15 ms·

I hope more community ISPs happen <3

vvpan 1y ago
Comcast and others have been using the corruption of our representatives to push for bans of community ISPs. https://www.techdirt.com/2024/11/07/16-u-s-states-still-ban-community-owned-broadband-networks-because-att-and-comcast-told-them-to/ https://www.techdirt.com/2024/11/07/16-u-s-states-still-ban-...
- linsomniac 1y ago
  Indeed, our community had to fight that, IIRC, we had to vote to overturn those bans, but did eventually get it through. They also did a bunch of advertising saying "We have so many problems like traffic, shouldn't the money be spent there instead?", but the money that was used to build the network was NOT money the city could use for anything else, it was a bond specifically for FTTH initiative. Buncha jerks. I was in one of the earlier roll-outs and the change was amazing! It actually did happen during the pandemic, and at one point we had 4 people doing video calls from the house and Xfinity's fastest service couldn't keep up (because of outbound bandwidth limits), but the asymmetrical gigabit fiber wasn't breaking a sweat. Now 3+ years later, CenturyLink (q.com) is finally starting to come through and lay down fiber. Those tools should have been laying it 20 years ago.
- Sylamore 1y ago
  When I worked for a certain large telco, we used to get emails from our "CEO of {State Name}" asking us to support their lobbying efforts to shut down community ISP initiatives by donating to their PAC and contacting our legislators trying to make it look like there was grassroots support. These state level CEOs were strictly lobbyists. Considering the company I worked for didn't even serve the community I lived in but multiple startups wanted to provide us fiber service but ran into all the road blocks my telco and others pushed, I was less than thrilled knowing the company i worked for was actively trying to block providing better internet to older neighborhoods.
  - vvpan 1y ago
    Think you co-workers saw it for what it was?
    - Sylamore 1y ago
      Some, the majority didn't care and of course we had the unfortunate few that were more than happy to help the company because they thought it would help earn them brownie points. We all got laid off the same in the end.
      - vvpan 1y ago
        I like the ending. Classic capitalism story.
- immibis 1y ago
  Community owned or government owned?
  - tptacek 1y ago
    Government owned (more precisely, owned by any public body).
    - immibis 1y ago
      Public means the government. So that means it's harder, not impossible. That's good news because it means the situation isn't totally fucked, and it's probably legal to compete with the incumbents, and even have the unofficial blessing of the city (they like what you are doing so they grant all your digging permits).
- tptacek 1y ago
  These are all statutes that impose obstacles to public bodies that want to roll out ISPs (few of the statutes are bans; more typical are rules like ad valorem taxation of ISP infrastructure). They're intended to offset cost advantages municipalities have in rolling out ISP infrastructure, because private ISPs have to pay taxes, buy rights of way, and actually win customers rather than rolling some of their costs off on the general levy. A colorable (though remote) concern would be that the most lucrative municipalities in a state might provision their own ISP service, thus cutting disincentivizing broadband providers from deploying anywhere in the state. These rules don't keep people like the subject of this post from deploying community ISPs. (I think the rules are very dumb but also the economics of small-scale municipal ISPs are not good at all; part of the reason they're dumb is that in reality a typical suburb has absolutely no hope of competing on price with Xfinity, Verizon, and AT&T.)
sneak 1y ago
It's illegal in most places, because the large incumbents are using a corrupt government to protect their revenue streams. See also: banking, healthcare
- 1-more 1y ago
  Longmont, CO has had municipal fiber since 2013. In 2005 the state passed a cable industry-sponsored bill requiring all municipalities to pass a ballot measure before they could build municipal broadband over 256kbps. Longmont had such a measure in 2009 and it failed due to campaigning by private ISPs. It passed later, and in the years since the speed cap has been removed. But yeah, it was a fight against private industry to use infrastructure _built and owned by the city_ for its only possible use. https://coloradosun.com/2023/05/24/municipal-internet-sb-152-repealed-colorado/ https://coloradosun.com/2023/05/24/municipal-internet-sb-152...
protocolture 1y ago
Me too. I love small ISPs. However, I really hope that more small ISP's get their shit together from a cybersecurity perspective. They are generally completely apathetic on the subject.

Comcast and others have been using the corruption of our representatives to push for bans of community ISPs. https://www.techdirt.com/2024/11/07/16-u-s-states-still-ban-community-owned-broadband-networks-because-att-and-comcast-told-them-to/ https://www.techdirt.com/2024/11/07/16-u-s-states-still-ban-...

linsomniac 1y ago
Indeed, our community had to fight that, IIRC, we had to vote to overturn those bans, but did eventually get it through. They also did a bunch of advertising saying "We have so many problems like traffic, shouldn't the money be spent there instead?", but the money that was used to build the network was NOT money the city could use for anything else, it was a bond specifically for FTTH initiative. Buncha jerks. I was in one of the earlier roll-outs and the change was amazing! It actually did happen during the pandemic, and at one point we had 4 people doing video calls from the house and Xfinity's fastest service couldn't keep up (because of outbound bandwidth limits), but the asymmetrical gigabit fiber wasn't breaking a sweat. Now 3+ years later, CenturyLink (q.com) is finally starting to come through and lay down fiber. Those tools should have been laying it 20 years ago.
Sylamore 1y ago
When I worked for a certain large telco, we used to get emails from our "CEO of {State Name}" asking us to support their lobbying efforts to shut down community ISP initiatives by donating to their PAC and contacting our legislators trying to make it look like there was grassroots support. These state level CEOs were strictly lobbyists. Considering the company I worked for didn't even serve the community I lived in but multiple startups wanted to provide us fiber service but ran into all the road blocks my telco and others pushed, I was less than thrilled knowing the company i worked for was actively trying to block providing better internet to older neighborhoods.
- vvpan 1y ago
  Think you co-workers saw it for what it was?
  - Sylamore 1y ago
    Some, the majority didn't care and of course we had the unfortunate few that were more than happy to help the company because they thought it would help earn them brownie points. We all got laid off the same in the end.
    - vvpan 1y ago
      I like the ending. Classic capitalism story.
immibis 1y ago
Community owned or government owned?
- tptacek 1y ago
  Government owned (more precisely, owned by any public body).
  - immibis 1y ago
    Public means the government. So that means it's harder, not impossible. That's good news because it means the situation isn't totally fucked, and it's probably legal to compete with the incumbents, and even have the unofficial blessing of the city (they like what you are doing so they grant all your digging permits).
tptacek 1y ago
These are all statutes that impose obstacles to public bodies that want to roll out ISPs (few of the statutes are bans; more typical are rules like ad valorem taxation of ISP infrastructure). They're intended to offset cost advantages municipalities have in rolling out ISP infrastructure, because private ISPs have to pay taxes, buy rights of way, and actually win customers rather than rolling some of their costs off on the general levy. A colorable (though remote) concern would be that the most lucrative municipalities in a state might provision their own ISP service, thus cutting disincentivizing broadband providers from deploying anywhere in the state. These rules don't keep people like the subject of this post from deploying community ISPs. (I think the rules are very dumb but also the economics of small-scale municipal ISPs are not good at all; part of the reason they're dumb is that in reality a typical suburb has absolutely no hope of competing on price with Xfinity, Verizon, and AT&T.)

sneak 1y ago

It's illegal in most places, because the large incumbents are using a corrupt government to protect their revenue streams. See also: banking, healthcare

1-more 1y ago
Longmont, CO has had municipal fiber since 2013. In 2005 the state passed a cable industry-sponsored bill requiring all municipalities to pass a ballot measure before they could build municipal broadband over 256kbps. Longmont had such a measure in 2009 and it failed due to campaigning by private ISPs. It passed later, and in the years since the speed cap has been removed. But yeah, it was a fight against private industry to use infrastructure _built and owned by the city_ for its only possible use. https://coloradosun.com/2023/05/24/municipal-internet-sb-152-repealed-colorado/ https://coloradosun.com/2023/05/24/municipal-internet-sb-152...

protocolture 1y ago

Me too. I love small ISPs. However, I really hope that more small ISP's get their shit together from a cybersecurity perspective. They are generally completely apathetic on the subject.