Municipal Pugilism > It won't matter...

It won't matter...

I have to disagree if SBC/Comcast make voters think they are the better choice when the vote is over. The communities will suffer because once SBC/Comcast knows they have those areas. They will take there sweet time in getting the service out to everyone.

Municipal Broadband is a great idea!!

They're already building it - many areas are already done. The COs are lit for DSL, many cable subscribers already have cable modems. Can everybody get everything? No, but join the rest of us.

reply to kmoss

said by kmoss:

---

By then, Comcast will have upgraded the local infrastructure and be offering 3500/384k for next to nothing just to blow the municipality away.

---

reply to kmoss
They may be building it, but it should have been built long ago. One of the main reasons why Batavia, Geneva, and St. Charles picked ATTBB as a cable provider was that they promised the cities that they would upgrade the area if they signed with them. They lied and are now paying for it.

reply to KrK
Yes, and the taxpayers who live in those towns who want nothing to do with high speed internet won't have to worry about anything - at the expense of the 10% of people who live there that want broadband.

reply to FrankL6
Upgrade it to what? When were these promises made? Just playing devils advocate here, but I want proof that ATT broadband promised a system upgrade on a specific timetable. Then, why the $62 million initiative? What about a class action lawsuit instead for failure to provide services as advertised?

reply to kmoss

said by kmoss:

---

Yes, and the taxpayers who live in those towns who want nothing to do with high speed internet won't have to worry about anything - at the expense of the 10% of people who live there that want broadband.

---

reply to kmoss
AT&T said they were going to upgrade the systems which would allow them to provide broadband internet, and HDTV. I remember reading this in the paper when the cities were planing to sue AT&T, but I don't think you can sue a company that doesn't exist anymore. No, I don't have any proof, so if you don't want to believe me, then fine. But I doubt the cities just decided to build a cable network out of sheer spite.

I believe you that the towns in question probably were told that an upgrade would take place, but I would wager that this was never stipulated in the cable tv contracts. ATTBI was "merged" with Comcast, but the Tricities initiative started well before this merger took place - leaving plenty of opportunity to file a lawsuit. Could these towns ever even sue ATT for breach of contract? Who knows, but I'd rather force my supplier to provide services promised in a contract rather than risk $62 million to do it myself.

Decided to build this out of sheer spite? No, but remember, they haven't built anything yet. It's my personal belief that this initiative was started way back when simply to "scare" SBC or Comcast into upgrading their networks - and it worked. Now, with the slander campaign started, they may have no choice but TO build this redundant network.

reply to kmoss
10%???? That's NOT what the numbered survey said. And it's not about want. It's about keeping the businesses we have here and attracting new business to town to generate revenue. Businesses here are BEGGING for broadband and need it. They pay for T1 lines out here for $750/mo on up. For the small biz owner that's just not viable to pay after paying rent.

It's not just high-speed Internet. It's cable (cheaper than Comcast and more channels etc...) and phone to. And services are offered to your home AND to businesses.

Over 100 years ago people were saying...."Hey, that electricity thing is going to be obsolete and not be used by everyone in 10 years! Don't build that electric utility." But we did, and our prices for electric service is vastly lower than those paying for Com Ed.

reply to kmoss
I agree that it might have started out as a scare tactic, but judging by their website, they seem to now be serious about it. I hope that at the very least, it serves as a wake up call to Comcast and SBC so that they upgrade more areas and improve their service before other towns do the same.

reply to kmoss
Duh, how many have Cable TV? Phone service?

I think you'll find the adoption rate is a *little* higher then 10%.

reply to Octopussy2
I don't take surveys for that much - the tricities website has all of 131 people registered who are actively lobbying for and pushing this legislation - so 10% may actually be HIGH. Surveys are one thing - getting people to pay for service is something else altogether. As far as business is concerned - to think that broadband will determine where a business locates is ridiculous. Businesses that rely on internet connecitivity should only be using T-1s based on the SLA. DSL is just not up to par with their "best effort" SLA. Besides, for small business, IDSL is available everywhere in the tricities and some providers charge only around $100 for it - they come with static IPs, can be networked easily, and are good overall for the small business. Electricity is a necessity of life today, internet connectivity is not. You're comparing apples and oranges.

As far as your claim of businesses "BEGGING" for connectivity, it's just plain not true. An acquaintance of mine contacted St. Charles chamber of commerce to promote IDSL to the local businesses and got NO RESPONSE WHATSOEVER.

Anecdotal evidence. Next!

reply to kmoss
IDSL? Who wants that?

You're also trying to encourage small business, not drive it away. "Well what you need it a T1. And we'll run it right into your cardboard box. Oh that's your office? That's right...you've got to pay for your T1"
[text was edited by author 2003-03-25 22:06:48]

reply to kmoss
The Batavia Chamber of Commerce has fully endorsed this project and sent their letter stating that fact to the newspapers. If you read the letter you will see that the businesses in the Tri-Cities want this! They are asking for TCBB!

Maybe STC doesn't want to "promote" IDSL because it's too slow and too expensive. Too much $ for not enough speed. Why would ANY business want to pay more for less?

If you knew anything about internet connectivity, you'd know that kbps is not the speed, but capacity of the line. Too slow? Please. IDSL is fine for business activities such as emails, webhosting, running email servers, etc. SBCs cheapest DSL with static IPs is $65 per month, and that actually has less upstream capacity than IDSL. Combine that with the fact that since IDSL bypasses the PSTN, it has lower latency. So, many IDSL users out there actually have FASTER internet experiences via IDSL than the biggest, most expensive cable or ADSL connections.

As one who's served by this particular switch, the max I can get on IDSL is 144K. Why bother? That's not high speed and I certainly wouldn't want to web servers on it.

Almost all of St. Charles would be in the same boat I am. I wouldn't pay that much for that little either.

Once again, 144k is not the speed, but the capacity. 144k is plenty for the average small business to network a few machines together and conduct business. Latency is lower on IDSL, so yes, it is high speed. $100 month isn't that bad for a business. If you're a business and you can't afford that, then get dial up. Can you download Lord of the Rings over IDSL? Sure, but it would take longer - but we're talking about businesses here. Plenty of businesses use IDSL to run VPN and mail servers and have no problem. I have IDSL and my connection frequently outperforms my friends cable connection in stability and latency every single time. Advocates of the fiber buildout in the tricities area want their government to spend $62 million for what? So residents can play internet games and download porn? When are these politicians gonna wake up?