←back to thread

Man who built ISP instead of paying Comcast $50K expands to hundreds of homes

(arstechnica.com)
1135 points carride | 3 comments | 10 Aug 22 13:23 UTC | HN request time: 0.214s | source
Show context
notatoad ◴[10 Aug 22 18:11 UTC] No.32416199[source]▶
>"I have at least two homes where I have to build a half-mile to get to one house," Mauch said, noting that it will cost "over $30,000 for each of those homes to get served."

is this really a valuable use of taxpayer money? sending a wireless link over a half-mile isn't that difficult, surely there's a better way to spend $60k of public money than delivering internet service to two families. especially now that starlink exists.

i'm all in favour of scrappy upstart ISPs, but this just seems wasteful.

replies(2): >>32416545 #>>32418468 #
1. a2tech ◴[10 Aug 22 21:06 UTC] No.32418468[source]▶
Especially since he's burying the lede about the people he's servicing--its true 'in general' that the area is lower income, but most of the homes he's serving will be millionaires.
replies(2): >>32420708 #>>32446553 #
2. notatoad ◴[11 Aug 22 01:53 UTC] No.32420708[source]▶
without knowing specifics, that's kinda what i assumed. i see the same thing near where i live - the "low income rural areas" that get infrastructure subsidies is cottage country or areas with a lot of retirees who've moved to the country.

the actual low income people living in rural areas have to move to a suburb or a trailer park if their region isn't serviced by a utility, they don't get assistance like this.

3. TheMiller ◴[13 Aug 22 03:09 UTC] No.32446553[source]▶
Washtenaw is certainly an affluent county, but not that rich. I live in another part of the county and used to work in Mauch's part of it; it's by no means mostly millionaires. I think the simplicity of the project's goal -- every household served, no exceptions -- is one of the reasons that it got off the ground.