4 ms·

Cool! So where is the funding going to come from for the hard stuff like long term upgrades and maintenance? Are the citizens of Oswego County going to accept a

Cool! So where is the funding going to come from for the hard stuff like long term upgrades and maintenance? Are the citizens of Oswego County going to accept a tax increase down the line, or will maintenance be deferred indefinitely until they need to be bailed out by the state?

oneplane 2y ago
If you read the article, and then read the referenced report, you can see that long term planning is included, which also covers maintenance and upgrades. None of those are new issues or unsolved problems. It's not core to the issue of broadband access at all.
- threemux 2y ago
  [flagged]
  - eightysixfour 2y ago
    > Oswego County will own the broadband network and make it available for lease to internet service providers, including Empire Access, on a non-discriminatory and non-exclusive basis. The revenue generated from these leases will support the network's ongoing maintenance and future expansion. This innovative public infrastructure model ensures sustainable, affordable access while promoting competition among service providers. From the first link in the article.
    - asow92 2y ago
      Subscriber to Empire Access here. They've been expanding all over upstate NY. They have been a joy to work with. Far better than the only other previous option being Spectrum.
  - noelwelsh 2y ago
    "Oswego County will own the broadband network and make it available for lease to internet service providers, including Empire Access, on a non-discriminatory and non-exclusive basis. The revenue generated from these leases will support the network's ongoing maintenance and future expansion." https://www.governor.ny.gov/news/governor-hochul-announces-26-million-connectall-investment-expand-affordable-broadband-access https://www.governor.ny.gov/news/governor-hochul-announces-2...
    - threemux 2y ago
      I see - so it depends on private companies profitably providing service to rural residents.
      - hmmm-i-wonder 2y ago
        It would be a cost to those companies to lease the lines. Whether those companies are profitable or not is up to their business models. Those companies didn't/wont invest in the infrastructure to start with, which is why this initiative exists in the first place. You think you have some sort of gotcha argument against this but you keep missing it (largely from being uninformed on the subject). Private companies aren't investing to build the infra to remote areas due to recovery cost timelines. The Govt is providing funding to build the infra alongside private partnerships to fund the maintenance and operation of the system. There is very little downside here, if anything it avoids monopolistic control due to infrastructure investments required to service areas by providing the infra companies can then leverage in their business model. Very similar to roads, powerlines and other things we take for granted daily that are fundamental to the operation and success of private companies.
        threemux 2y ago
        It's not at all similar to roads, the Dulles Greenway notwithstanding. Not really similar to power either. I'm aware of how this arrangement works and why government would want to create and own the infrastructure in an attempt to attract investment. There is no attempt at a "gotcha" argument, just dispensing with the Panglossian notion that this will definitely work long term. It might!
        hmmm-i-wonder 2y ago
        Its similar to roads in a lot of ways, one of the important ones is that there is a civil/social utility in ensuring even remote people are "connected" by road or internet to the rest of the country/world, often at a cost to the society outside of private profit. So the idea that it needs to be self-sustainable or profitable to be considered working is myopic. The completion/connection of the people is the achievement, the sustainability and integration with private companies hopefully reduces the government burden and enables innovation and competition without the need for vast capital expenditures.
- doctorpangloss 2y ago
  > It's not core to the issue of broadband access at all. What is?
  - Arubis 2y ago
    Upfront capital investment. Right of way.
cavisne 2y ago
FTTH infrastructure is very low maintenance once built, its mostly passive fiber optic cables that don't degrade. The electronics on either end last a long time too. The issue with FTTH is the build can be very expensive, you need to either work with an existing utility or dig trenches through an entire neighborhood, and each end user install is a mini construction project. Thats why community FTTH makes a lot of sense, a small team does that negotiation with the utility, and uses that to be build a business case.
janalsncm 2y ago
Privatizing the infrastructure doesn’t solve that problem. It only means that some entity will extract profits on top of the maintenance cost. A publicly-owned service can operate at-cost.
adgjlsfhk1 2y ago
> So where is the funding going to come from for the hard stuff like long term upgrades and maintenance form the price of internet service. That said, one of the really nice things about fiber deployments is that they need a lot fewer upgrades than coax. Fiber has way way way higher bandwidth, so once you've deployed it, the maintenance is cheaper than coax where the ISP has to do a ton of work to shuffle around bandwidth caps.
philjohn 2y ago
Did you miss the part where people pay for their broadband connection? Recurring income is usually used by internet service providers for ongoing maintenance. Or do you think the price paid is too low to support ongoing maintenance? In which case ... that doesn't appear to be the case from other FTTP providers that have sprung up over the years ... it points to price gouging from monopoly incumbents.

oneplane 2y ago

If you read the article, and then read the referenced report, you can see that long term planning is included, which also covers maintenance and upgrades. None of those are new issues or unsolved problems. It's not core to the issue of broadband access at all.

threemux 2y ago
[flagged]
- eightysixfour 2y ago
  > Oswego County will own the broadband network and make it available for lease to internet service providers, including Empire Access, on a non-discriminatory and non-exclusive basis. The revenue generated from these leases will support the network's ongoing maintenance and future expansion. This innovative public infrastructure model ensures sustainable, affordable access while promoting competition among service providers. From the first link in the article.
  - asow92 2y ago
    Subscriber to Empire Access here. They've been expanding all over upstate NY. They have been a joy to work with. Far better than the only other previous option being Spectrum.
- noelwelsh 2y ago
  "Oswego County will own the broadband network and make it available for lease to internet service providers, including Empire Access, on a non-discriminatory and non-exclusive basis. The revenue generated from these leases will support the network's ongoing maintenance and future expansion." https://www.governor.ny.gov/news/governor-hochul-announces-26-million-connectall-investment-expand-affordable-broadband-access https://www.governor.ny.gov/news/governor-hochul-announces-2...
  - threemux 2y ago
    I see - so it depends on private companies profitably providing service to rural residents.
    - hmmm-i-wonder 2y ago
      It would be a cost to those companies to lease the lines. Whether those companies are profitable or not is up to their business models. Those companies didn't/wont invest in the infrastructure to start with, which is why this initiative exists in the first place. You think you have some sort of gotcha argument against this but you keep missing it (largely from being uninformed on the subject). Private companies aren't investing to build the infra to remote areas due to recovery cost timelines. The Govt is providing funding to build the infra alongside private partnerships to fund the maintenance and operation of the system. There is very little downside here, if anything it avoids monopolistic control due to infrastructure investments required to service areas by providing the infra companies can then leverage in their business model. Very similar to roads, powerlines and other things we take for granted daily that are fundamental to the operation and success of private companies.
      - threemux 2y ago
        It's not at all similar to roads, the Dulles Greenway notwithstanding. Not really similar to power either. I'm aware of how this arrangement works and why government would want to create and own the infrastructure in an attempt to attract investment. There is no attempt at a "gotcha" argument, just dispensing with the Panglossian notion that this will definitely work long term. It might!
        hmmm-i-wonder 2y ago
        Its similar to roads in a lot of ways, one of the important ones is that there is a civil/social utility in ensuring even remote people are "connected" by road or internet to the rest of the country/world, often at a cost to the society outside of private profit. So the idea that it needs to be self-sustainable or profitable to be considered working is myopic. The completion/connection of the people is the achievement, the sustainability and integration with private companies hopefully reduces the government burden and enables innovation and competition without the need for vast capital expenditures.
doctorpangloss 2y ago
> It's not core to the issue of broadband access at all. What is?
- Arubis 2y ago
  Upfront capital investment. Right of way.

cavisne 2y ago

FTTH infrastructure is very low maintenance once built, its mostly passive fiber optic cables that don't degrade. The electronics on either end last a long time too. The issue with FTTH is the build can be very expensive, you need to either work with an existing utility or dig trenches through an entire neighborhood, and each end user install is a mini construction project. Thats why community FTTH makes a lot of sense, a small team does that negotiation with the utility, and uses that to be build a business case.

janalsncm 2y ago

Privatizing the infrastructure doesn’t solve that problem. It only means that some entity will extract profits on top of the maintenance cost. A publicly-owned service can operate at-cost.

adgjlsfhk1 2y ago

> So where is the funding going to come from for the hard stuff like long term upgrades and maintenance form the price of internet service. That said, one of the really nice things about fiber deployments is that they need a lot fewer upgrades than coax. Fiber has way way way higher bandwidth, so once you've deployed it, the maintenance is cheaper than coax where the ISP has to do a ton of work to shuffle around bandwidth caps.

philjohn 2y ago

Did you miss the part where people pay for their broadband connection? Recurring income is usually used by internet service providers for ongoing maintenance. Or do you think the price paid is too low to support ongoing maintenance? In which case ... that doesn't appear to be the case from other FTTP providers that have sprung up over the years ... it points to price gouging from monopoly incumbents.