Community rejects Comcast and instead builds their own municipal broad brand network (Nebraska, dollar)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
It should tell people something of ComCast's reputation, though.
A few years ago, my friend's cousin was complaining about how other major cities had fiber internet and Oklahoma City didn't. I guess there was a proposal to pay the money to build the infrastructure to bring fiber internet to much of Oklahoma City, but the city voted it down.
So why was he upset that they didn't approve it? Because he wanted fast internet, period. Nothing else.
So why didn't an internet company just build the infrastructure themselves? Because they didn't believe that they could sell enough of the internet at the price necessary to cover the cost of the investment. So they wanted the government to subsidize it, so they could keep the price artificially-low.
Basically, they wanted to offload the costs from the people who use the fiber-internet, to the people who don't use the fiber-internet.
In the case of this town in Massachusetts, they had already made the choice that they were going to bring fiber-internet to the town. They were only deciding whether to pay Comcast $1 million but own nothing, or spend $1.5 million and the city will own all of the infrastructure.
Did they make the right decision? I think both of the decisions were bad decisions, I would have done nothing. And I certainly wouldn't have offloaded the cost of internet to the people who don't want it so that rich people can enjoy faster speeds at subsidized prices.
A few years ago, my friend's cousin was complaining about how other major cities had fiber internet and Oklahoma City didn't. I guess there was a proposal to pay the money to build the infrastructure to bring fiber internet to much of Oklahoma City, but the city voted it down.
So why was he upset that they didn't approve it? Because he wanted fast internet, period. Nothing else.
So why didn't an internet company just build the infrastructure themselves? Because they didn't believe that they could sell enough of the internet at the price necessary to cover the cost of the investment. So they wanted the government to subsidize it, so they could keep the price artificially-low.
Basically, they wanted to offload the costs from the people who use the fiber-internet, to the people who don't use the fiber-internet.
In the case of this town in Massachusetts, they had already made the choice that they were going to bring fiber-internet to the town. They were only deciding whether to pay Comcast $1 million but own nothing, or spend $1.5 million and the city will own all of the infrastructure.
Did they make the right decision? I think both of the decisions were bad decisions, I would have done nothing. And I certainly wouldn't have offloaded the cost of internet to the people who don't want it so that rich people can enjoy faster speeds at subsidized prices.
I’m slightly confused.
If Comcast doesn’t own the infrastructure, wouldn’t the city just charge maintenance costs?
If Comcast doesn’t own the infrastructure, wouldn’t the city just charge maintenance costs?
I think you're confusing an "internet service-provider" with an "internet backbone".
The internet backbones are the major data-lines which run from city to city across the country(and the world). And internet service-providers are the ones who bring internet from the backbones to individual homes(think of small pipes coming off a much larger pipe).
Most internet service-providers merely "buy" data from internet backbone companies, and each customer then effectively sub-leases that data connection.
In the case of Charlemont, Mass. The city council wanted to bring fiber-internet to the whole town. They went to Comcast and asked them to build it. Comcast said that the town is too spread out, so it would cost too much to build the infrastructure. And so the town asked Comcast how much it would cost them to build the infrastructure. Comcast came up with a proposal that it would the build the infrastructure with 96% coverage, if the city paid them half a million dollars. But Comcast would own all the infrastructure and control pricing.
The town then contacted other companies that only build internet infrastructure and asked them how much it would cost them to build a fiber-system with 100% coverage. They said they could build it for $1.5 million dollars. But once it is built, the city would own it all, and could set prices.
Even though the city owns the infrastructure in the town, they are still going to be paying for the data connection to the internet backbone which connects them to other cities. And at gigabit speeds, that connection is probably pretty expensive. In fact, if I were to guess, most of the $79 a month goes to the internet backbone, not to the management of the infrastructure or to the city.
Last edited by Redshadowz; 12-16-2018 at 01:34 PM..
Internet doesn't occur in nature. It requires labor and capital.
Sorry.
And why are you supporting property taxes? Statist much?
That can be remedied.
Also I didn’t say this was the ideal situation, but I thought since everyone used the Internet allowing town ownership would be better than allowing Comcast to operate the system. But it seems I mistook infrastructure with data providers.
I think you're confusing an "internet service-provider" with an "internet backbone".
The internet backbones are the major data-lines which run from city to city across the country(and the world). And internet service-providers are the ones who bring internet from the backbones to individual homes(think of small pipes coming off a much larger pipe).
Most internet service-providers merely "buy" data from internet backbone companies, and each customer then effectively sub-leases that data connection.
In the case of Charlemont, Mass. The city council wanted to bring fiber-internet to the whole town. They went to Comcast and asked them to build it. Comcast said that the town is too spread out, so it would cost too much to build the infrastructure. And so the town asked Comcast how much it would cost them to build the infrastructure. Comcast came up with a proposal that it would the build the infrastructure with 96% coverage, if the city paid them half a million dollars. But Comcast would own all the infrastructure and control pricing.
The town then contacted other companies that only build internet infrastructure and asked them how much it would cost them to build a fiber-system with 100% coverage. They said they could build it for $1.5 million dollars. But once it is built, the city would own it all, and could set prices.
Even though the city owns the infrastructure in the town, they are still going to be paying for the data connection to the internet backbone which connects them to other cities. And at gigabit speeds, that connection is probably pretty expensive. In fact, if I were to guess, most of the $79 a month goes to the internet backbone, not to the management of the infrastructure or to the city.
It seems the state screwed them over. Either way the cooperative needed some third party to build the infrastructure, and even then that won’t be enough.
It seems the state screwed them over. Either way the cooperative needed some third party to build the infrastructure, and even then that won’t be enough.
The infrastructure was already in place. That doesn't mean it couldn't or wouldn't be possible in a free society.
Contrary to popular belief government workers and corporation workers are just people in costumes with legal titles. Take off the costumes/strip their titles away and they still retain their abilities/skills/know-how.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
