Slashdot Mirror


A DSL Co-op in Your Neighborhood?

Steve Hamlin writes "In reading on Slashdot about the increasing cost of cable broadband (and DSL is no cheaper), I ran across this article about a neighborhood that put together a co-op for DSL broadband. From a DSLAM housed in a barn to microwave relays, a frame relay T-1, and problems with Qwest, the whole deal."

11 of 228 comments (clear)

  1. Sad state of broadband by hendridm · · Score: 3, Informative

    Why is broadband access so expensive, so bad, or so innaccessible in the U.S. that it makes something like this necessary? It just seems like our broadband options are going from bad to worse, and I cringe at the idea of eventually having to do something like this just to get decent, affordable access. I'll be damned if I'm going to pay TW by the megabyte for broadband access for long like the expensive old days of AOL.

  2. Re:fallacies and good info by duffbeer703 · · Score: 3, Informative

    That sounds great, but you don't know what the hell you are talking about.

    Cable providers do not purchase bandwidth in T1 size chunks. They buy OC-48's, OC-192's and split it through their own network (most of which was funded and built by the TV side of the business) In a mid sized market, broadband costs the cable company about $12-17 a month, while you are charged $40-70. Plus they are making money on the cable modem lease.

    The cable companies biggest expense is depreciation on equipment purchased 3-5 years ago.

    Your notion that bandwidth is so expensive is not really that accurate. Monopolistic telephone companies charge inflated rates for T1 service because they can. Broadband will be similar soon as the cable companies flex their monopoly muscles to the end-user's detriment.

    --
    Conformity is the jailer of freedom and enemy of growth. -JFK
  3. Re:fallacies and good info by warpSpeed · · Score: 2, Informative

    Speaking of fallacies....

    The bigest fallacy is that the bandwidth is expensive. Bandwidth does cost money (and good reliable bandwidth cost more.) BUT almost half the cost for that T1 is the local loop charge, which goes to the "Bell"s. They are reaping huge rewards from the digital boom! (and if you are paying 1500/mo for a Tier-1 T1 my friend, you are getting ripped off big time!)

    If you are a big time ISP and you can afford to colocate in the "Bell" facilities you can cut your local loop charge, while taking it up the *** for the colocation fee, you still come out ahead, but not by much.

    Bandwidth does cost money, but the Local Exchange Carriers are keeping a strangle hold on the cost by charging a ton of money for the right to use thier lines. A monopoly by any other name is still a monopoly.

    ~Sean

  4. our city apartment shares T1 lines by call+-151 · · Score: 5, Informative
    If you live in a big complex, it may well be cost-effective to do what our complex has done. We have 6 T1 lines coming in and then a wired network so that every unit has good high-speed access. The cost is included in our maintenance, and that brought the cable to just above your front door. (If you want someone else to do the interior wiring in your unit, you have to spring for that.) We've had this for years and everyone is very happy with the arrangement. DSLreports speed test reports 2538kbps down/1368kps up, so we are getting excellent connection speed.

    We are in NYC and have co-op apartment in a 5 building complex with 400+ units. The co-op arangement means that the units are owned collectively by people who live here, so the decision was made by people live here and who have very much the interests of those who live here in mind. Our course, many of the people who live here are not taking full advantage of the bandwidth (there are many little old ladies who emigrated from Eastern Europe post WWII here.) In a sense, their maintenance is subsidizing the rest, but even those who do not use it or do not use it much are very pleased with what it has done for the resale value of the apartments. ("Free high-speed internet included with unit.")

    Before we did this, we tried to figure out how much it would cost per unit, but that was hard to get a true cost since much of it was one-time costs like wiring and the firewalls and hardware, and since much of the setup and planning was done for free by people who live here. Even the most pessimistic estimates, though, put it at around than $10/mo /unit long-term, way less than the $50/mo cost of cable modem "service", which had been the only previous option. Since around one in five units already were paying for cable modem service, with more people signing up each month (that was two years ago), it was cost-effecive and a significant improvement in many respects.

    --
    It's psychosomatic. You need a lobotomy. I'll get a saw.
    1. Re:our city apartment shares T1 lines by tkrabec · · Score: 3, Informative

      We have 6 T1 lines coming in and then a wired network so that every unit has good high-speed access

      You should look at the cost fo a T3, they can be cheaper than many T1's

      -- Tim

      --
      TKrabec Pahh
  5. what a small world by mmusn · · Score: 2, Informative
    The co-op was apparently started by Carl Oppedahl. Unless I'm confusing him with another patent lawyer, I believe he's a guy who thinks that the current patent system is just swell and that it's great how much money everybody is making off it (including himself).

    I'm sure his stunning interpersonal style will have greatly contributed to the ease with which the negotiations with Qwest were carried out.

    1. Re:what a small world by mmusn · · Score: 3, Informative
      Wired (June 2000)
      Oppedahl added that the Patent Office has been unfairly criticized for issuing an unusually large number of bad Internet-age patents. While it may happen, he said, bad patents are no more of a problem now than they have ever been

      Anyway, his opinions on patents are not directly relevant to getting your own DSL coop running. Just understand that the guy behind this one is a high-powered, media-savvy lawyer who knows how to deal with his counterparts in government agencies and corporations. Given the kinds of cases he appears to have been involved in, I suspect money is no problem either. Somehow I think mere engineers like us have no realistic prayer of getting nearly as far.

    2. Re:what a small world by Carl+Oppedahl · · Score: 2, Informative

      Our Coop is running on a shoestring, actually. Bought our DSLAM and DSL modems used on eBay. The nice thing about the Telecommunications Act of 1996 is that others can "opt in" to the agreement that resulted from our litigation. So the next neighborhood who wants to do this won't need lawyers as we did. I actually think of myself more as a "mere engineer" than as high powered or media savvy.

  6. Site Slashdotted - Mirror by ScumBiker · · Score: 2, Informative
    Here's the front page of the site:

    Welcome to the Ruby Ranch Internet Cooperative Association The Ruby Ranch Internet Cooperative Association ("the Coop") is a member-owned and operated provider of high-speed Internet connectivity to homes in the Ruby Ranch neighborhood in Summit County, Colorado.

    About the Coop

    The Coop was founded in 2001 because no one offered DSL or cable modem Internet access in our neighborhood, and because the voice telephone service to the neighborhood is of such poor quality that it is not possible to get modem connections faster than about 26K bits per second. The Coop is a Colorado nonprofit corporation and is federally tax-exempt under 501(c)(12).

    The Coop's Progress

    The Coop has by now accomplished almost everything that is needed to be able to launch service. The Coop has obtained a DSLAM (DSL access multiplexer) and the subscribers have their DSL modems. The Coop has tested the DSL equipment and has confirmed that it will do what we need. A point-to-point microwave link needed to connect the DSLAM to a frame relay T1 line has been designed, constructed, and placed into service. Cabinets and protective equipment have been installed in a barn where the DSLAM will be located. You can see a system diagram and description. Nearly all of the subscribers have arranged for inside wiring work as well as installation of DSL modems and DSL routers, and several subscribers have installed local area networks permitting two or more computers to share the DSL connection. The DSLAM and associated routers have been configured and a block of IP addresses has been obtained and routed. A monitoring system has been set up to monitor the DSL connections, and a second monitoring system has been set up to monitor the UPS (uninterruptable power supply) and the cabinets. The Coop has acquired spares for some of its equipment, with the goal of reducing down-time in the event of equipment failure.

    By far the biggest challenge faced by the Coop, a challenge that dwarfed any of the Coop's technical and financial challenges, was gaining access to subloops from Qwest under the Telecommunications Act of 1996. (The subloops are needed to connect the DSLAM to the subscriber homes. The buried telephone cable in our neighborhood has some three times as many subloops as are actually needed for voice service, and the subloops we wish to rent are among the hundreds of spare subloops which otherwise would generate no revenue for Qwest.) The course of negotiations was such that the Coop found it necessary to file an informal complaint with the Federal Communications Commission and subsequently found it necessary to pursue arbitration before the Colorado Public Service Commission ("CoPUC"). In the arbitration, the CoPUC found that "all of [the Coop's] proposed equipment is compatible with the Qwest network," and that "Qwest is technically able to accommodate [the Coop's] proposal." The CoPUC found that the Coop is entitled to pay "wholesale" rates for the subloops rather than much higher retail rates. Finally, the CoPUC found that because the Coop will be providing only data services (not voice services) and because the Coop will be offering its services to everyone in its service area, the Coop does not need to be a CoPUC-licensed telephone company. (This is very good news, since being a licensed telephone company would impose prohibitive accounting and record-keeping burdens.) After the CoPUC's arbitration decision there were further negotiations with Qwest, and a signed Interconnect Agreement between the Coop and Qwest has now been submitted to the CoPUC for approval.

    What remains to be done

    The chief remaining action items are:

    • Burying cable between the barn and the cross-connect box, also called a Feeder Distribution Interface (FDI) or Serving Area Interface (SAI).
    • Working with Qwest to get a Field Connection Point (FCP) installed at the cross-connect box. Qwest is obligated to have it ready for service no later than Friday, June 21, 2002, but has agreed to make best efforts to have it installed sooner.
    • Working with Qwest to get subloops connected between the FCP and subscriber homes.

    Barring unforeseen difficulties, the Coop expects to be able to launch service by June 1, 2002, and perhaps sooner.

    This page is http://www.rric.net .

    --
    --- Think of it as evolution in action ---
  7. Re:equipment list by Carl+Oppedahl · · Score: 3, Informative

    No, our webserver is nowhere near to being busy. The bottleneck just now (see http://www.patents.com/mrtg/dillon3.html ) is our T1 line. You will see our T1 line, normally never anywhere near full, is quite full, I expect trying to keep up with all of the SlashDot visitors.

  8. Allready happening: Freenetworks.org by Colin+Smith · · Score: 3, Informative

    http://www.freenetworks.org/

    --
    Deleted