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."
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.
First off broadband is NOT expensive. your cable modem and DSL is dirt cheap compared to what the bandwidth actually costs. Second broadband is a luxury.... yes kiddies the world doesn't end when you lose internet connectivity. As a luxury it is priced accordingly... what the market will bear and the market will bear up to $75.00 a month for cable speed broadband. Many bitch and moan that they have a reverse bandwidth cap. Well if you want to host a server do like the rest of us and buy a T-1. $1500.00 a month is what I pay for the right to have a server and a static ip. If you whine that your $50.00 a month cable modem doesnt give you what I have.... personally I'll tell you to piss off.
Broadband is dirt cheap here in the states.
Besides, look at cellular... back in 1986 it was horribly expensive.. now you can get 60bajillion minutes for $39.95 (nights between the hours of 3:00 and 3:15am and weekends during full moons and if the outside temperateure is above 59 degrees)
broadband is a spanking new technology.. and these grass roots attemptes are great! (I run a 802.11 open WIFI network in my city.. I give away some of my expensive bandwidth..)
But please get real people... Broadband at home is dirt cheap. and if you cant afford $50.00 a month then why the hell are you wasting your money on luxury items like broadband?
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
(So this isn't a comment about roll-your-own DSL, instead it's about saving money by rolling your own ISP and DSL sharing.)
Together our Condo Home Owner Association runs our own ISP/network. Every unit has 2 cat5 cable drops connected to our central server room. There we operate a simple mail/proxy/DNS/dhcp server for the residents of the building. In addition we now have wireless access on most floors of the building and are considering adding network attached security cameras so we can see how's at the front door.
About 20 people are sharing a 1.5/1.5Mbps SDSL connection for the paltry sum of $22/month/user. Each person saves around $30/month and gets the higher peak bandwidth. I would definitely recommend doing this, especially if you have the tech volunteers to implement it.
You can't get data to your house for nothing.
It's already pay for what you use on a larger scale. It's no different for broadband. Bandwidth itself costs money, infrastructures cost money, international sharing agreements cost time and money
Get real people. Having access to 2mbps is not the same as downloading at full speed all the time on it.
Internet always on != downloading all the time.
Here I pay a huge amount for 2mbps. But, I resell parts of it an calculate that I can cut costs because everyone is not using the bandwidth all the time.
Broadband users are generally bandwidth hogs and ISPs just got the pricing wrong. Live with it. The economic reality is that your real cost to your ISP is:
local loop + equipment (probably monthly fee + equipment depreciation) = not a lot
Actual KB transferred = a fixed, calculable cost to them.
So that's all there is to it.
Conversion Rate Optimisation French / English consultant
Probably not, but... search the last weeks' worth of the NANOG list archives for evidence that even highly trained network engineers with years of experience get sucked into phone tag hell with Qwest "support" services.
"None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free." -- Goethe
The fact that people are forced to do things like this to get broadband access is why we need government intervention.
Because of their monopoly on broadband service in my area, I am a Cox Road Runner subscriber in Fairfax County, VA. The service has been so bad that the County has levied numerous fines against Cox. We have had multi-day outages, packet loss over 50% for days at a time, latency measured at 1/2 second or more, etc. Throughout this, they have said "wait until we get the fiber optic upgrade done." Well, it's just about done and our reward looks like it will be Terms of Service that prohibit VPNs, telecommuting more than one day per week, all servers regardless of the amount of traffic moved (even password-protected ones used only by the subscriber). And we get a $5 to $10 per month increase in service rates.
They don't care because they have a monopoly. DSL coverage is, at best, spotty. The phone company has installed multiplexers everywhere to avoid running more copper, which kills DSL for everyone on the multiplexers.
The Congress needs to issue mandates to the phone companies requiring that they make DSL available to all customers. They need to pass legislation preventing broadband providers from placing limitations on the mechanisms used by the customers to move data (e.g., no limitations on servers, P2P, VPN, etc). If the broadband providers have limits on bandwidth usage, they should be legally required to publish those limits in a clear, easy to read form.
The lack of broadband is beginning to have a real effect on the economy, quality of life, education, and even traffic and pollution (since telecommuting is often impractical with a dial-up line). To all of you anti-government people, I say "get a clue!" The current system is not working and the free market is, by and large, not solving the problem.
Possibly, but as far as I could tell from the site, the co-op is currently three people -- not really critical mass for a business offering in the area.
Seems likely that Qwest is unhappy about dealing with this because they're obligated by law to "provide unbundled access" to subloops, but doesn't necessarily make money off of the deal when working on this scale.
* * *
It is a dada story -- it has no moral.
1) T1
2) Microwave relays
3) DSLAM
4) webserver running on a 386... site is already slashdotted
Yeah. Broadband is a luxury - and I don't know too much about the situation in the US. But here in Scotland I jus upgraded from a 1/2 Meg ADSL to a 2 Meg ADSL connection for MINUS £30!
Thats right. I found the half was restrictive, phoned the telco, asked for a quote for a 2 Meg upgrade and was told it would SAVE me £30 a month.
Bitches!
This had been correct for about 6 months. Thats £180 they shafted me for! THATS what makes it seem expensive. People dont know what it costs, and have nasties (or nicies - which people still perceive as nasties) jumping out at them.
I consider my line good value- actually, I consider it cheap. Thats because I NEED it to work through. If I NEEDED it to play games on I'd think it was fucking expensive. Needs must!
People never complain about the price of water - only the price of beer.
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.
I'm sure his stunning interpersonal style will have greatly contributed to the ease with which the negotiations with Qwest were carried out.
I paid $2000 / month for 1/4 T1 in 1995.
... the technology used for switching
Since then, PC's have gone from 90 MhZ to 2 GHz.
RAM has dropped in price by a factor of 20 or more. Disk drives by a factor of 100. Bandwidth inside of CMOS chips is up by a factor of 100.
So
digital signals is now cheaper than any
analog phone technology. Why should a T1 line be
any more expensive than a regular voice line?
The thing stinks of monopoly practices.
Actually, AOL is far cheaper when someone else provides the network - I think AOL dialup is 22ish a month now, wheras the bring your own is 12ish. If you could get the deployment costs to be a cost break even for the first year, and save them 100ish a year from then on out, you might find interest in it
ostiguy
I was thinking of doing this, I'm in a sprint controled area in kernersville, nc, and sprint has basiclly said, no upgrading the phone switch ever. I actully had a t1 quoted to me by uslec, and it wasen't too expensive, i mean, i wouldn't get a full data t1, but I would get some phone lines along with it... the perfect mix to start a isp...
I was thinking wireless, and slightly wired ethernet for near neighboors.
Currently I am still on dial-up primarily due to the cost. I see this as a luxury I currently do not need since I can hook my laptop up at work and get down the big updates and such.
_ __
It seems the real battle here in government will be whether or not the companies get the green light (green for cash in this instance) to do whatever they want or will governmnet step in to mandate changes to therefore push for quicker implementation and better competition.
The sad part is that initiatives by the government helped to get telephones and electricity to rural areas but at the same time I fear that government in its current state can't pull of the same move for high speed access. Why? Because we are not living in the same times and current government movement for such initiatives lately have been messes of bad comprimises and half thought out proposals that have just made situations worse.
We have the choice between industry strangling growth out of greed or government stepping in and quite possibly making the situation even worse.
I understand that the rates for telephone service in this country are much less than many parts of the world comparing to average incomes and such but what move can government or the consumer make to promote the kind of growth and price lowering to make broadband a true mass consumer reality?
_______________________________________________
ACK
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.
- contact information
- information for Ruby
Ranch subscribers and potential subscribers
About the CoopThe 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 ProgressThe 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 doneThe chief remaining action items are:
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 ---
http://www.freenetworks.org/
Deleted
...that demand for broadband isn't there. Hell, they're not willing to listen to the demand.
I came close to starting a wireless network in my neighborhood fed by a T1 (or better) line. We're all about 500 feet farther than the phone company will allow for any DSL service. But they'd gladly charge a fortune for a T-class line. Unfortunately most of my neighbors are happy with their cable modem access to AOL and I opted for an IDSL connection.
You just have to ask: What good is mandatory copyright protection in computers to protect digital movies that require broadband that the phone companies aren't willing to provide in the first place?
CUR ALLOC 20195.....5804M
Great Post.
Actually, it's quite the opposite. The more people you have monkeying in the dirt (or on the pole) the more likely they are to mess up other people's stuff. Some of it will be accidental, but a surprising amount will be intentional. We've already heard stories of people getting their cables cut (cable, phone, DSS) by "competitors" and those cables are very much separate. With all of them within inches of each other on *ahem* state owned right-of-ways, this sort of crap will happen every day.
And then there's the logicistical constraints. How many people will be allowed to string up their cables? There is a finite space on the *ahem* power companies poles and in the state's right-of-way. So, how many 8" water mains do you want in your front yard? There is a reason why we have public utilities. The fact that we are now using a public utility for something other than a public utility (internet access, broadband, etc.) is creating the problem.
Have any of you morons who spout invective at Rand at the drop of a hat actually read what she has to say? What Rand argues for, and what her idiot followers say (no doubt having done as little actual reading as you yourself have), are two entirely different things.
Rand was in favor of a strongly capitalist, very free market, with little government intervention (given the track record of government, I really don't see how this could be any worse than the system we have today). She said nothing about abolishing government altogether, nor did she engage in lsd-inspired fantasies of 'practical' anarchy. Rand was quite aware that anything close to anarchy was a crock and had already been tried hundreds of times in the past, all with the end result of the powerful stomping all over the weak.
Rand was vocal, committed, and entirely opposed to the fucking morons of the day - of which their were quite a few, the communists not the least among them. So what? Most of what she said turns out to be fairly accurate, and well ahead of her time - which peaked in the bloody 1950's! For her time she was practically visionary, especially compared to her contemporaries. Some of her ideas might be outdated by now, but the same bloody thing can be said of Adam Smith and you don't hear anyone talking shit about him.
Max
My god carries a hammer. Your god died nailed to a tree. Any questions?
To be sure bandwidth adds tot he cost, but for a T-1 connection to the frame cloud it's in the realm of $300-500 per month. Even DSL is pretty expensive. It's like $120-150 per month for 1mbit DSL with nothing on the other end. When you start to talk big connections like an OC-3 or something it gets huge real fast. I can look up what our building-building OC-3s cost if you like (we're a university). Just receantly we moved a few departments off of campus proper (where we control the cable plan) to a building about a mile away. The only way to get connectivity is either wireless, which isn't fast and reliable enough at this point, or a connection to the fibremux, which is what we got. The building has an OC-3 and I think it just comes in on one of the OC-12s on our end then gets split off. At any rate, I don't have the numbers here but based on the bitching and whining I'm guessing it's pretty expensive monthly, espically compared to the eithernet lines we lay ourselves on campus.
Bandwidth certianly does cost money, noone is arguing that, however I do feel that an awful lot of the charge is in the local loop part, and with no good reason. Like here Qwest provides DSL lines at varying speeds, andthing from 256k up to 7mb. Thing is, the faster lines cost more. Not just for bandwidth, but for the actual line itself. If you want to get a 640/256k line and connect it to say a company network it'd be like $30 a month or something. Take that same line and upgrade it to 7/1mb and now you are talking $400 or so. In both cases you are talking just line costs, no bandwidth on top of that.
Sound like you want to create a little 802.11 mini-network. Look at the open access point site for some information about reprogramming 802.11 (http://opensource.instant802.com/) access points for providing bridging and maybe even wireless to wired bridging (run the access point in reverse).
Now, you realize that bandwidth is only a small fraction of the cost of providing your own "ISP". The real expense comes in the servers for Mail, News, etc. Plus DHCP servers and tech support. Also, you'll probably have to look at the contract that the T1 provider has and maybe even incorporate a small business to handle the expenses and distribute the billing amongst your friends.
IMHO, getting the 1's and 0's to the door is the least of the issues with an endeavor like this.
--- I wish I could hear the soundtrack to my life. That way I'd know when to duck.
Seems to me there are community wireless networks springing up all over. How long until this whole concept becomes the next "napster" of sorts? Each town would, of course, have to have some sort of coordinating team and lay some groundwork for efficient routing, but it could eventually get really interesting. And think further: IPv6! Now you have non-profit co-ops with huge blocks of IPs.
This is an example of the Free Market working!!!
Forty homes will be served while untold millions will not. That's your idea of the "Free Market working"?