Hacker News Reader

Comment by rayiner | Hacker News Reader

> In the Netherlands x% of a community had to sign up before they would roll out the system (to make sure that the ISP could recoup their costs).

In most U.S. cities, this is illegal.

In fact, Google got crucified when they did that originally for Fiber in Kansas City and a bunch of minority/low-income communities didn't make the list: http://www.wired.com/2012/09/google-fiber-digital-divide. Embarrassingly, the sign-up map was divided right along the road segregating black from white neighborhoods.

Even after Google lowered the sign-up requirements so more poor neighborhoods qualified, the sign-up rate for gigabit service was only 10% (and only another 5% for the free service). http://www.wsj.com/articles/google-fails-to-close-kansas-cit.... In most places, 30% is more like the target for what justifies build-out.

View on HN

Can you explain why this is illegal in the US? It in the UK, there are a number of companies investing in rural fibre broadband for communities where 1. the area is not expected to receive FTTC from BT Openreach and 2. there is sufficient demand from the local residents (i.e. how many people have signed up).

In most U.S. cities, broadband providers need a franchise from the city to build systems, and a condition of that license is building in every neighborhood within the city, not just those with demonstrated interest.

Google simply will not build Fiber in places that aren't willing to waive that requirement. Conversely, other broadband providers would serve many places if cities were willing to waive those requirements.

Here in Baltimore, Verizon was ready to build FiOS, and in fact my building and a few others nearby has it because Verizon was able to do it without getting a city-wide franchise. Fiber deployment to the whole city fell through because Verizon wouldn't commit to wiring up the vast low-income areas of the city where people couldn't afford to subscribe anyway.

Because there was a time when services were deployed in a discriminatory manner: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redlining

So because of historical discrimination it's common for government to require providers to serve everyone in a area instead of just the profitable areas (e.g. people that would buy $100 IP+TV packages instead of basic 5Mbps internet).

I think its more of a matter of class-warfare politics. Cities would rather have nobody have fiber than just the people who could afford it.

If there's anything that is class-warfare it's not adopting the very proven model of municipality networks. Of course government doing something good doesn't sit right with 'those who can afford'.

Proven? http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/sep/25/golden-hamme...

Chatanooga's system cost 5-8k per subscriber household for fiber and smart grid. It has resulted in little to none of the projected economic growth. And the revenue stream in no way makes up for the capital investment. The market values the NPV of a Comcast customer at only $2,500, and cable customers pay quite a bit more than $70 per month.

If you take this to the extreme, then Tesla should not be allowed to only sell very expensive cars... New technology often is adopted by the wealthy, the price goes down and then everyone can be served. The installation costs might go down over time by serving the ppl that are willing to pay so they can serve the others as well.

This regulation is counterproductive, the result is that no one gets fiber.

You're arguing that regulations against redlining would mean Tesla cannot just sell expensive cars.

Tesla does not discriminate based on your address. They discriminate based on income.

The problem with discrimination based on neighborhoods is that historically, it has not been income-based, despite claims by businesses that their only criteria was income[1].

[1] http://powerreporting.com/color/

It's not illegal; that's incorrect.

The type of franchise that requires universal buildout (with a number of caveats) is a cable franchise, with the intention that everyone has access to TV services, not broadband. And the standards for new entrants into a cable franchise are generally less onerous (or provide time to get to universal coverage).

Reply on news.ycombinator.com