Some truth about Comcast - WikiLeaks style

Thu Dec 16 14:51:28 UTC 2010

On Thu, Dec 16, 2010 at 8:02 AM, Jared Mauch <jared at puck.nether.net> wrote:

>
> On Dec 16, 2010, at 1:16 AM, JC Dill wrote:
>
> > On 15/12/10 9:29 PM, Jay Ashworth wrote:
> >>
> >> The underlying problem, of course, is lack of usable last-mile
> competition;
> >
> > I agree.
>
>
It exists where there is an ROI on investment. Capital markets haven't been
friendly
to network build since the dot-bomb, and for some reason localities are more
willing
to give tax-incentive financing to malls and stadiums rather than incenting
over-builders.

> >> see also my running rant about Verizon-inspired state laws *forbidding*
> >> municipalities to charter monopoly transport-only fiber providers,
> renting
> >> to all comers on non-discriminatory terms, which is the only practical
> >> way I can see to fix any of this.
> >
> > The problem is that this should have been addressed 5-10 years ago, when
>
> there *were* alternative ISPs who could have provided competition.  Now
> that
>
> Comcast has a monopoly on cable, and fiber is so bleeping expensive to
> install,
>
> at best we might get *one* alternative to Comcast, and a duopoly is really
> no
>
> better (for consumers, for the marketplace) than a monopoly.
>

Funny thing about competition is that there are losers as well as winners.
 DSL competition
didn't lose by regulation, it lost (nationally) by cheaper, more elastic
bandwidth available
on other media and JC's previously-noted fickle and lazy consumers.  Where
there is
competition, the little guy gets an easy low percentage (10-25%) of
penetration based
solely on not being the incumbent, but churn is high as soon as sign-up
incentives expire
and they get on a downward spiral of catering to complainers. Magic phrases
are traded
on dslreports and any retention-packages get spread across the entire
customer base.
Where there isn't market- sustainable competition, there is no actual
legislated monopoly
but rather ignorant local boards.

> This is why I suggested it might take regulatory action, or changes in
> state laws.
>

Also engage locality first, as Jared indicates. The problem in going to the
fed is that power
will be skewed to the larger entities. Competitive providers breathed a sign
of relief when
Verizontal lost their attempts to get statewide television franchising and
had to deal
locality-by-locality, just like the small guys did.  Would be worse if there
was a single
federal entity to buy off now that corporate campaign funding is both
anonymous and
unlimited.

>
> If I want to start up a coop, or convince my local county/state they should
> be a neutral provider of conduits/dark fiber as roads are rebuilt, etc..
> there are various barriers.  Even if the cost would be nominal.  I scaled-up
> some quotes to be an area-wide effort for fiber down every public road ROW,
> and came back with $100mil.  (you private road types need to shell out your
> own cash for that leg).
>
> The barriers to doing this as a project are well known.  Even if you don't
> like ars, they have decent articles on these topics:
>
>
> http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2010/01/municipal-fiber-needs-more-fdr-localism-fewer-state-bans.ars
>
>
> http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2009/06/monticello-appeals-court-win.ars
>
>
> http://arstechnica.com/old/content/2008/07/telco-wont-install-fiber-sues-to-keep-city-from-doing-it.ars
>
> Similar to the above, I could not even get Comcast to give me a quote to
> build to my area.  AT&T ... good luck getting any data from them.  I can
> tell they are filling in the gaps based on the trenching/boring going on,
> but there's no good way to motivate them.  And even if I decided to drop
> $10k to install a bunch of POTS service for 1 month to force a build, who
> knows if that build would bring the right level of service.  (As the POTS is
> regulated with a low install fee).
>
> The incentives are clearly skewed here, but without that $100mil, reaching
> the 125k properties (111k residences) in my local area may be tough.  (Note:
> there may be actual cost savings by not running down *every* public road,
> but using public road mileage and property counts seemed like a good method
> without actually designing the final fiber plant).
>
> My notes are here:
>
> http://puck.nether.net/~jared/blog/?p=84
>
> The reply I received from my elected reps:
>
> "Additionally, offering a millage to build a network for the general public
> may violate recent provisions within the Michigan Telecommunication Act."
>
>        - Jared
>

In a country where government-supplied healthcare is viewed as evil, how can
people
honestly expect the less-important telecommunications to be allowed to be
"government
run" as neutral municipal networks? Any unbundling of local HFC or FTTP
loops will be
slow and problematic.