First off, the article is about Comcast and what they're pushing on largely existing infra, while my criticism was directed towards a remark which struck me as uncritically dismissing the value prop of deployed tech just because it may make business sense to a much smaller private company with dramatically different capital requirements operating over a much smaller area in a completely different country; your entire remark is unconstructive and entirely irrelevant in this context.

To humor your rhetorical question on why size matters: When you're a publicly traded company operating in 40 states of varying population densities with over $55 billion in P&E assets and $93 billion in long-term debt (whose annual interest servicing requirement alone would consume all of Virgin Media O2 Fixed-Line revenue) on balance sheet[1] predominantly structured around copper infra as a legacy broadcast telecom with 60 years of history, you might start exercising critical restraint as an entitled consumer who thinks scrapping decades of capex investment for the latest shiny can just magically happen at the flip of some imaginary political switch and without substantial burden to the public in which it was intended to serve. Size matters because sustainably maintaining P&E depreciation while servicing a proverbial fuck ton of debt are real business expenses accountable to a market with waffling sentiments.

Comcast already has ~186k employees on payroll today, ~17% of which are in the UK/EU. Did you even give an ounce of consideration to how those existing jobs would be impacted in the face of imminent disruption?

Do you really think TAM will substantially increase just because FTTH is being offered at a fundamentally much higher minimum entry price for basic service? The FCC is motioning towards broadband for everyone, not just the latest bleeding-edge-nice-to-have-shiny for those with excess disposable income who can afford it.

Who do you think will really be paying the billions in capex debt for new shiny to replace that which still has meaningful life ahead of it just to stay afloat? You're fully entitled to be an irrational consumer who trades in a perfectly operable yet underwater vehicle to finance a new EV at high-as-a-kite interest rates, but I'd expect a lot more sustainability/value common sense from telecom executives with real skin in the game.

Building the required infra on debt is one thing, operating and maintaining it an entirely different beast; read Robichaux on Malone for a historical clue. Small ISPs are already crying a river[2] over BEAD grant capital accessibility because for any proposed project requiring $X to build out, of which 75% will be covered by federal grant dollars, just demonstrating the capacity to have 46% skin in the game is apparently too arduous. As much as I'd like to see small players step in to meaningfully challenge large incumbents, what I really don't want are hundreds of flake LLCs grifting the Treasury while pretending to deliver when the grass is green then conveniently jumping ship just when the going gets tough. As a consumer, real world viability as a sustainable business is just as important as the basic service to be provided.

Furthermore, when the FCC needs to step in and drop the hammer on the multitude of clowns who will try and inevitably fail, it'll be us taxpayers paying those administrative costs, further setting the stage for Comcast et al to acquire shiny assets and regain abandoned market share at steep clearing discount.

[1] https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1166691/000116669123...

[2] https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2023/09/big-isps-will-do...