15 ms·

So the info from people I know who live in Longmont, was that Comcast was as sleazy as their reputation in dealing with the city. Comcast executives said in st

So the info from people I know who live in Longmont, was that Comcast was as sleazy as their reputation in dealing with the city. Comcast executives said in statements to city council that it was physically impossible to deliver higher bandwidth over the existing cable. Edit to add: now over the existing cable they are offering higher speeds. YES, that same cable that pre competition, they stated could not handle higherspeeds. When Longmont decided to proceed with their own network, lots of FUD from Comcast both before it was successfully delivered and after, but everyone who has it, loves it. And it very rarely goes down. Comcast then tried to say that they had exclusive contracts with the landlords... but under CO law such restrictions placed on tenants are illegal. Etc. Etc.

peterlk 9y ago
Yes, comcast threw tantrums in city hall on multiple occasions. Longmont's story is rather complicated and interesting. I don't know all the details, but knew a fair number of the key players. Essentially, Longmont allowed an upstart ISP to put cable in the ground. Part of the deal was that if they were going to sell it, Longmont got first right of refusal (or something similar), and when they went under, the city bought the fiber for cheap. They were sitting on dark fiber for a long time, and they leased it out to several companies who failed to make it work. Then, after enough people in the town and city government cared (I'll call out Jim Wall - the town CTO - for being awesome), the vote passed and with some creaking and groaning, the roll-out got started. Residents got 1 Gigabit symmetric for $50 per month (you're reading that correctly). Interestingly, nearly overnight, both Comcast and Charter were offering more than 1 Gb/s for $75ish.
fludlight 9y ago
> Comcast then tried to say that they had exclusive contracts with the landlords... but under CO law such restrictions placed on tenants are illegal. We could use such a law in California.
- youdontneedit 9y ago
  You don't need one! Exclusive telecom provider agreements with multiple-dwelling units (MDUs) have been prohibited federally since 2009. Now, it's a fair bet that the current FCC leadership will flip on this - they published a "Notice of Inquiry" to "seek comment" on what they're now calling "multiple tenant environments" earlier this year: https://apps.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-345161A1.pdf https://apps.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-345161A1.p... But for now, exclusive provider agreements like this are not actually enforceable.
  - craftyguy 9y ago
    > have been prohibited federally since 2009. Well, for now, at least. I wouldn't be the least bit surprised if the current clowns in office reverse it
    - tzakrajs 9y ago
      Hey those clowns went to Ivy league schools in some cases! Best clown college ever?

peterlk 9y ago

Yes, comcast threw tantrums in city hall on multiple occasions. Longmont's story is rather complicated and interesting. I don't know all the details, but knew a fair number of the key players. Essentially, Longmont allowed an upstart ISP to put cable in the ground. Part of the deal was that if they were going to sell it, Longmont got first right of refusal (or something similar), and when they went under, the city bought the fiber for cheap. They were sitting on dark fiber for a long time, and they leased it out to several companies who failed to make it work. Then, after enough people in the town and city government cared (I'll call out Jim Wall - the town CTO - for being awesome), the vote passed and with some creaking and groaning, the roll-out got started. Residents got 1 Gigabit symmetric for $50 per month (you're reading that correctly). Interestingly, nearly overnight, both Comcast and Charter were offering more than 1 Gb/s for $75ish.

fludlight 9y ago

> Comcast then tried to say that they had exclusive contracts with the landlords... but under CO law such restrictions placed on tenants are illegal. We could use such a law in California.

youdontneedit 9y ago
You don't need one! Exclusive telecom provider agreements with multiple-dwelling units (MDUs) have been prohibited federally since 2009. Now, it's a fair bet that the current FCC leadership will flip on this - they published a "Notice of Inquiry" to "seek comment" on what they're now calling "multiple tenant environments" earlier this year: https://apps.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-345161A1.pdf https://apps.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-345161A1.p... But for now, exclusive provider agreements like this are not actually enforceable.
- craftyguy 9y ago
  > have been prohibited federally since 2009. Well, for now, at least. I wouldn't be the least bit surprised if the current clowns in office reverse it
  - tzakrajs 9y ago
    Hey those clowns went to Ivy league schools in some cases! Best clown college ever?