 RickPremium,MVM
join:2001-02-06
Waterbury, CT | Sorry but.... I see no reason why cities and towns need to get into the fiber business.
The telco's and cable companies as a whole offer reasonably priced options and unless a community is completely without any options at all, it makes sense to let them handle this.
There simply are too many other things on the plates of local governments ranging from roads to schools and many things in between. While some people understandably might want better broadband service than what they currently have, communities spending millions of taxpayer dollars on legal fees just fighting the industry not to mention building out and then properly managing these networks is wasteful spending compared to so many other priorities that local communities face.
With both cox and bell south apparently serving the area in question, there would seem to have been a decent amount of choice and competition for area residents as it is.
I can't speak to bell south but I do know that towns here in Ct. with COX overall seem very happy with them and have speeds up to 15000/2000.
What does fiber really offer that that doesn't?
I just don't see it..nor get it..why a community feels they can out do or improve on something like this.
Or, why the urgent and pressing need is even there.
The bottom line is, unless there is some very compelling reason why people aren't being served such as those that might be found in very rural areas, I think that communities should just stay out of this business.
They should open their doors to competition from the private sector and encourage and insist that they provide the best service possible.
--
The Coyote captured the RR! Roadrunner Rick is now Comcastic! |
|
| You pretty much answered your own question. In many cases the municipal services are coming up because they get tired the empty promises by ILECs for better broadband coverage. So instead of waiting for Ma Bell or a Cableco to fit the bill they do it themselves.
Do you know how long I have been waiting for Project Pronto? Five years. Not very "pronto", is it. Now that Pronto has been scrapped (nice how they actually never roll out the promised project) they are promising the rollout of Project Lightspeed. History tells me they won't lift a finger unless forced to. LaFayette and other communities have the same problems and decided enough was enough.
In a truly fair market there would be no need for municipal fiber projects, but that has never been the case. ILECs control the only telephone infrastructure we have and when they agreed to open it up they turn around and not only say it's unfair to allow competing companies to use their lines they make deliberate attempts to delay their deployment. It's even worse with the cable companies since in over 95% of the U.S. you have only one choice for cable services.
A truly fair market would have a single infrastructure (to help keep property from being dug up by unnecessary and redundant lines) open to any provider willing to pay the line fees. Most municipal fiber services do just that.
If you want to blame somebody for the legals costs to build this project blame the lagging broadband companies that decided to litigate to keep a network offline instead of ramping up deployment of their own network, demonstrating the lack of necessity for a municipal network. |
|
RickPremium,MVM
join:2001-02-06
Waterbury, CT | While I don't disagree with most of your points, I just think that it boils down to a luxury of sorts that communities simply can't afford. And that money would be much better spent somewhere else.
It's not really an issue of who I would want to blame for whatever legal costs. The fact of the matter is, they were there and it's money spent that could have went somewhere else for something much more pressing.
Think about this for a minute. At 1,000.00 per homeowner..a legal bill of 3.5 Million dollars represents ALL the money collected from 3500 homeowners in property taxes. Just to pay some lawyers to fight this issue.
I've worked with homeless people here in Ct. on a volunteer basis for several years and see people all the time sleeping out in 0 degree weather. But yet, a community feels that spending that kind of money on something so people can increase their speeds from 3000k to 15000k is money better spent. With Cox and Bellsouth there..this doesn't seem to be an issue of bringing broadband there..it's one of the local government entering this business to create a luxury of sorts that they can hardly afford, while surely something else will suffer because of it that could have benefited instead.
I also think that in due time the cable and telcos would have gotten around to improving service if it wasn't already. But, in the meantime, people should understand that on a local basis, governments have much more pressing issues than trying to get in a business they have no business being in the first place..much less trying to triple broadband speeds when they're already satisfactory for most people anyway.
Again, in closing..I don't fault people for wanting it..and think they should press their cable and telco's for these things. My issue is with so many other pressing needs facing local governments..and many times life and death ones that I see in my volunteer work..I just can't see them getting in this fight to begin with.
--
The Coyote captured the RR! Roadrunner Rick is now Comcastic! |
|
 morboComplete Your Transaction
join:2002-01-22
00000 | you see it as a luxury. this community sees it as a necessity. this is not to say that all the problems in the area (homeless, crime, etc.) are solved. of course they aren't and they never will be. at the heart of it, people are tired of telco and cableco dragging their feet. if these companies would actually deploy then communities wouldn't need to deploy.
the added bonus of muni is that local money stays local. the community is supporting itself and not the overpaid CEOs of Cox and BellSouth. more local jobs. more local taxes from the workers. etc. circle of life.
the only thing corporations listen to is money. vote with your money: stop giving it to Cox and BellSouth/AT&T. it will make you feel good.  |
|
Ahrenl
join:2004-10-26
North Andover, MA | Shouldn't it be up to the community though? I don't see why your opinion on what another community should do should matter to that community. They VOTED and decided, YES, we would like to build this. Even after incumbents spent more millions spreading deception over true costs and chances of success.
Personally I think it's a terrible idea for the muni to provide the service over the network, and i would vote against that in my community. I do, however, think it's an EXCELLENT idea for the muni to OWN the network, in fact, I think it's the model of how our communications system should be setup. (kind of like our transportation system) With private industry competing to provide service over the local/state/federally owned network. |
|
RickPremium,MVM
join:2001-02-06
Waterbury, CT | said by Ahrenl:Shouldn't it be up to the community though? I don't see why your opinion on what another community should do should matter to that community. lol. I wasn't aware that what I thought did matter to that community.
--
The Coyote captured the RR! Roadrunner Rick is now Comcastic! |
|
| reply to Rick
Luxury or not, they voted and the people spoke.
They saved millions in reduced equipment cost so the legal cost issue is a nonissue.
Sure they may have gotten around to it.... someday. They had their chance. They dropped the ball. Now I hope this runs both of them out of the area completely. |
|
KearnstdElf WizardPremium
join:2002-01-22
Mullica Hill, NJ | reply to Rick
if the corperation doesnt want to deploy then its up to the city to pickup where the lazy ass companies wont do it.
--
[65 Arcanist]Filan(High Elf) Zone: Broadband Reports |
|
