dslreports logo
site
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


Search Topic:
uniqs
495
share rss forum feed

silbaco
Premium
join:2009-08-03
USA

1 recommendation

Muni

If people want faster broadband, let them start up an ISP. With their own money. After all, bandwidth prices are falling and deploying fiber is supposedly much cheaper these days. Or at least there are countless people here who live and breath by that mentality when it comes to why the telcos should deploy fiber.

Problem here is, people want something for nothing. They want their local government to foot the bill. I have to agree that private sector companies shouldn't have to compete with the government. If there is truly need enough, people can start their own ISP or start a cooperative or something of the sort. They can create competition if that's what they want. Nothing is stopping them.



toby
Troy Mcclure

join:2001-11-13
Seattle, WA

said by silbaco:

If people want faster broadband, let them start up an ISP. With their own money. After all, bandwidth prices are falling and deploying fiber is supposedly much cheaper these days. Or at least there are countless people here who live and breath by that mentality when it comes to why the telcos should deploy fiber.

Problem here is, people want something for nothing. They want their local government to foot the bill. I have to agree that private sector companies shouldn't have to compete with the government. If there is truly need enough, people can start their own ISP or start a cooperative or something of the sort. They can create competition if that's what they want. Nothing is stopping them.

The government is their own money.

People are willing to pay.

Saying people should start their own isp is like saying people should build their own power station if they want cheaper power . . .. most people don't know how to do this.

Is there a data line to feed this isp?

Do you consider satellite high speed internet too? 56k X2 modem dialup?

Another case of the, "I got mine, we don't need any help for others"


Brian_M

join:2004-06-19
Manchester, GA
Reviews:
·Charter
·Windstream
reply to silbaco

said by silbaco:

They want their local government to foot the bill.

Umm... where, exactly, do you think that money comes from? Thin air? Might be time to learn about how a government is funded, especially your local government.

I was part of a 5.9mil county project (IT dept for a library renovation) in Wyoming from 2007~2009. Every last cent came from a $0.01 sales tax increase. *I* would gladly add a one or two cent added tax to have a municipal ISP option.

Mostly, I feel like having the OPTION is what's important though. Why install a law stopping someone from doing something that would benefit a community?

silbaco
Premium
join:2009-08-03
USA

2 edits

The idea behind a lot of these projects it that they will turn a profit and pay themselves off. That may or may not happen. Either way, people are not willing to take the risk of the liability, hence is why they want to start a muni. They also want the bill to get footed by the people who have no intention on ever subscribing, such as older couple who are quite happy without the internet should the muni lose money, which it probably will.


Androidian

join:2012-12-14
Purcellville, VA
Reviews:
·Comcast

1 recommendation

reply to silbaco

said by silbaco:

If people want faster broadband, let them start up an ISP. With their own money.

Precisely.

People = community
Their own money = taxpayer funds, which is technically the community's money

I don't necessarily think that a municipal ISP has to run in a manner that provides Internet service to all residents in a community as part of their tax bill. They could do this as a start-up using taxpayer funds as a long-term loan to be paid back, and charge the equivalent of user fees for each person who receives access. Access could be priced at a break-even point, as governments have no need to run with a profit-centered orientation. At the end of the day, the net cost to the taxpayer base as a whole would be zero.

It's clear in many circumstances that for-profit companies won't bring high speed to certain areas. They clearly don't feel that it's profitable (or is profitable enough to meet their target margins), and in many of those cases they're probably right. I see no problem with local governments and possibly others stepping in to provide service where these for-profit companies won't, and also see no issue with them stepping in to provide a competitive alternative to Comcast and the like in areas that are presently being served. This can only increase competition, which ultimately benefits consumers.
--
The only difference between Bush and Obama is the group they're wasting our taxpayer money on. It's time to elect responsible legislators.

silbaco
Premium
join:2009-08-03
USA
reply to toby

Not knowing how to to something is not an excuse. If you want it, you learn.



whiteshp

join:2002-03-05
Xenia, OH
reply to silbaco

This was already tried. Incumbents own all the major backbone feeds and peering points. As soon as someone competes with them in a single market they raise the backhaul rates until they can bankrupt them. Most of the start ups in the 90s found this out the hard way.

No private company CAN compete with a monopoly. They have regulatory capture and they can use their extensive investments to destroy any private company in a single market. Nothing stopping them....
--
--
A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the corporations discover that money can elect representatives to vote themselves a monopoly, buy media to blame 'The Godless' and forced price inflation on the public.


silbaco
Premium
join:2009-08-03
USA

True enough. But muni's are not any more immune to this problem than anyone else.



Simba7
I Void Warranties

join:2003-03-24
Billings, MT
reply to silbaco

Most network engineers and technicians (well, the screwed over ones) would be glad to help.

Heck, I'd be glad to lay the fiber or wire the data center. Just bring in good food and beverages and I'm cool.


robgmartin

join:2013-01-03
Dahlonega, GA
reply to silbaco

The thing is that companies like Windstream can't even provide their advertised speeds. During the afternoons and evenings where I live in Northeast Georgia I am EXTREMELY lucky to get above 1 MBps let alone the 1.5 that this bad bill states is "broadband". On top of that Windstream has absolutely NO competition in my county. According to Comcast they tried to extend service into Lumpkin but were denied by the Georgia Public Service Commission. Although I haven't been able to find the information about it I have heard from others that when Windstream took over from TDS back in 2004 they signed some type of contract that allows them to be the only ISP in Lumpkin. That sucks for us as consumers. So.... Maybe these companies need some type of competition to improve their service. Allowing communities create the option AND competition is what is needed if the Georgia PSC is going to block other types of competition. Instead we have Bills such as this from the Republicans in the Georgia House (and probably created by Windstream and AT&T) preventing any type of competition and hurting us as consumers. We should have choice not monopolies.


johan_hammy

join:2003-08-08
Dekalb, IL
reply to silbaco

HEAR HEAR!


johan_hammy

join:2003-08-08
Dekalb, IL
reply to whiteshp

There are literally thousands of independent ISPs in the USA. It's not that difficult. The incumbents have a shrinking amount of relevance when it comes to the Internet too.


jcondon

join:2000-05-27
Fishkill, NY
Reviews:
·Optimum Online

2 edits
reply to silbaco

said by silbaco:

The idea behind a lot of these projects it that they will turn a profit and pay themselves off. That may or may not happen. Either way, people are not willing to take the risk of the liability, hence is why they want to start a muni. They also want the bill to get footed by the people who have no intention on ever subscribing, such as older couple who are quite happy without the internet should the muni lose money, which it probably will.

What is wrong with letting the towns and cities decide if they want to provide Internet services or not? We aren't talking about requiring them to do so. We are just asking that AT&T, Comcast and the rest not be allowed to block them from doing so. Lots of these areas that they are fighting over are under served. They aren't densely populated so the cable companies and Telcos aren't interested in spending the money to either bring them broadband or upgrade 10+ year old systems.

Yes some muni networks fail hard. But many thrive. Some attract new companies (read jobs and taxes) to come to their towns / cities.

They have an interesting 30 min weekly podcast about Muni based networks. How some of them saved millions by running their own fiber. Others break even but bring modern broadband to those who either otherwise couldn't afford it or couldn't get it even if they could. We aren't talking downtown NYC. We are talking rural areas of the country.

Anyway some here might not know they have a weekly podcast and might find it interesting.

»muninetworks.org/broadbandbits

mocycler
Premium
join:2001-01-22
kudos:1

2 edits

1 recommendation

reply to silbaco

It's a tired old argument. People move to an area where something isn't available then piss and whine for the taxpayers to give it to them.

If broadband is such an awesome "investment", then the town elders should have no problem attracting private investors who will gladly front the money to get things going.

The fact that no ISP wants to service the area should tell you something. The government ---which has zero incentive to do anything efficiently or under budget--- always thinks they have it figured out. Dozens of these muni projects have been tried. Almost none of them ever paid off all their bills and became truly "revenue neutral" much less profitable.

I get a kick out of those who think the government exists to address every possible want and need; that everything is worth doing as long as someone else pays the tab, and/or "it's good for the community".

Everyone who thinks muni broadband is such a great idea should stop flapping their jaws and open their checkbooks.


jcondon

join:2000-05-27
Fishkill, NY
Reviews:
·Optimum Online

said by mocycler:

It's a tired old argument. People move to an area where something isn't available then piss and whine for the taxpayers to give it to them.

If broadband is such an awesome "investment", then the town elders should have no problem attracting private investors who will gladly front the money to get things going.

Many people lived in these areas before the Internet. Check out the podcast I linked to. Many muni networks pay for themselves. Some save the towns millions.

I am not pissing and whining for muni networks were I live. It would be nice yes but I can get FiOS (as of 3 months ago) and DOCIS 3 cablemodem. What I don't like is the telcos and cable companies blocking those towns, counties and cities who WANT to start their own network from doing so especially in areas where the Internet options suck. Either provide decent service at a reasonable rate or let the towns do so. The local government and schools use the Internet and networking between buildings. Some of these muni networks were started because they were being charged crazy money for connecting buildings together. It was cheaper for them to run fiber between all the buildings then pay Comcast to provide the connection between these buildings.

Other muninetworks provide the fiber to the home / business. But allow many different providers to sell services (TV and Internet and phone) over that fiber. Seems a smarter way to go then having many companies running their own lines.

johan_hammy

join:2003-08-08
Dekalb, IL

So then they need to start their own ISP providing those services. If they can't swing it, then the demand obviously isn't there for what they think they need.