Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Communications Businesses

Comcast Rejected by Small Town -- Residents Vote For Municipal Fiber Instead (arstechnica.com) 311

Posted by msmash from the how-about-that dept.
A small Massachusetts town has rejected an offer from Comcast and instead plans to build a municipal fiber broadband network. From a report: Comcast offered to bring cable Internet to up to 96 percent of households in Charlemont in exchange for the town paying $462,123 plus interest toward infrastructure costs over 15 years. But Charlemont residents rejected the Comcast offer in a vote at a special town meeting Thursday. "The Comcast proposal would have saved the town about $1 million, but it would not be a town-owned broadband network," the Greenfield Recorder reported Friday.

"The defeated measure means that Charlemont will likely go forward with a $1.4 million municipal town network, as was approved by annual town meeting voters in 2015." About 160 residents voted, with 56 percent rejecting the Comcast offer, according to news reports.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Comcast Rejected by Small Town -- Residents Vote For Municipal Fiber Instead More

Comcast Rejected by Small Town -- Residents Vote For Municipal Fiber Instead

Comments Filter:

  • Even if it was free (Score:5, Insightful)

    by ddtmm ( 549094 ) on Tuesday December 11, 2018 @04:43PM (#57788666)
    Comcast would have been a bad deal.

    • well comcast does let you use your own router.

      Will this town wifi force your into something like ATT where you are stuck with there hardware?

      • What hardware would such a town have? They are not going to be able to develop anything custom.

        Maybe at worst they would have a specific set of routers you would have to choose from, but it would all be commercial routers that would be nicer than what Comcast gives you.

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by rtb61 ( 674572 )

          Maybe just maybe, the town would wise up and demand high quality routers with firewalls, so that they will protect their communities high cost assets beyond those routers, like computers and smart TVs. Oh no, the router cost $100 more than the cheapest on the market but it's protect tens of thousands of dollars of consumer high tech products connected to that network.

          The sad tragedy is, long ago, government across the planet, should have made firewalls compulsory in any consumer directly connected to the i

      • AT&T allow for you to use your own router. They'll even assist you in putting their modem/router in bridge-mode.

      • well comcast does let you use your own router.

        Wow, thanks Comcast.
        Why would they need to "let" you do anything you want with the Internet access you pay they for?
        I live in a city where I have the choice of maybe 10 different ISP's, and you know what? They all "let" me use whatever router I want, none of them block ports so I can run servers if I want and the speed they advertise is what I get.
        That's what you get with competition.
        Also, it's "their" not "there".

    • Yea, the smart people would notice that Comcast can't even cover 96% of their own ass.

  • Comcast will force their way in (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward
    No one simply rejects comcast.

    • Re:Comcast will force their way in (Score:4, Insightful)

      by Desler ( 1608317 ) on Tuesday December 11, 2018 @04:51PM (#57788744)

      Expect Comcast to go to the state legislature to thwart this.

      • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

        by ShanghaiBill ( 739463 )

        Expect Comcast to go to the state legislature to thwart this.

        That might work in Alabama, but not in Massachusetts. Comcast is in bed with the Republican Party.

        The 20 states with bans or roadblocks [broadbandnow.com] to municipal broadband are mostly Red.

        • Not really in bed with the Republicans, but they do use arguments that a Republican legislator finds appealing. Such as "citizens in your state will be spending more tax money than if they had gone with the free enterprise model!"

      • Expect Comcast to go to the state legislature to thwart this.

        There are already cities in MA with municipal broadband. Shrewsbury is one example. So, there is precedence...

        It still irks me that Verizon didn't finish their FIOS roll-out in MA. They used FIOS as a negotiating tactic with Comcast to get wireless spectrum from them. Once Verizon had what they wanted, they ended the FIOS roll-out.

  • Expect litigation (Score:5, Interesting)

    by PeeAitchPee ( 712652 ) on Tuesday December 11, 2018 @04:47PM (#57788700)
    Comcast will sue and ironically claim anti-competitive / anti-free market behavior on the part of the town. They will seek to add hundreds of thousands in legal fees before this is settled, win or lose. That is what they do.

    • IANAL but, based on the summary, I assume Comcast could still come in and build the network and compete against the publicly built one.

      • Like TDS did against Monticello?

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by alvinrod ( 889928 )
      Personally, I believe that the best approach would be for the city to create and own its own municipal network and then to allow multiple companies to sell services on it to the citizens. That's the surest way to make sure that your citizens get the best possible value. If a private company wants to build its own network to compete against the city, that's their business and I don't see why they should be prevented from doing so, but I suspect that most wouldn't.

      It's ultimately competition that drives do

      • I remember one city having a municipal network. For Internet access, the town residents were able to choose from a list of ISPs.

        This seems to be the best balance between public/private interests, and provides a low barrier of entry for companies that want to hop on.

      • Re:Expect litigation (Score:5, Interesting)

        by ShanghaiBill ( 739463 ) on Tuesday December 11, 2018 @05:12PM (#57788880)

        Personally, I believe that the best approach would be for the city to create and own its own municipal network and then to allow multiple companies to sell services on it to the citizens.

        The major cost of broadband is trenching. So an even better solution is for the city to install public conduit, like a 6-inch PVC, and then let any bonded company pull fiber for a nominal fee. That might result in real competition.

        • Telcos tried this for a while. Problem is the PVC will inevitably get crushed and then you're trenching again. Better option would be to run a multi-strand cable and let competitors lease dark fibre. This pays for the infrastructure and upkeep, plus gives competitive access to services over separate lines.

          Unfortunately most towns don't want to be in the ISP business, they just want high speed so people come live there. For that reason most will hand the whole thing off to a provider so they can sell themsel

      • If there's only one wire, then any difference between service is in the servers and gateways.

        In that case, tax pays for the wire and subscription buys you gateways to other wires. That way, it's clear what you buy and there's no fake competition on a natural monopoly.

    • How is this even possible? Where I'm from, the judge would simply tell them to "fuck off" and wipe the file off his table.

  • Do the math (Score:5, Interesting)

    by MasseKid ( 1294554 ) on Tuesday December 11, 2018 @04:49PM (#57788722)
    There are 1266 people in that town as of the last census. This contract was supposed to be for 15 years. Assuming the interest cost for both infrastructures was the same, there was a cost difference of ~940K. Averaging that cost per month over 15 years amongst the 1266 people yields a monthly cost of 4.12$. I find it hard to believe that comcast was going to provide service cheaper than the municipal would. And I find it very easy to believe they can do it for less than 5$ a month cheaper than comcast.

    • There are 1266 people in that town as of the last census. This contract was supposed to be for 15 years. Assuming the interest cost for both infrastructures was the same, there was a cost difference of ~940K. Averaging that cost per month over 15 years amongst the 1266 people yields a monthly cost of 4.12$. I find it hard to believe that comcast was going to provide service cheaper than the municipal would. And I find it very easy to believe they can do it for less than 5$ a month cheaper than comcast.

      That's assuming a few things:

      1. You trust Comcast to have the same level of service as your community needs
      2. Community sees local Fiber as a selling point (ie, why would you live here?)
      3. Local = jobs.

      This is highly appealing to city councils and communities in general.

      So the equation has a few more factors involved - not just: Comcast vs. Fiber (but $1M more). To wit:

      1. Tax revenues for infrastructure build
      2. Tax revenues for jobs created with infrastructure
      3. Future attractiveness of community for high-pr

    • Re:Do the math (Score:5, Insightful)

      by whoever57 ( 658626 ) on Tuesday December 11, 2018 @05:59PM (#57789196) Journal

      Also note that Comcast proposed to serve only 96% of the households. The municipal broadband will reach 100%.

      Those 4% would have been screwed under the Comcast proposal.

    • it shows the base cost of broadband internet is $5 bucks a month. Maybe add another $5 for maintenance. I don't know about the rest of you but I pay $100 bucks a month.

  • Revolution starts with a small town (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 11, 2018 @04:55PM (#57788782)

    Every small town and city should be like this.

    • Yeah, just wish it would happen here. I'm a Masshole stuck with Charter. They charged me $5 each month for 12 months while refusing to send me the router they were billing me for.

      In the meantime, I used my own, but I finally got fed up with it (and it was then a $60 sum they owed me) and started in on their customer service. 3 hours of demanding supervisors, being offered 30 days refund, etc, I finally gave in and told them they didn't need to lift a finger. I was also told I should've complained sooner, to

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by gweihir ( 88907 )

      Quite a few small towns in Germany are doing this or have already done this, often with the citizen laying fiber themselves for a substantial reduction in cost. You basically need a (usually small) IT service provider that understands the technology and provides support during establishment and later operations, but other than that it is not really difficult. You just need the people on board. After years of really bad or no Internet, they usually are as soon as they see this will work.

  • Expect muni to be sued by Comcast (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Rosco P. Coltrane ( 209368 ) on Tuesday December 11, 2018 @05:01PM (#57788810)

    Very soon.

  • How shared is that 1G/1G 2.5 gpon split 16/1 32/1?

  • I'm seriously conflicted here.

    I've had "city" supplied utilities before and I can attest that if you want some infrastructure really messed up, get government to do it. It will cost too much, be mismanaged and end up a total mess... My experience was less than acceptable with city supplied utilities.

    Then there is Comcast.....

    So what evil do you pick? I don't know... None of the above? How about we foster competition and draw in multiple commercial providers? Or is the town just too small to make this

    • I'm seriously conflicted here.

      You shouldn't be - Comcast being a monopoly in virtually every market it is in, is basically itself like an arm of the federal government delivering internet - with all of the quality issues you so rightfully fear.

      That's why preferring the city utilities is an easy choice to prefer, because when you are given the choice between two governments, always choose the smaller option.

      I've seen some small municipalities have excellent community fiber. Longmont, Colorado [longmontcolorado.gov] is one such wh

      • Not just Longmont, but others in Colorado highlands are loving their gov owned fiber-as-utility. Some of them run it like Centennial with a private industry partner (ting from canada), while most are just doing it themselves and then allowing multiple ISPs to hook up at a true central office.

    • Re:Comcast or government run internet? (Score:4, Insightful)

      by greythax ( 880837 ) on Tuesday December 11, 2018 @05:28PM (#57788986)

      You need better local government. While my local muni can't seem to keep their website up for crap, they are exceedingly efficient at providing water/sewage/trash pickup, and at a cheaper price than the private county competitors. If you don't like the way your munis are running, go to a city council meeting and get the ball rolling on fixing them. You are your muni's shareholder, use your power.

      • You need better local government. While my local muni can't seem to keep their website up for crap, they are exceedingly efficient at providing water/sewage/trash pickup, and at a cheaper price than the private county competitors. If you don't like the way your munis are running, go to a city council meeting and get the ball rolling on fixing them. You are your muni's shareholder, use your power.

        Water, waste and sewage are not efficiently run in my city, or any city I've lived in. However, the infrastructure is pretty hard for anybody but the city to manage, given it's cost and locations. But let's be real here, keeping a water system working isn't rocket science, nor is keeping the sewage flowing in the right direction. Picking up trash isn't that difficult to do either.

        Remember, we are talking about internet services. It's totally different kettle of fish than digging up the street to fix th

        • Re:Comcast or government run internet? (Score:5, Insightful)

          by Radical Moderate ( 563286 ) on Tuesday December 11, 2018 @06:50PM (#57789548)
          You think Comcast will send a guy out at midnight to fix your line? That's hilarious.

          Municipal water and sewage systems are in fact quite complicated. Systems don't have to be comprised of racks of components with blinking lights to be complex.

          We are talking about maintaining network infrastructure, wiring, fiber, power plus managing accounts and billing for service, customer equipment, shutting off those who don't pay and setting up new service for customers as they move in.

          I work for a government institution that does all of that. It's not that hard. Yes, you have to hire some competent people. Beats getting bent over by Comcast.

    • So what evil do you pick? I don't know... None of the above? How about we foster competition and draw in multiple commercial providers?

      There's these things called "Natural Monopolies". Long story short, the first company to pull wires can kill off anyone coming after them, unless the followers have really, really, really, really deep pockets. Because the incumbent has already paid for their installation, and can afford to slash prices until the competitor can't pay for their installation.

      That's why we generally have monopolies on utilities. Most of them are not legal monopolies, but the people who got there first.

      So no, we can not just

      • No, I actually think we CAN foster competition here if we are careful.

        How? By providing a regulatory environment that fosters more than one commercial provider. You want to provide service? Fine, as long as there is only one physical provider, you cannot directly market to residents, but must wholesale your network access to retail providers. While offering non-incumbent providers incentives to build separate infrastructure and requiring them to share too.

    • We can control our local gov. OTOH, giving a monopoly to an evil private company like Comcast, means that you have NO SAY/CONTROL over them.
      If you are conflicted, then you are a fool.

      Look plenty of things that should be left to private companies. BUT, when you have a monopoly, such as fiber to the house, or it is simple exchange of monies, such as medical insurances, then you are better off with a watched gov.
      And when you have a situation that has multiple competitors, esp more than a dozen, then pri

      • So you are fine with having to run to City Hall to set up service between 9AM and 5PM and having zero chance of technical support on the weekends?

        If the city is so small that they can build out a system for 1.4 Million, they are too small for 24/7 technical support and the staff to support this new infrastructure. Cities are pretty lame IT infrastructure managers, even the large ones.

        I'm saying the level and quality of service may be about the same as COMCAST and there may not really be any cost advanta

    • Well Comcast was offering cable Internet which maxes out at 200Mbs and is typically 20-100 Mbs but it costs more for higher speeds. Fiber on the other hand can get up to 1Gbs. The main advantage of cable in most markets only exists if is already in place. If some area is building new lines, then fiber is cheaper to maintain over time and has clear advantages.
    • Comment removed based on user account deletion

  • Why would they pay Comcast? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by hawguy ( 1600213 ) on Tuesday December 11, 2018 @05:13PM (#57788892)

    I don't understand why Comcast would expect the town to pay them? Is that common?

    I thought that the cost of infrastructure was a cost of doing business that Comcast would recoup through subscription fees, why do they need a subsidy?

    • I don't understand why Comcast would expect the town to pay them? Is that common?

      Yes. Extortion is good for profits.

  • Comcast tried to block ours... (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Pezbian ( 1641885 ) on Tuesday December 11, 2018 @05:32PM (#57789020)

    Comcast tried to kill Utah's UTOPIA fiber project. They failed and now even a town with less than 1000 people has a 10G fiber option (most go with 1G).

    The hell with Comcast.

  • I fully expect Comcast lawyers to fight back and somehow get the FCC and/or the state government to tell the town they absolutely cannot build their own network and be forced to take Comcast....becuase you know those cunts are going to be filing complaints that we all know will be upheld with monopoly-loving GOP in power.

    Expect court battles. Expect comcast to bring the most lawyers. Expect this to be a bigger nail in the coffin for municipal broadband.
  • meanwhile the lobbyist are no doubt hard at work to get municipal broadband banned in the state.
  • and I hope they succeed, but I fear government fails more often than not, when trying to do most things. I hope they do a great job and prove me wrong and that this can actually work.

    Just my 2 cents ;)

  • Iâ(TM)m sure being voted the worst ISP in the country for X years running had something to do with it.

    Though, in defense of the poster above stating they have few issues with Comcast, I have to concur.

    Obviously an exception to the rule but my connection is up and running about 95% of the time.

    I have an IPSLA trigger running which makes a log entry any time I lose visibility to the network and, as much as youâ(TM)ll hate on me for saying it, that loss is rare and not always their fault.

    Iâ(TM)l

  • And they get it NET NEUTRAL (Score:3)

    by WindBourne ( 631190 ) on Tuesday December 11, 2018 @06:13PM (#57789282) Journal
    Seriously, this is a town that FUCKING GETS IT. So many others do as well. Comcast screwing you over? Quit trying to regulate them. JUST PUT IN YOUR OWN FUCKING FIBER and quit bitching about it. Not only will this town get a much better deal (instead of paying 100/month for 100 MB, they will pay 50/month for 1G), but, they do not have to deal with the issue of net neutrality or caps.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by mi ( 197448 )

      but, they do not have to deal with the issue of net neutrality or caps

      What makes you think, they will not? On the contrary, the speed-limits on the actual roads suggest the opposite — if their upstream is saturated, there will be caps.

      Then, how long before someone proposes to install a network-wide filter to block "smut" on the public network? The board will vote for it unanimously — because who wants to be known as a "porn defender"?

      Worse, various things — such as "excessive" bandwidth us

  • That a town can legally offer a commercial service of their own is bad enough. That a government is in a position to deny a business a right to operate there is an outrage.

    • I guess this was sarcasm?

      a) Internet should be classified as a public utility by now, life is possible, but very difficult without it.
      b) Comcast can build their service, I bet if comcast paid for the property rights and infrastructure the town would not stop them. The problem is they want to be treated like a public utility with regard to costs, but a corporate private business in all other matters like responsibility to provide service to all; and to set their own rates and profits.
    • When you turn on the faucet, who supplies the water?

  • About 160 residents voted, with 56 percent rejecting the Comcast offer, according to news reports.

    So, about 90 voted for the town to spend $1.4M to create a new municipal service. Wonder how the rest of the town feels about the tax increase 90 residents pushed on to them?

    • The way I read the deal is that for $462K, Comcast would bring cable Internet to the town. That's not fiber so it's not an apples to apples comparison. Also the deal with Comcast does not include service which the individual residents will still have to pay. However if enough residents get the fiber service, it will pay for itself unlike the Comcast option where the city makes no money regardless of how many subscribers.

      An increase in property taxes would cover the construction cost. But the town would also bring in revenue from selling broadband service and potentially break even, making the project less expensive than Comcast's offer.

      "With 59 percent of households taking broadband service, the tax hike would be 29 cents [per $1,000 of assessed home value], similar to that for Comcast," a Recorder article last month said. "But if 72 percent or more of households subscribe to the municipal-owned network, there is no tax impact, because subscriber fees would pay for it."

  • Will see how it pans out.... (Score:5, Interesting)

    by no-body ( 127863 ) on Tuesday December 11, 2018 @08:22PM (#57789960)
    In this country (US) are numerous forces in play to take away more and more rights from the general population through various tricks and manipulations to get it to a much smaller section of folks living in the same country.

    Not allowing municipalities to supply their own Internet service is one of many attempts, please see:

    https://broadbandnow.com/report/municipal-broadband-roadblocks/

    I am happy to live in a municipality who made it and provides this type of service. After getting rid of ComCast, whose manner in getting out of their claws and get my right required a small claims court case, it just feels better to now "own" it better in some way.

    -------------------
    The day is not far distant when humanity will realize that biologically it is faced with a choice between suicide and adoration.
    -- Pierre Teilhard de Chardin † 10. April 10, 1955

  • since Comcast doesn't offer service over their entire monopoly area.

Slashdot Top Deals

You know you've landed gear-up when it takes full power to taxi.

Close