←back to thread

1135 points carride | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0.001s | 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 #
devmunchies ◴[] No.32419212[source]
the same reason one would file for patents without any intent of enforcing them. For defense and security.

I would say that to attempt to have zero growth/shrinkage is difficult in business. The market is always changing, people's preferences change, etc. If you try to stagnate you will likely find yourself shrinking, either because demand changes, or there are mixups in supply (competitors).

If shrinking is the only non-goal, then growth is likely the only prevention since stagnation is hard to ensure.

replies(1): >>32419368 #
1. pessimizer ◴[] No.32419368{3}[source]
The reason he exists is because the competition is bad. If the competition is good, he has no reason to exist. The goal is to supply 600 rural households with broadband at a reasonable price, not to own 600 households.