Frontier Fighting Community Fiber In Minnesota Insists Aging DSL Can Deliver 'Same Speed Of Service' As Fiber Community Broadband Networks notes that Frontier Communications is fighting a new fiber-to-the-farm project in Sibley County, Minnesota. The project, which only just completed a feasibility study, was created by locals who felt they weren't being adequately served by Frontier. Frontier of late has been trying to convince anyone who will listen that what they offer consumers is as good or equal to fiber, and continues that trend here, telling locals they "provide the same speed of service as fiber can provide." They've also trotted out the well-worn argument that all community fiber builds are naturally destined for failure -- just because. From a letter to locals offering sage wisdom: As a nationwide provider, Frontier is aware of other efforts by municipalities of various types to build and operate their own telecommunications network. While these proposals are always painted in rosy tones, it is important for officials to carefully review the underlying assumptions and projections that consultants make when presenting these projects. Unfortunately, history tells us that the actual performance of most of these projects is significantly less positive than the promises. Often times, these projects end up costing municipalities huge amounts of money, and negatively impact their financial status and credit ratings. The reality is a municial project is only as good as its business plan, and while bad ideas fail, good ones succeed -- and many municipal broadband projects have succeeded. It's important to remember that these local communities wouldn't be engaging in this project if the local incumbent had met their bandwidth needs. It's also important to remember it's the local community's decision to get involved in these kinds of projects, and shouldn't be up to Frontier Communications, or people halfway across the country who think improving your own community's infrastructure is some sort of villainy.
|
 | | Here we go again Cue the shills in 3... 2... 1... | |
|  | | | | | | Re: Here we go again said by pandora:This reflects a structural problem in the U.S. We need to allow more competition. Our government enforces a duopoly and it isn't good for consumers.
Federal law should permit towns, cities, counties or states via local law to string as many lines as are possible over the various rights of way used for communication.
Instead the government at all levels enforces a duopoly and forces the duopoly to do stupid things or to impose incredible taxes or regulations on them.
We need to let there be competition for the last mile where it is profitable, and unfortunately for some, costs will be lower in high density, high income areas. At this time, our culture would have great difficulty with that imo.
This is fiber to the farm. This is as far away from being a "high density, high income area" as one can get. There are many, many rural fiber networks out there, all of them proving such a network is entirely possible regardless of the distance or population density. | |
|
| jcremin
join:2009-12-22
Siren, WI
kudos:2 | I am one of those who is typically labeled as a "shill" for pointing out that not all ISP's are evil or arguing that additional regulation isn't the answer...
But contrary to what some may believe, I'm fully supportive of the new fiber build. While I don't know that Frontier has necessarily posed a big threat to this project yet, these bad ISP's quite often do eventually bring a legal lawsuit in an attempt to simply drain the new project of their funds and prevent them from ever getting off the ground.
I am fully supportive of competition as the real answer and I think the majority of regulation should be in the form of encouraging competition and block existing ISP's from fighting it. | |
| | | | | Re: Here we go again said by jcremin:I am one of those who is typically labeled as a "shill" for pointing out that not all ISP's are evil or arguing that additional regulation isn't the answer...
No, you're a shill because you ignore the mountain of evidence around the world demonstrating the effectiveness of targeted line-sharing regulation. | |
| | | | jcremin
join:2009-12-22
Siren, WI
kudos:2 | Re: Here we go again said by sonicmerlin:No, you're a shill because you ignore the mountain of evidence around the world demonstrating the effectiveness of targeted line-sharing regulation. Come on already man... get over yourself. | |
|
| | Of course they can deliver those speeds... ...in fantasy-land. | |
| |  Simba7I Void Warranties
join:2003-03-24
Billings, MT | Re: Of course they can deliver those speeds... ..naaa.. more like in their wildest wet-dreams.. | |
| | | | | Re: Of course they can deliver those speeds... my local city did the same thing they kickout comcast which was their isp both for bandwidth and hurricane issues . and started their own and guess what? it works! | |
|
| AmmlerPremium
join:2005-04-19
Pittsburgh, PA | I'd like to know what in world are they smoking these days???
Ah, ok, sure just keep thinking that Frontier! | |
|
Reviews:
 ·Optimum Online
 ·Verizon FiOS
| bring in the competition out in rural land the more fiber laid, the better... just make sure you post the utility routes/burial routes before someone goes in and cuts them... doh! btw, screw frontier... if you can't do anything productive than promote 15 year old dsl technology like it's the new ipad 2, GO TO HELL. you might sell that idea if your audience was AT&T... or any other cable company who would have a nice chuckle knowing that there wouldn't be any serious competition happening. | |
|  firephotoKDEPremium
join:2003-03-18
Brewster, WA
 ·Frontier Communi..
| No, they don't. Frontier provides what is adequate. Ask anyone with FIOS how smooth that service is going. DSL routes still traverse on verizon identified equipment.
It's shame to see anyone in business that can't or won't compete and instead chooses to waste money on negative publicity. And anyone buying service because the service provider says the other guy sucks is just as guilty.
--
Say no to JAMS! | |
| Reviews:
·Comcast
| Shameless profit protection... This is all it's about. Any argument is deemed necessary to protect profit centers. Heck, this is why we can't get any meaningful competition because the incumbents are using tactics to delay and delay any local fiber projects hoping for a compromise, knowing very well their bullshit lies. There really should be a federal law that says yes if your community supports this project then go full force. | |
|  pokesphIt Is Almost FastPremium
join:2001-06-25
Sacramento, CA
kudos:1 | fighting fiber? What an insane waste of money and resources.. | |
| | KearnstdElf WizardPremium
join:2002-01-22
Mullica Hill, NJ | Re: fighting fiber? yet they claim upgrading the network is too costly, but never seem to run out of lawyer money to fight community projects. maybe if they cut 3/4 of their legal staff and sued less they could build more network.
--
[65 Arcanist]Filan(High Elf) Zone: Broadband Reports | |
| | |  tshirtPremium,MVM
join:2004-07-11
Snohomish, WA
kudos:3
·Comcast
| Re: fighting fiber? from the linked promotional blurb
" It cost $84 billion for the cable companies to pass almost 100 million households a decade ago,..."
It's no wonder that they try to protect THEIR $84 BILLION investment, the real questions are
How much would it cost/how much is it worth to buy out their interest AND rebuild UNIVERSAL ftth in a timely fashion (say less than 10 years)?
Do you REALLY believe any Gov't mandated program can complete it for that cost?
Also with the current economy and most political/govt systems in a "cut taxes/kill services" mode, where will YOU find the money to do it? | |
| | | | Reviews:
·US Cable
·Frontier Communi..
| Re: fighting fiber? SIGH, Monticello , MN is doing just fine with its FTTH.
It works, its a proven strategy and Frontier knows it.
It took me 1 week to leave Frontier, for cable internet (that can provide its bandwidth).
Frontier is a sinking ship, they need to spend millions if not a few billion to get their networks up to a level where 70%-80% purchased bandwidth is available to all subscribers. Their business plan of overselling to it current level is an anchor on their legs. | |
| | | | | jcremin
join:2009-12-22
Siren, WI
kudos:2 | Re: fighting fiber? said by ToiletMint:Their business plan of overselling to it current level is an anchor on their legs. Virtually all ISP's are in the overselling predicament though. Standard over-subscription ratios are typically between 10:1 and 50:1. Increased video streaming consumption has pushed the demand up faster than companies can keep up. The only way to be able to afford to offer lower over-subscription ratios is to raise prices or lower speeds. The alternative is capping usage to maintain the ratios. No matter what ISP's do, there will be plenty of people who aren't happy. | |
| | | | | | | | Re: fighting fiber? said by jcremin:said by ToiletMint:Their business plan of overselling to it current level is an anchor on their legs. Virtually all ISP's are in the overselling predicament though. Standard over-subscription ratios are typically between 10:1 and 50:1. Increased video streaming consumption has pushed the demand up faster than companies can keep up. The only way to be able to afford to offer lower over-subscription ratios is to raise prices or lower speeds. The alternative is capping usage to maintain the ratios. No matter what ISP's do, there will be plenty of people who aren't happy. And this is why you're a shill. For the last 10 years bandwidth consumption has increased at approximately the same rate as Moore's Law has decreased the cost of bandwidth. Today bandwidth is dirt cheap, as the Netflix thread illustrates.
This article illustrates the constant advances in technology: »www.dslprime.com/dslprime/42-d/2···ter-nand
And from this article: »www.dslprime.com/dslprime/42-d/3···ores-law
Video is in fact growing rapidly, resulting in an increase in traffic per user of about 30%/year according to AT&T's John Stankey. But Moore's Law is driving bandwidth costs down at a similar 25-40% per year, so carriers are just as able to handle the load today as two or five years ago. Speeds worldwide are actually going up while capex is flat to down. Bandwidth costs on any large wired network are less than 3% of the price of the service. | |
| | | | | | | jcremin
join:2009-12-22
Siren, WI
kudos:2 | Re: fighting fiber? Enough with the name calling. Let's discuss. I don't have any problem with you not agreeing with me, but quit calling me a shill, because I'm not. I am an individual who runs his own ISP, and I am speaking from my experiences. That doesn't make me a shill.
said by sonicmerlin:For the last 10 years bandwidth consumption has increased at approximately the same rate as Moore's Law has decreased the cost of bandwidth. You have to throw everything from the last 10 years out. My customer's bandwidth consumption is grown much faster now than compared to a year ago.
said by sonicmerlin:Today bandwidth is dirt cheap, as the Netflix thread illustrates. Yes, bandwidth in a datacenter has come down to dirt cheap prices. But the cost for trenching in fiber or delivering any last mile service is still very high.
The point I am usually trying to make with many of my posts is that the costs aren't the same for everyone. My costs in a rural area are much higher than those for a big city ISP with a higher population density. While there might be some giant ISP's who are evil and have very low costs, even big ISP's in rural areas have much higher costs than most people would like to believe. | |
| | | | | | | fiberguyMy views are my own.Premium
join:2005-05-20
kudos:3 | Um yea.. the "shill" word.. you sure are quick to jump on that aren't you?
If he's a "shill' then you're a "sheep" as you believe anything you can so long as it comes from some source OTHER than the one you hate.
Think about it.
They all lie, however, you believe who ever is against who you hate.
When someone has to have a conversation by name calling and using terms like "shill" and "astro-turfer" and "paid mouthpiece" it just usually means they have nothing intelligent to add to the discussion and even if you do, it totally ruins your credibility. | |
|
Reviews:
 ·VOIPo
| Frontier is just sad I live in a 500+ housing development that they started building in 2000. My house was built in 2005 and we bought it last year. I can't get DSL because the CO is "out of ports". It's been a year and they say the same thing. Although I can't stand Time Warner, I can get triple play from them. I didn't even check on phone service from Frontier, either. $50/month for phone service isn't gonna cut it.
Frontier is so disconnected from reality, it's criminal. If I put in my Ohio Zip code on their web site to look up service availability, it thinks I'm in California. Disaster. | |
|  dvd536as Mr. Pink as they comePremium
join:2001-04-27
Phoenix, AZ
kudos:4 | When DSL. . . . . Can offer more than 896kbps upload and isn't distance sensitive, CALL ME! | |
| | | | Re: When DSL. . . . . Stuck in crappy Frontier land, that would be double my upload bandwidth. They don't offer anything higher to me, even though I'm about 800 feet from the CO. Frontier is a joke of a company, someone please buy them out. | |
|
rody_44Premium
join:2004-02-20
Quakertown, PA | ok So now writing a letter constitutes fighting the project. If the town wants to do it they will. In this case i doubt it ever gets past the feasability study. | |
|  cdruGo ColtsPremium,MVM
join:2003-05-14
Fort Wayne, IN
kudos:5
·Frontier FiOS
| when you point your finger, 3 fingers usually point back As a nationwide provider, Frontier is aware of other efforts by municipalities of various types to build and operate their own telecommunications network. While these proposals are always painted in rosy tones, it is important for officials to carefully review the underlying assumptions and projections that consultants make when presenting these projects. Unfortunately, history tells us that the actual performance of most of these projects is significantly less positive than the promises. Often times, these projects end up costing municipalities huge amounts of money, and negatively impact their financial status and credit ratings. | |
|
| |
|
|
Re: Here we go again
