dslreports logo
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc
uniqs
9
DeLiver3
Premium Member
join:2004-09-01
Cincinnatus, NY
Actiontec F2250
(Software) pfSense

4 recommendations

DeLiver3 to elray

Premium Member

to elray

Re: Muni

I thought we were talking about Leverett, Massachusetts not LA. Look at a map. No municipal sewer, water, or electric. Neither Comcast or Verizon (from the linked article) is providing their customers needs. The voters have spoken and think $25/mo is worth it to overbuild the incumbents. They'll be paying it - not you.

I applaud these communities for the courage to take on these projects.

KrK
Heavy Artillery For The Little Guy
Premium Member
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK

1 recommendation

KrK

Premium Member

You have to excuse elray. He has a list of talking points.

Gain of salt, as they say.
ITGeeks
join:2014-04-20
Cleveland, OH

ITGeeks to DeLiver3

Member

to DeLiver3
It doesn't matter who the city is. It shows that this can NOT be pulled off in terms of what the scope is. Who is going to pay for these new employees to be trained??? Trucks??? equipment to splice the fiber??? These poor citizens are on the hook for more than what they are counting. Poor saps.
Nanaki (banned)
aka novaflare. pull punches? Na
join:2002-01-24
Akron, OH

6 recommendations

Nanaki (banned)

Member

You know honestly the way you talk you sound like your a twc att Comcast etc exec who is afraid of having his toes stepped on by the munis.
elray
join:2000-12-16
Santa Monica, CA

elray to DeLiver3

Member

to DeLiver3
I'm not opposed to a super-majority of the property owners choosing to tax themselves to underwrite capital costs for infrastructure, only the ignorant endorsement of having the government build and operate an ISP.
elray

elray to KrK

Member

to KrK
So you refer to real-world experience and inconvenient truths as "talking points".

We *have* muni fiber.

LA City has a municipal water and power utility.

Both are unmitigated disasters, and neither are answerable to the the people, the ratepayers, the citizens or the taxpayers.
Nanaki (banned)
aka novaflare. pull punches? Na
join:2002-01-24
Akron, OH

Nanaki (banned) to elray

Member

to elray
Actually one of the few things the gov does well is regulate utility companies. The fed is the only reason we are not paying 3x or 4x as much as we do for water gas electric and sewer. The fed treating isps as a utility would set caps on the max a carrier could charge. The fed can also insure quality of service and is say for example in a given state you have cox twc and comcast if comcast was treating their customers like crap and delivering crap service the fed gov could then say well here is what your going to do you are going to fix your issues or we are going to allow twc and cox to bid on service in the effected areas and take it over and you are out of luck.

There are a few electric and gas companies in my area that we can choose from here in ohio. And they both offer about the same service for the same cost. They are afraid that if they do not then the fed will step in and nail them to the wall. Actually ask ohio edison what happens when they over charge customers by a few 100 bucks total over a 20 year period

We got our entire houses electric updated for free new appliances for free hell even new energy efficient cfls for free. All because the electric company for ten years had consistently over charged its customers by between 250 and 2500 bucks in a 10 year period. Total bill we paid for the upgrades zero total cost $18,500 total number of home owners effected around 1000 total who got the same around 1000.

Guess what the electric company does not do any more ?
WhatNow
Premium Member
join:2009-05-06
Charlotte, NC

WhatNow to ITGeeks

Premium Member

to ITGeeks
At $6000 in taxes they should have their costs covered. Most estimates I have seen were in the $2000/ customer range except out in the country which were around $6000. Don't know if the $2k and $6k are valid or not. A town that does not have better then slow dsl will start dying because the kids will not come back when they finish college. That may be true anyway because there are no jobs but no internet will seal the deal.
Nanaki (banned)
aka novaflare. pull punches? Na
join:2002-01-24
Akron, OH

1 recommendation

Nanaki (banned)

Member

i think another thing people do forget. Muni internet will create jobs. Say 2 shifts of 30 each and a 3rd of about half that. That does not sound like allot. But many towns that muni gets tried in are small sub 20k in many cases sub 10k. So you 75 to 80 jobs in such a town is a big deal. In larger towns and cities the number of jobs created will go up depending on how many people live there. More people living there more jobs needed in say customer service. More techs to perform hook ups and maintenance etc. So those who are paying taxes to pay for the new employees in many cases will get a large chunk of their tax money right back in the form of their paycheck.

Not sure on this but such jobs may get a hefty break on city taxes on their paycheck as well.Do to the fact that they are being paid with that tax money.

I honestly can not find any major problems with a municipal isp creation any where in the us. The only people who will be hurt by this are major isps who want to milk their customers for every cent they can and give crap service in return.

With my own 20 years experience in tech in general and computers specifically i would be a shoe in for a job maintaining and installing for a muni isp.
DeLiver3
Premium Member
join:2004-09-01
Cincinnatus, NY

1 recommendation

DeLiver3 to elray

Premium Member

to elray
Are you intentionally being obtuse? LA is not the subject of this muni. Your experience is not relevant. And at the risk of repeating myself, THE VOTERS HAVE SPOKEN.
elray
join:2000-12-16
Santa Monica, CA

elray to Nanaki

Member

to Nanaki
I am not against regulating utilities that are natural monopolies, i.e. water, sewer, electric power and piped gas.

And I have stated many times that there are cases where re-regulation of the last mile - telco and MSO - may be justified, so long as the whining public is fully aware and informed of the consequences of that choice - rates will likely go up, not down, and the threat of competition will be forever lost.

I am opposed to municipal construction, ownership and operation of utilities, including telco, the MSO and ISPs, as government does not have a good track record of honest, transparent and efficient operation in the public interest.
elray

elray to DeLiver3

Member

to DeLiver3
My experience is entirely relevant.

The voters may have spoken, but they know not what they're doing.

I should hope that clearer heads will prevail, and they will save themselves from the perils of the muni; with luck, they won't come begging hat-in-hand, years from now, for a bailout from the rest of us.
DeLiver3
Premium Member
join:2004-09-01
Cincinnatus, NY
Actiontec F2250
(Software) pfSense

DeLiver3 to elray

Premium Member

to elray
said by elray:

I'm not opposed to a super-majority of the property owners choosing to tax themselves to underwrite capital costs for infrastructure, only the ignorant endorsement of having the government build and operate an ISP.

Did you even read the linked article? Or do any research on your own? The government isn't building or operating the system. Nice try, though. "super-majority" is the voice of the people. Keep your resume up to date.
DeLiver3

DeLiver3 to elray

Premium Member

to elray
said by elray:

The voters may have spoken, but they know not what they're doing.

Facts not in evidence. And if it is a total failure - Verizon or Comcast won't take advantage of the plant?
elray
join:2000-12-16
Santa Monica, CA

elray to DeLiver3

Member

to DeLiver3
said by DeLiver3:

[
Did you even read the linked article? Or do any research on your own? The government isn't building or operating the system. Nice try, though. "super-majority" is the voice of the people. Keep your resume up to date.

I'm not against the super-majority of property owners voting to tax themselves to underwrite the facilities - 83% consensus works for me, even if I was in the 17% voting "no".

It is, at the end of the day, a reasonable means to assure the availability of capital even when that same 83% is, ironically, unwilling to pay far less, to attract a private, for-profit entity.

The government is building it, they own it, and they're operating it. Perhaps you should consult the official web site.
davidhoffman
Premium Member
join:2009-11-19
Warner Robins, GA

1 recommendation

davidhoffman to elray

Premium Member

to elray
Would you favor the kind of mandatory regulation requiring local loop unbundling that Japan and other countries have used to foster competition?
DeLiver3
Premium Member
join:2004-09-01
Cincinnatus, NY
Actiontec F2250
(Software) pfSense

DeLiver3 to elray

Premium Member

to elray
said by elray:

The government is building it, they own it, and they're operating it. Perhaps you should consult the official web site.

I did, and didn't come to that conclusion. Got a link?
elray
join:2000-12-16
Santa Monica, CA

elray to davidhoffman

Member

to davidhoffman
I do not favor regulation, period.

But I am open to consideration of re-regulating the local last-mile franchise (MSO or telco), in cases where markets cannot naturally foster competition or are otherwise unprofitable where the locals aren't willing to pay the freight. But such regulation is not without its own perils, as rates will rise to assure the financial integrity of the franchise.

Mandatory regulation requiring local loop unbundling, by definition, cannot and does not foster competition. It is merely a form of wholesale price controls, which never end well.

Note: Leverett isn't intending to unbundle the fiber loop or otherwise offer wholesale access. Once again, the government exempts itself from the very regulations some would have it impose on private industry.
WhatNow
Premium Member
join:2009-05-06
Charlotte, NC

WhatNow to Nanaki

Premium Member

to Nanaki
After the the network is built and most customers are connected I would guess 5 or less total employees. With 632 households 2 outside techs should be able to handle all installs and repairs after initial installs. They may have one inside tech to handle the basic upkeep of the electronics or they may contract that job out. The two outside techs may even do the that work. This town is just up the road from Amhearst so there should be no problem getting tech repair help.
If they get a really good contract company to build the network then they will have very few problems except the electronics for at least 5 years. The only network repairs after they get the initial bugs worked out will be cut cables.

The only real gain in employment will be if people don't leave town because they can work from home and someone starts a business because of the internet speeds.
dutenhnj
join:2002-01-29
Monroe, WI

1 edit

1 recommendation

dutenhnj to elray

Member

to elray
said by elray:

I am not against regulating utilities that are natural monopolies, i.e. water, sewer, electric power and piped gas.

And I have stated many times that there are cases where re-regulation of the last mile - telco and MSO - may be justified, so long as the whining public is fully aware and informed of the consequences of that choice - rates will likely go up, not down, and the threat of competition will be forever lost.

I am opposed to municipal construction, ownership and operation of utilities, including telco, the MSO and ISPs, as government does not have a good track record of honest, transparent and efficient operation in the public interest.

News flash: ISPs are also natural monopolies. Basically anything that brings physical infrastructure (eg: a wire, a pipe or a road) to your house is a natural monopoly and should be regulated as such.

You even say that these are utilities, and yet you are opposed to regulating them as a utility. There is no threat of competition here in the US already because these entities do not compete with each other. Also your argument that rates would go up if these utilities were re-regulated as such is just blowing smoke, other countries have done exactly this and their rates and service are dramatically better than those in the unregulated US.

You also say the government doesn't have a good track record of working in the public interest? So do you still have to climb cliffs and ride horses anytime you want to go somewhere, or do you get in your automobile and drive there on the US's socialized highway/road system? Which by the way if you have ever traveled overseas you would know is actually the best highway system in the world bar none by a huge margin. Sure, the government has a terrible track record if you ignore basically every really important thing it does to bring services to you and your house directly. Things like water, sewer, roads, fire protection, all run with considerably more transparency and efficiency than ISPs and are in the public interest.

NormanS
I gave her time to steal my mind away
MVM
join:2001-02-14
San Jose, CA
TP-Link TD-8616
Asus RT-AC66U B1
Netgear FR114P

NormanS to elray

MVM

to elray
said by elray:

I do not favor regulation, period.

I am pretty certain the investors in PG&E felt the same way before 2010.
LostInWoods
join:2004-04-14

LostInWoods to elray

Member

to elray
said by elray:

Mandatory regulation requiring local loop unbundling, by definition, cannot and does not foster competition. It is merely a form of wholesale price controls, which never end well.

I disagree with this, to an extent. Local loop unbundling DOES promote competition of SERVICES, since the barrier to entry of providing the service is no longer tied to exorbitant cost of creating the (preferably fiber) infrastructure. The competition in services can lessen or perhaps negate the fixed infrastructure costs compared to what we have now.

We need to recognize that in the vast majority of the USA, there is no real competition in the wireline broadband market; a monopoly or duopoly is the norm and they extract as much from their customers as they can, often in sneaky below-the-line unadvertised fees. Telecom is the only business I can think of where there are multiple "cost of doing" business fees (as opposed to true taxes) tacked onto your bill.

I'd like to see broadband policy encourage non-profit coops (similar to EMCs) to build fat dumb pipe fiber infrastructure and open it up - on an equal footing basis - to whatever service providers want to offer bits to fill it. AT&T is welcome to go head-head with Google, AOL, Earthlink, and Windstream (hehehe!) for internet, voice, and/or video services. Comcast would be free to offer their capped services, and customers would be equally free to watch that vestige of monopolist pricing crumble as they go elsewhere.
davidhoffman
Premium Member
join:2009-11-19
Warner Robins, GA

davidhoffman

Premium Member

There are existing cooperatives in the electricity delivery business that have the potential to build FTTH services, but some of them have unique geographic boundaries that make it economically difficult to do so. We have Flint EMC here in central Georgia. They are situated between two major cities, but only provide electricity service to part of those cities. The rest is very rural area. It would be nice to see them do FTTH, but I doubt it will occur for many years, due to the way their service area is shaped.