On Mar 27, 2019, at 7:00 AM, nanog-request@nanog.org wrote:

Message: 7
Date: Wed, 27 Mar 2019 01:30:34 -0400
From: Ross Tajvar <ross@tajvar.io>
To: Mike Bolitho <mikebolitho@gmail.com>
Cc: david raistrick <drais@icantclick.org>,  "North American Network
       Operators' Group" <nanog@nanog.org>
Subject: Re: residential/smb internet access in 2019 - help?
Message-ID:
       <CA+FDdDR-8teoFrGCuWGzN4WWdJv8ZgjsuKUFAMJ8Qo2m7C+wqw@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"

On Wed, Mar 27, 2019, 12:30 AM Mike Bolitho <mikebolitho@gmail.com> wrote:

Agreed....this is why monopolies are bad and municipal fiber is good.

It's not like municipal fiber has some magic spell to make last mile
affordable though. On OP's instance he would run into the same issue and
would be paying that five figure amount to bring FTTP. Municipal fiber is
only good if you happen to live where a municipality has already buried
conduit.

I'm not saying we should support monopolistic practices, but "municipal
fiber everywhere!" isn't necessarily the answer either.

That's fair. What I really meant, and didn't take the time to think through
and express properly, was this: financing a large fiber buildout like it's
a long-term investment, rather than something that should make back its
capital cost in 1-3 years, gets fiber to more people. Most commercial ISPs
do not want to do this because they want immediate profit. Municipalities
are used to making long-term infrastructure investments (like bridges,
etc.) and are more amenable to doing it with fiber.

Even if there were a municipality which had done a fiber buildout near OP's
desired house, he may have still run into the same issue of no fiber being
close enough to be financially viable. But the more fiber plant there is,
the less likely that scenario becomes.