Comments on: Cities brace for broadband war

Across the U.S., cities are planning tax-funded broadband networks. But they face fierce resistance from Bells and cable operators.

[alucinor]

Gov. Involvement

I agree that government involvement should be kept to a minimum in business, but this is ~not~ federal government we're talking about -- local governments are most in touch with the people they're serving, and regular citizens have the greatest ability to control their situation here.

I guess this just continues the 200-year American trend of local governments having their power sapped by larger and more impersonal legislative entities -- including corporations, the fourth branch of USA, Inc.

gov't is not private

Local gov'ts are even worse than large gov'ts for being intrusive into the private lives of citizens. It is too easy for a few busybodies in a town or county to involve themselves in invasions of privacy wherever they can. Big business can be sued if its employees engage in unprofessional behavior regarding customer privacy, and big gov't is often too busy to bother the little guy and only responds tothe wealthiest private influence (which makes it more similar to big business), but a local city commissioner will often go on a crusade to get re-elected.

I would NOT want the same people who toss books out of public libraries deciding what uses are permissible across a city broadband network.

Remember: broadband involves a great deal of activity that is essentially private. I think that goverment-supported services that involve my communication and reading habits are not something I would want done by the same local politicians who are influenced by a local preacher who wants a dry county or a ladies' club that regulates what color you paint your house.

The very fact that, as the article points out, local government is closer to the "interests" of citizens is the dangerous fact: "interests of citizens" have been known to be the interests of "lynch mobs".

[bobanavrin]

Knowledge

Will the local governments have pay the same franchise fees as the local bells have to?
If you are not in the industry you don't have the
knowledge to argue. Local governments hold many ILEC projects back .

[enigma1944]

Broadband in Cities

I don't see why the government just doesn't mandate that all communication will be broadband effective for the entire country by a certain date. This has been made a mandate in the new European Community, 25 countries and growing, effective by Jan 2010.

[enigma1944]

Broadband in Cities

I don't see why the government just doesn't mandate that all communication will be broadband effective for the entire country by a certain date. This has been made a mandate in the new European Community, 25 countries and growing, effective by Jan 2010.

Might help if the writers posted functional email addresses

This is an automatically generated Delivery Status Notification

Delivery to the following recipient failed permanently:

[e-mail]

Technical details of permanent failure:
PERM_FAILURE: SMTP Error (state 10): 550 5.0.0 <[e-mail]>... User unknown


This is an automatically generated Delivery Status Notification

Delivery to the following recipient failed permanently:

[e-mail]

Technical details of permanent failure:
PERM_FAILURE: SMTP Error (state 10): 550 5.0.0 <[e-mail]>... User unknown


Why bother giving email addresses for your writers if they aren't real/don't work?

[aclottmann]

E-mail addresses have been corrected

The e-mail address links have been fixed. Thanks for bringing this to our attention.

Might help if the writers posted functional email addresses

This is an automatically generated Delivery Status Notification

Delivery to the following recipient failed permanently:

[e-mail]

Technical details of permanent failure:
PERM_FAILURE: SMTP Error (state 10): 550 5.0.0 <[e-mail]>... User unknown


This is an automatically generated Delivery Status Notification

Delivery to the following recipient failed permanently:

[e-mail]

Technical details of permanent failure:
PERM_FAILURE: SMTP Error (state 10): 550 5.0.0 <[e-mail]>... User unknown


Why bother giving email addresses for your writers if they aren't real/don't work?

[aclottmann]

E-mail addresses have been corrected

The e-mail address links have been fixed. Thanks for bringing this to our attention.

[GymW]

What about BPL?

The article fails to mention Broadband over Power Line technology
- i.e. internet access via your power outlet on your wall. It is
currently implemented and being tested in several cities, Menlo
Park, CA being one of them. Why was BPL left out?

[laurabill]

Many co-ops REFUSE to offer it

Mine flat-out refuses due to threats from Comcast. I e-mailed a VP at my co-op, who gave me the run-around about "not competing with local businesses." He was wrong on two counts - Comcast isn't local. Philly is 120 miles from where I live. And Comcast isn't offering me service - that's why I asked about BPL to begin with. Plus a lot of technical double-talk about how their system would have to be retorfitted to handle the bandwidth, yada yada yada... Basically, Comcast has co-ops running scared of litigation. Remember Comcast = EVIL.

[bdennis410]

I told you so!

Although I hate to see government involved in or against private enterprise, in the case of local governments getting involved in Broadband access, the telcos and cable companies have only themselves to blame. Periphery and even direct blame go on the local governments themselves for granting monopolies to the telcos and particularly the cable companies long ago, and then resisting efforts to allow competitive access to infrastructure because of the need(greed) for revenues, and a lot of political donations to grease the way.
The greed factor encouraged by monopolistic cable company pricing for broadband is digging their own grave, and I for one would like to help hold the shovel.
And all this is so unnecessary if only the local governments and regulators would force competitive access. We could have Broadbvand AND cable service at reasonable pricing, not the profiteering that monopolistic companies have enjoyed.
Why can't we learn from our past mistakes; whenever we open up competition we get more services for less money. Is that so hard to understand, or do IQ's go down when you are elected to public office or appointed as a regulator?
Seriously, folks I'm not kidding. It would make you laugh if it wasn't so darn frustrating. Over and over again, regulators and public officaisl take the contributions and then screw the citizens in the process.
I hope the municipalities win this one, if only to punish the cable companies. They certainly won't charge more, will manage (is that the right term?) woefully, and maybe citizens will get Broadband and other services for a reasonable price.
Cable and Telcos have had their day, and they are now, hopefully, going to pay the price for their greed. I only hope the complicit politicians who took their money get voted out as well, although I would prefer their public execution as a punishment for the hundreds of billions of dollars their comnplicity has cost consumers.

[sanenazok]

I think cities will suck at this

But you're right if the large corporations ignore markets then it's OK for the government to step in. Makes me think of TVA - putting in electricity in rural Tennessee where the private companies would never bother.

These government groups will end up wasting money in order to sell whatever service they establish in five years after finding out that it's too hard to maintain and support. Geez it's hard enough to get city workers to do their jobs pushing paper around, how about if they had to support a city wide wireless network. Good luck.

Anyways, the worst that will come of this will be government money wasted, but then again it would have been wasted nonetheless.

If you want to see how well the government does the job of the private sector compare UPS, FedEx and the post office. The post office is constantly in a budget crisis even though they pay no taxes, get gas practically for free, and don't have to pay state/municipal registration fees and airport fees for their fleet.

[tomhood]

Are you sure??

Remember the break up of AT&T? That was going to result in more competition and lower phone rates for everyone, remember? Did ANYONE get a lower phone bill? Nobody I have met since then! If you invested billions in the infrastructure, would you want me coming in later with my minimum wage staff and mucking all your beautiful equipment up? I don't live in Chicago but I believe that their stated reason that low income people cannot afford broadband is very true. I am a disabled middle aged white man living in a predominately black neigborhood (low income)and I am the only peson in this neighborhood with a PC, let alone broadband. These kids have just as much right to computers and the high speed networks that are the technology NOW as do the kids in the affluent predominately white neighborhoods. If Chicago can do that, more power to them and to any other city that can close the divide between the technology "haves" and "have-nots" even a little bit.

Government regulation is a disaster

What's the model we want to follow? The post office, which is a disaster, or Amtrak, which is a disaster, highways which lose money each year, public transit which is a money loser, what?
First, take a basic economics class and drop the piracy rhetoric. Government is the pirate class. Companies don't take a penny you don't give them. Government takes half your income no matter what you do. Who's the pirate? If the profits companies made were really so huge, competitors would flood the market until equilibrium was achieved. At any case, you, and I, and anyone else can buy the stock and share in these crazy profits. Read the Dow Jones- I don't think these companies are making the insane profits you propose they are. They also work like a dog to keep costs down, which government doesn't even care about in the least. The only real monopolies are government monopolies, like the post office, which are almost impossible to unseat, unlike companies, since the government uses its coercive power to put competitors in jail. Try starting a private company to deliver mail and see what happens! Have a lawyer ready! That's government's idea of competition. In private industry, inefficient companies fall all the time, however. (Xerox anyone?)

All taxpayers, no matter how poor, would have their money stolen from them by force (taxes)so joe average can download streaming video from ESPN? Outrageous! The government plans a savings of 10 dollars, from 30 to 20. Wow, big deal, save 10 bucks but the loss of service quality will make you wish you were paying 30 for your internet!

In real life, government run internet will actually be much, much more expensive than that, and everyone will pay, whether they use it or not. Everything the government does is inefficient. I can't even imagine calling a helpline run by city hall when my internet doesn't work. Frankly, I would pony up an additional 30 bucks on my own to NOT use DSL powered and monitored by the city!

Left unchallenged is the insane assertion that city governments can even make this work, much less make money AND keep costs down! By my house there is a tobaggan slide run by the city. They LOSE 5$ every time someone goes down the slide! This has been an unsolvable issue for YEARS! They can't even run a tobaggan slide as a business, and you want them to run a telecom business! Crazy! We need to deregulate, inject competition, and leave things the way they are. Cable internet is already competing with DSL anyway, and both are plentiful and cheap already! I have friends who don't even use DSL, and don't seem to suffer for it. and PS, I work for the city, and it is a nightmare. I just cross my fingers and hope they don't mess up my paycheck each week, and do my job and hope for the best. The thought of them running my internet connection is truly spine-chilling!
~Scott

Amen to that brother

I would be slamming that shovel on their heads not just holding it. I'm more fustrated than any US citizen since i live in australia and we have only 2 big ISP's one optus paying the other Telstra to lease their lines and just below half of Telstra being owned by teh government and every other ISp payign them, but optus also are over charging pricks who lied by saying to be they will slow my speed down if i download to much and booted me of for uploading at 28kilobits per second

[bdennis410]

I told you so!

Although I hate to see government involved in or against private enterprise, in the case of local governments getting involved in Broadband access, the telcos and cable companies have only themselves to blame. Periphery and even direct blame go on the local governments themselves for granting monopolies to the telcos and particularly the cable companies long ago, and then resisting efforts to allow competitive access to infrastructure because of the need(greed) for revenues, and a lot of political donations to grease the way.
The greed factor encouraged by monopolistic cable company pricing for broadband is digging their own grave, and I for one would like to help hold the shovel.
And all this is so unnecessary if only the local governments and regulators would force competitive access. We could have Broadbvand AND cable service at reasonable pricing, not the profiteering that monopolistic companies have enjoyed.
Why can't we learn from our past mistakes; whenever we open up competition we get more services for less money. Is that so hard to understand, or do IQ's go down when you are elected to public office or appointed as a regulator?
Seriously, folks I'm not kidding. It would make you laugh if it wasn't so darn frustrating. Over and over again, regulators and public officaisl take the contributions and then screw the citizens in the process.
I hope the municipalities win this one, if only to punish the cable companies. They certainly won't charge more, will manage (is that the right term?) woefully, and maybe citizens will get Broadband and other services for a reasonable price.
Cable and Telcos have had their day, and they are now, hopefully, going to pay the price for their greed. I only hope the complicit politicians who took their money get voted out as well, although I would prefer their public execution as a punishment for the hundreds of billions of dollars their comnplicity has cost consumers.

[sanenazok]

I think cities will suck at this

But you're right if the large corporations ignore markets then it's OK for the government to step in. Makes me think of TVA - putting in electricity in rural Tennessee where the private companies would never bother.

These government groups will end up wasting money in order to sell whatever service they establish in five years after finding out that it's too hard to maintain and support. Geez it's hard enough to get city workers to do their jobs pushing paper around, how about if they had to support a city wide wireless network. Good luck.

Anyways, the worst that will come of this will be government money wasted, but then again it would have been wasted nonetheless.

If you want to see how well the government does the job of the private sector compare UPS, FedEx and the post office. The post office is constantly in a budget crisis even though they pay no taxes, get gas practically for free, and don't have to pay state/municipal registration fees and airport fees for their fleet.

[tomhood]

Are you sure??

Remember the break up of AT&T? That was going to result in more competition and lower phone rates for everyone, remember? Did ANYONE get a lower phone bill? Nobody I have met since then! If you invested billions in the infrastructure, would you want me coming in later with my minimum wage staff and mucking all your beautiful equipment up? I don't live in Chicago but I believe that their stated reason that low income people cannot afford broadband is very true. I am a disabled middle aged white man living in a predominately black neigborhood (low income)and I am the only peson in this neighborhood with a PC, let alone broadband. These kids have just as much right to computers and the high speed networks that are the technology NOW as do the kids in the affluent predominately white neighborhoods. If Chicago can do that, more power to them and to any other city that can close the divide between the technology "haves" and "have-nots" even a little bit.

Government regulation is a disaster

What's the model we want to follow? The post office, which is a disaster, or Amtrak, which is a disaster, highways which lose money each year, public transit which is a money loser, what?
First, take a basic economics class and drop the piracy rhetoric. Government is the pirate class. Companies don't take a penny you don't give them. Government takes half your income no matter what you do. Who's the pirate? If the profits companies made were really so huge, competitors would flood the market until equilibrium was achieved. At any case, you, and I, and anyone else can buy the stock and share in these crazy profits. Read the Dow Jones- I don't think these companies are making the insane profits you propose they are. They also work like a dog to keep costs down, which government doesn't even care about in the least. The only real monopolies are government monopolies, like the post office, which are almost impossible to unseat, unlike companies, since the government uses its coercive power to put competitors in jail. Try starting a private company to deliver mail and see what happens! Have a lawyer ready! That's government's idea of competition. In private industry, inefficient companies fall all the time, however. (Xerox anyone?)

All taxpayers, no matter how poor, would have their money stolen from them by force (taxes)so joe average can download streaming video from ESPN? Outrageous! The government plans a savings of 10 dollars, from 30 to 20. Wow, big deal, save 10 bucks but the loss of service quality will make you wish you were paying 30 for your internet!

In real life, government run internet will actually be much, much more expensive than that, and everyone will pay, whether they use it or not. Everything the government does is inefficient. I can't even imagine calling a helpline run by city hall when my internet doesn't work. Frankly, I would pony up an additional 30 bucks on my own to NOT use DSL powered and monitored by the city!

Left unchallenged is the insane assertion that city governments can even make this work, much less make money AND keep costs down! By my house there is a tobaggan slide run by the city. They LOSE 5$ every time someone goes down the slide! This has been an unsolvable issue for YEARS! They can't even run a tobaggan slide as a business, and you want them to run a telecom business! Crazy! We need to deregulate, inject competition, and leave things the way they are. Cable internet is already competing with DSL anyway, and both are plentiful and cheap already! I have friends who don't even use DSL, and don't seem to suffer for it. and PS, I work for the city, and it is a nightmare. I just cross my fingers and hope they don't mess up my paycheck each week, and do my job and hope for the best. The thought of them running my internet connection is truly spine-chilling!
~Scott

Amen to that brother

I would be slamming that shovel on their heads not just holding it. I'm more fustrated than any US citizen since i live in australia and we have only 2 big ISP's one optus paying the other Telstra to lease their lines and just below half of Telstra being owned by teh government and every other ISp payign them, but optus also are over charging pricks who lied by saying to be they will slow my speed down if i download to much and booted me of for uploading at 28kilobits per second

[duerra]

A Good Thing (TM)

I know there's a huge debate about whether government should get involved, and how government has messed it up in the past, but this is their chance to redeem themselves.

I don't think there's any question that internet access is becoming more and more of a requirement in society today, and less of a luxury or convenience. This is similar to phone service.

However, cities have messed it up in the past by granting monopoies to cable and phone providers. They should not make the same mistake here.

Here's my idea of how it should work
-------------------------------------
1. The government funds the construction of something like a city-wide Wi-Max network up front.

2. The government allows private companies to become an ISP to the end consumer for use of the network.

3. These private business pay a per-customer fee to the local government, or possibly a fee based on how much bandwidth they use. This causes the network to pay for itself. The biggest ISPs pay for the biggest share of the network, and the smaller ones pay less. This is HOW IT SHOULD BE.

Result? You have competition AND the consumers win by getting the best prices and a city-sponsored Wi-Max network at their disposal.

What is so damn hard about this concept? Apparently none of the offials have figured it out....

[jacomo]

How Muni WLAN SHould work

Soem good ideas, however let me suggest the following.
This must be a Public Private Network, with private entity (ies) paying for the build out and operation of the network. The Private entity are guaranteed all the Municipalities Wireless business for length of contract, to include Data and eventually all VoiceIP traffic. COntract should be for a minumum of 5 years to allow sufficient ROI.
Rule # 1: ACCESS(fees) must be separate from SERVICES (Internet etc) on all invoices to users. This allows for a more robust packaging program to all private users and opens up a great number of possibilities for the Public sector to address their underserved users. Example: City can set and cover (pay) the ACCESS fee (with Private partner)for these folks and the user can sign up for and pay for the Service based on bandwith they can afford.

SPecial arrangements for Police/Fire/EMT etc.
Municipality will own the new Licensed 4.9 Spectrum that will ride over this private infrastructure and they will pay a flat monthly discounted usage (Access) fee based on MegBits used/Month. Above that Muni. will also pay for any Services they want to use-Internet, Firewall/Security/VPN etc. over this and their regular Unlicensed access.

Muni and Private owner will develop special incentive package (Access fees) to encourage new companies/org to move to and open up office in City.

Muni will make all its infrastructure (Poles and roof rights) available to the network for its use in deploying the netwoork.

Many more options.

Jacomo

RE: A Good Thing (TM)

That was the best posting here so far. It always puzzled me why
some other entity, somewhere possibly far away, would own the
wire that goes from my house or business, to the wires that
connect everybody who is nearby's houses and businesses.
Seems like the town should own them. When it comes to
providing internet connectivity to the rest of the world, that
should come from an ISP, just like Anthony says.

Whatever the possibilities, consumers and businesses always
benefit by having choice and competition. Without choice,
consumers are at the mercy of the market. And without
competition, suppliers have no need to innovate, and when they
stop innovating, workers stop enjoying their jobs, causing the
company to languish. Finally, when a competitor steps in, the
company is in jeopardy.

The nice thing about technology is its flexibility. Technology
(connectivity included) can be tailored, configured, customized
to fit EVERY need. Therefore, where a business wants high
margins, and a municipal wants equal, affordable, access by all
its citizens, both providers can survive. The local widget factory
will need an SLA (service level agreement) to ensure their
relationship with Walmart, and the local library (or the family of
four who's primary breadwinner was killed in a car accident -
and whose kids dont buy crack or ringtones) wants low cost
access, bottom line.

[duerra]

A Good Thing (TM)

I know there's a huge debate about whether government should get involved, and how government has messed it up in the past, but this is their chance to redeem themselves.

I don't think there's any question that internet access is becoming more and more of a requirement in society today, and less of a luxury or convenience. This is similar to phone service.

However, cities have messed it up in the past by granting monopoies to cable and phone providers. They should not make the same mistake here.

Here's my idea of how it should work
-------------------------------------
1. The government funds the construction of something like a city-wide Wi-Max network up front.

2. The government allows private companies to become an ISP to the end consumer for use of the network.

3. These private business pay a per-customer fee to the local government, or possibly a fee based on how much bandwidth they use. This causes the network to pay for itself. The biggest ISPs pay for the biggest share of the network, and the smaller ones pay less. This is HOW IT SHOULD BE.

Result? You have competition AND the consumers win by getting the best prices and a city-sponsored Wi-Max network at their disposal.

What is so damn hard about this concept? Apparently none of the offials have figured it out....

[jacomo]

How Muni WLAN SHould work

Soem good ideas, however let me suggest the following.
This must be a Public Private Network, with private entity (ies) paying for the build out and operation of the network. The Private entity are guaranteed all the Municipalities Wireless business for length of contract, to include Data and eventually all VoiceIP traffic. COntract should be for a minumum of 5 years to allow sufficient ROI.
Rule # 1: ACCESS(fees) must be separate from SERVICES (Internet etc) on all invoices to users. This allows for a more robust packaging program to all private users and opens up a great number of possibilities for the Public sector to address their underserved users. Example: City can set and cover (pay) the ACCESS fee (with Private partner)for these folks and the user can sign up for and pay for the Service based on bandwith they can afford.

SPecial arrangements for Police/Fire/EMT etc.
Municipality will own the new Licensed 4.9 Spectrum that will ride over this private infrastructure and they will pay a flat monthly discounted usage (Access) fee based on MegBits used/Month. Above that Muni. will also pay for any Services they want to use-Internet, Firewall/Security/VPN etc. over this and their regular Unlicensed access.

Muni and Private owner will develop special incentive package (Access fees) to encourage new companies/org to move to and open up office in City.

Muni will make all its infrastructure (Poles and roof rights) available to the network for its use in deploying the netwoork.

Many more options.

Jacomo

RE: A Good Thing (TM)

That was the best posting here so far. It always puzzled me why
some other entity, somewhere possibly far away, would own the
wire that goes from my house or business, to the wires that
connect everybody who is nearby's houses and businesses.
Seems like the town should own them. When it comes to
providing internet connectivity to the rest of the world, that
should come from an ISP, just like Anthony says.

Whatever the possibilities, consumers and businesses always
benefit by having choice and competition. Without choice,
consumers are at the mercy of the market. And without
competition, suppliers have no need to innovate, and when they
stop innovating, workers stop enjoying their jobs, causing the
company to languish. Finally, when a competitor steps in, the
company is in jeopardy.

The nice thing about technology is its flexibility. Technology
(connectivity included) can be tailored, configured, customized
to fit EVERY need. Therefore, where a business wants high
margins, and a municipal wants equal, affordable, access by all
its citizens, both providers can survive. The local widget factory
will need an SLA (service level agreement) to ensure their
relationship with Walmart, and the local library (or the family of
four who's primary breadwinner was killed in a car accident -
and whose kids dont buy crack or ringtones) wants low cost
access, bottom line.

Reconnecting New York City

Tech entreprenuer Andrew Rasiej recently announced that he's running for New York City Public Advocate last week on a platform of "reconnecting" New Yorkers.

Cornerstone of his platform is to prove free wireless broadband to NYC. Check out an article in New York Magazine that appeared today: http://www.nymagazine.com/nymetro/news/people/columns/intelligencer/11900/index.html

Here's Rasiej's website -- looks like Google. Check it out: www.advocatesforrasiej.com

Reconnecting New York City

Tech entreprenuer Andrew Rasiej recently announced that he's running for New York City Public Advocate last week on a platform of "reconnecting" New Yorkers.

Cornerstone of his platform is to prove free wireless broadband to NYC. Check out an article in New York Magazine that appeared today: http://www.nymagazine.com/nymetro/news/people/columns/intelligencer/11900/index.html

Here's Rasiej's website -- looks like Google. Check it out: www.advocatesforrasiej.com

[filker0]

Falling through the cracks

Business claims that the government should stay out of the broadband arena, but then refuses to take the steps required to offer service to people in marginal regions.

I live on the outskirts of a city in West Virginia. On our road, there are two cable providers; one services the homes on the "upper" end of the road, the other services the homes on the "lower" end. The first provider (Charter) offers broadband, the second provider (Community Antenna Service) does not in our area (though in other areas around town that they service, they do have broadband). We live near the divide between the two companies territory. Charter will not extend their line the additional 1/4 mile or so to reach our lot. CAS, who services our lot, tells me that they have no plans to ever upgrade our "loop" to digital. So no broadband from the cable companies is available at our house.

The CO our phone service comes from offers DSL, and we live within the distance restrictions for DSL, but our service is on fiber from the CO to the head of our road, and Verizon refuses to upgrade the equipment that goes from optical fiber to copper to support DSL, and their customer service department tells me that they have no future plans to do so, but tries to sell me ISDN service, which is both slower and far more expensive than DSL.

There is also a wireless internet company in the area, but they are on the Ohio side of the river, and we're on the wrong side of several large hills. Line of sight transmissions do not fare well when the transmitting antenna is at a lower elevation than the hills between you and it.

I believe that, if business wants municiple governments to stay out of their arena, they must be willing to extend their service to those who are not convenient to serve.

[filker0]

Falling through the cracks

Business claims that the government should stay out of the broadband arena, but then refuses to take the steps required to offer service to people in marginal regions.

I live on the outskirts of a city in West Virginia. On our road, there are two cable providers; one services the homes on the "upper" end of the road, the other services the homes on the "lower" end. The first provider (Charter) offers broadband, the second provider (Community Antenna Service) does not in our area (though in other areas around town that they service, they do have broadband). We live near the divide between the two companies territory. Charter will not extend their line the additional 1/4 mile or so to reach our lot. CAS, who services our lot, tells me that they have no plans to ever upgrade our "loop" to digital. So no broadband from the cable companies is available at our house.

The CO our phone service comes from offers DSL, and we live within the distance restrictions for DSL, but our service is on fiber from the CO to the head of our road, and Verizon refuses to upgrade the equipment that goes from optical fiber to copper to support DSL, and their customer service department tells me that they have no future plans to do so, but tries to sell me ISDN service, which is both slower and far more expensive than DSL.

There is also a wireless internet company in the area, but they are on the Ohio side of the river, and we're on the wrong side of several large hills. Line of sight transmissions do not fare well when the transmitting antenna is at a lower elevation than the hills between you and it.

I believe that, if business wants municiple governments to stay out of their arena, they must be willing to extend their service to those who are not convenient to serve.

[NWLB]

Matters getting out of hand in a bad way.

Internet access is the new public utility. It may not be literally vital to life, but in the way phone, video, and data services are becoming integrated into day-to-day life, I can?t see how it isn?t going to be. This skirts a few lines in terms of political ideology.

We lag behind the world in getting the technology out to the public. Communication companies aren?t happy about local and other levels of government getting into what is seen by them as strictly business. Yet they treat the technology not as something vital to the long-term interests of the country, or a utility, but as just another means to squeeze money out of people. I think the argument can be sufficiently made that it is first a matter of local right and choice to offer whatever services a municipality wants. After that is done, if the communications companies don?t like it, tough. They will fight to keep competition off their networks, from duplicating services using different technology, and then take advantage of near monopolies to raise prices. Yet if somebody suggests an even playing field they freak out.

Creating Shareholder Value, is allowing the rest of the world to shoot the moon, while we remain in the stone age. And I?m the last person that argues against corporate rights.

NWLB
http://www.Bloggercist.com

We actually just...

...had a politician in our little town promise free WiFi if elected. There has been a backlash because people know she cannot deliver, the cost will come out of their taxes, and people do consider that this service could put a lot of local ISPs out of business...

Matthew
http://www.mlearningworld.com

We actually just...

...had a politician in our little town promise free WiFi if elected. There has been a backlash because people know she cannot deliver, the cost will come out of their taxes, and people do consider that this service could put a lot of local ISPs out of business...

Matthew
http://www.mlearningworld.com

[gjl229]

My Major Concerns

That cities will use 10-year bonds to buy technology with a 4-year life. I've seen that happen often, especially in schools. It is, at heart, a financial and political lie.

That the cities will manage this poorly, not having the scale and expertise to adapt to a fast-moving market. If you think telcos moved slowly, watch government!

That subsidized (in some fashion) municipal services will focus on central or densely populated areas - exactly those where telcos and cablecos make enough margin to subside outlying areas. The lost profit may cause traditional carriers to turn to other cities or states with additional investment. So the central areas with muni service will do well for a period while outlying areas miss out on expansion/enhancement. At best.

On the other hand, if traditional suppliers don't see your town as worth the investment, go for it. Even a shaky IP infrastructure would be far better than none at all. Let's just not pretend that IP communications and water utilities have much in common.

Municipal Broadband Subsidies

Many people are overlooking that our electrical infrastructure
requires updating. It used to be that someone would come to
your house and look at your meter to decide how much to
charge you, then they made it so that the information could be
transmitted, and now many are looking to use fiber optics to
transmit that information - primarily because it has such a low
cost of maintenance. A secondary benefit of this is of course the
ability to carry broadband.

I agree - floating a bond to pay for technology that will get
outdated is a bad idea. However, if the money HAS to be spent,
why not get multiple benefits from it?

[fredmenace]

Good points, but...

You make some good points that would undoubtedly be brought up when any individual city proposes to do this. And if it looks like a poor use of money, tax revenues, city resources, likely to fail, unlikely to compete well with existing commercial services, etc., then obviously people should speak up and say "don't spend our money this way" (and hopefully the city council, after analyzing the proposal, would come to the same conclusion and decide not to do it).

But it doesn't HAVE to be that way, and won't always be that way. Some cities will do it very well, and very efficiently, and it will be a great investment for them, and a great benefit to their residents.

The problem is not that all cities are going to automatically barge forward with this even if the prospects are bleak; the problem is with state laws banning cities from even having the option, which I think stinks.

[gjl229]

My Major Concerns

That cities will use 10-year bonds to buy technology with a 4-year life. I've seen that happen often, especially in schools. It is, at heart, a financial and political lie.

That the cities will manage this poorly, not having the scale and expertise to adapt to a fast-moving market. If you think telcos moved slowly, watch government!

That subsidized (in some fashion) municipal services will focus on central or densely populated areas - exactly those where telcos and cablecos make enough margin to subside outlying areas. The lost profit may cause traditional carriers to turn to other cities or states with additional investment. So the central areas with muni service will do well for a period while outlying areas miss out on expansion/enhancement. At best.

On the other hand, if traditional suppliers don't see your town as worth the investment, go for it. Even a shaky IP infrastructure would be far better than none at all. Let's just not pretend that IP communications and water utilities have much in common.

Municipal Broadband Subsidies

Many people are overlooking that our electrical infrastructure
requires updating. It used to be that someone would come to
your house and look at your meter to decide how much to
charge you, then they made it so that the information could be
transmitted, and now many are looking to use fiber optics to
transmit that information - primarily because it has such a low
cost of maintenance. A secondary benefit of this is of course the
ability to carry broadband.

I agree - floating a bond to pay for technology that will get
outdated is a bad idea. However, if the money HAS to be spent,
why not get multiple benefits from it?

[fredmenace]

Good points, but...

You make some good points that would undoubtedly be brought up when any individual city proposes to do this. And if it looks like a poor use of money, tax revenues, city resources, likely to fail, unlikely to compete well with existing commercial services, etc., then obviously people should speak up and say "don't spend our money this way" (and hopefully the city council, after analyzing the proposal, would come to the same conclusion and decide not to do it).

But it doesn't HAVE to be that way, and won't always be that way. Some cities will do it very well, and very efficiently, and it will be a great investment for them, and a great benefit to their residents.

The problem is not that all cities are going to automatically barge forward with this even if the prospects are bleak; the problem is with state laws banning cities from even having the option, which I think stinks.

Missing the Point

Greetings All,

I am in Lafayette Louisiana working on bringing Fiber here... One thing that seems to be missing here in the conversation of Municiple vs. Private Business is - WE TRIED PRIVATE BUSINESS - we begged Bell South and Cox Cable for a YEAR! No go, the only thing they told us is that they would bring "FIBER TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD" in the next 10 years. This is just not acceptable.

Municiple is the only way to go for us, other Cities may have the option of having a private company who wants to do this for them and sees the opportunity. We have TERRIBLE broadband access now, and the incumbants have been terribly slow to respond and slow to upgrade services.

Hope that helps in the discussion.

THANKS
Stephen Handwerk
LafayetteComingTogether.com

Ever run a business? Sorry, big rant.

I read most of the comments of the article and I hear repeatedly that telcoms and cable won't come into thier area blah blah blah. Wonder how many have ever tried to run thier own busines?

Why make uninformed comments? Corperations grow into areas steadily over time. They aren't in the business of going broke trying to build out areas that don't offer a good ROI. With growing, any business must still keep it's level of service high and the cost of doing business with connections to other networks, service rollouts and network maintenance cost more the bigger you get.

I'm also sick of hearing that TV, and broadband are like public utilities when they are not. Just think of all the good things you could do if you didn't sit your lazy @$$ down and watch more TV and surf more porn.

You might even be able to teach underprivledged kids how to get a leg up, get some discipline, and get somewhere, instead of giving them a way to spend more time on thier @$$es. Don't wonder why Americans are the fatest people on the planet.

Please don't kid anyone when you say it's for edjucation unless you teach them how to use a pc safely and correctly- they'll be playing games or downloading/sharing music and spreading viruses causing the network to slow down worse than everyone coming home to check thier email.

Basically anyone that stands to make $$$ of this project will try to argue every point in thier favor.

I'm not buying into any of it, I won't be paying for it and those in office will be wise to spend thier time fixing the real problems the citizens are complaining about instead of how to make America into the new socialist republic. I mean let's all think really hard about what our government is elected to do. If they can't fix the current issues facing them, they'll never be able to fix something as complex as a fiber network.

//EOR