5 ms·

133 US cities now have their own broadband networks

28 points by abraham 16y ago

darklajid 16y ago
We see similar things here in DE, but the prices are a hell of a lot lower. Over here you get 100M/5M (D/U) and a bundled telephone flatrate for Germany for 45 EUR/month, some choices of AVM products (Fritzbox?) included. I've heard lots reports about broadband being harder to get by/being more expensive in the US. Are these prices ($150 in the article) normal?
- simonsarris 16y ago
  You can find US Broadband price comparisons here: http://www.dslreports.com/shownews/83886 http://www.dslreports.com/shownews/83886 But it varies from place to place. Comcast tends to suck more in towns where it has no competition. In my state (New Hampshire) it has competition from Verizon (or FairPoint now) so we get better speeds for less than other places where comcast decides to have worse speeds for a higher cost.
- jf271 16y ago
  Why should I accept a bundle? Didn't they make IBM stop bundling? I don't need telephone service if I have a cell phone. Stop making me accept it as a part of doing business with a cable company. The US prices at $150 a month include cable TV service with a lot of optional channels.
r00fus 16y ago
If I were a municipality/county, I'd keep a not-so-skunkworks broadband project on the back burner at all times and start pumping out the PR when it comes to negotiating with Comcast. I wonder how many places would already have municipal broadband if Comcast didn't make a sweet deal? Conversely, how many areas don't have municipal broadband because they feel like Comcast would have them over a barrel for cable TV?
- tomkinstinch 16y ago
  Rochester, NY is doing something like this: http://rocwiki.org/Sewer_Fiber_Optic_Network http://rocwiki.org/Sewer_Fiber_Optic_Network
lutorm 16y ago
The whole idea that someone can prohibit cities from building their own infrastructure is the thing I find most amazing every time I read about this topic. Should they also be prohibited from building their own roads?
- jcampbell1 16y ago
  Let's say you strike a deal with a state to build a toll road. They agree, and you borrow a billion dollars, build the road, and start collecting tolls. It doesn't cost the tax payer anything, and the people who use it do so voluntarily. A few years later a politician decides it will be politically popular to build a free road right next to your road, but will simply pay for it with tax dollars. This is not exactly fair to you right? The politician has the power to take the money from constituants by threat of force (you go to jail for not paying taxes). You don't have this power. In foresight of this situation, you get the state to sign an agreement that they will not compete with your highway with taxpayer dollars. They are welcome to build another toll road, but it just can't be subsidized by the tax payer. So yes, there are cases where is makes sense for a government to prohibit itself from building a road.
  - lutorm 16y ago
    This is not exactly fair to you right? Might feel that way, but I don't think citizens have a duty to be fair to businesses. Corporations exist to further the public good, if they don't do that, I have no reason to be fair to them.
- dpatru 16y ago
  You're viewing government as a benevolent force. The reality is that government as an organization is funded through coercion (taxes aren't voluntary). It also protects itself from competition through violence (try competing with any of the "services" provided by a government, the government will shut you down). It also uses violence to further its aims (if government wants your land to build a road, it can just take it (and in the US, if government takes your property, it is mandated by the Constitution to pay you)). A private entity can't do that. In particular, as a user of cable, a private cable company cannot force you to accept and pay for its service. A government-operated cable service could. From the perspective of a private cable company, government competition is unfair. The government does not have to use non-coercive means. It can force people to pay for its service even if they don't want to. In the US, the best illustration of the danger of government enterprises is the public school system. Residents of an area are forced to support the local public schools, even if they send their children to private schools. The long-term loss of human potential of this system is monstrous. The economic waste is pretty bad too. The best way to avoid disasters like the US public school system is to insist that transactions be voluntary. If you want to operate a cable company, fine, do it, but don't expect to be able to use coerced money to fund it or coercion to operate it.
nnmy 16y ago
So, Shrewsbury, MA is on the list and their municipal cable has been around forever. Since I have experience with them, I can tell you that a town owned cable company isn't some sort of panacea. A town owned cable company is like a credit union. It's really cool that they're kinda "on your side". With Comcast and RCN (the other two cable companies I have experience with), I have to be remain on my toes lest they increase my rates. Likewise, they can be mean in that "ha, we're a big company and you don't have any other options" way (even though I'm living in one of the few places that does have two cable companies - RCN and Comcast). However, it can also be annoying. I remember Shrewsbury's cable company being a bit behind the other cable companies in the area in getting us broadband service. It wasn't terribly behind, but when we were on dial-up, it was terribly annoying to see the neighboring towns with their commercial cable companies getting broadband before we did (no matter how small the gap was, when you're on dial up things seem like an eternity ;-)). Their prices are what I would consider "fair". $40 for 10Mbps doesn't seem like gouging, but it isn't exactly cheap. I'm currently paying $20 for 15Mbps - but I know that they'll continually try to up me to $65 and hope I don't complain. Shrewsbury also puts caps on how much you can download. The 10Mbps plan includes 250GB of transfer which is the same limit that Comcast and AT&T use. It's hard for a small provider to handle a couple people that use an outrageous amount and the limit feels like the practical things that a credit union does to make sure that it can serve all its members. They also up your transfer limit as you buy more speed - $50 gets you 15Mbps and 400GB of transfer. And 400GB is a lot of transfer considering that it's about the maximum one can transfer in a month over a fully saturated T1 connection used every second of every day. Heck, they even sell equipment at good rates - an 802.11N router at $40 is a fair price. Their cable rates are similarly "fair" in that they're the honest and genuine prices that they think they can do business at and they're aren't looking to hook you on low teaser rates. The service is pleasant and it's nice to know that you're getting the rate and not getting screwed by not knowing about some hidden deal. However, they don't really beat the speed or pricing of commercial offerings. They currently top out at 50Mbps for just shy of $100/mo while still capping upload at 2Mbps. Comcast is offering that service in my area for a little over $100/mo with 10Mbps upload. RCN is offering 60Mbps at that price range with uploads capped at 6Mbps. There isn't some huge panacea by going with a town-owned system. It's still really cool in the way that credit unions are really cool and, like credit unions, they can sometimes have a real local (and sometimes small) feel to them. That's good and bad. On the one hand, you're usually treated well. These people are your neighbors and if you treat people poorly, it just isn't good for you. It also means that sometimes you don't get the latest cable channels or things aren't as flashy with online portals where you can monitor usage and such. I hate the idea that companies are trying to prevent these types of projects. However, it's also annoying when people who haven't used one of these municipal systems think that these projects mean 100Mbps connections to the home for $20/mo. Think of them like credit unions: they're on your side, they're trying to be nice to you, but they don't change everything. Companies don't (usually) have profit margins of 200%. Some of the lack of profit margin gets eaten by a lack of scale (Comcast has a lot more scale than a municipal project). But it's very relaxing to be a customer of a company that you feel has a fair pricing system - rather than constantly being at odds with a company you feel is trying to screw you.

28 points by abraham 16y ago

We see similar things here in DE, but the prices are a hell of a lot lower. Over here you get 100M/5M (D/U) and a bundled telephone flatrate for Germany for 45 EUR/month, some choices of AVM products (Fritzbox?) included. I've heard lots reports about broadband being harder to get by/being more expensive in the US. Are these prices ($150 in the article) normal?

simonsarris 16y ago
You can find US Broadband price comparisons here: http://www.dslreports.com/shownews/83886 http://www.dslreports.com/shownews/83886 But it varies from place to place. Comcast tends to suck more in towns where it has no competition. In my state (New Hampshire) it has competition from Verizon (or FairPoint now) so we get better speeds for less than other places where comcast decides to have worse speeds for a higher cost.
jf271 16y ago
Why should I accept a bundle? Didn't they make IBM stop bundling? I don't need telephone service if I have a cell phone. Stop making me accept it as a part of doing business with a cable company. The US prices at $150 a month include cable TV service with a lot of optional channels.

r00fus 16y ago

If I were a municipality/county, I'd keep a not-so-skunkworks broadband project on the back burner at all times and start pumping out the PR when it comes to negotiating with Comcast. I wonder how many places would already have municipal broadband if Comcast didn't make a sweet deal? Conversely, how many areas don't have municipal broadband because they feel like Comcast would have them over a barrel for cable TV?

tomkinstinch 16y ago
Rochester, NY is doing something like this: http://rocwiki.org/Sewer_Fiber_Optic_Network http://rocwiki.org/Sewer_Fiber_Optic_Network

lutorm 16y ago

The whole idea that someone can prohibit cities from building their own infrastructure is the thing I find most amazing every time I read about this topic. Should they also be prohibited from building their own roads?

jcampbell1 16y ago
Let's say you strike a deal with a state to build a toll road. They agree, and you borrow a billion dollars, build the road, and start collecting tolls. It doesn't cost the tax payer anything, and the people who use it do so voluntarily. A few years later a politician decides it will be politically popular to build a free road right next to your road, but will simply pay for it with tax dollars. This is not exactly fair to you right? The politician has the power to take the money from constituants by threat of force (you go to jail for not paying taxes). You don't have this power. In foresight of this situation, you get the state to sign an agreement that they will not compete with your highway with taxpayer dollars. They are welcome to build another toll road, but it just can't be subsidized by the tax payer. So yes, there are cases where is makes sense for a government to prohibit itself from building a road.
- lutorm 16y ago
  This is not exactly fair to you right? Might feel that way, but I don't think citizens have a duty to be fair to businesses. Corporations exist to further the public good, if they don't do that, I have no reason to be fair to them.
dpatru 16y ago
You're viewing government as a benevolent force. The reality is that government as an organization is funded through coercion (taxes aren't voluntary). It also protects itself from competition through violence (try competing with any of the "services" provided by a government, the government will shut you down). It also uses violence to further its aims (if government wants your land to build a road, it can just take it (and in the US, if government takes your property, it is mandated by the Constitution to pay you)). A private entity can't do that. In particular, as a user of cable, a private cable company cannot force you to accept and pay for its service. A government-operated cable service could. From the perspective of a private cable company, government competition is unfair. The government does not have to use non-coercive means. It can force people to pay for its service even if they don't want to. In the US, the best illustration of the danger of government enterprises is the public school system. Residents of an area are forced to support the local public schools, even if they send their children to private schools. The long-term loss of human potential of this system is monstrous. The economic waste is pretty bad too. The best way to avoid disasters like the US public school system is to insist that transactions be voluntary. If you want to operate a cable company, fine, do it, but don't expect to be able to use coerced money to fund it or coercion to operate it.

nnmy 16y ago

So, Shrewsbury, MA is on the list and their municipal cable has been around forever. Since I have experience with them, I can tell you that a town owned cable company isn't some sort of panacea. A town owned cable company is like a credit union. It's really cool that they're kinda "on your side". With Comcast and RCN (the other two cable companies I have experience with), I have to be remain on my toes lest they increase my rates. Likewise, they can be mean in that "ha, we're a big company and you don't have any other options" way (even though I'm living in one of the few places that does have two cable companies - RCN and Comcast). However, it can also be annoying. I remember Shrewsbury's cable company being a bit behind the other cable companies in the area in getting us broadband service. It wasn't terribly behind, but when we were on dial-up, it was terribly annoying to see the neighboring towns with their commercial cable companies getting broadband before we did (no matter how small the gap was, when you're on dial up things seem like an eternity ;-)). Their prices are what I would consider "fair". $40 for 10Mbps doesn't seem like gouging, but it isn't exactly cheap. I'm currently paying $20 for 15Mbps - but I know that they'll continually try to up me to $65 and hope I don't complain. Shrewsbury also puts caps on how much you can download. The 10Mbps plan includes 250GB of transfer which is the same limit that Comcast and AT&T use. It's hard for a small provider to handle a couple people that use an outrageous amount and the limit feels like the practical things that a credit union does to make sure that it can serve all its members. They also up your transfer limit as you buy more speed - $50 gets you 15Mbps and 400GB of transfer. And 400GB is a lot of transfer considering that it's about the maximum one can transfer in a month over a fully saturated T1 connection used every second of every day. Heck, they even sell equipment at good rates - an 802.11N router at $40 is a fair price. Their cable rates are similarly "fair" in that they're the honest and genuine prices that they think they can do business at and they're aren't looking to hook you on low teaser rates. The service is pleasant and it's nice to know that you're getting the rate and not getting screwed by not knowing about some hidden deal. However, they don't really beat the speed or pricing of commercial offerings. They currently top out at 50Mbps for just shy of $100/mo while still capping upload at 2Mbps. Comcast is offering that service in my area for a little over $100/mo with 10Mbps upload. RCN is offering 60Mbps at that price range with uploads capped at 6Mbps. There isn't some huge panacea by going with a town-owned system. It's still really cool in the way that credit unions are really cool and, like credit unions, they can sometimes have a real local (and sometimes small) feel to them. That's good and bad. On the one hand, you're usually treated well. These people are your neighbors and if you treat people poorly, it just isn't good for you. It also means that sometimes you don't get the latest cable channels or things aren't as flashy with online portals where you can monitor usage and such. I hate the idea that companies are trying to prevent these types of projects. However, it's also annoying when people who haven't used one of these municipal systems think that these projects mean 100Mbps connections to the home for $20/mo. Think of them like credit unions: they're on your side, they're trying to be nice to you, but they don't change everything. Companies don't (usually) have profit margins of 200%. Some of the lack of profit margin gets eaten by a lack of scale (Comcast has a lot more scale than a municipal project). But it's very relaxing to be a customer of a company that you feel has a fair pricing system - rather than constantly being at odds with a company you feel is trying to screw you.