Comment by jonstokes | Hacker News Reader

Comment by jonstokes | Hacker News Reader

This can't get here fast enough. To people who don't really get why they're doing this, or who think it only makes sense in undeveloped regions with no cell towers, I wrote about this here:

http://collectiveidea.com/blog/archives/2016/01/15/wisp-tria...

Basically, if you think that in developed areas cell tower density has or should have an inverse correlation with the cost of bandwidth, then you don't live in the real world. There's a reason that there are only a few network operators on most towers, and those guys get away with highway robbery in terms of pricing and quotas.

Here is the money graf:

"It’s when I began seriously working on the cell tower option that the beauty and inevitability of the balloon idea truly clicked for me. Don’t get me wrong — on its face the Internet balloon idea is still actually nuts, but it’s vastly better than the terrestrial alternatives, which are all terrible because of one fatal problem: any moderately long-range wireless bandwidth solution needs line-of-sight to work, which means you need elevation, and (absent a viable balloon technology) elevation is a function of geography, which makes it eminently exploitable by rent-seekers.

This geography-based rent-seeking, by both wireless carriers (via national tower networks) and fixed-line ISPs (via cable, fiber, phone networks, and trunk locations) is the only reason that bandwidth quotas exist in 2016, and it’s what brings the Internet-of-balloons idea down from cloud cuckooland and into the realm of inevitability."

I share your general optimism on sky-based broadband, but I have to admit that I do not follow your argument about rent-seekers.

All physical space, even space in the sky, is in limited supply. So why does the rent-seeking nature of cell towers make sky-based broadband inevitable?

I can see why sky-based broadband affords a huge competitive advantage, allowing Google to beam 1gbps for $5/mo to the 15 million people who live in Northern California.

But why does that make it more likely to come to pass? Are balloon/drone flight plans inevitably easier to file than zoning permits for cell towers? Won't altitude eventually be auctioned off by the FCC? I fear that part of what makes sky-based broadband attractive is the perhaps naïve notion that government will always control the skies in the relatively light-handed way in which it currently controls the skies.

I hadn't really thought about how rent-seeking might apply to sky-based broadband via FAA licenses and the like. I'll have to think about that one some more.

I think the reason rent-seeking is less of an issue in the sky (although I don't have any opinion about viability) compared to the ground is that the earth is not flat / smooth (also has buildings on it), but if you go even 1000 feet in the air there are no objects ruining line of sight. There's a lot of sky. Even sky 1000 feet above a cliff side is sky, you probably don't want to put a land-based cell tower there though.

> This geography-based rent-seeking

don't forget about the actual rent, too.

how much of the housing cost problem is caused by a huge number of people needing wired broadband within X miles of a city center, competing with rich foreigners who want the exact same real estate?

imagine if middle class knowledge workers currently feeling the squeeze could realistically live 30+ miles out and telecommunicate most most/all of the time. not only would it revitalize the outskirts of some cities that need residents/activity, it would put a hedge on the insanely fast rise in the cost of housing near the city center.

or at least give working people an option to live further away, have a high standard of life (more space), and still be able to do their jobs without commuting 2-3 hours a day.

but maybe this is all anecdata: i have a tiny place (studio) in the city and i am completely uninterested in spending close to $1M to upgrade my conditions. however, i am willing to spend a considerable amount of money to either add a country home (best of both worlds), or move altogether. where prices are good, bandwidth sucks, and i can't realistically live there and run a business.

this is clearly an imbalance in the marketplace and i hope it gets addressed in the next 5 years.

Just like you, I don't have to imagine. I make an engineer salary working from home. I live in a low cost of living part of Florida, 5 minutes from the beach on the gulf side.

Because I didn't go to SF, and have worked remotely, I've been able to save a non-insignificant amount of my income; I'll be able to retire around 35-37 (I'm 33 now).

Always be willing to say no when someone can extract rent of any sort from you; otherwise, you're a slave to them.

congratulations. as i get older i consider doing the same more and more, or just getting out of tech altogether. seems like it's a treadmill in a lot of ways.

No need to congratulate me! This is what people should be doing if they want to be free from a job or industry that provides them no enjoyment.

I too will be getting out of tech when I "retire", or rather, focusing on using my technical skills in a more philanthropic way. I'm tired of the circular "what was old is new again", always having to prove yourself to a new team, all that jazz. I can lead a very comfortable life on a beach in Belize while I hack on things that matter.

But how would they combat a storm/rain/hail?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com