News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:Starting an Internet Service Provider by ajosh on Monday February 20, 2017 @01:34PM (#13689692)
One other reason is that counties have the land rights. They negotiate with the big Telco's like Comcast, Verizon, Cox, Charter, etc and then issue a monopoly or duopoly in the county for a fixed period of time - usually 10 years at once.

The Telco can offer a few things like fiber connectivity between county buildings, tax payments, etc. By doing that, they secure the rights to the area. Given the federal system of the United States, this is a difficult thing to stop.

This makes true market-based competition within most areas very difficult to achieve.

Re:Starting an Internet Service Provider by rayiner on Monday February 20, 2017 @02:57PM (#13690368)
> One other reason is that counties have the land rights. They negotiate with the big Telco's like Comcast, Verizon, Cox, Charter, etc and then issue a monopoly or duopoly in the county for a fixed period of time - usually 10 years at once.

They do not do that. It's illegal under federal law. Pole and conduit owners are required to rent out access at non-discriminatory rates: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/47/224.

The reason companies don't overbuild is because it's expensive and there isn't any return. FiOS came to my building in Baltimore. I was the only person on my floor to switch away from Comcast. Even these days, people choose their broadband provider based primarily on the TV package.

Re:Starting an Internet Service Provider by mschuster91 on Monday February 20, 2017 @03:11PM (#13690466)
> They do not do that. It's illegal under federal law.

But they most certainly can impose enough bureaucracy and other hurdles to make renting factually impossible. Or simply both the incumbent provider and the county employ just a single FTE (or less!) to handle permits, and one can't do anything about it. All while following the letter of the law, because there's nothing in the law that says "county has X days to deal with the permit else it is being automatically granted".

Re:Starting an Internet Service Provider by rocqua on Monday February 20, 2017 @04:49PM (#13691271)
That feels easily litigated to me. The law probably makes some statement like 'will make available'. You then go to court showing that the opportunity to rent isn't available even though there technically is a service.
Re:Starting an Internet Service Provider by zer0t3ch on Monday February 20, 2017 @10:02PM (#13692913)
> easily litigated

Nothing in the US is "easily" litigated, especially not when you're up against a multimedia conglomerate and a portion of the government itself.

Re:Starting an Internet Service Provider by tnorthcutt on Monday February 20, 2017 @09:59PM (#13692902)
"easily" "litigated"

Those two words do not go together.

Re:Starting an Internet Service Provider by chrishacken on Monday February 20, 2017 @05:20PM (#13691523)
> They do not do that. It's illegal under federal law.

They definitely do. Our city has a franchise agreement with the incumbent cable provider; they're the only company allowed to provide cable television service. ~10 years ago a company called NuNet tried to come in and run fiber in a neighboring city, Hazleton, and both they and the city were sued by the incumbent for breaching the franchise.

Re:Starting an Internet Service Provider by rayiner on Monday February 20, 2017 @07:16PM (#13692177)
The 1992 Cable Act made exclusive franchises illegal, but does not retroactively apply to pre-1992 contracts. Almost all of those contracts have since expired and been renewed as non-exclusive contracts under the 1992 Act. Hazelton, for example, granted an exclusive franchise before 1992, which expired in 2005: http://articles.mcall.com/2004-03-25/business/3517245_1_fibe.... The suit in 2004 was over the last year of exclusivity.

I imagine there are some 30-year exclusive franchises granted in 1991 that are still in effect. I don't actually know of any.

Re:Starting an Internet Service Provider by chrishacken on Tuesday February 21, 2017 @09:15AM (#13695573)
Interesting; that clears things up. Thanks!
Re:Starting an Internet Service Provider by martinald on Monday February 20, 2017 @04:13PM (#13690946)
I don't think that's true with the massive switch to cord cutting - cable TV revenues are collapsing.

Was FiOS much cheaper/better than Comcast (apart from the underlying tech)?

Re:Starting an Internet Service Provider by kevin_thibedeau on Monday February 20, 2017 @03:07PM (#13690435)
We do in theory have competition for DSL service but the telcos just conspired to let their cable plant rot to make that undesirable.
Re:Starting an Internet Service Provider by martinald on Monday February 20, 2017 @04:11PM (#13690935)
But why though? It seems really silly. Even in a hyper competitive market like the UK, the incumbent telco still makes a fortune off home broadband service.

In the US AT&T and Verizon seem to have given up and want to just do cellular to make money and let their copper plant rot. They are gifting the entire market to Comcast et al.

Re:Starting an Internet Service Provider by shambolic on Monday February 20, 2017 @05:34PM (#13691625)
No, we don't. The Brand X decision killed unbundling for DSL.