Hacker News Reader

Comment by equalunique | Hacker News Reader

"Some cities / municipalities have signed agreements for monopoly rights to a telephone or cable provider. Many (but not all) of them can be worked around by simply not selling telephone or TV service."

Isn't it ironic that the only way for a startup ISP to get around the local monopoly agreement is to not provide services which are regulated by the FCC?

Yet somehow, Google, Amazon, and Facebook have convinced most young people that FCC regulation of ISPs is a good idea.

The sad part is, the only thing between a mass of young voters and 1984-style internet is just 3 more years of Trump/Pai, who most of them hate. Hopefully the FTC's renewed authority over "information service" can be demonstrated for the virtue it is before it's too late.

View on HN

These are not "monopoly agreements" (which are illegal). If you actually read them, you'll see each one says it's "non-exclusive." E.g. http://charmtv.tv/sites/all/themes/charmtv/pdf/comcast-franc....

What not offering telephone or television service gets you is avoiding the need to negotiate with the city for a television franchise. These agreements are usually stuffed with grab-bags for the municipal government (e.g. per-user fee, 5% of revenue off the top, offer XYZ public-access channels, build out to XYZ neighborhoods). All of this is imposed by the local government, not the FCC.

If you just want to run an ISP, build out where you think you can make a profit, and don't want the city to skim off the top, you can avoid that by not offering television or phone service. On the other hand, not offering television makes it hard to compete. People really do care about television service. I lived in an apartment building in Baltimore that had both cable and FiOS. FiOS was internet-only, because Verizon couldn't get a television franchise in the city. I found out I was the first one on my floor (of dozens of apartments) that had subscribed to fiber since the building was built 4-5 years before. All because people really love their television bundles. (There is a reason Google Fiber offered television service.)

Cool. Thanks for the clarification & details.

Do you think the "monopoly" concept may still apply when looked at through the Net Neutrality argument that ISPs may throttle/block services which compete with their own (possibly franchised) services?

I too live in the DMV area and am on the lookout for an apartment with decent internet.

Sure. You can have market power in the antitrust sense without being a legal monopoly.

I don't know where you work, but I'm personally loving the Annapolis area. (As I like to say, VA won't let you have weed, DC won't let you have guns, but MD will let you have both.) I also have two fiber providers to my house, and the state is building municipal fiber in the more rural counties that don't have FiOS.

Ahhhh Annapolis... Home to a big naval academy & supporting infrastructure/economy. That sounds great. My hope is to find a sweet/similar deal somewhere between Laurel & Crystal City.

Dude, MD won’t let you have guns. Need to move to flyover country for that.

If your view of the Second Amendment runs more towards militias than self defense, MD isn't bad. For long guns, there is no permit required, and either concealed or open carry is allowed without a permit. The ban on "assault style" weapons just means the state police runs a website listing all the semi-auto rifles you can legally buy (which is a lot). You can get your 30-round magazines in Virginia and bring them in with no trouble.

Fun fact: MD has more NFA registered weapons per capita than most of flyover country: http://metrocosm.com/map-of-federally-regulated-weapons.

Concealed carry allowed without a permit in MD? When did that happen?

For long guns (which is kind of pointless, I suppose). The point is that there is nothing preventing you from stocking up on arms for when MD/DE/PA have to become their own country.

You’ll need to shoot for constitutional carry. Here in KS (least gun laws in the nation) there is statewide open & concealed carry, no license required, at schools, bars, university. Though there would be a trespassing charge if you refuse to leave if asked. Still need a CCH license to get around federal Gun Free School Zones. No NICS if you have CCW.

The recent Firearms Protection Act says firearms and accessories (suppressors) made in KS are exempt from federal regulation. Though a couple of guys lost their federal case when they built a suppressor and sold it; at least no prison sentence.

I viewed sports as a major obstacle for people ceasing their cable television subscription. I think YouTube TV offers a viable option for this now.

So, work on that referral from your ISP to YouTube TV!

Could a local government impose net neutrality rules as a condition for a franchise?

[edit] Or more practically, what general policy changes could a municipality make to maximize the availability of competitive free internet?

They could but they won't. VZ/Comcast/ATT/etc of the world throw fantastic fundraisers

With respect, you don't know who my local government representative is or how effectively I can persuade him.

The question I asked was what policies, not how to persuade politicians to pass them.

That's why Google Fiber failed.

The opposite is true: https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2012/09/how-kansas-city-.... Google got tons of concessions from Fiber cities that other providers don't get, such as free power and free use of public property. There was nothing special about Kansas City--cities were falling over themselves to offer Google concessions in return for getting Fiber.

Google fiber failed

http://fortune.com/2017/03/27/google-fiber-expanding-slowly/

https://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/26/technology/google-curbs-e...

Google fiber failed because carriers would fork and eventually drop Android unless Google got out of the ISP business.

But now the carriers are buying up tech companies like Yahoo, their services are going to get preferential treatment so tech companies are screwed.

That's laughable. If Google was to take a VZ, there would be no VZ. Same goes for Comcast, AT&T etc.

The reality is that Google has no interest in taking on carriers. There's nothing sexy is digging treches and hiring Fat Joe, who belches, farts in a workplace, drinks a litter of coke, votes Trump and goes to work at -4C to splice fiber. You won't get accolades. You would only get shit if fiber is out and Paris Hilton can't watch her Netflix.

I live in Overland Park, KS and I’m still waiting for GF. They have ground to a halt.

Google Fiber failed because being a telecom network operator means tying up billions in capital assets in your infrastructure and then only making 10% margins.

Google’s business model is built around low capex and 35% margins. It’s simply a terrible fit for the other side of the company. Exponential growth becomes logarithmic growth and drags down their financials if they scale out too far.

Google Fiber failed because it was a software company that has engineers that have never seen a prism decide they can take on VZ.

When Warren Kumari gets less accolades than a random Google SRE you have a real disconnect with reality.

Probably not. Franchising authority extends only to television. Municipalities aren't permitted (under federal law) to leverage their authority over the television side to regulate the broadband side.

I suspect the best thing municipalities can do is to make it easy to build competing systems. Take the list of concessions that Google Fiber cities made in return for getting service and commit to doing that for any potential entrant. Adopt one-touch make ready rules, maintain city-owned ducts in good shape and make it easy to get permits. Lay dark fiber every time the city digs things up to put in sewers or roads. Even a little bit of competition can have significant effects. E.g. in the D.C. metro area Comcast has no data caps because it's in competition with Verizon, RCN, and Cox. At the state level, municipal networks can provide a backstop for places (e.g. rural Maryland) that can't support sufficient private competition.

I would really like to see a business case study of building out and operating an HFC network in a single average suburb, and how that varies with how cooperative the suburb is.

Could any of the economies of scale enjoyed by the huge/evil ISPs be recaptured by using some kind of franchise-model where the locals can own an ISP like they would a McDonalds?

I think towns might be more willing to make those concessions if at least some of the competitors were local small businesses rather than giant corporations like Google.

I wonder how much this has changed recently. We have PS Vue, sling, Youtube XYZ. Could you partner with one them to provide a discount to their services? Do the same with Vonage/etc?

Here in Seattle our condo building is in the middle of something insane - Comcast is actively installing their network in our building; previously we were only served by Wave Broadband. The local government has finally pushed back on what used to be de facto "gentlemen's agreements" to not allow competition in buildings. Excited to see what this brings!

Municipal Monopoly agreements are not illegal. No monopoly is illegal. _Abuse_ of monopoly power is illegal. Cable TV is a government granted m.onopoly

> Isn't it ironic that the only way for a startup ISP to get around the local monopoly agreement is to not provide services which are regulated by the FCC?

Isn't it telling that the FCC is repealing the consumer-protecting regulations, and not the monopoly-protecting ones?

What the heck are you getting at? You don't seem to be making a clear point. Federal regulation of most common monopolies is a good idea, and the internet has thrived under the net neutrality regulations.

> What the heck are you getting at?

Please don't, but rather post civil, substantive comments only.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

Ladies and gentlemen, behold astrotrufing.

The “everyone who disagrees with me is a paid shill because I surround myself in an echo chamber and can’t fathom of a legitimately dissenting opinion” mindset on the internet is more toxic and disturbing than actual astroturfing (insofar as it is far more prevalent at this time). It adds nothing to the discussion, stifles the sharing of unpopular opinions, and only reinforces the echo chamber. Please consider the ramifications of such accusations and in cases where you have proof, present it in lieu of the substance-less attack.

Ladies and gentlemen, behold astrotrufing.

My identity as real person is somewhat assured via Keybase.IO.... https://keybase.io/equalunique

This breaks the HN guidelines badly. Please read them and don't do this again.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

https://hn.algolia.com/?sort=byDate&dateRange=all&type=comme...

Reply on news.ycombinator.com