I greatly respect the initiative and scrappy-ness of someone doing this. And the legacy providers are clearly sitting on their monopoly position in a way that makes their pathetic alternative so starkly unattractive.
But isn't it also true that once his network grows above a certain customer base (and gets into the maintenance phase), he will start to see all the effects that eat into being able to do this cheaply?
Namely:
-- customers who don't behave as well or kindly as before
-- customers who need 24 hour customer service
-- maintenance that can't be done himself, and he has to employ people
-- customers and vendors who sue you for breach of contract, or other simply nuisance lawsuits
-- upgrading the network to the next technology requirement, or when he's unable to get 2nd-hand parts so cheaply, etc.
-- or a natural disaster that unexpectedly forces replacement of (and charging for) equipment that wasn't anticipated in the original subscriber price
Maybe none of this rises to the level of making it fundamentally different or unsustainable? But it seems to me the honeymoon phase doesn't last long, and it's got to hit some unavoidable realities soon. At least, if you think you can replicate this, it requires finding people and neighbors who are willing to do actual work and investment/concern to make something like this possible, and not simply pay a vendor a premium to phone it in. It must be treated like a neighbor-to-neighbor community project, not a faceless commercial transaction with its attendant obligations.
I'm going to skate past the fact that difficult customers and maintenance aren't why monopolies are expensive, in fact they're the things that are most amenable to economies of scale, so bigger gets cheaper.
The real question is: why does he have to get larger than the 600 homes in his nearby rural area, ever? Why does his goal have to be to defeat and replace Comcast rather than to supply internet service to his neighbors?
I'm not convinced this is the case. The big thing that makes telco's such profit making machines is that wires in the ground are generally a large capital expense that doesn't really provide a great marketplace for competition. But once you've got that infrastructure, it's hard to duplicate. The rest of the equipment and employees relatively aren't that expensive.
So the power is on the provider here, there isn't really another choice for customers if the article is to be believed, no matter how good or bad the company is. Sure there might be disputes with vendors, but that's just part of any business.
The biggest threat IMO is probably some sort of competition. Maybe a big telco decides to wire up the area, although then they would be the second player in the market trying to steal customers who may not be interested in switching. Or if this really is a rural area, things like wireless last mile (basically LTE), Starlink, OneWeb, etc may start to be more compelling options if they get the capacity, latency, and price point to the right spot to be competitive.
Not sure how Canada compares but these concerns haven't stopped the biggest telecoms in Canada from providing subpar service under very restrictive terms and conditions with no accountability. Namely, a 12 hour complete outage by Rogers to which the reply was basically a big shrug. If they can get away with that I am sure a small independant provider can get away with that as well.
> -- customers who don't behave as well or kindly as before
Easy. Refuse service. You aren't legally obligated to offer your service to assholes. Any business has the right to do or not do business with whoever they want, provided they’re not refusing service for a reason that violates local, state, or federal law.
> -- customers who need 24 hour customer service
Also easy. You are under no obligation to meet peoples unrealistic demands or needs.
> -- maintenance that can't be done himself, and he has to employ people
He already is familiar with third party contracting.
> -- customers and vendors who sue you for breach of contract, or other simply nuisance lawsuits
Frivolous lawsuits are a risk in any business in America.
> -- upgrading the network to the next technology requirement, or when he's unable to get 2nd-hand parts so cheaply, etc.
What is this "next technology requirement"? My area cable company still runs most their network on 30 year old lines.
> -- or a natural disaster that unexpectedly forces replacement of (and charging for) equipment that wasn't anticipated in the original subscriber price
Cost of doing business, doesn't matter the size.
I think people don't understand just how profitable municipal broadband can be. It's why big players spend so much lobbying and bribing so they can keep their established position running and keep the gravy train running, but really the economics of it are fantastic once you've done the initial digging and running the lines, which sounds like he has here.
At $55 /mo for 400 households he's bringing in $22,000 a month plus whatever federal and local government subsidies and grants. The odds of a disaster, or one of the other scenarios you mentioned happening anytime soon is low, so he will have runway to build a decent sized war-chest to be able to easily afford handling any of these scenarios with third party contractors. The more houses he brings on line, the better it gets.
In Minneapolis there is a local fiber provider which charges about the same for the same level of fiber connectivity. I think it's pretty sustainable.
It looks like his revenue is going to be $50k/mo in not so long and that's more than enough to have a couple of people willing to work on an as-needed hourly rate and to cover whatever issues come up.
Not everything need to scale. A good way to handle this kind of project is keep it at a certain community size, and if people want in, beyond a certain threshold, they need to build their own. This is how federated internet providers work usually.
I, too, greatly respect the scrappy-ness of this individual. Kudos to him for sticking it to Comcast. That said, I'm not wild about the notion of dropping $30K of our collective money on running fiber to a single home out in the country.
I have to presume his marketing costs will be close to zero. On tge other hand, in my area (central NJ) both Comcast and Verizon spend a ton on marketing.
He'll also have zero churn. So that's got to help the bottomline.
Finally, I'm willing to bet it helps raise local home prices as those who had to have proper broadband were effectively excluded from that market. The point being, some homes will be able and will to pay more.
Certainly the future will be different, the comparison to traditional ISPs might not be reliable either.
Are you saying that Comcast provides decent customer service? because I think it is probably the first or second reason everyone hates them... another one could be the doubling cost yearly unless you call them and are serious about cancelling.
Where I'm at Comcast is very reliable but I've had different experiences.
"I have at least two homes where I have to build a half-mile to get to one house," Mauch said, noting that it will cost "over $30,000 for each of those homes to get served."
That's over $11 per feet. That sounds about right. I paid $18 per feet to have a private fiber optic line of 1000 feet installed at one of my houses (in the US), going down a very long driveway, with 3 patch panels, 2 at each end and one in the middle at a gate. That was just for my LAN, not internet access. I needed the link to hook up intercoms and security cameras. I absolutely wanted 100% reliability of the network link, so wireless solutions wouldn't have been adequate. The previous homeowner had buried a cat5e line in the first 500 feet, with a cat5e repeater (underground), but its electronics failed after a couple years and its exact location couldn't be found. And he had not even put the cable in conduit.
I'm going to put my hand up and say I have absolutely no idea how an ISP works. He runs cables to each house in the area... now where does the other end go?
There is a very good Ars Technica article on how an ISP works. It traces the whole network, from submarine cable through to last mile into a house. It was written in 2016, but I imagine it's still relevant:
There are wholesalers that provide "dark fiber", then you buy data services from another "wholesaler". When I looked into it, dark fiber was available through some utilities and through a government funded non-profit. Data to light-up the fiber was available through several different data centers that connected to that dark fiber.
You still had to build-out the last mile though, and thats what will get you. You either need private easements, or be a registered telecom utility to use public utility easements. That last mile is $20k +/-, depending on your circumstances. If your semi-rural or less, there's ROI sucks. Hence, many smaller ISPs are wireless.
At least in area, there are already a number of wISPs, 5G is rolling out, Starlink eventually. and lots of gov't funding going to the big players to expand their networks (and drive the start-ups out of business.)
There some other business models out there too that look interesting. Underline in Co Springs, for example. They provide a basic tier of service, in order to qualify as a telecom, install the fiber and then allow multiple competing ISPs to use their network.
IMHO, any utility that has the benefit of government privilege should be required to allow competors to use the infrastructure that the taxpayers funded.
I'm waiting on one of you brilliant folks to defy the laws of physics to create a decentralized, wireless mesh internet.
As the other commenters have pointed out, a possibility is simply to "resell" transit from other providers. However, on the Internet all peering networks are somewhat equal and it's entirely possible to extend the "other end" over time to establish dedicated peering with other networks, so that for example traffic from your network to Youtube doesn't have to go through (paid-for) 3rd parties.
There's good chances there are Internet eXchange Points around where you live where for a small maintenance fee anyone can come and place their router and cables to interconnect with others.
So the likely steps are:
1) Find a transit provider, that will serve your trafic to any other network, and where to connect with this provider
2) (Optional) If you don't have the necessary infrastructure, find another provider to get from your last-mile network to your transit provider
3) (Optional) Find other networks to peer with so that you can significantly reduce your transit bill and provide better routes (therefore better service)
Some non-profit ISPs take the problem from the other side, and build a core network without necessarily owning any last-mile infrastructure, which is leased from other operators (opérateurs de collecte) with whom they interconnect at some datacenter/IXP. The most famous example of that in France is FDN.fr which has been operating since early 90s. That approach is more cost-effective in high-density area where the local infrastructure is already quite good, and construction jobs to lay new cables is very costly, but will still set you back 10-30€/month/line.
I think you more or less just buy connections from bigger ISPs, so for example you get a 100 Gbps connection to one location and distribute it to your end users from there.
Most of the equipment you can buy, you can even get a lot of the needed things as a service. You just need to organize all those hardware and software things, and get the economic and legal part right too. And in the end it needs to tie together in a way, that your earnings are bigger then your expenses.
I think it’s not so different to opening a car repair shop for example. Just more nerdy.
This is kind of an interesting illustration of how little people know about how the internet works, and how news is ultimately entertainment.
Full respect to the man in the article for the hard work and initiative he took in starting a small independent ISP, but this story is the story of thousands of small ISPs in the US and many more around the world.
In a basic sense, this story is not "newsworthy" since there is nothing new about it. It's more of a human interest piece, like if the reporter wrote a story about the lady who started a coffee shop after being overcharged for a Frappuccino.
I'm guessing this ISP has gotten more attention here and on Ars Technica than others because the founder is fluent in the software engineering world, as well as having started an ISP. Ironically there is a pretty big gulf between the world of techies who know how to write the code on the internet and the people who actually build the internet who are more blue collar.
>"I have at least two homes where I have to build a half-mile to get to one house," Mauch said, noting that it will cost "over $30,000 for each of those homes to get served."
is this really a valuable use of taxpayer money? sending a wireless link over a half-mile isn't that difficult, surely there's a better way to spend $60k of public money than delivering internet service to two families. especially now that starlink exists.
i'm all in favour of scrappy upstart ISPs, but this just seems wasteful.
If utilities are underground, it can be pretty expensive to install anything. I have an estimate for municipal fiber that's about that much to get fiber a mile or two down the street overhead, and then about that much to go down my driveway underground 400 feet.
It's hard to justify when the local phone company is probably going to roll out fiber in the next few years without a direct charge, at least for the portion on the street. Of course, that'll probably be PPPoE, maybe asymetrical, likely limited to 1G, etc. Comcast won't even quote me to come down my driveway, even though they serve my neighbor across the street from the pole at the corner of my driveway.
It's funny because he said one of the houses needed 0.5 miles of cable. My jaw dropped when he said it would only be $30K for that.
I'm speaking as someone who has had a few hundred foot trenches dug in my yard for running cable. Extrapolating it to 0.5 miles would come out to a lot more than $30K.
It isn't, but that's the norm for all internet infrastructure, both last-mile and backbone.
Since time immemorial, the gap between the amortized cost of building it, and anyone's willingness to pay for transport or transit, has been a) huge (that is, commercially insurmountable), and b) traditionally covered by one of two means:
1. Government subsidy, or
2. Attempting to offer services at the high prices necessary to recoup the investment, consequently going bust due to low volumes, selling the infrastructure for a pittance in a fire sale, and the next owner gets to offer services for prices the market is willing to tolerate. With this approach, it merely remains to find some VCs to sucker for the build phase.
It was also possible, back in the day, to run tunnels across your peers since they would announce the IXP networks at each end into their IGP, but folks got wise to that scam.
There is a variation on (2) involving anti-trust laws during M&A but it amounts to the same thing.
Agreed - that much money could put in a computer lab in a local library for everyone to use. I’m very supportive of rural people and the life they choose to live, but you are right - they should understand the drawbacks.
Its more than he personally was willing to pay ;-)
>Comcast once told him it would charge $50,000 to extend its cable network to his house—and that he would have gone with Comcast if they only wanted $10,000.
Im guessing being a nerd working at akamai he wont be the one spending ~1-2 days on a Ditch Witch/trencher to make those. He probably wont even hire anyone to work a rental from United Rentals. He will subcontract to same company that does trenches for Comcast.
Friend of mine needed to run fiber across the street. They had to dig up the road. Cost was $50k. This was in a city where there aren’t large pools of money from the government to get people decent Internet address.
I knew a couple who did similar in Seattle. They all got gobbled up one by one, sometimes by Speakeasy, who in turn was gobbled up by others. Briefly theirs was owned by an east coast company which sucked because they had east coast tech support. If your internet went down binge watching a show at 9 pm you were done for the evening because their people were in bed.
I would not recommend doing this business with a spouse. They did not make it for many reasons, but running a 24/7 interest sped up all of their problems. Not unlike a vacation that is going poorly, but every month.
Also fuck Covad. They only had to suck less than Centurylink nėe Qwest and they couldn’t manage that.
Isn't this just called starting a business? Don't get me wrong it's very cool but this just seems like the thing people should do when there isn't enough competition in the market
There is a good interview on YouTube with Jared Mauch. I think it may have already been posted on Hacker News previously, but I have included the link below for anyone interested.
> "I have at least two homes where I have to build a half-mile to get to one house," Mauch said, noting that it will cost "over $30,000 for each of those homes to get served."
I did a lot of investigation some years back hoping to start an ISP in a much more dense city where options were still limited. I had quotes from electrical companies of $25k-75k to run 2,000ft of aerial fiber on telephone poles (no drilling even!) The electrical company (who owns the poles) said that only certified installers could do it but that list was rather short and the person I spoke with didn't seem to know what that certification actually was. I wonder if this guy simply figured out how to legally do the infra layout himself.
He's getting $2.6 million to set up access to 417 homes. That works out to $6,235 per home. At $55 per month, it would take 113 months, or over 9 years just to get $2.6 million in revenue.
Horrible economics! What a crazy business to be in. No wonder grants like this are necessary.
I find it a little weird and off putting that thierprivate business is having its expansion funded by state funds for coronavirus recovery. I get that this is generally a good thing, and many ISPs, especially the smaller ones, receive government funds for developing and maintaining infrastructure. However, why is the Coronavirus recovery fund paying for this?
Remember the Hacker Manifesto: What could be dirt-cheap if it wasn't run by profiteering gluttons.
The physical infrastructure of cable is not expensive. The fiber itself costs nothing in bulk. Currently a pair of 1Gbps 20km rated transceivers costs <USD$20 in bulk.
The only things that make installs expensive are: (1) regulation; in particular ingrained antiquated systems of land ownership and associated regulatory capture bullshit by established monopolies; (2) switching infrastructure and associated power, land and security requirements; and (3) one-time installation process costs such as trench digging, termination box installation and cable termination.
Once installed, the cables are unlikely to fail unless aggressively attacked with digging equipment.
[+] [-] supernova87a|3 years ago|reply
But isn't it also true that once his network grows above a certain customer base (and gets into the maintenance phase), he will start to see all the effects that eat into being able to do this cheaply?
Namely:
-- customers who don't behave as well or kindly as before
-- customers who need 24 hour customer service
-- maintenance that can't be done himself, and he has to employ people
-- customers and vendors who sue you for breach of contract, or other simply nuisance lawsuits
-- upgrading the network to the next technology requirement, or when he's unable to get 2nd-hand parts so cheaply, etc.
-- or a natural disaster that unexpectedly forces replacement of (and charging for) equipment that wasn't anticipated in the original subscriber price
Maybe none of this rises to the level of making it fundamentally different or unsustainable? But it seems to me the honeymoon phase doesn't last long, and it's got to hit some unavoidable realities soon. At least, if you think you can replicate this, it requires finding people and neighbors who are willing to do actual work and investment/concern to make something like this possible, and not simply pay a vendor a premium to phone it in. It must be treated like a neighbor-to-neighbor community project, not a faceless commercial transaction with its attendant obligations.
[+] [-] pessimizer|3 years ago|reply
The real question is: why does he have to get larger than the 600 homes in his nearby rural area, ever? Why does his goal have to be to defeat and replace Comcast rather than to supply internet service to his neighbors?
[+] [-] kevin_nisbet|3 years ago|reply
So the power is on the provider here, there isn't really another choice for customers if the article is to be believed, no matter how good or bad the company is. Sure there might be disputes with vendors, but that's just part of any business.
The biggest threat IMO is probably some sort of competition. Maybe a big telco decides to wire up the area, although then they would be the second player in the market trying to steal customers who may not be interested in switching. Or if this really is a rural area, things like wireless last mile (basically LTE), Starlink, OneWeb, etc may start to be more compelling options if they get the capacity, latency, and price point to the right spot to be competitive.
[+] [-] connorlads|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] dimitrios1|3 years ago|reply
Easy. Refuse service. You aren't legally obligated to offer your service to assholes. Any business has the right to do or not do business with whoever they want, provided they’re not refusing service for a reason that violates local, state, or federal law.
> -- customers who need 24 hour customer service
Also easy. You are under no obligation to meet peoples unrealistic demands or needs.
> -- maintenance that can't be done himself, and he has to employ people
He already is familiar with third party contracting.
> -- customers and vendors who sue you for breach of contract, or other simply nuisance lawsuits
Frivolous lawsuits are a risk in any business in America.
> -- upgrading the network to the next technology requirement, or when he's unable to get 2nd-hand parts so cheaply, etc.
What is this "next technology requirement"? My area cable company still runs most their network on 30 year old lines.
> -- or a natural disaster that unexpectedly forces replacement of (and charging for) equipment that wasn't anticipated in the original subscriber price
Cost of doing business, doesn't matter the size.
I think people don't understand just how profitable municipal broadband can be. It's why big players spend so much lobbying and bribing so they can keep their established position running and keep the gravy train running, but really the economics of it are fantastic once you've done the initial digging and running the lines, which sounds like he has here.
At $55 /mo for 400 households he's bringing in $22,000 a month plus whatever federal and local government subsidies and grants. The odds of a disaster, or one of the other scenarios you mentioned happening anytime soon is low, so he will have runway to build a decent sized war-chest to be able to easily afford handling any of these scenarios with third party contractors. The more houses he brings on line, the better it gets.
[+] [-] colechristensen|3 years ago|reply
It looks like his revenue is going to be $50k/mo in not so long and that's more than enough to have a couple of people willing to work on an as-needed hourly rate and to cover whatever issues come up.
[+] [-] margarina72|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] bentobean|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] chiefalchemist|3 years ago|reply
He'll also have zero churn. So that's got to help the bottomline.
Finally, I'm willing to bet it helps raise local home prices as those who had to have proper broadband were effectively excluded from that market. The point being, some homes will be able and will to pay more.
Certainly the future will be different, the comparison to traditional ISPs might not be reliable either.
[+] [-] kalleboo|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] chriscappuccio|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Rackedup|3 years ago|reply
Where I'm at Comcast is very reliable but I've had different experiences.
[+] [-] wmf|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Octoth0rpe|3 years ago|reply
His little ISP is AS267, which is a SHOCKINGLY low number. That's like.. the ISP equiv of a 4 digit slashdot id, or owning something like sodapop.com.
He's also one of the authors of RFC 5575, which is a pretty big deal in the DDoS world.
[+] [-] mrb|3 years ago|reply
That's over $11 per feet. That sounds about right. I paid $18 per feet to have a private fiber optic line of 1000 feet installed at one of my houses (in the US), going down a very long driveway, with 3 patch panels, 2 at each end and one in the middle at a gate. That was just for my LAN, not internet access. I needed the link to hook up intercoms and security cameras. I absolutely wanted 100% reliability of the network link, so wireless solutions wouldn't have been adequate. The previous homeowner had buried a cat5e line in the first 500 feet, with a cat5e repeater (underground), but its electronics failed after a couple years and its exact location couldn't be found. And he had not even put the cable in conduit.
[+] [-] samwhiteUK|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] beezlebroxxxxxx|3 years ago|reply
https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2016/05/how-t...
[+] [-] Bloating|3 years ago|reply
You still had to build-out the last mile though, and thats what will get you. You either need private easements, or be a registered telecom utility to use public utility easements. That last mile is $20k +/-, depending on your circumstances. If your semi-rural or less, there's ROI sucks. Hence, many smaller ISPs are wireless.
At least in area, there are already a number of wISPs, 5G is rolling out, Starlink eventually. and lots of gov't funding going to the big players to expand their networks (and drive the start-ups out of business.)
There some other business models out there too that look interesting. Underline in Co Springs, for example. They provide a basic tier of service, in order to qualify as a telecom, install the fiber and then allow multiple competing ISPs to use their network.
IMHO, any utility that has the benefit of government privilege should be required to allow competors to use the infrastructure that the taxpayers funded.
I'm waiting on one of you brilliant folks to defy the laws of physics to create a decentralized, wireless mesh internet.
[+] [-] the_only_law|3 years ago|reply
https://startyourownisp.com/
[+] [-] southerntofu|3 years ago|reply
There's good chances there are Internet eXchange Points around where you live where for a small maintenance fee anyone can come and place their router and cables to interconnect with others.
So the likely steps are:
1) Find a transit provider, that will serve your trafic to any other network, and where to connect with this provider 2) (Optional) If you don't have the necessary infrastructure, find another provider to get from your last-mile network to your transit provider 3) (Optional) Find other networks to peer with so that you can significantly reduce your transit bill and provide better routes (therefore better service)
Some non-profit ISPs take the problem from the other side, and build a core network without necessarily owning any last-mile infrastructure, which is leased from other operators (opérateurs de collecte) with whom they interconnect at some datacenter/IXP. The most famous example of that in France is FDN.fr which has been operating since early 90s. That approach is more cost-effective in high-density area where the local infrastructure is already quite good, and construction jobs to lay new cables is very costly, but will still set you back 10-30€/month/line.
[+] [-] andix|3 years ago|reply
Most of the equipment you can buy, you can even get a lot of the needed things as a service. You just need to organize all those hardware and software things, and get the economic and legal part right too. And in the end it needs to tie together in a way, that your earnings are bigger then your expenses.
I think it’s not so different to opening a car repair shop for example. Just more nerdy.
[+] [-] jtap|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] H1Supreme|3 years ago|reply
Wow, sign me up. Comcast, which has a monopoly on my market, charges me a few bucks more per month, for 150mbps.
[+] [-] woah|3 years ago|reply
Full respect to the man in the article for the hard work and initiative he took in starting a small independent ISP, but this story is the story of thousands of small ISPs in the US and many more around the world.
In a basic sense, this story is not "newsworthy" since there is nothing new about it. It's more of a human interest piece, like if the reporter wrote a story about the lady who started a coffee shop after being overcharged for a Frappuccino.
I'm guessing this ISP has gotten more attention here and on Ars Technica than others because the founder is fluent in the software engineering world, as well as having started an ISP. Ironically there is a pretty big gulf between the world of techies who know how to write the code on the internet and the people who actually build the internet who are more blue collar.
[+] [-] andrewallbright|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] notatoad|3 years ago|reply
is this really a valuable use of taxpayer money? sending a wireless link over a half-mile isn't that difficult, surely there's a better way to spend $60k of public money than delivering internet service to two families. especially now that starlink exists.
i'm all in favour of scrappy upstart ISPs, but this just seems wasteful.
[+] [-] qwe----3|3 years ago|reply
This doesn't seem very efficient to me.
[+] [-] toast0|3 years ago|reply
It's hard to justify when the local phone company is probably going to roll out fiber in the next few years without a direct charge, at least for the portion on the street. Of course, that'll probably be PPPoE, maybe asymetrical, likely limited to 1G, etc. Comcast won't even quote me to come down my driveway, even though they serve my neighbor across the street from the pole at the corner of my driveway.
[+] [-] burntsushi|3 years ago|reply
I'm speaking as someone who has had a few hundred foot trenches dug in my yard for running cable. Extrapolating it to 0.5 miles would come out to a lot more than $30K.
[+] [-] inopinatus|3 years ago|reply
Since time immemorial, the gap between the amortized cost of building it, and anyone's willingness to pay for transport or transit, has been a) huge (that is, commercially insurmountable), and b) traditionally covered by one of two means:
1. Government subsidy, or
2. Attempting to offer services at the high prices necessary to recoup the investment, consequently going bust due to low volumes, selling the infrastructure for a pittance in a fire sale, and the next owner gets to offer services for prices the market is willing to tolerate. With this approach, it merely remains to find some VCs to sucker for the build phase.
It was also possible, back in the day, to run tunnels across your peers since they would announce the IXP networks at each end into their IGP, but folks got wise to that scam.
There is a variation on (2) involving anti-trust laws during M&A but it amounts to the same thing.
[+] [-] sgerenser|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Vaslo|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] rasz|3 years ago|reply
>Comcast once told him it would charge $50,000 to extend its cable network to his house—and that he would have gone with Comcast if they only wanted $10,000.
Im guessing being a nerd working at akamai he wont be the one spending ~1-2 days on a Ditch Witch/trencher to make those. He probably wont even hire anyone to work a rental from United Rentals. He will subcontract to same company that does trenches for Comcast.
[+] [-] fourthark|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] omvtam|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] adrr|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] unknown|3 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] throwaway787544|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] bodfinch|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] rvnx|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] hinkley|3 years ago|reply
I would not recommend doing this business with a spouse. They did not make it for many reasons, but running a 24/7 interest sped up all of their problems. Not unlike a vacation that is going poorly, but every month.
Also fuck Covad. They only had to suck less than Centurylink nėe Qwest and they couldn’t manage that.
[+] [-] toomuchtodo|3 years ago|reply
Slides from Jared’s talk: https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/14-By20iTnDzpNcAPFayO...
[+] [-] guywithahat|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] markandrewj|3 years ago|reply
https://youtu.be/ASXJgvy3mEg
[+] [-] xhrpost|3 years ago|reply
I did a lot of investigation some years back hoping to start an ISP in a much more dense city where options were still limited. I had quotes from electrical companies of $25k-75k to run 2,000ft of aerial fiber on telephone poles (no drilling even!) The electrical company (who owns the poles) said that only certified installers could do it but that list was rather short and the person I spoke with didn't seem to know what that certification actually was. I wonder if this guy simply figured out how to legally do the infra layout himself.
[+] [-] boplicity|3 years ago|reply
Horrible economics! What a crazy business to be in. No wonder grants like this are necessary.
[+] [-] jleahy|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] vlunkr|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] tikiman163|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] contingencies|3 years ago|reply
The physical infrastructure of cable is not expensive. The fiber itself costs nothing in bulk. Currently a pair of 1Gbps 20km rated transceivers costs <USD$20 in bulk.
The only things that make installs expensive are: (1) regulation; in particular ingrained antiquated systems of land ownership and associated regulatory capture bullshit by established monopolies; (2) switching infrastructure and associated power, land and security requirements; and (3) one-time installation process costs such as trench digging, termination box installation and cable termination.
Once installed, the cables are unlikely to fail unless aggressively attacked with digging equipment.