5 ms·

Municipal broadband is a great idea. A town near me, Olds, just rolled out gigabit fiber to the curb for $57/mo. Considering most of the other nearby municipal

by ayuvar 12y ago

Municipal broadband is a great idea. A town near me, Olds, just rolled out gigabit fiber to the curb for $57/mo. Considering most of the other nearby municipalities have to live with dialup or (agonizingly slow) satellite internet, it's been a big draw to the area. I think it absolutely makes a ton of sense for rural areas; if I had a remote job it would be very tempting to head out there and get an acreage. I feel like splitting it up and having municipalities responsible for their own infrastructure makes it easier for the common man to get involved, too. You can show up at city council and express an opinion or volunteering for a committee a lot easier than walking into a federal building and doing the same. http://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/small-alberta-town-gets-massive-1-000-mbps-broadband-boost-1.1382428 http://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/small-alberta-town-gets-ma...

debacle 12y ago
> to the curb for $57/mo. What's the setup fee to run fiber 100 feet and into your house to set up the box? Because Verizon did it for free. I still think private competition is better here. Verizon only did it for free because they're trying to tread on Time Warner, which is the way it should be.
- deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]
- ayuvar 12y ago
  According to the provider, the setup fee is $100. http://o-net.ca/about-us/o-net-myth-busting/ http://o-net.ca/about-us/o-net-myth-busting/
- justizin 12y ago
  I think that the city should offer minimal service / support, and that there is opportunity for small or other businesses to buy and resell capacity wholesale, including a more full service install process. Local power monopolies in many areas, at least, have to provide options for alternate power sources. Existing regulated telco monopolies have to let other providers use their infrastructure. I think municipalities should be able to play that role, or to deem it a function of the city / county and contract out for it, letting private players compete in a market with a guaranteed baseline service.
- lukeschlather 12y ago
  Comparable Verizon service appears to cost between $200-$400 a month (though it's available almost nowhere.) At that price you can bet they'll waive a $100 installation fee.
  - acdha 12y ago
    You're talking about Verizon, though – the dslreports.com forums are full of people talking about being charged installation fees even when they've moved into a place which was already wired by the previous occupant. In my neighborhood they ran promos (we have 3 competing high-speed ISPs) but even then some people reported having to call to actually get the correct bill.
    - FireBeyond 12y ago
      That wouldn't surprise me. CenturyLink here did a door to door campaign advertising their Gigabit service. Wouldn't be anything unusual, except for the fact that the nearest address to these doorsteps that could get this service were 55 miles away in Seattle.
- untog 12y ago
  Where I live, I only have one choice of provider - Time Warner. And I can see why Verizon and the like don't get involved - they'd have to invest a ton of money before getting revenue from even a single customer. If the muni wants to step in and provide this service for the public good, I'm all for it.
Alupis 12y ago
> Municipal broadband is a great idea. A town near me, Olds, just rolled out gigabit fiber to the curb for $57/mo. I do wonder if Olds is just covering their costs (likely) or are turning a profit (unlikely) (most municipal initiatives I've seen aimed to provide bandwidth at cost)? The infrastructure is new and shiny now, and works well, but in 15 years what will it look like? Most state highways systems are in atrocious condition, let alone federal interstates. If the municipal is not turning a profit (even a slight one), there might not be incentive/budget to continuously upgrade the infrastructure as new technology becomes available. I think I would prefer a system in-which municipals lay and operate fiber throughout the city, but don't connect to the end users -- instead leaving that up to small ISP's to make the final termination and provide bandwidth (pay for the upstream, etc). This way the fiber can be available to a greater many small ISP's and give them a good footing to compete with the BIG5 and more, while simultaneously providing an incentive to keep the infrastructure current (better than the small ISP's could lay themselves and upgrades paid for by leasing fees from downstream). Something along those lines would spur small business (small ISP) growth while forcing the BIG5 to play more fair since consumers would have a significantly larger selection of ISP's in a relatively short time.
- zaroth 12y ago
  The cost of maintaining a fixed number of lanes of asphalt roadway is fairly constant over time. Impacted by the cost or labor and the price of oil, etc. The cost of maintaining a fixed amount of network bandwidth however, doesn't that decrease more-or-less with Moore's law? Especially if the lines are fiber, the cable can break and need to be replaced, but it never needs to be "upgraded" and the devices at either end will become exponentially more powerful over time for the same cost per port. And to your point, if you the muni is responsible for little more than the fiber line itself, it really is a simple matter to maintain them, i.e. completely predictable cost structure.
  - Alupis 12y ago
    > And to your point, if you the muni is responsible for little more than the fiber line itself, it really is a simple matter to maintain them, i.e. completely predictable cost structure. That's what I was talking about. However, if the muni is responsible for the entire network, ie. routing, dc's, backup generators, upstream bandwidth, CPE devices (home termination routers/wifi access points), etc... those are all costs that might increase and/or be unpredictable, and at the very least will require some sort of re-investment from time-to-time to keep the network "current" in regards to technology used. For example, how many years will the muni get out of the core routers they buy today? It will depend on the quality/upgradability of them when purchased, network demand/load, number of subscribers, future requirements for traffic shaping, etc. Same goes with their switches, load balancers, and other network equipment. The actual lines themselves are unlikely to ever "break" unless someone puts a backhoe through them on a construction site, etc. So they are a relatively fixed-cost. Every home in a city could be "fiber-ready", and once you move in you get a choice of local ISP to use. There would be many local ISP's to choose from, and due to competition among themselves, service quality would increase. Leaving everything to the muni also opens a door for vendors to oversell high margin equipment to the muni, effectively making the local tax-payer and/or subscriber foot the bill with little choice. Allowing small/local ISP's to compete for the "last mile" can reduce that cost burden based on what that particular business chooses to run equipment-wise (and to be competitive, they will strive to do the most with what they have instead of opting for the most expensive offering from the vendor, etc).
pyre 12y ago
> if I had a remote job it would be very tempting to head out there and get an acreage. This sounds nice in theory, but some people wouldn't be able to deal with the isolation. When it comes to working remotely, it becomes too easy to just get stuck in your own world, so you need to force yourself to get out and connect with others. It's one of those things that you probably won't find out until you actually start living in the middle of nowhere and/or working remotely.
- ayuvar 12y ago
  It is a small town, but yeah, even in my larger city this is my primary fear of a pure-remote position.
justizin 12y ago
I agree with making it possible for the common person to get involved, as well. The problem with current Title II negotiations is that they still only involve top-level government officials and corporate execs. I'm afraid of making the rules too vindictive, but that doesn't mean I don't think what's currently happening is shady. Why try to solve the internet forever in one fell swoop? Any such effort is almost certainly doomed to fail. Municipalities sharing what does and does not work over time, and spreading working ideas to new places like wildfire is more like open-source, more agile, and more anarchist, though that's probably not a selling point for most people worded as such. ;)
- deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]
- deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]
brandon272 12y ago
It should be noted that you're not getting gigabit speed for $57 a month. According to their website, their service at 50mbps runs $90 a month. As is mentioned in the CBC article they arrive at the $57 a month figure if you bundle it with TV and phone service.

by ayuvar 12y ago

debacle 12y ago

> to the curb for $57/mo. What's the setup fee to run fiber 100 feet and into your house to set up the box? Because Verizon did it for free. I still think private competition is better here. Verizon only did it for free because they're trying to tread on Time Warner, which is the way it should be.

deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
ayuvar 12y ago
According to the provider, the setup fee is $100. http://o-net.ca/about-us/o-net-myth-busting/ http://o-net.ca/about-us/o-net-myth-busting/
justizin 12y ago
I think that the city should offer minimal service / support, and that there is opportunity for small or other businesses to buy and resell capacity wholesale, including a more full service install process. Local power monopolies in many areas, at least, have to provide options for alternate power sources. Existing regulated telco monopolies have to let other providers use their infrastructure. I think municipalities should be able to play that role, or to deem it a function of the city / county and contract out for it, letting private players compete in a market with a guaranteed baseline service.
lukeschlather 12y ago
Comparable Verizon service appears to cost between $200-$400 a month (though it's available almost nowhere.) At that price you can bet they'll waive a $100 installation fee.
- acdha 12y ago
  You're talking about Verizon, though – the dslreports.com forums are full of people talking about being charged installation fees even when they've moved into a place which was already wired by the previous occupant. In my neighborhood they ran promos (we have 3 competing high-speed ISPs) but even then some people reported having to call to actually get the correct bill.
  - FireBeyond 12y ago
    That wouldn't surprise me. CenturyLink here did a door to door campaign advertising their Gigabit service. Wouldn't be anything unusual, except for the fact that the nearest address to these doorsteps that could get this service were 55 miles away in Seattle.
untog 12y ago
Where I live, I only have one choice of provider - Time Warner. And I can see why Verizon and the like don't get involved - they'd have to invest a ton of money before getting revenue from even a single customer. If the muni wants to step in and provide this service for the public good, I'm all for it.

Alupis 12y ago

> Municipal broadband is a great idea. A town near me, Olds, just rolled out gigabit fiber to the curb for $57/mo. I do wonder if Olds is just covering their costs (likely) or are turning a profit (unlikely) (most municipal initiatives I've seen aimed to provide bandwidth at cost)? The infrastructure is new and shiny now, and works well, but in 15 years what will it look like? Most state highways systems are in atrocious condition, let alone federal interstates. If the municipal is not turning a profit (even a slight one), there might not be incentive/budget to continuously upgrade the infrastructure as new technology becomes available. I think I would prefer a system in-which municipals lay and operate fiber throughout the city, but don't connect to the end users -- instead leaving that up to small ISP's to make the final termination and provide bandwidth (pay for the upstream, etc). This way the fiber can be available to a greater many small ISP's and give them a good footing to compete with the BIG5 and more, while simultaneously providing an incentive to keep the infrastructure current (better than the small ISP's could lay themselves and upgrades paid for by leasing fees from downstream). Something along those lines would spur small business (small ISP) growth while forcing the BIG5 to play more fair since consumers would have a significantly larger selection of ISP's in a relatively short time.

zaroth 12y ago
The cost of maintaining a fixed number of lanes of asphalt roadway is fairly constant over time. Impacted by the cost or labor and the price of oil, etc. The cost of maintaining a fixed amount of network bandwidth however, doesn't that decrease more-or-less with Moore's law? Especially if the lines are fiber, the cable can break and need to be replaced, but it never needs to be "upgraded" and the devices at either end will become exponentially more powerful over time for the same cost per port. And to your point, if you the muni is responsible for little more than the fiber line itself, it really is a simple matter to maintain them, i.e. completely predictable cost structure.
- Alupis 12y ago
  > And to your point, if you the muni is responsible for little more than the fiber line itself, it really is a simple matter to maintain them, i.e. completely predictable cost structure. That's what I was talking about. However, if the muni is responsible for the entire network, ie. routing, dc's, backup generators, upstream bandwidth, CPE devices (home termination routers/wifi access points), etc... those are all costs that might increase and/or be unpredictable, and at the very least will require some sort of re-investment from time-to-time to keep the network "current" in regards to technology used. For example, how many years will the muni get out of the core routers they buy today? It will depend on the quality/upgradability of them when purchased, network demand/load, number of subscribers, future requirements for traffic shaping, etc. Same goes with their switches, load balancers, and other network equipment. The actual lines themselves are unlikely to ever "break" unless someone puts a backhoe through them on a construction site, etc. So they are a relatively fixed-cost. Every home in a city could be "fiber-ready", and once you move in you get a choice of local ISP to use. There would be many local ISP's to choose from, and due to competition among themselves, service quality would increase. Leaving everything to the muni also opens a door for vendors to oversell high margin equipment to the muni, effectively making the local tax-payer and/or subscriber foot the bill with little choice. Allowing small/local ISP's to compete for the "last mile" can reduce that cost burden based on what that particular business chooses to run equipment-wise (and to be competitive, they will strive to do the most with what they have instead of opting for the most expensive offering from the vendor, etc).

pyre 12y ago

> if I had a remote job it would be very tempting to head out there and get an acreage. This sounds nice in theory, but some people wouldn't be able to deal with the isolation. When it comes to working remotely, it becomes too easy to just get stuck in your own world, so you need to force yourself to get out and connect with others. It's one of those things that you probably won't find out until you actually start living in the middle of nowhere and/or working remotely.

ayuvar 12y ago
It is a small town, but yeah, even in my larger city this is my primary fear of a pure-remote position.

justizin 12y ago

I agree with making it possible for the common person to get involved, as well. The problem with current Title II negotiations is that they still only involve top-level government officials and corporate execs. I'm afraid of making the rules too vindictive, but that doesn't mean I don't think what's currently happening is shady. Why try to solve the internet forever in one fell swoop? Any such effort is almost certainly doomed to fail. Municipalities sharing what does and does not work over time, and spreading working ideas to new places like wildfire is more like open-source, more agile, and more anarchist, though that's probably not a selling point for most people worded as such. ;)

deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
deleted 12y ago
[deleted]

brandon272 12y ago

It should be noted that you're not getting gigabit speed for $57 a month. According to their website, their service at 50mbps runs $90 a month. As is mentioned in the CBC article they arrive at the $57 a month figure if you bundle it with TV and phone service.