13 ms·

Comcast rejected by small town, residents vote for municipal fiber instead

561 points by coatta 8y ago

epoch_100 8y ago
Good! By allowing individual municipalities to manage their own Internet infrastructure, we can help keep the Internet from becoming effectively owned by the likes of Comcast, AT&T, and Verizon.
- JumpCrisscross 8y ago
  > By allowing individual municipalities to manage their own Internet infrastructure, we can help keep the Internet from becoming effectively owned by the likes of Comcast, AT&T, and Verizon I'm nervous about how thoughtlessly we're embracing public ISP ownership. Local governments are notoriously corrupt, in both politics and police. These referenda expand their power without rebalancing any checks or balances. We just happen to have something breathlessly more broken in the monopoly ISPs. Going forward, it would be nice to see cities re-open their networks to private management. The city would continue to own the infrastructure. But subpoenas, et cetera would be served to the private operator.
  - toomuchtodo 8y ago
    I'm not nervous at all (disclaimer: I support public ownership of infrastructure over private/commercial ownership, stakeholders > shareholders). Local governments are governed by local citizens. I have no impact on Comcast or Time Warner's governance, as either a shareholder or customer. If I don't hold my local government accountable, that's my fault. My local community owning my roads, sidewalks, water, sewer (storm AND human waste), fire hydrant infrastructure, as well as fire and police services has worked out a-ok. And while I take issue with Florida politics, EVERYTHING is open records. If my local police are corrupt and obtaining data illegally from my muni ISP, I can involve my state's attorney or other legal oversight bodies. So! The overreaching issue isn't "this is about local internet infra", it's about local governance and self-reliance, which I find it difficult to argue against. Concentrated power corrupts, distributed power empowers. Obligatory Muni/Startup ISP links: https://muninetworks.org/communitymap https://muninetworks.org/communitymap | https://startyourownisp.com/ https://startyourownisp.com/
    - ryandrake 8y ago
      I think OP’s fear is that the quality of local governments varies enormously. Your local government might be awesome. If so, congratulations! Not everyone lives in places with great oversight or has access to the legal means to keep their local government in check. A local government one state over might decide to ban search terms about contraceptives or keep a list of customers visiting LGBT sites for various persecution/blackmail purposes. I grew up in a backwards small town and I could totally see Billy Bob the municipal broadband administrator “sharing his list of fags” with his hillbilly friends. I’m always skeptical when politicians call for local control of something. As evil as Comcast is, their scale and need to operate in markets across all political/cultural spectrum makes me more confident that they won’t be messing with my browsing for petty reasons—they just want my wallet.
      - toomuchtodo 8y ago
        While I can appreciate your concerns over data firewalls as it relates to local government (privacy advocate, annual EFF donation, yada yada), I would like to see a real world example of it occurring in the US before I'd consider changing my stance on locally owned internet infra vs Comcast, Time Warner, et el (I will even put my money where my mouth is, and come after such a municipality personally with an attorney, that's the sort of thing I find fun). If Billy Bob the municipal broadband administrator is “sharing his list of fags” with his hillbilly friends, you can FOIA logs, emails, records, and come after the city for their transgression. You can vote local government representatives out of office. If Comcast does this, you have no recourse (and they would even be within their right to sell this data to the highest bidder).
  - 49531 8y ago
    They're no more corrupt than large corporate players, but I can vote for my local government.
    - JumpCrisscross 8y ago
      > They're no more corrupt than large corporate players, but I can vote for my local government My point is that's a terrible baseline to settle for. If our metric for "should we do it" is solely "is it better than Comcast," we've got a problem. My specific concern is around local police having expanded access to locals' internet activity.
      - frgtpsswrdlame 8y ago
        >My point is the is a terrible baseline to be settling for No it's not. If government can do it better than the corporate sector, why worry about other baselines? >My specific concern is around local police having expanded access to locals' internet activity. Except Comcast can already collect your data and sell it to local police or anyone else they want and you have no recourse. In the case of government there is at least a possibility you will be able to change a policy like that.
      - Angostura 8y ago
        OK, do you're rejecting both the idea of the local municipality and corporates. What's your preferred solution?
        JumpCrisscross 8y ago
        > you're rejecting both the idea of the local municipality and corporates. What's your preferred solution? Municipality builds and owns the infrastructure; competitively leases it to private operators for fixed periods of time.
        quasse 8y ago
        That just seems like choosing the worst of both theoretical worlds you described. The local gov't still has final control over your infrastructure but you also have private industry skimming profits off something you already paid for with taxes.
  - jancsika 8y ago
    > I'm nervous about how thoughtlessly we're embracing public ISP ownership. Don't worry-- states like North Carolina have actually outlawed municipal broadband. > Local governments are notoriously corrupt, in both politics and police. There was municipal wireless in my town after the FCC overruled these state broadband bans, and before the the court ruled against the FCC. Symmetric speeds. Prices prorated according to what the actual speed was instead of the advertised speed. Pretty decent support. I witnessed these symmetric speeds directly. I also talked directly to the town manager about the program as it was being implemented. The plan was public and presented at a town board meeting. If there was notorious corruption going on it still hasn't affect speed, pricing, or support response for their service. Very curious to read your references about notorious corruption of local governments. > But subpoenas, et cetera would be served to the private operator. Which is exactly what my town has done to be in compliance with the court ruling allowing state-wide municipal broadban bans. Same speeds. Same prices. Same support. Possibly even some of the same people, but I'd have to look it up to make sure. What is the point you are trying to make? Edit: Keep in mind I wrote "pretty decent support" against a baseline of what I think support ought to be in a first world country. If I measured against Comcast I'd call it "support so amazing it may make you cry."
  - bogomipz 8y ago
    >"Local governments are notoriously corrupt, in both politics and police." And yet on the whole they are probably still far less corrupt and corrosive than monopolistic ISPs such Comcast, Verizon and Time Warner(or whatever their calling themselves these days.) I would argue they are more accessible and accountable as well.
    - mattmcknight 8y ago
      Local governments are the ones that granted these companies the monopolies.
      - bogomipz 8y ago
        This comment is disingenuous at best. It also displays an ignorance of the history of Telecom in the US. Cable companies were originally granted charters or franchise agreements in the 1970s and 1980s in the US. At that time cable companies were very much local and regional[1]. Also at that time television was delivered over the air and the monopoly was Ma Bell. Twenty years of consolidation happened at the national level. The victims of this hyper-consolidation were local. Furthermore these municipal franchise agreements given to cable companies/ISPs are generally non-exclusive which is why there are some areas that actually have a duopoly instead of just a monopoly. Municipalities will generally grant right away access to other interested parties which is why some places have both Verizon and Comcast or Comcast and Uverse etc. In fact the franchise fees collected by municipalities are a great source of revenue. I don't think there's a city in the US that isn't interested in collecting more money. NYC recently sued Verizon for failing to fulfill its obligations of providing full coverage(and an alternative to the incumbent) to residents of the city[2]. So no local governments are not to blame for the corrosive and corrupt culture of these ISPs. Certainly not in any appreciable manner. [1] http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2014/02/14/chart-of-the-week-a-long-history-of-cable-consolidation/ http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2014/02/14/chart-of-the... [2] https://www.wired.com/story/new-york-city-verizon-internet/ https://www.wired.com/story/new-york-city-verizon-internet/
  - rmrfrmrf 8y ago
    Privatization has been a disaster for US broadband. I'd love to know which local governments you're talking about, especially considering that all cases of corruption I've heard center around bribes from private capital to influence public policy. If anything, public internet infrastructure would reduce corruption given the number of local governments that grant statuatory monopolies to telcos.
  - OldFatCactus 8y ago
    Sometimes reading comments on HN I feel like I stumbled into opposite-land. Private operators are far more "notoriously corrupt" than local government. At large scale, government representation starts to break down and the will of the majority can become distorted. But at a local level, this is absolutely the better alternative to private ownership of what should be considered a fundamental human right.
  - egypturnash 8y ago
    At least if the corruption is local, there's more likelihood for the money to stay in the local economy. A big corporation siphons the money out of zillions of towns and concentrates it in one place.
- seniorivn 8y ago
  how is it any better then current olygopolly? The solution should be raising competitiveness of the market. Like in countries with a lot better internet, especially per dollar.
  - frgtpsswrdlame 8y ago
    >how is it any better than current oligopoly? I mean I suppose you could ask the people that voted for it. >The solution should be raising competitiveness of the market. Networks like internet providership are notoriously hard to get competitive markets in. Even removing the regulatory barriers to entry there are still natural barriers to entry (high start up cost) and huge returns to scale. The natural state of this market is monopoly or oligopoly. But even beyond this, this is raising the competitiveness of the market. Internet has become so integrated into the fabric of modern life that many feel compelled to purchase it from the one or maybe two providers in their area. That lowers competitiveness. Demonstrating that municipalities have ways of 'opting out' should force Comcast and other providers to compete with the hypothetical 'public ISP' that citizens can always vote in.
    - toomuchtodo 8y ago
      Your comment was dead, but I vouched for it because I believe your second paragraph has value. I'd ask you consider removing the first part, which is unnecessarily snarky and doesn't address the point (how is this better than an oligopoly).
      - soundwave106 8y ago
        The first point is valid IMHO in a way. Like a lot of small towns in Massachusetts, Charlemont uses an open town meeting style of government, which means all residents have a vote in determining how the town is run. I would personally believe that if there are issues with quality of service or price or whatnot, this governance style allows for a much better opportunity of addressing issues. Versus being run by a very large monopoly that honestly may not care that much about the ongoing needs of a 1200 population town (read: small revenue source) in the future. A competitive environment would be better if possible, but failing that, I personally would take a municipal broadband system with a good degree of accountability built into the town governance over an oligopoly.
- takeda 8y ago
  The best way is to let the city provide the last mile infrastructure (the connection between nearest POP and your house), and then lease it to ISPs for a fee to maintain it. That way we once again can have competition like during the time DSL was popular (telcos were required to lease their wires, that's why there was so much choice of ISP for anyone who remembers early 2000)
  - quasse 8y ago
    I hear this argument all the time, but I don't really see it. What value is the ISP providing here? They sell you service on physical infrastructure that you the taxpayer already paid for? Peering? It seems like it would be much more efficient for a municipality to just negotiate citywide peering agreements for everyone. Some people try to push the "value adds" line, like IPTV and phone service, but I don't see any reason those should be tied to your base internet service. Those arguments smell like the old cable company days, when everything had to be a "bundle".
    - jgust 8y ago
      The last mile infrastructure isn't maintenance free and doesn't last forever, so it has to be paid for somehow be it taxes or commercially. Users (in the above situation) paying an ISP are essentially agreeing to a "maintenance contract".
      - takeda 8y ago
        That's why I said "lease to ISP for a fee", the ISP will of course forward that cost to an user, perhaps under extra fees no extra taxes needed, and people who actually use it will pay for it. BTW: this is how it was with DSL. Title II has this provision, and telco companies were required to lease their lines to ISPs at a "reasonable fee" which was up to FCC to decide (this was so they wouldn't charge ridiculous prices to kill their competitors). When Title II was reinstated, Wheeler actually excluded this provision, that's why nothing changed in terms of monopoly.
    - JumpCrisscross 8y ago
- Carlton87 8y ago
  It has worked fantastic for Chattanooga Tennessee. I love my EPB speed and price.
AnIdiotOnTheNet 8y ago
Good for them. I hope this trend continues because ISPs need a good solid kick in the teeth.
- takeda 8y ago
  All ISPs need is to separate the last mile (the fiber between your house and nearest POP) from their service. Once that would be available, we would have a real compression in that market. In all countries which are known for having best internet experience the ISP don't own the last mile.
  - inapis 8y ago
    I digress. In India, my local ISP owns the last mile and I pay approximately 14 USD each for two lines of symmetric and unlimited 100 Mbps. ISPs can own the last mile. All you need is extensive competiton. I went from paying $100(4M/250GB) to $50(20M/500G) to $30(50M/UL) to the current $15 (100M/UL). The prices decreased as more players entered the market. Of course, India doesn’t have excellent internet infrastructure available nationally but you really don’t need public ownership of last mile to make a difference. Just don’t let the ISPs form any kind of a cartel.
    - lambdadmitry 8y ago
      So I am, too, from a country where internet is (was) great while ISPs own the last mile (Russia). It seems there are two prerequisites for that: 1. Low level of regulation (i.e. lawlessness) so small ISPs can just string cables in the air without any licensing 2. Relatively young infrastructure Both of those aren't true for most developed countries. And even if it's not (Russia isn't), at some point market dynamics inevitably lead to monopoly. Most local competing ISPs are forced out of the market recently by state-sponsored mega-ISP that controls uplinks and finally went for last mile, too. As you can guess, the quality went down, while the prices went up. You can't cheat the market forces unless you eliminate the market. Physical fiber is an amazing moat, there is no way how upstart ISPs can be price-competitive while duplicating an already existing network.
walrus01 8y ago
1300 residents? How many individual premises? That is a rather small scan gpon project. Hope they hire someone with a clue and experience to build and run it, there is not a lot of Venn diagram overlap between municipal managers and network engineers. I do hope they realize that if they want to do everything themselves, they'll still need transport links to the nearest major IX point, and IP transit upstreams. I don't know of many small towns, sub 5000 population, that have successfully become their own "real" ISP (ARIN AS, their own IP space, presence at an ix with a bgp speaking router, all of the typical ISP back-end operational support software). In addition to all of the costs of being a wholly facilities based ISP at layer 1 in the OSI model. Another way to do it is for the town to simply build dark fiber, and rent it to interested ISPs. Or to build a layer 2 gpon transport network and do nothing at L3, and no individual customer service, and let different ISPs compete for business with the town running the gpon OLTs only.
- nwellinghoff 8y ago
  Sounds like they need to hire you. Your third option sounds pretty smart.
  - walrus01 8y ago
    It's not a totally uncommon network architecture, look at Douglas county and Grant county public utility districts in WA state for instance. Their fiber networks provide L2 transport and different ISPs sell service over it. For bigger business customers they offer dedicated transport and dark options. But they are also electrical grid operators and share common expenses for lineman crews, bucket trucks, etc between power and fiber. A town of 1300 people is in a very different position.
  - jsjohnst 8y ago
    The second and third options are relatively common in the industry. Sibling comment gave an example, but happy to dig up more.
- tupshin 8y ago
  Good points, but it's worth noting that Charlemont has fiber deployed through the main (rural) highway as part of the Massachusetts broadband act and MBI(Massachusetts broadband institute). https://broadband.masstech.org/about-mbi https://broadband.masstech.org/about-mbi https://broadband.masstech.org/news-and-updates/map-gallery/massbroadband-123-maps-data https://broadband.masstech.org/news-and-updates/map-gallery/... This should make it substantially easier to get connected and serviced.
StreamBright 8y ago
When the company offerings can be beaten with local government offerings you know something is bad. Wondering why US has such terrible internet options.
- java-man 8y ago
  corruption.
  - aswanson 8y ago
    Yup. Good old corruption. Funny fact I learned recently: The US is one of the most corrupt countries in the first world, especially at the state and municipal level.
    - xfitm3 8y ago
      I tend to agree. Although it's my opinion there is a significant barrier to entry in the US. Corruption is accessible only to those with wealth or influence. In other countries low level corruption is available to the common man.
  - wetpaws 8y ago
    To people who downvoted op - it's absolutely corruption. Comcast lobbies the government, sues competitors and hogs taxpayer money to remain in power.
    - jermaustin1 8y ago
      In my home town, Comcast actually FINALLY got the approval to buy up a cable provider's lines a couple of years ago. The old cable provider only provided television. They would also never would expand their lines. I had a friend who's house was built between two others who had TV provided by this company, and they wouldn't run the line to their house. In my town and I'm assuming most, whoever laid the lines, gets the monopoly. Maybe Comcast could have gone around and buried new lines, but it would have been too cost prohibitive, so they waited for this company to finally die (people would switch to DirectTV and AT&T DSL), and now everyone in town can get actual high speed internet and television. This is the biggest problem I have with cable companies, they go into a town, lock it up, and don't innovate. But I also understand wanting to protect your investment of 10s-100s of millions of dollars in a town, expecting to earn it back over 30+ years.
rayiner 8y ago
I feel like people are being shortsighted about municipal fiber. It’s not a one time and you forget it thing. Verizon has upgraded the FiOS network several times since 2005. We have some towns on the eastern shore of MD that did municipal cable, back when that was the state of the art. Those systems are lagging far behind Comcast now because nobody wants to raise rates to generate cash for upgrades. Municipal fiber is a solution to a problem created by the municipalities. The municipalities suppress competition by using their authority over TV regulation to impose build-out requirements. You can’t enter as a competitor without building out to a whole city. No MVPs or niche products. There's also more free-market ways to accomplish the same thing. Stockholm, for example, has quasi-municipal dark fiber. The network was built by a company created by the city for that purpose. While the city owns the company, the city does not run the company, fund it, or control its business strategy (prices, deployment). The company built the fiber network using private capital, charging customers up-front for a hookup, and expanding the network over more than a decade based on demand and revenue potential (e.g. businesses first), rather than politics.
- walrus01 8y ago
  A properly designed dark architecture for fiber, with small neighborhood powered nodes, can have a 50+ year life... It's the electronics that are going to need replacing. Same whether you build for 1 strand active Ethernet to each CPE or a 1x16 split gpon.
  - ams6110 8y ago
    And who in the government of a small town is competent to design such an architecture? Who is competent to hire a competent company to design such an architecture? In the case of my town the answer is nobody. Our municipal internet project has been a boondoggle of incompetence, false starts, and mismanagement. Going on a decade. Meanwhile the people using Comcast or AT&T generally have usable service. I'm not a fan of either company, but at least they're getting the job done.
    - magduf 8y ago
luckydata 8y ago
I despise Comcast like everyone here but I'm not sure I would be so happy about municipal internet service unless there was some way to make it not suck. I'm speaking from experience, I used to live in San Bruno that has San Bruno Cable and it's one of the worst customer support experiences I've ever had in my life. I'm currently living in the East Bay, I have Comcast and while I had my share of issues with them both service and experience has been better. Is it even possible to have good internet service in this country?
- Riseed 8y ago
  > Is it even possible to have good internet service in this country? Yes. I have zero complaints about sonic.[0] They deliver reliable service at a reasonable price (cheaper than Comcast's intro pricing here), and have stellar customer service and punctual install techs. They also have a history of receiving all 5 stars on EFF's yearly "Who Has Your Back" report [1]. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sonic_(ISP) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sonic_(ISP) [1] https://www.eff.org/who-has-your-back-2017 https://www.eff.org/who-has-your-back-2017
- zzzcpan 8y ago
  > unless there was some way to make it not suck. There is no way. Highly reliable internet access can only be achieved via multiple independent ISPs including independent last miles. And if high reliability is not important, competition is still the only way to make ISPs care enough for customers not to switch ISPs.
scurvy 8y ago
I find it hilarious that the overwhelmingly "move everything to the cloud" community here is advocating a build-your-own route over outsourcing the job to a massive company.
bronco21016 8y ago
I hate Comcast with a passion and have always fantasized about living in a progressive municipality that provides fiber to the home. However, a few years ago I bought a home and it’s only been over the last 6 months or so I’ve realized how horribly corrupt and mismanaged small city governments can be. We’re being sucked dry by our mayor who hired her cousin as city manager for an exorbitant compensation package. They had no problem spending millions on extravgently updating the city offices but have come to residents with their hands out begging for money through special assessments to fix our roads, storm water drains, and water mains that are unusable for firefighting (and the city does not have a tanker truck). My point is simply that I’m not sure a purely municipal broadband is the panacea we all hope for. In some cases it may be better to stick with the devil you know vs the horribly slow, beaurctatic devil you don’t. I hope that over time we find a municipal model that works well and serves residents with cutting edge broadband. Until then I’ll continue to attempt to vote these clowns out.
- bogomipz 8y ago
  >"My point is simply that I’m not sure a purely municipal broadband is the panacea we all hope for." I have never heard of it referred to as a "panacea." What it is is an alternative and some competition. I fail to see how having another option where there is now none could ever be worse than "sticking with the devil you know." Look at what either the arrival or even the threat of Google fiber has done is some cable monopoly areas.
- roflchoppa 8y ago
  You should run for Mayor, I believe in you.
  - all2 8y ago
    > bronco21016 for Mayor 2019 Can we do this? How could we put this together? More generally, is he qualified? How do we tell?
    - kevin_thibedeau 8y ago
qwerty456127 8y ago
Whatever, there should better be competition. If one ISP (a big corporation or a municipality) does it a way you don't like and you can't switch to another one that's sad.
nonce413 8y ago
Hey, local news on HN! I'm glad to see Whip City Fiber is spreading so far up north. They started in Westfield (40k people), and then moved to building out local towns that are basically similar kind of "hilltowns" places that have been neglected by Comcast et al for years. Westfield Gas and Electric has been Westfield's municipal power company for as long as I can remember, and I've heard few complaints about their management. This is not their first time providing Internet service, as they used to run a dialup ISP back in the day. The concern about future upgrades is kind of ridiculous in context - the Verizon infrastructure here is still at the bare minimum, with no hope of ever being upgraded. I have no doubt that when the gigabit infrastructure is finally looking outdated and slow, Verizon will be sitting there offering the same "high speed" 3Mbit. That is, if they haven't convinced the feds to allow them to sell the copper for scrap. The service itself is a lone single mode fiber, with a GPON terminal. Installation planning was done by a WG&E employee who even showed up in a bucket truck. Installation was in two parts - one entire contractor to direct bury a flexible conduit with the length of fiber, and a second contractor to complete installation on both sides of the burial. My speed tests show basically full gigabit up/down. (Also, comments by new accounts start off dead now?! I made a throwaway because I'd rather not state my explicit location as part of my main profile)
davexunit 8y ago
This is a tangent but Charlemont is a nice little town situated at the foot of an Applachian mountain along the very scenic route 2. It's well worth driving up and over the mountain (through Florida... the town) into North Adams if you're ever in the area.
- jkingsbery 8y ago
  I went to college at Williams. We would sometimes drive back from track meets in Boston through Charlemont and Florida, and I always thought there was something cruel about seeing a sign for "Florida" when it was 10 deg (F) outside.. Agreed though, it's a nice drive, and a nice area of the country to visit!
MrTonyD 8y ago
Over a decade ago I worked on software sold to Cable companies. So I had set up a small cable transmission center, and I had followed with interest the cities providing cable. In short, they were doing a great job providing lots of channels at a tiny fraction of the cost - and often free internet too. And some even funded multiple government programs with high end packages at half the cost of Comcast. So I approached my town and offered to travel the US (on my dime) and interview those who had set up cable, to write a report so that my town could use best practices (including how to fight off the cable companies as they try to elect different officials - a standard strategy.) But my town was completely uninterested. It turned out that Comcast had paid money to fund a city department, and that same group made cable related decisions. So they didn't want to rock the boat that was paying them good salaries (to people with absolutely no skills beyond knowing somebody who got them the job.)
jkingsbery 8y ago
A few things I don't get (genuinely, I wish someone would explain to me): 1. Why would the town pay Comcast for Comcast to wire up the town, when Comcast would then turn around and charge residents? It seems like if Comcast wants to provide customers, they should make the investment, no? 2. If Verizon DSL is in town, how is there a monopoly? Would Comcast wiring the town prevent another provider from also wiring the town (in whole or in part)?
- rayiner 8y ago
  > 1. Why would the town pay Comcast for Comcast to wire up the town, when Comcast would then turn around and charge residents? It seems like if Comcast wants to provide customers, they should make the investment, no? A franchise agreement typically involves Comcast paying the municipality. 5% of gross revenues is standard.[1] > 2. If Verizon DSL is in town, how is there a monopoly? Would Comcast wiring the town prevent another provider from also wiring the town (in whole or in part)? No. Exclusive franchises are illegal under federal law. However, most municipalities do not have ISPs clamoring to build. For example, there was a lot of press coverage when Baltimore renewed its "exclusive" franchise with Comcast.[2] Of course it's not exclusive--it's just that nobody else has ever asked to build a network in Baltimore: > “We’ve, in fact, asked other cable operators if they’re interested in coming into the city and, so far, nobody else is,” says Minda Goldberg, a chief solicitor in the city’s Law Department. [1] E.g. the county where I live: https://www.aacounty.org/departments/oit/forms-and-publications/Comcast_Franchise.pdf https://www.aacounty.org/departments/oit/forms-and-publicati... (Section 6.1). [2] http://www.wypr.org/post/why-comcast-one-and-only-cable-and-internet-option-baltimore http://www.wypr.org/post/why-comcast-one-and-only-cable-and-...
- jaxtellerSoA 8y ago
  > If Verizon DSL is in town, apples and oranges. Sure technically they are both provide "internet", but this day in age DSL speeds are just plain unacceptable. You might as well make the argument that residents don't have to go with Comcast, they can get AOL.
khana 8y ago
Excellent. Power to the people.
DenisM 8y ago
Me, I'm rooting for 5G broadband. Verizon started the rollout already, T-Mobile can't be far behind. If AT&T joins the fray Comcast will get the bill for all the negative goodwill they were snowplowing on their way to profits. https://www.verizonwireless.com/5g/home/ https://www.verizonwireless.com/5g/home/ https://www.fiercewireless.com/5g/new-t-mobile-s-plans-for-home-fixed-wireless-internet-services-begin-to-take-shape https://www.fiercewireless.com/5g/new-t-mobile-s-plans-for-h...
- nonce413 8y ago
  5G is a red herring, as 4G would be sufficient. Before Westfield's fiber rollout, I drove around town mapping cell towers hoping to use LTE for home Internet. IMHO they're not really dense enough for such use, especially without directional antennas. Never mind the latency. Also, Verizon is really the only provider that extends into the more rural areas listed, and I doubt they would want to cut into their mobile profits with the rates required to compete with wired access.
onetimemanytime 8y ago
>>About 160 residents voted, with 56 percent rejecting the Comcast offer, according to news reports. If it's done it needs to be done by, say, million+ cities. Where is this small town going to the money to pay each time someone complains or a cable is cut?

561 points by coatta 8y ago

Good! By allowing individual municipalities to manage their own Internet infrastructure, we can help keep the Internet from becoming effectively owned by the likes of Comcast, AT&T, and Verizon.

JumpCrisscross 8y ago
> By allowing individual municipalities to manage their own Internet infrastructure, we can help keep the Internet from becoming effectively owned by the likes of Comcast, AT&T, and Verizon I'm nervous about how thoughtlessly we're embracing public ISP ownership. Local governments are notoriously corrupt, in both politics and police. These referenda expand their power without rebalancing any checks or balances. We just happen to have something breathlessly more broken in the monopoly ISPs. Going forward, it would be nice to see cities re-open their networks to private management. The city would continue to own the infrastructure. But subpoenas, et cetera would be served to the private operator.
- toomuchtodo 8y ago
  I'm not nervous at all (disclaimer: I support public ownership of infrastructure over private/commercial ownership, stakeholders > shareholders). Local governments are governed by local citizens. I have no impact on Comcast or Time Warner's governance, as either a shareholder or customer. If I don't hold my local government accountable, that's my fault. My local community owning my roads, sidewalks, water, sewer (storm AND human waste), fire hydrant infrastructure, as well as fire and police services has worked out a-ok. And while I take issue with Florida politics, EVERYTHING is open records. If my local police are corrupt and obtaining data illegally from my muni ISP, I can involve my state's attorney or other legal oversight bodies. So! The overreaching issue isn't "this is about local internet infra", it's about local governance and self-reliance, which I find it difficult to argue against. Concentrated power corrupts, distributed power empowers. Obligatory Muni/Startup ISP links: https://muninetworks.org/communitymap https://muninetworks.org/communitymap | https://startyourownisp.com/ https://startyourownisp.com/
  - ryandrake 8y ago
    I think OP’s fear is that the quality of local governments varies enormously. Your local government might be awesome. If so, congratulations! Not everyone lives in places with great oversight or has access to the legal means to keep their local government in check. A local government one state over might decide to ban search terms about contraceptives or keep a list of customers visiting LGBT sites for various persecution/blackmail purposes. I grew up in a backwards small town and I could totally see Billy Bob the municipal broadband administrator “sharing his list of fags” with his hillbilly friends. I’m always skeptical when politicians call for local control of something. As evil as Comcast is, their scale and need to operate in markets across all political/cultural spectrum makes me more confident that they won’t be messing with my browsing for petty reasons—they just want my wallet.
    - toomuchtodo 8y ago
      While I can appreciate your concerns over data firewalls as it relates to local government (privacy advocate, annual EFF donation, yada yada), I would like to see a real world example of it occurring in the US before I'd consider changing my stance on locally owned internet infra vs Comcast, Time Warner, et el (I will even put my money where my mouth is, and come after such a municipality personally with an attorney, that's the sort of thing I find fun). If Billy Bob the municipal broadband administrator is “sharing his list of fags” with his hillbilly friends, you can FOIA logs, emails, records, and come after the city for their transgression. You can vote local government representatives out of office. If Comcast does this, you have no recourse (and they would even be within their right to sell this data to the highest bidder).
- 49531 8y ago
  They're no more corrupt than large corporate players, but I can vote for my local government.
  - JumpCrisscross 8y ago
    > They're no more corrupt than large corporate players, but I can vote for my local government My point is that's a terrible baseline to settle for. If our metric for "should we do it" is solely "is it better than Comcast," we've got a problem. My specific concern is around local police having expanded access to locals' internet activity.
    - frgtpsswrdlame 8y ago
      >My point is the is a terrible baseline to be settling for No it's not. If government can do it better than the corporate sector, why worry about other baselines? >My specific concern is around local police having expanded access to locals' internet activity. Except Comcast can already collect your data and sell it to local police or anyone else they want and you have no recourse. In the case of government there is at least a possibility you will be able to change a policy like that.
    - Angostura 8y ago
      OK, do you're rejecting both the idea of the local municipality and corporates. What's your preferred solution?
      - JumpCrisscross 8y ago
        > you're rejecting both the idea of the local municipality and corporates. What's your preferred solution? Municipality builds and owns the infrastructure; competitively leases it to private operators for fixed periods of time.
        quasse 8y ago
        That just seems like choosing the worst of both theoretical worlds you described. The local gov't still has final control over your infrastructure but you also have private industry skimming profits off something you already paid for with taxes.
- jancsika 8y ago
  > I'm nervous about how thoughtlessly we're embracing public ISP ownership. Don't worry-- states like North Carolina have actually outlawed municipal broadband. > Local governments are notoriously corrupt, in both politics and police. There was municipal wireless in my town after the FCC overruled these state broadband bans, and before the the court ruled against the FCC. Symmetric speeds. Prices prorated according to what the actual speed was instead of the advertised speed. Pretty decent support. I witnessed these symmetric speeds directly. I also talked directly to the town manager about the program as it was being implemented. The plan was public and presented at a town board meeting. If there was notorious corruption going on it still hasn't affect speed, pricing, or support response for their service. Very curious to read your references about notorious corruption of local governments. > But subpoenas, et cetera would be served to the private operator. Which is exactly what my town has done to be in compliance with the court ruling allowing state-wide municipal broadban bans. Same speeds. Same prices. Same support. Possibly even some of the same people, but I'd have to look it up to make sure. What is the point you are trying to make? Edit: Keep in mind I wrote "pretty decent support" against a baseline of what I think support ought to be in a first world country. If I measured against Comcast I'd call it "support so amazing it may make you cry."
- bogomipz 8y ago
  >"Local governments are notoriously corrupt, in both politics and police." And yet on the whole they are probably still far less corrupt and corrosive than monopolistic ISPs such Comcast, Verizon and Time Warner(or whatever their calling themselves these days.) I would argue they are more accessible and accountable as well.
  - mattmcknight 8y ago
    Local governments are the ones that granted these companies the monopolies.
    - bogomipz 8y ago
      This comment is disingenuous at best. It also displays an ignorance of the history of Telecom in the US. Cable companies were originally granted charters or franchise agreements in the 1970s and 1980s in the US. At that time cable companies were very much local and regional[1]. Also at that time television was delivered over the air and the monopoly was Ma Bell. Twenty years of consolidation happened at the national level. The victims of this hyper-consolidation were local. Furthermore these municipal franchise agreements given to cable companies/ISPs are generally non-exclusive which is why there are some areas that actually have a duopoly instead of just a monopoly. Municipalities will generally grant right away access to other interested parties which is why some places have both Verizon and Comcast or Comcast and Uverse etc. In fact the franchise fees collected by municipalities are a great source of revenue. I don't think there's a city in the US that isn't interested in collecting more money. NYC recently sued Verizon for failing to fulfill its obligations of providing full coverage(and an alternative to the incumbent) to residents of the city[2]. So no local governments are not to blame for the corrosive and corrupt culture of these ISPs. Certainly not in any appreciable manner. [1] http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2014/02/14/chart-of-the-week-a-long-history-of-cable-consolidation/ http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2014/02/14/chart-of-the... [2] https://www.wired.com/story/new-york-city-verizon-internet/ https://www.wired.com/story/new-york-city-verizon-internet/
- rmrfrmrf 8y ago
  Privatization has been a disaster for US broadband. I'd love to know which local governments you're talking about, especially considering that all cases of corruption I've heard center around bribes from private capital to influence public policy. If anything, public internet infrastructure would reduce corruption given the number of local governments that grant statuatory monopolies to telcos.
- OldFatCactus 8y ago
  Sometimes reading comments on HN I feel like I stumbled into opposite-land. Private operators are far more "notoriously corrupt" than local government. At large scale, government representation starts to break down and the will of the majority can become distorted. But at a local level, this is absolutely the better alternative to private ownership of what should be considered a fundamental human right.
- egypturnash 8y ago
  At least if the corruption is local, there's more likelihood for the money to stay in the local economy. A big corporation siphons the money out of zillions of towns and concentrates it in one place.
seniorivn 8y ago
how is it any better then current olygopolly? The solution should be raising competitiveness of the market. Like in countries with a lot better internet, especially per dollar.
- frgtpsswrdlame 8y ago
  >how is it any better than current oligopoly? I mean I suppose you could ask the people that voted for it. >The solution should be raising competitiveness of the market. Networks like internet providership are notoriously hard to get competitive markets in. Even removing the regulatory barriers to entry there are still natural barriers to entry (high start up cost) and huge returns to scale. The natural state of this market is monopoly or oligopoly. But even beyond this, this is raising the competitiveness of the market. Internet has become so integrated into the fabric of modern life that many feel compelled to purchase it from the one or maybe two providers in their area. That lowers competitiveness. Demonstrating that municipalities have ways of 'opting out' should force Comcast and other providers to compete with the hypothetical 'public ISP' that citizens can always vote in.
  - toomuchtodo 8y ago
    Your comment was dead, but I vouched for it because I believe your second paragraph has value. I'd ask you consider removing the first part, which is unnecessarily snarky and doesn't address the point (how is this better than an oligopoly).
    - soundwave106 8y ago
      The first point is valid IMHO in a way. Like a lot of small towns in Massachusetts, Charlemont uses an open town meeting style of government, which means all residents have a vote in determining how the town is run. I would personally believe that if there are issues with quality of service or price or whatnot, this governance style allows for a much better opportunity of addressing issues. Versus being run by a very large monopoly that honestly may not care that much about the ongoing needs of a 1200 population town (read: small revenue source) in the future. A competitive environment would be better if possible, but failing that, I personally would take a municipal broadband system with a good degree of accountability built into the town governance over an oligopoly.
takeda 8y ago
The best way is to let the city provide the last mile infrastructure (the connection between nearest POP and your house), and then lease it to ISPs for a fee to maintain it. That way we once again can have competition like during the time DSL was popular (telcos were required to lease their wires, that's why there was so much choice of ISP for anyone who remembers early 2000)
- quasse 8y ago
  I hear this argument all the time, but I don't really see it. What value is the ISP providing here? They sell you service on physical infrastructure that you the taxpayer already paid for? Peering? It seems like it would be much more efficient for a municipality to just negotiate citywide peering agreements for everyone. Some people try to push the "value adds" line, like IPTV and phone service, but I don't see any reason those should be tied to your base internet service. Those arguments smell like the old cable company days, when everything had to be a "bundle".
  - jgust 8y ago
    The last mile infrastructure isn't maintenance free and doesn't last forever, so it has to be paid for somehow be it taxes or commercially. Users (in the above situation) paying an ISP are essentially agreeing to a "maintenance contract".
    - takeda 8y ago
      That's why I said "lease to ISP for a fee", the ISP will of course forward that cost to an user, perhaps under extra fees no extra taxes needed, and people who actually use it will pay for it. BTW: this is how it was with DSL. Title II has this provision, and telco companies were required to lease their lines to ISPs at a "reasonable fee" which was up to FCC to decide (this was so they wouldn't charge ridiculous prices to kill their competitors). When Title II was reinstated, Wheeler actually excluded this provision, that's why nothing changed in terms of monopoly.
  - JumpCrisscross 8y ago
Carlton87 8y ago
It has worked fantastic for Chattanooga Tennessee. I love my EPB speed and price.

AnIdiotOnTheNet 8y ago

Good for them. I hope this trend continues because ISPs need a good solid kick in the teeth.

takeda 8y ago
All ISPs need is to separate the last mile (the fiber between your house and nearest POP) from their service. Once that would be available, we would have a real compression in that market. In all countries which are known for having best internet experience the ISP don't own the last mile.
- inapis 8y ago
  I digress. In India, my local ISP owns the last mile and I pay approximately 14 USD each for two lines of symmetric and unlimited 100 Mbps. ISPs can own the last mile. All you need is extensive competiton. I went from paying $100(4M/250GB) to $50(20M/500G) to $30(50M/UL) to the current $15 (100M/UL). The prices decreased as more players entered the market. Of course, India doesn’t have excellent internet infrastructure available nationally but you really don’t need public ownership of last mile to make a difference. Just don’t let the ISPs form any kind of a cartel.
  - lambdadmitry 8y ago
    So I am, too, from a country where internet is (was) great while ISPs own the last mile (Russia). It seems there are two prerequisites for that: 1. Low level of regulation (i.e. lawlessness) so small ISPs can just string cables in the air without any licensing 2. Relatively young infrastructure Both of those aren't true for most developed countries. And even if it's not (Russia isn't), at some point market dynamics inevitably lead to monopoly. Most local competing ISPs are forced out of the market recently by state-sponsored mega-ISP that controls uplinks and finally went for last mile, too. As you can guess, the quality went down, while the prices went up. You can't cheat the market forces unless you eliminate the market. Physical fiber is an amazing moat, there is no way how upstart ISPs can be price-competitive while duplicating an already existing network.

walrus01 8y ago

1300 residents? How many individual premises? That is a rather small scan gpon project. Hope they hire someone with a clue and experience to build and run it, there is not a lot of Venn diagram overlap between municipal managers and network engineers. I do hope they realize that if they want to do everything themselves, they'll still need transport links to the nearest major IX point, and IP transit upstreams. I don't know of many small towns, sub 5000 population, that have successfully become their own "real" ISP (ARIN AS, their own IP space, presence at an ix with a bgp speaking router, all of the typical ISP back-end operational support software). In addition to all of the costs of being a wholly facilities based ISP at layer 1 in the OSI model. Another way to do it is for the town to simply build dark fiber, and rent it to interested ISPs. Or to build a layer 2 gpon transport network and do nothing at L3, and no individual customer service, and let different ISPs compete for business with the town running the gpon OLTs only.

nwellinghoff 8y ago
Sounds like they need to hire you. Your third option sounds pretty smart.
- walrus01 8y ago
  It's not a totally uncommon network architecture, look at Douglas county and Grant county public utility districts in WA state for instance. Their fiber networks provide L2 transport and different ISPs sell service over it. For bigger business customers they offer dedicated transport and dark options. But they are also electrical grid operators and share common expenses for lineman crews, bucket trucks, etc between power and fiber. A town of 1300 people is in a very different position.
- jsjohnst 8y ago
  The second and third options are relatively common in the industry. Sibling comment gave an example, but happy to dig up more.
tupshin 8y ago
Good points, but it's worth noting that Charlemont has fiber deployed through the main (rural) highway as part of the Massachusetts broadband act and MBI(Massachusetts broadband institute). https://broadband.masstech.org/about-mbi https://broadband.masstech.org/about-mbi https://broadband.masstech.org/news-and-updates/map-gallery/massbroadband-123-maps-data https://broadband.masstech.org/news-and-updates/map-gallery/... This should make it substantially easier to get connected and serviced.

StreamBright 8y ago

When the company offerings can be beaten with local government offerings you know something is bad. Wondering why US has such terrible internet options.

java-man 8y ago
corruption.
- aswanson 8y ago
  Yup. Good old corruption. Funny fact I learned recently: The US is one of the most corrupt countries in the first world, especially at the state and municipal level.
  - xfitm3 8y ago
    I tend to agree. Although it's my opinion there is a significant barrier to entry in the US. Corruption is accessible only to those with wealth or influence. In other countries low level corruption is available to the common man.
- wetpaws 8y ago
  To people who downvoted op - it's absolutely corruption. Comcast lobbies the government, sues competitors and hogs taxpayer money to remain in power.
  - jermaustin1 8y ago
    In my home town, Comcast actually FINALLY got the approval to buy up a cable provider's lines a couple of years ago. The old cable provider only provided television. They would also never would expand their lines. I had a friend who's house was built between two others who had TV provided by this company, and they wouldn't run the line to their house. In my town and I'm assuming most, whoever laid the lines, gets the monopoly. Maybe Comcast could have gone around and buried new lines, but it would have been too cost prohibitive, so they waited for this company to finally die (people would switch to DirectTV and AT&T DSL), and now everyone in town can get actual high speed internet and television. This is the biggest problem I have with cable companies, they go into a town, lock it up, and don't innovate. But I also understand wanting to protect your investment of 10s-100s of millions of dollars in a town, expecting to earn it back over 30+ years.

rayiner 8y ago

I feel like people are being shortsighted about municipal fiber. It’s not a one time and you forget it thing. Verizon has upgraded the FiOS network several times since 2005. We have some towns on the eastern shore of MD that did municipal cable, back when that was the state of the art. Those systems are lagging far behind Comcast now because nobody wants to raise rates to generate cash for upgrades. Municipal fiber is a solution to a problem created by the municipalities. The municipalities suppress competition by using their authority over TV regulation to impose build-out requirements. You can’t enter as a competitor without building out to a whole city. No MVPs or niche products. There's also more free-market ways to accomplish the same thing. Stockholm, for example, has quasi-municipal dark fiber. The network was built by a company created by the city for that purpose. While the city owns the company, the city does not run the company, fund it, or control its business strategy (prices, deployment). The company built the fiber network using private capital, charging customers up-front for a hookup, and expanding the network over more than a decade based on demand and revenue potential (e.g. businesses first), rather than politics.

walrus01 8y ago
A properly designed dark architecture for fiber, with small neighborhood powered nodes, can have a 50+ year life... It's the electronics that are going to need replacing. Same whether you build for 1 strand active Ethernet to each CPE or a 1x16 split gpon.
- ams6110 8y ago
  And who in the government of a small town is competent to design such an architecture? Who is competent to hire a competent company to design such an architecture? In the case of my town the answer is nobody. Our municipal internet project has been a boondoggle of incompetence, false starts, and mismanagement. Going on a decade. Meanwhile the people using Comcast or AT&T generally have usable service. I'm not a fan of either company, but at least they're getting the job done.
  - magduf 8y ago

luckydata 8y ago

I despise Comcast like everyone here but I'm not sure I would be so happy about municipal internet service unless there was some way to make it not suck. I'm speaking from experience, I used to live in San Bruno that has San Bruno Cable and it's one of the worst customer support experiences I've ever had in my life. I'm currently living in the East Bay, I have Comcast and while I had my share of issues with them both service and experience has been better. Is it even possible to have good internet service in this country?

Riseed 8y ago
> Is it even possible to have good internet service in this country? Yes. I have zero complaints about sonic.[0] They deliver reliable service at a reasonable price (cheaper than Comcast's intro pricing here), and have stellar customer service and punctual install techs. They also have a history of receiving all 5 stars on EFF's yearly "Who Has Your Back" report [1]. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sonic_(ISP) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sonic_(ISP) [1] https://www.eff.org/who-has-your-back-2017 https://www.eff.org/who-has-your-back-2017
zzzcpan 8y ago
> unless there was some way to make it not suck. There is no way. Highly reliable internet access can only be achieved via multiple independent ISPs including independent last miles. And if high reliability is not important, competition is still the only way to make ISPs care enough for customers not to switch ISPs.

scurvy 8y ago

I find it hilarious that the overwhelmingly "move everything to the cloud" community here is advocating a build-your-own route over outsourcing the job to a massive company.

bronco21016 8y ago

I hate Comcast with a passion and have always fantasized about living in a progressive municipality that provides fiber to the home. However, a few years ago I bought a home and it’s only been over the last 6 months or so I’ve realized how horribly corrupt and mismanaged small city governments can be. We’re being sucked dry by our mayor who hired her cousin as city manager for an exorbitant compensation package. They had no problem spending millions on extravgently updating the city offices but have come to residents with their hands out begging for money through special assessments to fix our roads, storm water drains, and water mains that are unusable for firefighting (and the city does not have a tanker truck). My point is simply that I’m not sure a purely municipal broadband is the panacea we all hope for. In some cases it may be better to stick with the devil you know vs the horribly slow, beaurctatic devil you don’t. I hope that over time we find a municipal model that works well and serves residents with cutting edge broadband. Until then I’ll continue to attempt to vote these clowns out.

bogomipz 8y ago
>"My point is simply that I’m not sure a purely municipal broadband is the panacea we all hope for." I have never heard of it referred to as a "panacea." What it is is an alternative and some competition. I fail to see how having another option where there is now none could ever be worse than "sticking with the devil you know." Look at what either the arrival or even the threat of Google fiber has done is some cable monopoly areas.
roflchoppa 8y ago
You should run for Mayor, I believe in you.
- all2 8y ago
  > bronco21016 for Mayor 2019 Can we do this? How could we put this together? More generally, is he qualified? How do we tell?
  - kevin_thibedeau 8y ago

qwerty456127 8y ago

Whatever, there should better be competition. If one ISP (a big corporation or a municipality) does it a way you don't like and you can't switch to another one that's sad.

nonce413 8y ago

Hey, local news on HN! I'm glad to see Whip City Fiber is spreading so far up north. They started in Westfield (40k people), and then moved to building out local towns that are basically similar kind of "hilltowns" places that have been neglected by Comcast et al for years. Westfield Gas and Electric has been Westfield's municipal power company for as long as I can remember, and I've heard few complaints about their management. This is not their first time providing Internet service, as they used to run a dialup ISP back in the day. The concern about future upgrades is kind of ridiculous in context - the Verizon infrastructure here is still at the bare minimum, with no hope of ever being upgraded. I have no doubt that when the gigabit infrastructure is finally looking outdated and slow, Verizon will be sitting there offering the same "high speed" 3Mbit. That is, if they haven't convinced the feds to allow them to sell the copper for scrap. The service itself is a lone single mode fiber, with a GPON terminal. Installation planning was done by a WG&E employee who even showed up in a bucket truck. Installation was in two parts - one entire contractor to direct bury a flexible conduit with the length of fiber, and a second contractor to complete installation on both sides of the burial. My speed tests show basically full gigabit up/down. (Also, comments by new accounts start off dead now?! I made a throwaway because I'd rather not state my explicit location as part of my main profile)

davexunit 8y ago

This is a tangent but Charlemont is a nice little town situated at the foot of an Applachian mountain along the very scenic route 2. It's well worth driving up and over the mountain (through Florida... the town) into North Adams if you're ever in the area.

jkingsbery 8y ago
I went to college at Williams. We would sometimes drive back from track meets in Boston through Charlemont and Florida, and I always thought there was something cruel about seeing a sign for "Florida" when it was 10 deg (F) outside.. Agreed though, it's a nice drive, and a nice area of the country to visit!

MrTonyD 8y ago

Over a decade ago I worked on software sold to Cable companies. So I had set up a small cable transmission center, and I had followed with interest the cities providing cable. In short, they were doing a great job providing lots of channels at a tiny fraction of the cost - and often free internet too. And some even funded multiple government programs with high end packages at half the cost of Comcast. So I approached my town and offered to travel the US (on my dime) and interview those who had set up cable, to write a report so that my town could use best practices (including how to fight off the cable companies as they try to elect different officials - a standard strategy.) But my town was completely uninterested. It turned out that Comcast had paid money to fund a city department, and that same group made cable related decisions. So they didn't want to rock the boat that was paying them good salaries (to people with absolutely no skills beyond knowing somebody who got them the job.)

jkingsbery 8y ago

A few things I don't get (genuinely, I wish someone would explain to me): 1. Why would the town pay Comcast for Comcast to wire up the town, when Comcast would then turn around and charge residents? It seems like if Comcast wants to provide customers, they should make the investment, no? 2. If Verizon DSL is in town, how is there a monopoly? Would Comcast wiring the town prevent another provider from also wiring the town (in whole or in part)?

rayiner 8y ago
> 1. Why would the town pay Comcast for Comcast to wire up the town, when Comcast would then turn around and charge residents? It seems like if Comcast wants to provide customers, they should make the investment, no? A franchise agreement typically involves Comcast paying the municipality. 5% of gross revenues is standard.[1] > 2. If Verizon DSL is in town, how is there a monopoly? Would Comcast wiring the town prevent another provider from also wiring the town (in whole or in part)? No. Exclusive franchises are illegal under federal law. However, most municipalities do not have ISPs clamoring to build. For example, there was a lot of press coverage when Baltimore renewed its "exclusive" franchise with Comcast.[2] Of course it's not exclusive--it's just that nobody else has ever asked to build a network in Baltimore: > “We’ve, in fact, asked other cable operators if they’re interested in coming into the city and, so far, nobody else is,” says Minda Goldberg, a chief solicitor in the city’s Law Department. [1] E.g. the county where I live: https://www.aacounty.org/departments/oit/forms-and-publications/Comcast_Franchise.pdf https://www.aacounty.org/departments/oit/forms-and-publicati... (Section 6.1). [2] http://www.wypr.org/post/why-comcast-one-and-only-cable-and-internet-option-baltimore http://www.wypr.org/post/why-comcast-one-and-only-cable-and-...
jaxtellerSoA 8y ago
> If Verizon DSL is in town, apples and oranges. Sure technically they are both provide "internet", but this day in age DSL speeds are just plain unacceptable. You might as well make the argument that residents don't have to go with Comcast, they can get AOL.

khana 8y ago

Excellent. Power to the people.

DenisM 8y ago

Me, I'm rooting for 5G broadband. Verizon started the rollout already, T-Mobile can't be far behind. If AT&T joins the fray Comcast will get the bill for all the negative goodwill they were snowplowing on their way to profits. https://www.verizonwireless.com/5g/home/ https://www.verizonwireless.com/5g/home/ https://www.fiercewireless.com/5g/new-t-mobile-s-plans-for-home-fixed-wireless-internet-services-begin-to-take-shape https://www.fiercewireless.com/5g/new-t-mobile-s-plans-for-h...

nonce413 8y ago
5G is a red herring, as 4G would be sufficient. Before Westfield's fiber rollout, I drove around town mapping cell towers hoping to use LTE for home Internet. IMHO they're not really dense enough for such use, especially without directional antennas. Never mind the latency. Also, Verizon is really the only provider that extends into the more rural areas listed, and I doubt they would want to cut into their mobile profits with the rates required to compete with wired access.

onetimemanytime 8y ago

>>About 160 residents voted, with 56 percent rejecting the Comcast offer, according to news reports. If it's done it needs to be done by, say, million+ cities. Where is this small town going to the money to pay each time someone complains or a cable is cut?