This topic discusses the potential dominance of a single service provider and its associated criticisms.
This topic discusses the potential dominance of a single service provider and its associated criticisms.
Initially I believed the final answer might be simple, but I'm trying to stay firm and persistent until I gather more choices in this situation. I want to record my journey here to highlight why net neutrality matters and how it has affected my life over the past couple of years since I moved. My available options are limited local satellite internet (up to 1Mb download) and a main FTTN service (100d 5u max unless you're using FTP). That's what I chose. It works fairly well, though it feels restrictive.
Before moving, the selection seemed broader—at least two other major providers were available. But after late August 2018, they stopped serving my area. I think this happened right after Net Neutrality was removed. I still reported persistent packet loss (25-97%) on my $150 top-tier plan for 100d 5u. I asked for fiber to my home, but a representative quoted me around $35,000 for a non-business setup or offered a free upgrade to a beta tier with lower speeds. I accepted the latter since it met my needs.
Still, packet loss remained until I worked closely with a technician who replaced my connection twice. Eventually they confirmed the issue was resolved, and I regained stable streaming with less than 1% loss. I'm impressed by their customer service—so much better than what I experienced. The pricing for this deal is three times cheaper if I had chosen a different provider.
I've contacted both providers monthly as a consumer, asking them to provide quotes for my area. Neither has responded when I know they could have done so in the past. It's frustrating because I wish I'd recorded these conversations.
The situation changed after August 2018 when Net Neutrality was dropped. My local ISP suddenly cut off service, which reinforced how much competition mattered. Some staff at customer service seemed unprepared or dismissive, treating customers like they were inexperienced. That only strengthened my desire to switch.
On the downside, some support reps were overly tense and unhelpful. When I upgraded to a higher-tier plan, I was told it would cost about $35,000 for a one-month contract—far more than I expected. I also faced extra fees for a static IP ($15/month) just to run servers. Overall, the experience has been expensive and frustrating.
I'm hoping for better options soon. Living four hours from Charlotte, NC, I wish Google Fiber would have offered something competitive. If you have ideas on how to improve my deal or find a more affordable solution, please share them. This is definitely a long road ahead.
From an SP engineer's standpoint...
ISPs can be really pricey. Real competition will likely last only a short time before bigger players step in, mainly because it’s too costly even with government or grant help. Starting a small regional ISP would require at least $1 to $10 million just to get going. Think about how long it would take before the investment pays off and becomes profitable.
The knight in shining armor isn’t quite there yet—risk and investment are too high. The closest rivals are WISPs, which use equipment from Ubiquiti, Mikrotik, Craddlepoint, etc. They’re cheaper, set up quickly, and manageable with minimal staff. But they still run on wireless hardware, have limited support, weak redundancy, and their team members often lack deep networking knowledge beyond the basics.
Outside of homes, this isn’t really relevant.
Pricing-wise, monthly internet bills are steep in some areas, but people often don’t grasp what’s really behind those costs. Let’s do a rough calculation for the gear we use. This equipment can support up to 32 customers per PON. We’ll focus on one PON:
- Chassis: $10k
- Blades: $5k
- 10G optics (4 units): $2k
- GPON SFP: $1k
- ONT: $200 each for 32 units: $6k
- 144C Fiber: $1.07 per foot
- Splice case: $70 each for 1–32 NID housing: $5k
- NID DC feed: $1k
- NID COLO Lease: very expensive, say $$$/year
- Pole/Conduit Lease: another $$$/year
Adding it all up, we’re looking at around $40k already. And that’s before accounting for ongoing costs like labor, OSP fiber work, backup systems, repairs, weather damage, and more.
Sales, marketing, support, training, documentation—all add up quickly. What starts at $40k could easily reach $100k or more. Even if you charge $100 per month per customer, it would take three years to break even if everything goes right.
This is why the numbers matter so much. The reality is that running an ISP isn’t just about speed—it’s about massive upfront and ongoing expenses.
And let’s be honest: most ISPs don’t lower prices for existing customers, even when DSL 3/1 is becoming a nightmare due to copper costs. People often don’t realize how much it really costs to keep the lights on.
That’s just the beginning—big picture of what it takes to get started and stay profitable.
Nothing related to competition. When it came into law it had no impact on US competition. ISPs such as Comcast still imposed data limits. Companies like T Mobile and other mobile firms continued offering zero-rated services. Setting up an ISP is extremely expensive—millions upon millions are spent to lay the necessary infrastructure. That’s not unreasonable. I’ve noticed Cable Co asking for $50,000 just to extend their coax network to a customer’s home. The lowest installation cost I’ve seen comes from Comcast. If you’re within a third of a mile of their fiber network and can afford $1,000 for installation plus $299 monthly, they’ll install a 2 Gbps symmetrical Metro Ethernet connection. Essentially a dedicated line straight to your house. It’s actually a solid offer if you need fiber. Remember, the quote covers labor and equipment/wiring, but the ISP won’t cover those costs. They’re focused on recouping their investment. It would take years for them to see a return if they brought fiber directly to your home. In certain situations, with a business account and a contract, they might cover some or all of the expenses.
I completely grasp the costs involved in the infrastructure. I understand everything. I'm highlighting how those who were included in a secondary internet provider receive advantages. My area was usable for a limited period during net neutrality, which is what I meant when I said that. I dismissed their jokes when they claimed they couldn't offer the deal long-term, thinking they meant the current arrangement rather than the full service. When I selected my local provider, they assured faster speeds and lower prices, so I chose them over slower options but with better rates. Although I don’t have proof my neighborhood had those services, I know coworkers nearby—even across the highway—who use a similar plan through a secondary provider. Removing it would mean losing access entirely. This service has been running for 75 years, serving about 4,883 customers monthly, which is roughly 3.5% of our town’s population. At the lowest plan, that’s around $280,000 per month. There’s no need to invest in new PONs since they already cover the whole area well, and only 7% of local businesses have fiber just a mile away. No extra projects or responsibilities, so I assume all costs were covered before integrating fiber into nodes, giving us the best options locally. What other charges do they impose? I’m just estimating that about 35% of my town’s users, but this could be much higher. For example, if we compare to the U.S. average internet usage of 89.8%, imagine if all those included users received special discounts to switch—would that really make a difference? Damn. That’s essentially what I’m saying.
I know! That's an excellent deal. I do live right next door to the facility. So it is an option I'll be looking toward in the future. Nevertheless, thinking about the suffering community. This is hell. I overestimated the google reviews, actually. Rocking that 1.5/5 stars. Competition would be expensive for the new competition, I'm sure. But what I'm actually trying to show is that the competition was already working on coming closer to us, a growing town. My provider stopped them in their track in the process as soon as they could.
Many of these services rely mainly on phone networks, with even the smaller providers employing around 50 people—just enough for basic operations. I’m confused about what you mean here. This coverage is a cost for them and ultimately affects customers. You’d need to be more precise; it’s not free to keep maintaining it.
Yes, your point is valid. The crews I’ve worked with remain consistent each time. Considering the setup costs doesn’t mean a monthly or yearly fee of $40k. It’s unlikely that $60k+ per year is realistic given their actual deployment numbers. If you can clarify how technology shifts from device A to B, it would help. If everyone in my network or PON was using the most expensive option ($60 versus $100), they wouldn’t break even. The company still incurs losses despite 32 users on that PON. However, those paying above their node’s maintenance cost ($185) help offset the costs. When I asked for FTTN connectivity, it was a quick switch. Within about 15 minutes, full speeds were available. The equipment was upgraded in advance—clearly an investment they expected would pay off. "There’s a reason cities have better access at lower prices." I’ll position myself as someone who recognizes the value of denser areas, like my current location with higher population and area compared to where I started, while my hometown offered only a third of that cost. They didn’t provide fiber to residences, but if my provider hadn’t upgraded to newer gear, they might have matched or even undercut nearby competitors.