Powell, Wyoming: Population 5,500, Gets Fiber Small town FTTH project finally goes live... Wednesday Jan 21 2009 09:09 EDT We've previously mentioned how the small town of Powell, Wyoming hopes to see an economic resurgence through the building of a $4.9 million fiber network through a public-private partnership with little to no taxpayer risk. The project broke ground back in May, and local Broadband Reports user koolkid1563 has been tracking the progress of the project. Last week, splicing and testing were completed on 11 of the 13 Powellink zones set to receive the service. It looks like they're starting rather slowly, offering customers a 10Mbps/5Mbps tier, which according to their pricing sheet is available for $42.45 standalone, $39.95 when bundled with voice or TV, or $35.95 when bundled with both VoIP and TV service. koolkid1563 snapped a few pictures of his ONT, says the installation was painless, and notes that the service doesn't require a long-term contract.The user notes that the local cable competitor is Bresnan Communications. Like other cable operators facing FTTH competition who haven't upgraded to DOCSIS 3.0, Bresnan is highlighting in advertisements how they've been using fiber since 2003, in the hopes that users can't differentiate between core and last mile network fiber. |
Matt3All noise, no signal. Premium Member join:2003-07-20 Jamestown, NC
1 recommendation |
Matt3
Premium Member
2009-Jan-21 9:36 am
3, 2, 1 .....And here come the Anti-Muni trolls!
Regardless, good luck with this project and I sincerely hope for its success! | |
| | |
JasonOD
Anon
2009-Jan-21 9:42 am
Re: 3, 2, 1 .....Ok Matt, I'll bite. Is it really a good ting to have municipalities put local companies out of business? | |
| | | |
Re: 3, 2, 1 .....Then should a town not launch a public transit system because it might take business from taxicabs? | |
| | | |
2 recommendations |
ayn3090
Anon
2009-Jan-21 8:22 pm
Re: 3, 2, 1 .....government shouldn't be involved in transportation, nor education. | |
|
| | Dogfather Premium Member join:2007-12-26 Laguna Hills, CA |
to JasonOD
Absolutely, especially when they're nothing but sue happy roadblocks to progress. | |
| | | |
to JasonOD
What I think these need to be doing is facilitating competition without bringing physical competition. The governmenet/private funded fiber should be build but no access provided directly by any government agency. Instead they should allow any company who wishes to pay a fee/per X customers for maintenance & bandwidth but allow any company who wants to do so. That will provide the customers a choice of any X provider they wish to go with and without one or two large companies dominating a region with their own infrastructure and preventing other companies from competing in a given region.
Why cant they do that? | |
| | | | Matt3All noise, no signal. Premium Member join:2003-07-20 Jamestown, NC |
Matt3
Premium Member
2009-Jan-21 10:12 am
Re: 3, 2, 1 .....said by jimbo21503:What I think these need to be doing is facilitating competition without bringing physical competition. The governmenet/private funded fiber should be build but no access provided directly by any government agency. Instead they should allow any company who wishes to pay a fee/per X customers for maintenance & bandwidth but allow any company who wants to do so. That will provide the customers a choice of any X provider they wish to go with and without one or two large companies dominating a region with their own infrastructure and preventing other companies from competing in a given region. Why cant they do that? You just described UTOPIA. The problem with this model, is the Comcasts, AT&Ts, and Time Warners of the world don't have exclusive access to your eyes, ears, and wallet, so they don't like this idea. | |
| | | | | wifi4milezBig Russ, 1918 to 2008. Rest in Peace join:2004-08-07 New York, NY |
Re: 3, 2, 1 .....said by Matt3:said by jimbo21503:What I think these need to be doing is facilitating competition without bringing physical competition. The governmenet/private funded fiber should be build but no access provided directly by any government agency. Instead they should allow any company who wishes to pay a fee/per X customers for maintenance & bandwidth but allow any company who wants to do so. That will provide the customers a choice of any X provider they wish to go with and without one or two large companies dominating a region with their own infrastructure and preventing other companies from competing in a given region. Why cant they do that? You just described UTOPIA. The problem with this model, is the Comcasts, AT&Ts, and Time Warners of the world don't have exclusive access to your eyes, ears, and wallet, so they don't like this idea. The other problem is that Utopia was a money pit, and thats why it failed. Since it was basically managed by a municipality that had no idea what they were doing, they blew through the allocated money with no real planning. A private company on the other hand, is typically more inclined to watch their bottom line since (without these outrageous bailouts!) going out of business is the end of the line. | |
| | | | | |
to Matt3
I know, I have been following the project. It was done incorrectly (I agree with wifi4milez ), but I think it can be done correctly and with government and business involved. But I think that we need to kick the businesses in the pants because: said by Matt3:The problem with this model, is the Comcasts, AT&Ts, and Time Warners of the world don't have exclusive access to your eyes, ears, and wallet, so they don't like this idea. Oh boo-hoo :P | |
|
| | | |
to jimbo21503
One way to do this would be to build a network and connect every residence and business at no charge. That connection would get you access to local government Web sites (offering extensive e-services), video access to local public access channels, and telephone access to 911 and local government offices. That's it. For a small fee, you could get access to anything on the local fiber network, and, if you wanted TV, Internet, and phone service, you could contract with any provider who has connected to the network. | |
|
| | Matt3All noise, no signal. Premium Member join:2003-07-20 Jamestown, NC 1 edit |
to JasonOD
said by JasonOD :
Ok Matt, I'll bite. Is it really a good ting to have municipalities put local companies out of business? If the local company isn't providing an adequate service and refuses to, absolutely. | |
| | | |
to JasonOD
Why would this put a local company out of business? | |
| | | |
to JasonOD
said by JasonOD :
Ok Matt, I'll bite. Is it really a good ting to have municipalities put local companies out of business? comcast, ATT and time-warner are local companies? Just poor, struggling, small footprint local companies? | |
| | | |
to JasonOD
said by JasonOD :
Ok Matt, I'll bite. Is it really a good ting to have municipalities put local companies out of business? Okay, I'll bite. First, from the article: The user notes that the local cable competitor is Bresnan Communications. Doing a bit of digging on Bresnan's site yields: Today, Bresnan Communications operates in Colorado, Montana, Wyoming and Utah. and Corporate Headquarters
Bresnan Communications One Manhattanville Road Purchase, NY 10577-2596 914.641.3300
Bresnan isn't a local company, they are headquartered in New York,. The community is better off running its own network to keep the money local. | |
| | | |
to JasonOD
said by JasonOD :
Ok Matt, I'll bite. Is it really a good ting to have municipalities put local companies out of business? If municipality can provide better service for lesser price without using any taxpayer money it means that it's more efficient than local companies. So hell yes it should. | |
| | | TransmasterDon't Blame Me I Voted For Bill and Opus join:2001-06-20 Cheyenne, WY |
to JasonOD
said by JasonOD :
Ok Matt, I'll bite. Is it really a good ting to have municipalities put local companies out of business? Local Company!? Bresnan Communications is a owned lock stock and barrel by Comcast. So it is rather the reverse it is the local David taking on Goliath. | |
| | | cdruGo Colts MVM join:2003-05-14 Fort Wayne, IN |
to JasonOD
said by JasonOD :
Ok Matt, I'll bite. Is it really a good ting to have municipalities put local companies out of business? Do many municipalities of 5500 have local broadband providers that would be put out of business? Yeah, I didn't think so either. | |
|
| dcurrey Premium Member join:2004-06-29 Mason, OH |
to Matt3
One thing I know for sure is about 10 years ago our city tried to run its own cable company. More or less FTTN type deal don't know why they just didn't do FTTH. But no matter cost the city Millions to build and maintain. Had to sell it at a major loss to Cinci Bell. It about bankrupted the city.
Only good that came from it was it lowered Time Warners rates to match the cities. Since it was sold off to Cincinnati Bell they have been forced to be competitive.
The prices they are charging are roughly what we pay. Internet speeds are a hell off a lot faster with them however. | |
| | | |
dcplaya
Anon
2009-Jan-21 10:40 am
Re: 3, 2, 1 .....Where do you live in Cincinnati? I have never heard anything like that being tried around the Cincinnati area? Also, if they sold a TV infrastructure to CB then why does CB offer DirectTV? | |
| | | | dcurrey Premium Member join:2004-06-29 Mason, OH 2 edits |
dcurrey
Premium Member
2009-Jan-21 12:28 pm
Re: 3, 2, 1 .....Lebanon Ohio. Just north of you. Reason they don't do it in Cinci is the lines are laid in Lebanon and I think parts of Turtlecreek township. See » www.cincinnatibell.com/c ··· v/cable/Should also note that Cinci bell always handled the phone side of the service for the city. TW phone service price was much better at the time. Looks like they have pretty much matched it now. | |
|
| |
to Matt3
said by Matt3:And here come the Anti-Muni trolls! Regardless, good luck with this project and I sincerely hope for its success! I have no problem with well run municipal utilities. But judging by the waste of taxpayer dollars in my town, plus the bad experiences I've had dealing with NYC DoITT, I think that communications infrastructure should be left up to the private sector. | |
| | StevenB Premium Member join:2000-10-27 New York, NY |
to Matt3
Congrats to them I hope this booms into more muni's state-wide. | |
| | fiberguy2My views are my own. Premium Member join:2005-05-20 |
to Matt3
said by Matt3:And here come the Anti-Muni trolls! Regardless, good luck with this project and I sincerely hope for its success! I dunno, correct me if I'm wrong, but I do believe your post, itself, is TROLLING... you are bating people to jump in and bite your head off, which by definition, is a troll. There is nothing wrong with any muni project so long as it's not going to cost tax-payers money to operate. It's a bad thing for the tax payer. Some tax payers will continue to do business with the private incumbents while being taxed to subsidize the muni user. All I'm saying is keep it tax payer-funded-free. On my second point, I have no problem with muni so long as it plays by ALL the same rules as the private run operations. Anything less would be government abuse of power which would be completely illegal and most certainly challenged in court in favor of the plaintiffs. | |
| | | Matt3All noise, no signal. Premium Member join:2003-07-20 Jamestown, NC |
Matt3
Premium Member
2009-Jan-21 8:55 pm
Re: 3, 2, 1 .....said by fiberguy2:said by Matt3:And here come the Anti-Muni trolls! Regardless, good luck with this project and I sincerely hope for its success! I dunno, correct me if I'm wrong, but I do believe your post, itself, is TROLLING... you are bating people to jump in and bite your head off, which by definition, is a troll. There is nothing wrong with any muni project so long as it's not going to cost tax-payers money to operate. It's a bad thing for the tax payer. Some tax payers will continue to do business with the private incumbents while being taxed to subsidize the muni user. All I'm saying is keep it tax payer-funded-free. On my second point, I have no problem with muni so long as it plays by ALL the same rules as the private run operations. Anything less would be government abuse of power which would be completely illegal and most certainly challenged in court in favor of the plaintiffs. For the record, you had 3 points. But whatever. My post was out of exasperation. Posting this actually exasperates me, so I'm not going to explain why I am exasperated. | |
|
baineschile2600 ways to live Premium Member join:2008-05-10 Sterling Heights, MI |
Didnt cable companies...Have some sort of an agreement when they spent $$ wiring a town that the town municipal wouldnt run its own service?
I am all for last-mile fiber, but government controlled is not the answer. | |
| | |
Re: Didnt cable companies...said by baineschile:Have some sort of an agreement when they spent $$ wiring a town that the town municipal wouldnt run its own service? It depends on the franchise agreement. | |
| | fiberguy2My views are my own. Premium Member join:2005-05-20 |
to baineschile
Correct.. it does matter on the agreement. MOST of them had no-compete agreements (ala exclusive) with the franchise IN EXCHANGE for putting up the risk. (money/investment - something that people here don't care about)
On another note, fiber to the home IS NOT the holy grain people think it is. I have fiber in my home in two places.. in my own network and then in my entertainment system. ANYONE that has a brain in their head knows that fiber is only as good as the equipment running it AND (most importantly) HOW the PEOPLE in control utilize it. ie: video services, internet speeds and capabilities, and phone services/features.
With out the above, the fiber is nothing more than just a pipe line with potential.
.. in the end, I don't think I've yet seen any minu do it right.. most of them, over time, have ALWAYS done the bare minimum to make a service work.. crappy guides, improperly inserted ads, where they exist, (making TV less enjoyable) horrible audio levels, near non-existent customer service, stiff rules (that make current providers look like saints).. all of which we already have now.
My point.. fiber is only as good as those running it. | |
|
N10Cities Premium Member join:2002-05-07 0000000 Asus RT-AC87
|
Showing only a PART of an ONT...That pic linked in the summary only shows the fiber wound around a holder...
I wish my local phone company (Pinnacle Communications) would offer TV on our fiber system. We have telephone & Internet, but no TV. They are a very small independent phone company and probably are not in too big a hurry to go head-2-head with Cox.
Powell is making baby steps with their Internet Speeds like Pinnacle did. Pinnacle's highest tier was 5/2 for the first year or two, but now are offering excellent speeds - starting at 10/1 and up to 50/5. | |
| | 1 edit |
Re: Showing only a PART of an ONT... | |
| | | |
Re: Showing only a PART of an ONT...BAD CHOICE WITH CALIX - STILL USING ATM TECHNIQUES - SHOULD HAVE GONE WITH OCCAM ACTIVE ETHERNET - PUT FTTH WITH ATM IN AN IP/ETHERNET WORLD - WRONG CHOICE IN MY BOOK. | |
|
FFH5 Premium Member join:2002-03-03 Tavistock NJ |
FFH5
Premium Member
2009-Jan-21 10:01 am
Rush off to Powell ???Weather: » www.wrcc.dri.edu/cgi-bin ··· l?wypoweIf you don't want to check - It is usually very cold for 6 months of the year. Per capita income (1999) Powell $14,518 Per capita income (1999) US $21,239 Somehow I don't think FTTH is going to result in some great economic resurgence in Wyoming. | |
| | ••• |
1 recommendation |
So how does the math work on this?$5 million, about 5K residents, figure 2.5 residents per household (being conservative, makes 2K households.
$2500 per household startup costs? Wow.
And how many of these will actually pay even $50/month for broadband service? Let's be wildly optimistic and say 1/2 of them. That's 1000 households so gross revenue is $50K/month. Let's say profit is insanely high, 10%. That's $5K profit/month.
At this rate it'll take 1000 months or 80 years to make the original investment of $5 million.
Better to put your money in a 3% CD. | |
| | ••••••••• | |
ONT PICLOOKS LIKE ON OCCAM ACTIVE ETHERNET ONT - 1GB ACTIVE ETHERNET | |
| | MikroTik CCR1036-8G-2S+ MikroTik hAP AC
1 edit |
Re: ONT PICIt is actually a GPON ONT running on a 2.4/1.2 GPON network with a GigE subscriber side interface, or in our case a GigE and a 10/100 interface since that is how the 714G is configured. The ONT model itself is the 714G (not to be confused with the 714GX which can use active Ethernet) which is part of the 700G series: » www.calix.com/products/p ··· 700.html. | |
| | | |
vinnie97
Premium Member
2009-Jan-22 3:08 am
Re: ONT PICWhat do you do in Powell, Koolkid, if you don't mind my asking. I'm a little envious being that you're so close to Yellowstone and the majestic Tetons (I love to hike and that area is beautiful). | |
|
|
Lightnexa fiber company out of Bozeman, Lightnex, is planning on laying down fiber in my town, they already have an agreement with the city. Just hope they lay it down where i live. I live 80 miles north of powell. Lightnex offers 15/2 speeds. | |
| |
BTES/BVUIn Bristol, TN and Bristol, VA both have their own electric and internet structure... God knows its much more cheaper and a heck of a lot better than Charter and TVA-- for electric which serves that area. I moved 30 minutes away and am now stuck with Charter for both cable and internet... and am at least thankful Vonage is an option for phone. | |
|
| |
|
|