5 ms·

De Blasio Makes $70M Commitment Toward Universal Broadband In NYC

70 points by simas 11y ago

smileysteve 11y ago
That seems like not nearly enough money for an underground fiber network.
- Zikes 11y ago
  Some of those costs can be minimized by installing fiber while other utilities and maintenance operations are being performed. Some cities have adopted a "dig once" policy for this, saying every time there is a dig then fiber must also be installed if it is not already in that location. I would also be surprised if a city like New York didn't already have a fair amount of dark fiber available.
  - splitrocket 11y ago
    Almost every residential and commercial building in NYC has fiber running in front of it: http://arstechnica.com/business/2014/06/09/verizon-will-miss-deadline-to-wire-all-of-new-york-city-with-fios/ http://arstechnica.com/business/2014/06/09/verizon-will-miss... That last few feet? Dependent on landlords.
- nostromo 11y ago
  Because it's not. The article mentions this is about providing free wi-fi in poor neighborhoods.
uptown 11y ago
"The way this plan will work is that $25 million will go toward new wireless corridors, which will deliver free or low-cost access to 20,000 low-income households. Another $7.5 million will go to upgrading or expanding at least five existing wireless corridors. Then $1.6 million in state funds will focus on broadband around industrial zones for at least 500 businesses." It's too bad his plan ignores the monopoly TimeWarner has over service to most of his city's customers. If more competition were introduced beyond the sporadic RCN and Verizon FiOS available to some buildings, it might bring down prices for all. I agree that universal broadband access is a net positive - but when the only innovation being introduced is a subsidy it's debatable whether state tax money should be spent to ensure his constituents have free access to watch Netflix and play Candy Crush.
- untog 11y ago
  when the only innovation being introduced is a subsidy it's debatable whether state tax money should be spent to ensure his constituents have free access to watch Netflix and play Candy Crush. That's a pretty uncharitable perspective, no? Giving free internet access to poorer residents will have a lot of impact outside of Candy Crush. And while it would be great to bring more competition to the NYC market, it would cost a lot more than bringing some wi-fi coverage to various areas of the city.
  - splitrocket 11y ago
    Spot on. What's fantastic about this is the open wifi in low income neighborhoods. If you look at Pew stats: http://www.pewinternet.org/2015/04/01/us-smartphone-use-in-2015/ http://www.pewinternet.org/2015/04/01/us-smartphone-use-in-2... Low income folks increasingly have smartphones (income <$30K: 50%) and smartphones are largely their only way to access the internet ("smartphone-dependent" - 13% of Americans in households with income <$30K rely on their phones for internet access, as opposed to 1% for those who make >$70K). My team's research shows that low income folks largely use the internet largely the same way higher income folks do: banking, shopping, research, and yes, gaming. http://labs.robinhood.org/mobile-tech-impact-potential/ http://labs.robinhood.org/mobile-tech-impact-potential/ Anecdotally, the way many people access the internet on their smartphones is camping out at mcdonalds, starbucks, public libraries, etc. with open wifi. Imagine having to walk to the nearest Mcdonalds to do your online banking. These wireless corridors will be transformative.
- rayiner 11y ago
  Competition won't change economic reality. Verizon's average revenue per wire-line user is $125/month (mostly FiOS), and the operating income margin on that is 1-5% in any given quarter. Unless a competitor had fundamentally different economics than Verizon, there's no way it could profitably serve those low-income communities. The city's approach, direct spending focused on deploying cheaper wireless technologies, is the least distortionary and most cost-efficient way to proceed. Better still would be just giving those poor neighborhoods cash and letting them decide whether to spend it on broadband, or food or clothing.

70 points by simas 11y ago

smileysteve 11y ago

That seems like not nearly enough money for an underground fiber network.

Zikes 11y ago
Some of those costs can be minimized by installing fiber while other utilities and maintenance operations are being performed. Some cities have adopted a "dig once" policy for this, saying every time there is a dig then fiber must also be installed if it is not already in that location. I would also be surprised if a city like New York didn't already have a fair amount of dark fiber available.
- splitrocket 11y ago
  Almost every residential and commercial building in NYC has fiber running in front of it: http://arstechnica.com/business/2014/06/09/verizon-will-miss-deadline-to-wire-all-of-new-york-city-with-fios/ http://arstechnica.com/business/2014/06/09/verizon-will-miss... That last few feet? Dependent on landlords.
nostromo 11y ago
Because it's not. The article mentions this is about providing free wi-fi in poor neighborhoods.

uptown 11y ago

"The way this plan will work is that $25 million will go toward new wireless corridors, which will deliver free or low-cost access to 20,000 low-income households. Another $7.5 million will go to upgrading or expanding at least five existing wireless corridors. Then $1.6 million in state funds will focus on broadband around industrial zones for at least 500 businesses." It's too bad his plan ignores the monopoly TimeWarner has over service to most of his city's customers. If more competition were introduced beyond the sporadic RCN and Verizon FiOS available to some buildings, it might bring down prices for all. I agree that universal broadband access is a net positive - but when the only innovation being introduced is a subsidy it's debatable whether state tax money should be spent to ensure his constituents have free access to watch Netflix and play Candy Crush.

untog 11y ago
when the only innovation being introduced is a subsidy it's debatable whether state tax money should be spent to ensure his constituents have free access to watch Netflix and play Candy Crush. That's a pretty uncharitable perspective, no? Giving free internet access to poorer residents will have a lot of impact outside of Candy Crush. And while it would be great to bring more competition to the NYC market, it would cost a lot more than bringing some wi-fi coverage to various areas of the city.
- splitrocket 11y ago
  Spot on. What's fantastic about this is the open wifi in low income neighborhoods. If you look at Pew stats: http://www.pewinternet.org/2015/04/01/us-smartphone-use-in-2015/ http://www.pewinternet.org/2015/04/01/us-smartphone-use-in-2... Low income folks increasingly have smartphones (income <$30K: 50%) and smartphones are largely their only way to access the internet ("smartphone-dependent" - 13% of Americans in households with income <$30K rely on their phones for internet access, as opposed to 1% for those who make >$70K). My team's research shows that low income folks largely use the internet largely the same way higher income folks do: banking, shopping, research, and yes, gaming. http://labs.robinhood.org/mobile-tech-impact-potential/ http://labs.robinhood.org/mobile-tech-impact-potential/ Anecdotally, the way many people access the internet on their smartphones is camping out at mcdonalds, starbucks, public libraries, etc. with open wifi. Imagine having to walk to the nearest Mcdonalds to do your online banking. These wireless corridors will be transformative.
rayiner 11y ago
Competition won't change economic reality. Verizon's average revenue per wire-line user is $125/month (mostly FiOS), and the operating income margin on that is 1-5% in any given quarter. Unless a competitor had fundamentally different economics than Verizon, there's no way it could profitably serve those low-income communities. The city's approach, direct spending focused on deploying cheaper wireless technologies, is the least distortionary and most cost-efficient way to proceed. Better still would be just giving those poor neighborhoods cash and letting them decide whether to spend it on broadband, or food or clothing.