HN Theater @HNTheaterMonth

⬐ consi

Basically every city in Poland has such company in 00s. Now we have around 450-500 ISPs in whole country. Most of them started their journey in garage :). Nowaydays most of them are doing FTTH/GPON constantly evolving - giving better services than big-country-wide companies like Orange. For example, I live in Bielsko Biala (southern Poland) and I pay around $25 monthly for 600/600Mbps with static external ipv4.

⬐ grahamburger

I run a hobby website about this kind of thing: startyourownisp.com. Might be interesting to folks reading about the topic.

⬐ lukevp

I had wireless internet like this growing up in a rural town in the early 2000s. It was 3 mbps unlimited, and our only other options were satellite (768k with 800ms rtt or so) and 56k dial-up. It was a godsend for me as a young kid wanting to learn and explore tech. I’m glad to hear he’s doing this, and it’s great for small scale, but this is what’s most exciting to me about SpaceX. The promise of LEO satellite internet is immense for people in these situations, but the cost doesn’t work out unless you can launch those satellites at a low cost. SpaceX seems to understand this and I see their drive to reusable rockets as a way to make this a high profit margin business that will enable them to do bigger and better things without being beholden to nation states for funding. I can’t wait for this. I hope to have a remote country house someday, but the internet has been one of the main drivers for us to stay closer in to town.

⬐ xyst

He has a direct fiber line into his house but the glimpses of the speed tests were showing ~180 Mb/s at the peak. This is far from the max performance a fiber line can deliver.

Is he getting throttled by the company that is leasing the fiber line or is there a bottleneck in his setup?

⬐ Meph504

A lot of companies that lease this kind bandwidth do sell heavily throttled connections,the big difference is they are typically symmetrical and constant.

Centurytel was selling 30mbs symmetrical for 700 a month, or 300/15 for 500, they are proud of their fiber.

⬐ etrabroline

That was stock footage. The editor of the video doesn't know any better.

⬐ pistoriusp

I would love it if someone could do something like this in Berlin. The Internet in Germany is abysmal.

⬐ saadalem

Me too, connexion in morocco is about 4 to 12 mbps

⬐ ksec

Why is that the case?

⬐ sneak

Government-sanctioned monopoly residue, as far as I can tell. AFAIK everyone has to lease circuits from Telekom; not entirely dissimilar from the US.

⬐ looperhacks

Note that doesn't apply for all of Berlin. I live in Berlin B, so not exactly in the center of the city and have currently 1GBit/s

⬐ yasinaydin

Back in Turkey (3 years ago) I had 100/5 cable internet. Now in Estonia, I have 500/500 fiber for 32 euros/month. I know that 500/500 is a "bit extra", but I have always thought at least 100mbps should be standard.

I still can't believe my eyes when I see connection speeds like 5, 10 mbps in countries like Germany or americas.

With these kind of speed rates, I have never thought of creating my own ISP. At least not for speed issues.

⬐ state_less

I like the P2P nature of the internet, but how do you get connected to a peer on good terms? Comcast, Verizon and AT&T limit not only who but what devices you can route packets for (e.g. hotspot data).

Any ideas on finding good peers to work with? I'm hoping for few usage restrictions first and then quality links characteristics next (e.g. bandwidth, latency, cost, etc...).

⬐ Scoundreller

It's kinda a strange thing in Canada.

The incumbent telecoms generally refuse to peer domestically with independent ISPs and smaller transit providers that cheaper DCs use.

One ISP reported that Bell would only connect to them in Equinix in Chicago, even though Equinix has a PoP in Toronto. https://www.peeringdb.com/net/1550

This means if you subscribe to internet with the local telephone monopoly (Bell) in Toronto, your traffic to toronto[1-8].voip.ms goes through NYC or Chicago. Have seen some routes that add Washington DC to the mix too. A 5km trip made into several thousand km.

The incumbents even don't peer much at our big IX: http://torix.ca (they buy ports, but don't peer freely).

In a lot of ways, because the independents will peer with everyone and love IXs, your traffic often stays a lot more local in Canada.

⬐ dylz

The US is the same. All major ISPs refuse to peer with any independents at all; refuse to be on routeservers; and demand some minimum of like 50-100 Gbps for a peering session, with insane requirements.

I've seen numerous ones also demand things like RPKI/ROA and good filtering - while themselves having everything ROA and IRR invalid, announcing customer space with no IRR records whatsoever, etc.

⬐ Scoundreller

So how do independents interconnect their routes?

I think the Canadian issue is that incumbents aren't even peering with transit providers.

⬐ dylz

For this context, when I say independents, I mean smaller providers - content providers, independent ISPs that aren't large enough yet. They will obviously peer with Google, Akamai, etc.

Independents more or less just buy transit/blend and deal with it.

Here's an example of a large incumbent's peering policies: https://www.spectrum.com/content/dam/spectrum/residential/en...

The first requirement completely removes the possibility of ever getting a peering session with a small ISP or independent provider. So does the fourth.

Another one: https://www.xfinity.com/peering

> minimum of four mutually agreeable geographically diverse points in the US. Interconnection points must include at least one city on the US east coast, one in the central region, and one on the US west coast

This makes "launch an ISP from garage" bordering on "never" because they do not want regional providers getting settlement free peering - they just want them to buy IP transit from them.

If you look at virtually every major US/CA ISP on peeringdb, they will be Restrictive / Selective or Private peering only, most likely.

⬐ 2J0

Does enough independent isp demand exist to aggregate the traffic to provide breakouts and satisfy Spectrum's 8 point term?

This reminds me of writing a bit to catch the BT SIN Supplier Information Notes ephemeral notices: BT and later OpenReach were required by law to advertise every sweetheart deal to all comers on this domain. This might take place for only long enough for the page to come and go from the google cache (which BT had some way of automating content exclusion from, the cache page link in search results leading to a 404 was a dirty little trick to claim the advertising and universal offering components of statutes, which didn't last long for a ruse because the entire uk industry seemed to automatically file in court to obtain even the simplest of provisions, I know we weren't alone) anyway that was how we discovered BT would lease twisted copper pairs from CPE to exchange and you could hop onto commercial backhaul from there, so we had 4 wire SHDSL modems either end and the tent was a enormous £495pq British pounds or about $3kpa for a symmetric 10Mb/s last mile to clec

⬐ dylz

> Does enough independent isp demand exist to aggregate the traffic to provide breakouts and satisfy Spectrum's 8 point term?

You're very close to describing standard IP transit. The regional-ness of small ISPs and indies make it such that interconnections throughout the entire US make it infeasible, especially considering the cost of such numerous transport and XCs.

I can get a blend from the DC - they aggregate enough capacity to peer with Telus for example, so the ASPath would go me -> DC -> Telus over IX or me -> DC -> Transit -> Telus.

If I got on the exchange directly, Telus peers selectively and does not do routeservers, so my traffic to them would not go over the exchange anyway, so what is the point?

Another annoyance is that in many facilities cross connects cost more than bandwidth itself - I get spam from Cogent daily offering cheap bandwidth, but the XC monthly cost costs more than several gigabit of Cogent bandwidth, so why bother unless I need a 100G port at once?

⬐ ksec

What are the major iSP's incentives for not peering?

I am starting to think may be Government should run a minimal Ix every x km2 and force all ISP to connect with it.

⬐ isclever

For Canada, specifically Bell, they both an eye ball network and a transit provider. Bell has no incentive to peer at local IXs and "give away" part of their service (the eyes, as that is the lucrative part) when they can sell on the fact they are a large national network AND you can get access to their end customers as well.

Edit: clarification on the part that is more valuable.

⬐ redis_mlc

> What are the major iSP's incentives for not peering?

In the US, each peering agreement is a private agreement (ie. a contract) between 2 parties, usually with roughly equal bandwidth traffic.

If one party doesn't like you, perceives you as a competitor, or you don't have similar bandwidth, then no deal.

Examples of typical rejections are Cogent, who compete on price, and Netflix, who need last-mile acess to consumers.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peering

⬐ johngalt

It's somewhat ad hoc. Generally you'll want to find who owns the actual infrastructure, and get as close to an agreement with them as possible.

I.E. There will be some huge Zayo fiber that is resold by a bunch of different carriers. They are B2B only and don't sell directly to end users and have fairly high minimum commitments. Find the closest point that you can connect to it, and do wireless from that point outwards.

Or you can do an interconnect/backhaul type agreement (L3 used to be great at these before they were acquired by Clink). This is where you are only buying a link back to a colocation. From there you can do direct peering or pick from several transit providers at pricing you can only get in that sort of environment.

Fundamentally the problem is:

If the fiber is there, then likely you'll have 50 carriers all reselling it and you are just number 51.

If the fiber isn't there, then you'll have a difficult time providing suitable bandwidth.

⬐ lapinot

As others have said, as a small isp you're gonna need to start off by buying transit. But the core philosophy is to peer with your peers, might sound stupid, but you should look towards other isp that look like you. There are already a lot of diy internet communities, most doing one kind or another of wireless mesh to connect to end-users. Some have as numbers and can peer at regional colo centers.

* guifi.net (spain, mostly in catalunya, as49835)

* ffdn.org (france) (see also: gitoyen.net, as20766)

* freifunk.net (germany) (see also: community-ix.de)

* ninux.org (italy, as197835)

* riseup.net (as16652)

Most networks can be found on peeringdb.com. You can also start poking at local NOG mailing lists (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_network_operators'_gr...)

⬐ jcrawfordor

As a new ISP, you're not going to get any peering arrangements. Really, as an existing consumer ISP not in the top 10 or 20, you're not going to get any peering arrangements. Consumer ISPs generate very asymmetric traffic (more down than up) which tampers with the core "equality" assumption of traditional peering arrangements.

You'll need to purchase transit from an existing provider, such as CenturyLink's commercial arm or Verizon Business, there are plenty more. This won't be free but it also probably won't be as expensive as you think. In a city you can get a Gigabit dedicated to you for $2k a month, maybe less. Shop around. Most of these providers will put you on the phone with a network engineer as part of the quoting process and they can be helpful in recommending what service level and equipment you get.

IPv4 allocations are hard to come by unless you want to bid on them at auction which can be expensive. You probably want to get a block from your provider, but they'll be hard to talk into giving you more than say a /29 and they might charge you more for it. Often they don't, though, they just put you in a queue sorted by customer size and you'll never get to the top of it. As a small ISP, CGNAT is probably going to be your only choice for IPv4. This also has the downside of being non-portable since the addresses will always belong to your provider. Maybe save up money to bid on your very own. Once you get one you'll want to start participating in BGP which is complicated anyway, so get to that later, once you have customers.

⬐ rahimnathwani

'Consumer ISPs generate very asymmetric traffic (more down than up) which tampers with the core "equality" assumption of traditional peering arrangements.'

Shouldn't this be in favour of the ISP? If the traffic isn't balanced, then doesn't the peer that's sending more (e.g. YouTube, Netflix) usually pay?

I have no experience of setting up an ISP, so this is just based on what I've read. I'd love to understand it better.

"IPv4 allocations are hard to come by unless you want to bid on them at auction which can be expensive."

Looking online, it looks like the prices are $15 to $30 per IP address, depending on the size of the block. So I guess this cost swallows the first month of revenue from each new customer.

⬐ Scoundreller

> 'Consumer ISPs generate very asymmetric traffic (more down than up) which tampers with the core "equality" assumption of traditional peering arrangements.'

It's a good situation for the ISP to start a DC business with unmetered ports to help balance things!

⬐ jcrawfordor

This is a lot of how the major ISPs smooth out the peering situation, they also offer colocation and carrier hotel services to large customers. Unfortunately, the popularity of Netflix and other streaming services has largely upset this balance and it's very hard for any ISP to keep traffic equality.

⬐ Scoundreller

At least with Netflix, you can get their Appliances and cut your inbound Netflix bandwidth by 80%+ for the cost of power and 4U.

⬐ iptrans

Yeah, if you have at least 5 Gbps of Netflix traffic on your network...

No small or startup ISP is going to qualify for a Netflix appliance. Also to cut your Netflix bandwidth by 80+%, you need more than 6 Gbps of Netflix traffic, as Netflix requires 1.2 Gbps of inbound bandwidth just to fill the cache.

Netflix share of Internet traffic is about 15-20%, so in practice Netflix appliances are used by ISPs with 25-35 Gbps of bandwidth and up. This means ISPs with tens of thousands of subscribers or more.

⬐ jcrawfordor

> Shouldn't this be in favour of the ISP? If the traffic isn't balanced, then doesn't the peer that's sending more (e.g. YouTube, Netflix) usually pay?

No, these providers end up peering or placing CDN edge nodes on the provider network and essentially don't pay for their transit. They get this arrangement because it reduces the distance that the high-tier ISPs have to move their traffic.

The basic problem is this: ISPs enter peering arrangements with each other to avoid the bureaucracy of both paying each other to access the other's customers. As a consumer ISP, you only have end users, not service providers (or at least you have many more end users than service providers). So, your customers want to access to other networks. No other networks want to access your customers. This means that you don't have the negotiating position to set up peering agreements (because only your own customers would be affected by not having one).

In general, peering agreements are becoming very strained over the last five plus years because the underlying assumption of traffic symmetry is virtually never true for consumers now. In practice most of the high-tier ISPs business is providing consumers with access to Netflix. Netflix doesn't care about getting access to anyone else. So no one likes to peer with consumer ISPs, even the big ones, because there's nothing in it for them. This has produced some very high profile disputes with major consumer ISPs dropping peering with tier-1 providers.

> Looking online, it looks like the prices are $15 to $30 per IP address, depending on the size of the block. So I guess this cost swallows the first month of revenue from each new customer.

Yes, but you don't buy addresses onesy-twosy. If you're going to buy your own block you're probably going to want at least a /24 (255 addresses). That runs upwards of $5k. Most small ISPs start up with very little capital and that's out of reach. Plus you'll need to participate in BGP which is out of the technical expertise of most of the people I know running WISPs, although sometimes you can pay your transit provider to handle BGP for you.

⬐ 6510

Imagine the infrastructure needed for water, sewage, electricity, a natural gas network or even roads. Now compare the price to internet.

⬐ amelius

This is why you never read stories about a man running a sewage treatment system from his garage.

⬐ toast0

I've got a private well and a private septic tank / septic field. I didn't build either, but there you go.

⬐ lurquer

Now THAT would be s cool DIY video...

⬐ Scoundreller

Here you go: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eqg4evnkL_g

Just an off-grid, but looks like he's replicated the primary & secondary treatment processes.

⬐ jmccorm

Back in the 90s, many an ISP were launched from garages and basements. MIDnet (one of the regional NSFnet providers) gained attention when nearly everyone in the Central US lost their Internet connectivity for a few days. Root cause? MIDnet's basement flooded. Everyone assumed they had a nice corporate office situation going on, so it was quite the surprise.

⬐ tus88

It was eminently feasible to run a home ISP from a garage back in the day.

⬐ norbix

Isn't there any LTE around and what about FTTH ?

⬐ norbix

Isn't there any LTE technology around ? What about FTTH ?

⬐ waffle_ss

It would've been nice to see some numbers to show the capital required to build it. For the area he's in, just trenching in the fiber from the cell tower would cost $50K / mile on the low end. Then he has to pay for transit. And possibly leasing fiber depending on how he sets that up. That all costs thousands per month.

It looks like the guy lives in Marin County California, which is a pretty affluent area. He has enough money to live there while (seemingly) leisuring out on the ocean, not working for 6+ years. He made it sound like sharing the internet as an ISP didn't even occur to him until neighbors asked about it so he was ready to plonk down pretty hefty amounts of cash for just his own usage (I don't blame him of course, I'd do the same).

So yes, you too can start an ISP out of your garage, if you have a fat bank account. :-)

⬐ non-entity

There was an article posted to HN a while back regarding creating a wireless ISP over a very small area, and If I recall correctly, someone pointed out that renting a piece the infrastructure required for it would be tens of thousands of dollars monthly

⬐ loufe

My parents use internet beamed off a nearby farm silo. The owner of the project bought the trasmission info, paid for a splice in the fiber line on the road by the farmer's house and badabing-badaboom. Not necessarily tens of thousands per month and he has several dozen customers.

⬐ riskneutral

What is transmission info?

⬐ plussed_reader

I think this may be a mis-stated reference to buying transit for the network provided.

⬐ HeWhoLurksLate

I think that might have been an autocorrected "infra" as in infrastructure. Not GP, though.

⬐ loufe

Right, I did mean infra - thank you!

⬐ waffle_ss

In most cases fiber running past a rural farm is long-haul fiber that you aren't going to able to lease to a nearby colocation point for buying transit. If you do get lucky though and it can be leased, you'll probably still have to pay to bury new fiber from the nearest vault or handhole because they aren't going to dig up the conduit and cut it open just for one guy buying a pair of fibers. That could be over a mile away. The good news is plowing/trenching fiber in a rural area is cheaper than urban/suburban.

Anyway would be interested in more details from that project owner, sounds interesting.