←back to thread

1135 points carride | 5 comments | | HN request time: 0s | 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 #
pessimizer ◴[] No.32417076[source]
I'm going to skate past the fact that difficult customers and maintenance aren't why monopolies are expensive, in fact they're the things that are most amenable to economies of scale, so bigger gets cheaper.

The real question is: why does he have to get larger than the 600 homes in his nearby rural area, ever? Why does his goal have to be to defeat and replace Comcast rather than to supply internet service to his neighbors?

replies(5): >>32417418 #>>32418709 #>>32419171 #>>32419212 #>>32421701 #
1. Willish42 ◴[] No.32418709[source]
Exactly. There are tons of smaller businesses not focused on infinitely growing that get by just fine. Especially in rural areas like these
replies(1): >>32419239 #
2. devmunchies ◴[] No.32419239[source]
for every small business that "gets by", there are 2 (probably more) that go out of business due to not having grown sufficiently by the time they face some competition.
replies(2): >>32420712 #>>32420820 #
3. JadeNB ◴[] No.32420712[source]
> for every small business that "gets by", there are 2 (probably more) that go out of business due to not having grown sufficiently by the time they face some competition.

If your goal is to fight a monopoly, then the mere existence of competition means that you've accomplished your goal.

4. wyattpeak ◴[] No.32420820[source]
I think this is a weird framing of the issue. Sure, lots of businesses go under, and maybe being larger would have saved them, but maybe not. Plenty of VC-funded businesses go under precisely because they tried to be too large, when they could have perfectly comfortably served a few satisfied initial clients for enough money to pay all their bills.

I think the idea that companies go under because they aren't ambitious enough says more about modern attitudes towards growth than it does about the reality of business.

replies(1): >>32428792 #
5. devmunchies ◴[] No.32428792{3}[source]
When I say growth I mean net profits. Those imploding VC companies were never profitable.

A larger profitable company has more chance of survival by shrinking into a smaller profitable company. It's a buffer. But an already small profitable company doesn't have that option, there's more risk.