Utah Cities To Provide High-Speed Net Access

Instarx writes "The New York Times reports that Salt Lake City and other Utah cities plan to install an ultrahigh-speed optical network as a public utility project starting next year. The network would provide internet access [for about $28 per month] in direct competition to slower commercial offerings. The network would be capable of delivering data over the Internet to homes and businesses at speeds 100 times faster than current commercial residential offerings. It would also offer digital television and telephone services through the Internet."

Comments

fat pipe, please

[Fux the Penguin]

The article points to the sluggish economy as a hindrance to this sort of deployment in Utah, as well as other municipalities, but I think it may actually help the project.

When you look at the vendors, their pricing has just dropped because they are hungry. So, you can get incredible pricing for the equipment, the electronics, the fiber, all the things you need. Because the economy's down, interest rates are down, so that's going to help financing.

And because they don't just have a free flow of cash in the telecom world, there are companies that are very interested because they don't have the capital riding on somebody else's network. You take that all together and the timing actually is pretty darn good.

As far as municipal involvement in this, the genie is out of the bottle in my opinion. Municipalities across the country are either going to do the retail or the wholesale, but they're going to do something. And they're not satisfied to just sit and wait when an incumbent or some private sector company decides that they're big enough and it's worth their while to come in to build the networks.

Re:fat pipe, please

[JBatch]

This is only half about a faster connection. The residents of Utah are so sick of the aboslutely aweful customer service provided by the only two substantial high-speed(and telecom) providers in the area that we want another option.* A smaller city in the area has recently done this same thing and it has been an overwhelming success. *I realize public utilites don't always have the best customer service either, but at least you could switch everytime one or another provider pissed you off so you can feel better about your situtaion.

Re:fat pipe, please

[TopShelf]

If there aren't private companies offering services, why is the government stepping in?

To provide a public good that is in the best long term interests of the community. Businesses likely wouldn't undertake such an endeavor because once the competition comes in, it wouldn't make the investment worthwhile. What the government is doing here is to provide infrastructure for many companies to come in and offer services, which will not only stimulate economic activity but also help develop the area's human capital...

Re:fat pipe, please

[Beatbyte]

telephony is going to be on the fiber optics. and the internet, is just as, if not more needed than phones for a lot of people. and the demand is growing.

compare the number of e-mails, web site visits, IM's you do a day compared to the number of phone calls.

Re:fat pipe, please

[GoofyBoy]

>The demand is obviously being constricted by the dearth of cheap pipes.

No, its not obvious.

Its hard to find justification for HDTV and this is at minimum 5 times more bandwidth than that.

> If we wait for the "demand" to grow enough to justify private investment in FO to the home, it will never happen.

And sometimes it shouldn't happen. But how do we know? Should we spend a huge amount everytime something comes up that perhaps might work out in the future?

>The present setup is just dandy for whomever is selling pathetic connectivity. They will not roll out replacements for their current cash cows.

Wrong, they did. Before the only thing available was dial-up. Then cable/telephone companies built the infrastructure for broadband.

>Think of it this way. Pretend that, instead of bandwidth, the "scarcity" is water. An imperfect analogy, 'cause water is finite and bandwidth is infinite... though the difference actually helps the argument.

Actually the big thing is that water is needed for the basics of life. Broadband isn't. You shut off water to a city, it become a emergency. With broadband, it might get reported in the local newspaper.

A better analogy is resturants. I don't need to go out and eat but its very nice when I do. Do you think its the function of the city to build and operate the biggest resturant in the state when there are multiple resturants already? Do you think that is wise use of money when they have to do road repairs?

>If they had been provided by the free market, we'd be metering water like champagne

Like electricity, gasoline, phone lines and garbage collection? They do cost, but not at huge insane prices.

Re:fat pipe, please

[leshert]

We're just on the cusp of broadband not being a luxury.

Do you consider it a luxury to have electricity and running water? My grandparents considered it so up until the mid-twentieth century, and if yours did not, you don't have to go back more than a generation to find ancestors who did.

Can we ever have too much Capacity?

[ericspinder]

The speeds to be provided "are way more than what most consumers need in their home," Mr. Fenn said, adding, "Why provide a Rolls-Royce when a Chevrolet will do?" As I see it, the project is more like building an 8 lane bridge when a 4 lane will do just fine. Of course, I think Salt Lake is very very wise for making the decision to do it. Getting everything on one large "pipe" is what most cable companies are already planning. Hell if telephone companies thought that they could push TV over twisted pair they would be talking about it too. A few "watchdog" groups are a little worried about the spending, and I don't blame them, exp after the tech boom bubble burst. However, I am not sure of the price of rolled fiber cable, but I think it's a safe bet that it's better than it was 3 years ago.

Re:Can we ever have too much Capacity?

[Krondor]

NO! We can never have too much Capacity! This is obviously a really expensive project to undertake, and when you design something for the public with tax dollars you want it to last a LONG TIME. When do you think they'll get the millage passed to rebuild it for more capacity later.

Look how the Internet is growing, it's only a matter of time before multimedia content pushes the limits of even modern broadband setups. They are building capacity for the future, as well as for increased longterm demand.

Look at the rest of the industry, are you hard drives too fast, is your printer too fast, can you ever be too fast (besides playing old games and some emulators)?

Most telling part of the article

[GoofyBoy]

The costs are substantial. Mr. Morris said Utopia would spend about $1,100 a home to run the fiber network by each house in the 18 cities involved, and an additional $1,400 for each home that decided to be connected.

What would you personally do with $1100 dollars? Would you spend it so you can have the potential of spending another $1400 and monthly fees to get more bandwidth than you would ever need right now?

Now how about enforcing that on every homeowner in your city?

Development

[DarkBlackFox]

From the article:

Jerry Fenn, the president of the Utah division of Qwest, the regional telephone company here that provides its own high-speed Internet access, said there were few uses yet for the network Utopia plans to deliver.

The speeds to be provided "are way more than what most consumers need in their home," Mr. Fenn said, adding, "Why provide a Rolls-Royce when a Chevrolet will do?"


This is exactly the line of thinking that prevents projects like this from implementation all accross the country. Just because "it's more than we need" right now does not mean it won't be down the road. It's the chicken and egg situation of the tech sector- no one will build it until there is a need, but there will not be a need unless it's there for people to develop uses on. Sort of ironic coming from a society which prides itself in gas gussling SUVs and exhorbitant homes.

Even though I live on the other side of the country, I hope this goes through, if not for the geeks of Utah, but for the hopes that municipal (read not controlled by draconian corporations) communications infrastructure can be rolled out in other places too.

Re:Will they censor in the name of community mores

[Anonymous Coward]

Ummm.... a small percentage of people here feel the need to pay some other company, most definatly NOT blockbuster, to edit out the "bad stuff" for them...

For the rest of us, there's nobody telling us that we can't go pick up a move that's rated "R" if we want to, or for that matter go to an adult video store with "XXX" videos, or get them on pay-per=view, or whatever... Sure, they've tried..but failed, since the majority of people figured out that it was a stupid idea to begin with.

So I can pretty confidently say that they won't try to force a filter onto people, we're not talking about China here!

I'll be the first to tell you that Utah has some oddities...especially when it comes to alcohol laws. But if you haven't lived here, (and I have, my entire 27 years), then forgive me for being blunt, but you don't have a clue.

Re:Should the government really be providing this?

[penguin7of9]

Is the job of the government to provide high speed internet service to homes?

The job of the government is to provide whatever we, the people, want it to provide. It's quite common to task governments with running businesses when the private sector has failed to deliver.

if it's directly the government's service, there is a large potential for filtering or other restrictions on access, and a much greater threat for logging one's activities. I do not like this idea.

Utah has the kind of government its voters elected. I don't like that government, you may not like it, but they do. As long as it's within the Constitution, they are free to do that.

I wouldn't want my telephone, television, newspaper, radio, or internet access to come from one extremely powerful group who would have a significant interest in manipulating information for their own benefit.

Well, that's exactly what you are getting when you leave those things to big businesses. Government-run services are preferable in my opinion. In fact, "government run" doesn't mean "centralized"--this kind of effort is an excellent candidate for being run at a city/town level.

I prefer government-run to big-business-run. At least governments are accountable to voters. The best situation is, of course, to have lots of little, independent companies. But that isn't always achievable.

Headline Correction

[TrollBridge]

That should read "Utah Taxpayers To Provide High-Speed Access".

Is the tide turning?

[release7]

Have we finally had our fill of the nonsensical "greed is good" and "government is evil" mantras? Did it take the recent corporate scandals to help us come to our senses on the issue of public vs. private?

Perhaps that's just wishful thinking on my part. Personally, I don't place myself in either camp. It all depends on the product being produces. Do I want a for-profit company making decisions about my medical coverage? Hell no! Do I want the government making my car? Of course not!

In this case, it only makes sense that a critical infrastructure like Internet service be provided by the state. Charging me $50/month for my broadband connection seems ridiculously high. Either the the cable company is terribly inefficient or they will be making money hand over fist far into the future.

We all know companies set prices where they will make the most profit, the public be damned, with no obligation to social justice issues. They don't care if nearly 33% of the population can't aford to shell out $50/month for broadband. All that matters to them is that it will make them more money if they gouge those who can afford to pay and leave lower income folks out in the cold.