3 ms·

> where municipal representatives for poor neighborhoods torpedo fiber build-out across the whole city. But that's an issue for the city government to address

> where municipal representatives for poor neighborhoods torpedo fiber build-out across the whole city. But that's an issue for the city government to address internally, perhaps by means of negotiating a deal involving some other issue that those representatives also care about. That's how city government works. This isn't exactly the only case in which neighbourhoods within a city or town have conflicting interests in local government[0]. I don't see yet why this one in particular should be special-cased (by allowing the FCC to bypass city/town governance). [0] Arguably, that describes all of local government.

rayiner 12y ago
What deal could representatives make that fixes the problem? Someone has to pay to service those poor neighborhoods, and it'll be the ISP's shareholders only if they can make outrageous amounts of money on the remaining subscribers. Otherwise, the options are public money, or no fiber. Most cities are broke, so the former option is off the table, so in practice the result is no fiber for anyone.
- extra88 12y ago
  Now that there's Title II categorization, maybe it'll be addressed the way telephone roll-out was, was a "universal access" tax added to broadband bills to fund extending the infrastructure to less profitable areas.
  - deleted 12y ago
    [deleted]
- nitrogen 12y ago
  If Internet access is an essential utility, and the city can't reach an agreement with ISPs, then the city itself should pay. This is what many cities are already doing, and the state laws prohibiting municipal networks are the issue addressed by the FCC.
  - tptacek 12y ago
    How are they supposed to pay for Internet buildout when they're running 8-9 figure deficits servicing 9-10 figure debt loads, watching their municipal bonds downgraded, and scrambling to figure out how to pay down defined-benefit pension plans to firefighters, police officers, and teachers?
    - nitrogen 12y ago
      Not all cities are in such a position. Fixing crushing debt is not an Internet problem, it's a governance problem.
      - tptacek 12y ago
        Name a major US city in a strong position to build out fiber Internet at their own expense and we can drill into the numbers. Before I wrote, I pulled up the general fund numbers (debt load and deficit) for the 5 biggest US cities, and a couple random cities down around #15. I was going to write up a little table, but got pulled into a meeting. This is one of those discussions where we have the benefit of actual numbers to work from. They're just a Google search away. If you're right, this should be an easy debate for you to win. Slightly later Figuring that the top 10 cities might put your argument at a disadvantage (it's harder to run a giant city than a smaller one and obviously more expensive to roll fiber out in one), I checked the next 10 cities on the list (by population). Quick observations: * San Jose - huge deficits, pension crisis, closing police stations. * Austin - like all the cities in Texas they seem to be doing OK. * Indianapolis - 8 figure deficit, funding the city from reserves. * Jacksonville - small deficit, service and pay cuts to keep the budget balanced. * San Francisco - mid-high 8 figure deficits. * Columbus - hard to find figures, probably doing OK. * Charlotte - seems to be doing OK * Fort Worth - Texas, seem to be doing OK * Detroit - Heh * El Paso - Texas, seems to be doing OK * Memphis - 8 figure deficit, service cuts.
        nitrogen 12y ago
        It's interesting that the major cities in Texas are doing OK. Even for those that aren't doing OK, I'd propose that adding fiber rollout to the city's utility maintenance budget is the right thing to do in the absence of a better alternative.

rayiner 12y ago

What deal could representatives make that fixes the problem? Someone has to pay to service those poor neighborhoods, and it'll be the ISP's shareholders only if they can make outrageous amounts of money on the remaining subscribers. Otherwise, the options are public money, or no fiber. Most cities are broke, so the former option is off the table, so in practice the result is no fiber for anyone.

extra88 12y ago
Now that there's Title II categorization, maybe it'll be addressed the way telephone roll-out was, was a "universal access" tax added to broadband bills to fund extending the infrastructure to less profitable areas.
- deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]
nitrogen 12y ago
If Internet access is an essential utility, and the city can't reach an agreement with ISPs, then the city itself should pay. This is what many cities are already doing, and the state laws prohibiting municipal networks are the issue addressed by the FCC.
- tptacek 12y ago
  How are they supposed to pay for Internet buildout when they're running 8-9 figure deficits servicing 9-10 figure debt loads, watching their municipal bonds downgraded, and scrambling to figure out how to pay down defined-benefit pension plans to firefighters, police officers, and teachers?
  - nitrogen 12y ago
    Not all cities are in such a position. Fixing crushing debt is not an Internet problem, it's a governance problem.
    - tptacek 12y ago
      Name a major US city in a strong position to build out fiber Internet at their own expense and we can drill into the numbers. Before I wrote, I pulled up the general fund numbers (debt load and deficit) for the 5 biggest US cities, and a couple random cities down around #15. I was going to write up a little table, but got pulled into a meeting. This is one of those discussions where we have the benefit of actual numbers to work from. They're just a Google search away. If you're right, this should be an easy debate for you to win. Slightly later Figuring that the top 10 cities might put your argument at a disadvantage (it's harder to run a giant city than a smaller one and obviously more expensive to roll fiber out in one), I checked the next 10 cities on the list (by population). Quick observations: * San Jose - huge deficits, pension crisis, closing police stations. * Austin - like all the cities in Texas they seem to be doing OK. * Indianapolis - 8 figure deficit, funding the city from reserves. * Jacksonville - small deficit, service and pay cuts to keep the budget balanced. * San Francisco - mid-high 8 figure deficits. * Columbus - hard to find figures, probably doing OK. * Charlotte - seems to be doing OK * Fort Worth - Texas, seem to be doing OK * Detroit - Heh * El Paso - Texas, seems to be doing OK * Memphis - 8 figure deficit, service cuts.
      - nitrogen 12y ago
        It's interesting that the major cities in Texas are doing OK. Even for those that aren't doing OK, I'd propose that adding fiber rollout to the city's utility maintenance budget is the right thing to do in the absence of a better alternative.