Michigan Man Fed up with lack of internet options, creates an ISP

[Donut417]

9 minutes ago, Senzelian said:

Why does an ISP get 2.6m for corona recovery?

I think part of the American Rescue Plan was to expand internet. Comcast was never going to serve those people. A lot of money is given to people to provide rural internet, most companies pocket the money, its nice to see some company who actually will use it for the intended purpose. 

 

12 minutes ago, Senzelian said:

And if he got 2.6m, how much did the other providers get?

I know other providers did get money, but Im not sure what the catch is. Meaning he has to provide 600 more people with service with in like 2 years. So it would depend on the requirements. 

 

[Senzelian]

11 minutes ago, Donut417 said:

I think part of the American Rescue Plan was to expand internet. Comcast was never going to serve those people.

Exactly. They should never get that money.

[LAwLz]

55 minutes ago, Donut417 said:

I think part of the American Rescue Plan was to expand internet. Comcast was never going to serve those people. A lot of money is given to people to provide rural internet, most companies pocket the money, its nice to see some company who actually will use it for the intended purpose. 

The specific contract that this guy won specifically states that the one who won has to provide Internet access to certain households. If Comcast had won then they would have had to supply them with internet access as well. 

Not sure what the minimum level of service the contract specifies though. 

 

 

45 minutes ago, Senzelian said:

Exactly. They should never get that money.

Providing internet access to people in rural areas is expensive. Companies who do it will lose money in doing so.

That's why governments needs to step in to ensure everyone gets somewhat acceptable connectivity. Because if the government doesn't help finance it then it might never happen. 

[Lurick]

14 minutes ago, LAwLz said:

Providing internet access to people in rural areas is expensive. Companies who do it will lose money in doing so.

That's why governments needs to step in to ensure everyone gets somewhat acceptable connectivity. Because if the government doesn't help finance it then it might never happen. 

The problem I have is they have in MANY MANY instances taken that money, pocketed it, and done nothing to improve internet access and the government just shrugs and gives them more money later on. All the major ISPs in the states are guilty of this bullshit, I think it's something like a half trillion dollars over the past 20 years has been given to them to build out infrastructure and probably 90% of that never happens or gets built they just keep the money.

[Senzelian]

15 minutes ago, LAwLz said:

Providing internet access to people in rural areas is expensive. Companies who do it will lose money in doing so.

That's why governments needs to step in to ensure everyone gets somewhat acceptable connectivity. Because if the government doesn't help finance it then it might never happen. 

With corona recovery funds? what? 

[Donut417]

36 minutes ago, LAwLz said:

That's why governments needs to step in to ensure everyone gets somewhat acceptable connectivity. Because if the government doesn't help finance it then it might never happen. 

Which is why ISP's should be labeled utilities and have to be regulated as such. We provide power to much of America and those companies outside of Texas (because they like to be different) are regulated. Dont just throw money at these greedy corporations, you have to force them to do the right thing. 

22 minutes ago, Senzelian said:

With corona recovery funds? wh

Keep in mind those funds were to help people not only financially but with other things. Remember a portion of people had to work from home or loose their jobs. Not everyone has good internet. Thats how they can use those funds. Just like thru other programs the government will cover like $30 a month for you to get internet service, ACP program I think it was. But the covid funds were more than just funding pay checks and keeping business alive. Plus the government already created the money for covid relief. So its better it gets invested somewhere, I mean they already damaged the economy and cause massive inflation for what they did, at least the tax payers can benefit from it a bit. 

[dizmo]

6 hours ago, BuckGup said:

Yes but you are paying $50k for a piece of horseshit. 

Better than not having anything at all, if it's a service you need that badly. 

5 hours ago, Sauron said:

And all he needed was a small loan of 2.6 million dollars from the federal government  

 

I wonder if instead comcast and other large ISPs should have been forced to provide at least baseline internet access to everyone in the areas they operate in...

Yeah, it's almost like infrastructure is expensive and we shouldn't place its cost on the shoulders of individual people just because they live in poorly serviced locations.

IIRC that was just to expand to other people. He paid for the cost for getting internet to his own place. But, since he's a network engineer, it was far easier for him to navigate all that. 

 

It shouldn't be placed on businesses either. It's not their fault that potential customer decides to live in a place where, realistically, they'll never recoup the cost of servicing them. I could see an argument for having it government funded, if it's considered an essential service. 

[Senzelian]

22 minutes ago, Donut417 said:

Keep in mind those funds were to help people not only financially but with other things. Remember a portion of people had to work from home or loose their jobs. Not everyone has good internet. Thats how they can use those funds. Just like thru other programs the government will cover like $30 a month for you to get internet service, ACP program I think it was. But the covid funds were more than just funding pay checks and keeping business alive. Plus the government already created the money for covid relief. So its better it gets invested somewhere, I mean they already damaged the economy and cause massive inflation for what they did, at least the tax payers can benefit from it a bit. 

 

I don't get it.

 

You're saying that those funds were to help people, but the money is literally going towards companies which they're now using to expand. 

[Donut417]

5 minutes ago, Senzelian said:

You're saying that those funds were to help people, but the money is literally going towards companies which they're now using to expand. 

Poor people and rural people some times cant get internet. This gives them the ability. Doyou think an ISP is just going to expand to an area because people are there? Its a pretty well known fact AT&T skips poor communities with Fiber and Fiber and Coax providers skip rural communities in most cases. These funds open up internet connectivity to those people. So Im not sure what you do get? Need a job? You probably have to apply online. Need to work for home? Probably need more than 3 Mbps DSL or Satellite internet. Your kid is doing at home schooling do to a covid lock down? Well they need internet too. 

 

In the case above it also adds competition to the area. Now Comcast has to play ball to an extent. Just like how they had to play ball in the north east US with all the Fiber providers and other providers that offer service. 

[Senzelian]

11 minutes ago, Donut417 said:

These funds open up internet connectivity to those people.

Unless they simply don't do that and use the money instead to buy the CEO a new yacht.

I think it's naive to think that these corona virus funds would go into actually helping people if they're given to companies instead of to the people directly. 

[Donut417]

Just now, Senzelian said:

Unless they simply don't do that and use the money instead to buy the CEO a new yacht.

I think it's naive to think that these corona virus funds would go into actually helping people if they're given to companies instead of to the people directly. 

Again if you read the article there were stipulations about how the funds had to be used and the time frame they had to be used in. Thats the point. Giving money directly to the people wont solve the internet issue in the US. Because its not like those people will get enough to start an ISP of their own. Hell giving stimulus money to the people would probably cause more storages and price hikes leading to higher inflation. At least here its being invested into infrastructure. I have no issue giving this guy 2.6 Million as I think he really will expand the service. Bear in mind these people probably only had satellite and or very slow DSL as an option. Thats the point of giving companies money, as long as they do as intended. 

 

 Also, Im pretty sure that there were stipulations at the start of the pandemic that NO company could use this money for bonus's and golden parachutes. And yes im sure some of the large companies got money, but again some of that money is being used to provide free internet to people, because the government thru the ACP program is covering up to $30/m in internet expenses, for those who qualify. For poor people this is probably a blessing. Again need a job? You have to apply online at most places now days. Working or doing school from home? You need decent internet. Doesnt matter who does it, or how it gets done as long as it does get long. Until ISP's are declared a utility this will be the way its done. 

[Senzelian]

9 minutes ago, Donut417 said:

Again if you read the article there were stipulations about how the funds had to be used and the time frame they had to be used in. Thats the point.

fair enough.

I just can't trust any of them, which is why I automatically assumed they simply burned the money.

[LAwLz]

1 hour ago, Senzelian said:

With corona recovery funds? what? 

During the pandemic, a lot of people started working from home. That put a lot more pressure on peoples' home Internet connections. Helping people get better Internet connection could result in helping people whose life and jobs were at risk because of the pandemic. The pandemic has also changed the landscape of work, and now a lot of jobs expect you to be able to work from home. A lot of people are unable to do so because of terrible Internet service and data caps. Those people risk being alienated on the job market, which could result in a really bad downward spiral.

 

It also creates local jobs, which in turn helps with unemployment and may slow down the recession a bit.

 

 

1 hour ago, Lurick said:

The problem I have is they have in MANY MANY instances taken that money, pocketed it, and done nothing to improve internet access and the government just shrugs and gives them more money later on. All the major ISPs in the states are guilty of this bullshit, I think it's something like a half trillion dollars over the past 20 years has been given to them to build out infrastructure and probably 90% of that never happens or gets built they just keep the money.

Yes, and those situations are bad.

The solution to those things happening is to write into the contract strict and well defined minimum requirements. The solution is not to stop funding the expansion of infrastructure. The solution is to write the contracts in a way which guarantees that the money end up being used for its intended purpose.

[Donut417]

5 minutes ago, LAwLz said:

A lot of people are unable to do so because of terrible Internet service and data caps.

Yeah, even Comcast suspended caps for a while. They put them back in July or Agusust of 2020, and raised them 200 Gigs. My guess is they figured thats what the average person might need. They also didn't put them in the Northeast yet, Im guessing they are scared of the state governments as well as the competition. 

 

15 minutes ago, Senzelian said:

which is why I automatically assumed they simply burned the money.

Big providers will do this. Small providers can't because the government has a real chance of winning in court and making the punishments stick. Where the big providers have the money to keep appealing and appealing and appealing to their hearts content. Also they have the lobbying dollars. Which is why in many states municipal broadband is downright illegal. Because under IRS rules and municipality would not be able to make a profit, so they would only collect enough to pay the employees, build the network, maintain the network and upgrade the network. It would not be legal for them to take excess funds and put them in the general fund for instance. Which is why municipal broadband tends to be cheaper and the incumbents hate it because they have a hard time competing. 

[Sauron]

11 hours ago, dizmo said:

It shouldn't be placed on businesses either. It's not their fault that potential customer decides to live in a place where, realistically, they'll never recoup the cost of servicing them. I could see an argument for having it government funded, if it's considered an essential service. 

Either you make it a public utility, meaning private corporations are excluded from the market or can only participate within a strict set of rules, or you force private companies to at least provide for everyone. I'm partial to the first solution but I have a feeling comcast isn't. It may not be comcast's "fault" if someone lives in an isolated place but it sure as hell isn't that guy's fault that comcast pushed competitors out of the area and is now refusing to fill that void.