I hear a lot of people being dissatisfied with Comcast. What is it that makes them so hard to compete with that people have to resort to city-run networks?
By "infrastructure" I mean last-mile fiber buried/strung throughout neighborhoods and into peoples' homes. It's expensive to build such infrastructure, due to varieties of local laws, right-of-way access, and for the same reasons leaf nodes are most numerous in typical tree data structures.
So, Comcast's approach is to extract as much money as they can from existing infrastructure which they've built, acquired, or gained exclusive rights to, while directing minimal resources to building new such.
Along with that, they expend a lot of effort lobbying to protect that infrastructure from encroachment or competition by other entities, like other private ISPs, unbundling laws, municipal broadband, and the like.
It's not about the Internet specifically. It's just that every law or public spending is a shitty thing for those who don't want it, but have to pay for it anyway, or play by some rules they can't opt out of. In every other situation, we would consider such things shitty behaviour, so I think it makes sense to acknowledge that consequence and only do it if we really must.
Your financial viability as an infrastructure provider is do, instead by your uptake rate. Most of your cost is in passing each house. Your cost per customer is thus driven by your uptake ratio (subscribers divided by houses passed). Fiber deployments struggle to get to 0.4 or so, meaning you have to pass 2.5 houses for each paying customer. Forcing build out in all neighborhoods tanks your uptake ratio by forcing you to build in lots of places where people can’t necessarily afford your service.
It would leave out people near the poverty line. But the government can subsidize those people specifically, or build municipal networks in those areas. Better to do that than to distort the entire market by requiring every telecom provider to basically run a public service arm. That ensures only mega-corps can afford to get into the businsss.
It’s illustrative to look at what Stockholm did. A municipal entity built the dark fiber, but it was not subsidized. Nor was it subject to any build out requirement or mandatory cross subsidies. The entity built out based on demand, targeting businesses first. The resulting service is actually pretty expensive (about $130 for gigabit, plus a fee for building the fiber if necessary). For rural areas, the government simply gave a tax subsidy for rural residents to pay to wire themselves with fiber.
I’ll also note that we don’t build other kinds of utilities this way either! If there isn’t sufficient demand for sewer or water, a water utility simply doesn’t build it. And it charges every house about $20-30,000 to do so, regardless of whether they can afford it.
Isn't that how everything works, that goods and services are bought by those who can pay for them? Isn't that what having money means? Isn't that why people strive to earn money?
No, that isn't how everything works. Sometimes we forego the financial means of individuals and create things that would not otherwise emerge. Both the US telephony and US electrical systems were built out to include the vast bulk of residences in the US regardless of the means of individuals to fund that small part of the system they privately benefited from. Many of the "capitalists" of the time understood that the net value of this enterprise was strongly positive despite the subsidy gifted to those who had not paid all of their part.
Universality has value. It is difficult to calculate that value; simple ledgers and simple views of economics do not suffice. It is looong past time that we set aside the simple, failed model we have endured and solve this problem. That is what these municipalities, in their disparate, halting and often flawed ways, are trying to do.
https://consumerist.com/2014/05/10/why-starting-a-competitor...
https://consumerist.com/2014/03/07/heres-what-lack-of-broadb...