[wpietri]

> It actually doesn't make much sense to build multiple last-mile networks. This is called an overbuild and is rather wasteful given the capex involved.

Yes, obviously. Just like roads. Which is why local governments should design and operate all residential internet networks.

Or: Yes, obviously. A house really only needs one electrified wire, which is why we should turn over internet service to the power company.

Or: Yes, obviously. We don't want an internet that's wasteful in any part of its operations, which is why it should be run entirely by the federal government. In fact, it's about communications, so let's combine it with the USPS.

Or: Yes, obviously. Given its vital role in society and its origins as a DARPA project, it should be entirely built and operated by the US Army.

On the other hand, maybe what we need is a proper market in internet connectivity, with multiple providers using different technologies and approaches to meet consumer needs, and a strong regulator that keeps large companies from driving the small ones under.

As somebody who lives in one of the few competitive ISP markets in the US and pays $50/month for my gigabit home fiber connection, I think I prefer the latter.

[EGreg]

They have this in France. They make ISPs share the lines and compete on their plans to send bits over those lines. If a line is upgraded, they share the cost.

[wpietri]

Yeah, there are many good ways to do this. The US had a similar program up until 2005 where local phone companies had to allow ISPs to rent access to their last-mile wiring at mandatory rates. I like the idea, but I don't think it's practical in the US given business culture and the responsiveness of politicians to lobbying dollars.

[notyourday]

That's not the way it worked.

The access was provided only to dry pairs ( think alarm wires) for DSL if the carriers had unused dry pairs ( they did not ). To do that, one needed to colocate in a certain number of COs ( large ), take at least a rack per CO ( $2.5K-5K ) even if one had only ONE subscriber. The rack was placed into a special area of CO (so only some COs had them - there was no requirement to build out that area ) and finally in order to terminate anything out of that rack one needed to buy a crazy expensive service from the CO carrier ( think $10-15k/mo ) to get a DS3 or OC3 out.

This meant that absolutely no sane ISP could really afford to do this as there would be no customers wanting to pay hundreds of dollars a month for IP service. ISP DSL access was a replacement for T1s selling for $1.5K/mo between loop and IP, not for residential.

There was no requirement to share fiber builds.

[wpietri]

As someone who got residential internet service for many years through a colocated DSLAM, paying something like $60/month, I think you are overstating your case.

Regardless, I agree it never took off as regulators intended, but my point was the intent was similar: mandatory shared last-mile infrastructure.

[notyourday]

Your service ISP lost money on you every month.

[zamalek]

The other option is to re-instate line sharing. This would allow competition to immediately enter the market, with much fewer tax dollars spent. You would pay slightly more for competition (to cover the line rental) - but I would pay more to not have to deal with Comcast, even in the absence of the NN issue.

This completely side-skirts the rule that disallows states from making their own NN legislature.