dslreports logo
 story category
Vermont Struggles to Get Fully Wired
Fiber plans rejected in favor of wireless towers
Residents of Vermont got excited last year when the state’s governor announced that there would be cell phone service and wireless Internet available to everyone in the state by 2010. However, they’re starting to look at that prediction with a critical eye as little motion appears to have been made to keep that plan on track. One issue that’s caused concern is that a group of 23 Central Vermont towns came together to form a community-based broadband network proposing a fiber optic solution for the state. The plan was rejected with the state saying that fiber may work in other states but it’s too expensive to be reasonable given the $40 million budget available for getting the whole state wired. With the recent Fairpoint deal seeming to be more of a problem than a solution, the state doesn’t seem clear on how it’s going to proceed other than to set up wireless towers and try to meet their stated goals. One suggestion has been that the state needs to build its social capital in order to gain the trust of residents in executing this plan.
view:
topics flat nest 
Marckus0513
Just Because
join:2003-01-11
Vernon, VT

2 edits

Marckus0513

Member

Fairpoint...Problem??

Why is it the opinion of the article writer that Fairpoint is more of a problem than a solution. No one knows what Fairpoint is going to do at this point since it has only been about 2 months since they have been here!! Why is everyone bashing Fairpoint so much when they have not even had a chance to do anything yet!! If the writer is refering to the E911 thing in Maine than please note that Verizon left Fairpoint with the poorly maintained E911 network that failed. It is not Fairpoints fault that this happened...Remember, they have only been running the business for a little over a month now and they still rely heavily on Verizon systems for now until they can get their own up and running.

As far as the fiber thing in central VT. The state rejected any funding or loans for the project. They did not say it could not happen. If this private group wants to put fiber in vermont for services they should come up with the money, and not use my tax dollars for their little project. Especially since it does absolutely nothing for me down here in Vernon. Where, by the way, I have access to DSL from Fairpoint as well as Cable Internet from Comcast. The cell service is not that great but my landline phone never has problems!

Mark
jjeffeory
jjeffeory
join:2002-12-04
Bloomington, IN

jjeffeory

Member

Re: Fairpoint...Problem??

I think they're bashing Fairpoint because they appear to be Verizon's tool. I have family in Farmington, Maine; I feel bad for them because Fairpoint doesn't exactly have a great track record. Only time will tell.

HEDP
join:2008-04-27
Miami, FL

1 recommendation

HEDP to Marckus0513

Member

to Marckus0513
Because some people think you can crap out a reliable Tier-4 data network overnight and throwing ethernet on a pole with a linksys router dangling with a extension cord from the telephone line as a "reliable" solution.

Specialists and analysts don't know jack what it means to build a network, all they know is hardware specs, and time frames and when those time frames are not met they get their panties in a bunch and start crying wolf about it which in returns hurts a companies image and drives investors with a cautious eye to walk away into telecommunication stocks which are risky in general.

People will continue to invest in the beast called AT&T & Verizon because they already have the network and pretty much every other provider is left to handle the scraps from the major carriers. They complain about duopoly markets yet still pay their bills at the end of the month with outrageous taxes and overpriced services.

People bitch and complain all the time though, and pretty much if you ever ran a business or been in some sort of sales or management position you basically hear it all the time.
88615298 (banned)
join:2004-07-28
West Tenness

88615298 (banned)

Member

why is this so hard.

There are COUNTIES in the US bigger than Vermont.

dvd536
as Mr. Pink as they come
Premium Member
join:2001-04-27
Phoenix, AZ

dvd536

Premium Member

Re: why is this so hard.

said by 88615298:

There are COUNTIES in the US bigger than Vermont.
So this totally blows the size of the area arguement out of the water.

alchav
join:2002-05-17
Saint George, UT

alchav

Member

Fiber vs Wireless!

I think scrapping the Fiber Plan was a mistake, even if you have to extend the time frame cut down the scope, keep Fiber in the Plan. You are doomed for failure with a Wireless Plan, people expect the same reliability and speed as a wired Fiber Plan.
patcat88
join:2002-04-05
Jamaica, NY

patcat88

Member

Re: Fiber vs Wireless!

And the wireless will have caps. Thanks VT.

iLive4Fusion
Premium Member
join:2006-07-13

iLive4Fusion to alchav

Premium Member

to alchav
Vermont needs their own satellite then
majortom1029
join:2006-10-19
Medford, NY

majortom1029

Member

hmm

Isnt Vermont a lot of mountains? Wouldn't it be hard to wire all of vermont with fiber due to the states geography?
EPS4
join:2008-02-13
Hingham, MA

EPS4

Member

Re: hmm

Mountains aren't great for wireless either, though.

nycommconnect
@taconic.net

nycommconnect to majortom1029

Anon

to majortom1029
yea i was gonna say that too. its alot easier to string fiber and know its going to be reliable then put up some antennas and know that they will be reliable.

and in response to above posts:
fairpoint is a horrible company. i have them here in eastern new york. we have had them since the 1990's. before that the company was known as Taconic Telephone and they actually cared about things. now fairpoint has no plans for doing anything in the next 10 years (i know the plant manager) and they are going to wait until the copper network is milked for EVERYTHING it can be.

and were not waiting for that to happen.
so we have a group thats going to change it all.

bUU
join:2007-05-10
Kissimmee, FL

bUU

Member

Re: hmm

There is a reason why no one wants to offer service in the state. There isn't enough profit in it. No one is owed anything; if there isn't a big enough profit motive in it, then don't expect to have great service options.
patcat88
join:2002-04-05
Jamaica, NY

patcat88

Member

Re: hmm

If they don't want to be a public utlity, its simple, let the public revoke their ROW access, and sieze the physical plant and make muni telcos who give a shit and are willing to get USDA fiber loans.
EPS4
join:2008-02-13
Hingham, MA

EPS4

Member

Re: hmm

Verizon found a solution to that problem more palatable to it's shareholders than yours, I suppose...

Fairpoint does want to provide service to these states, but seems convinced that FTTH isn't necessary, and even if it did probably couldn't afford to make a large-scale deployment with it's existing large debt.

bUU
join:2007-05-10
Kissimmee, FL

bUU to patcat88

Member

to patcat88
As long as the public is willing to pay them what their network is worth, as per the requirements of eminent domain, then that's fine. But the public is too cheap to spend taxpayer money that way.

So live with what you've got, because we don't deserve any more than we're willing to pay for.
Mr Matt
join:2008-01-29
Eustis, FL

Mr Matt

Member

I say again

Consider the difference in the cost per mile to install fiber compared to the cost per mile to build a two lane road. If the government can afford to build roads in rural areas it can afford to install fiber along those roads. See the link below. It describes how the infrastructure was created to deliver electric power and telephone service to rural customers in the 1930's.

»newdeal.feri.org/tva/tva10.htm

Remember that in the 1930's the robber barons that owned the private electric power industry strongly opposed development of rural electric power infrastructure by the government. The Telecommunications and CATV Power Barons are using the same techniques that the electric power barons used to prevent the development of a rural broadband infrastructure even though they do not want to spend the money to deploy fiber to every home in America.
patcat88
join:2002-04-05
Jamaica, NY

1 edit

patcat88

Member

Re: I say again

Yeah, if you have electricity, you have a right to all other pole fed utilities, this is just insane you dont.

a333
A hot cup of integrals please
join:2007-06-12
Rego Park, NY

a333

Member

Re: I say again

Why not put low-frequency WiMax equipment on hilltop towers, and feed THOSE with fiber? Install more RT's, and feed ADSL2+ from them, or RE-ADSL2. Provide grants to cable companies to upgrade to DOCSIS technology.
While the terrain argument may apply to higher frequencies, why not use lower ones? Also, the gov't can use LOS-based microwave towers as backhaul to remote areas, then re-distribute service using WiMax or WiFi on a localized basis, from the tower. Then, once there is sufficient ROI, they can upgrade to fiber backhauls, and in the end, full FTTH.

Vchat20
Landing is the REAL challenge
Premium Member
join:2003-09-16
Columbus, OH

Vchat20

Premium Member

Re: I say again

You're forgetting this is fairpoint territory you are talking about. They aren't gonna do squat to improve the situation and if they are as assholeish as they sound, they aren't gonna let anyone else do it without a fight either.

Sad case really. But you ARE right, these are all valid solutions to the problem. Just not gonna happen in the lifetime of anyone living there.
patcat88
join:2002-04-05
Jamaica, NY

patcat88 to a333

Member

to a333
said by a333:

Why not put low-frequency WiMax equipment on hilltop towers, and feed THOSE with fiber? Install more RT's, and feed ADSL2+ from them, or RE-ADSL2. Provide grants to cable companies to upgrade to DOCSIS technology.
While the terrain argument may apply to higher frequencies, why not use lower ones? Also, the gov't can use LOS-based microwave towers as backhaul to remote areas, then re-distribute service using WiMax or WiFi on a localized basis, from the tower. Then, once there is sufficient ROI, they can upgrade to fiber backhauls, and in the end, full FTTH.
Hmm, a muni fiber MAN network, great idea. City can sell/lease fiber strands or wavelengths to ISPs/resellers. And that will encourage investment or the city outright going into WiMAX and cell carrier CAN lease for towers (note word "can", they probably will refuse due to "dog in a manger" market suppression and "not invented here"). Businesses can also lease fiber going back to POPs/NOCs/COs as a T1 alternative.
Mr Matt
join:2008-01-29
Eustis, FL

Mr Matt

Member

Re: I say again

In our area several cities are leasing out the top of tall public buildings and standpipes (water towers) to cell carriers. There is plenty of room at many locations for WiMAX equipment.
balloonfarm
join:2008-06-01
West Townshend, VT

balloonfarm

Member

Wireless--it doesn't make sense here.

They won't allow a single highway billboard in Vermont (which is fine by me), but they want to dot the landscape with cell towers? In a region mostly covered with small mountains, where the signals aren't likely to travel into the valley beyond the next hill?

More are more VT residents seem to be opting for satellite, which is unfortunate due to its cost, unreliability and limitations. Also, it requires the purchase of expensive equipment and long contracts, which are likely to slow down the progress of fiber or cable systems getting new subscribers if or when such technologies do eventually arrive here.
bejee
join:2007-07-30
Orleans, VT

bejee

Member

VT Gov Forgot Something,,,

As an IT professional I have the misfortune of living in the most rural portion of the the most rural state in the union. The State of Vermont has provided substantial grants to local outfits to provide broadband, wireless unfortunately, to this area. I'm presently dealing with the second ISP after the first took the money and went belly-up. The grants at no time provide for a certain level of maintenance and service, only that the infrastructure be built. The end result is a wireless system that provides marginal service at best with no incentive to improve. For months I have been dealing with "Tech Support" at Great Auk Wireless re packet loss usually in the neighborhood of 10-20% but occasionally greater. Makes for wonderful VOIP phone calls!!! They talk nice, but have no incentive to tackle the problem. There are wireless broadband systems in place in this country that provide great service - the problem is not the technology but rather the State of Vermont for not being willing to do the E-State thing correctly by requiring a quality product.
Marckus0513
Just Because
join:2003-01-11
Vernon, VT

Marckus0513

Member

Re: VT Gov Forgot Something,,,

You make a choice to live where you live! If you choose to live where all you can get is wireless internet then that is your choice. Yes, it sucks that the company you are dealing with doesn't seem to care about their service but if you need reliable internet move to somewhere where you can get DSL or Cable.
bejee
join:2007-07-30
Orleans, VT

bejee

Member

Re: VT Gov Forgot Something,,,

You're kidding, right???
Marckus0513
Just Because
join:2003-01-11
Vernon, VT

Marckus0513

Member

Re: VT Gov Forgot Something,,,

said by bejee:

You're kidding, right???
I understand your point and I also understand that moving is sometimes not an option. But it amazes me to hear everyone on this forum talking like they are so entitled to everything they want and they should all have fiber optics right to there house that is out in the middle of the sticks. All I was trying to say is that if you absolutely need high speed internet for your work or whatever I would think that you would bring that into your decision as to where you are going to live. The fact of the matter is that no company is going to give every area no matter the cost the broadband that they want. Verizon is a fine example...deep pockets, perfectly able to deploy broadband to more rural areas if they wanted and they jumped ship leaving us with a company that though they seem more motivated to provide service may not have the means to give everyone in rural areas the speeds that they want. I am just happy that they want to give everyone at least something other than dialup. I think you will find that most people in rural areas will be happy with the speeds that DSL affords them. And if that just won't do, then they will have to think about moving to areas that are more populated to get the fancy super speed fiber.

Thats all I was trying to say.....
bejee
join:2007-07-30
Orleans, VT

bejee

Member

Re: VT Gov Forgot Something,,,

Let's make sure we understand the situation here:

The Vermont Governor has pledged to make Vermont an E-state by whenever. He did not say part of Vermont, he did not say only those who don't live in the boonies, he said the WHOLE state. I pay taxes, probably more than most and definitely more than those living in the shadow of Vermont Yankee. We are not talking free market here. We are talking state and federal grants, my tax dollars, to provide services to ALL of Vermont. My stance is that the state has not required the recipients of these monies to provide a quality product to the end user.

Finally, where I live should not be dictated by my ability or inability to get broadband service. If that were the case we'd all be living on Church Street in Burlington!
Marckus0513
Just Because
join:2003-01-11
Vernon, VT

Marckus0513

Member

Re: VT Gov Forgot Something,,,

Yes, the Governor has this idea of an E-state which basically says that everyone will have access to cellular service and some sort of broadband by I think 2012. Personally, I think that his vision is a little ambitious and un-realistic. As far as the money goes I am not in tune with how the money is to be handed out so I cannot speak to that. I don't know who has gotten or who is getting the money. As you said the money that is being handed out by the state are our tax dollars. I realize that I live in Vernon and everyone thinks that we pay low taxes but let me tell you, my taxes have more than tripled since the state education tax thing, so I pay quite a bit in taxes.

As I said before, I believe that everyone should have the ability to get broadband. I don't believe that everyone should be entitled to FTTH because that is not reasonable. I think you will see Fairpoint expanding DSL to many many areas that don't currently have it because unlike Verizon, these states are Fairpoint's business and they need to do this to stay in business. Like it or not DSL and Cable will be the broadband that most people get in these three states. No company is going to invest in fiber for everyone and that is all I have been trying to say.
bejee
join:2007-07-30
Orleans, VT

bejee

Member

Re: VT Gov Forgot Something,,,

I'd be more than happy w/1meg DSL with no packet loss or jitter, a pretty reasonable request in this day in age! What I'm getting is (occasionally!!)740 down, 256 up with 10-20% packet loss and jitter in 40-300ms range, and outages of some sort almost daily. For this I am considered a "power user" and I pay $50/month to a company (Great Auk Wireles) that the other day told me that their best tech people are high school students!!! In the state's eyes, I am serviced with broadband. GAW has no incentive to improve as they are the only game in town and the state doesn't care.

If you were a small, non polluting service company that was dependent on broadband and could provide much needed employment in this economically deprived region would you move to an area that can only provide the above??? This was not what Sen. Leahy had in mind when he procured federal e-state funding!

I realize I won't see fiber up here in my lifetime but at least give me something that works!!!
Marckus0513
Just Because
join:2003-01-11
Vernon, VT

Marckus0513

Member

Re: VT Gov Forgot Something,,,

I agree with you 100%! You should be able to get something much better than what you have. Perhaps Fairpoint will bring you DSL at some point. It stinks that GAW is not providing the service that they should be, but they better look out because when an alternative comes to town they will be out of business up there if they don't shape up!

mouseferatu
Too many cats, Too many mice
MVM
join:2004-03-16
Im not sure

mouseferatu to Marckus0513

MVM

to Marckus0513
said by Marckus0513:

If you choose to live where all you can get is wireless internet then that is your choice.
You know, that strikes me as a remarkably simplistic view of many folks lives. It is completely absurd to assume that most people have the luxury of choosing the place that they live based solely or primarily on the delivery of HSI.

FairPoint has not offered a logical solution to any of the three northern New England States, they have only managed to lose a mint so far. Their long-term vision of "someday" DSL for all includes you too, even though it would appear that you already have DSL. It includes me, and I have fiber.

Did you go to any of the open meetings of the utilities commissions in any of the three states? If you did, you are aware that the entire FairPoint deal was made on provisional promises, and fulfilling those to the State of Vermont are part of the deal.

And, FWIW, folks that commented on the provisioning problems due to terrain are correct... Adelphia was thrilled to see the last of this area, and Verizon follows their example.

Utilities are above-ground, and I still pay an absurd rate for cable TV that rarely has a decent signal for two days in a row, and we are accustomed to prolonged power outages every time there is lousy weather.

•••
balloonfarm
join:2008-06-01
West Townshend, VT

1 edit

1 recommendation

balloonfarm to Marckus0513

Member

to Marckus0513
said by Marckus0513:

Yes, it sucks that the company you are dealing with doesn't seem to care about their service but if you need reliable internet move to somewhere where you can get DSL or Cable.
Or you can discuss. Or you can fight. But don't run. That's cowardice, dude. Do you really think that moving is the only solution to every problem that comes your way? Sooner or later, you'd end up on the street.

•••
fgoldstein
join:2003-01-21
Newton Highlands, MA

fgoldstein to bejee

Member

to bejee
Didn't the state's new law make it easier to put up antennas?

I know that under the old rules, essentially any antenna was seen as a major project, requiring ridiculous paperwork. It's not uncommon for a rural area to have a mesh radio network using utility poles, but in Vermont that would have been a bigger deal per pole than it was ever worth. Hasn't that been fixed?

The hills and trees do get in the way, though. Licensed WiMAX might have enough power to bash through, but unless you're Sprint/Clearpoint, you probably don't have a license, and they're not exactly available any more. The 3.65 GHz band is available in most of VT (not the Northeast Kingdom; that's too close to Andover, ME) and gear for that is just starting to show up. But foliage is a problem.

mouseferatu
Too many cats, Too many mice
MVM
join:2004-03-16
Im not sure

mouseferatu

MVM

Re: VT Gov Forgot Something,,,

Your comments concerning antennas bring up a major issue that applies to huge tracts of land in all three northern states.

I am just north of the MA border, but I am in a cell dead zone. There has been discussion about these numerous dead zones for years, but actually getting antennas deployed is a nearly impossible problem.

Between trees, magnetic mountains, existing overground lines and resistance from residents who don't want them because they don't need them, the situation has been stagnant for a long while. Add in the restrictions of height, land elevation, minimal acreage requirements, etc. and I would bet you lunch that this will be a cell dead zone another ten years from now.

The only thing that makes people flip out more than saying "antenna", is dropping the words "nuke plant". Any number of them do not seem to understand the difference.