> It's also because they are really bad at providing it.

What makes you think that? A huge chunk of an ISPs' operating expenses go to paying people to move dirt around, and the metal and plastic they put in the dirt. How do you expect to disrupt that?

Second hand experience. My father owned and operated a small tv + ISP (cable when I was young, Internet by the time I was in middle school), and my uncle still operates his. Both have or had ~50k subscribers. My father sold his system to Comcast and worked for them for a while before quitting, frustrated by inefficiencies and dissatisfied customers, and his experience is the reason my Uncle is holding out from selling.

I ran an ISP (then Chicago's most popular) in the mid-1990s, and even then, the whole enterprise mostly relied on infrastructure provided by telcos, who were required to lease us POPs under fair and reasonable terms.

lol seriously thomas what haven't you done? always finding new ways to impress me...

I'm not impressive, I'm just older than you are, and I got a really early start.

> However, I'm also not convinced that comcast's prices aren't as high as they are

The math is for you to see.

> It's also because they are really bad at providing it.

And how many ISP companies do you have experience running ?

> My point is that Comcast is more interested in providing a return to their shareholders than they in providing effective and satisfying customer service.

What is wrong with it ? Has worked well for Google.

>The math is for you to see.

It's not math.

>And how many ISP companies do you have experience running ?

Indirectly, 2. I worked for both my father's and my uncle's ISP's, both of which they owned and operated.

>What is wrong with it ? Has worked well for Google.

Alright, fair, you got me there.