[HN Gopher] Man who built ISP instead of paying Comcast $50K exp... ___________________________________________________________________ Man who built ISP instead of paying Comcast $50K expands to hundreds of homes Author : carride Score : 919 points Date : 2022-08-10 13:23 UTC (9 hours ago) (HTM) web link (arstechnica.com) (TXT) w3m dump (arstechnica.com) | qwe----3 wrote: | > over $30,000 for each of those homes to get served | | This doesn't seem very efficient to me. | rvnx wrote: | To say the least, it's more about siphoning public taxes | deelowe wrote: | I don't understand this sentiment. Taxes are levied to then | pay for things such as infrastructure which this qualifies | as. How else should this work? | rvnx wrote: | You are a private person and you choose to live deep in the | country-side / on a desert / on an island / remote location | / deep in the forest. | | Who should pay for your road, your electricity, your water, | your internet connection when you are the one mostly | benefiting from it ? | | Taxes have to be used primarily with the goal to maximize | public interest, not the interests of single private | persons. | | Perhaps a Starlink connection would have been enough for | them and perfectly fine if it's a single family. | | Could there have been alternatives that maximize coverage ? | For example, by supporting deployment of 5G antennas as | public infrastructure (thus, benefiting the whole area). | | This family doesn't necessarily _need_ a single fiber cable | to reach their house. | InitialLastName wrote: | 5G base stations have a range on the order of 1000 feet, | and need to be connected to a high-speed backbone to | function. | | In rural areas, a 1000 foot radius doesn't get you very | many people, and since you ran fiber all the way to that | antenna, you might as well run fiber the rest of the way. | tyen_ wrote: | That's fair, maybe this family should be able to opt out | of taxes that don't benefit them then, you know since | they are so remote and everything. | tstrimple wrote: | Rural sprawl significantly increases overall | infrastructure costs. Their taxes are already being | subsidized by more urban tax payers. Those rural areas | can't afford to maintain what they have. | rvnx wrote: | Well it's not a stupid idea at all, that when you pay | taxes, you could vote for the 3 or 4 topics that you want | support in priority, and they get allocated a more budget | in proportion or something like that. | | This could even increase support of people to pay taxes | (reducing fraud) as the taxpayers would know they would | be supporting projects in line with their vision and | lifestyle. | rootusrootus wrote: | I get the idea, but this is basically just admitting that | our representative form of government doesn't work. | Ostensibly we control our taxes already by who we vote | for. | 4ggr0 wrote: | That sounds like it would bring even more political | divisiveness and injustice to the US. | Consultant32452 wrote: | Yes. | InitialLastName wrote: | Further, they should be forcibly blocked from using any | services they refused to pay taxes for. No highways, | flood protection, low food prices, or access to the | global trade network for you! | PythagoRascal wrote: | Except if they purchase a subscription to these benefits | through one of the two companies (same parent company) | that provide them. The subscriptions are of course | competitively priced, since they only have the best | interest of their customers at heart. | Consultant32452 wrote: | I find it's helpful to create a monopoly on purpose, and | then give that monopoly for a service an additional | monopoly on violence. Then, if someone doesn't want to | use the monopoly, they can just send men with weapons of | war to force them to fund the monopoly at gunpoint. | Bloating wrote: | Sounds good. Might even bring some accountablity | mensetmanusman wrote: | Some people are farmers. Everyone benefits if there is | Internet in remote places in order to help people stay | and live where the farming is going to happen. | charcircuit wrote: | 5G internet is no replacement for wired internet. The | latency is terrible for use cases like gaming. | deelowe wrote: | I thought 5G was in the range of 1-10ms. | charcircuit wrote: | You are thinking of 5G mmwave which trades off better | range for better speed and latency. For maximizing | coverage you are looking at something that looks like 4G. | gvb wrote: | > Perhaps a Starlink connection would have been enough | for them and perfectly fine if it's a single family. | | Oh the irony... Starlink is also tapping (federal) | government subsidies to provide internet service to rural | areas. Tapping government subsidies is a very important | part of Starlink's plan to become profitable. | | Ref: "SpaceX's Starlink wins nearly $900 million in FCC | subsidies to bring internet to rural areas" | https://www.cnbc.com/2020/12/07/spacex-starlink-wins- | nearly-... | jeremyjh wrote: | The difference is that those investments will be usable | by anyone who wants the service and can setup the | antenna. Where-as a half mile fiber run to your house in | the boonies can only ever be useful to you. | welterde wrote: | The subsidy is for the company though and not this | specific fiber run, which was a sort of worst-case. The | company is quite limited in geographical scope, so they | got a fairly small subsidy, while Starlink is much larger | in scope and thus got a larger one. | | Also that fiber run will remain useful for far longer | than the Starlink satellites. It's pretty much a one-time | cost with negligible operating cost, whereas Starlink | will have to continuously keep launching satellites to | keep it running. | jeremyjh wrote: | One way or another, tax payers spent $30K on a fiber run | to one house. Yes, they spent less on some other ones | too. The indirection just increases cost insensitivity. | welterde wrote: | It's all about averages though. Some people will be cheap | to connect, while others will be expensive to connect. | And the subsidies are most likely written in a way, such | that the ISPs can't only go for the low-hanging fruit. | | Same with Starlink on a bigger scale. Some ground station | will have more people near them than others (absent | satellite to satellite comms). Some orbits will be used | by more people than others.. | gvb wrote: | ...or not: "FCC denies Starlink's application for $885M | subsidy" (breaking news) | | https://techcrunch.com/2022/08/10/fcc-denies-starlinks- | appli... | | https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32417587 | treesknees wrote: | You should look up the area that Jared is building his | fiber network. These homes are probably 10 minutes from | the University of Michigan. It's not a remote country- | side, it's just far enough out of reach of Comcast that | they won't build out. I understand your point if someone | decides to build their house on 20 acres of forest, but | this is not that. That's why we need these programs. | jeffdn wrote: | It's pretty widely accepted that the government will help | people gain and maintain access to infrastructure, even | (especially?) in rural areas. Ever heard of the Rural | Electrification Administration[0]? The Tennessee Valley | Authority[1]? Despite the fact that it is not considered | a _necessary_ utility de jure, internet access is hugely | important in our modern society and economy. These areas | have post offices, electricity, trash service, etc., so | why shouldn't they also have access to internet? Those | other utilities cost money to install as well. | | [0]: | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rural_Electrification_Act | | [1]: | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tennessee_Valley_Authority | halfmatthalfcat wrote: | I don't understand this comment. There are a lot of | places in the country where a majority pays for the | minority when it comes to infrastructure. Case in point | NYC or Chicago, whose populations and tax bases make up a | majority of the state, yet their taxes still go to | maintaining the state infrastructure as a whole. The | state, in order to function, needs some kind of | continuity and predictability to plan for population | dynamics and spread out taxes accordingly. | cestith wrote: | Even beyond helping the state as a whole, they are also | helping themselves. Good luck getting anything into or | out of Chicago or New York without rail, roads, locks, | dams, and airports. Infrastructure that connects to | nothing isn't all that useful. All that downstate | Illinois roadway, railway, navigable rivers, and smaller | airports have their uses for Chicago, too. That's what | networks - like the Internet - do. | romellem wrote: | Do you also think the [16th amendment][1] should be | repealed? Because what you are arguing is basically the | same as the opponents of that amendment. | | [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sixteenth_Amendment_to | _the_Uni... | [deleted] | failrate wrote: | The resources of this country are to be allocated for the | benefit of its citizens. | | In other words, it is our money, and we can spend it on | decent internet for rural areas. | | Lack of internet access is disenfranchising when numerous | necessary government and school services has been moved | online. | Bloating wrote: | >The resources of this country are to be allocated for the | benefit of its citizens. | | Sounds like a great idea! When can we get started? | failrate wrote: | What do you think roads are? | | Snark aside, I spent years being angry about every | government subsidy until I learned that some subsidies | are pork barrel spending and some are just the normal | allocations required by a functioning government to | maintain the expected standard of living. | toss1 wrote: | The point of taxes is to provide collective goods, such as | infrastructure, defense, education. | | One of the first thing the US's founders did was create the | postal service, which was to provide mail service to | everyone, regardless of location; it literally costs the same | to mail a letter across the street as to send it to some | house in Whoknowswhere, Alaska. This provides a minimum | communications infrastructure. | | One of the best things that were done in the New Deal was the | Rural Electrification Act, which ensured that electrical | service was provided to everyone, providing a minimum | availability of a critical energy source. | | Also essential was the initial telecommunications acts, which | required providing telephone service at the same rates to all | addresses. Again, providing this service universally ensures | that the entire country has a baseline communications | infrastructure. | | This is why the telecomm companies have been aggressively | stripping copper telephone wires from their system and | replacing everything with fiber or coax -- because the laws | requiring universal service are tied to phone service and | copper wires. This is why we wind up with companies like | Comcast saying "F*$k-You - $50,000 for 500m of wire" to to | everyone that isn't instantly profitable. | | These universal service mandates are not to benefit each | individual living on some remote farm or homestead, or just | more remote suburbs/exurbs. | | They are to benefit THE ENTIRE NATION. Everyone benefits from | infrastructure, and benefits most when the infrastructure is | more universal, when everyone can has power, can communicate | and can transport goods. | | You live in an advanced society with advanced infrastructure. | When that infrastructure gets built out, perhaps notice that | it is a good thing, instead of thinking of only your own | petty concerns. | | Or, go find someplace where there are no taxes and you get to | do everything yourself (hey, if you want it done right, do it | yourself, right?) - see what you can find and how well you | can live with no roads, comms, power, security, etc. Report | back. | rvnx wrote: | I'm saying to allocate budget to maximize as much as | possible the public/global interest. | | Yes it's nicer to have optic fiber, but this is somewhat | luxury if Starlink exists, and if the gov funds it already. | | I'm sure some other people in the US need more these 30'000 | USD than optic fiber to watch Netflix with a little less | buffering. | | Budget could be used somewhere else (to build roads, or to | support medicine/health, education, animal welfare, etc). | | So it's not about refusing to help rural / remote people, | but rather about optimising allocation in order to support | as much people as possible. | cestith wrote: | My parents currently have four options for Internet | access. One is only on their phones with no tethering. | The other is to dial in over a landline at 33.6k if they | can find an ISP that still offers that. There's existing | satellite, which is 512k down and like 25k up for | hundreds a month. Or there's a wireless 256k plan that | costs $2000 to install. | | There's no ISDN, no DSL, no Starlink yet, no 5G fixed, no | 4G fixed, no power-line Internet. They are not watching | any Netflix, and things like Social Security and Medicare | are increasingly accessed through poorly performing, | bloated websites. They paid taxes more than five decades | of full-time work. There's fiber within two miles of | them, but nobody's used it to extend what's becoming a | modern necessity to their house. | | If they lived on the other side of the road, they'd have | the area's rural electric cooperative. Then they could | get at least 10 Mbps over the power lines. However, | they're on a corporate power provider that has 4 to 12 | hour outages 3 to 4 times a year besides not offering | similar additional services. | | With the right negotiations and a few hundred thousand | dollars, their moderately densely populated | unincorporated area could serve hundreds of homes with | broadband. The cable and phone companies were given | millions upon millions of subsidies every month for | decades now for rural phone and Internet access, but have | not served this area. It's time something else is done in | these areas to give them the same access to the modern | marketplace and to government services as everyone else. | toss1 wrote: | >>this is somewhat luxury if Starlink exists | | If multiple and more reliable than Starlink existed, | maybe. | | The point of universal access is just that - UNIVERSAL | access. | | We are already failing this massively with laws granting | territorial monopolies to companies like Comcast AT&T, | Verizon, etc., enabling them to give the worst possible | service at globally awful prices. Granting another | effective monopoly to Starlink is not the solution, | UNLESS we are going to regulate all of this like a | utility - actual regulated standards of service, by | companies with a large in-state business nexus, cost-plus | rates approved by regulatory body, etc. | | Using Starlink seems fine, but Starlink has effectively | zero skin in the game, no in-state nexux. If it is | convenient for them to shut off or downgrade service to | these houses for some reason, there is essentially zero | recourse for these customers or the state to exercise any | leverage to cause Starlink to resume service. | | This is actually an excellent solution, with a local | vendor with skin in the game, providing solid fiber | infrastructure. | | You really seem to entirely miss the point of UNIVERSAL | SERVICE. Yes, the local post office makes a wild profit | on delivering a $0.60 1-ounce first-class envelope to a | PO box in the same post office, and loses an insane | amount delivering the same letter to/from Wherethafakawe, | Alaska by bush planes. I'm sure they could be more | efficient scanning the letter and sending an email | to/from Alaska, but that won't get grandma's fabric | sample to her grandkid, or my high-performance sample to | my customer. The point is that the same service level | everywhere has it's own benefits, and those benefits are | to the entire nation, not only to some. | | With every general solution, you can point out individual | point inefficiencies. What you are failing to notice is | that if you optimize for every one of those point | inefficiencies, you effectively de-scale the system. | | You lose ALL the benefits of a consistent system, as well | as losing most of the economies of scale. This is why | companies repeatedly go on binges to reduce their supply | chain vendor count - sure, some of those suppliers are | lower cost at that point, but the overhead of managing | many redundant suppliers outweighs the cost. | | And you are looking at only one point of the costs, | getting bent out of shape, and trowing out a generic | "taxes bad" comment. Yes, it looks like a clueless anti- | government political comment. | | It might even be the case that in some circumstances, a | Starlink solution could be best. But you have done none | of the analysis to establish that claim, and other | people, who are actually 'in the arena' have found a | different solution is better. If you want to challenge | them, do so with something better than "ugh, taxes and | spending bad". | basilgohar wrote: | He's actually connecting hundreds of people that otherwise | wouldn't have such access to fiber. The big ISPs took WAY | more money [0] and delivered less. | | [0] https://newnetworks.com/bookofbrokenpromises.htm | [deleted] | sgerenser wrote: | Yeah seems like some sort of mix of fiber and wireless for the | "last mile" would make more sense for installations like this. | philote wrote: | Depends on the area. Wireless won't work well in the | mountains, and I assume weather could affect some wireless | technologies as well. I live in a mountainous area and we | have a local ISP that provides fiber to our entire county. | Which is weird, because I recently lived in a major city and | couldn't get fiber. | bombcar wrote: | It's way easier to push fiber through the ground in rural | areas where there's basically nothing than it is in major | cities where there are tons of things _and already some | form of wired internet_. | | And if you're within a mile of the destination, that last | mile isn't actually that terribly expensive, especially if | it's literally rural and that mile is on the property | owner's land. They can figure out how to get to the box at | the road. | toast0 wrote: | If utilities are underground, it can be pretty expensive to | install anything. I have an estimate for municipal fiber that's | about that much to get fiber a mile or two down the street | overhead, and then about that much to go down my driveway | underground 400 feet. | | It's hard to justify when the local phone company is probably | going to roll out fiber in the next few years without a direct | charge, at least for the portion on the street. Of course, | that'll probably be PPPoE, maybe asymetrical, likely limited to | 1G, etc. Comcast won't even quote me to come down my driveway, | even though they serve my neighbor across the street from the | pole at the corner of my driveway. | ericd wrote: | Wow, have you considered buying some conduit and renting a | trenching machine and giving the driveway portion a go | yourself? Might be worth talking over that option with the | muni fiber people. Though sounds like the overhead portion | would still be $$$. | toast0 wrote: | I've considered it, but I suspect it might end up like | bombcar's experience with cutting buried lines. I'm not | much of a digger for the manual work either. And there's a | seasonal creek to cross which seems like a lot of fun. | | I'm not too worried about the overhead portion; in theory, | I could group with neighbors and we all pay a share, or I | could pay it and consider it a goodwill gesture to my | neighbors; they wouldn't need to pay that portion if they | wanted to get online (and some of them have overhead drops | for electric and what not, so they'd be able to get a cheap | drop for fiber, too) | ericd wrote: | Well, you'd probably start by getting Miss Utility to | come out and mark your lines. I think bombcar's point was | that you care a lot more about not cutting those than any | contractor will, and so you're less likely to do it. | alistairSH wrote: | A friend did this at his farm in central VA, but for power | line instead of fiber. It was previously above ground, | unsightly, and occasionally damaged by trees. He dug the | trench from the road and had the power company lay the wire | in it and make connections at each end. I don't remember | the total numbers, but he saved thousands by doing the dig | himself (with rented equipment) vs paying the power company | to manage it. | | Of course, this assume you're comfortable with heavy | machinery and can work around other utilities (most | counties have a "Miss Utility" service that will mark | existing services). | bombcar wrote: | Yep, depending on the lay of the land doing the grunt | work can save thousands or tens of thousands - if you | have the company do it they'll almost certainly bring in | a crew of 4 or 5 with a underground "hog" machine that's | supposed to work perfectly but doesn't actually so the | backhoe appears and then they cut into a buried utility | line that was marked but backhoes can't read and then you | wait for the power company to come out and then they | fight over whose fault it was while the freezer slowly | drips onto your floor. | | Or you can rent a ditch witch and do it yourself and dig | by hand near anything remotely marked by the marking | crew. | ericd wrote: | lol sounds like this might not just be a hypothetical | scenario for you. | inopinatus wrote: | It isn't, but that's the norm for all internet infrastructure, | both last-mile and backbone. | | Since time immemorial, the gap between the amortized cost of | building it, and anyone's willingness to pay for transport or | transit, has been a) huge (that is, commercially | insurmountable), and b) traditionally covered by one of two | means: | | 1. Government subsidy, or | | 2. Attempting to offer services at the high prices necessary to | recoup the investment, consequently going bust due to low | volumes, selling the infrastructure for a pittance in a fire | sale, and the _next_ owner gets to offer services for prices | the market is willing to tolerate. With this approach, it | merely remains to find some VCs to sucker for the build phase. | | It was also possible, back in the day, to run tunnels across | your peers since they would announce the IXP networks at each | end into their IGP, but folks got wise to that scam. | | There is a variation on (2) involving anti-trust laws during | M&A but it amounts to the same thing. | Vaslo wrote: | Agreed - that much money could put in a computer lab in a local | library for everyone to use. I'm very supportive of rural | people and the life they choose to live, but you are right - | they should understand the drawbacks. | burntsushi wrote: | It's funny because he said one of the houses needed 0.5 miles | of cable. My jaw dropped when he said it would _only_ be $30K | for that. | | I'm speaking as someone who has had a few hundred foot trenches | dug in my yard for running cable. Extrapolating it to 0.5 miles | would come out to a lot more than $30K. | strken wrote: | What's the expensive part of a new fibre run? With $30k you | could hire an excavator and operator for maybe 15 to 20 weeks | straight, but I'm guessing the pits are expensive and dealing | with obstacles is hard. | burntsushi wrote: | I don't know. I didn't do it. I just know how much money | came out of my wallet and how long the trench was. :-) | | So that means I paid for labor. But presumably some part of | that $30K will be going to labor as well. | | Another possibility is that when you get to the scale of | 0.5 miles, you start using different tactics or machines | than the small little backhoe loader that the guy used in | our yard. So, more capital required but overall more | efficient. | | Anyway, I don't mean to try and offer an accurate | accounting of all of this. I mostly just meant to provide a | counter-expectation. | dboreham wrote: | There are fixed costs to a job. It doesn't cost much more to | dig a bit longer trench. Things like needing to do horizontal | boring to cross an intersection would jack up the cost | though. | | e.g. I used to pay ~$2k for a contractor to come to re-gravel | my driveway. Now I own my own excavator and loader and dump | trailer it costs me about $200 (plus my time plus equipment | depreciation). | brianwawok wrote: | You get bigger machines, which do work faster. | fragmede wrote: | And you dig smaller trenches with them. Microtrenching digs | a foot deep and two inch wide hole for direct bury fiber | cable, saving time and money over older techniques. | niffydroid wrote: | Surely with utility plans you can just use a mole? Dig a few | trenches and just use a mole to go between them. No need to | dig the entire length. I'm pretty sure this is what utility | companies use in the Uk if they can't drag the utility | through the existing duct/pipe. Imaging installing fibre to a | neighbour and having to dig up every single pavement/road to | do this. | throwaway787544 wrote: | .....have you ever dug fiber in Michigan? | omvtam wrote: | You can hang your fiber on existing infrastructure like | electric distribution poles. edit: If you're the electric | company. | dboreham wrote: | In most locations in the US any entity can hang wire on | utility poles (the poles are often owned by the city, with an | open access policy -- this is how CATV and PSTN wires are up | there on poles, and more recently 5GUWB base stations). There | are certain requirements (e.g. insurance, you have to have | assets on hand to repair your cable when someone drives into | a pole, you need workers who are certified to work near high | tension wires, etc). Usually you can outsource that stuff, | for a price, possibly to the same contracting company who | does the same work for Comcast. | adrr wrote: | Friend of mine needed to run fiber across the street. They had | to dig up the road. Cost was $50k. This was in a city where | there aren't large pools of money from the government to get | people decent Internet address. | fourthark wrote: | At $55/mo, he'll start making a profit in 45 years. | TrueGeek wrote: | From the article: he had $2.6MM in help from the "American | Rescue Plan's Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery | Funds". | | He's being paid by the government to bring Internet access to | homes in the state that aren't currently wired for it. | qwe----3 wrote: | That bill and these types of projects are basically why we | have 10% inflation now. | lambdas wrote: | Damn, this project is even hurting me in the UK then | because we're also at 10%. Curse you Jared. | Tostino wrote: | Yeah I'm sure this is the exact US "government waste" | driving the global inflation right now. | cgeier wrote: | How does spending a lot of government money make goods | and service more expensive? | | EDIT: At least here in Western Europe, we mostly have a | supply side inflation, because energy got a lot more | expensive, not because the government has been "printing" | a lot of money. I suspect it's the same in the US. | h1fra wrote: | Actually Europe has been printing a lot of money by | having less than 0% interest rate for loan. Current | inflation is due to many factor, some estimate it has | been slowly growing since 2008, plus covid where we | printed money to just to keep business alive, plus | negative interest rate that allowed countries to loan too | much, etc... | | But I suspect that subsidies for infrastructure is one of | the least impactful factor for inflation. | failrate wrote: | It does not unless that money is spent competing with | businesses and citizens for resources. However, in this | case the money had already been earmarked for rural | internet service and is not being used to purchase goods | and services that citizens would be buying instead. | pwinnski wrote: | Yes, inflation is currently a world-wide issue, and | explanations at the world level lead somewhat obviously | to the pandemic and Russia's invasion of the Ukraine. | | But here in the USA, people like to believe it must be | political and local, completely unrelated to the totally- | coincidental worldwide issue that happens to be very | similar. | Bloating wrote: | >But, here in the USA people like to believe it must be | political... | | Cool, whats your prognoses for effectiveness of the | Reduce Inflation Act | pwinnski wrote: | I'm in favor of the bill, but the name is stupid, even | misleading. The spending is largely good, but it won't | have much effect on inflation, if any. | LetsGetTechnicl wrote: | Inflation isn't at 10% but it seems like investing in | infrastructure is a good idea. If we needed to pinch | pennies we could start at the bloated military budget | _wolfie_ wrote: | Right, in the middle of war with Russia and with war with | China on the horizon. Great idea. | themoonisachees wrote: | The US aren't at war with Russia. | | Sure, they're helping an ally in a De facto war against | Russia, but currently the us spends more on "defense" | than both Russia and China combined, when it is | technically at peace. In case of a war with China, are | you expecting the military budget to not increase at all? | Thetawaves wrote: | How do you stay at peace? A strong deterrence. | pessimizer wrote: | The US has the strongest deterrence in the history of the | world, and it's constantly at war. | vaidhy wrote: | When is the time US has not been at war? Maybe, we are | inverting cause and effect here.. US is always at war | because the budget allows for it? | 2Gkashmiri wrote: | Say it this way. Tomorrow if the american security | /defence budget was cut to 0, do you think the rest of | the world will storm/attack Americans because they have | an eternal blood thirst for them? Don't they have their | own problems to deal with? | | This is the problem with mitary and security infra of any | country. They keep the bogeyman alive because their | paychecks depend on it. | Thetawaves wrote: | This is literally exactly what would happen. It need not | be blood thirst motivation; simple profit dynamics are | enough to ensure this outcome. | LetsGetTechnicl wrote: | Wars we've provoked/are provoking but that's not a | discussion relevant to the original submission | kombucha13 wrote: | That doesn't make any sense. | Bloating wrote: | Gotta pay your fair share, so it can be granted out for | someone elses gain | beeboop wrote: | Are you also concerned about your tax dollars paying for | roads in the next neighborhood over? | Bloating wrote: | The neighborhood developer paid for that. The roads | connecting, donated many many years ago by the landowners | at that time | bell-cot wrote: | Ah! - so the next neighborhood over has all-private | roads, and the homeowners association there ( _not_ the | government) pays for all snow plowing, crack & pothole | patching, repaving, storm sewer work, etc. that might be | needed? | sophacles wrote: | Ah yes, the HOA. A group of elected people that can | compel you to do things with your property, require you | to pay a share every year or they take your home, and | have the ability to fine you if you don't comply with the | majority opinion. Very much not a government in any way! | hcurtiss wrote: | I get the point you're making, but to the facts, that is | quite literally how many subdivisions work, and least in | the western US. | bell-cot wrote: | In my corner of Michigan, there seems to be a very clear | dichotomy on this: | | - Private developer builds a sprawling subdivision with | plenty of nice wide roads and lots. (So a very large area | of pavement per tax-paying property.) And turns the whole | thing over to the city/village/township, to be their | public road budget black hole forever more. | | - Private developer builds a _very_ compact little | development, with houses (or condo 's) packed in like | sardines along a rather narrow and minimalist Private | Road. | amazingman wrote: | Good thing roads are permanently in working condition! | mmastrac wrote: | This is literally how societies function - you contribute | a small amount to the general pool, you use small amounts | from the general pool. In some cases bigger chunks go for | bigger works like ISPs or bridges. I certainly hope you | don't want a world where every road, bridge and traffic | light is independently owned. | DavidAdams wrote: | Yeah, wait until you find out that some of your tax | dollars go to pay for bridges you never use or to bomb | people who never personally insulted you. | Bloating wrote: | Well, there is a lot of legal graft in society | westpfelia wrote: | Dont drive on roads I guess? Would hate to be apart of | graft. | gowld wrote: | amazingman wrote: | What exactly are you advocating as an alternative? | Leaving the unserved homes unserved? | duncan-donuts wrote: | This is also why USPS is crucial for rural areas. The | Government should be subsidizing this work because if | they don't people in rural areas are left behind. | xavxav wrote: | Today you help finance someone's fiber, tomorrow they | help finance your hospital/fire dept/etc, that's the | whole idea of public works. | Bloating wrote: | Sounds more like how crony politics for personal gain | works. Alternatively, you could finance the hospital, | fire depart, or whatever without an middle man siphoning | off "their fair share" | thelamest wrote: | Coordination games and public goods games (which arguably | model insurance) work best when people don't adversely | self-select, but coordinate around the social optimum | (for insurance, when the risk pool is as large as | possible). Whatever can orchestrate such coordination | adds value. If people do it on their own, great, but some | problems have characteristics like time horizons such | that the coordination doesn't happen without an | authority. Yes, this brings in other public choice | problems, but the trade-off is not necessarily bad. | reaperducer wrote: | _Alternatively, you could finance the hospital, fire | depart, or whatever without an middle man siphoning off | "their fair share"_ | | This has already been tried. People used to subscribe to | fire service, or ambulance service. It doesn't work, and | is also bad for society. | | If you want people to only use the things they directly | pay for, and not pay for shared things through taxes, | then only drive on your own driveway. Don't drive on any | roads outside of your cul-de-sac. Don't get your Amazon | order delivered on state and federally-funded highways. | Don't fly out of any big airport in America. Don't fly on | any commercial airline, since they have all received | taxpayer bailouts in the past. Don't use a bank. Don't | use money. Hire a security guard to protect your | property, and another one to follow you around every day. | Get your water from a well on your own property. | | For an 88-day-old account to be this stunningly obtuse, | I'm going with "troll," rather than "genuinely completely | oblivious to how the world works." | Ancapistani wrote: | > People used to subscribe to fire service, or ambulance | service. It doesn't work, and is also bad for society. | | That's interesting - FEMA says that 70% of the fire | departments in the US are all-volunteer, and >90% have a | volunteer component. | | https://apps.usfa.fema.gov/registry/summary#g | | I've lived in areas with volunteer fire departments that | paid for their operations primarily with "fire dues" for | most of my life. As far as I know, _most_ volunteer | departments operate like that. | | I had no idea they didn't work. I wonder if anyone has | told them? | thfuran wrote: | What does account age have to do with any of this? | amazingman wrote: | In this case the "middle man" is literally doing the | work. Money doesn't build things. It goes to entities so | that they can build things. I suspect you know this, but | it _seems_ like you don't. | pentae wrote: | So if you want to see this theory in action go to | developing countries with an elite ruling class where | they don't disperse funds to social works and see how | nice it is, behold their lame GDP, etc. | | The country I live in SE Asia is a good example. It's | quite libertarian out here and yeah being able to pay for | private hospitals is nice, but generally speaking your | quality of life is lower, quality of goods is lower, | average person is less educated, traffic is a crippling | problem due to poor planning, it goes on and on. And | despite labor being super cheap, roads are a mess, | sidewalks are few and far between and if you do get one | it's crowded with junk.. Only 10% of the country pays | taxes, the inequality with the rich is massive, and if | you're not in the top 1% you're basically a poor. | | I recommend everyone in a rich english speaking country | spending at least a year or two living in a developing | country to get some perspective | bodfinch wrote: | Same sentiment here. Maybe he could look into some WAN to CPE | connections from the fibre terminations | jtap wrote: | He presented at an online nanog event. You can watch it here | https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Twe6uTwOyJo I did enjoy | listening. | kloch wrote: | Jared has been participating in Nanog since forever. I have | always looked up to him as a top-tier engineer. | slim wrote: | is he visually impaired? I'm asking because he's presenting | using slides including pictures | brentm wrote: | This seems like a fun project to work on but what is the | financial game here? Does he invest in building the network, | operate at a loss and then sell to someone like Comcast? I assume | building a remote fiber network that can reach 600 houses has to | incur huge CapEx (way more than $2.6M right?) and at $50/mo a | very long payback period. | | However it works, pretty awesome project, kudos. | alexb_ wrote: | If I were really rich, I would spend a gigantic amount of money | for the sole purpose of fucking over Comcast. | antonymy wrote: | Amen. | dominotw wrote: | Its a misleading title. Govt 'built ISP', this guy led the | effort. | treesknees wrote: | No you are incorrect. If you read the article and the | original article they did in Jan 2021, the original effort | was completely funded by him and his neighbors (as in they'd | pay $X that will cover future monthly bills later.) This | article is about how he has obtained additional government | funding to supplement the efforts he was already doing on his | own. | dominotw wrote: | but i was responding to this | | > fiber network that can reach 600 houses | | GP wasn't asking about 'original effort' . | | Title mentions 'hundreds of homes' | wollsmoth wrote: | looks like he's been able to find some deals on equipment and | stuff since he operates on such a small scale. I guess he can | just continue as a small business indefinitely if he gets | enough cash flow. | failrate wrote: | It is government subsidized. He just wanted good internet in | the area. | criddell wrote: | Is there any internet in the US that isn't subsidized? | pwinnski wrote: | The initial investment is paid by subscribers or financed by | the government grant, both mentioned in the linked article. | | The monthly income of $55 or $79 times 70 people is | $3850-5530/month gross right now, which is likely not a full- | time income, but with potentially 600 more customers soon, it's | possible he could achieve a full-time income for himself, which | many people would consider a worthy goal. | | In 1994 or 1995, I used an ISP in Sioux Falls, South Dakota, | that was just one guy providing decent service. If there were | issues, I'd call David and he'd fix them. His goal was to have | good internet service--which was difficult to come by then and | there--and to underwrite it by sharing it with others. I know | he made a go of it for a number of years, although I'm not sure | how it ended. | jbverschoor wrote: | People in tech tend to forget that proper tech doesn't actually | need 100s of engineers to keep it operational. That's the whole | point of a computer. It does what you programmed it to do, and | it does so automatically. | tryptophan wrote: | Crazy idea, but why can't we just buy some armored cable and let | it lie on the ground? People can bury it themselves if it really | bothers them. | | A lot of these people dont seem rich enough to justify caring | about it being pretty... | throwaway0a5e wrote: | Traditionally the solution is to have a tiny outbuilding with | your electric meter, water valve (if you're on town water) and | landline connection and then let the homeowner deal with the | bulk of the length of the line run. | | Getting electrical and water in those situations is always a | town by town crap shoot because the trades are constantly | lobbying to disallow it because they want more work. I assume | ISPs are the same way. | cptcobalt wrote: | I think it's acceptable to expect better. If we didn't, we'd | probably have surface level sewer, water, fiber, cable, etc; | all laying about, probably causing trip hazards. And these | industries would probably lobby and set archaic and asinine | rules for how the burial happens, and make you pay 10x the cost | of what it really takes to use one of their approved | contractors, because you're indulging in the luxury of having | hidden basic-needs infrastructure. | dboreham wrote: | There are many reasons why this isn't done and isn't a good | idea. One of them is: animals will eat the cable. Another is: | people will trip over the cable. Another is: eventually someone | will dig the cable up with an excavator, even if the operator | of the excavator is the same person who carefully laid the | cable a few years earlier. I don't explain how I know that... | toomuchtodo wrote: | Previous: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24952040 | | Slides from Jared's talk: | https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/14-By20iTnDzpNcAPFayO... | basedgod wrote: | great another example of abusing public taxpayer dollars to | subsidize rural homes that shouldnt exist | | infrastructure outside of dense towns is unsustainable with the | extremely low amount in taxes rural areas pay | | these people do not deserve the same standard of living as those | in sustainable areas | | subsidize them to move to urban areas, not their lifestyle that | uses 20x the infrastructure load an urbanite does | | Amerika can't keep building out the same levels of roads | utilities and municipal water to rural areas as it does to | cities. this standard of living does not scale. it is not | sustainable. | | if you don't believe me, go look at 100 year infrastructure costs | once a suburb needs replacing. this is why every town in America | is failing | throwaway0a5e wrote: | Why is the article harping so hard on the whole "government | grants" bit. Where the investment is coming from is just about | the least interesting bit of this story. | jleahy wrote: | My wife did this, about 6 months of digging up roads in central | London. Would recommend. AMA. | tinfever wrote: | How did you meet your wife with an ASN? Asking for a friend... | jleahy wrote: | We were interns (software engineers) at Deutsche Bank, and | unfortunately she didn't have an ASN back then. | | Also some bias shows here - surely the question should be | 'how did you meet your wife with multiple 3 ton excavators'. | KingFelix wrote: | How long did it take to complete? Central London seems like | high density, how many users do you have? Can you share | website, I can forward to some central London folks! | jleahy wrote: | Less than 12 months from incorporating a company to go live, | about 6 months of that was road works. | | Low hundreds of homes (so low probability that you know | anyone there, and if you do they have already heard about | it). | | https://www.linkedin.com/mwlite/company/hampstead-fibre | bitcoinmoney wrote: | What kind of research did you do to achieve this? Any workshops | or did you talk to other ISPs to gain knowledge? | moritonal wrote: | As a fellow Londerer please please expand on this. Like, why, | what were the returns, what'd you peer into? | jleahy wrote: | Why - 30mbps download and 0.5mbps upload, it was really the | upload that was crippling (think video conferencing) | | What were the returns - time will tell, but I probably have | the best internet in London | | What do we peer into - 10Gbps of NTT, two more 1 Gbps full | peering sessions, plus the LONAP internet exchange to pick up | Google, Netflix, etc. Plus my wife (AS210412) peers with me | (AS211289) of course. | contingencies wrote: | Remember the Hacker Manifesto: _What could be dirt-cheap if it | wasn 't run by profiteering gluttons_. | | The physical infrastructure of cable is not expensive. The fiber | itself costs nothing in bulk. Currently a pair of 1Gbps 20km | rated transceivers costs <USD$20 in bulk. | | The only things that make installs expensive are: (1) regulation; | in particular ingrained antiquated systems of land ownership and | associated regulatory capture bullshit by established monopolies; | (2) switching infrastructure and associated power, land and | security requirements; and (3) one-time installation process | costs such as trench digging, termination box installation and | cable termination. | | Once installed, the cables are unlikely to fail unless | aggressively attacked with digging equipment. | markandrewj wrote: | There is a good interview on YouTube with Jared Mauch. I think it | may have already been posted on Hacker News previously, but I | have included the link below for anyone interested. | | https://youtu.be/ASXJgvy3mEg | ncmncm wrote: | I don't understand why he doesn't use a microwave link for some | of the single-endpoint long runs. (I don't doubt there was a | reason; just want to know it,) | vlunkr wrote: | Anyone else amused by the title? To me it reads as "Man [...] | expands to hundreds of homes." | d23 wrote: | I suppose that's impressive too! | tikiman163 wrote: | I find it a little weird and off putting that thierprivate | business is having its expansion funded by state funds for | coronavirus recovery. I get that this is generally a good thing, | and many ISPs, especially the smaller ones, receive government | funds for developing and maintaining infrastructure. However, why | is the Coronavirus recovery fund paying for this? | WorldMaker wrote: | In this specific case there is an easy answer (mentioned in the | article): Access to reasonably priced broadband internet was | seen as one of the biggest, most easily addressable (with | targeted government infrastructure funding) dividing lines | between people that were able to easily work from home and | those that experienced larger hardships during the height of | the pandemic. | [deleted] | atentaten wrote: | Is he connecting to a backbone or to another ISP? | woah wrote: | The "backbone" is made up of other ISPs | tomjakubowski wrote: | That's right, a backbone is made up of ISPs: individual spine | pieces, or vertebrae. | wdb wrote: | Maybe I should consider doing the same for the Mews houses in | Westminster :) | guywithahat wrote: | Isn't this just called starting a business? Don't get me wrong | it's very cool but this just seems like the thing people should | do when there isn't enough competition in the market | treesknees wrote: | He did start an LLC but it's not a business in the sense that | he's hiring a corporate structure around it or kicking up VC | funding, or even trying to make a profit. It's admirable | because how many other ISPs can you point to with this model? I | can't think of any. | gowld wrote: | fragmede wrote: | Most small local ISPs are like this, a labor of love, not | something who's singular purpose is to make the owners | unimaginably rich. Cruzio, in Santa Cruz, and MonkeyBrainz in | San Francisco come to mind. | shakezula wrote: | Sure, at face value you're right about that, but I think the | main difference is a lot of people don't get annoyed at , for | example, Ford's customer service and turn around and start an | auto manufacturer, and for most non-technical people I think | they'd consider the two nearly equal in terms of feasibility | and effort. | jonhohle wrote: | Not only that, but he's providing a much higher level of | service for a significantly smaller cost than ISPs that have | been given billions over several decades and have yet to | reach the customers he's reaching. | | My biggest fear for him is that comcast will lobby to be able | to sell subscriptions on his infrastructure (because | competition!), put him out of business and then screw his | existing subscribers. | | edit: s/provoking/providing (autocorrect) | theptip wrote: | Exactly. It's noteworthy because it underscores just how | uncompetitive the ISPs in the US are. That a small shop can | completely eviscerate them on quality and price shows that | they just aren't trying. (Look at ISPs in any developed | country and our networks are embarrassing in comparison.) | | It's frustrating because the playbook for how to improve | this is very clear; local loop unbundling on telephone | lines, allow municipalities to offer broadband in | underserved areas, and mandate sharing of poles etc. to | make it easier for new entrants to compete. Of course when | you can't innovate, legislate; the ISPs lobby hard to | prevent all of this consumer-centric stuff from happening. | bluedino wrote: | > Comcast once told him it would charge $50,000 to extend its | cable network to his house--and that he would have gone with | Comcast if they only wanted $10,000. | | Starts his own company and finds out it costs $30,000 to do it. | | You need big trucks, drills, excavating equipment, skilled union | workers making good wages, safety concerns around water, gas, | sewer, electrical and other communication lines, you can't mess | up peoples lawns, you have to go out and maintain these systems | after storms. | | And people want this all for $55/month! | mschuster91 wrote: | As someone who actually was working in excavation for | internet... well, some points to unpack here: | | - _You_ don 't hire your own workers to dig trenches as an ISP, | you sub-contract that stuff out to contractors - they can | spread out the cost of, say, a backhoe not over the one year or | two you need to build out a district's fiber, but over twenty | years. | | - Other underground stuff isn't much of an issue in rural areas | - you have the central map register of the district which shows | exactly where active lines are, and there aren't many. Usually | it's the 10 kV/220V electricity line, water mains and the huge | POTS cable. Sewers _in most cases_ aren 't much of a concern as | they tend to be built very deep (here in Germany, minimum 100cm | below ground level, and usually it's more like 2-3 meters). In | rural areas you can usually get away with shooting a mole | through the ground or a plough for a trench that a following | tractor immediately closes after the pipe is laid in. | | - That pipe or whatever you're building out underground can | last literally for _decades_. POTS cable in many cases is over | fifty years old, personally I have seen stuff that was covered | in clay protection plates with swastikas meaning it was well | over 70 years old. At 50 years, the life time earning of a | connection is 33.000$. | | - Governments usually subsidize the cost because broadband is | an extremely net-positive _investment_. Assume a small village | of 100 people gets broadband Internet uplink - now a small | company moves into some farmer 's shed because the rent is | cheap and now pays tens of thousands a year in corporate and | employment taxes. | cestith wrote: | In many rural places in the US, the majority of homes have | their own septic tank and leech field. Some homes (although | it's much rarer) even haul in their own water by truck. Power | and phone are often on poles. They probably use LP gas | brought in by truck. So often the main concern is the water | mains. | dboreham wrote: | I live in one of those rural homes. We only get electricity | (and natural gas too, but that's unusual around here) | brought in. Water and sewer are on-site. Phone is VoIP. | Internet is wireless (via an ISP I built). Rural piped | water is very rare here. | criddell wrote: | Lots of rural folks rely on well water. | cestith wrote: | True. Many of the places that are low-hanging fruit for | rural Internet access do not, but it's a mix. Many of | these places that the comments are dismissing as | irredeemably remote are along secondary highways less | than five miles from a city limit. Lots of those places | have water mains, but certainly there are places with | private wells. | dkhenry wrote: | Its so expensive that Comcast only made a profit of 42 Billion | in 2021, while providing a lower quality of service than what a | small ISP in Michigan can give you for a one time 2M in | government grants. | bluedino wrote: | The little guy in Michigan also doesn't own the NBC | broadcasting network, theme parks... Comcast didn't make $42B | off it's cable subscribers. | dkhenry wrote: | You should check their quarterly earnings I think you would | be shocked. In the second quarter Cable and Broadband | account for 7.4 Billion in profit, and have a profit margin | near 50%. NBC Universal only accounts for 1.9 Billion and | their theme parks are 632 Million. By far cable is the | largest driver of profit. | | https://www.cmcsa.com/news-releases/news-release- | details/com... | dr-detroit wrote: | LatteLazy wrote: | The correct price in cities is $10 a month. The correct price | in rural areas is $500 a month plus. But we have to average | them because we insist on taxing cities to subsidise rural | lifestyles... | thehappypm wrote: | Us vs them is not cool. Every lifestyle has value. | LatteLazy wrote: | That's fine, as long as you will pay the same sums to | support whatever weird lifestyle choices I make... | charcircuit wrote: | If I could get at actual good speed instead of being limited | to 6/1 I would have no issue paying $500. I get a ton of | value from the internet. | tristor wrote: | The funny thing is I'd be totally okay paying $500/mo for | good Internet service outside the city. The problem with this | is that even in the city where Comcast has it's headquarters | they will lie to you and then not show up at the agreed upon | time scheduled 3 months in advance /and paid for/, then try | to blame you for it and take no accountability. Which is | exactly what Comcast did when I tried to get connected in my | move last month. So, sure, organizations have Product teams | that focus on pricing strategy, and part of that is | amortizing capital costs to serve those customers and also | averaging out the per-customer cost of service, but a bigger | issue is that Comcast is just really bad at doing it's | supposed job. | | I wish there was a rural fiber or muni fiber project near me | that I could subscribe to, and I'd happily pay 3x-4x what I | pay Comcast, if I had some assurance that the person on the | other end of the phone would actually keep their commitments | and know what they are doing. | bombcar wrote: | The corn has to be grown somewhere. | galdosdi wrote: | And it doesn't take very many people to do it. | Bloating wrote: | with taxpayer subsidies, to put in our gasoline | criddell wrote: | > Starts his own company and finds out it costs $30,000 to do | it. | | There are two homes that are a half mile away from the others. | The $30k number relates to those two properties. | the_optimist wrote: | Average cost of ~ $40k per connection to the government. How is | this better than Starlink? | bell-cot wrote: | The area served is close to Ann Arbor, MI - so remember | Starlink's "satellites are in random-ish orbits around the | Earth, not magically hovering over areas with more potential | customers" issue. | | It's possible that the county is trying to get tough with | Comcast here - "stop gouging our residents so badly, or we'll | help a local competitor (to you) grow into a real thorn in your | bottom line". Starlink isn't credible for that. | | And the money is from a "State and Local Fiscal Recovery" fund | that the county has access to - so spending it on Starlink | would probably be a legal non-starter regardless. | supernova87a wrote: | 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. | kalleboo wrote: | There are lots of ISPs that don't suck | samstave wrote: | 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 wrote: | It's like setting up a giant LAN party, but for grown-ups, | doing serious grown-up stuff. | dimitrios1 wrote: | > -- 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. | supernova87a wrote: | > _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_. | | Then isn't this a point against the scalability / feasibility | of this idea working broadly for others or becoming a model | for replacing dumb telcos? | | If part of the reason telcos are the way they are is because | they have to serve everyone, and at some point if you run a | service like this you will run into that requirement, then | you will too become like a telco because of those | obligations. And this is just one example of a factor that | starts to matter. | | I try to help out in my HOA of 25 people to manage the | utilities, infrastructure, landscaping, and even with this | small a group people are uncooperative and 1-2 people are | constantly questioning and threatening to sue if we don't do | what they say. Hundreds/thousands of people is even more a | nightmare. | icedchai wrote: | I'm in a condo here, with an HOA / board, and it was a pain | in the ass to get fiber brought in from the local telco. | They wasted months sending out letters, waiting for people | to give input, votes, etc. until they finally agreed it was | a good idea. The telco pays for the whole install: | trenching, digging, running fiber between the buildings, | etc. That doesn't matter, because you still have people | complaining about the utilities messing up their lawn. | | It's been over a year now and the project still isn't done. | The fiber is right on the street, not even 30 feet from my | unit. I'd have paid a couple grand to get my own conduit | brought in, if that was an option. | withinboredom wrote: | > threatening to sue if we don't do what they say. | | I do love the occasional power trip. I'd look them straight | in the face: "here's our lawyers number, have your lawyer | give my lawyer a call. Since you seem to be so adamant | about suing, you should have no further contact with me. | I'll see you to the door." and if they don't go? Arrest | them for trespassing. | | Sounds like a great power trip. | nomel wrote: | > Then isn't this a point against the scalability | | The technical solution would be a QOS that | deprioritizes/throttles these people first, with clear | wording in the contract. The reality is that these people | are a negligible fraction of the users. | jedberg wrote: | 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. | greesil wrote: | Yeah but at least they're getting gigabit from an asshole, | instead of 1.5 Mbps from an asshole. | II2II wrote: | I'm with an ISP that is fairly well known for having poor | support. I have never had an issue with them. They deal | with problems on their end efficiently and without | complaint. I would never expect them to deal with a problem | on my end, so they never have an excuse to provide me with | poor customer service. It all works fairly well, | particularly since I am paying about the half the price | compared to a major telecom company. | | Compare that to a major telecom company. Even if I took the | same approach, I would have more issues to deal with | (typically issues over billing, rather than technical | problems). | mattnewton wrote: | There's still a country mile between what gp is suggesting | and what Comcast gets away with because of their monopoly | position. | | Anecdotally, I replaced a router they gave me because it | would randomly crap out (probably neighbors using the | xfinity Wi-Fi feature I couldn't turn off), and they kept | trying to charge me a monthly rental fee for their router. | Every time I would call with confirmation it had been | returned, the charge would be removed for just that month | and back again the next - this is just the most recent | example of a long line of infuriating time wasting schemes | I have dealt with from them. | justrudd wrote: | This happened to me as well with Cox Cable in AZ back in | the early 2000s. I returned the modem and got the | returned receipt. Next 6 months I had to call and get | them to reverse the charges. At that point, I started | recording all the calls each time I had to call and get | the charge reversed. Recorded 5 months of calls, had them | transcribed, and sent the transcriptions, recordings, and | a copy of the return receipt to the AG's office saying "I | believe Cox is committing fraud, and I wonder how many | people they're doing this to". Never heard from Cox | again. I did actually wonder how many people just | continued paying it because "it's just $5 a month" | lotsofpulp wrote: | >I think people don't understand just how profitable | municipal broadband can be. | | Operating the network might be profitable. Recouping | installation costs are not, when Comcast and other coaxial | cable internet providers are sitting there ready to undercut | you the second you enter the market. Unfortunately, | sufficient customers are not willing to pay more for a | reliable symmetric fiber connection yet over whatever the | cable company is offering with meager upload. | | Also, I assume you mean fiber when you wrote "municipal | broadband". I thought municipal broadband refers to taxpayer | funded internet networks, where there would be no profit | required (and hence is the only alternative to getting a | better internet connection than the cable company). | pessimizer wrote: | 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? | ncmncm wrote: | Displacing Comcast in any degree us a major service to the | species. | toomuchtodo wrote: | 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://muninetworks.org/ | devmunchies wrote: | the same reason one would file for patents without any intent | of enforcing them. For defense and security. | | I would say that to attempt to have zero growth/shrinkage is | difficult in business. The market is always changing, | people's preferences change, etc. If you _try_ to stagnate | you will likely find yourself shrinking, either because | demand changes, or there are mixups in supply (competitors). | | If shrinking is the only non-goal, then growth is likely the | only prevention since stagnation is hard to ensure. | pessimizer wrote: | The reason he exists is because the competition is bad. If | the competition is good, he has no reason to exist. The | goal is to supply 600 rural households with broadband at a | reasonable price, not to own 600 households. | Willish42 wrote: | Exactly. There are tons of smaller businesses not focused on | infinitely growing that get by just fine. Especially in rural | areas like these | devmunchies wrote: | 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. | chriscappuccio wrote: | With a fiber based service he would be getting very few calls | linsomniac wrote: | 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. | carlhjerpe wrote: | What's a "locate"? | wmf wrote: | Hopefully with the government funding he can turn it into a | real business. | Victerius wrote: | I wouldn't be surprised to see his business pop up on HN's | "Who wants to hire" thread. | connorlads wrote: | 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. | kevin_nisbet wrote: | 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 wrote: | 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 wrote: | 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' :-) | vineyardmike wrote: | 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. | gridspy wrote: | It seems that the ISP motivation comes from lack of other | options. Should a viable competitor emerge, that might be | considered a "win" w.r.t rural customers having good | broadband choices. | colechristensen wrote: | 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. | bentobean wrote: | 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 wrote: | He was getting that money regardless. He decided to drop it | on that. | devmunchies wrote: | 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 wrote: | Government money is still our collective money. | dr-detroit wrote: | Octoth0rpe wrote: | A couple of fun facts about this guy: | | His little ISP is AS267, which is a SHOCKINGLY low number. That's | like.. the ISP equiv of a 4 digit slashdot id, or owning | something like sodapop.com. | | He's also one of the authors of RFC 5575, which is a pretty big | deal in the DDoS world. | notyourday wrote: | Jared is not a rando who built an ISP. He is someone who forgot | more about networking and running NSPs than most people know. | kloch wrote: | I don't know (or care) about how he got that ASN but ARIN does | occasionally recycle returned 3 or 4 digit ASN's, including | very recently: 20220607|arin|US|asn|888|1|assig | ned|66e25d155d3f3d57ff208733b59f8cc8 20220607|arin|US|asn | |889|1|assigned|5b048aafff56a02f895e68ac5188853b 20220607 | |arin|US|asn|890|1|assigned|708d3f11915973323c76a5f95fa2d775 | 20220607|arin|US|asn|891|1|assigned|ab9bfca0becd32b7fe44c7ea0ba | 1aac3 20220607|arin|US|asn|892|1|assigned|0b9118a23862aab | 1647fd26939f7b219 20220607|arin|US|asn|893|1|assigned|57d | 59e6dfd1cd07523724f9cf5fc572b 20220607|arin|US|asn|894|1| | assigned|0a932835b90a81bffeb1539b4bc93040 | | The first time ARIN did this with a lot of 4-digit ASN's was | 2009 and was how Netflix was able to get AS2906. | | There is also a market for reselling ASN's that aren't needed | anymore: https://auctions.ipv4.global (filter by ASN) | tptacek wrote: | He's been a backbone guy since the the mid-1990s. | birdyrooster wrote: | pc literally said he was not talking about this guy, can't | win I guess | gertlex wrote: | The way it was written, it left many of us wondering what | the answer to the question was, though. | ev1 wrote: | In this case, this wasn't recycled - his is actually decades | old | upupandup wrote: | can somebody ELI5? what is this code mean? what is RFC 5575? | tptacek wrote: | The RFC number is less interesting then the ASN; he has a low | ASN, which is for backbone nerds a little like getting a very | short domain name; the short ones are long since exhausted, | so it's like an O.G. indicator. | | (An ASN is a BGP4 network number; think of it as an address | in the backbone routing network.) | Octoth0rpe wrote: | RFC 5575 is a widely adopted specification implemented by | router vendors that lets ISPs (think Comcast, Verizon, | Deutsche Telekom, Akamai) block certain kinds of traffic at | their routers using rules called "Flow Specifications". A | rule looks _something_ like "Drop traffic if it's on Port 80 | and its packet size is 252 bits". That level of logic is good | enough to block many simple DDoS attacks, and since it's done | on a router, it's hardware that the ISP has to buy anyway. | The more expensive / but also more powerful solution usually | involves a dedicated piece of hardware that does packet | inspection. | daniel-cussen wrote: | Yeah FPGA's are marketed for packet inspection. Like on | xilinx.com, and microsemi.com, they talk about radar and | military, defense, on top of AI and fintech. It's just | really hard to market FPGA's, it's such a shiny toy but | then it never ends up actually selling in volume, like | GPUs, there's envy of that success. Especially because in | many ways F's have merits that go toe-to-toe with GPU, and | defeat them in eg latency, which is why Wall Street prefers | F's to GPU's. Just not enough killer apps. | | And packet inspection is a good fit for F's [FPGA's] by | their very nature, DDoS's are squirrely and ASICs get | stale, you need to reprogram you F's on the fly to catch | that attack in-progress. So to adapt to new attacks on the | fly, or update based on new fashions of DDoS's, patch | vulnerabilities, and plus they're harder to reverse- | engineer than ASICs, they're strong against that, good | crypto to protect the bitstreams that define them. | Basically built for that. ASICs on the other hand, can just | have the lid scraped, take a photo, done. (Though to some | extent they do put functionality on memory that gets lost | if the chip is turned off during abduction, that _can_ be | done, the line between F 's and ASICs is not truly that | sharp). | | A lot of DDoS's are done by state-sponsored or -affiliated | or -harbored adversaries, capturing the ASIC that stops the | DDoS is a real thing. Reverse engineering usually happens | in another country, another jurisdiction. Under smiling | eyes, blind eyes, can't get the police to go there, can't | get extradition, _maybe_ sue, _maybe_ get them punished | within the country that harbors them.[1] | | [1] I read in China there was a Chinese man who traveled to | New Zealand and murdered somebody, I think a woman. But he | would not be extradited. Instead, the New Zealanders | presented their evidence in Chinese court, which found it | had merit and credibility enough to imprison the murder, | within China, so he paid for his crimes fully. All without | extraditing one of their own. | Octoth0rpe wrote: | Amidst all the discussion of fpga vs asic vs flowspec, | it's probably worth distinguishing two types of attacks: | big, dumb volumetric ddos (flow specifications are great | and cheap here, if you can match), and more sophisticated | layer 5/6/7 attacks where FPGA/packet inspectors are | likely necessary (unless you get lucky and the supposedly | smart attack has an obvious signature such as a | particular packet length combined with other components) | grumple wrote: | RFCs are Requests for Comments, which are what are considered | potential standards in the technical world: | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Request_for_Comments | | Here's this one: | | https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc5575.html | [deleted] | hammock wrote: | What is an ASN and what advantage is there to have a low | number? | renewiltord wrote: | It's an NFT representing early participation on the Internet. | carlhjerpe wrote: | Hardly non-fungible but yes, it means you've been on the | internet for long. | _-david-_ wrote: | ASN is an Autonomous System Number. An ISP is the primary | example of an Autonomous System. There are other | organizations that have ASNs like data centers. | | The internet is decentralized. Basically, each autonomous | system is its own network. This means that they need to | connect with one another in order to allow traffic between | each other. This is called peering. In order to peer with | another network you must have an ASN. | | The number doesn't matter. | cesarb wrote: | ASN = Autonomous System Number | (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autonomous_System_Number), | it's a number which identifies an ISP in the core Internet | routing protocol (BGP). A low ASN usually means your ISP has | been part of the Internet for a long time; other than the | 16-bit vs 32-bit ASN distinction, it has no practical effect, | besides implying that your ISP is one of the "old-timers". | changoplatanero wrote: | vanity | bad416f1f5a2 wrote: | I recognized his name from providing hosting for the | outages.org list[0] - if you haven't subscribed, and you do | anything operations at all, go hit the button now. | | [0]: https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/outages | tailspin2019 wrote: | Not come across this list before. | | I'm being a bit lazy here but do you happen to know if there | is a way to consume this programatically? I'm thinking RSS or | perhaps an API? | | Edit: For the benefit of others who might be interested, I've | just subscribed using Feedbin's [0] email-to-RSS feature so | updates will appear in my RSS reader! | | [0] https://feedbin.com | ev1 wrote: | This is a mailing list. Subscribe and point it to something | that can ingest messages, similar to how you would pipe | support@ to a helpdesk and auto-create tickets. | ajdude wrote: | My university's is number 2; is there any significance to that? | Victerius wrote: | Is your university among these? | https://www.visualcapitalist.com/wp- | content/uploads/2019/03/... | sentientslug wrote: | (Not the guy you replied to, but) it's not, unless I am | missing it. ASN 2 is University of Delaware. You can search | for yourself at whois.arin.net, just type a number in the | search bar in the upper right. | entropicdrifter wrote: | University of Delaware, per this: | https://dnschecker.org/asn-whois-lookup.php?query=AS2 | | So, not on that map, but it was part of ARPANET by the time | the TCP/IP protocol was introduced in 1983[0], per this | map: https://www.historyofinformation.com/image.php?id=6456 | | [0]: https://blog.google/inside-google/googlers/marking- | birth-of-... | jonathantf2 wrote: | I wonder why there's so many weird domains being hosted | on AS2? https://dnslytics.com/bgp/as2 (scroll down to Top | Domains) | icedchai wrote: | They are probably not actually hosted on AS2. Bad actors | can inject garbage into BGP AS paths, either accidentally | or deliberately. | rOOb85 wrote: | Interesting | xhrpost wrote: | > "I have at least two homes where I have to build a half-mile to | get to one house," Mauch said, noting that it will cost "over | $30,000 for each of those homes to get served." | | I did a lot of investigation some years back hoping to start an | ISP in a much more dense city where options were still limited. I | had quotes from electrical companies of $25k-75k to run 2,000ft | of aerial fiber on telephone poles (no drilling even!) The | electrical company (who owns the poles) said that only certified | installers could do it but that list was rather short and the | person I spoke with didn't seem to know what that certification | actually was. I wonder if this guy simply figured out how to | legally do the infra layout himself. | samwhiteUK wrote: | I'm going to put my hand up and say I have absolutely no idea how | an ISP works. He runs cables to each house in the area... now | where does the other end go? | andix wrote: | I think you more or less just buy connections from bigger ISPs, | so for example you get a 100 Gbps connection to one location | and distribute it to your end users from there. | | Most of the equipment you can buy, you can even get a lot of | the needed things as a service. You just need to organize all | those hardware and software things, and get the economic and | legal part right too. And in the end it needs to tie together | in a way, that your earnings are bigger then your expenses. | | I think it's not so different to opening a car repair shop for | example. Just more nerdy. | beezlebroxxxxxx wrote: | There is a very good Ars Technica article on how an ISP works. | It traces the whole network, from submarine cable through to | last mile into a house. It was written in 2016, but I imagine | it's still relevant: | | https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2016/05/how-t... | digdugdirk wrote: | Thank you, that was a great link for us uninitiated folks. | | Also another great plug for ArsTechnica (even though the main | article is them as well, and I'm sure most of this audience | is well aware of them) and the excellent technical writing | they do. | Bloating wrote: | There are wholesalers that provide "dark fiber", then you buy | data services from another "wholesaler". When I looked into it, | dark fiber was available through some utilities and through a | government funded non-profit. Data to light-up the fiber was | available through several different data centers that connected | to that dark fiber. | | You still had to build-out the last mile though, and thats what | will get you. You either need private easements, or be a | registered telecom utility to use public utility easements. | That last mile is $20k +/-, depending on your circumstances. If | your semi-rural or less, there's ROI sucks. Hence, many smaller | ISPs are wireless. | | At least in area, there are already a number of wISPs, 5G is | rolling out, Starlink eventually. and lots of gov't funding | going to the big players to expand their networks (and drive | the start-ups out of business.) | | There some other business models out there too that look | interesting. Underline in Co Springs, for example. They provide | a basic tier of service, in order to qualify as a telecom, | install the fiber and then allow multiple competing ISPs to use | their network. | | IMHO, any utility that has the benefit of government privilege | should be required to allow competors to use the infrastructure | that the taxpayers funded. | | I'm waiting on one of you brilliant folks to defy the laws of | physics to create a decentralized, wireless mesh internet. | thedougd wrote: | https://www.segra.com/ | | These guys have dark fiber right in front of my neighborhood. | They service cell sites for Dish Network near me as well. | It's interesting to look through their services. For example, | you can get fiber service with layer 2, where you're | responsible for adding your IP stack over top of it. Or you | can buy at layer 3, where Segra is already running a stack, | and establish mesh connectivity. So if a fiber is cut, you'll | get another working path. Build your network over the top. | | Pretty interesting to understand what's available. | wyager wrote: | Last mile subsidies are super weird. I was looking at a | property in montana in the middle of nowhere that had no | electricity nearby, but had gigabit fiber. I called the ISP | and it was cheaper to get phone+Gb than just Gb due to | subsidy rules. | | Basically everyone out there (including me) is on starlink | now. Turns out the subsidies were not only inefficient, but | pretty pointless. | aftbit wrote: | Why would you be using Starlink if you have gigabit fiber | available? Or was it still quite expensive to install even | with the subsidy? | daniel-cussen wrote: | They helped a bit, for a while. Gigabit fiber is less | maintenance than electrical power, and it's easier to roll- | your-own electrical power than it is to get a Gb connection | like how would you do that before Starlink, buy an insane | amount of radio spectrum? I heard one HN user who did | exactly that in Brazil, got a 20-meter tower to connect by | radio to the internet some distance away, and it was a very | solid high bandwidth connection. But still much harder than | a generator and solar panels, or a tiny little hydropower | generator on a stream (a great option in places like | Southern Chile, not a joke by any means). Or wind. | notRobot wrote: | There's "Start Your Own ISP": | | https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&que... | southerntofu wrote: | As the other commenters have pointed out, a possibility is | simply to "resell" transit from other providers. However, on | the Internet all peering networks are somewhat equal and it's | entirely possible to extend the "other end" over time to | establish dedicated peering with other networks, so that for | example traffic from your network to Youtube doesn't have to go | through (paid-for) 3rd parties. | | There's good chances there are Internet eXchange Points around | where you live where for a small maintenance fee anyone can | come and place their router and cables to interconnect with | others. | | So the likely steps are: | | 1) Find a transit provider, that will serve your trafic to any | other network, and where to connect with this provider 2) | (Optional) If you don't have the necessary infrastructure, find | another provider to get from your last-mile network to your | transit provider 3) (Optional) Find other networks to peer with | so that you can significantly reduce your transit bill and | provide better routes (therefore better service) | | Some non-profit ISPs take the problem from the other side, and | build a core network without necessarily owning any last-mile | infrastructure, which is leased from other operators ( | _operateurs de collecte_ ) with whom they interconnect at some | datacenter/IXP. The most famous example of that in France is | FDN.fr which has been operating since early 90s. That approach | is more cost-effective in high-density area where the local | infrastructure is already quite good, and construction jobs to | lay new cables is very costly, but will still set you back | 10-30EUR/month/line. | the_only_law wrote: | Not sure if it's what the person in question did, but there's a | whole guide that pops up on here occasionally regarding | building a wireless ISP. | | https://startyourownisp.com/ | dataflow wrote: | I can't find any section of that guide that talks about | peering or whatever ISPs are supposed to do to connect to the | broader internet. Do you see any step that explains this? | bombcar wrote: | As a small ISP you don't peer - you just buy transit from a | bigger ISP. So the basic steps are: | | 1. Buy a 1G/1G or 10G/10G whatever link to a building you | own. | | 2. Resell that link in parts to customers. | | Or you can get yourself into a POP (point of presence) | somewhere that multiple providers are also in, and get | transit that way. Depends on where you are and what you can | get access to. | spmurrayzzz wrote: | You definitely can (and should) peer as a small ISP, even | if you are buying transit from other providers. This is | especially true if you're running an MPLS headend as | you'll still have choke points at L2 circuits in your own | network. Owning your own peering can be a great way to | offload traffic to other circuits that share | destinations, most commonly traffic destined for | VOD/streaming CDNs. | | (N.B. -- This is what has worked well for the WISP I | cofounded, but YMMV depending on headend infra). | nixgeek wrote: | As a small ISP you definitely can peer and many do, you | just aren't going to get settlement-free peering with any | of the big eyeball networks like Comcast. | | Something like Seattle IX is a good example of where lots | of peering sessions could be established (although I | haven't looked at Jared's ASN in any detail to see where | it's present). | | https://www.seattleix.net/home | | Any traffic you're able to offload via peering you | wouldn't be paying an IP transit to haul, so it's worth | seeing if networks like Netflix are on the Route Servers | (https://www.ams-ix.net/ams/documentation/ams-ix-route- | server...) at any IX nearby your network, seeing if you | can negotiate a session over the IX even if they don't | participate in the RS, or seeing if you can do PNI (sling | a cable between your networks in a facility you're both | located in). | | Edit: Jared's on Detroit IX. | https://www.peeringdb.com/net/20268 | 2Gkashmiri wrote: | Wait. The poster above said in point 1 to buy a line,1G, | 10g depending on your upstream seller. Why do you need | peering then? | | If I have 1Gbps line for example and 10 users each are | using equal amount 100% of time, it shouldn't matter they | send the data to Alaska or Russia or Australia ? Or does | it? | | Do you buy the pipe and the data itself also? | icedchai wrote: | You don't "need" peering but it offloads your upstream | (transit) links, which are generally much more expensive. | In the old days, I worked for couple ISPs and we | typically had 3 or 4 upstreams (generally UUNet, Sprint, | MCI...) This was back when a T1 was still considered | fast. | toast0 wrote: | > Any traffic you're able to offload via peering you | wouldn't be paying an IP transit to haul | | When you're small enough, the difference in price between | transit and what it takes to get you to an IX is likely | to be pretty small. But, you probably want to be at an IX | sooner or later anyway (easier to get multiple transit | offers at an IX than on the side of the road), so might | as well peer while you're there. | twothamendment wrote: | Yes, it can be pretty simple. Back in the day when DSL | and comcast were the options and all of the connections | were things like UP TO 5 or even 20 Mbps, but speeds were | rarely that - I paid for a dedicated 2Mbs up and down | ($180/month) with no restrictions on use and started | sharing/reselling it to others in my apartment building, | not with wireless, but with cat5 out the window, up the | gutter, back inside, etc. Across the parking lot another | guy was sharing his comcast with another building - but | comcast was starting to be so slow they couldn't use it. | We merged our empires by stringing some cat 5 across the | parking lot, around a pole and to his place. Later we | added more nearby buildings, all wired until we had 5 | buildings and about 20 "subscribers". Even with 2Mbps, | everyone on the network was happier with a guaranteed | speed than their flaky "up to" speeds they used to have. | Did I run an ISP? I had subscribers, had to maintain a | network, had a proxy server to reduce requests out of the | network, had to deal with abuse and collect money - so | I'd say yes, a small one, but yes. | smeyer wrote: | Out of curiosity did you do things above board from a | business standpoint (taxes etc.) or was this more of a | blackmarket setup? | haunter wrote: | It's the 2nd step | | https://startyourownisp.com/posts/fiber-provider/ | | If you just Google then it's usually called leased or | dedicated internet | | Just some (US) examples | | https://www.business.att.com/products/att-dedicated- | internet... | | https://business.comcast.com/learn/internet/dedicated- | intern... | | https://www.verizon.com/business/products/internet/internet | -... | dataflow wrote: | So they're _leasing_ ( "buying"?) fiber from the same | ISPs they're trying to displace _and_ relying on that | payment to provide them with continued internet access? | This doesn 't sound like a real first-class ISP, but | something akin to an MVNO where they're at the mercy of | the same companies they're competing with. I get the | initial sale might seem fine, and the established ISPs | might be fine with this as long as the company is small, | but why wouldn't these companies shut them off (or raise | the prices, etc.) when they grow too big to become | dangerous? | wins32767 wrote: | He's not trying to displace the majors. In rural areas, | owning and maintaining a bunch of fiber to service less | than a thousand customers isn't a business Comcast really | wants to be in unless they get paid a ton for it. | q3k wrote: | You can lease fibre/lambda/L2 transport to an IXP (and | there peer with other local ISPs and get global transit | from Tier 1 providers) from many companies that don't | even have any residential offering. | | Or if (technically/financially/legally) possible, even | run your own fibre to a PoP housing an IXP on your own. | | Once you're in multiple PoPs and on multiple IXPs and | with multiple upstreams/peers you're pretty much | independent from the whims of a single ISP. | bombcar wrote: | Because it's all business to them, and if they did it | overtly they could get sued. | | But also because once you're in a single location, you | can pretty easily get multiple providers to that location | for a Price, so there's really no point. Even small rural | towns usually have multiple internet connections from | different companies, and if they don't you can pay to run | fiber if you really wanted to. | | People find it hard to believe, but Comcast et al are | actually businesses, not Satan's marketing department; | and they happily take money even from "competitors". | themoonisachees wrote: | To expand on that: | | Comcast would much rather sell a dedicated fiber to a | business with capital and guarantees. | | Selling to the individual consumer doesn't make a lot of | sense business-wise, because of the deployment costs and | continued support costs. | | Comcast is also abusing their status as oligopoly to | gouge costumers financially and qos-wise, but if they're | selling to a business that buys large quantities and has | staff who's job it is to handle network problems, they | actually like that (right up until that business | threatens to compete with them in areas where said | oligopoly is in place, of course) | dboreham wrote: | You're misunderstanding this market. There's a wholesale | market, which he is buying from. There's a retail market | which he is selling into. Some providers service both the | wholesale and retail markets, but typically with | different divisions, people, tech, resources. It's like | saying that if you build a gas station and buy your gas | from Exxon then that's bad because Exxon also operates | gas stations. It's not like an MVNO where all you're | doing is sending the customer a bill, and provisioning | API requests to Verizon. | dataflow wrote: | > You're misunderstanding this market. There's a | wholesale market, which he is buying from. There's a | retail market which he is selling into. Some providers | service both the wholesale and retail markets, but | typically with different divisions, people, tech, | resources. | | The difference in divisions/people/tech/resources doesn't | explain anything for me. They're both the same company | with the same CEO, whether it's one business unit or a | dozen. It's not like the executives are oblivious to how | much money each unit is making and whether another unit | could make more in place of it. If you're the CEO and see | you could charge twice as much by doing retail instead of | wholesale then you'd obviously try to do that. | | Rather, the explanations I'm getting from the other | comments seems to be that (a) regulators require some | kind of reasonable wholesale to exist to third parties, | (b) the big ISPs aren't planning to serve those markets | anyway, so they're not missing out on any income by | taking money from the last-mile ISPs. And as long as | those last-mile ISPs don't try to compete for the same | customers then they're fine. | fragmede wrote: | > The difference in divisions/people/tech/resources | doesn't explain anything for me. They're both the same | company with the same CEO, whether it's one business unit | or a dozen. | | Then you've not worked in large B2B companies before. Eg | Apple pays Google money and Google pays money to Apple, | any perceived public rivalry goes out the window as far | as business between the two is concerned. | | If you're the CEO of Comcast, you've never even heard of | this small time ISP, you have far bigger things to spend | your time on, and the "upstream" business unit of Comcast | _really_ doesn 't care what you're doing, so long as your | money's green. It's all business. See also: Netflix using | AWS despite Amazon having a streaming video service of | their own. | haunter wrote: | >This doesn't sound like a real first-class ISP | | I'm not an expert but afaik you can't just be a Tier 1 | network member | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tier_1_network | | Even Tier 2 very limited | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tier_2_network | | In this guide's case yes you will be akin to an MVNO, you | won't peer but just buying transit traffic. That's why | most of these guides are also focusing on making the | network wireless only (easier to build infrastructure) | mbreese wrote: | Because there are different business units in the | upstream company handling the dedicated access vs | consumer sides. The dedicated business side have their | own sales goals and if you compete with the consumer | side, that's not a problem for them. I'm sure there are | some regulatory/anti competitive measures at play here | too, but economically, the two sides of the business will | act more or less independently. | mananaysiempre wrote: | If you want to try your hand in a playground for the | software (routing) parts, DN42[1] is essentially one. | | [1] https://dn42.us/, https://dn42.eu/, https://dn42.dev/ | kevmo314 wrote: | From https://startyourownisp.com/posts/fiber-provider/, | doesn't this site basically say connect to another ISP? | moffkalast wrote: | Well there three tiers of ISPs, each one buying service | from the one above them. It's ISPs all the way down, and | the higher up you go the more expensive the hardware to run | it gets. | Macha wrote: | At the T1 level it's more completely a mesh type setup, | but even lower tier ISPs might set up peering agreements | to bypass their main higher tier ISP where it makes sense | for cost or service quality reasons. Or refuse to to | extract more money as in the comcast vs level1 disputes | over netflix traffic a while back | [deleted] | MerelyMortal wrote: | I feel like this could be made into an ISP Tycoon game. | haunter wrote: | It actually does exist lol! Made by Cisco as an | e-learning tool | | Gameplay https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Foa34qoRzjs | | https://web.archive.org/web/20150317144142/https://cisco. | edu... | RockRobotRock wrote: | Oh god, it seems to essentially be packet tracer under | the hood. It's a great tool, but I HATED using it in | school. | jethro_tell wrote: | gns3 perhaps? I haven't had that setup for a while but I | loved it. I had my whole small ISP in it at some point to | work as a test/lab env for testing things out. It's a | trick to get going but was kinda fun. I took a copy of | that when I left and every now and then I fire it up and | mess around with my old dsl/dialup ISP from back in the | day. | cptcobalt wrote: | Dang, as someone that enjoys Tycoons, Tactics, and | Management Simulators, this really sounds fun. | wil421 wrote: | Depending on how close they are he could run cables (ethernet) | or fiber. Single mode fiber can go 10km according to some | Ubiquiti spec sheets I found on google. Ubiquiti also sells | AirMax products that can do PTP or PTMP over the air, although | some will be affected by rain. They could even rent space from | a radio/cell tower. There are probably a decent amount of other | products out there I am only familiar with Ubiquiti. | nixgeek wrote: | You can shoot light over SM at distances up to 200km (several | important caveats at this distance) and it's very usual to | see spans of between 50-80km. | wil421 wrote: | Looking further you can get a UFiber OLT Terminal for | $1,799 that can run 20km and support 1024 clients or 128 | ONU CPEs per port. | | How much would a 200km switch run? | Nikbul wrote: | At this distance you would want a good repeater at about | half point instead. Don't forget that data has to travel | back and other side might not have such a strong signal | iptrans wrote: | The switch does not care what kind of optics you use. You | can use a $50 switch is you like. | | The 200 km optics, however, cost about a grand each. | boplicity wrote: | He's getting $2.6 million to set up access to 417 homes. That | works out to $6,235 per home. At $55 per month, it would take 113 | months, or over 9 years just to get $2.6 million in revenue. | | Horrible economics! What a crazy business to be in. No wonder | grants like this are necessary. | judge2020 wrote: | This is how the ISPs work as well, typically 10 years is common | ROI for any neighborhood and 5-10 years for multi-family | housing (apartment) runs. This is also the reason AT&T/Comcast | won't run new installations to small (less than 40 residents in | my experience) or rural neighborhoods since the ROI time gets | longer the fewer potential customers they have. | pphysch wrote: | Has a road or water line ever paid for itself? | colechristensen wrote: | Well the US economy has boomed for the last 250 years or so | and depends pretty heavily on roads and thirsty humans. Those | investments seem to have given more than they took, by a very | wide margin. | FredPret wrote: | It's a utility. Utilities have very stable revenues and very | long payback periods. Nine years is pretty short in this | context | cool_dude85 wrote: | Not that bad. A lot of utility-type businesses expect to have | much longer return on investment times, the electric business | is usually wanting to get 50 years of life out of a new | baseload generating unit, and it might be 30 or 40 to get your | investment back. | jrajav wrote: | So taxpayer dollars are necessary to make this business viable, | and the product of that business is something that, | realistically, everyone absolutely needs access to - certainly | seems like this should not be a private business at all but a | public utility. Have we ever asked this kind of question for | interstate highways? | floren wrote: | The Grant County Public Utility District in eastern | Washington (and presumably PUDs elsewhere in the nation) did | exactly that. They built a fiber network throughout the | county (physically large but pretty sparsely-populated), | although they don't provide service directly to customers-- | instead, a healthy number of local ISPs still exist in the | area. If fiber isn't at your house yet, there are also a few | WISPs, which were easy to stand up because of the fiber. | | https://www.grantpud.org/getfiber | asiachick wrote: | given the state of the roads and streets in most places in | the usa I have very little confidence that public internet | will keep up with maintenance, upgrading the equipment to the | lastest speeds and standards every 5 yrs. | | Commercial ISPs have issues and they should not be given | local monopolies but even shitty Comcast is better today than | it was yesterday. The same is not true of most of the roads | in my state. | ViViDboarder wrote: | My experience is a bit different. The roads where I live | (San Francisco) are better than my AT&T options. Roads here | seem to be repaved every 5-10 years and AT&T still doesn't | offer a plan that the FCC would classify as broadband to my | house. | asiachick wrote: | I don't know what parts of sf you're referring to but my | experience of sf is it's pothole hell. Market, Misson, | anything between market and van Ness, and plenty of | others | | to add, I lived on the east coast in the 80s and I found | some fellow Californians where we co commiserated about | how shitty the roads were in Baltimore and how nice they | were in southern Orange County but now I drive though | southern Orange County and the roads are clearly in need | of repair. | jrajav wrote: | I disagree with you on the basis that I can get in my car | right now and be confident that I'll be able to drive with | speed and safety to any city on the map, and that when I | get there I'll be able to drink the tap water and to plug | my electronics into any wall socket without them getting | fried. Maybe some local municipalities aren't that great at | keeping up with their last-mile pothole maintenance, and | maybe that should be an issue the locals prioritize more | when choosing their representatives - but that doesn't | represent the average experience. | | But also, we're already talking about publicly funded | infrastructure. We've subsidized broadband to every home | multiple times by now, and we still continue to write those | checks. Maybe if we want it to be private we should | actually enforce that and then see how it goes. | capableweb wrote: | The actual price they are offering seems to be $55 or $79/month | + ~$200 installation fee. Also missing in your calculation, is | a $30/month subsidy from FCCs "Affordable Connectivity | Program". | | I didn't make the calculation myself, but a sub-10 year horizon | for a project someone seems to do from the goodness of their | heart, doesn't seem so bad. | the_watcher wrote: | Including the installation fee and $30/mo subsidy (I am | assuming this means the price he receives is $30 higher than | the one customers pay), my quick math shows it would take a | bit over 71 months (almost 6 years) to hit $2.6M in total | revenue. However, that assumes literally every customer | chooses the $55/month plan, if everyone chose the $79/mo | plan, it would take almost 51 months, or a bit over 4 years | (obviously the number will be somewhere in between that). | | Also, this math assumes no growth whatsoever in homes served | or other revenue lines. I assume adding another home will be | far cheaper than building out the core network, and the | article itself notes other lines of business. To be honest, | this doesn't seem like a terrible investment to me. There are | certainly better ones in a pure ROI point of view, but for | government investments? More of these please! | boplicity wrote: | You're also assuming a 100% conversion rate, in terms of | homes being wired for access. That's a pretty big | assumption! | pessimizer wrote: | He's serving 600 households afaik, not offering service | to 600 households. So the assumption is that there's a 0% | attrition rate. Pretty safe assumption for monopolies, or | for local services with half the price and 5x the | bandwidth of the other choices. | boplicity wrote: | We're talking about the ROI on the 417 houses he's | installing access for, not his total customer base. 2.6m | / (417*(55+30)) = months to $2.6 million in revenue. | | However, the assumption was that all 417 houses connected | will become customers. That's a pretty big assumption. | The actual percentage could be 50% or 90%. I don't know | -- but surely the answer will have a big impact on the | time it takes to reach that amount of revenue. | s1artibartfast wrote: | You are completely ignoring any operating costs. For all we | know monthly profit could be negative, and not 100%. | andrewallbright wrote: | ...And they say 10x engineers are a myth. | intelVISA wrote: | It's a coping mechanism like lying on the couch watching the | Olympics and getting angry that some people are able to push | themselves to incredible feats instead of being happy for them. | | Never understood that mindset, when I see 100x engineering | feats like TempleOS or actually pdrtable executables it | inspires me to learn more and think outside the box. | banannaise wrote: | 10x engineers are a myth when it comes to productivity working | within a team. There are absolutely 10x engineers when they're | working on a project more or less completely solo. | thrashh wrote: | There are 10x engineers on teams. They just empower everyone | banannaise wrote: | Yeah, but that's _also_ different from how people, | especially management, tend to conceptualize 10x engineers. | You don 't spot the 10x engineer by looking for the one who | accomplishes 10x what other engineers do. You spot them by | looking for the team that's accomplishing 5x what other | teams are, and then finding the "glue" person on that team. | hinkley wrote: | When I look at 10x engineers who look like 10x engineers | what I typically find instead is a 3x engineer leaving a | path of destruction behind them. If you give everyone else | impostor syndrome and difficult processes they slow down, | and you look better than you are. Than you deserve. | | The real heroes are the ones who make everyone else look | better. But some managers only figure out who that is when | they quit or when the business lays off the wrong guy | because Steve produces less than Sarah, but that's because | Steve is helping people all the time, including Sarah. | vaidhy wrote: | There are extremely competent programmers (10x) like there are | outstanding players in sports and music. They do have an | outsized impact on the projects they work on. However, they are | also extremely rare. The problem, IMHO, comes from cult- | startups where they think they can (a) identify these people in | an interview (b) build a team of only 10x programmers. | | This results in (c) calling a whole lot of average programmers | they hired as 10x programmers because of (a). After all, they | are smart and their interview process is infallible. | | So, if you meet one of those rare folks, enjoy the intellectual | banter :). | teaearlgraycold wrote: | Then good luck hiring a well sized team when you've set the | expectation that everyone needs to be a genius to contribute. | A successful startup needs to either attract only the best | engineers or build itself so that most of the work can be | done by merely good engineers following the company's | engineering culture. | mi_lk wrote: | Whoever says that never met one and isn't one of them. It's so | obvious once you see it | hinkley wrote: | I've met people other people called 10x engineers. Once you | looked soberly at the development process that illusion has | faded every time. | | Part of the problem with the myth is that as originally | formulated it's meant to be between your worst and best | engineer, and whoever came up with that idea is an idiot, | inattentive, sheltered, or all three. | | Why? Because the worst engineers help the team by calling in | sick. They have negative outcomes all the time, which means | everyone else in the team is infinity times as productive. | | What the rest of us think is 10x versus an adequate | developer, and there are almost none of those. Are there | people who can work solo and produce as much as a team of 10? | Sure, but that's because of the communication overhead. Can | that person join a team of ten and double their output? Only | if they are a unicorn among unicorns. The easiest way to | double the output of a team is to double the output of the | team members. And that doesn't make you look more productive | than them. If you're not very careful it makes you look | _less_ productive. | intelVISA wrote: | Absolutely, all your points are spot on, I just call it 10x | engineering because it's way easier than having to | articulate the whole: | | "Developer who is fortunate enough to be competent, in a | structure with minimal comms overhead, high autonomy and no | dead weight" | | ...and it tends to kickstart some good discussion on the | topic as a whole. | jononomo wrote: | A+ comment. I've been hearing this idea that "there is no such | thing as a 10x engineer" for almost a decade now and from the | very first moment I heard it I considered it one of the most | definitively untrue ideas circulating in the tech industry. In | fact, there are 100x engineers. | folkrav wrote: | Most the criticisms of the "10x engineer" thing I've seen | were more about this expectation that everyone can be 10x, | when they're more the exception than the rule. Your average | programmer is just that: average. | Gene_Parmesan wrote: | The reason people say it's a myth is because the study that | purported to identify this concept was found to have an | extremely small population and confounding factors. In | addition if I remember correctly it tried to do this | identification by using a contrived programming problem. | | There are obviously software devs who are more productive | than the average. This is true of every skill. The myth is | thinking that (a) companies can somehow identify these people | in advance, and (b) it is better to prioritize building a | team with these supposed rock stars than it is to build a | team of potentially average developers who know how to work | together, and then properly manage, support & motivate them. | A team of ten properly supported 1.5x programmers will beat | out one 10x programmer every time. And in many cases the "I'm | a 10x dev" personality type does not play well with others. | | I'm a firm believer that any genuinely interested, motivated | and at least mildly intelligent dev can be made highly | productive by finding the right fit. It's far more important | for companies to focus on fit and on ensuring that their own | managers actually know how to manage than on trying to tap | into a hidden stream of 10x devs. | | I guess it boils down to the fact that I think many companies | absolve themselves and their mgmt team of blame for poor | performance by saying "well we just haven't been able to | identify 10x devs yet." They expect to be able to hire a | single employee who will save the day for them, rather than | hiring and training good mgmt. | jononomo wrote: | First, the "I'm a 10x dev" personality type is not a 10x | dev. Arrogance is a sign of insecurity. | | Second, I don't think a team of ten 1.5x programmers will | beat out a 10x programmer. You either have the depth of | understanding and imagination or you don't. Take Linus | Torvalds, for instance -- I would say he is a 100x | programmer, or perhaps a 10,000x programmer, since he is | the author of both Git and Linux -- good luck trying to | replicate that contribution with a "well managed team". It | is similar in many areas -- 10 guys with Math PhDs do not | make one Einstein. | | In the context of hiring for a business that is developing | a CRUD app, you're usually trying to differentiate between | 1x programmers and 0.1x programmers, however -- 10x | programmers aren't often looking for work. | thrwyoilarticle wrote: | If we get to expand the definition from a software engineer on | a team to a business founder, do we also get to call the fiber | optics 10X engineers? Is a truck driver delivering laptops a | 10X engineer? | thankful69 wrote: | That also depends on the X, from my experience working at | FAANGs, startups, etc... I have never seen a 10x engineer in | good teams, I have only seen "10x engineers" on teams without | great engineers. The comparison with sports and music is pretty | silly, as those are environment where the winner(s) take all | (there can only be one Billie Eillish (lol) even tho there are | many singers who are better), engineering is often a team | effort. In the other hand, the best engineers I have seen, just | spend more time than anybody else working on a problem, and | often are the ones who like to show off more, and very often | lack the skills in other areas of life. | hinkley wrote: | I've seen too many prolific engineers who destroy the | confidence and productivity of people around them. These are | not people you want to aspire to be. | zzzeek wrote: | > Jared Mauch is expanding with the help of $2.6 million in | government money. | | > Mauch told us he provides free 250Mbps service to a church that | was previously having trouble with its Comcast service. | | That's interesting, he's taking money from the government and | giving free internet to a religious organization? Do _all_ | "churches" get free internet or just the ones he prefers? | Taxpayers are OK subsidizing a specific church based on one | person's personal whim??? | xupybd wrote: | He picked a charity to help and this is your response? | | He won a government contract to with specific deliverables. I'm | not sure how he would have any responsibilities beyond those | deliverables. | aisengard wrote: | I know this is a troll, but I'll respond anyway. If someone can | prove he's discriminating against institutions on the basis of | religion, he can be sued. Whether he takes money from the | government or not doesn't matter in the slightest. | bell-cot wrote: | > user: zzzeek | | > about: ...I am a strong proponent of sarcasm. | | So - difficult to interpret this comment. | | An atheist might reasonably do the same for churches in his | service area, for P.R. and Marketing reasons. | | How is this different from Bob - who (say) the township pays to | mow the lawn & plow the parking lot at the township hall - | deciding that he'll mow the lawn & plow the parking lot for | free at some local church? | jquery wrote: | Meanwhile I live in San Francisco and I still can't get | affordable symmetric gigabit fiber internet to my home. | fragmede wrote: | More frustrating is to chart how close you actually _are_ to | gigabyte symmetric. AT &T and Sonic has wired up large parts of | the city but if they don't serve you, it's often by just a | block or two, depending on where you are in the city. Rumor has | it that local ISP MonkeyBrains is also getting in on the fiber | game. | CliffStoll wrote: | 2 years ago, Sonic pulled fiber in my neighborhood in the East | Bay. Gigabit is $65/month (including taxes/fees + 1 unused | phone line). Very happy with Sonic! | bannedbybros wrote: | notatoad wrote: | >"I have at least two homes where I have to build a half-mile to | get to one house," Mauch said, noting that it will cost "over | $30,000 for each of those homes to get served." | | is this really a valuable use of taxpayer money? sending a | wireless link over a half-mile isn't that difficult, surely | there's a better way to spend $60k of public money than | delivering internet service to two families. especially now that | starlink exists. | | i'm all in favour of scrappy upstart ISPs, but this just seems | wasteful. | lsllc wrote: | You can do that with 2 Ubiquiti Nanobeams 5AC gen2's for $130 | each and get a ~650Mbps link (source, I've done this a number | of times!). | a2tech wrote: | Especially since he's burying the lede about the people he's | servicing--its true 'in general' that the area is lower income, | but most of the homes he's serving will be millionaires. | mrb wrote: | " _I have at least two homes where I have to build a half-mile to | get to one house, " Mauch said, noting that it will cost "over | $30,000 for each of those homes to get served._" | | That's over $11 per feet. That sounds about right. I paid $18 per | feet to have a private fiber optic line of 1000 feet installed at | one of my houses (in the US), going down a very long driveway, | with 3 patch panels, 2 at each end and one in the middle at a | gate. That was just for my LAN, not internet access. I needed the | link to hook up intercoms and security cameras. I absolutely | wanted 100% reliability of the network link, so wireless | solutions wouldn't have been adequate. The previous homeowner had | buried a cat5e line in the first 500 feet, with a cat5e repeater | (underground), but its electronics failed after a couple years | and its exact location couldn't be found. And he had not even put | the cable in conduit. | H1Supreme wrote: | > 1Gbps with unlimited data for $79 a month | | Wow, sign me up. Comcast, which has a monopoly on my market, | charges me a few bucks more per month, for 150mbps. | nodunutshere992 wrote: | Comcast charges $100/mo for 1Gbps where I'm at in a suburb of | Salt Lake City. Our city announced a partnership with Google | Fiber that will begin rolling out in 6-8 months. After that | happened, I've started getting Comcast adverts to sign a 2 year | contract...I also expect to see their prices start dropping | soon. | capableweb wrote: | The costs for internet in the US still surprises me, how on | earth can it be so expensive?! I understand some countries, but | in the US, it seems high costs are because "because we can", | not because it has to be like that. | | In comparison, you get 1 Gbps symmetric fiber connection in | most countries in Europe for under ~$30/month. In some, you | even get it for under $10/month (like Romania, which has | surprisingly awesome internet infrastructure). | r00fus wrote: | This is what happens when your government regulatory agencies | gets captured [1] by corporate interests. | | [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regulatory_capture | voidmain0001 wrote: | As much as I hate the high price where I live (Canada) I | assume that Internet and wireless phone service is expensive | because the country is so large that the build out cost is | expensive. The USA is running 3/4 in the list of largest | countries by land area and Canada is 2nd[1]. Maybe I'm naive | in my thinking but I have family in a teeny tiny European | country and they all have 1Gb fibre optic service for cheap- | cheap. | | [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_and_depen | den... | qball wrote: | >because the country is so large that the build out cost is | expensive | | Nah, that's just their excuse; most of the country's | population lives in urban areas and they don't even bother | running fiber or setting up cell towers in more rural areas | aside from maybe along the main highways. | | Remember, SaskTel (and MTS, before the government sold it | to Bell) doesn't have a problem with charging reasonable | rates or building out fiber (and turning a profit at the | same time) and those are the lowest-density parts of the | country. So no, the telcos aren't telling the truth. | missedthecue wrote: | Comcast has 189,000 employees who make US salaries. It costs | a lot less to dig a trench in Romania than in Seattle. | | You can look at the profit margins. 11.3% for Comcast as of | June 2022. That tells me they aren't simply collecting the | difference between US and Romanian internet prices in profit. | | Of course, far be it from me to defend Comcast, but this is | basically just the concept of purchasing power parity (PPP) | londons_explore wrote: | I'm gonna bet the Romanian ISP has fewer employees per | subscriber and fewer employees per mile of fiber. | | Businesses without competition get fat. | jrajav wrote: | Costs of deployment and profit margins have nothing to do | with it. The US public has subsidized the cost of broadband | internet deployment since the very birth of the internet, | and continues to do so like clockwork every few years. | Private ISPs continue to caress the books to make it seem | like they're barely operating at a profit and still need | more, without ever having delivered on the last promise. | Taxpayers have paid for fiber to every home a few times | over at this point. | | http://irregulators.org/bookofbrokenpromises/ | Spivak wrote: | The thing I can't really understand if this is the | argument is where the money is actually going? With an on | paper 11% profit margin it's certainly isn't | shareholders, and even if the executives rake it would | still be a blip in their total revenue. | wbsss4412 wrote: | Are those margins only on their broadband business? Comcast | has other ventures as well. | missedthecue wrote: | Good question. I briefly looked into it and it seems they | do break out the numbers for cable communications | division (as well as media and entertainment) but I | couldn't find a profit margin figure without opening the | whole 10K and my calculator. Worth noting that the great | majority of their business is cable communications. | | However, Charter Communications is a competitor that is | more of a pure play and their margin is 10.8% | rjbwork wrote: | >The costs for internet in the US still surprises me, how on | earth can it be so expensive?! | | Monopolies and regulatory capture. I can't get ANY wired ISP | where I'm at. Even AT&T ADSL which was like .5Mbps and ~50% | packet loss terminated service to our neighborhood, saying | the copper is too degraded. Comcast, for some reason, told us | that to wire the entire neighborhood would cost them $73000 | dollars, but they won't do it. That was 3 years ago. I'd have | paid them 4000 dollars since then for business gigabit by | now. I have been kicked off of multiple MVNO's (not for my | abuse, but because AT&T/Verizon terminated their ability to | sell SIMs for modem use). | | My only current option is T-Mobile's home internet service | (via LTE/5g), which works well most of the time but has some | pretty ridiculous outages at least once a week. I gave Elon | my 100 bucks years ago when they said we'd have starlink | available by EOY 2021. They're now saying Q3 2023. | | These ISP's have us over a barrel in the states. | pessimizer wrote: | > you get 1 Gbps symmetric fiber connection in most countries | in Europe for under ~$30/month. | | I suspect that decisionmakers in the US think that symmetric | connections encourage communism. | VTimofeenko wrote: | On the more measurable side I would imagine the cost of lines | correlates with population density. Running wires to 100 | single family homes is way more expensive than running the | wires to a district of apartment buildings | TeeMassive wrote: | In Canada they refuse to capacity because some "cities are | too dense" | [deleted] | WorldMaker wrote: | Depends on how old the apartment buildings are. If the | apartment buildings themselves are already wired with fiber | (or really good, recent coax) it might be a lot cheaper | running a single _bundle_ of wires to services the | building. (Keep in mind that ideally you still have one | fiber wire _per apartment_ to sell the highest speeds to | each apartment, so you aren 't necessarily saving on number | of cables for 100 apartments versus 100 detached single- | family homes.) | | Of course, the older the buildings are the more expensive | it gets. Running a new line into a single family home is | usually a single new hole from the local utility trench or | utility pole, which often have existing rights of way and | known contact points to do utility work. Running new lines | in an apartment complex often requires opening walls and | ceilings between, among, and inside units, which then | consequentially means doing new drywall and repainting (and | maybe high costs to color match historic paints). If the | apartments are condos there's even more complex rights of | way issues in needing to get the consent of individual unit | owners for some of the work. | VTimofeenko wrote: | To be honest, I only have second-hand experience with | running Internet lines in a bunch of Soviet-era apartment | blocks. On a lot of building designs there's typically a | drop going through all floors that exposes the | electricity meters in a common area of the stairwell. The | cable would go in either through the underground utility | way - most likely electricity or heat lines (central | heating FTW) or by air from a neighboring house. There | would be a switch in the attic where the connections from | apartments would terminate. | jer0me wrote: | 1Gbps is $40/mo from Sonic in the Bay Area | Tsukiortu wrote: | I only can use Windstream as the other providers are right on | the edge of my area and refuse to move in. I only get "50Mbps" | (It's never gone above 45) for $90+ a month, and they have been | forever increasing it because well, what choice do we have. | colechristensen wrote: | https://usinternet.com/fiber/plans-pricing/ | | Come to Minneapolis. 1 Gbps for $70. | IE6 wrote: | > charges me a few bucks more per month, for 150mbps | | And, in my experience, they will slowly ratchet up the cost | until you call in and complain or change your plan, so a | negotiated 80 dollars slowly can become 160+ | mtnGoat wrote: | I use a smaller ISP in Washington state and my 1G symmetrical | line just went from $79 to $59 a month and they increased my | upload, it used to not be symmetrical. | sizzle wrote: | Love all these underdog stories | woah wrote: | This is kind of an interesting illustration of how little people | know about how the internet works, and how news is ultimately | entertainment. | | Full respect to the man in the article for the hard work and | initiative he took in starting a small independent ISP, but this | story is the story of thousands of small ISPs in the US and many | more around the world. | | In a basic sense, this story is not "newsworthy" since there is | nothing new about it. It's more of a human interest piece, like | if the reporter wrote a story about the lady who started a coffee | shop after being overcharged for a Frappuccino. | | I'm guessing this ISP has gotten more attention here and on Ars | Technica than others because the founder is fluent in the | software engineering world, as well as having started an ISP. | Ironically there is a pretty big gulf between the world of | techies who know how to write the code on the internet and the | people who actually build the internet who are more blue collar. | Spivak wrote: | One of my coworkers also did this but went the cell tower | route. Had no idea you could just install a cell tower without | mountains of red tape and huge expense but hey. Then all his | "customers" (i.e neighbors) have antennas on their house | pointed right at it and boom, internet. He only had to front | the cost of getting the lines run to one location. | bitcoinmoney wrote: | Is he running the tower as a business? | hinkley wrote: | I knew a couple who did similar in Seattle. They all got gobbled | up one by one, sometimes by Speakeasy, who in turn was gobbled up | by others. Briefly theirs was owned by an east coast company | which sucked because they had east coast tech support. If your | internet went down binge watching a show at 9 pm you were done | for the evening because their people were in bed. | | I would not recommend doing this business with a spouse. They did | not make it for many reasons, but running a 24/7 interest sped up | all of their problems. Not unlike a vacation that is going | poorly, but every month. | | Also fuck Covad. They only had to suck less than Centurylink nee | Qwest and they couldn't manage that. ___________________________________________________________________ (page generated 2022-08-10 23:00 UTC)