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."
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.
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
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"
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.
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
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
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.
...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.
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.
Hawkeye point is the tallest summit in Iowa at 510 meters (1670').
Happiness in intelligent people is the rarest thing I know.
Ernest Hemingway
"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.
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
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
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.
WHOOSH!!!!
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.
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!
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.
Compared to many states (like mine) Massachusetts is a county.
To most of us outside New England, all of Massachusetts is Boston!
It's hard to believe that this is the state that once gave us DEC. That was a glorious company, while it lasted.
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!
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.
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
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.
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.
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!
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.
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.
Why? Was I referring to you? (/sarcasim)
"File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
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.
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.
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!
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
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
If only there was a way to provide access without running cables....
Oh well.
"A plan fiendishly clever in its intricacies"- Homer Simpson