Two guys hated using Comcast, so they built their own fiber ISP

Original Article ↗ Hacker News Discussion ↗

Wired vs wireless, and the appeal of local fiber

  • Many commenters are happy to see real wired infrastructure instead of big carriers’ push toward wireless, which is seen as cheaper to deploy but lower quality.
  • Fiber is praised as dramatically more reliable than DSL/cable, eliminating whole classes of faults (water in copper, lightning, marginal lines).
  • People who’ve had local cable/fiber ISPs report much better support, pricing, and reliability than national incumbents.

Support burden and “home internet plumbers”

  • Several ex‑ISP and helpdesk workers say most tickets are not plant failures but user issues: Wi‑Fi range, email setup, lost passwords, “TV on wrong input”, or even no‑computer dial‑up stories.
  • Others note fiber simplifies troubleshooting (ISP can see up to ONT; often just send a tech).
  • There’s a recurring analogy: you don’t call the water company for a clogged sink, but ISPs are expected to support everything from Wi‑Fi to printers. Some wonder why “home network handymen” aren’t more common.

Monopolies, competition, and Comcast behavior

  • Strong hostility toward Comcast and similar incumbents: data caps, unreliability, scripted support, and exploitative pricing in low‑competition areas.
  • Multiple anecdotes of Comcast (and Cox, etc.) removing or softening caps, improving offers, or calling customers aggressively once a fiber competitor appears.
  • People highlight lobbying against municipal broadband and “captured” state/local governments that slow or block new deployments.

Building an ISP: capital, trenches, poles, and law

  • Comments push back on the idea that “anyone could have done this”: you need technical skill, $millions, and the ability to handle legal, permitting, and physical plant.
  • Underground vs pole attachments is a major trade‑off: underground is robust and aesthetic but expensive and permit‑heavy; poles are cheap but vulnerable and subject to incumbent obstruction.
  • Some argue “captured government” is overstated; others cite pole‑owner and permitting games that have even hampered Google Fiber.

CGNAT, IPv6, and network design choices

  • Prime‑One and similar small ISPs often use CGNAT and locked‑down routers; power users complain (no inbound services, no public IPs).
  • There’s a big debate on IPv6:
    • Pro‑IPv6: avoids CGNAT, enables direct connectivity, can reduce CGNAT hardware costs, and is considered “table stakes” by some.
    • Skeptical small‑ISP operators: almost no customers ask for it; CPE support is inconsistent; dual‑stack introduces extra failure modes for little visible gain.
  • Alternatives like NAT64/464XLAT, MAP‑T, and DS‑Lite are discussed but are seen as limited by current CPE support.

Starlink and rural/US vs EU comparisons

  • Starlink is seen as a strong option for rural/mobility use, but data‑heavy households can’t realistically replace wired with it.
  • European and some Asian commenters note cheap symmetric gigabit or multi‑gigabit with no caps, contrasting sharply with many US markets.
  • Others stress US experience is highly local: some cities have excellent cheap fiber; many suburbs and towns still face de facto monopolies.

Do we really need gigabit (or 10G)?

  • Some say 300 Mbps is enough for a family; others point to upload bottlenecks, multiple 4K streams, cloud backups, and work‑from‑home needs.
  • Technically, gigabit+ is often the “natural” minimum speed for modern fiber gear; oversubscription means advertised speed ≠ guaranteed rate, but higher tiers provide useful headroom.
  • A common stance: once the trench is dug, bandwidth is cheap; the expensive part is building the fiber in the first place.