NYC is as dense they come in the US. And there is no actual competition where I live.
I've lived in NYC since 2007, moved several times, and never had FIOS - although the last place I lived in before this one got FIOS a couple of months after I had to move.
It seems like Google is going down the road with using huge capital but are there other ways? Republic Wireless is the only other "similar" product to disrupt the telecom market.
You probably have to get the city on your side for eminent domain for purchase or at the very least easement rights on a tiny strip of land everywhere so that you can lay cable, and of course that's going to take time, and there's going to be a fair amount of "grassroots" opposition (no one ever comes to municipal/community meetings, you can sway it pretty easily), and so you make your case about how it's going to benefit and bring jobs and bring X to Y group and all the while you aren't actually delivering internet and you're not sure when you'll be able to. In the meantime the existing players can build out in the town you're trying to move into and make the speeds you were promising pointless anyway.
tl;dr: Local government is easily gummed up, you have to compete in many places at once to be a real threat.
I'm starting to think that ISPs should be government-regulated utilities just like electricity, water, sewer, etc. Isn't that how those industries were disrupted -- through regulation?
If the infrastructure is managed by a public/private entity, then any number of companies could provide service over it.
The infrastructure business -- for electricity, water, information networks, and other similar services -- are high-capital cost very long term investments that typically require some degree of government intervention in terms of rights of use. There's no reasonable way to provide independent supply systems if your goal is 100% coverage, and the government must be allowed to dictate things like "this road can be dug up to install pipes" and "this edge must be allowed to hold wire poles" and so forth. If you want an efficient implementation, you have one big infrastructure system that all the suppliers share.
The trouble usually comes when an entity gets to both maintain the infrastructure and supply services on it. That's bad. Now they have an incentive to provide better service for their customers and worse to everyone else's. For example, if you allow an ILEC (telco owning local wire systems) to provide DSL service but require them to rent space in their local wiring centers to their competitors, you will discover that the competitors' service requests are answered more slowly, accidentally ignored more often, and generally deprioritized if not actually sabotaged.
The best thing a municipality, county, or state government can do to foster a robust network environment is to establish an infrastructure provider and regulate them as the monopoly that they are, forbidding them to provide the services on top of the infrastructure. Then you can get healthy competition in those services.
So one company charges ISPs for using the pipes and then ISPs pass that cost on to the consumer. This means the cost of entry is significantly lower for an ISP.
It certainly feels that way. Though I believe there is some chance for bootstrapping, even starting out with an entire apartment signed on would still be difficult. Though it may be enough to spark investor interest.
> Republic Wireless is the only other "similar" product to disrupt the telecom market.
While what they're doing is neat, they're just using someone else's network (Clear) and essentially shuffling expenses around. It's not low-level physical disruption where we need it.
I think that's a good start. I'm willing to bet low-level disruption could be realized using the existing infrastructure. A one cost, low-monthly rate for ISP and VoIP such as Sonic.net?
I'm not aware of any rules that force cable providers to resell their infrastructure (like Google is doing willing with their fiber). I think, at least at one point, DSL providers had to allow competition using their lines. Sonic.net for a while (and still does to my knowledge) resold DSL and eventually started binding two DSL lines together to increase speeds. They had to pay a hefty amount of their revenue for that customer directly to Ma bell though. For whatever reason, AT&T is not forced to resell their UVerse(VDSL) system. Which maxes out at 24Mbps anyway and thus is already a disappointment for competition. So unfortunately, I'm not seeing any opportunities for disruption with existing infrastructure, at least in the states.
Wireless is within shooting distance. There's some issues to be worked out tho.
It's not impossible, just hard. You also have to deal with airspace e.g. if someone decides to put up a new building right through one of your beams, you need to somehow get around that building, which could be hard. The only people I know of who are doing wireless broadband are doing it in very rural areas, where they can follow the electrical lines, which have nice, clear paths through the forests. Their biggest problem is regulations -- they cannot put up towers because of rules about visual appearance.
IMO, ISPs and Telcos are natural monopolies that need to either be periodically broken up by the government, or be fully regulated like a public utility. The cost of monopoly should be external control of pricing and operating parameters.
When you serve high-rise apartment buildings, ethernet is a viable alternative to DSL. I don't see a technical reason why an independent ISP can't serve a few central districts of a city with fiber and ethernet as the last mile (in this case, the last few meters).
I imagine in USA it's ridiculously hard to lay your own cables between apartment blocks and host a few boxes in a common utility cellar; and maybe it's also legally impossible to serve a subset of a city or even a state. But in Russia each apartment block has 2-3 ethernet ISPs offering Internet plus one DSL. These networks grew organically: they were profitable from the day one when they served one large building and they they added a few buildings a month; the industry wasn't regulated so they didn't have fixed regulation costs.
Now there are some stupid regulations and the costs of starting that kind of business went up, but there are still a lot of options to choose from.
So it seems that by promoting anti-market regulations dedicated to delivering predictable and quality service, you are now stuck with clumsy monopolies. So much for violating principles of capitalism.
Additional beauty: Even in smaller towns or remote districts where there is no competition, the de-facto monopolist still has to look up to the "industry best practices". Of course they may still offer comparatively worse service for the money, but on some level the knowledge of "how the things should be" forces them to develop better network than they could get away with.
US cable companies started out as small cooperatives that served individual neighborhoods without good over the air signal and grew into behemoths. The old US Bell telephone system was formed after waves of consolidation of small telephone companies serving a city or town. The current US cellular market is the same story -- lots of little companies getting eaten up by bigger companies.
Post-Soviet Russia has only been around for a couple of decades. I'm sure that you will see consolidation as time goes on -- there are absolutely economies of scale to be had when operating networks.
Of course consolidation will happen, but we'll already have good intertubes by then. Also they might follow the cellular carriers path, where there are three to five large carriers covering any (inhabited) area with no further sign of consolidation. (I assume if large cell companies try to merge antitrust won't let them - not counting under extreme economical or political curcumstances which are known to arise from time to time)
I am just going to guess that it is a combination of (1) the expense of getting linked to the rest of the Internet, (2) the low density of knowledge i.e. most people who would be interested in a cooperative don't really know how bad American Internet service is, and (3) the difficulty one faces with laying cables. I could be wrong, of course; I only briefly looked at doing this sort of thing, and I was planning to use wifi (once I saw how expensive things would be, I dropped the plan).
I think there should be one success story showing it can be done for a profit and then they will appear like mushrooms all over the country. You could crowdfund one I think.
That's what's happening in Australia with our national fibre network. Fibre runs to the bottom of apartment blocks, router in the basement and Ethernet to each individual apartment.
It's not hyperbole, if anything I'm understating the damage that has been done to the public to feed entrenched private interests.
It makes me curious what would happen if a private non-profit were formed to provide the the cable plant instead of the municipality. I know of a number of local DSL providers that provide ip transit over PPPoE and ATM DSL connections, so I can't help but think they would jump at the opportunity to offer services on such a network.
There would still be lawsuits, this time about how a non-profit is anti-competitive because they don't have the expense of trying to make a profit, so they undercut anyone who does try to make a profit.
To the GP post, most people will not recognize the need for faster access until you provide it to them. Imagine a town with only dirt road horse and buggies. Now imagine someone builds a highway on-ramp in the town. You can be certain that these individuals are now far more likely to purchase automobiles. [Shameless plug] This is a pet issue of mine, so to spare HN from being inundated with similar articles, I post them to: reddit.com/r/bandwidth.
http://arstechnica.com/uncategorized/2008/07/telco-wont-inst...
that resulted in
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2009/10/want-50mbps-inter...
That's not at all what your parent is saying.
>I'm not sure the majority of Americans would even opt in to this service as they might not have a need for anything more than a basic cable modem connection at $20/month.
Lack of the option (due to few competitors) is the point, not whether or not it would be useful to a majority of Americans.
Additionally, "640K is more memory than anyone will ever need" - Bill Gates