←back to thread

1135 points carride | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0.293s | source
Show context
supernova87a ◴[] No.32415390[source]
I greatly respect the initiative and scrappy-ness of someone doing this. And the legacy providers are clearly sitting on their monopoly position in a way that makes their pathetic alternative so starkly unattractive.

But isn't it also true that once his network grows above a certain customer base (and gets into the maintenance phase), he will start to see all the effects that eat into being able to do this cheaply?

Namely:

-- customers who don't behave as well or kindly as before

-- customers who need 24 hour customer service

-- maintenance that can't be done himself, and he has to employ people

-- customers and vendors who sue you for breach of contract, or other simply nuisance lawsuits

-- upgrading the network to the next technology requirement, or when he's unable to get 2nd-hand parts so cheaply, etc.

-- or a natural disaster that unexpectedly forces replacement of (and charging for) equipment that wasn't anticipated in the original subscriber price

Maybe none of this rises to the level of making it fundamentally different or unsustainable? But it seems to me the honeymoon phase doesn't last long, and it's got to hit some unavoidable realities soon. At least, if you think you can replicate this, it requires finding people and neighbors who are willing to do actual work and investment/concern to make something like this possible, and not simply pay a vendor a premium to phone it in. It must be treated like a neighbor-to-neighbor community project, not a faceless commercial transaction with its attendant obligations.

replies(12): >>32415516 #>>32415569 #>>32415664 #>>32415780 #>>32415882 #>>32416059 #>>32416674 #>>32417076 #>>32419050 #>>32419785 #>>32420753 #>>32420942 #
dimitrios1 ◴[] No.32415780[source]
> -- customers who don't behave as well or kindly as before

Easy. Refuse service. You aren't legally obligated to offer your service to assholes. Any business has the right to do or not do business with whoever they want, provided they’re not refusing service for a reason that violates local, state, or federal law.

> -- customers who need 24 hour customer service

Also easy. You are under no obligation to meet peoples unrealistic demands or needs.

> -- maintenance that can't be done himself, and he has to employ people

He already is familiar with third party contracting.

> -- customers and vendors who sue you for breach of contract, or other simply nuisance lawsuits

Frivolous lawsuits are a risk in any business in America.

> -- upgrading the network to the next technology requirement, or when he's unable to get 2nd-hand parts so cheaply, etc.

What is this "next technology requirement"? My area cable company still runs most their network on 30 year old lines.

> -- or a natural disaster that unexpectedly forces replacement of (and charging for) equipment that wasn't anticipated in the original subscriber price

Cost of doing business, doesn't matter the size.

I think people don't understand just how profitable municipal broadband can be. It's why big players spend so much lobbying and bribing so they can keep their established position running and keep the gravy train running, but really the economics of it are fantastic once you've done the initial digging and running the lines, which sounds like he has here.

At $55 /mo for 400 households he's bringing in $22,000 a month plus whatever federal and local government subsidies and grants. The odds of a disaster, or one of the other scenarios you mentioned happening anytime soon is low, so he will have runway to build a decent sized war-chest to be able to easily afford handling any of these scenarios with third party contractors. The more houses he brings on line, the better it gets.

replies(3): >>32416365 #>>32416474 #>>32417078 #
supernova87a ◴[] No.32417078[source]
> Easy. Refuse service. You aren't legally obligated to offer your service to assholes. Any business has the right to do or not do business with whoever they want, provided they’re not refusing service for a reason that violates local, state, or federal law.

Then isn't this a point against the scalability / feasibility of this idea working broadly for others or becoming a model for replacing dumb telcos?

If part of the reason telcos are the way they are is because they have to serve everyone, and at some point if you run a service like this you will run into that requirement, then you will too become like a telco because of those obligations. And this is just one example of a factor that starts to matter.

I try to help out in my HOA of 25 people to manage the utilities, infrastructure, landscaping, and even with this small a group people are uncooperative and 1-2 people are constantly questioning and threatening to sue if we don't do what they say. Hundreds/thousands of people is even more a nightmare.

replies(3): >>32417234 #>>32417528 #>>32418911 #
1. nomel ◴[] No.32417528[source]
> Then isn't this a point against the scalability

The technical solution would be a QOS that deprioritizes/throttles these people first, with clear wording in the contract. The reality is that these people are a negligible fraction of the users.