OT: net neutrality vote today.

I have actually setup smaller ISPs and have attempted to build these types of businesses. Net neutrality is needed unless you are a large industry player.

As a quick historical reference- in the late 80s and into the 90s the government distributed billions of dollars to AT&T (Worldcom) and others. Over time old Ma Bell was split up into multiple businesses, which today have re-formed again into larger oligrarch conglomerates (Verizon, Comcast, AT&T new, etc..). The dark fiber between cities was paid for by the tax payer but layed out by many different larger companies. This city to city dark fiber connection is a public resource currently being siezed by large companies becasue others are denied access to it (expalin later).  The government intention was for these companies to handle the last mile rights from the dark fiber node (city center) to your house. The ISPs build in the most profitable large city locations to maximize profits and have little incentive to build outward into the country lands.

This area is where some niche players reside who have enough technical skill to build community ISPs. This isn't a horribly profitable prosect and usually is done to basically meet local demand needs. The larger players usually will not step into this space because they know they can purchase out the smaller developing businesses at any given time. They allow some small player to exist so that they will not need to take the risk of laying last mile lines to individual and land spaced risky last mile houses. 

In one venture that did not go well we attempted to bridge one of these risky setups into more profitable spaces, we directly met with Mr. Pai and the legal machine of Verizon. Our business model would have brought significant speed increases into the city center along with bridging the dark fiber out to the countryside area. The Verizon legal team and purchased local politicians (of both parties) made some calls and our investors immediately pulled the plug. We lost that opportunity and we were forced to sell all existing assets in liquidation. Directly due to the inability to expand and compete from legal resistance, we were forced to shut down our better technical solution. This same resistance is exactly what Google is meeting and why they cannot enter this market as well. When bridging from the cities outward, you require access to the dark fiber node- which Verizon or other big player has more or less legal ownership over at this point.

All competitors have lost the ability to connect to the dark fiber originally paid for by the public. The public should be outraged by this fact. Over the last 20 years there were plenty of potential competitors which were bullied out of the marketplace. It is not a fair or competitve marketplace. The anti-net neutrality companies are more or less in favor of legal piracy over what should be a public utility resource. It is sickening that anyone would support these types. I have met this enemy directly and it is ugly and needs to be changed with public support and by retaking their rightfully owned public dark net highways. I hope there are a few younger UM grads able and willing to take up this fight. We need innovators to change this landscape. That might be our only hope..