tr_pto=wapp https://www-bredbandsval-se.translate.goog/?_x_tr_sl=sv&_x_t...