Slashdot Mirror


32 Cities Want To Challenge Big Telecom, Build Their Own Gigabit Networks

Jason Koebler writes: More than two dozen cities in 19 states announced today that they're sick of big telecom skipping them over for internet infrastructure upgrades and would like to build gigabit fiber networks themselves and help other cities follow their lead. The Next Century Cities coalition, which includes a couple cities that already have gigabit fiber internet for their residents, was devised to help communities who want to build their own broadband networks navigate logistical and legal challenges to doing so.

47 of 175 comments (clear)

  1. 'Bout time by MitchDev · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Fuck Comcast, Time Warner, and AT&T

    1. Re:'Bout time by fustakrakich · · Score: 2

      Don't blame them. Blame the people who take their money. You have a chance to vote them out very soon. Go for it...

      --
      “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    2. Re:'Bout time by Midnight+Thunder · · Score: 4, Insightful

      These cities should build the infrastructure, focus on the infrastructure and then allow service providers to compete with each other for service. Essentially, government deals with infrastructure since they are generally good with that and private business on the sevice, since they are generally good with that when there is healthy competition.

      --
      Jumpstart the tartan drive.
    3. Re:'Bout time by bobjr94 · · Score: 2

      That will work great for a few years, until hit a recession or slowdown in taxes and first thing they will do is jack up the rates.

    4. Re:'Bout time by Idimmu+Xul · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I love it, private business has fucked you guys so bad that a social enterprise has cropped up to fix the problem. And the first thing you think of is to give that social enterprise back to the same businesses that just completely fucked you.

      --
      The problem with slashdot is that most of its users were bullied and stuffed into lockers as kids!
    5. Re:'Bout time by klui · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Irrelevant since these big private companies already do that.

    6. Re:'Bout time by wickedsteve · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Republicans in the right pocket and Democrats in the left pocket. Third party candidates don't have a chance. Your vote doesn't count for shit. Until people start seriously voting for third parties the gov't is bought and paid for.

    7. Re:'Bout time by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I love it, private business has fucked you guys so bad that a social enterprise has cropped up to fix the problem. And the first thing you think of is to give that social enterprise back to the same businesses that just completely fucked you.

      What country are you in? The system he described is basically the one used in Australia and I'm pretty sure several parts of Europe.

      You have a wholesaler who is either government owned or is a government regulated monopoly with legislated fixed prices which sells access to ISPs who use the infrastructure to provide competing services; the competition keeps prices low, stops them from fucking with the service (fast lane bullshit) and provides a variety of 'value-adds' to choose from without having to go and legislate regulations for every little thing because the bastards are too big to escape from (Comcast/Warner).

    8. Re:'Bout time by sumdumass · · Score: 2

      The problem is that third parties do not represent the majority of the country and likely a minority of any given area.

      I used to think the problem with third parties was that they do not run for local offices and only focus on national offices unlesd it is a plant designed to siphon votes from a particular canditate in order to let a less desirable one get elected. But after looking around a bit, i have concluded that the honest reality is that third parties simply do not have much support. I tend to disagree with less on issues from a candidate with a big party than i disagree with on with the closest counter part third party. Many people feel the same at least on a local level and a third party is a waste on the national level because they will have to either caucus with a big party or fight both of them and end up being ignored.

      Third parties simply are not big tent parties and are likely better off running as one of the big parties through the primary process. An example of this is the tea parties (yes, there are more than one).

      Now if you disagree, before replying, think about how the tea party republicans have been treated and explain how any third party trying to do something without even partial support of a big party would do any better.

    9. Re:'Bout time by Atzanteol · · Score: 2

      The answer to extremism is rarely extremism in the opposite direction.

      --
      "Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge"

      - Charles Darwin
    10. Re:'Bout time by mrchaotica · · Score: 2

      Of course not. He's blaming the cheaters for rigging the game.

      --

      "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz

    11. Re:'Bout time by suutar · · Score: 2

      Not "give back", "allow access". I have no problem with the cable company offering their services. My problem is with nobody else being able to offer services because they can't afford to run a new set of wires. Imho, the times when the incumbent wire-owner has been required to allow other folks to supply services and charge reasonable rates (dial up ISPs and non-fastlaned broadband are the prime examples) were the heyday of the internet.

  2. Boston by tompatman · · Score: 2

    Nice to see Boston on the list. I hope other cities join in when they see this.

    1. Re:Boston by peragrin · · Score: 4, Informative

      It gets better as sections of Boston get FIOS from Verizon. but for reasons known only to monopolies Verzion stopped rolling out new FIOS in Boston. I guess the market isn't big enough for them.

      --
      i thought once I was found, but it was only a dream.
    2. Re:Boston by tompatman · · Score: 2

      I live in Andover and have FIOS. For the most part it's a decent service, but it currently cost $65 a month for only a 15/15 Mbps connection. It's only going to go up from there. When I first signed up with them they had excellent customer service, but they get a little more like Comcast every year.

    3. Re:Boston by _xeno_ · · Score: 2

      I live in an apartment complex outside of Boston. FIOS is already wired down the street I live on. When I asked Verizon about FIOS, they told me that in order to offer it in my building, the building owners would have to pay to wire it and they'd have to get half the units in the building to sign up ahead of time.

      Needless to say, I'm still on Comcast.

      --
      You are in a maze of twisty little relative jumps, all alike.
    4. Re:Boston by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

      I met the VP in charge of FIOS. I point blank asked him. It came from above his pay grade. The irony is he gets AT&T DSL at his house and they have no plans to expand uverse there.

      Until the current top CEO is gone FIOS is dead in the water. He came up thru the ranks of Verizon wireless and thinks charging people more for less service is a totally awesome idea. They are busy reneging on every deal they made with every municipality they promised to roll it out to. Your politicians (on both sides of the isle) are all well bought and paid for and there is not a thing you can do about it.

    5. Re:Boston by See+Attached · · Score: 3, Informative

      Verizon stopped in North Jersey too, despite promising to get broadband to the whole state in 1993 by 2010, and tacking on a surcharge to EVERY bill they send out. For some reason the jokers that run the show decided to let em off the hook : http://www.dslreports.com/show... This is just wrong.. These little monopolies are not justifiable.

      --
      Time for a new Political party in the US (or two!) One is off the rails Other cant pony up a leader.
    6. Re:Boston by aaarrrgggh · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Verizon isn't seeing the return on capital for FIOS; that is well known. They think they can increase subscriber rates in areas they have covered and recover the capital that way.

      What they completely miss is the fact that the use-cases that will drive more valuable service plans only exist when ~gigabit networks are available everywhere.

      The problem I see with either approach is that business internet costs aren't going down fast enough to push that evolution. You get better speeds for less in a co-lo, but that doesn't help enough if you use a single office location.

    7. Re:Boston by Bengie · · Score: 2

      My ISP ran fiber to every house in the city, customer or not. Cheaper that way. Even customers that are several miles outside the city limits got fiber, all on the ISP's dime, no local, state, or federal government grants or loans. Verizon is just greedy.

  3. Hey Verizon, can you hear us NOW! by haruchai · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Nice to see cities stepping up to build better network infrastructure
    And if we can hold onto Net Neutrality, even better.

    --
    Pain is merely failure leaving the body
    1. Re:Hey Verizon, can you hear us NOW! by haruchai · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Hmm, well sometimes you need a little socialism to keep the capitalists in line.

      --
      Pain is merely failure leaving the body
    2. Re:Hey Verizon, can you hear us NOW! by Strangely+Familiar · · Score: 5, Insightful
      I see it more as monopoly busting in the last mile, not socialism. The companies sitting on their last mile monopolies are not all about free markets. They are all about capturing legislators and regulators to pass laws and regulations to maintain their monopolies. It is capitalism ("moneyism") in its crudest form, but has nothing to do with free markets.

      Unfortunately, the last mile tends to be a natural monopoly, as far as municipal planners are concerned. They don't want companies to come in and compete over the easiest to serve neighborhoods, and leave people in less dense areas out of luck. Planners like that often lose votes. So they have to make a company agree to cover everyone, and then make sure no competitor comes in and serves just the easy areas. See? It just ends up being a monopoly.

      So rather than have some new private company come in and take over the monopoly, cities are just deciding to provide services themselves. They do it with roads, sewers, water, and other utilities. Why not internet? You need right of ways, permits, etc. But you don't need to be a genius entrepeneur to run fiber and connect people to the Internet.

      --
      Join the IParty!
    3. Re:Hey Verizon, can you hear us NOW! by Firethorn · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Indeed, I'm mostly a libertarian and I view this as not really any different than a neighborhood, town, or city getting together and forming a cooperative. My reaction is 'good on them! Fie on established businesses that are failing to meet demands'.

      --
      I don't read AC A human right
    4. Re: Hey Verizon, can you hear us NOW! by Veritech_Ace · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Yep, it was pure, unadulterated laissez-faire capitalism that got us into our modern telecoms mess. Not a government subsidy or market-distorting policy to be found. Good thing that our well-informed, honest bureaucrats will wield the fine scalpel of government to make it right, like they did in 1996.

    5. Re:Hey Verizon, can you hear us NOW! by mysidia · · Score: 4, Informative

      It's already socialism, because the big Telcos and cable providers have a government-protected monopoly.

      I like the "socialism" where the cities build some public infrastructure a little better. As long as they aren't going to start attempting to regulate content.

    6. Re: Hey Verizon, can you hear us NOW! by See+Attached · · Score: 2

      And now we all trail the civilized world in the available products, competition and pay the most for it. Lets make this an election year campaign.

      --
      Time for a new Political party in the US (or two!) One is off the rails Other cant pony up a leader.
    7. Re:Hey Verizon, can you hear us NOW! by rioki · · Score: 4, Interesting

      The last mile is really a logistical problem. The current US system is quite problematic. In many cases whoever owns the last mile provides the service and you basically have no choice.

      In contrast, I like the German system. Whoever owns the last mile, is forced by law to lease it at a reasonable price. The result is that you have real competition with dozen of telephone, internet, cable, gas and electricity providers. This is an almost perfect win-win system. The people owning the last mile infrastructure have an incentive to keep it running and upgrading it or else they will lose their income (penalties, incensed fees for better service, government subsidies) and the service providers can reach a large volume of people. This only mildly fails for rural areas, but here subsides are used to alleviate the problem. The other mild problem that established players (e.g. Deutsche Telekom) can rest on their laurels of existing infrastructure and provide crappy and overpriced service, but fixes itself in the long run.

    8. Re:Hey Verizon, can you hear us NOW! by Shatrat · · Score: 2

      The US system works exactly like the German system, as long as you are only dealing with voice or T1s. Unfortunately the laws have not been updated to apply to IP, Video, or cable and fiber delivery for that matter.

      --
      09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0
  4. Really pisses me off! by EzInKy · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Even with my tiny less then 6mb connection AT&T continues to threaten to charge me more for exceeding their 150gb bandwidth limit. They are already sucking over $100 a month from me, yet they still want more. It is way past due for the entire U.S. to consider cruising the internet as neceassary as cruising the roads. This is required infrastructure as necessary to survive today as highways were 30 years ago. So many mundane tasks such as keeping up with current events and even paying your bills necisatate using the internet that considering it a luxory is really out of synch with the current reality. The internet as become necessary for everyone to have, so the internet must be free for everyone to access.

    --
    Time is what keeps everything from happening all at once.
  5. No, there is hope! by Strangely+Familiar · · Score: 3, Interesting

    There is no need to throw up your hands and give up. Chatanooga managed a high speed public interenet. http://money.cnn.com/2014/05/2.... Plus, you have people like Lawrence Lessig going after the root of the problem of corruption, and getting some serious traction with Mayday PAC. http://mayday.us./ Hell, even I am trying to fix the problems, but I am not getting too much exposure or traction. http://i-party.us./ But I still have hope. There are too many people trying to fix the problem of corruption and increasing monopolistic control for everyone to fail.

    --
    Join the IParty!
  6. Re:Where is the list? by _xeno_ · · Score: 3, Informative

    Right here, the list is located on the side of that page. I have JavaScript disabled as well, but I still found it in the menu at the top of each page.

    Anyway, the full list:

    Ammon, ID
    Auburn, IN
    Austin, TX
    Boston, MA
    Centennial, CO
    Champaign, IL
    Chattanooga, TN
    Clarksville, TN
    Jackson, TN
    Kansas City, KS
    Kansas City, MO
    Lafayette, LA
    Leverett, MA
    Louisville, KY
    Montrose, CO
    Morristown, TN
    Mount Vernon, WA
    Palo Alto, CA
    Ponca City, OK
    Portland, OR
    Raleigh, NC
    Rockport, ME
    San Antonio, TX
    Sandy, OR
    Santa Cruz County, CA
    Santa Monica, CA
    South Portland, ME
    Urbana, IL
    Westminster, MD
    Wilson, NC
    Winthrop, MN

    --
    You are in a maze of twisty little relative jumps, all alike.
  7. It works by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

    North State has done this in High Point, NC and the surrounding cities. It works, and OMG it works well. 100 a month for 250 channels, 1 Gig internet, and a landline. Flat rate. No big brother. No filtering. No raping on bills and nickel and diming BS. http://northstate.net/

    If other cities can do this or better, then go for it. Having this infrastructure in place free's up money and increases tech production throughout. It's about time people took internet infrastructure as seriously as electric power. Without it, your civilization is a 3rd world ghetto.

  8. and the cities are... by Noah+Haders · · Score: 5, Informative

    for those who are curious, the cities are:

    Ammon, ID
    Auburn, IN
    Austin, TX
    Boston, MA
    Centennial, CO
    Champaign, IL
    Chattanooga, TN
    Clarksville, TN
    Jackson, TN
    Kansas City, KS
    Kansas City, MO
    Lafayette, LA
    Leverett, MA
    Louisville, KY
    Montrose, CO
    Morristown, TN
    Mount Vernon, WA
    Palo Alto, CA
    Ponca City, OK
    Portland, OR
    Raleigh, NC
    Rockport, ME
    San Antonio, TX
    Sandy, OR
    Santa Cruz County, CA
    Santa Monica, CA
    South Portland, ME
    Urbana, IL
    Westminster, MD
    Wilson, NC
    Winthrop, MN

    1. Re:and the cities are... by Aryden · · Score: 4, Informative

      Even the buses in Chattanooga have free wifi, blew my mind when I went home this last time.

    2. Re:and the cities are... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      WARNING. WARNING. Make sure ISPs get classified as common carriers before your city takes over as your ISP.

      City council will vote to fuck you over if they're not required to be common carriers.

      e.g. "Woah. We can add $10 billion to the annual city budget if we inject ads and block encryption. All in favor? ... Passed by unanimous vote."

    3. Re:and the cities are... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      Good news. One city on the list, Palo Alto, has been trying for years, but Palo Alto's hapless City Council has never been able to get it done. They have spent 100's of thousands on consultants, but have always gotten bogged down with infighting and lack of leadership. Ironic, in that they already have dark fiber present, and Stanford University right on their border (who they treat as a virtual enemy, every time Stanford wants to build *anything*. Anyway, I hope these cities build out fiber and break free of the thieving telcos!

    4. Re:and the cities are... by tricorn · · Score: 2

      Champaign and Urbana are the same system, working also with the University of Illinois.

      They have the core network in place, City, schools, some businesses, and some under-served neighborhoods (using a federal grant), but progress in connecting other neighborhoods has been very slow. They're now working with another area company to install neighborhoods, but no good indication of how fast it will go. They've made some commitments, but only if enough houses in each neighborhood sign up.

      The biggest problem I've seen is getting a competent company to do the work, and keeping people informed. I'm still hopeful, I want to get away from AT&T. The City/University group has been turned into a non-profit, and they've pledged that the network will be open to ISPs on an equal basis (though I assume that the company building out the home connections will get a chunk of any revenue for some time until they've recouped their investment).

    5. Re:and the cities are... by Forgefather · · Score: 2

      "who they treat as a virtual enemy, every time Stanford wants to build *anything*"

      As someone who lives in University City, MO home of Washington University I can understand the ire placed on universities.

      They are non profit organizations that makes massive profits and buy up all the land and houses that would be taxed and then remove them from the tax pool. In University City over 15% of the land is owned by a university that makes 2.1 billion dollars a year in profit, but refuses to pay taxes which strangles the city budget.

      --
      "There are lies, there are damn lies, and there are statistics"
  9. Municipal Internet is Inevitable (hopefully) by Scottingham · · Score: 2

    Unless there's a coup-de-retardante the next couple of elections I see(hope) internet gets its rightful place as a regulated municipal service. Like water. Juicy data water.

    1. Re:Municipal Internet is Inevitable (hopefully) by NormAtHome · · Score: 2

      I was sort of thinking the same thing, internet access is a necessity these days almost as much as electric, water, gas and maybe internet should be a public utility.

    2. Re:Municipal Internet is Inevitable (hopefully) by Roodvlees · · Score: 2

      Actually it should not be organized by governments, only regulated.
      As many other countries have already shown!
      Sadly the US seems to love capitalism so much that it wants to give companies infinite power, which they then abuse...

      --
      Thank you, Bradley Manning, Edward Snowden and so many others, for courageously defending humanity, my freedom and more!
  10. Re:the plan by haruchai · · Score: 2

    True that it won't be the 1st time something like that has happened but at least the damn thing will get built and there's a chance that clauses on the sale can be used to make sure that whichever company ends up owning it must provide minimum levels of service, periodic upgrades, etc or it reverts to the public for a set price.

    --
    Pain is merely failure leaving the body
  11. Boulder, CO has a ballot measure by 2centplain · · Score: 3, Informative
    https://bouldercolorado.gov/in...

    "If approved, this ballot measure would reestablish city autonomy for investing in community broadband services currently limited by Colorado Senate Bill 152 pdf (SB-152). SB-152 significantly limits the ability of municipal governments to provide broadband services, including potential partnerships with private entities. SB-152 includes a provision allowing Colorado municipal governments to exempt themselves from the law’s provisions via a public vote.

    The Boulder community would significantly benefit from more economical, higher-capacity broadband services, given the tech-savvy demographic, readiness for next-generation services, and publicly available fiber-optic infrastructure. Learn more about the benefits pdf.

    Although the City of Boulder has no current plans to create a public broadband utility or engage in new public-private partnerships, passing the ballot measure would ensure that the planning and execution of new public initiatives would be unencumbered by significant limitations in state law.

    Approved Ballot Question
    Affirming the City’s Right to Provide Telecommunication Services Shall the City of Boulder be authorized to provide high-speed Internet services (advanced services), telecommunications services, and/or cable television services to residents, businesses, schools, libraries, nonprofit entities and other users of such services, either directly or indirectly with public or private sector partners, as expressly permitted by 29-27-101 to 304, “Competition in Utility and Entertainment Services,” of the Colorado Revised Statutes, without limiting its home rule authority?"

  12. In unrelated news by Snufu · · Score: 5, Funny

    ATT, Comcast and Verizon just lowered rates and expanded fiber coverage to the same 32 cities.

  13. Ponca City? by l0n3s0m3phr34k · · Score: 2

    At first look this "small" city in Oklahoma is strange, yet with the local of a Google datacenter, seems perhaps the cities leaders see the future of what could be? I'm from Tulsa, and our "highspeed" (at least where I live) is a joke. I'm locked into a semi-illegal "exclusive contract" my apartment complex has with AT&T so nothing other than DSL at a 2.4MB max. But even if my city suddenly "jumped" on this, I still wouldn't see any results at my place for 10-15 years if that.

    We could, of course, utilize our flood control pathways to install high-strength water-proofed fiber optics all over the city within a few years. Tulsa's flood control system spreads into every area of the city, and a fiber optic system that mimics the natural flow might add an interesting experiment too. We're far too busy tearing our roads up though to bother with anything hi-tech. Every single semi-major street is torn up or at least has construction road signs causing traffic jams; since the 1980's the construction barrel industry has made millions off us taxpayers.

  14. Highway analogy by jeffb+(2.718) · · Score: 2

    I'd recommend against pushing that highway analogy. It makes it too easy for them to come back with:

    "You don't get to drive 150mph on a highway designed for 70mph."

    "We need to make sure overweight trucks don't destroy the road surface for the rest of our drivers."

    "If everyone drove as much as you do, the roads would be so jammed that nobody would be able to get anywhere."

    Each of these points is flawed, but the analogy you posed doesn't do much to help that.