
Comcast rejected by small town, residents vote for municipal fiber instead - coatta
https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2018/12/comcast-rejected-by-small-town-residents-vote-for-municipal-fiber-instead
======
bronco21016
I hate Comcast with a passion and have always fantasized about living in a
progressive municipality that provides fiber to the home. However, a few years
ago I bought a home and it’s only been over the last 6 months or so I’ve
realized how horribly corrupt and mismanaged small city governments can be.
We’re being sucked dry by our mayor who hired her cousin as city manager for
an exorbitant compensation package. They had no problem spending millions on
extravgently updating the city offices but have come to residents with their
hands out begging for money through special assessments to fix our roads,
storm water drains, and water mains that are unusable for firefighting (and
the city does not have a tanker truck).

My point is simply that I’m not sure a purely municipal broadband is the
panacea we all hope for. In some cases it may be better to stick with the
devil you know vs the horribly slow, beaurctatic devil you don’t.

I hope that over time we find a municipal model that works well and serves
residents with cutting edge broadband. Until then I’ll continue to attempt to
vote these clowns out.

~~~
xoa
> _is the_ panacea _we all hope for_

I have never seen "panacea" used by anyone except those opposed to any public
infrastructure, and while you sound like you're speaking in all good faith and
I appreciate that I still have trouble seeing this as something other then a
strawman. Of course governments can have issues too. Public roads can have
potholes. Bridges have not been kept up. Public parks aren't always maintained
to the extent they're supposed to be. Etc etc. But at the same time there are
plenty of good cases to show it can be done very well too, and the massive
failures of privatized infrastructure are also in ample evidence.
Fundamentally natural monopolies and basic floor level services for society
(taking into account not just existing people but future generations and
flexibility value to the nation overall) aren't great fits for a market. Some
things really do make sense as an area of government.

Corruption is simply something that has to be fought, period, but we do have
the tools to do so more easily at the local government level then for more
widely distributed private entities. And whatever else the fact is that
privatized information infrastructure simply _has not worked_ overall. There
will absolutely be cases of mismanagement and corruption in public information
infrastructure should it become widespread, there will be fierce fights and
politics and so forth same as with roads and everything else. That however
doesn't make it worse then the alternatives, and long term in America at least
citizens get the government they deserve.

~~~
theptip
> I have never seen "panacea" used by anyone except those opposed to any
> public infrastructure

This is a good point; seems like an isolated demand for rigor. The bar we
should be aiming to be above is "better than Comcast", which is a quite low
standard.

> Corruption is simply something that has to be fought, period, but we do have
> the tools to do so more easily at the local government level then for more
> widely distributed private entities.

I like this way of putting it. At the local scope, you aren't fighting well-
paid lobbyists; you just have to persuade a majority of people in your area,
and that's a much more tractable problem.

The only problem here is that people tend to care less about local politics
(turnout is lower, information flow is harder, etc.) which does add
challenges.

~~~
microcolonel
> _This is a good point; seems like an isolated demand for rigor. The bar we
> should be aiming to be above is "better than Comcast", which is a quite low
> standard._

The problem is that in many cases, the common folk in a town have to pay at
least somewhat for the municipal broadband even if they do not use it; so it'd
better be worth using.

I can understand municipal cable conduits and such, since they are somewhat
analogous to the roads; but when your municipal government is actively
excluding competition (Comcast in this case, if the title is anything to go
by), they had better make sure they _municipal cars_ on those _roads_ are
good; because if you don't like them, your only recourse is generally to leave
town.

To satisfy the "better than Comcast" requirement, generally speaking the only
thing you need to do is stop excluding their competitors. Comcast is actually
pretty reasonable in competitive markets; but when a _satellite internet
company_ needs specific permission to operate in your county, that's something
you can fix right now, with no investment, and immediately gain some
competitiveness in your ISP market.

~~~
nonce413
> _the common folk in a town have to pay at least somewhat for the municipal
> broadband even if they do not use it; so it 'd better be worth using._

Just anecdotally, there are Whip City Fiber signs up all over (you get a
discount if you let them put one on your lawn with installation). We're long
past the days where Internet access is desired by only a subset of the
population. I think $70/mo is a little above what "everybody" wants to pay. I
am hoping after the initial financials have settled, they will offer a lower
tier.

> _actively excluding competition (Comcast in this case, if the title is
> anything to go by)_

If you read the article, what Charlemont rejected was _the town paying
Comcast_ for a build out. That's a significant point that's glossed over in
most of these public vs private debates - with low population density, private
communications companies _do not nobly invest their own money_ , but get the
government to pay for the infrastructure that they end up owning.

------
rayiner
I feel like people are being shortsighted about municipal fiber. It’s not a
one time and you forget it thing. Verizon has upgraded the FiOS network
several times since 2005.

We have some towns on the eastern shore of MD that did municipal cable, back
when that was the state of the art. Those systems are lagging far behind
Comcast now because nobody wants to raise rates to generate cash for upgrades.

Municipal fiber is a solution to a problem created by the municipalities. The
municipalities suppress competition by using their authority over TV
regulation to impose build-out requirements. You can’t enter as a competitor
without building out to a whole city. No MVPs or niche products.

There's also more free-market ways to accomplish the same thing. Stockholm,
for example, has quasi-municipal dark fiber. The network was built by a
company created by the city for that purpose. While the city owns the company,
the city does not run the company, fund it, or control its business strategy
(prices, deployment). The company built the fiber network using private
capital, charging customers up-front for a hookup, and expanding the network
over more than a decade based on demand and revenue potential ( _e.g._
businesses first), rather than politics.

~~~
cm2187
The thing is the bulk of the cost is pulling wires. Fiber optic cables have an
almost unlimited theoretical bandwidth. You just need to upgrade the hardware
on both sides, which is getting cheaper by the minute.

~~~
rayiner
A lot of the cost is pulling wires, but the equipment on both sides is also a
major expense. FiOS scaled up from 75 mbps to 1 gbps over the same passive
infrastructure, but the cost of upgrades was substantial. BPON line cards were
upgraded to GPON linecards, and an upgrade to NGPON2 is in the works. As
bandwidth went up, the number of customers per line card had to go down. 1G
router ports had to be upgraded to 10G router ports. Etc.

I mean, just do a traceroute and see how many hops there are before you get to
a peering node. In a municipal system, that's all infrastructure that the
government has to pay to upgrade.

~~~
dd36
Why would it cost the government more to do that than Verizon?

Half joking: is it because the government gave Verizon billions of dollars?

------
epoch_100
Good! By allowing individual municipalities to manage their own Internet
infrastructure, we can help keep the Internet from becoming effectively owned
by the likes of Comcast, AT&T, and Verizon.

~~~
JumpCrisscross
> _By allowing individual municipalities to manage their own Internet
> infrastructure, we can help keep the Internet from becoming effectively
> owned by the likes of Comcast, AT &T, and Verizon_

I'm nervous about how thoughtlessly we're embracing public ISP ownership.
Local governments are notoriously corrupt, in both politics and police. These
referenda expand their power without rebalancing any checks or balances. We
just happen to have something breathlessly more broken in the monopoly ISPs.

Going forward, it would be nice to see cities re-open their networks to
private management. The city would continue to own the infrastructure. But
subpoenas, _et cetera_ would be served to the private operator.

~~~
49531
They're no more corrupt than large corporate players, but I can vote for my
local government.

~~~
JumpCrisscross
> _They 're no more corrupt than large corporate players, but I can vote for
> my local government_

My point is that's a terrible baseline to settle for. If our metric for
"should we do it" is solely "is it better than Comcast," we've got a problem.
My specific concern is around local police having expanded access to locals'
internet activity.

~~~
KZeillmann
I don't see how the local police would have any more access than they would if
Comcast were in charge. They'd still have to get a warrant to search anything.

~~~
darkarmani
> They'd still have to get a warrant to search anything.

Even better, anything they found without a warrant would be thrown out, unlike
if Comcast volunteers to give up data about you.

------
walrus01
1300 residents? How many individual premises? That is a rather small scan gpon
project. Hope they hire someone with a clue and experience to build and run
it, there is not a lot of Venn diagram overlap between municipal managers and
network engineers.

I do hope they realize that if they want to do everything themselves, they'll
still need transport links to the nearest major IX point, and IP transit
upstreams. I don't know of many small towns, sub 5000 population, that have
successfully become their own "real" ISP (ARIN AS, their own IP space,
presence at an ix with a bgp speaking router, all of the typical ISP back-end
operational support software). In addition to all of the costs of being a
wholly facilities based ISP at layer 1 in the OSI model.

Another way to do it is for the town to simply build dark fiber, and rent it
to interested ISPs. Or to build a layer 2 gpon transport network and do
nothing at L3, and no individual customer service, and let different ISPs
compete for business with the town running the gpon OLTs only.

~~~
nwellinghoff
Sounds like they need to hire you. Your third option sounds pretty smart.

~~~
walrus01
It's not a totally uncommon network architecture, look at Douglas county and
Grant county public utility districts in WA state for instance. Their fiber
networks provide L2 transport and different ISPs sell service over it. For
bigger business customers they offer dedicated transport and dark options.

But they are also electrical grid operators and share common expenses for
lineman crews, bucket trucks, etc between power and fiber. A town of 1300
people is in a very different position.

------
luckydata
I despise Comcast like everyone here but I'm not sure I would be so happy
about municipal internet service unless there was some way to make it not
suck. I'm speaking from experience, I used to live in San Bruno that has San
Bruno Cable and it's one of the worst customer support experiences I've ever
had in my life. I'm currently living in the East Bay, I have Comcast and while
I had my share of issues with them both service and experience has been
better. Is it even possible to have good internet service in this country?

~~~
Riseed
> Is it even possible to have good internet service in this country?

Yes. I have zero complaints about sonic.[0] They deliver reliable service at a
reasonable price (cheaper than Comcast's intro pricing here), and have stellar
customer service and punctual install techs. They also have a history of
receiving all 5 stars on EFF's yearly "Who Has Your Back" report [1].

[0]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sonic_(ISP)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sonic_\(ISP\))

[1] [https://www.eff.org/who-has-your-back-2017](https://www.eff.org/who-has-
your-back-2017)

------
AnIdiotOnTheNet
Good for them. I hope this trend continues because ISPs need a good solid kick
in the teeth.

~~~
takeda
All ISPs need is to separate the last mile (the fiber between your house and
nearest POP) from their service. Once that would be available, we would have a
real compression in that market.

In all countries which are known for having best internet experience the ISP
don't own the last mile.

~~~
rayiner
> In all countries which are known for having best internet experience the ISP
> don't own the last mile.

ISPs own their own last mile almost everywhere. What you may be thinking of is
unbundling, where an ISP may be required to let other ISPs use their last-mile
facilities at regulated rates. That is a minority rule as well.

Most broadband providers in South Korea own their own facilities:
[http://www.itu.int/ITU-D/ict/cs/korea/material/CS_Kor.pdf](http://www.itu.int/ITU-D/ict/cs/korea/material/CS_Kor.pdf)
(see Table 5.2).

Norway didn't start unbundling fiber until 2014, but was near the top of the
charts in broadband performance long before that. (And it still doesn't impose
price regulation on the unbundled fiber.)

Sweden is an exception where, in Stockholm, there as a municipally-owned ISP
that provides dark fiber.

Hong Kong had unbundling, then got rid of it in 2004.

~~~
robocat
The alternative to unbundling (private ownership, any ISP can use) is treating
the fibre as infrastructure (public ownership, any ISP can use).

In New Zealand (similar population and area to Oregon) a mixed private &
public UFB project is well under way that cost the public about $1 billion. As
of March 2018, the original fibre rollout is 89% complete, with fibre
available to 1,300,914 households and businesses, of which 550,314 (42.3%)
have connected. I think there are approximately 1.6 million households and 0.6
million business premises in NZ.

Getting connected is slow (the public company Chorus that manages connections
is crappy) but there is plenty of choice of service (ISP) and good reliability
once connected.

Looking at
[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fiber_to_the_premises_by_cou...](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fiber_to_the_premises_by_country)
shows plenty of countries with private ISPs doing far worse than NZ.

Australia is also rolling out a similar multi-billion project - Australia is
about the same size as continental US with 1/10th the population.

------
StreamBright
When the company offerings can be beaten with local government offerings you
know something is bad. Wondering why US has such terrible internet options.

~~~
rayiner
Akamai ranks the US in top 10 for actual speeds, ahead of every large EU
country:
[https://www.google.com/url?sa=i&source=web&cd=&ved=2ahUKEwiS...](https://www.google.com/url?sa=i&source=web&cd=&ved=2ahUKEwiS4IzAx5rfAhVmZN8KHV2nDhcQzPwBegQIARAC&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.multichannel.com%2Fnews%2Fus-
cracks-global-top-10-average-internet-speeds-
akamai-413117&psig=AOvVaw08sSPGzPF2bSxSR1SiCNrn&ust=1544713271949286)

Nobody asks “why does Germany and France have such terrible internet options?”

~~~
dudul
1) Norway and Sweden are as large as France size wise.

2) Now, for fun, let's integrate the price dimension to this report. Yes I
have better (maybe 1.5 to 2 times as fast) Internet than my parents who are in
Europe, but I also pay 3 times what they pay for it.

~~~
greggyb
Regarding 2), that seems like an un-justified expectation that 2x in some
category should be 2x price.

I can buy a Chevrolet Spark for $14K. Top speed is listed at 110mph. Here's a
list of cars that can go 200mph [https://www.automobilemag.com/news/all-cars-
that-go-200-mph/](https://www.automobilemag.com/news/all-cars-that-
go-200-mph/). Find me a new one for $28K.

I can buy a $90 printer for 27 pages per minute:
[https://www.amazon.com/Dell-E310DW-Wireless-Monochrome-
Print...](https://www.amazon.com/Dell-E310DW-Wireless-Monochrome-
Printer/dp/B00YDG3HFC/ref=as_li_ss_tl?tag=dt-incontent-
btn-20&ie=UTF8&linkId=1911c6378493b257da5741d7a5b7176d&ascsubtag=computing:1261534:1544646874e66266f0)

I can find a 50 page per minute at >$500, but none less on a quick search.

Here's one of the cheapest modern processors I can find:
[https://www.amazon.com/Intel-BX80677G3930-Celeron-Desktop-
Pr...](https://www.amazon.com/Intel-BX80677G3930-Celeron-Desktop-
Processors/dp/B07HZ4PWJP/ref=sr_1_1/141-2849764-5130267?ie=UTF8&qid=1544647187&sr=8-1&keywords=Intel%2BCeleron%2BG3930&th=1)

Go find me a 5.4ghz processor for $70.

~~~
dudul
I have no idea what point you're trying to make.

People in France or Germany have access to literally 12 different providers.
Everywhere. Granted, it looks like the overall speed is below the US's
according to the report, _but_ prices are so much lower (my parents probably
pay in the order of $10$/mo for their TV/Internet package) and access is way
more homogenous.

I suspect that US results are vastly skewed by hyper-connected areas vs huge
parts of the country where Internet is total garbage.

~~~
rayiner
France and Germany have lots of cheap options because they rely heavily on
DSL: [https://www.oecd.org/sti/broadband/1.2.OECD-
FixedMobileBB-20...](https://www.oecd.org/sti/broadband/1.2.OECD-
FixedMobileBB-2017-12.xls) (see the "Fixed Broadband" tab).

70-75% of France and German broadband connections are DSL, versus 22% in the
U.S. The copper networks are mostly depreciated, and copper-loop unbundling
has created a lot of competition. But that's also why internet in those
countries is so slow. According to Akamai, just 18% of French broadband
connections are above 15 mbps, versus 48% of U.S. connections. Copper is also
a complete dead-end, technology wise.

Cable in those countries is not super cheap. Kabel Deutschland's gigabit
service has a non-promo price of 69.99 euro ($80):
[https://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=de&u=https:/...](https://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=de&u=https://www.dslweb.de/vodafone-
gigabit-internet.php&prev=search). Comcast's non-promo pricing is $105, which
is a bit more expensive in nominal terms, but cheaper as a percentage of net
adjusted disposable income (which is 33% higher in the U.S. than in Germany).

You also need to account for differences in labor costs. Broadband isn't like
an iPhone, where it's the same product made in China whether you buy it in the
U.S. or in Germany. It's a service, like a hotel stay or restaurant meal.
Labor to build, maintain, operate, and support the network is a huge part of
the cost of broadband, and skilled labor is significantly more expensive in
the U.S. than in Germany or France. That's one of the things that makes
pricing comparisons between the U.S. and say Romania completely specious. You
can buy a 2-ride subway ticket in Bucharest for $1.22--that doesn't tell you
anything about what's a reasonable price for a subway ticket in D.C. The
$10/month cost for gigabit fiber in Romania is equivalent to $80/month in the
U.S.

~~~
Symbiote
What taxes would someone expect on the $105/month Comcast service?

Since all applicable taxes are included in the €70 Kabel Deutschland price.

~~~
greggyb
Depends on where you live.

My total bill for internet service is approximately $110. Of that $110 total,
approximately $1.50 is tax/fee.

------
DenisM
Me, I'm rooting for 5G broadband. Verizon started the rollout already,
T-Mobile can't be far behind. If AT&T joins the fray Comcast will get the bill
for all the negative goodwill they were snowplowing on their way to profits.

[https://www.verizonwireless.com/5g/home/](https://www.verizonwireless.com/5g/home/)

[https://www.fiercewireless.com/5g/new-t-mobile-s-plans-
for-h...](https://www.fiercewireless.com/5g/new-t-mobile-s-plans-for-home-
fixed-wireless-internet-services-begin-to-take-shape)

~~~
nonce413
5G is a red herring, as 4G would be sufficient. Before Westfield's fiber
rollout, I drove around town mapping cell towers hoping to use LTE for home
Internet. IMHO they're not really dense enough for such use, especially
without directional antennas. Never mind the latency.

Also, Verizon is really the only provider that extends into the more rural
areas listed, and I doubt they would want to cut into their mobile profits
with the rates required to compete with wired access.

------
jkingsbery
A few things I don't get (genuinely, I wish someone would explain to me):

1\. Why would the town pay Comcast for Comcast to wire up the town, when
Comcast would then turn around and charge residents? It seems like if Comcast
wants to provide customers, they should make the investment, no?

2\. If Verizon DSL is in town, how is there a monopoly? Would Comcast wiring
the town prevent another provider from also wiring the town (in whole or in
part)?

~~~
rayiner
> 1\. Why would the town pay Comcast for Comcast to wire up the town, when
> Comcast would then turn around and charge residents? It seems like if
> Comcast wants to provide customers, they should make the investment, no?

A franchise agreement typically involves Comcast paying the municipality. 5%
of _gross revenues_ is standard.[1]

> 2\. If Verizon DSL is in town, how is there a monopoly? Would Comcast wiring
> the town prevent another provider from also wiring the town (in whole or in
> part)?

No. Exclusive franchises are illegal under federal law. However, most
municipalities do not have ISPs clamoring to build. For example, there was a
lot of press coverage when Baltimore renewed its "exclusive" franchise with
Comcast.[2] Of course it's not exclusive--it's just that nobody else has ever
asked to build a network in Baltimore:

> “We’ve, in fact, asked other cable operators if they’re interested in coming
> into the city and, so far, nobody else is,” says Minda Goldberg, a chief
> solicitor in the city’s Law Department.

[1] _E.g._ the county where I live:
[https://www.aacounty.org/departments/oit/forms-and-
publicati...](https://www.aacounty.org/departments/oit/forms-and-
publications/Comcast_Franchise.pdf) (Section 6.1).

[2] [http://www.wypr.org/post/why-comcast-one-and-only-cable-
and-...](http://www.wypr.org/post/why-comcast-one-and-only-cable-and-internet-
option-baltimore)

------
MrTonyD
Over a decade ago I worked on software sold to Cable companies. So I had set
up a small cable transmission center, and I had followed with interest the
cities providing cable. In short, they were doing a great job providing lots
of channels at a tiny fraction of the cost - and often free internet too. And
some even funded multiple government programs with high end packages at half
the cost of Comcast.

So I approached my town and offered to travel the US (on my dime) and
interview those who had set up cable, to write a report so that my town could
use best practices (including how to fight off the cable companies as they try
to elect different officials - a standard strategy.) But my town was
completely uninterested. It turned out that Comcast had paid money to fund a
city department, and that same group made cable related decisions. So they
didn't want to rock the boat that was paying them good salaries (to people
with absolutely no skills beyond knowing somebody who got them the job.)

------
onetimemanytime
>> _About 160 residents voted, with 56 percent rejecting the Comcast offer,
according to news reports._

If it's done it needs to be done by, say, million+ cities. Where is this small
town going to the money to pay each time someone complains or a cable is cut?

------
davexunit
This is a tangent but Charlemont is a nice little town situated at the foot of
an Applachian mountain along the very scenic route 2. It's well worth driving
up and over the mountain (through Florida... the town) into North Adams if
you're ever in the area.

~~~
jkingsbery
I went to college at Williams. We would sometimes drive back from track meets
in Boston through Charlemont and Florida, and I always thought there was
something cruel about seeing a sign for "Florida" when it was 10 deg (F)
outside..

Agreed though, it's a nice drive, and a nice area of the country to visit!

------
qwerty456127
Whatever, there should better be competition. If one ISP (a big corporation or
a municipality) does it a way you don't like and you can't switch to another
one that's sad.

------
nonce413
Hey, local news on HN! I'm glad to see Whip City Fiber is spreading so far up
north. They started in Westfield (40k people), and then moved to building out
local towns that are basically similar kind of "hilltowns" places that have
been neglected by Comcast et al for years.

Westfield Gas and Electric has been Westfield's municipal power company for as
long as I can remember, and I've heard few complaints about their management.
This is not their first time providing Internet service, as they used to run a
dialup ISP back in the day.

The concern about future upgrades is kind of ridiculous in context - the
Verizon infrastructure here is still at the bare minimum, with no hope of ever
being upgraded. I have no doubt that when the gigabit infrastructure is
finally looking outdated and slow, Verizon will be sitting there offering the
same "high speed" 3Mbit. That is, if they haven't convinced the feds to allow
them to sell the copper for scrap.

The service itself is a lone single mode fiber, with a GPON terminal.
Installation planning was done by a WG&E employee who even showed up in a
bucket truck. Installation was in two parts - one entire contractor to direct
bury a flexible conduit with the length of fiber, and a second contractor to
complete installation on both sides of the burial. My speed tests show
basically full gigabit up/down.

(Also, comments by new accounts start off dead now?! I made a throwaway
because I'd rather not state my explicit location as part of my main profile)

