> On Jun 2, 2021, at 12:44 PM, Andy Ringsmuth <a...@andyring.com> wrote:
>
>>> On Mon, May 31, 2021 Mike Hammett wrote:
>>>> Muni broadband does suck, but that's another thread for another day.
>>> Excluding cases where muni broadband doesn't suck, why does muni broadband
>>> suck?
>>>
>>> Personally I wouldn't mind more access to dark fiber à la Stokab, much like
>>> the dry copper pairs of yesterday.
>>>
>>> If the default state of muni broadband of is suck, what is the root cause?
>>> Is it a people problem and/or can something be done to improve on the
>>> default state?
>>
>>
>> Muni broadband sucks for several reasons but the most important one is:
>>
>> Competition. Municipal broadband eliminates it. If it's not obvious
>> why, feel free to Google how competition and monopolization impact
>> product quality. It's a pretty universal trait.
>>
>>
>> If you were to structure muni broadband to enhance competition rather
>> than limit it, you might get a different result. For example, if
>> municipalities installed and leased fiber optic cables to every
>> structure but didn't provide any services on those cables, relying
>> instead on third parties directly billing the customer to do so, it
>> could work out as well as having municipalities pay for roads and
>> letting people buy their own cars and trucks to use on them.
>
> In many municipalities, you can choose your electricity provider. And yet
> there are not multiple companies running power lines to every house.
>
> It is easy to make the argument “muni broadband sucks because no competition”
> but it is much more difficult to back it up with hard data.
>
> Take a look at Nebraska for instance. Here, by law, electricity is a public
> utility. And yet we have some of the lowest rates and highest uptime in the
> country. No competition, low prices, stellar service record.
>
> I’m generally all for private enterprise. But when those private enterprises
> take public money, don’t do what they are supposed to do with it, squander
> it, and nothing changes, again and again, well, what’s that definition of
> insanity?
>
>
> Here in Lincoln, Nebraska, we actually do have fiber available at every
> address in the city. And a private company did it. 100 percent underground,
> all 96 square miles of the city. They did it all in about two years. I can
> get 50Mbps synchronous for $45, 500 for $70 or gig for $99. TV and phone also
> if I want it. Local support too, not India.
>
> They now have fiber in 15 Nebraska cities and two in Colorado and are
> expanding rapidly. Why? A great product at a great price with outstanding
> customer service. Spectrum is losing customers like crazy as a result, and
> precisely zero people are shedding any tears (Spectrum salesmen excepted).
>
> It can be done. Is it an investment? Yes. Just like anything else. Some
> investments have a quicker return on capital than others.
+1 on the investment lifecycle requirement. It can require a 10-20 year
vision. The problem we have right now is due to squirrel chasing on the part
of some companies the money that could have been invested in locking in markets
was spent on other investments. You see a big difference between forward
looking companies and their network performance and those that are backwards
looking.
I had to build fiber to my house because the fiber near my home (about 1200’
away) was not in a position to be upgraded or maintained in such a way to
deliver service to our area. This is a very common trend I’ve observed.
My county did a large broadband survey where a contractor drove by every
home/property to determine what was there. Many addresses without service have
multiple fiber providers at the road, it’s just not the “right fiber”. This
also includes spare conduit and space that was built out in a forward thinking
model that others have to duplicate later because the assets are lost or
forgotten in paperwork.
I also see a number of the smaller ISPs (and some bigger ones) who are like
“you can watch Netflix and zoom, what’s your problem?” When there are end-users
that are willing to pay for the higher speeds. Not every home is going to
spend $8k or $100k to get service, but they certainly do exist and make the
business case more feasible.
- Jared
