Slashdot Mirror


Remote Massachusetts Towns Welcome Broadband's Arrival

New submitter arnoldjm writes: This story from the Boston Globe tells of the effort to bring publicly funded fiber-optic data transmission capabilities to Western Massachusetts. The Globe Reports: "The network, financed with state and federal stimulus money, will extend broadband to 45 isolated towns where 40 percent of homes have no Internet access... Leverett [one of the towns involved] has contracted a private company to provide Internet service, which will cost subscribers $65 a month. That's about same as Comcast and Verizon FIOS customers pay in Greater Boston, but the speeds in Leverett are about 10 times faster."

90 comments

  1. Remote? In Massachusetts? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Compared to many states (like mine) Massachusetts is a county.

    1. Re: Remote? In Massachusetts? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      "Remote" in the Massachusetts dialect means "anything not Boston itself or bordering Boston." Most of the state isn't aware there's anything west of Fenway Park.

  2. definitions for our new netizens by nimbius · · Score: 5, Funny

    For those of you new to the idea of the internet and its related jargon, here are a few definitions for words we use quite a bit:
    Comcastic: When someone tells you its comcastic, it generally means an untreatable state of general malease and agony. Example: "the cancer has become comcastic"
    bundling: this is a business strategy used by internet service providers to ensure that when your internet quits working, so does your phone and your television. the only thing that wont stop working however are the recurring payments you make for the service.

    Also, when calling for technical support and service it is a common misconception to assume the phrase" your call is very important to us" is actually true. In fact, this is entirely false. Many ISP's have entire departments of hundreds, even thousands of dedicated representitives working hard to ensure your misery.

    --
    Good people go to bed earlier.
    1. Re:definitions for our new netizens by tnk1 · · Score: 1

      Oddly enough, my television hasn't been working for months, but my Internet hasn't had a problem.

      Even more oddly, I haven't even bothered to call them to fix the TV. I really don't miss it at all.

    2. Re:definitions for our new netizens by MightyYar · · Score: 2

      My young kids don't even ask for the TV - they only want the tablets. We sometimes reflexively put something on TV for them, and they often ask if they can't watch it on the tablets instead.

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
    3. Re:definitions for our new netizens by rmdingler · · Score: 3, Interesting

      My young kids don't even ask for the TV - they only want the tablets. We sometimes reflexively put something on TV for them, and they often ask if they can't watch it on the tablets instead.

      It 's a different focking World.

      I used to imagine how my own version of "two miles to school uphill both ways barefoot in the snow"" might go. I used to think it would be, "We had to get up out of our seat to change the channel."

      Now I realize that it may well be, "We had to watch a program at a regularly scheduled day and time to see it each week."

      --
      Happiness in intelligent people is the rarest thing I know.

      Ernest Hemingway

    4. Re:definitions for our new netizens by rogoshen1 · · Score: 2

      Also : "we still used phones, as phones"

    5. Re:definitions for our new netizens by Obfuscant · · Score: 1

      Oddly enough, my television hasn't been working for months, but my Internet hasn't had a problem. Even more oddly, I haven't even bothered to call them to fix the TV.

      I assume you are referring to your cable television and not the physical television set, based on the fact you haven't "call[ed] them" to fix it. Or maybe it's the TV set. Either way, you're paying the cable company for service you aren't using -- handing them money for no reason.

    6. Re:definitions for our new netizens by KGIII · · Score: 1

      It is not for no reason. It is ransom money. If they "try to fix" the problem then the internet will probably stop working too.

      --
      "So long and thanks for all the fish."
    7. Re: definitions for our new netizens by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, your call is Importanz to them, because its a Great opportunity to sell you more crap you dont Need.

    8. Re:definitions for our new netizens by tburkhol · · Score: 1

      Either way, you're paying the cable company for service you aren't using -- handing them money for no reason.

      Every May, I call Comcast and threaten to cancel. In exchange, they usually offer me the same "discount" as new subscribers. Last year's offer was internet+basic cable for $50, vs internet only for $65.

      I figure Comcast must have such a massive stockpile of set-top boxes that they're willing to pay their customers $15/month to store them. Or, like "12 CDs for the price of 1," they make so much money off the people who forget to cancel after the trial that they don't mind the "loss."

  3. This is evil! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The public is going to be mercilessly taxed to provide themselves with high-speed internet, and the cost will be entirely on the people who benefit!

    This failed in Chattanooga, in North Carolina, and everywhere else it has been tried!

    1. Re:This is evil! by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 2

      The public is going to be mercilessly taxed to provide themselves with high-speed internet, and the cost will be entirely on the people who benefit!

      Your sarcasm aside, from TFA it looks like the town in question borrowed ~$1900 per person (NOT per household) to put in the system. They'll get that back with taxes eventually, but it's not clear whether the taxes will be on the locals or Statewide. Assuming a five year note, average household size of four, and the costs paid entirely by the locals, that should about double the $65/month that is the nominal cost of the system.

      In addition, the Federal government (that's the rest of us in the USA) are going to cover ~$90M of the cost. Since the $90M covers multiple towns in the region, it's impossible to say how much the total cost of the system will be.

      --

      "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
    2. Re:This is evil! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh, and any future taxes that need to be paid to support the system are themselves tax-deductible against federal taxes.

    3. Re:This is evil! by Kjella · · Score: 1

      Your sarcasm aside, from TFA it looks like the town in question borrowed ~$1900 per person (NOT per household) to put in the system. They'll get that back with taxes eventually, but it's not clear whether the taxes will be on the locals or Statewide. Assuming a five year note, average household size of four, and the costs paid entirely by the locals, that should about double the $65/month that is the nominal cost of the system.

      It says it's a town of 1900 people at the top, 800 premises so an average of 2.4 per household. They're borrowing $3.6 million which works out to $4500/household, but five years is generally too short. Most estimate that a buried fiber will last 30-40 years, if we say 20 years then it's an extra $20/month in taxes. Seems like a fair price, near my cabin they're building out to ~1200 premises for $5.2 million with a mix of government funding and extra sign-up fee, though the most part is covered by the fiber company who'll profit for decades to come. Still, if all goes according to plan I can get gigabit there at the end of the year and "only" 100 Mbit at home...

      --
      Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
    4. Re:This is evil! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your sarcasm aside, from TFA it looks like the town in question borrowed ~$1900 per person (NOT per household) to put in the system. They'll get that back with taxes eventually, but it's not clear whether the taxes will be on the locals or Statewide. Assuming a five year note, average household size of four, and the costs paid entirely by the locals, that should about double the $65/month that is the nominal cost of the system.

      You should never ever be involved in any kind of municipal funding then, you would screw your citizens worse than those of Jefferson County, Alabama, or Orange County, California. Please refrain from ever going near one, in fact. 5 year note? Go away, you're terrible.

      In addition, the Federal government (that's the rest of us in the USA) are going to cover ~$90M of the cost.

      Massachusetts as a state contributed about 32 billion more to the federal coffers in 2014, so if that trend continues, they're still quite ahead on the contributions matrix.

      Since the $90M covers multiple towns in the region, it's impossible to say how much the total cost of the system will be.

      IOW, 90% of the arguments about numbers will be worthless ones.

    5. Re:This is evil! by Sarten-X · · Score: 1

      ...but it's not clear whether the taxes will be on the locals or Statewide.

      Either way, the legislature, being comprised of representatives of the jurisdiction involved approved such an action. By extrapolation, that means that the entire jurisdiction approved and agreed to pay taxes to benefit others in the area.

      That's how a republic works.

      Assuming [assumptions], and the costs paid entirely by the locals, that should about double the $65/month that is the nominal cost of the system.

      Which really means that the cost of the system doesn't double, but rather that $65/month of taxes are going to this project's costs, rather than building that new skate park, nature trail, or a new sign for city hall. Again, the represented constituents chose (likely indirectly) to spend their budget this way.

      In addition, the Federal government (that's the rest of us in the USA) are going to cover ~$90M of the cost.

      And I will happily pay my 30-cent share while those Massachusetts guys help cover the cost of my town's badly-needed $100M school renovation. You see, a long time ago, our two states (and several others) decided to unite to help each other improve their collective lives. Now referred to as the "United States", each member state's citizens pay some taxes into a pool to go toward projects throughout the entire aggregate society.

      Since the $90M covers multiple towns in the region, it's impossible to say how much the total cost of the system will be.

      The total cost of the system will be less than it would be if the $90M only covered a single town. It's impossible to say what your non sequitur is trying to prove.

      --
      You do not have a moral or legal right to do absolutely anything you want.
    6. Re:This is evil! by bobbied · · Score: 1

      The public is going to be mercilessly taxed to provide themselves with high-speed internet, and the cost will be entirely on the people who benefit!

      This failed in Chattanooga, in North Carolina, and everywhere else it has been tried!

      Never under estimate the liberal mind's propensity for hubris. They either don't know history, or they firmly believe that because THEY are running this show, it won't be a problem this time, they are smarter. What usually happens though is that they keep making the "program" bigger and bigger or put the federal government in charge which just wastes more resources and simply fails as before.

      Remember it's the INTENT that matters, not the result...

      --
      "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
    7. Re:This is evil! by Charliemopps · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Your sarcasm aside, from TFA it looks like the town in question borrowed ~$1900 per person (NOT per household) to put in the system. They'll get that back with taxes eventually, but it's not clear whether the taxes will be on the locals or Statewide. Assuming a five year note, average household size of four, and the costs paid entirely by the locals, that should about double the $65/month that is the nominal cost of the system.

      It says it's a town of 1900 people at the top, 800 premises so an average of 2.4 per household. They're borrowing $3.6 million which works out to $4500/household, but five years is generally too short. Most estimate that a buried fiber will last 30-40 years, if we say 20 years then it's an extra $20/month in taxes. Seems like a fair price, near my cabin they're building out to ~1200 premises for $5.2 million with a mix of government funding and extra sign-up fee, though the most part is covered by the fiber company who'll profit for decades to come. Still, if all goes according to plan I can get gigabit there at the end of the year and "only" 100 Mbit at home...

      I work for an ISP. You're wrong on almost every point.

      Most infrastructure repair costs are for what we jokingly call the "Backhoe disconnect"
      We're talking upwards of 90% of our repair costs are construction related. And before you say it, no, they don't pay us back for it. It's almost always the city that cuts the cable, they can't afford to pay us, and if we tried to make them they'd issue a press release the next day stating "We're laying off 1 police officer and 2 kindergarten teachers to pay off your Nazi ISP, sorry" and we'd be driven out of town with pitchforks.

      Further, Fiber does have a lot of longevity, you are correct there. But what doesn't have a lot of longevity is wired internet service as a whole. By 2025 we'll start seeing the first 5g cellular plans they'll offer 1gig+ service for a lower price and using less spectrum than 4g. When that comes along, the residential side of my industry will die. The financial people have to plan for that, and would be idiots if they approved infrastructure projects to invest in that part of the buisness. We'll still have a lot of business services, and we are, of course, the trunks between those cellular towers. But the industry as a whole has been exiting the residential market lately. It's becoming less and less profitable. Even televisions services are a losing proposition. The tiered television services ensure that TV is VERY expensive and the only people getting those profits are the channel executives. This is why all the cable companies are trying to merge now... they want to be big enough to fight those big content providers like Viacom.

      Long story short, focus your ire on the cellular industry. They will be your ISP in 10 to 20 years and you'll have forgotten all about us.

    8. Re:This is evil! by spitzak · · Score: 1

      WHOOSH!!!!

    9. Re:This is evil! by sims+2 · · Score: 1

      I mostly agree with you with small exception if current trends are any indication they will come out with plans offering around 30GB of data for around $80/mo some time around 2020+ which will give you just enough time to watch about 4-1/2 hours of 4k video on netflix cellular has speed but either does not have capacity or they don't want to sell it for a reasonable rate

      i have a 12mbps dsl line at work with unlimited usage from att its $40/mo i can get 50/mbps for $157 through the city also unlimited

      at home i can use verizon wireless at $120/mo for 30GB of data through their lte internet plans

      I probably am not going to be watching 4k video on netflix at work but i sure couldn't afford to watch in 480p at those rates at home if they want to lure people into that kind of capacity sham there going to have to bring back the unlimited plans and i am not talking about the 5GB/mo unlimited plans

      --
      Minimum threshold fixed. Thanks!
    10. Re:This is evil! by Obfuscant · · Score: 1

      Either way, the legislature, being comprised of representatives of the jurisdiction involved approved such an action. By extrapolation, that means that the entire jurisdiction approved and agreed to pay taxes to benefit others in the area. That's how a republic works.

      No, actually, it isn't. Neither democracy nor representative forms of government force agreement upon everyone.

      I would love to see this argument applied to the times a local or city council votes to grant a cable company a non-exclusive franchise to operate in their community. Usually, such an agreement is represented as the greedy cable company bribing city officials into giving them a government-granted monopoly. Under your "republic", it's really everyone in the community agreeing to this.

    11. Re:This is evil! by 4im · · Score: 1

      I work for an ISP. You're wrong on almost every point.

      Most infrastructure repair costs are for what we jokingly call the "Backhoe disconnect"
      We're talking upwards of 90% of our repair costs are construction related. And before you say it, no, they don't pay us back for it. It's almost always the city that cuts the cable, they can't afford to pay us, and if we tried to make them they'd issue a press release the next day stating "We're laying off 1 police officer and 2 kindergarten teachers to pay off your Nazi ISP, sorry" and we'd be driven out of town with pitchforks.

      Over here in Europe, such costs would have to be paid by the company (same for municipality, state, whoever) that's doing the works - or rather, their liability insurance. Such insurance is not an option here. Problem solved.

    12. Re:This is evil! by Kjella · · Score: 2

      I work for an ISP. You're wrong on almost every point. Most infrastructure repair costs are for what we jokingly call the "Backhoe disconnect". We're talking upwards of 90% of our repair costs are construction related.

      I'm not really seeing where you're contradicting me, but I'm sorry you live in a third world country that hasn't invented the map. Around here it happens rarely as all cables and pipes - not just fiber but electricity, water, sewage etc. are recorded and easily available for anyone else digging. If it does happen whoever broke it pays or if it happens by natural causes it's a running cost built into the monthly subscription. If you manage to trash a fiber network so badly it has to be written down in five years, there's something very wrong with your business.

      Further, Fiber does have a lot of longevity, you are correct there. But what doesn't have a lot of longevity is wired internet service as a whole. By 2025 we'll start seeing the first 5g cellular plans they'll offer 1gig+ service for a lower price and using less spectrum than 4g. When that comes along, the residential side of my industry will die.

      Fiber is killing copper, coax and satellite for TV, Internet and "landline" delivery. At least 4G is far too little to run all wirelessly on, personally I'd wager against 5G too. Not that it won't be popular, but the future seems to be fiber + mobile. Or to put it another way, if FTTH is to die I expect cable and telcos to die first. Those 70-80% signup rates for fiber we see around our cabin aren't imaginary...

      --
      Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
    13. Re:This is evil! by dave420 · · Score: 1

      When you start a post with a massive generalisation, don't expect anyone to think particularly highly of you, or listen to a single word you say.

    14. Re:This is evil! by tburkhol · · Score: 1

      Either way, the legislature, being comprised of representatives of the jurisdiction involved approved such an action. By extrapolation, that means that the entire jurisdiction approved and agreed to pay taxes to benefit others in the area. That's how a republic works.

      No, actually, it isn't. Neither democracy nor representative forms of government force agreement upon everyone.

      No government based on the unanimous support of the entire population will ever work. If that's your working definition of democracy, you may want to revisit your civics lessons.

      The whole concept behind a government is that everyone agrees to abide by its rules. You don't have to believe that the rules are right or best, but you do have to abide by them. In a representative democracy, the representatives create those rules on behalf of individual citizens. Again, you don't have to agree that a particular rule is the best, but you do have to accept that your opinion is in the minority.

      I would love to see this argument applied to the times a local or city council votes to grant a cable company a non-exclusive franchise to operate in their community. Usually, such an agreement is represented as the greedy cable company bribing city officials into giving them a government-granted monopoly. Under your "republic", it's really everyone in the community agreeing to this.

      This is why civilized cultures see bribery (or even "campaign contributions") as such a serious threat to society. If you can appeal to and corrupt the people's representative and distort him not to represent those people, then you no longer have a representative democracy. Instead, you've created a plutocracy, where the rules are created by those rich enough to pay for representation. A plutocracy will force people to abide by rules that lack popular support. A representative democracy will force a minority to abide by rules that most people favor.

    15. Re:This is evil! by dave420 · · Score: 1

      A republic is a country without a dynastic leader. The phrase you are looking for is "representative democracy". Republics and monarchies can be representative democracies (France & Britain are an example of each). It is true that the archaic definition of republic did include some brief talk of representatives, but that has ceased to be the case for a long time. If you want to talk about politicians representing people, use "representative democracy", as that is the actual term for that.

    16. Re:This is evil! by necro81 · · Score: 1

      Assuming a five year note, average household size of four, and the costs paid entirely by the locals, that should about double the $65/month that is the nominal cost of the system. They'll get that back with taxes eventually, but it's not clear whether the taxes will be on the locals or Statewide. Assuming a five year note, average household size of four, and the costs paid entirely by the locals, that should about double the $65/month that is the nominal cost of the system.

      And in the meantime, they'll get an awful lot of value out of it. Plus, the useful life of the fiber is measured in decades, during which it will continue to provide value. Even at a cost of $1900/person, it's a valuable investment.

      Heck, I borrowed orders of magnitude more per person for the house I live in! I still considered that a worthwhile expenditure, even though I'll be spending a lot more than five years paying that off.

    17. Re:This is evil! by bobbied · · Score: 1

      Why? Was I referring to you? (/sarcasim)

      --
      "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
    18. Re:This is evil! by OhPlz · · Score: 1

      The fun thing about old New England towns is that the infrastructure is ancient, and often times poorly documented at best. I've walked around my own neighborhood with one of the city officials as he was pointing out what his maps said versus what we could see under the various manholes. It's not uncommon to hear of pipes from the 1800s bursting and no one having any idea where the valves are to shut if off.

    19. Re:This is evil! by Obfuscant · · Score: 1

      If that's your working definition of democracy, you may want to revisit your civics lessons.

      You should notice that I'm the one saying that assuming unanimous agreement is not how our government works.

      The whole concept behind a government is that everyone agrees to abide by its rules.

      The claim was that "By extrapolation, that means that the entire jurisdiction approved and agreed to pay taxes to benefit others in the area. That's how a republic works." This is not about abiding by the rules, it is a statement that everyone approves of the plan to install a fiber system and that everyone agrees to pay taxes to benefit others. I don't even need to find those people who don't approve of the plan, all I need to do is point out that a bill passed by representatives does NOT mean that everyone it applies to agrees.

      The claim that everyone agrees to pay taxes for the altruistic "benefit of others", in a system where a failure to pay taxes can and does result in confiscation and sale of property, is too ridiculous to need serious rebuttal.

      In a representative democracy, the representatives create those rules on behalf of individual citizens. Again, you don't have to agree that a particular rule is the best, but you do have to accept that your opinion is in the minority.

      Uhh, no, I don't. The rules created by representatives are not necessarily the opinion of the majority. In fact, that was the reason for a representative form of government to start with. Not everyone has time to study every issue, and when our country was formed not everyone had access to the information like we do with the interwebs of today. The short answer is, no, I do NOT have to accept that my opinion is "in the minority". There are a lot of significant changes this country went through because people didn't just accept that they were "in the minority" and accept the rules.

      This is why civilized cultures see bribery (or even "campaign contributions") as such a serious threat to society.

      In other words, you support the idea that everyone agrees with a plan to install fiber internet and pay taxes for it because the representatives of the people voted for it, but that when the representatives of the people vote to approve a cable franchise it is only through bribery.

    20. Re:This is evil! by Shishak · · Score: 1

      The public is going to be mercilessly taxed to provide themselves with high-speed internet, and the cost will be entirely on the people who benefit!

      Your sarcasm aside, from TFA it looks like the town in question borrowed ~$1900 per person (NOT per household) to put in the system. They'll get that back with taxes eventually, but it's not clear whether the taxes will be on the locals or Statewide. Assuming a five year note, average household size of four, and the costs paid entirely by the locals, that should about double the $65/month that is the nominal cost of the system.

      In addition, the Federal government (that's the rest of us in the USA) are going to cover ~$90M of the cost. Since the $90M covers multiple towns in the region, it's impossible to say how much the total cost of the system will be.

      The Active Ethernet Fiber network in Leverett is paid for through property tax of the residents. State & Federal funds were not used for the construction. Operating costs of the network are paid by subscribers through the Municipal Light Plant fee (currently $49.95/month)

      Residents in Leverett are now receiving 1gbps of Internet for $75/month, it is expected to decrease to $70/month by the end of the year.

      The Internet service is $24.95 to the ISP and $49.95 to the Municipal Light Plant. The ISP is a locally owned and operated ISP that has been in business in the area for 20+ years.

      The remaining towns are raising 2/3rds of the money needed for their parts of the network through local property taxes. The remaining 1/3 is from a $40 Million state grant. No federal funds will be used to construct the network in the remaining towns.

      --
      Now I hope and pray that I will But today I am still, just a bill
    21. Re:This is evil! by Shishak · · Score: 1

      The public is going to be mercilessly taxed to provide themselves with high-speed internet, and the cost will be entirely on the people who benefit!

      This failed in Chattanooga, in North Carolina, and everywhere else it has been tried!

      I can guarantee it will not fail in Leverett, MA

      83% of the town voted yes for the tax increase to build the network
      75% of the town signed up for service before the network was built
      82% of the town is signed up now as the network is in its final stages of construction

      The network has tremendous support from the residents. The ISP is a local company that has been providing ISP services in the area for 20+ years

      $75/month for 1gbps is a great price IMHO
      $95/month for 1gbps & unlimited phone service is a great price

      The remaining towns should be so lucky to follow in Leveretts footsteps.
      Video can be streamed when you have a lot of bandwidth

      --
      Now I hope and pray that I will But today I am still, just a bill
  4. Money by randalware · · Score: 1

    So internet access is going to cost 9+ hours of minimum wage pay ?
    So about 10 hours out of 160 hours in a full month.
    Add 5 hours for cell phone and 4 hours for TV ( netflix/hulu cheap options)
    That's about 10%+ of a person's wages.
    Hopefully they have someone to share the internet and TV costs.
    And I hope there is a lifeline option for the people trying to live on minimum wage.

    Internet access makes so many things possible !

    --
    This is my opinion based on what little I know and understand of the rumors and lies Thanks, Randal
    1. Re:Money by ganjadude · · Score: 1

      if you live alone on min wage...perhaps you dont need fiber internet??? DSL should suffice

      --
      have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
    2. Re:Money by jtownatpunk.net · · Score: 2

      Is DSL code for "the neighbor's open WiFi"?

    3. Re:Money by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      90% of people making minimum wage are under 24. In other words, their parents are paying for Internet access.

    4. Re:Money by pubwvj · · Score: 1

      Lifeline does not cover the internet costs at this time.

      At $65/month they are paying about half what we pay. We are also 'out in the sticks' like them but we pay twice as much and we get far slower speeds plus we have outages that total up about one to two weeks of time a year.

      On the other hand, it is worth it to not have to live in a urban area so I'm not complaining.

    5. Re:Money by ganjadude · · Score: 1

      even better!

      --
      have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
    6. Re:Money by rmdingler · · Score: 2
      --
      Happiness in intelligent people is the rarest thing I know.

      Ernest Hemingway

    7. Re:Money by bobbied · · Score: 0

      Read the story.. For those getting the minimum wage: 1 in 8 live at home. 1 in 4 have children, but not all of these households depend solely on one worker (or even two) making minimum wage. Many have other wage earners who are making more than minimum wage. Not to mention that there are only 30 million workers actually paid minimum wage, and 155 Million people working in the USA right now. Doing a bit of math tells me that only about 8 million workers have kids and get minimum wage, and somewhat less than only have one wage earner in the house.

      However, WHY are the numbers skewed toward older age workers on minimum wage? Because most kids and college aged workers are UNEMPLOYEED right now. For the most part, anybody under 20 right now simply cannot find work AT ANY PRICE. What's more, they are not counted in the unemployment numbers because they've never held a job and are not drawing unemployment (which is what the "headline unemployment" number actually is). Real unemployment in segments of the population is a staggering 30% in some places, mostly for young workers and those who have turned 20 in the last 7 years or so. It's worse in some ethnic groups than others, but it's bad just about everywhere.

      In my view this is due to the minimum wage and the negative effects of the ACA on low end worker's hours.... Well that and the economy that is stuck in granny gear by the way it's been managed since 2008....

      --
      "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
    8. Re:Money by sound+vision · · Score: 2

      Apparently they don't have DSL either, since the article is about "broadband's arrival." TV is definitely something they can cut out though. There's more than enough video entertainment/edutainment on YouTube et al. to completely replace, even exceed, what's available on TV.

    9. Re:Money by ganjadude · · Score: 1

      dont forget broadband now means 25 down. DSL isnt broadband anymore in most if not all places (admittedly i havent kept up with DSL specs)

      --
      have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
    10. Re:Money by dave420 · · Score: 1

      If you could only back up your view with evidence, your post might have actually been of value. As it is, it's started well and petered out towards the end, and ended with a couple of unsubstantiated claims which have nothing to do with the rest of it. Brilliant work! Instead of trying to vilify those you see as "enemies", try debating actual facts. Not only will you learn something, you might actually end up making the world better. Weird, right? Naaah fuck it - just complain about things you don't like and blame them for all the ills you see, regardless of whether the evidence agrees.

  5. 'bout time. by jtownatpunk.net · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Nearby communities are not far behind in bringing broadband to their residents; they see high-speed Internet as an economic boon akin to rural electrification in the 1930s, one that could bring higher home values, better business climates, and easier access to the modern economy.

    I've been saying that for a while. First was electrification, then telephonication, now internetification. High speed internet has become a basic service and necessary baseline for habitability.

    If you're buying a house, you don't need to ask whether it has electricity, phone service, water, and sewage service. The last two might be self-service in the form of a well and septic system (hopefully not too close together) but you can be pretty sure they're in place or the home wouldn't be on the market. But you can't count on high speed internet. (Satellite and other services metered in 10s of gigs per month don't count.)

    Last year, I picked the region where I wanted to semi-retire but I had to cross the entire area off my list because I couldn't get decent internet access unless I lived right in the middle of one of the little towns. Other areas were "up to" 6 meg DSL at best. I could have got 100mbit cable if I lived in town but, if I'm going to live in town, I'll live in a town with a Walmart, Home Depot, Best Buy, etc. A realtor said the first thing people ask is what kind of internet access they can get but, when I asked him what kind of internet access I could get, he had no idea. "I guess you could go ask one of the neighbors." Oh, sure. "Hi, I'm some random stranger. Can I come in and run some speed tests on your internet connection? I promise I'm not a serial killer."

    So, instead of buying a cabin in the woods, I'm on the outskirts of a city within the sphere of influence of a cable company. As the rest of my generation retires in large numbers (in 20 years or so), those areas are going to continue to get passed over if they haven't got decent communications infrastructure in place.

    And it's even more critical than electric/water/sewer. These days, it's possible for an individual to provide their own power. Solar panels, batteries, inverter, backup generator. Water can come from a well, sewage can go into a septic system. But creating a terrestrial internet connection 10 miles to wherever the local ISP is located can't be done by an individual.

    1. Re:'bout time. by pubwvj · · Score: 2

      "If you're buying a house, you don't need to ask whether it has electricity, phone service, water, and sewage service."

      I wonder where you got those ideas?

      Reality check: out in rural areas you do need to check to see if a house has electricity, phone service and it probably will not have water or sewage service. It likely has a spring or a well for the water. It might have an outhouse, composting toilets or a septic tank and leach field and you had best find out how old the leach field is. Buy with wide open eyes.

      Internet connections and phone may well be via satellite connections. You are considered "served" by broadband out here in the sticks if you have satellite internet available to you - not if you actually have it but if there are service technicians in your area who can install it. If there is a mountain in the way then tough luck. That's how the range falls.

    2. Re:'bout time. by Krishnoid · · Score: 1

      Hi, I'm some random stranger. Can I come in and run some speed tests on your internet connection? I promise I'm not a serial killer.

      No, but five bucks will get you the wi-fi password and a large mocha. Oh, and no hipsters.

    3. Re:'bout time. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Good catch. Nearly no homes in rural areas have water or sewage services.

    4. Re:'bout time. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The last two might be self-service in the form of a well and septic system

      It's right there. I mean, come on. Just read. Use your brain. You wrote a couple hundred words instead of reading a dozen.

    5. Re:'bout time. by Firethorn · · Score: 1

      The last two might be self-service in the form of a well and septic system (hopefully not too close together) but you can be pretty sure they're in place or the home wouldn't be on the market.

      'Dry Cabins' are a thing up here where I live. It's where you don't have water/septic, nor a well/septic system due to the location. So you either truck water in yourself or have it delivered, and use an outhouse or composting toilet.

      Still, such are explicitly stated to be so rather clearly in any advertisements.

      Oh, sure. "Hi, I'm some random stranger. Can I come in and run some speed tests on your internet connection? I promise I'm not a serial killer."

      Talking with the neighbors where you're going to be living for possibly decades? Who would want to do that? You know, make sure your neighbors aren't meth-heads, Jehova's witnesses, or other annoying types?

      My suggestion: Introduce yourself, mention that you're looking to buy the house next door, ask about the neighborhood, any concerns they have, and slide the internet question into there somewhere.

      --
      I don't read AC A human right
    6. Re:'bout time. by Firethorn · · Score: 1

      and it probably will not have water or sewage service.

      Not sure why you feel the need to point this out when he mentions that they might be 'self-service' in the next sentence.

      Generally speaking though, if you're going to be restricted to an outhouse, it's going to mention that in the documents.

      --
      I don't read AC A human right
    7. Re:'bout time. by dwywit · · Score: 1

      I understand there's different rules in different states about rainwater harvesting, but surely if you have a "dry" cabin, i.e. no piped water supply from the local mains, you'd want to catch the water falling on your roof?

      If you're in a rural area, and not near any other major source of air pollution, surely the rainwater is potable?

      I've been living on rainwater for almost 20 years, we only buy a truckload when the dry season lasts longer than usual. We could overcome that with another tank or two (currently have almost 50K litres of storage).

      --
      They sentenced me to twenty years of boredom
    8. Re:'bout time. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Poor little snowflake - 6meg DSL isn't enough for your high definition porn habit.

    9. Re:'bout time. by bobbied · · Score: 1

      Nearby communities are not far behind in bringing broadband to their residents; they see high-speed Internet as an economic boon akin to rural electrification in the 1930s, one that could bring higher home values, better business climates, and easier access to the modern economy.

      I've been saying that for a while. First was electrification, then telephonication, now internetification.

      You know, I'm not a fan of this idea, where government shoulders the costs and then owns the resource. We didn't do electricity or telephone this way back in the days, we encouraged private industry to do this by providing subsidies and a regulatory climate where private enterprise could survive. Just having the government do it is a bad idea.... Just about as bad as just handing out grants to companies that claim they will do it for government, which is, in effect, how this will end up. But we apparently are incapable of understanding how this was done successfully in the past and how this government run thing is so not going to work given past history...

      Those who don't know history are doomed to repeat it.... While those who DO know history are doomed to watch..

      --
      "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
    10. Re:'bout time. by Firethorn · · Score: 1

      I understand there's different rules in different states about rainwater harvesting, but surely if you have a "dry" cabin, i.e. no piped water supply from the local mains, you'd want to catch the water falling on your roof?

      There's no rules against it here. Rainwater tends to form around microscopic dust particles, plus you get dust and bird poop and such on your collectors, so you want a settling tank and treatment system, but nothing that can't be handled. But then you probably already know all that.

      Still, while there's no rules against rainwater harvesting, in my area for six months out of the year the precipitation is solid in form, so none of the cabins I've visited have rainwater collection systems. It's cheaper/easier to just keep having water delivered.

      --
      I don't read AC A human right
    11. Re:'bout time. by bobbied · · Score: 1

      "If you're buying a house, you don't need to ask whether it has electricity, phone service, water, and sewage service."

      Never purchased a house in the country eh? Where Electricity is pretty much everywhere, the rest is NOT a given for the vast majority of buildable land in this country.

      --
      "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
    12. Re:'bout time. by bobbied · · Score: 1

      Heck with that.. Just look for the Golden Arches Steak house. If you want to come inside, the Dollar menu is cheap...

      --
      "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
    13. Re:'bout time. by DerekLyons · · Score: 1

      Nearby communities are not far behind in bringing broadband to their residents; they see high-speed Internet as an economic boon akin to rural electrification in the 1930s, one that could bring higher home values, better business climates, and easier access to the modern economy.

      I've been saying that for a while. First was electrification, then telephonication, now internetification. High speed internet has become a basic service and necessary baseline for habitability.

      Bullshit. What the quoted paragraph says, and what you claim to have said are two very different things. Rural electrification didn't make rural areas habitable (your claim) - it completely changed the face of rural living by dragging them out of essentially medieval conditions and into the modern era. (Refrigerators, lighting, etc... etc... and this included towns (and thus commerce) as well as individual residences.) That being said, I don't completely buy they hype of the quoted paragraph - because, if nothing else, America was still a largely rural country in the 1930's and it's almost entirely urban today.
       

      As the rest of my generation retires in large numbers (in 20 years or so), those areas are going to continue to get passed over if they haven't got decent communications infrastructure in place.

      This might come as a surprise to you - but most people don't actually want to retire to an isolated cabin in the butt end of nowhere.

    14. Re:'bout time. by dwywit · · Score: 1

      My storage tanks are also the settling tanks - the pickup for household supply is about 5cm above the floor of the tank, all the dust and bird poop just settle to the bottom, and I have that cleared out every couple of years. No other treatment. It sounds icky, but I prefer to think of it as keeping my immune system active and healthy, plus I'm getting lots of minerals. My last blood test showed all mineral levels good, except for slightly low calcium - so I have to east more cheese, dammit.

      Seriously, though - we don't tend to get sick, and we HATE the taste of treated town water when we've had to buy it in.

      --
      They sentenced me to twenty years of boredom
    15. Re:'bout time. by guruevi · · Score: 1

      It's not whether the government considers you 'served' by a utility, it's whether a person buying the house is. Some/most people are okay with well water and sewage tanks, once they find out the cost involved of getting it taken care of, they'll decide that way.

      You cannot sell someone a house without a steady source of electric these days though. You could in the 1920's, perhaps even in the 1950's, but since the 1970's, a house without electric or at least a planned rollout of it would have been a bad investment. Communications (at least phone or cell) is also pretty much a guarantee these days, has been since the 1990's. Available, high-speed Internet is the next thing and within a decade, property areas without it will decline sharply in value.

      And regards the government thinking I'm served. I did look it up online, searching for an alternative. They gave me 10 options for high speed internet:

      10Gbps - carrier-grade connection (because their fiber runs through my street)
      50Mbps - 3 TWC subsidiaries (TWC, TWC Business Class, TWC Enterprise solutions...)
      10Mbps - 4 satellite providers
      3Mbps - DSL
      1Mbps - LocalNet dial-up

      --
      Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
    16. Re:'bout time. by pubwvj · · Score: 1

      the commentor replied to a specific thing in the quote which was a patently false statement. Reread and comprend.

    17. Re:'bout time. by tburkhol · · Score: 1

      You know, I'm not a fan of this idea, where government shoulders the costs and then owns the resource. We didn't do electricity or telephone this way back in the days, we encouraged private industry to do this by providing subsidies and a regulatory climate where private enterprise could survive.

      So, you favor government shouldering the cost, giving away ownership, and guaranteeing profitability for the utility company. Honestly, that system has worked out pretty well, in many cases. The private industry part tends to encourage cost minimization while the regulatory oversight discourages price gouging and customer abuse.

      The problem with purely private solutions is that the people involved have a financial incentive to provide poor service at exorbitant prices. The problem with purely government solutions is that disinterest and incompetence may result in poor service and high costs. Striking a healthy balance between the two requires careful analysis, an understanding of policy, and an interest in the public good that we have systematically bred out of our politicians by insisting that they be attractive fund-raisers.

    18. Re:'bout time. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Services metered in 10s of gigs per month can be good options. Look at VTel:

      http://www.vtelwireless.com/shop/about-our-plans

      You're actually not overcharged after the limited for the Gold plans, just deprioritized.

    19. Re:'bout time. by bobbied · · Score: 1

      The way we did Telephone and electricity distribution in this country worked fairly well in the past, of course the proponents of government run services either ignore how this was done or don't know.

      --
      "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
    20. Re:'bout time. by thinkwaitfast · · Score: 1

      My house doesn't have electricity, water or sewage, but it does have high speed internet. I don't even need high speed (I'm not in a hurry and que up jobs to work in the background and youtube still works perfect) and had to fight with the isp to give me the low speed package.

    21. Re: 'bout time. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How it was done decades ago is immaterial. Look how the private utilities operate now. They keep costs down and raise prices just because.

      The public utilities tend to only raise rates when they need to. Any profit goes back to the municipality. The elected officials are responsible for keeping efficiency up.

  6. Re:Remote? In Massachusetts? by acoustix · · Score: 2, Informative

    My thoughts exactly. I'm in Iowa. We have co-ops that have spread high speed Internet access all across the state. For those not familiar with Iowa, we are very spread out with many people in rural areas. How in the hell does Massachusetts not have the same? It is a tiny state.

    --
    "A plan fiendishly clever in its intricacies"- Homer Simpson
  7. Speed should be faster by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Same pipe -> same total bandwidth.
    Very few users -> more bandwidth per user.

  8. Re:Remote? In Massachusetts? by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · · Score: 1

    The Boston/Cambridge area has the highest density of left-wing, big government spending justifiers on the planet. They've even defined both the volume and effectiveness of their squeaky wheel in terms of smoots.

    --
    (-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
  9. Re:Remote? In Massachusetts? by hey! · · Score: 3, Funny

    Oh it's hell here. Practically as bad as Sweden without the blondes. And so socialist nobody here makes any money. They tax us so bad we're all as poor as church mice, every last lost soul.

    --
    Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
  10. Re:Remote? In Massachusetts? by rmdingler · · Score: 1
    Terrain

    Hawkeye point is the tallest summit in Iowa at 510 meters (1670').

    --
    Happiness in intelligent people is the rarest thing I know.

    Ernest Hemingway

  11. Taxachusetts by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    In order to qualify for broadband, you must agree to a 15% increase in you property tax and a 20% increase in your state tax.
    Low income households can qualify by boarding up any remaining windows.

  12. Wish me luck... I'm on hold right now by NotQuiteReal · · Score: 0

    I went thru the phone tree (something like, existing service, changes, remove or downgrade...) and I am sure I am per-routed to the "customer retention" expert.

    I want to cancel TV altogether from Cox (Keeping Internet only). All representatives busy... estimated wait time 8 minutes. (I am in minute 10).

    --
    This issue is a bit more complicated than you think.
  13. Re:Remote? In Massachusetts? by bobbied · · Score: 1

    Compared to many states (like mine) Massachusetts is a county.

    You ain't seen nothing... I live in Texas and we WHERE our own country, having broken off from Mexico in 1836 and joined the US about 10 years later... Sometimes I wonder what would have happened if we had stayed the Republic of Texas just a little bit longer than 10 years... Darn pesky war debt... Should have put up the "Come and Get It" flags again and held out for something more, but I guess another war wasn't a good idea, but coming into the union as a slave state wasn't either.

    --
    "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
  14. Lived in the hell that is Leverett... by BadBozo2315 · · Score: 1

    I bought a small ranch house about 4 1/2 miles from Western Mass' powerhouse of Umass Amherst, in the mid '90s, right off the main drag in the area, route 63. I could stand on the (low) roof and actually see Umass from the house. All the computing power there, and all I could get was bad dialup that would die if the humidity got too high, no dsl, no cable, and until I cleared a few trees, no satelite tv. For cell signal, I had to walk out to the yard, near the road. What a (relative) treat to move to Georgia, and could choose from ATT, Comcast, and others, at really cheap rates.

    1. Re:Lived in the hell that is Leverett... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That of course is why we build our own municipal network!

  15. Re:Remote? In Massachusetts? by unixisc · · Score: 1

    Compared to many states (like mine) Massachusetts is a county.

    To most of us outside New England, all of Massachusetts is Boston!

  16. Re:Remote? In Massachusetts? by unixisc · · Score: 1

    It's hard to believe that this is the state that once gave us DEC. That was a glorious company, while it lasted.

  17. Re:Remote? In Massachusetts? by davester666 · · Score: 1

    Obviously, this can only be legal because the gov't is paying a private company to provide the service.

    --
    Sleep your way to a whiter smile...date a dentist!
  18. Third world shit-hole by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    45 towns with 40% of homes without internet access? In the north-east U.S.? The U.S. truly is a third world shit-hole in many places. It makes it even funnier seeing all these young Americans who fall squarely into the "fuck you, I got mine" category of people, boasting about their "freedoms" and how South-America is the third world etc.

  19. Re:Remote? In Massachusetts? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Just because I love picking nits: were vs where and the latter is wrong in this case

  20. Re:Remote? In Massachusetts? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Only the right-most 20% of Massachusetts is densely populated. The remainder is tiny farming towns, separated from each other by half an hour of emptiness. Most of these towns are poor and have an elderly and old-fashioned population, so there may not be much incentive for Comcast or whomever to lay fiber. Additionally, unlike Iowa, Massachusetts is a very hilly/mountainous state. Entire towns are occasionally cut off when a storm takes out the 10-degree-incline road you need to use to get there. I'd imagine this makes improving internet connectivity difficult as well.

    Source: I live in Leverett.

  21. Re:Remote? In Massachusetts? by RavenLrD20k · · Score: 1

    As someone who escaped Connecticuticuticuticut 15 years ago.... I think Massachusetts and Connecticut are in direct competition for how costly and corrupt each government can make their respective states. But there's one thing that Connecticut has claim to that trumps Massachusettes: CT elected and re-elected current RIAA CEO and Chairman Christopher Dodd to the senate for 30 straight years! Beat that ya wannabe Irish Bastards!

  22. Leverett has had broadband for years by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Leverett has had broadband internet for years through 4G LTE from AT&T and Verizon. This yet another case of AARP card-carrying clueless voters sacking the community for last century's technology. Because smartphones are so complicated to use, unlike Windows PCs, or so they bleat.

  23. Re: Remote? In Massachusetts? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The towns themselves, along with a state grant is paying for the project. Otherwise companies like comcast and verizon et al could care less about supplying internet to the people.

  24. Former Leverett resident here by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I lived in Leverett, MA for 5 years. Slashdot lurker as well. Leverett has a temperate rainforest climate. The copper phone lines in town have issues. When it rained, my landline phone would not work. I tried to get this repaired for two years, only to finally get it solved by showing the man from the phone company a case of beer and telling him he could have the beer if he would just fix my phone problem.
    There is also no cell service in most of Leverett, because it is on the densely forested side of a mountain. Many residents like it this way.
    That said, the reason Leverett has no internet is because the cable companies are assholes and promised to provide internet to this area, but never did.
    I'll miss everyone very much, but I had to leave my job there as a cheesecake-truck driver.

  25. Re: Remote? In Massachusetts? by davester666 · · Score: 1

    Yes. Comcast and Verizon would flip out if, instead of paying a private company to do it, the towns did it themselves [regardless of whether Verizon or Comcast was ever interested in providing service there].

    --
    Sleep your way to a whiter smile...date a dentist!
  26. Re:Remote? In Massachusetts? by acoustix · · Score: 1

    If only there was a way to provide access without running cables....

    Oh well.

    --
    "A plan fiendishly clever in its intricacies"- Homer Simpson