dslreports logo
 story category
A Decade Later, Mass. Broadband Coverage Gaps Persist

Way back in 2005 we profiled the Massachusetts towns of Shutesbury and Leverett, two shining examples of the kinds of U.S. towns that have fallen into broadband connectivity black holes. Large regional providers like Verizon didn't want to upgrade the markets (Boston still hasn't been upgraded to FiOS), and could barely be bothered to keep aging copper in the region fully functional. A decade later and the Washington Post explores how many of these communities are either still waiting, or are exploring building their own broadband networks.

Click for full size
The Post profiles a group called WiredWest that's doing everything in its power to bring broadband Internet to Western Massachusetts, and an upcoming vote on whether 30 communities should pay for their own service:
quote:
In about 30 communities up and down the hilly spine of Western Massachusetts, voters this year will decide whether to spend tax dollars to build out the “final mile” of broadband — the fiber-optic link that brings service from the so-called “middle mile” trunk to the home. The state is providing $40 million in bond funds to help offset local costs, but municipalities must fund the rest of the effort. The project is expected to cost between $112 and $119 million and will be built by MBI.
Of course telling these locals to "move" wasn't really helpful ten years ago, and it remains unhelpful now. One thing going for these Massachusetts locals, they're one state that doesn't face ISP-lobbied for restrictions preventing communities from wiring themselves. Verizon gave up on lobbying against municipal broadband efforts several years back after running into brick walls in a number of Northeast states.

view:
topics flat nest 

ctaranto
join:2011-12-14
MA

ctaranto

Member

Local broadband

What are these communities waiting for? It has been obvious for years that Verizon, Comcast, RCN, etc. do not want anything to do with the western portion of the state. The population density (and perhaps topography) make it difficult to make a healthy profit. It's not worth their effort.

The residents of these communities should have been demanding local broadband service for the past 7 years. If they have and the communities have been ignoring the plea, then shame on the community leadership.

MuniFTW
@verizon.net

MuniFTW

Anon

Re: Local broadband

said by ctaranto:

The residents of these communities should have been demanding local broadband service for the past 7 years. If they have and the communities have been ignoring the plea, then shame on the community leadership.

Because they are balancing their tax $$ "demands" between education for their children, police and fire support.

ctaranto
join:2011-12-14
MA

1 recommendation

ctaranto

Member

Re: Local broadband

Shouldn't muni-broadband be a "profitable" investment (if planned and executed properly), unlike the others you mentioned? At worst, it should be break-even.

If broadband is a must-have, propose tax increases and vote on it. If it is rejected, the residents do not want it bad enough and shouldn't complain. If it passes, they have their money.

Perhaps I am simplifying it, but there are ways to deal with situations like this.

I feel these towns were (foolishly) just waiting for an ISP to come marching in and save the day.

hello123454
Premium Member
join:2002-02-02
21845

hello123454

Premium Member

Re: Local broadband

Thank you...

Been saying this for a long time. It's because most people and governments think they can force businesses to be what they want them to be and solve their social issues.

The right way to do it is to be pro-active and go get what you want yourself.

I hope they wait years and years for Verizon.

vpoko
Premium Member
join:2003-07-03
Boston, MA

vpoko to ctaranto

Premium Member

to ctaranto
Even if it's break-even (or better) eventually, it'll be several years until they get to that point because of the up-front capital investment. It's probably worth doing if the towns want to remain competitive for businesses (and even just to be places where people want to live), but it does take cash away from other priorities.
tmc8080
join:2004-04-24
Brooklyn, NY

tmc8080 to MuniFTW

Member

to MuniFTW
If they want it bad enough, they'll just add a line item to EVERY property owner in the state/municipality.. call it the muni broadband line item $20 per $50k of land/property value. While the data is sketchy, muni's that dont' have a 21st century broadband provider will see far less economic development and tax base than those that do... they will have to decide when enough lost economic development is worth the muni taxes to go from abandoned incumbents who do nothing to a 21st century network. Plenty of muni's are even lining up to kiss the Google ring..

Selenia
Gentoo Convert
Premium Member
join:2006-09-22
Fort Smith, AR

Selenia to ctaranto

Premium Member

to ctaranto
As somebody who lived there quite a few years, I can say Verizon, at least, does not want anything to do with any of the state. Why? They started a pouting piss match when Massachusetts told them to pay their back taxes. That is why Boston lacks FIOS. Verizon hates paying taxes.

hello123454
Premium Member
join:2002-02-02
21845

hello123454

Premium Member

Re: Local broadband

I hear that a lot. But then isn't the problem enforcement of law? Everything always points back to special interest groups, incumbents, etc. Yet we always focus on the company. Now I'm not naive and realize a lot of the time they are one in the same. But still the obvious issue is in front of us.

Selenia
Gentoo Convert
Premium Member
join:2006-09-22
Fort Smith, AR

Selenia

Premium Member

Re: Local broadband

Well MA did enforce the law and what happened? Verizon did no FIOS after the very first deployments before the law got enforced, which answers the other poster as well as to how Cambridge has it.

vpoko
Premium Member
join:2003-07-03
Boston, MA

vpoko to Selenia

Premium Member

to Selenia
Cambridge has FIOS, though, as do other greater Boston towns/cities, so it's not a state-wide shunning. IIRC, the late Mayor Menino and Verizon had a long-standing disagreement of some kidn and that's why Boston, specifically, lacks FIOS while its neighbors have it.

anon
@myfairpoint.net

anon to ctaranto

Anon

to ctaranto
"make it difficult to make a healthy profit. It's not worth their effort."

Both Verizon and Comcast have the funds to completely cover the entire United States multiple times over and still make huge profits every year.
openbox9
Premium Member
join:2004-01-26
71144

openbox9

Premium Member

Re: Local broadband

Look at the balance sheets; they don't "have the funds".

muniFTW
@verizon.net

muniFTW

Anon

Good for them!

As they put the investment to build this they should also look at all the challenges others have had in the past about a long term muni business plan to address growth and maintenance beyond just laying the core fiber. (as should the Gov officials funding this)

I don't have much confidence that a gov run network infrastructure is realistic. They could fund just enough of this to bid the running/support/services out across VZ, AT&T, Comcast, Google and others.

Zenit_IIfx
The system is the solution
Premium Member
join:2012-05-07
Purcellville, VA

4 recommendations

Zenit_IIfx

Premium Member

Re: Good for them!

Why the hell would you give it to VZ to use, when for 10 years they refused to service these communities?

Don't let them have a cut of the pie, they did not earn it. They had their chance.

muniFTW
@verizon.net

muniFTW

Anon

Re: Good for them!

1) Because they refused for the right reasons - it is not profitable
2) Because they know how to grow and operate it - unlike the government

And you don't "give" it to VZ, you bid it to all operators and enable competition that still maintains an ROI for the private companies that bid

The problem is building in these areas is not profitable without gov investment, but gov can't maintain roads and bridges properly. Imagine them running the Internet

Nameless1
join:2014-02-25
Lexington, MA

Nameless1

Member

Re: Good for them!

If they let VZ operate it, they would probably do a piss poor job on purpose. You have to remember, VZ's dream is that no one has wired broadband and has to use expensive, capped wireless with overage fees and the whole bit.
elefante72
join:2010-12-03
East Amherst, NY

elefante72 to muniFTW

Member

to muniFTW
No but as a utility they are a public private partnership and they seem to work pretty good for gas, power, and light. It is much better for a community to have one "main" into the house than say 2 or three (I have fiber, copper, and coax). Comcast is looking a RFOG so they are looking at glass, and copper is like telegraph to a phone. It still works but it has it's place. And don't forget white space or LTE wireless. These are all viable options, but better than cherry picking, which I understand.

My property taxes I pay $250/yr to the local library every year and I get to loan books for no direct cost. Not saying it should be "free", but there is precedence for community services being in taxes, and if you are on this board I "assume" by now broadband connectivity is an essential community service. Not having broadband, you are adding to the "income inequality" of communities and just making it worse.
dpb000
join:2014-04-18
USA

dpb000 to muniFTW

Member

to muniFTW
You might have a point about #1, but as a resident of Egremont I'll call BS on #2. I suffered with their phone service for years and they couldn't operate that at any level above third-world standards. Whenever the ground was wet the noise on the line was so bad that their automated trouble reporting system wouldn't recognize the touch tone responses. They'd roll a truck every six months or so when it became intolerable and I'd start asking for a refund on service, but the problem would always return. AT&T coverage and their wireless home phone service arrived eventually and solved that problem.

The not-for-profit roads, bridges, libraries, etc. seem to be OK to me.

muniFTW
@verizon.net

muniFTW

Anon

Re: Good for them!

While the expectations of Internet are to be utility-like, it is anything but. The Internet grows at exponential levels requiring constant capital investment and maintenance. Repairing pot-holes is like upgrading equipment. While that may be similar, having to double the number of "lanes" every few years is unlike any "utility" out there.

If the goal of broadband in rural areas is to enable business communication, higher education, Skype, e-commerce, etc, then I think this is highly doable. If the goal is for everyone to be able to binge watch 4K House of Cards for 6 hours a day or brag that they have 1Gbps to run P2P video sharing... then that is quite another.

Zenit_IIfx
The system is the solution
Premium Member
join:2012-05-07
Purcellville, VA
·Comcast XFINITY

Zenit_IIfx

Premium Member

Re: Good for them!

I agree with you that base level communications (low latency, minimum 5mbps, UNCAPPED) should be available in most rural areas on the east coast.

Its not. Verizon totally neglected its rural wireline customers except for PA where they were forced by law to put in DSL (at least 1mbps) to every access line in the state.

DSLAM's have come down in cost a lot of the years. An Adtran hardened unit (self contained (no need for lawn fridge or a concrete pad, no need for POCO power), mounts on a pole or in a ped and is powered from dedicated CO pair/RT pair DC) costs about $2600-3500 (depending where you buy it and if its open box or not) for the ADSL2 FTTN version and can supply 48 lines. 48/2600= $54 per customer port, not counting any other factors such as installation supplies, cost of engineering to prepare for the install, and the cost of labor to install the unit. The copper lines are a sunk cost and have been paid for with decades of POTS profit.

Given the range of ADSL, it would be easy to hit that 48 customer number.
Kearnstd
Space Elf
Premium Member
join:2002-01-22
Mullica Hill, NJ

Kearnstd to muniFTW

Premium Member

to muniFTW
the thing is you are forgetting the field of dreams, If you build it they will come.

People did not originally get broadband to stream video, But when they realized they could it exploded. The fact is most people do not do business communication but they should not be left in the dark because its bad for Wall Street to give them something better than Dialup or low cap LTE.
dpb000
join:2014-04-18
USA

dpb000 to muniFTW

Member

to muniFTW
I think you were the one that brought roads and bridges into the discussion. In any case, Verizon has a history of taking money/concessions, making promises, and then forgetting them when convenient. So no, I don't want them graciously accepting another taxpayer-funded network to operate for my benefit.

The entertainment uses you mentioned do muddy the waters - when does "need to have" stop and "nice to have" start?

RodRoddy
@lunanode.com

1 recommendation

RodRoddy

Anon

Where's the beef?

So where are the fruits of all those tax breaks and USF slush fund abuse that incumbent ISPs enjoyed for all those many years? Where, pray tell, is that last mile that should've been built in the '90s? More lies from Big Red. No FTTH for you, and DSL will be left to die. And even cable MSOs won't build out there to enjoy monopoly status in these unserved communities? Weird. You'd think they'd enjoy a captive audience. They usually do.

itzalex
join:2015-02-14
Osage Beach, MO

itzalex

Member

Re: Where's the beef?

said by RodRoddy :

So where are the fruits of all those tax breaks and USF slush fund abuse that incumbent ISPs enjoyed for all those many years? Where, pray tell, is that last mile that should've been built in the '90s?

It is in those platinum parachutes and bonuses that the executives enjoy.

IowaCowboy
Lost in the Supermarket
Premium Member
join:2010-10-16
Springfield, MA

IowaCowboy

Premium Member

I wouldn't mind paying for it to come to Springfield

Comcast can take their substandard cable broadband and their lousy customer service and shove it. I don't like being told "it's your computer", "everything looks fine on our end", or "its your equipment".

I'd vote yes on a tax increase in Springfield.

wiggie116
Premium Member
join:2013-10-31
Pittsfield, MA
D-Link DSL-2750B
Actiontec GT784WN

1 edit

wiggie116

Premium Member

Re: I wouldn't mind paying for it to come to Springfield

I believe New Ashford, Monteray, Egermont, and Alford will meet their 40% goal pretty quick. Wired West has been a hot topic for the last couple years. »register.wiredwest.net.

I believe wired west sent out their sign up sheets around a month ago.
ham3843
join:2015-01-15
USA

ham3843

Member

I think a majority of community residents would vote for muni broadband!

If you could take away the greedy profiteering of the traditional
providers and increase service and lower costs to the customer, a
overwhelming majority of citizens would vote in favor of community
owned and funded broadband service. Many folks would love to
find a way to put the greedy cable and telcos out of business with
excellent competition.
The Engineer
join:2015-04-02
Munster, IN

The Engineer

Member

You all say Verizon wants out of the landline biz...

...and these communities want municipal broadband. Seems like a deal could be made, Verizon divests the landline assets, the communities take them over and pay for Uverse-like VDSL FTTN upgrades.

Why don't they do this? Because the technology is not viable in sparsely populated rural areas. The cost is too high and VDSL doesn't work well over long line lengths. VDSL is an urban technology.

FTTP? Please. How much is that going to cost per user?

What will work well? The thing that everybody on this site hates the most: LTE.

Zenit_IIfx
The system is the solution
Premium Member
join:2012-05-07
Purcellville, VA
·Comcast XFINITY

Zenit_IIfx

Premium Member

Re: You all say Verizon wants out of the landline biz...

We only hate LTE as the price is absolutely unreasonable per GB. It's a fine technical solution for fixed wireless.

Who would want to buy Verizon's dilapidated assets? I don't think you understand the extent VZ let its rural plant fall apart. There is literally nothing of value there but slowly corroding copper cables dating back to the Bell System era. Have fun trying to do VDSL on that without spending months cleaning it up and rebuilding the plant - at that point you may as well do FTTH.

And BTW FTTH is cheaper in the long run - no need for stupid lawn fridges that use electrical power every so many feet or for maintaining copper cables that are likely older than your customers and your techs. FTTH is ideal for rural areas as the cable is very tough and the signal can travel a very long distance from the CO (something like 12-15 miles).

With the logic in place today, these areas would never have gotten POTS or Electric service - too rural, too "not profitible"

Yet the Electric utilities are largely doing fine. Same for the telephone companies, until they suddenly decided to go metro and suburb only.

linicx
Caveat Emptor
Premium Member
join:2002-12-03
United State

linicx

Premium Member

Local broadband

I've lived rural in three states since 1982. Two had Bell which was the framework for its own fledgling broadband service, Suddenlink, and as many as three indy broadband providers. If you did not like "A" you had a choice.

In NE OK I had Bell, Suddenlink, or one of the three indy providers .(one was a bank!) In SW MO, the Internet was very similar. Bell, Suddenlink, WISP (provided by city, and a nearby indy ISP. With competition came change. I was able to move from 33.3 modem to 4/1 between 1995 and 2005.

Then I moved into central Illinois and ran into a brick wall called Centurylink and a town with layers of protective legislation aimed at strangling competition. It is so good at protection, business leaves shortly after it arrives.

WISP wanted to expand. The city charged a monthly $50 per pole used, plus a cut from what this company charged customers. The cost of their 5/1 is less than half of what cable charges for 4/1. The city did not say they could not compete, they made it too expensive to even try.
openbox9
Premium Member
join:2004-01-26
71144

openbox9

Premium Member

Re: Local broadband

Sounds like a change in leadership is needed. Get the constituents to vote out the incumbents and bring in fresh leadership with ideas and goals that the community desires.

linicx
Caveat Emptor
Premium Member
join:2002-12-03
United State

linicx

Premium Member

Re: Local broadband

You are absolutely right. It is deeply entrenched. The community is clueless as to some of the councils hijinks. They hire someone to promote the city. The promoter makes very sure it is promoted where it will be ignored instead of encouraging growth. The Chamber of Commerce here is just as useless as the Mayor and her cronies.
openbox9
Premium Member
join:2004-01-26
71144

openbox9

Premium Member

Re: Local broadband

The problem is that society is generally lazy. Fat, dumb, and happy tends to be much easier than taking onus and ensuring betterment for themselves and their community. Good luck.