 Master_AMD
join:2003-12-16
Dowagiac, MI
clubs:
 ·Verizon Online DSL
| Fibre They need to ditch verizon and comcast and start or try to start installing fibre. Then comcast and verizon will be throwing lawsuits and a lot of what have you's at the towns and they might install a broadband network there. You have to threaten the companies now before they do anything. | |
|  | Ahrenl
join:2004-10-26
North Andover, MA | Re: Fibre I used to live in Leverett. They purposely kept cable TV out, back before broadband was available. Personally I think its their own fault.. | |
| | | 
TraumaJunkie
Premium
join:2004-03-05
Knoxville, TN
| Re: Fibre said by Ahrenl  :I used to live in Leverett. They purposely kept cable TV out, back before broadband was available. Personally I think its their own fault.. So now that the cable cos. are offering a service they want they feel they should come running. I believe a provider should wire the town...and negotiate no pole fees, no FF, and get a crap load of tax incentives to boot. The govt. should stay out of private enterprise and let the consumer $ decide who succeeds and who doesn't.
--
I'm not really sure what I am doing, but I'm doing it anyway! | |
| 
dcurrey
Premium
join:2004-06-29 | Fiber Not going to happen The second they approve any type of fiber plan the phone company will either sue them or bog them down in legal BS for the next 10,000 years. | |
| GhostDoggy
join:2005-05-11
Duluth, GA
| Who is issuing the franchise agreements? If the cable company for the county isn't providing the necessary results then let the county franchise authority do something about it, like impose a franchise disposition conditon and penalize them for being worthless. Then, like all good county commissioners, let one of them start their own cable company and have the franchise authority compete with the lazy cable operator already there. | |
| | fiberguy
My views are my own.
Premium
join:2005-05-20
| Re: Who is issuing the franchise agreements? FAs are not always based on the County level.. often FAs are also formed by city level government.
But, try this one on for size. Either way, we know that SOMEONE has to pay for the service. We already know that a muni project will cost the tax payors money far above what the service is worth. Tax payors will most likely have to pay subz to keep the system alive.
Why don't they go to Cable or Phone and say "hey, here's some tax money AND/OR insentives but you must sign this deal and provide services to our town by X day? In the long run, do you think these incumbants DON'T want to have the ability to serve? The big problem is that it's a MAJOR gamble and risk to serve some of these areas. The cost to build these cities as compared to actually getting a return is high.
These cities that want to be served and are outside the major operating area either should 1) work with their neighboring FAs and negotiate the expansion in 2) talk to the incumbants directly or 3) additionally, offer up some help financially to flip the installation bill.
I think option 3 would get them wired. | |
| | | | JSRoman
Premium
join:2005-03-10
Callahan, FL | Towns are pretty small. According to 2000 census both town have less than 1900 folks each. Doesn't really make economic sense for any big company to deploy there. Now this seems like the perfect place for some wireless upstart to open up. | |
| | 
TKJunkMail
Enjoy the sun
Premium
join:2002-03-03
Avalon, NJ
 ·Sprint Mobile Broa..
 ·Comcast
| Re: Towns are pretty small. said by JSRoman :According to 2000 census both town have less than 1900 folks each. Doesn't really make economic sense for any big company to deploy there. Now this seems like the perfect place for some wireless upstart to open up. That is a good idea. Some entrepreneur should be able to put something in place that isn't too expensive to build and then can charge reasonable profitable rates.
--
--
Join Red Room Forum
BLOG tkjunkmail.blogspot.com
My Web Page | |
| | | 
garagerock
Premium
join:2002-06-14
Louisville, KY | Re: Towns are pretty small. or, the local municipality, with voter support, should be able to offer this as a service. IF they can show it will pay for itself or make a profit. | |
| | | | 
scrummie02
Bentley
Premium
join:2004-04-16
Arlington, VA
| Re: Towns are pretty small. agreed. I like capitalism and I would hope a small business would move in there and put up some sort of service. Let's be realistic though, wireless won't have the stability and speeds that FTTH will have. I hate paying taxes, but if my taxes would go to this I would vote for it.
The only thing is to be sure there isn't some bureaucratic department heading up the project after the voter decisions has been made so ti runs smoothly. | |
| | 
chd176
join:2003-01-10
Winfield, AL | Yes, I am very lucky. I live in a town with less than 500 people (442 to be exact) and our tiny town has DSL available thanks to CenturyTel and an RT about 1.2 miles from my home.
--
1.5/256 CenturyTel PPPoE DSL line | |
| | 
G_Poobah
join:2004-01-17
Schenectady, NY
| And why, should Verizon, if they get a statewide franchise (like they want) be able to bypass this town? Isn't the statewide franchise supposed to BENEFIT the consumer? You know, with more services, lower prices, better competition.
So, it's not profitable for Verizon to wire up this town. That's a given. Well then, what if this town partners with the city of Boston, that IS profitable for Verizon to wire up, why can't the small town and the big town join up to ensure everyone gets good service. Oh, wait, Verizon SUES if that happens. I believe what Verizon is doing is called 'redlining', which verizon SWEARS they are not doing.
"These allegations are completely untrue, and they serve only to protect the incumbent cable operator," says a Verizon NY VP "Redlining violates not only the law, but the agreement we have negotiated with the Town of Hempstead itself. We don't do it. We never have and we never will. Period."
So, Verizon, you want a STATEWIDE Franchise, but you don't want to wire up the small towns, yet since you have agreements with each town, you don't have to wire up each town. Hmm.. sounds like someone wants to have their cake and eat it to.. Yet another example of the greed and lies of the telco's/cableco's.
--
Flabby? pastey-skinned? riddled with phlebitis? Then you've got a good Republican body! So compare your lives to mine, and then kill yourself. | |
| | | fiberguy
My views are my own.
Premium
join:2005-05-20
| Re: Towns are pretty small. The law makers can make a VERY SIMPLE change, but they won't. You can't give cable and phone all the credit for being idtios.
Very simple. A change in the law that gives the incumbant providers first right of refusal to deploy would work. If an official request for bid was put out, either Phone or Cable should accept or decline within 90 days.. If they decline or don't respond, then all bets are off and it's anyone's game.
Then again, phone is the only "true" incumbant since they are already wired everywhere. Cable, on the other hand, if they don't exist, they don't have any claim on the area to begin with. Cable doesn't have rights to any area it doesn't already serve or have an franchise agreement.
So, the law makers are the first line people to blame, then the providers, then the people. Why the people? For not controlling the government vs. the government being ineffective in serving the needs of the people they are SUPPOSE to represent.
Marin County California was very effective in getting something they wanted.. right or wrong, they banded together and acted. One problem that many of these smaller towns have is that they have the BEST opportunity to get what they want... they can EASILY collect the towns people to speak as one voice, but they aren't. If an ENTIRE city, or most of it, come out as one voice, then they would likely get "something"... either they arne't because they aren't good ad gathering, or there truley isn't enough interest in getting broadband by a majority of the city which backs up why the providers won't wire up. (then it brings us back to put up or shut up to the incumbants.. and back to the argument of why should the city flip the bill too)
My opinion is that they cities would be in their best interest to incent the incumbants to come in and wire up with money to help offset the cost of deployment which is the cheapest way to go, in my opinion. | |
| | | PDXPLT
join:2003-12-04
Banks, OR
1 edit | said by G_Poobah :So, it's not profitable for Verizon to wire up this town. That's a given. No it's not. You don't know what the ROI situation is in these towns, and neither do I. But with things like mini-DSLAM's, industry observers like Dave Burstein claim that DSL can be profitably deployed in any small town.
But I do know for a fact that there are locations in Verizon territory, places where they have installed state-of-art switching equipment, places where they could profitably deploy DSL, and yet they refuse to do so. The reason? Selling high-speed internet access isn't an interesting business for them. They either have to do it as a defensive measure against a cable company (which isn't the case in these towns), or they do it in certain "low hanging fruit" areas that are just too good to pass up.
Verizon's main interest is in deploying "broadband", which is NOT what you think it is. To Verizon, "broadband" is things like FIOS TV, where they get to sell the bits in blocks for lots of $$$, not for a low flat monthly rate like high-speed internet access. They also like selling 1.5Mbps for $160 a month in the form of T-1, as they're doing in this town, rather than selling the same bit rate over DSL for only a fraction of this amount. | |
| | | 
RobertHeller
@shaysnet.net
| What Verizon has been doing is upgrading the local Central Office systems with DSL-capable systems (mostly 20+ year old hand-me-downs). Once they have upgraded a CO, they check off the exchange as 'DSL' ready. They then consider themselves done. So Wendell, which is in exchange 978-544-XXXX, is DSL ready, but virtually all of Wendell is more then 3 miles from Orange, which is where the CO for 978-544-XXXX. Shutsbury and Leverett are part of Amherst or Montague exchanges (both Amherst and Montague have DSL and Cable), but most of Shutsbury and Leverett are too far from the CO to get DSL.
Oh, much of Montague (and some of Amherst) is just as rural as Shutsbury, Leverett, and Wendell. Montague and Amherst do have dense village/downtown areas, with major state highways going through them (and Amherst has 3 of 5 local colleges and universities in town).
If there was an 'alternative' BB service available, *some* of us would ditch VZ and get VOIP. VOIP is not regulated the same way as POTS. If enough people ditched VZ and went to a non-DSL BB/VOIP solution, VZ could find itself in serious trouble. In many ways, VZ is the dinosaur mindless staring up at the big bright light in the sky wondering what it is is. When the asteroid hits, good bye dino... | |
| | | | jdracer47
join:2005-10-16
Auburn, PA
| Re: Towns are pretty small. There is a lot of us in the same boat, our CO 570-739-XXXX was wired but none of the remote terminals were touched. Our RT for my community would reach 75% of our community but Verizon refused to upgrade it until we leveraged them with the Pennsylvania Act 183 legislation. 1200 homes un-served currently, pretty pathetic, but someone in our zip code has broadband so the FCC thinks all is well.
People in these forums tend to forget that most companies (around here anyway) in rural areas aren't exactly tech savvy and don't want to risk the investment in wireless. We actually had one that tried, it was a plumbing company that decided to provide internet. Too bad most of the people with nothing can't even see the tower, those that can have comcast or Verizon as an option. | |
| | | | | PDXPLT
join:2003-12-04
Banks, OR
| Re: Towns are pretty small. said by jdracer47 :People in these forums tend to forget that most companies (around here anyway) in rural areas aren't exactly tech savvy and don't want to risk the investment in wireless. They also forget that, dispite all the hype, wireless doesn't work real well in alot of places today. The main problem is lack of spectrum, and that the RF spectrum available today is lousy for Access purposes.
I have a WISP locally operating on a tower 3 miles away, but the terrain around here is wooded. 2.4 GHz and 5 GHz won't go very far through trees. 900 Mhz does better, but there is only a thing sliver of unlicensed spectrum available at that frequency, and the WISP doesn't consider it worth dealing with.
Thing would be much, much better if the FCC follows through on its proposal and allows WISP to broadcast on unused TV channels, but the broadcasters and the wireless microphone vendors (most of their customers illegally use the TV bands) are fighting it tooth and nail. | |
| Eric Martin
join:2005-06-19
66308 | Use Wimax or fibre Build it yourselves.
Quit relying on the MOB-cable&telephone co.. | |
| ohyaknow
join:2005-01-28
| Dumb I can see Verizon's reasoning for not wanting to come in and wire these towns with DSL as they will eventually be doing away with copper for internet and phone but what has cable truly got to lose ? While yes the immediate cost would be a loss and even if the interest in broadband is still marginal it is inevitable these towns will grow especially with broadband availability playing a large factor in many peoples decision when purchasing a home. With the way our world is going dial up simply no longer is acceptable and whoever fills the broadband gap generally takes the cake for many years to come. | |
| miball
join:2005-08-17
Seattle, WA | You Sure You want Verizon's EVDO Service I wonder if this town knows that Verizon Wireless's EVDO service is NOT unlimted? Even thought it is advertised as unlimited. No downloading from iTunes or watching video's, email & light web browsering only. | |
| | | |
|
|
America's Broadband Black Holes
·