
After beating cable lobby, Colorado city moves ahead with muni broadband - jseliger
https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2018/01/colorado-city-to-build-fiber-broadband-network-with-net-neutrality/
======
Someone1234
Honestly Municipal Broadband should be built out as an Open Access Network[0].

They're currently facing a lot of lobbying from the existing broadband
monopolies because they're building direct competition to them, this is an
unnecessary fight. Particularly when their ultimate goal is just to get fast
high quality internet.

Build it as an OAN instead and let CenturyLink, Comcast, Charter, etc, lease
it. But also let new smaller players lease it too. Instead of fighting the big
guys, get them onboard with this plan.

The big guys won't LOVE it because they still lose their monopolistic
stranglehold, but at least you aren't using public revenue to push them out of
the market. You're using public revenue to create a road that any business can
use for an equal fee.

In any regard your local citizens get: Faster internet, more choice of ISPs,
and perhaps lower prices due to more competition. Let citizens be the "king
maker" by choosing their own ISP.

[0] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open-
access_network](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open-access_network)

~~~
rtkwe
What actual services are really left for them to provide on an OAN though that
aren't just as well served being a website?

~~~
tedd4u
All the stuff they offer today. Comcast / Xfinity for example could offer the
following over an OAN:

    
    
      Telephony / VOIP
      Television channels, especially sports
      Free/sponsored content (NBC etc)
      Email
      "security" virus protection etc
      Business services
      Home security systems

~~~
wmf
But couldn't they could also offer that same stuff over the regular Internet?
Why do they need to be your "ISP" to offer that? So that they can sneak extra
stuff onto a single confusing bill?

~~~
sli
Yes, and they don't, respectively. Comcast could simply choose not to use the
public OAN and stay on their private (or "private") lines, for better or for
worse.

As for your third question: probably yes, heh.

------
samfriedman
Longmont, CO also has municipal (gigabit) broadband. At the first attempt,
telecoms spent $200,000 to stifle the measure. In 2011 it was tried again, and
despite $400,000 in spending by telecoms the measure passed. [0]

Now in Fort Collins, the cable lobby outspent the city $900,000 to $15,000 on
campaigning and still lost. [TFA]

I wonder if anti-municipal campaign spending by the telecoms will continue to
increase, and just how far they will go before cutting their losses and trying
to defeat these plans some other way.

[0]
[https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2014/11/19/longmo...](https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2014/11/19/longmont-
internet-service/19294335/)

~~~
blakesterz
It's not clear to me from that USA Today article... what the cable lobbies
spending that money on? Advertising aimed at residents? What do those ads look
like? Or is it just "lobbying" (bribing) the local officials?

~~~
ajbourg
In Fort Collins, 2b was a ballot measure. Most of the money went to
advertising. I had a hard time finding direct examples online, but this
article ([http://www.coloradoan.com/story/news/2017/11/01/fact-
check-f...](http://www.coloradoan.com/story/news/2017/11/01/fact-check-fort-
collins-broadband-ads/821222001/)) does have a picture of the many mailers
received by some voters. (I lived in Longmont when the second vote happened
and can confirm many similar mailings as the article)

~~~
TWAndrews
I live in Fort Collins and can confirm that we were absolutely inundated with
mailers, and other forms of ads.

------
rayiner
So here in Maryland, the state and county governments are building a fiber
network to plug gaps in the state's coverage (most populated areas of the
state have competition between fiber and high-speed cable). It's a great idea.
That said, requirements like these make me nervous:

> > The city intends to provide gigabit service for $70 a month or less and a
> cheaper Internet tier. Underground wiring for improved reliability and
> "universal coverage" are two of the key goals listed in the measure.

> Building a citywide network is a lengthy process—the city says its goal is
> to be done in "less than five years."

Contrast with how Stockholm built its network:
[https://www.stokab.se/Documents/Stockholms%20Stokab%20-%20A%...](https://www.stokab.se/Documents/Stockholms%20Stokab%20-%20A%20Blueprint%20for%20Ubiquitous%20Fiber%20Connectivity%20FINAL%20VERSION.pdf).
A company was created by the city to own the dark fiber. The company was not
given any build-out directive, and it took 18 years to cover 90% of the city,
building out in a demand-driven fashion. The upside is that the approach is
sustainable. Stockholm's utility has never received public money, isn't
subsidized by a utility monopoly, and operates at a profit. It doesn't depend
on changing political moods or public priorities.

Freedom from the municipal government is a big advantage. Look at what's
happening right now with DC's and New York's subway systems. Once very good,
they've been overcome by public-sector mismanagement, and are facing
_enormous_ maintenance and upgrade backlogs. The fact that this is run by the
power company isn't all that comforting. Municipal governments have enormous
influence over local power companies, and our electrical grid is in pretty
poor shape too.

~~~
gowld
If NYC subway was privately owned by a (natural) monopoly, and profitable
because the population critically depends on it and pays their fare, why would
a private company upgrade it?

CA electricity was privatized, and we got Enron.

~~~
rayiner
Electricity was deregulated almost everywhere around the same time (not just
in the U.S. but in Europe too), and situations like Enron were the exception.
By contrast, decaying public infrastructure is the rule. The NYC subway (and
Amtrak and Metro North) runs slower in many cases today than a century ago,
because of deteriorating track, bridges, etc. See:
[http://www.slate.com/articles/life/transport/2009/05/stop_th...](http://www.slate.com/articles/life/transport/2009/05/stop_this_train.html).
There is a multi-hundred billion backlog in maintenance and upgrades of water
and sewer pipes. Roads and bridges are crumbling.

When the public owns the infrastructure, there is enormous political pressure
to price service too cheaply, which can work in the short term but has led to
the infrastructure disaster we're seeing in the U.S. now:
[https://www.infrastructurereportcard.org](https://www.infrastructurereportcard.org).

~~~
patmorgan23
Plus it's much easier politicaly to get new infrastructure build than use
those funds to maintain what you already have. Their are hardly any federal
grants for mantaince but you want to build a 4 lane boulevard that's not going
to be used much for the next 10 years here's 30 million.

------
MechEStudent
The important question: How much money was it worth to Comcast?

They have a population of ~136k, comprising 60,503 households. If each
currently pays $100/mo for a cable bundle and all abandon them for fiber (a
gross over-estimate), that is $72.6 million per year of lost revenue to
Comcast.

It is, however, $72.6 million of returned value, or something more than about
10% of the $620M/year total city budget. If my town voted to net-reduce its
total burden to me by 10% or so, that would be very appealing. If they only
returned half of that, it would still be substantial.

If they dispensed with the "evil" of the regular garbage "fees" and price
hikes that modern cable monopolies love, it would be worth 100% of the price.

~~~
gnopgnip
Each subscriber is worth $1000-$1500 by traditional accounting methods. The
number of active accounts could be substantially less than 60k though. Alameda
CA is a similar sized city and they had ~15k subscribers when they sold the
municipal cable and internet to Comcast for $17 million.

------
0xf8
These municipalities are the unsung heroes fighting the good fight. True
Champions. I hope it is the catalytic butterfly that ends the telecoms'
monopoly and abuse.

------
danschumann
I'm really glad to see a public option. I still want companies to have the
option to compete, but a public option, IMO, is the best bet against the
monopolies.

~~~
rch
It makes sense for the city to provide fibre and let co-ops, non-profits, and
corporations compete for subscribers.

The city shouldn't have to manage the Netflix appliance, for instance.

------
mparr4
Good luck, Fort Collins.

I'm from Burlington, Vermont. We had municipal fiber. Great speed and prices
and amazing customer service.

Unfortunately, due to mismanagement and some shady borrowing from the city,
the utility was sold last month as mandated in the settlement of a suit by
Citibank, marking the end of our experiment with municipal broadband.

Fort Collins is 4x the size of Burlington. Hopefully the larger customer base
means they'll be able to avoid some of the financial struggles that we faced.

~~~
AngeloAnolin
"Unfortunately, due to mismanagement and some shady borrowing from the city"

That alone spelled its doom, not the premise of it being established as a
public internet utility.

With financial institutions having a stranglehold on the government, they
could effectively choose (negotiate?) which sort of payment would be
beneficial to them long term. A public internet utility sold to them makes the
most sense as this means an actual steady flow of income and customer base.

~~~
rgbrenner
Citi doesn't sound like the bad guy in this case.. BT borrowed from Citi for
the buildout. Citi was told 40% of payments to BT were not from tax receipts,
and were available to service the loan. Then when it became clear the buildout
wasn't going well, the mayor decided to allocate $0 in the city budget to
service the loan, and declared that all payments, no matter the source, were
tax receipts(ie: payments from BTs customers were tax receipts now).. and
therefore Citi would receive nothing because in their interpretation of the
loan agreement, only non-tax revenues would be available for loan payments.

Where in that is Citibank doing the wrong thing? Is Citibank wrong because
they wanted to receive more than $0 from BT?

And casting this as Citibank's fault directly conflicts with the fraud
investigation, illegal borrowing from city bank accounts, etc. There was clear
mismanagement by BT, bad forecasts for subscriber numbers, and no more funds
available because this occurred during the financial crisis in 2008 (prompting
the illegal borrowing from the city).

~~~
matt_the_bass
That sounds pretty damning. Do you have any sources to share?

~~~
rgbrenner
that's just part of it.. the link I posted above was the best/most thorough
source I could find:
[https://muninetworks.org/sites/www.muninetworks.org/files/bt...](https://muninetworks.org/sites/www.muninetworks.org/files/bt-
lessons-learned.pdf)

But there are plenty of news articles out there too if you search.

------
rch
There is a meeting about this in Boulder next week as well:

[https://www-static.bouldercolorado.gov/docs/Study_Session_Bo...](https://www-
static.bouldercolorado.gov/docs/Study_Session_Boulder_s_Broadband_Initiative-1-201801021108.pdf)

~~~
ryannevius
It's also in the works in Estes Park. It appears that the whole Front Range is
interested in at least having these discussions.

~~~
scoggs
Colorado blazing the trail again for the entire country? I like it.

------
msla
I hope I'm being overly-suspicious, but I always wonder: Who are they going to
buy transit from? An ISP they just denied a profitable monopoly? It would be
the simplest thing in the world, it seems to me, for the ISPs in the region to
refuse to sell bandwidth to the city that just beat them.

~~~
ajbourg
Transit providers are usually _much_ more competitive than last mile.

------
c3534l
I hope the telecom industry comes to regret their lobbying and bad business
practices.

------
0xfeba
But what can people do in non-compete areas? Places where legislation already
exists preventing municipalities from doing just what Ft. Collins has done?

~~~
mileycyrusXOXO
In 2015 Fort Collins voted to overturn the legislation preventing competition.
In 2017 another 17 municipalities in Colorado did as well.

~~~
rayiner
That’s a weird way to phrase it. Colorado voters didn’t vote to “overturn the
legislation.” The law itself provides for referendums where voters can approve
municipal broadband.

------
delinka
Eliminating legislation against municipal broadband is certainly a good thing.
But I'm curious why some enterprising residents haven't created a company to
do what a Public Open Access Network would do: build out the infrastructure,
and lease it to anyone wanting to provide internet service to the covered
area.

There's nothing requiring only the municipalities themselves to do that,
right?

~~~
bickfordb
One problem is getting right of way to run cable on poles and underground
conduits

------
aaronchall
Monopolized ISP services are ripe for local disruption.

Is the future of Internet Service Providing going to be a service of local
governments?

What about co-ops?

~~~
TallGuyShort
If local governments are the future of ISP services, I'm not sure we'll have
made much progress at all on the anti-monopoly front.

~~~
JadeNB
> If local governments are the future of ISP services, I'm not sure we'll have
> made much progress at all on the anti-monopoly front.

It seems to me that this _is_ real progress; or do you mean "this just
replaces the private monopoly with a government monopoly"? Even just moving a
monopoly from private to public hands seems to me like progress. Comcast, for
example, doesn't need, or particularly care about, my vote, whereas local
government does.

~~~
fetus8
I think you're right, by moving the monopoly over to the local government, my
vote now influences how the service works in a way that I can't control with
Comcast.

Living in Fort Collins and trying to help this get passed and put in to action
has been great to see, but watching Comcast fight back has been quite
disheartening considering the quality of service they provide. I am more than
ready to give the City my money every month instead of the money hungry POS
that is Comcast.

~~~
TallGuyShort
That's funny, I live in Fort Collins too, and they already take a large chunk
of my money and despite my votes and my dissatisfaction with how they spend it
now, they seem to be changing about as fast as Comcast's customer service is
known to be.

------
deevolution
Municipal broadband only goes so far in terms of protecting citizens from
throttling, am i right? If you need to access a website hosted on a server
outside your municipal broadband network, will those packets be throttled as
they pass through various datacenters controlled by monopoly ISPs?

~~~
matt_the_bass
This is a really good point. There isn’t really a “free” backbone that
connnects all these separate networks. There are private backbones who could
filter at their interfaces if they chose to.

------
qwertyml
You guys are role models for the rest of the country and the world. Keep
going. All the best.

------
bwb
I really hope Boulder gets this soon... I am jealous of Longmont!

------
yohann305
internet should use the water model. You can get a decent internet speed
provided by the state just like tap water and if you need a faster internet,
you can pay as you go just like you'd buy bottled water. What's your opinion?

~~~
orthecreedence
Not sure how water is set up, but I think municipalities should own the
network infrastructure and rent/lease it out to private companies.

This keeps the city from having to run a business, instead they just maintain
the infrastructure (like pipes/roads) and let the private companies duke it
out themselves.

This is always how I had it in my head, but apparently there's a name for it
(Open access network): [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open-
access_network](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open-access_network)

------
caspercba
This is a bad bad idea. We have plenty of Latin American examples showing how
this ends. A very inefficient company with many employees, a powerful trade
union and many customers without service. I know, it feels good to have these
services as public, but at the end of the day it is not a better service, and
it gets more expensive with time. Good luck though.

~~~
delinka
"...but at the end of the day it is not a better service, and it gets more
expensive with time."

So...just like the monopoly incumbents?

