5 ms·

shameless plug: https://internetforall.nyc/ https://internetforall.nyc/ There is a coalition of organizations trying to get NYC to start its own public broadba

shameless plug: https://internetforall.nyc/ https://internetforall.nyc/ There is a coalition of organizations trying to get NYC to start its own public broadband provider. If you live in NY, talk to your friends and reps about it, if you don't, get your city to start one. NYC had to sue Verizon because they didn't fulfill their contracts to provide broadband to low income parts of the city (just like Charter and LTD haven't), but there really is no choice except to keep subsidizing these godawful companies unless we have a publicly owned alternative.

IMSAI8080 4y ago
I think the best approach would be publicly owned infrastructure with a mandate to reach all addresses. Run a basic no-frills public ISP service over it at a fair price but the private sector can also operate added value services over the public infrastructure if they want for a nominal maintenance fee.
- jnathsf 4y ago
  This is exactly the approach SF[1] was taking but unfortunately our main political champion, the Mayor, passed away unexpectedly. We were estimating $25-30/mo for 1Gb symmetrical as a utility tax for all households (subsidized for low income). [1] https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2018/07/12/americas-tech-capital-tens-thousands-go-without-home-internet-heres-how-san-francisco-wants-fix-it/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2018/07/12/america...
- CSMastermind 4y ago
  I'm pretty conservatively politically but even I have come to the conclusion that a government owned monopoly on telecoms might be the only solution, especially given the criticality of internet access in the modern world. To some extent it's a natural extension of the postal service. I'm not sure why more politicians don't run on this platform.
  - NonNefarious 4y ago
  - throw10920 4y ago
    That's a pretty good point (and argument), actually: "What's the fundamental difference between the post office and internet access?" I don't see one.
- Wowfunhappy 4y ago
  > but the private sector can also operate added value services over the public infrastructure if they want for a nominal maintenance fee. Added services like what? I want internet. Give me internet. As long as the "no-frills" version is available to consumers, I suppose it's fine to provide options. However, I feel like these public-private partnerships often merely allow rent-seeking corporations to insert themselves as middlemen and skim off the top of public services. Especially once those middlemen also start lobbying to cripple the government-run version.
  - csb6 4y ago
    Exactly. High speed internet is no longer a novelty. It is necessary for most people who use the Internet/stream video. A municipal, “no frills” package that is just a slow DSL connection would be inadequate.
    - troon-lover 4y ago
      Streaming video is not a necessity.
    - IMSAI8080 4y ago
      No-one said slow. I was thinking FTTP. However a public sector initiative would come with limits. It has to come with limits because people demand low taxes. Let's say the public sector does the math and says 500Mbit is what they can guarantee for equitable distribution to all addresses. That should be plenty for most people. But there will always be one person who demands their god given right to 10 gigabit. In which case you direct them to the private sector and tell them to pay for it on their own.
      - Wowfunhappy 4y ago
        Wouldn't the private ISP offering 10 gigabits have to lay their own pipes anyway, to support that speed?
        IMSAI8080 4y ago
- skwheel 4y ago
  That's what I have: fiber infra as a public utility, with a choice of ISPs on top of that. Funny fact, the ISP I chose is $10/month for 1G down/up. Want to add a phone line (which runs digitally over fiber)? That'll be an extra $26/month. It's as if they know the only people who want a phone line are willing to pay a lot for it.
  - thayne 4y ago
    I would love to be able to pay your price for internet and phone for just half of that internet speed.
lelandfe 4y ago
This is great. The flip side of this is NYC Mesh, which is a group of fed up volunteers building a giant mesh WiFi, along with public access points. It's pretty impressive: https://www.nycmesh.net/map https://www.nycmesh.net/map
skwheel 4y ago
My city runs fiber infra as a public utility, with about a half dozen options of ISPs to choose from which provide internet connectivity on top of that infra. I pay $26/month total for 1000 Mbps down, 1000 Mbps up. It's a huge benefit to everyone living here. The city is going neighborhood by neighborhood, connecting everyone that wants it. To me, the best part isn't even the price. It's the satisfaction of not having to deal with Comcast/Cox/Verizon/charter/etc.
- susanasj 4y ago
  missed this comment earlier, but I'm curious if you're in the US?
  - skwheel 4y ago
    Yes. Idaho

IMSAI8080 4y ago

I think the best approach would be publicly owned infrastructure with a mandate to reach all addresses. Run a basic no-frills public ISP service over it at a fair price but the private sector can also operate added value services over the public infrastructure if they want for a nominal maintenance fee.

jnathsf 4y ago
This is exactly the approach SF[1] was taking but unfortunately our main political champion, the Mayor, passed away unexpectedly. We were estimating $25-30/mo for 1Gb symmetrical as a utility tax for all households (subsidized for low income). [1] https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2018/07/12/americas-tech-capital-tens-thousands-go-without-home-internet-heres-how-san-francisco-wants-fix-it/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2018/07/12/america...
CSMastermind 4y ago
I'm pretty conservatively politically but even I have come to the conclusion that a government owned monopoly on telecoms might be the only solution, especially given the criticality of internet access in the modern world. To some extent it's a natural extension of the postal service. I'm not sure why more politicians don't run on this platform.
- NonNefarious 4y ago
- throw10920 4y ago
  That's a pretty good point (and argument), actually: "What's the fundamental difference between the post office and internet access?" I don't see one.
Wowfunhappy 4y ago
> but the private sector can also operate added value services over the public infrastructure if they want for a nominal maintenance fee. Added services like what? I want internet. Give me internet. As long as the "no-frills" version is available to consumers, I suppose it's fine to provide options. However, I feel like these public-private partnerships often merely allow rent-seeking corporations to insert themselves as middlemen and skim off the top of public services. Especially once those middlemen also start lobbying to cripple the government-run version.
- csb6 4y ago
  Exactly. High speed internet is no longer a novelty. It is necessary for most people who use the Internet/stream video. A municipal, “no frills” package that is just a slow DSL connection would be inadequate.
  - troon-lover 4y ago
    Streaming video is not a necessity.
  - IMSAI8080 4y ago
    No-one said slow. I was thinking FTTP. However a public sector initiative would come with limits. It has to come with limits because people demand low taxes. Let's say the public sector does the math and says 500Mbit is what they can guarantee for equitable distribution to all addresses. That should be plenty for most people. But there will always be one person who demands their god given right to 10 gigabit. In which case you direct them to the private sector and tell them to pay for it on their own.
    - Wowfunhappy 4y ago
      Wouldn't the private ISP offering 10 gigabits have to lay their own pipes anyway, to support that speed?
      - IMSAI8080 4y ago
skwheel 4y ago
That's what I have: fiber infra as a public utility, with a choice of ISPs on top of that. Funny fact, the ISP I chose is $10/month for 1G down/up. Want to add a phone line (which runs digitally over fiber)? That'll be an extra $26/month. It's as if they know the only people who want a phone line are willing to pay a lot for it.
- thayne 4y ago
  I would love to be able to pay your price for internet and phone for just half of that internet speed.

lelandfe 4y ago

This is great. The flip side of this is NYC Mesh, which is a group of fed up volunteers building a giant mesh WiFi, along with public access points. It's pretty impressive: https://www.nycmesh.net/map https://www.nycmesh.net/map

skwheel 4y ago

My city runs fiber infra as a public utility, with about a half dozen options of ISPs to choose from which provide internet connectivity on top of that infra. I pay $26/month total for 1000 Mbps down, 1000 Mbps up. It's a huge benefit to everyone living here. The city is going neighborhood by neighborhood, connecting everyone that wants it. To me, the best part isn't even the price. It's the satisfaction of not having to deal with Comcast/Cox/Verizon/charter/etc.

susanasj 4y ago
missed this comment earlier, but I'm curious if you're in the US?
- skwheel 4y ago
  Yes. Idaho