

133 US cities now have their own broadband networks - abraham
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2011/03/133-us-cities-now-run-their-own-broadband-networks.ars

======
nnmy
So, Shrewsbury, MA is on the list and their municipal cable has been around
forever. Since I have experience with them, I can tell you that a town owned
cable company isn't some sort of panacea. A town owned cable company is like a
credit union. It's really cool that they're kinda "on your side". With Comcast
and RCN (the other two cable companies I have experience with), I have to be
remain on my toes lest they increase my rates. Likewise, they can be mean in
that "ha, we're a big company and you don't have any other options" way (even
though I'm living in one of the few places that _does_ have two cable
companies - RCN and Comcast).

However, it can also be annoying. I remember Shrewsbury's cable company being
a bit behind the other cable companies in the area in getting us broadband
service. It wasn't terribly behind, but when we were on dial-up, it was
terribly annoying to see the neighboring towns with their commercial cable
companies getting broadband before we did (no matter how small the gap was,
when you're on dial up things seem like an eternity ;-)). Their prices are
what I would consider "fair". $40 for 10Mbps doesn't seem like gouging, but it
isn't exactly cheap. I'm currently paying $20 for 15Mbps - but I know that
they'll continually try to up me to $65 and hope I don't complain. Shrewsbury
also puts caps on how much you can download. The 10Mbps plan includes 250GB of
transfer which is the same limit that Comcast and AT&T use. It's hard for a
small provider to handle a couple people that use an outrageous amount and the
limit feels like the practical things that a credit union does to make sure
that it can serve all its members. They also up your transfer limit as you buy
more speed - $50 gets you 15Mbps and 400GB of transfer. And 400GB is a lot of
transfer considering that it's about the maximum one can transfer in a month
over a fully saturated T1 connection used every second of every day. Heck,
they even sell equipment at good rates - an 802.11N router at $40 is a fair
price.

Their cable rates are similarly "fair" in that they're the honest and genuine
prices that they think they can do business at and they're aren't looking to
hook you on low teaser rates.

The service is pleasant and it's nice to know that you're getting the rate and
not getting screwed by not knowing about some hidden deal. However, they don't
really beat the speed or pricing of commercial offerings. They currently top
out at 50Mbps for just shy of $100/mo while still capping upload at 2Mbps.
Comcast is offering that service in my area for a little over $100/mo with
10Mbps upload. RCN is offering 60Mbps at that price range with uploads capped
at 6Mbps.

There isn't some huge panacea by going with a town-owned system. It's still
really cool in the way that credit unions are really cool and, like credit
unions, they can sometimes have a real local (and sometimes small) feel to
them. That's good and bad. On the one hand, you're usually treated well. These
people are your neighbors and if you treat people poorly, it just isn't good
for you. It also means that sometimes you don't get the latest cable channels
or things aren't as flashy with online portals where you can monitor usage and
such.

I hate the idea that companies are trying to prevent these types of projects.
However, it's also annoying when people who haven't used one of these
municipal systems think that these projects mean 100Mbps connections to the
home for $20/mo. Think of them like credit unions: they're on your side,
they're trying to be nice to you, but they don't change everything. Companies
don't (usually) have profit margins of 200%. Some of the lack of profit margin
gets eaten by a lack of scale (Comcast has a lot more scale than a municipal
project). But it's very relaxing to be a customer of a company that you feel
has a fair pricing system - rather than constantly being at odds with a
company you feel is trying to screw you.

~~~
muhfuhkuh
"Think of them like credit unions: they're on your side, they're trying to be
nice to you, but they don't change everything."

Yeah, but what if they weren't there at all. For example. I have Roadrunner
here in NC. That's our _only_ choice for cable broadband. And this is in RDU,
one of the tech-heaviest areas in the country. I currently pay $59/mo for
6mbps down, 365kbps up. Muni competition doesn't change everything, but those
concerns of a one-horse race (lock-in, lack of relaxation about crazy rate
hikes, big faceless corporation who cares almost nothing about one lowly
customer) _are_ the main pressure points causing pain.

~~~
wmf
My attitude is that you don't want to actually _use_ municipal broadband (or
any other underdog company); you just want it to exist to keep prices in
check.

------
r00fus
If I were a municipality/county, I'd keep a not-so-skunkworks broadband
project on the back burner at all times and start pumping out the PR when it
comes to negotiating with Comcast.

I wonder how many places would already have municipal broadband if Comcast
didn't make a sweet deal?

Conversely, how many areas don't have municipal broadband because they feel
like Comcast would have them over a barrel for cable TV?

~~~
tomkinstinch
Rochester, NY is doing something like this:
<http://rocwiki.org/Sewer_Fiber_Optic_Network>

------
lutorm
The whole idea that someone can _prohibit_ cities from building their own
infrastructure is the thing I find most amazing every time I read about this
topic. Should they also be prohibited from building their own roads?

~~~
dpatru
You're viewing government as a benevolent force. The reality is that
government as an organization is funded through coercion (taxes aren't
voluntary). It also protects itself from competition through violence (try
competing with any of the "services" provided by a government, the government
will shut you down). It also uses violence to further its aims (if government
wants your land to build a road, it can just take it (and in the US, if
government takes your property, it is mandated by the Constitution to pay
you)). A private entity can't do that.

In particular, as a user of cable, a private cable company cannot force you to
accept and pay for its service. A government-operated cable service could.

From the perspective of a private cable company, government competition is
unfair. The government does not have to use non-coercive means. It can force
people to pay for its service even if they don't want to.

In the US, the best illustration of the danger of government enterprises is
the public school system. Residents of an area are forced to support the local
public schools, even if they send their children to private schools. The long-
term loss of human potential of this system is monstrous. The economic waste
is pretty bad too.

The best way to avoid disasters like the US public school system is to insist
that transactions be voluntary. If you want to operate a cable company, fine,
do it, but don't expect to be able to use coerced money to fund it or coercion
to operate it.

~~~
jarpadat
Look, I am a libertarian too and I'm 100% with you that government coercion is
bad. But running fiber _totally depends_ on a lot of unrelated people agreeing
to have their land dug up, and in any practical circumstance that requires
coercion.

The government is already involved, whether your bill says "AT&T" or
"Chattanooga Municipal". The only question is whether data lines remain under
the collective control of the people whose land they actually run under or
whether that control is ceded by that government to a private corporation. The
difference is _who_ wags the government's tail, not _whether_ that force is
used.

------
darklajid
We see similar things here in DE, but the prices are a hell of a lot lower.
Over here you get 100M/5M (D/U) and a bundled telephone flatrate for Germany
for 45 EUR/month, some choices of AVM products (Fritzbox?) included.

I've heard lots reports about broadband being harder to get by/being more
expensive in the US. Are these prices ($150 in the article) normal?

~~~
simonsarris
You can find US Broadband price comparisons here:

<http://www.dslreports.com/shownews/83886>

But it varies from place to place. Comcast tends to suck more in towns where
it has no competition. In my state (New Hampshire) it has competition from
Verizon (or FairPoint now) so we get better speeds for less than other places
where comcast decides to have worse speeds for a higher cost.

