EPB Fiber in Chattanooga Now Offers 1 Gbps for $70

Everyone said it would fail. Now you can get 100/100mbps service to your house for $57/month. You can get 1,000/1,000mbps for $70. What more could you want? They also recently reached a point where they have as many customers as Comcast (over 50,000).

You don't even know if it will succeed in the long run. They just started offering service. Also Google is in a position where they can lose money on this thing just to undercut any completion.

They also don't know what the contention ratios are on these shiny new networks. Something tells me that they are being designed under the assumption that very few people will actually use all that bandwidth, which is a valid assumption, but you just know that people will bellyache if they can't get 100% of that bandwidth 24/7/365.

There is barely a real use for 10Mb at this time let alone 1GB.

that might have been true in 1995. "very few people" is a misnomer that people say when they don't even understand that the internet exists or want to detract from the argument like you and crookshanks did.

I can easily pull down 50mb just from having 4-8 devices in the house. People don't have single devices anymore.

Do you honestly believe that you are a true representation of the AVERAGE Joe user?

"misnomer that people say when they don't even understand that the internet "

I've been running ISP networks for almost 15 years now. I think I understand a thing or two about how these interwebs work.

yeah, okay. I'm an internet wizard and a level 5 vegan.

except in reality just using youtube or having multiple devices (which is absolutely the average joe) will easily exceed any basic usage situation which is intentionally skewed to make it sound like people don't utilize their connection.

you're specifically going to tell me that the "average joe user" isnt' using their internet, when internet usage has been increasing exponentially every single year, year over year?

if you really were in an industry for 15 years, it wasn't the ISP one.

Today average Joe, i.e. the type of person who does not know that this site exists nor do they care, is using 10Mb or less. As new things come along that are easy to use, setup and configure come along this usage will go up but it's going to to happen overnight.

"if you really were in the industry for 15 years, it wasn't the ISP one."

Really? Where is your experience to backup your claims?

I've worked in technology, and I have certifications - but I don't claim that I worked in the ISP industry. I work in a datacenter.

Meanwhile, I see no proof whatsoever from you backing up your magic "nobody uses 10mb" line.

Datacenters and ISP are completely different metrics...

Where did I say nobody?

you can't work in a datacenter without understanding networking. I dont' see any proof you "worked in the industry". If you did, you'd have exact metrics and would acknowledge your customers use far more than 10mb just from basic use. web browsing + youtube + netflix = above 10mb right there, and that's not uncommon.

"you can't work in a datacenter without understanding networking."

I'm not talking about networking here, just the average joe user. Datacenter networks and ISP networks have different types of customers with completely different usage patterns.

"If you did, you'd have exact metrics and would acknowledge your customers use far more than 10mb just from basic use."

I have access to those metrics which is why I made the statement that I did. Again I am going to say this is for the AVERAGE user not the Techsavvy user.

This topic has been closed. Reason: run its course

EPB can loose money too. They are funded by your tax dollars so they can go back for more money any time they please.

Except they have already exceeded their expected revenue goals and the ramping up is ahead of schedule.

Right now it looks like it's going to be a success, unless it is attacked by incumbents who will lose millions to try to make it fail.

EPB already is making money on the fiber network. They are much ahead financially then they planned. Go look at their annual financial report.

There you go introducing logic and financial spreadsheets into the mix. Shame on you for not sticking with ad hominem attacks and other emotional appeals!

50,000??? Comcast has more than 50,000 customers.

Not within EPB's service area.

over all they do. and the OP didn't say where they had that many customers at. EPB service areas is probably much larger than Comcast's in that region as well.

EPB's is actually very similar to Comcast's. It seems where EPB power service doesn't exist, Comcast doesn't either. Charter picks up those areas. It goes back 20 years when Chattanooga had it's own private cable TV company, which Comcast bought.

So they didn't learn the first time they were in the business then??? So when EPB can't make it in the future when Comcast upgrades more and cuts prices to really compete; they'll buy up the fiber network???

I never understand the point in why a city builds a network, sells it to the MSOs and then rebuilds a new one- 20+ years later. Do they really think change has happened that much with how things are done??

My big question is what happens when EBP's contracts for content start running out and prices are increased, and with a low customer count; they'll be paying more per customer than the MSOs.

You misunderstood me. In the 1990's there was "Chattanooga Cable Co". It was privately owned, but I believe the basically deployed along the same footprint as EPB. @Home came in and bought it out around 1999, then I guess when @home went under, Comcast picked it up. That is why Comcast and EPB have a very similar footprint in Chattanooga.

EPB has already had to renegotiate TV prices and unfortunately had to go up there, but the internet price hasn't changed in years.

Okay. I thought you meant it was a muni cable company, and @Home was probably part of Comcast there as Comcast used @Home for the ISP.

And in general Internet prices don't go up and EPB hasn't been in business that long- so you can't really say they haven't changed in years. Prices will increase though as they always do.

The part of munis tend to fail is when the content companies put them out of business and when they're unable to afford to maintain the networks as upgrades are required as more things people want; voice, more TV channels, new STBs, etc. All cost money.

Chattanooga Cable Company was sold to Comcast before @home came along.

It was sold to Scripps Howard before it was sold to Comcast.

I understand why. The companies you come here defending all that time find it acceptable to run sub par networks. So the city builds what is currently acceptable and then sell it off to a company that finds it appealing because their standards are lower. That company never does anything to improve it so the city builds another one that is updated and the cycle goes on. Makes perfectly good sense to me.

Actually I'm not defending anyone at this time. But it is wrong of a city to use their 100% unlimited cash flow to build a network on the backs of the tax payers. Cities are NOT to be in private businesses. They are to PROTECT and serve as a gov't ensuring people are safe and meeting their basic needs- such as water and electric. Internet and cable TV services are NOT basic needs. they are wants and will always be wants.

You do not need CaTV for anything; nor the Internet. Our world has functioned for years before without both and will go on.

It is more wrong, in my opinion, for a private company to take money from tax payers and higher than competitive market prices from customers and not provide the services they are seeking.

Pretty much the only time a government entity has gotten involved is when said private companies refuse to provide the services themselves. So those private companies can kiss off.

Your silly statement can also be said of electricity at one point, yet every single one of us use and enjoy the many benefits it brings every single day.

Just to stir the pot a little, but there are many things that we don't need the government to do, but we expect it to. Some examples:

Long-distance roads. In the early days of the country, private toll roads were common.
The USPS. If the government has no business providing a service to move data, why should it move envelopes and parcels?
Public transit. If it went away, taxi drivers would make a better living.
Public schools and colleges. Many people think private schools are better anyway.
Public hospitals. Most doctors are in private practice, and there are many private hospitals. What function does a public hospital serve that a private one can't serve?
Police. Sure, we may need them to patrol public areas, but there are private security companies that could be hired to protect private property.
Fire departments. There was a time when fire protection was something you contracted for.
Garbage collection. I've lived in apartments where a private company emptied the dumpster. Why should I, as a homeowner, expect the city to do that for me now?
Public radio and TV. Why should the government operate stations the steal listeners and viewers away from commercial stations? In cities where the public radio station is classical, doesn't that eliminate a possible music format from the commercial dial by making it virtually impossible for a commercial classical station to compete?
NOAA. What's so special about weather forecasting that the government must do it? If the government needs that service, it can buy the data from a private company. Ditto for private businesses and individuals. Pay Accuweather a dollar a month, and you can have all the forecasts you need.
The military. Yeah, it's a stretch, but the government already employs plenty of military contractors. Would it not be cheaper to bid out military services to private companies, who could likely do it much cheaper? No need for the government to pay, feed, house, and insure all those troops. Just contract the whole thing out and save tons of money.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not advocating these things. I'm just pointing out that, if you want to say that these cities shouldn't be offering Internet, I can point out many other things that can be done by the private sector. I'm also not saying that the government should provide every service known to man.. It's all a matter of priorities.

"if you want to say that these cities shouldn't be offering Internet"

It's not that they should not offer internet, it's that they should not be in the business of running businesses out of business.

They say they are providing a service that no one else will provide. Yet they are directly competing with local colo companies, IT shops, Phone System vendors, and from what I've heard they will soon go after Alarm companies. EPB has access to funding and perks that no other company can gain access to through it's government ownership.

They have gone far beyond providing that basic service that they claim no one is willing to offer.

Well then you tell me why I couldn't get 100mbit fiber before, since they apparently don't provide a service no one else will.

You haven't gone job hunting recently, have you? If you don't have an internet connection for that, I wish you luck.

"You haven't gone job hunting recently, have you?"

Do you really need a government funded 100Mbps to find a job? If you are unemployed you probably need to probably need to be on someone elses $20 tier....

>But it is wrong of a city to use their 100% unlimited cash flow to build a network on the backs of the tax payers.

But they're not doing that. All of the money has come from private parties, and revenue from the Internet service is more than paying for the loans to build the infrastructure. They're more profitable than their projections, in fact, which is much of why they're able to do this major upgrade.

(edit, several days later: actually, $160 million of the money to build out the network was a Federal stimulus program. EPB didn't *need* this money; the plan had been to build out much more slowly. But with the big grant from the Feds, they were able to finish the whole network within a year. But it didn't come from local taxpayers, it was from the Federales.)

>Cities are NOT to be in private businesses.

It works really well with infrastructure. I have lived, in my life, in two cities with private power companies, and both have been excellent. I'd already left by the time California was having blackouts, but the city-owned provider in the small town where I had been living was entirely unaffected, while the rest of California suffered terribly. And we always paid lower rates there than anywhere serviced by PG&E... IIRC, it was about 30% less for power.

I haven't checked EPB's power prices versus TVA's here, but the service is pretty good. Further, it's gotten *much* better over the last few years; blackouts were a constant thing here when I first moved in, and the lights rarely even flicker, now. The smart meters that were deployed along with the fiber has given EPB the ability to control its electrical distribution millisecond by millisecond, letting them easily route around problems. This, alone, was worth the buildout, in my opinion... and then we get incredible Internet to boot.

Internet is infrastructure, and infrastructure is something government does really well. I now have a gigabit to my house. A gigabit. To my HOUSE. And a city-owned utility was the only way to make that happen, because private companies won't make the necessary infrastructure investment.

Given your extremely strong views on this matter, I wouldn't be at all surprised if you were collecting a check from one of those private companies.

>You do not need CaTV for anything; nor the Internet.

Cable TV is not a necessity, but you have lost your bloody mind if you think Internet is not a modern requirement. You can't even apply for many jobs if you don't have it. The poorer you are, in fact, the more dependent you are on having at least a small data stream from your house: going to different places is difficult and expensive when you are very poor.

>Our world has functioned for years before without both and will go on.

The world also functioned "just fine" without electricity, running water, or sewage systems.

100% unlimited cash flow? Hardly. Wrong? Not at all, especially when it is desired by and a good investment for those same said tax payers.

The good news is that the speeds are now fast enough so that IPTV can take off and the cable user has options. Put frankly I really don't need cable. There are enough options out there today to make it redundant or useless.

Once you have fibre in place, the world is your oyster....

Did I miss where Google announced they were coming to Chattanooga? If not, then why would Chattanooga care about Google's pricing they are not competition?

Time for the price of LTE to follow.

It was so fast at 30Mbs...then 50...now 100! I am very pleased with EPB.

For twelve lousy bucks a month, you can increase that speed by ten times.

A couple of years ago I was looking for something new. The only senior level IT job I could find was at a MSP for a hosted Exchange position. VW had some odd positions, but one really needed to know German. Beyond that, there wasn't much else; it's a small city.

Now that we've had a kid and a bunch of medical issues where the in-laws were a big help watching the munchkin, I doubt I could convince the wife to move. GF, you need to come to Atlanta! A bunch of conduit was laid recently along GA400. I doubt they'd ever come here just because of the sheer footprint. Plus the state representatives are getting some serious lobby money; my own rep tried to outlaw municipal fiber a few months ago.

Yeah also a nice location for a lot of flooding.

Yeah, but lots of areas are, and Chattanooga has a lot going for it. Beautiful scenery, close to Gatlinburg, Atlanta, and Huntsville, and a great downtown. In the past, there was talk of running high-speed rail between it and Atlanta. If that ever happens, it'll be even more attractive. You could live there and take the train down to Atlanta to catch a plane at ATL.

It took about 10 refreshes and a bunch of error messages to get this....

Looks like it's working fine here. I see a UStream archive for their birthday.

Yeah, they were underprovisioned for the amount of traffic they were pulling. The video was okay, but it skipped badly whenever the camera panned very much. They just had too much going on for their server to handle.

As soon as the stream stopped, the server came right back to normal. They just underestimated how many people were going to watch, and didn't set up a mirror site with one of the big providers, just in case.

I'd read that as just getting overconfident about having all that bandwidth. I suspect, if they do this again, it will work a lot better.

No real harm was done... their website was mostly non-functional for a half-hour, but that's hardly the end of the world.

As I listen to the many, throwing stones at Google Fiber, for starting something that has more and more Internet Service Providers, offering faster speeds for less money....it reminds me of finding a way to get Health Care for every American, not just the rich but the poor too, only to find many throwing those same stones, as innovation catches on and helps more people, in the long run.
Google Fiber, pay no attention to the person with the rock in their hand, just keep on Growing.

Onemore....Good Day