8 ms·

Here in my 3rd world country, fiber is getting pretty common. Small ISPs just rent space on poles and lay the fiber to the extend that I can choose from 4 diffe

Here in my 3rd world country, fiber is getting pretty common. Small ISPs just rent space on poles and lay the fiber to the extend that I can choose from 4 different fiber ISPs in my home. It amazes me how difficult it seems to get the same in more developed places like US/Canada.

jpollock 6y ago
The incumbents own the poles, which means they set the price and determine who gets access. That prevents new entrants.
- jaredmauch 6y ago
  Being on the poles can be more expensive than underground. Trees, cars and even bullets can damage the wiring. Underground is more expensive to start with but cheaper long term.
  - AlphaSite 6y ago
    Underground has a bunch of other issues as well, in the UK all records of the underground ducting have been lost in many areas in the 50-70 years since it was installed, which makes it a big headache. Which makes fixing, replacing etc quite expensive and the quality can be suspect.
sonicggg 6y ago
How dense is your country though? I feel that having fiber in big cities is a given nowadays. I don't think telcos have any plan on supporting those smaller remote towns with fiber. Maybe investment does not pay off in a reasonable amount of time. Fiber may not be the only option though. Starlink should be becoming available soon in North America. Only time will tell if that will work out though. WiMax, for example, was a failed hard.
- cactus2093 6y ago
  It's definitely not a given even in big cities. In San Francisco the only places I've seen it offered are big apartment buildings with 50+ units. At least from what I've seen, even in pretty dense parts of the cities if you're in a small apartment building with like 10 units or you're in a duplex or attached SFH you can't get fiber service. The upside is we can still get gigabit service over cable lines through comcast for a fairly reasonable price (although with terrible upload speeds, data caps on the plan, and the need to fight with support every year to prevent your price from going up, as with all comcast plans).
  - funkaster 6y ago
    If you’re in the sunset you’re in luck: pretty much everywhere in there has Sonic coverage (iirc by renting at&t fiber, but could be wrong).
    - jnathsf 6y ago
      in the sunset they do their own fiber
    - mikeyouse 6y ago
      Yep - I’m near 19th ave and I pay $60/month all in for 1gbps up/down fiber with no caps from Sonic. Pretty tremendous.
- foxtr0t 6y ago
  Way way off. North America is way behind in terms of residential internet speeds even in the most dense areas like NYC and San Francisco etc. Sonic just recently started ramping up around the Bay and if you're lucky enough to have service its great. Still, probably 90% of people in the Bay and 75% of the city are stuck with 30 Mb/s up max from Comcast. Starlink won't be high a replacement for fiber for a decade if we're being optimistic. These projects have huge ramp ups, tons of expensive launches, especially if they're successful, tons of users means slower speeds for everyone. And that all assumes success.
- 6y ago
chrishacken 6y ago
It’s this way because of how regulated everything is. You have to jump through hoops to get permission to do anything here in the U.S. in other countries you just do it.
- interrupt_ 6y ago
  It's fairly regulated here. The regulation says that the companies that own the poles are obligated to sell that space to any other telcos that want to rent it.
  - rhino369 6y ago
    That’s how it is in many places in the USA, but they often make you pay their own service techs to do it. In my city it’s pretty deregulated. But there are downsides. Sloppy techs will cut competitor cables due to pure laziness.
- colejohnson66 6y ago
  It also doesn’t help when the incumbent owns the poles and either delay letting you put your stuff, or outright refuse until you sue them.
- dylan604 6y ago
  It would be interesting to see someone just do it in the U.S. as well. A couple of guys with some amber flashing lights on their trucks. One with a bucket truck, another with big spool of fiber; guys with hard hats and safety vests. Cops aren't going to stop and ask questions. Maybe a telco guy driving by might ask a supervisor if they even cared enough about it. Just have guys that can actually do it correctly so the finished work doesn't look suspicious. Once it is up, the regulations will work for you. Some day, some other "legit" installer will come by and look at the cable and basically shrug their shoulders at it, and then do their work around it. It would take weeks if not longer to find out nobody knows who owns it. Nobody's going to take the time to trace it back. And I'm guessing nobody is going to just take it down for fear of taking the wrong thing down. Maybe they cut the line and wait around to see who comes to splice it?? It would make for an entertaining story.
xhrpost 6y ago
I once looked into running a fiber cable on poles for 2,000ft. It has to be done by certified professionals. I got quotes from $25,000 to $75,000. Just to hang a wire on what would probably be 20 wooden poles.
- sfifs 6y ago
  I sometimes think the US functions as a giant experimental ground for the rest of the world to learn in which domains a combination of capitalism and devolved regulatory authority (which seems to drive rapid innovation) works and also DOESN'T work :-) We've had fiber to home for years now in the East. Largely driven i think by governments seeing this was one area where it didn't work.
  - kortilla 6y ago
    That’s an example of government failure, not a failure of capitalism. The government is banning the easy installation from competitors.
    - 7sidedmarble 6y ago
      And who is it that lobbies the government for favorable laws and treatment? Almost like we... Live under a system that rewards and encourages that behavior.
      - tomohawk 6y ago
        Cronyism exists in all political systems. Doesn't matter whether it is a monarchy, dictatorship, socialist democracy, federal republic - it's always a concern. But, cronyism is not capitalism. It's actually a subversion of capitalism.
  - ycombonator 6y ago
    The politicians are paid off by big Telcos looking at you ComcastNbcUniversal. So much so cities and suburbs have laws on their books that they deal with only a single internet provider. Politicians and their empty talk of ‘competing with other countries in terms of technology infrastructure’.
dangerboysteve 6y ago
I recall reading somewhere where Australia has a system where the government owns/runs all the common network infrastructure, even to the home, as a for-profit entity and then allows any entity to rent and provide services on the shared infrastructure. This seems brilliant to me. I think its called https://www.nbnco.com.au/ https://www.nbnco.com.au/
- solraph 6y ago
  While I'm a fan of the single open network with multiple access model, I really wouldn't use nbn as an example of a government provided network, because of the politicking that went on during it's inception, the corruption that went on during it's build, the changing of horses midstream from fibre everywhere to a mix of less-capable technologies, and the way it was effectively built to be sold to the incumbent. If you want to see how to build a national broadband network, look across the ditch at what the UFB gets you. AUD$89 for 100mbps, versus NZD$85 for 1 gigabit. (Orcon in NZ, and TPG used in AU for comparison purposes)
- enjeyw 6y ago
  I mean the original idea was fantastic - the network infrastructure was going to be fibre to every household in Aus (with a few exceptions for ultra-remote locations) - 1 gigabit down/up. Then the conservative gov opposition ran a campaign (bolstered by incumbent telcos and Rupert Murdoch of Fox fame) that fibre was unnecessary and it'd be much cheaper and quicker to provide a patchwork mix of different modalities, the idea being that fibre would never be necessary. The reality is that the opposition just needed to run on a campaign that was "not what the Gov wants to do". Long story short, opposition won government, and ended up buying back (at a premium) a whole bunch of old copper infrastructure from the major telco whom they'd sold the infra to decades earlier. The costs of mismanagement and using such a patchwork mix blew the whole project out and here we are 10 years later with the "quicker cheaper" STILL not finished rolling out. Where it has been deployed, it's suffering under loads that it can't keep up with - I'm currently getting 1.5 Mbs down 0.72 up.
  - throwawaynothx 6y ago
walrus01 6y ago
Go look at the isps doing last mile FTTH with $700 splicers and roof to roof fiber in central Rawalpindi, Pakistan for instance. The USA or Canadian construction methods are much more organized and engineered, but also costlier.
geodel 6y ago
It only amazes if you think everything in first world has to better than third world. And IMO it is about as immature as first worlder who thinks that everything in third world has to be crap.

jpollock 6y ago

The incumbents own the poles, which means they set the price and determine who gets access. That prevents new entrants.

jaredmauch 6y ago
Being on the poles can be more expensive than underground. Trees, cars and even bullets can damage the wiring. Underground is more expensive to start with but cheaper long term.
- AlphaSite 6y ago
  Underground has a bunch of other issues as well, in the UK all records of the underground ducting have been lost in many areas in the 50-70 years since it was installed, which makes it a big headache. Which makes fixing, replacing etc quite expensive and the quality can be suspect.

sonicggg 6y ago

How dense is your country though? I feel that having fiber in big cities is a given nowadays. I don't think telcos have any plan on supporting those smaller remote towns with fiber. Maybe investment does not pay off in a reasonable amount of time. Fiber may not be the only option though. Starlink should be becoming available soon in North America. Only time will tell if that will work out though. WiMax, for example, was a failed hard.

cactus2093 6y ago
It's definitely not a given even in big cities. In San Francisco the only places I've seen it offered are big apartment buildings with 50+ units. At least from what I've seen, even in pretty dense parts of the cities if you're in a small apartment building with like 10 units or you're in a duplex or attached SFH you can't get fiber service. The upside is we can still get gigabit service over cable lines through comcast for a fairly reasonable price (although with terrible upload speeds, data caps on the plan, and the need to fight with support every year to prevent your price from going up, as with all comcast plans).
- funkaster 6y ago
  If you’re in the sunset you’re in luck: pretty much everywhere in there has Sonic coverage (iirc by renting at&t fiber, but could be wrong).
  - jnathsf 6y ago
    in the sunset they do their own fiber
  - mikeyouse 6y ago
    Yep - I’m near 19th ave and I pay $60/month all in for 1gbps up/down fiber with no caps from Sonic. Pretty tremendous.
foxtr0t 6y ago
Way way off. North America is way behind in terms of residential internet speeds even in the most dense areas like NYC and San Francisco etc. Sonic just recently started ramping up around the Bay and if you're lucky enough to have service its great. Still, probably 90% of people in the Bay and 75% of the city are stuck with 30 Mb/s up max from Comcast. Starlink won't be high a replacement for fiber for a decade if we're being optimistic. These projects have huge ramp ups, tons of expensive launches, especially if they're successful, tons of users means slower speeds for everyone. And that all assumes success.
6y ago

chrishacken 6y ago

It’s this way because of how regulated everything is. You have to jump through hoops to get permission to do anything here in the U.S. in other countries you just do it.

interrupt_ 6y ago
It's fairly regulated here. The regulation says that the companies that own the poles are obligated to sell that space to any other telcos that want to rent it.
- rhino369 6y ago
  That’s how it is in many places in the USA, but they often make you pay their own service techs to do it. In my city it’s pretty deregulated. But there are downsides. Sloppy techs will cut competitor cables due to pure laziness.
colejohnson66 6y ago
It also doesn’t help when the incumbent owns the poles and either delay letting you put your stuff, or outright refuse until you sue them.
dylan604 6y ago
It would be interesting to see someone just do it in the U.S. as well. A couple of guys with some amber flashing lights on their trucks. One with a bucket truck, another with big spool of fiber; guys with hard hats and safety vests. Cops aren't going to stop and ask questions. Maybe a telco guy driving by might ask a supervisor if they even cared enough about it. Just have guys that can actually do it correctly so the finished work doesn't look suspicious. Once it is up, the regulations will work for you. Some day, some other "legit" installer will come by and look at the cable and basically shrug their shoulders at it, and then do their work around it. It would take weeks if not longer to find out nobody knows who owns it. Nobody's going to take the time to trace it back. And I'm guessing nobody is going to just take it down for fear of taking the wrong thing down. Maybe they cut the line and wait around to see who comes to splice it?? It would make for an entertaining story.

xhrpost 6y ago

I once looked into running a fiber cable on poles for 2,000ft. It has to be done by certified professionals. I got quotes from $25,000 to $75,000. Just to hang a wire on what would probably be 20 wooden poles.

sfifs 6y ago
I sometimes think the US functions as a giant experimental ground for the rest of the world to learn in which domains a combination of capitalism and devolved regulatory authority (which seems to drive rapid innovation) works and also DOESN'T work :-) We've had fiber to home for years now in the East. Largely driven i think by governments seeing this was one area where it didn't work.
- kortilla 6y ago
  That’s an example of government failure, not a failure of capitalism. The government is banning the easy installation from competitors.
  - 7sidedmarble 6y ago
    And who is it that lobbies the government for favorable laws and treatment? Almost like we... Live under a system that rewards and encourages that behavior.
    - tomohawk 6y ago
      Cronyism exists in all political systems. Doesn't matter whether it is a monarchy, dictatorship, socialist democracy, federal republic - it's always a concern. But, cronyism is not capitalism. It's actually a subversion of capitalism.
- ycombonator 6y ago
  The politicians are paid off by big Telcos looking at you ComcastNbcUniversal. So much so cities and suburbs have laws on their books that they deal with only a single internet provider. Politicians and their empty talk of ‘competing with other countries in terms of technology infrastructure’.

dangerboysteve 6y ago

I recall reading somewhere where Australia has a system where the government owns/runs all the common network infrastructure, even to the home, as a for-profit entity and then allows any entity to rent and provide services on the shared infrastructure. This seems brilliant to me. I think its called https://www.nbnco.com.au/ https://www.nbnco.com.au/

solraph 6y ago
While I'm a fan of the single open network with multiple access model, I really wouldn't use nbn as an example of a government provided network, because of the politicking that went on during it's inception, the corruption that went on during it's build, the changing of horses midstream from fibre everywhere to a mix of less-capable technologies, and the way it was effectively built to be sold to the incumbent. If you want to see how to build a national broadband network, look across the ditch at what the UFB gets you. AUD$89 for 100mbps, versus NZD$85 for 1 gigabit. (Orcon in NZ, and TPG used in AU for comparison purposes)
enjeyw 6y ago
I mean the original idea was fantastic - the network infrastructure was going to be fibre to every household in Aus (with a few exceptions for ultra-remote locations) - 1 gigabit down/up. Then the conservative gov opposition ran a campaign (bolstered by incumbent telcos and Rupert Murdoch of Fox fame) that fibre was unnecessary and it'd be much cheaper and quicker to provide a patchwork mix of different modalities, the idea being that fibre would never be necessary. The reality is that the opposition just needed to run on a campaign that was "not what the Gov wants to do". Long story short, opposition won government, and ended up buying back (at a premium) a whole bunch of old copper infrastructure from the major telco whom they'd sold the infra to decades earlier. The costs of mismanagement and using such a patchwork mix blew the whole project out and here we are 10 years later with the "quicker cheaper" STILL not finished rolling out. Where it has been deployed, it's suffering under loads that it can't keep up with - I'm currently getting 1.5 Mbs down 0.72 up.
- throwawaynothx 6y ago

walrus01 6y ago

Go look at the isps doing last mile FTTH with $700 splicers and roof to roof fiber in central Rawalpindi, Pakistan for instance. The USA or Canadian construction methods are much more organized and engineered, but also costlier.

geodel 6y ago

It only amazes if you think everything in first world has to better than third world. And IMO it is about as immature as first worlder who thinks that everything in third world has to be crap.