3 ms·

Community-owned _broadband networks_ I'm not sure about. Community-owned _physical infrastructure_ (especially last-mile — fiber & copper going to everybody's

Community-owned _broadband networks_ I'm not sure about. Community-owned _physical infrastructure_ (especially last-mile — fiber & copper going to everybody's house) … that needs to be the default. And if it's not community-owned, it needs to be regulated with open access requirements. Yes you can theoretically build a second fiber network and hook up people's houses. Yes it has happened in actual practice. But it is commercially questionable and just completely silly.

bombcar 2y ago
Having the "last mile" be owned by the community just makes complete sense; in fact it should be a requirement of future government subsidies (perhaps with an option for the existing infrastructure, if "good enough - fiber" to be sold to the community) as it reduces overlap and waste. Around here we have had THREE separate companies drop fiber in the last year (technically not to everyone's house as they only do that last connection when you subscribe) - so my yard now has five fiber lines through it. That's a bit overkill. They could have had the municipal electric utility run fiber to everyone, and then designate a single building as a POP/exchange and let any company that wanted to run a fat pipe to that and start reselling.
bryanlarsen 2y ago
Communities own the roads, trucking companies are commercial.
- Propelloni 2y ago
  It's almost like someone read Adam Smith's Wealth of Nations!
  - red-iron-pine 2y ago
    something something externalities something
Analemma_ 2y ago
What you're talking about is called local loop unbundling - the government owns the last-mile infrastructure, then leases access on FRAND terms to ISPs. It's a perfect alignment of incentives and a huge win for customers, so naturally ISPs fiercely oppose it and look to immediately crush any move in that direction whenever they can.
- nickff 2y ago
  It's not a perfect alignment because it gives the government monopoly power, to raise the price, decrease the service level, and reduce consumer surplus. That said, you can also make the case that governments (in most places) already have that power because of their permitting powers, and ownership of many poles or conduits.
  - eqvinox 2y ago
    The term "monopoly" doesn't really make sense for a government, they don't operate in a commercial/economic space where 2 governments could compete with each other. Also luckily a lot of us live in democracies where you have at least some degree of control over what the government does. (Edit: eh, I'm too tired, I guess you're arguing there is a monopoly on last-mile infrastructure then, which theoretically doesn't need to be a monopoly. Okay. In most cases it's a monopoly anyway because "over-building" existing last-mile connectivity won't be used by everyone and is thus less profitable.)
    - nickff 2y ago
      Your edit caught my meaning; I should have been more clear. There's always less profit potential where there is more competition, which is one reason why people suggest that monopolies are capable of providing higher-quality products (and services). Interestingly, some local governments are known (or at least have historically) to use their permitting powers to extract significant amounts of money from telecoms and others. I am not really sure what to do about this, but in the early days of power poles, few/no permits were required to use them, and there were many power providers sharing the same poles; it was messy, and contributed to unreliability, but it worked and allowed for competition.
sangnoir 2y ago
> And if it's not community-owned, it needs to be regulated with open access requirements. What kind of communist, socialistic talk is this? It's frankly anti-American and hurts the linchpin of the best country on earth, out job creators /s

bombcar 2y ago

Having the "last mile" be owned by the community just makes complete sense; in fact it should be a requirement of future government subsidies (perhaps with an option for the existing infrastructure, if "good enough - fiber" to be sold to the community) as it reduces overlap and waste. Around here we have had THREE separate companies drop fiber in the last year (technically not to everyone's house as they only do that last connection when you subscribe) - so my yard now has five fiber lines through it. That's a bit overkill. They could have had the municipal electric utility run fiber to everyone, and then designate a single building as a POP/exchange and let any company that wanted to run a fat pipe to that and start reselling.

bryanlarsen 2y ago

Communities own the roads, trucking companies are commercial.

Propelloni 2y ago
It's almost like someone read Adam Smith's Wealth of Nations!
- red-iron-pine 2y ago
  something something externalities something

Analemma_ 2y ago

What you're talking about is called local loop unbundling - the government owns the last-mile infrastructure, then leases access on FRAND terms to ISPs. It's a perfect alignment of incentives and a huge win for customers, so naturally ISPs fiercely oppose it and look to immediately crush any move in that direction whenever they can.

nickff 2y ago
It's not a perfect alignment because it gives the government monopoly power, to raise the price, decrease the service level, and reduce consumer surplus. That said, you can also make the case that governments (in most places) already have that power because of their permitting powers, and ownership of many poles or conduits.
- eqvinox 2y ago
  The term "monopoly" doesn't really make sense for a government, they don't operate in a commercial/economic space where 2 governments could compete with each other. Also luckily a lot of us live in democracies where you have at least some degree of control over what the government does. (Edit: eh, I'm too tired, I guess you're arguing there is a monopoly on last-mile infrastructure then, which theoretically doesn't need to be a monopoly. Okay. In most cases it's a monopoly anyway because "over-building" existing last-mile connectivity won't be used by everyone and is thus less profitable.)
  - nickff 2y ago
    Your edit caught my meaning; I should have been more clear. There's always less profit potential where there is more competition, which is one reason why people suggest that monopolies are capable of providing higher-quality products (and services). Interestingly, some local governments are known (or at least have historically) to use their permitting powers to extract significant amounts of money from telecoms and others. I am not really sure what to do about this, but in the early days of power poles, few/no permits were required to use them, and there were many power providers sharing the same poles; it was messy, and contributed to unreliability, but it worked and allowed for competition.

sangnoir 2y ago

> And if it's not community-owned, it needs to be regulated with open access requirements. What kind of communist, socialistic talk is this? It's frankly anti-American and hurts the linchpin of the best country on earth, out job creators /s