Slashdot Mirror
Comcast Rejected by Small Town -- Residents Vote For Municipal Fiber Instead (arstechnica.com)
A small Massachusetts town has rejected an offer from Comcast and instead plans to build a municipal fiber broadband network. From a report: Comcast offered to bring cable Internet to up to 96 percent of households in Charlemont in exchange for the town paying $462,123 plus interest toward infrastructure costs over 15 years. But Charlemont residents rejected the Comcast offer in a vote at a special town meeting Thursday. "The Comcast proposal would have saved the town about $1 million, but it would not be a town-owned broadband network," the Greenfield Recorder reported Friday.
"The defeated measure means that Charlemont will likely go forward with a $1.4 million municipal town network, as was approved by annual town meeting voters in 2015." About 160 residents voted, with 56 percent rejecting the Comcast offer, according to news reports.
"The defeated measure means that Charlemont will likely go forward with a $1.4 million municipal town network, as was approved by annual town meeting voters in 2015." About 160 residents voted, with 56 percent rejecting the Comcast offer, according to news reports.
Comcast would have been a bad deal.
May the force be with you and yours!
No one simply rejects comcast.
Comcast will sue and ironically claim anti-competitive / anti-free market behavior on the part of the town. They will seek to add hundreds of thousands in legal fees before this is settled, win or lose. That is what they do.
Faleece Slobbynuts
Faleece Slobbynuts
Faleece Slobbynuts,
prospero anus on Phylicia Rashad.
There are 1266 people in that town as of the last census. This contract was supposed to be for 15 years. Assuming the interest cost for both infrastructures was the same, there was a cost difference of ~940K. Averaging that cost per month over 15 years amongst the 1266 people yields a monthly cost of 4.12$. I find it hard to believe that comcast was going to provide service cheaper than the municipal would. And I find it very easy to believe they can do it for less than 5$ a month cheaper than comcast.
You're a moron any day. My comcast internet went out as recently as 2 weeks ago for the entire weekend. The fourth time this year. And I'm in a major metropolitan tech city. Their shit goes down constantly.
Their streaming TV is shit quality and constantly throwing compression errors. Sometimes it blinks for 3 seconds before it catches up. Even on-demand is jerky AF, and I have GIGABIT INTERNET. Netflix, ZERO issues.
Anyone apologizing for anything Comcast does is a fucking moron, period.
Every small town and city should be like this.
Distributism is the solution to a lot of our problems from net neutrality to healthcare.
Unlike Capitalism or Socialism, it offers a third way on such areas where the profit motive can damage the public good and where Socialism creates a sclerotic business environment. That way is based on using non-profits that are allowed to profit reasonably for the purpose of advancing their mission, but they derive their charter and authority by a public commission to act in the public interest. They are not state-owned; the government could also give the equivalent of a letter patent to an existing non-profit giving it legal charge over a public issue. For example, the federal government could abolish the park service and give the Sierra Club a letter patent authorizing them to act in its stead.
So under that system, Big Town A sets up a chartered corporation for these public purposes. The state then authorizes a letter patent authorizing it to enter into new markets that are under-served. They could even go so far as to authorize it to intervene as a legal authority over for-profit corporations that seek to exploit existing relationships.
Very soon.
"A door is what a dog is perpetually on the wrong side of" - Ogden Nash
It takes guts to do that, but they will show that FTTH is better and cheaper. Pave the way for many imitators. Bandwidth is not expensive.
Before they give up and call Comcast.
Not very bright. Not very bright at all.
How shared is that 1G/1G 2.5 gpon split 16/1 32/1?
I'm seriously conflicted here.
I've had "city" supplied utilities before and I can attest that if you want some infrastructure really messed up, get government to do it. It will cost too much, be mismanaged and end up a total mess... My experience was less than acceptable with city supplied utilities.
Then there is Comcast.....
So what evil do you pick? I don't know... None of the above? How about we foster competition and draw in multiple commercial providers? Or is the town just too small to make this happen?
"File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
well comcast does let you use your own router.
Will this town wifi force your into something like ATT where you are stuck with there hardware?
I don't understand why Comcast would expect the town to pay them? Is that common?
I thought that the cost of infrastructure was a cost of doing business that Comcast would recoup through subscription fees, why do they need a subsidy?
There are 1266 people in that town as of the last census. This contract was supposed to be for 15 years. Assuming the interest cost for both infrastructures was the same, there was a cost difference of ~940K. Averaging that cost per month over 15 years amongst the 1266 people yields a monthly cost of 4.12$. I find it hard to believe that comcast was going to provide service cheaper than the municipal would. And I find it very easy to believe they can do it for less than 5$ a month cheaper than comcast.
Yeah but sending Comcast the middle finger is priceless.
I'm seriously conflicted here.
You shouldn't be - Comcast being a monopoly in virtually every market it is in, is basically itself like an arm of the federal government delivering internet - with all of the quality issues you so rightfully fear.
That's why preferring the city utilities is an easy choice to prefer, because when you are given the choice between two governments, always choose the smaller option.
I've seen some small municipalities have excellent community fiber. Longmont, Colorado is one such where residents seem to love it...
I have Comcast gigabit myself, and while it is OK (often preforming more at half-gigabit levels, but whatever) I would JUMP at the chance to switch to a community fiber solution if offered.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
THERE WILL BE CONSEQUENCES FOR YOUR LIES AND NAZI PROPAGANDA KEN DOLL FAGGOT FOR YOUR ENTIRE FAMILY
Filter error: Don't use so many caps. It's like YELLING. Filter error: Don't use so many caps. It's like YELLING.
Comcast tried to kill Utah's UTOPIA fiber project. They failed and now even a town with less than 1000 people has a 10G fiber option (most go with 1G).
The hell with Comcast.
In a world of the blind, the one-eyed man is king--and the two-eyed man is a heretic.
The typical game they play is bait-and-switch. Once a customer is hooked, they will start to jack up the bill to squeeze the wallet. Numerous cases they made promise before the merge, and fail to deliver any promise after merge. Having your own municipal cable service is always cheaper in the long run.
Comcast acquired my cable service company two years ago. Of course the bill has gone up by 40%. The frustration is the service quality has gone down. A few times a day I would lose connections. Each loss of connections is not long, mere a few seconds to half a minute. It might not be a big deal for watching Netflix, but frustrating when I am playing xbox games.
There are 1266 people in that town as of the last census. This contract was supposed to be for 15 years. Assuming the interest cost for both infrastructures was the same, there was a cost difference of ~940K. Averaging that cost per month over 15 years amongst the 1266 people yields a monthly cost of 4.12$. I find it hard to believe that comcast was going to provide service cheaper than the municipal would. And I find it very easy to believe they can do it for less than 5$ a month cheaper than comcast.
That's assuming a few things:
This is highly appealing to city councils and communities in general.
So the equation has a few more factors involved - not just: Comcast vs. Fiber (but $1M more). To wit:
Make sure everyone's vote counts: Verified Voting
not an true bridge-mode and you can hit the NAT session limits
The only issue that I've ever had with AT&T crap in bridge-mode has to do with building VPN tunnels, but I have never experienced any NAT limits. Of course, AT&T changes hardware every few months, so maybe this is the case with some batch of their shitty hardware.
Politics; n. : A religion whereby man is god.
You seriously are conflicted about people actually using the power of the free market and democracy, against somebody who is pretty much the epitome of anti-free-market monopolism and literally suing cities for allowing democracy?
In an actual democracy, the government IS the people. And it's wonderful to see that this can still actually exist, especially in the USA, of all places! And this is literally the (not so invisible) hand of the market, coming up with a better option, to keep the market free, aka to keep people from being able to pick the best option. They ARE the market.
You can see it as them creating a competitor, and then choosing that competitor because it is better, if you want.
Yes, I'm sorry, but that kind of capitalism that big corporations like Comcast represent, is mutually exclusive with both democracy and a free market.
I still can't believe how much Americans are trained to choose NOT (to side with) themselves, and side against democracy, freedom, and all the things they say they hold dear, in things like this.
I doubt it'll be shared. Fibre is cheap. It's digging up roads that costs, but if you own them, it's not nearly so bad.
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
I fully expect Comcast lawyers to fight back and somehow get the FCC and/or the state government to tell the town they absolutely cannot build their own network and be forced to take Comcast....becuase you know those cunts are going to be filing complaints that we all know will be upheld with monopoly-loving GOP in power.
Expect court battles. Expect comcast to bring the most lawyers. Expect this to be a bigger nail in the coffin for municipal broadband.
meanwhile the lobbyist are no doubt hard at work to get municipal broadband banned in the state.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
and I hope they succeed, but I fear government fails more often than not, when trying to do most things. I hope they do a great job and prove me wrong and that this can actually work.
;)
Just my 2 cents
Iâ(TM)m sure being voted the worst ISP in the country for X years running had something to do with it.
Though, in defense of the poster above stating they have few issues with Comcast, I have to concur.
Obviously an exception to the rule but my connection is up and running about 95% of the time.
I have an IPSLA trigger running which makes a log entry any time I lose visibility to the network and, as much as youâ(TM)ll hate on me for saying it, that loss is rare and not always their fault.
Iâ(TM)ll see an hour here and there for maintenance ( unlikely unscheduled when it lasts exactly one hour ) but the last major outage ( ~12 hours or so ) was due to an idiot crashing their vehicle into a gas line.
The resulting fire burned up the vehicle and the closest telephone pole which was carrying a Comcast line. They had to wait till the fire was out and the gas line repaired before starting their work.
They sent out an apology and credited everyone for the outage period.
This really isnâ(TM)t behavior I can complain about.
-shrug-
"Municipal" will be worse.
For the same reasons you don't want the town hall to run pizzeria.
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
Seriously, this is a town that FUCKING GETS IT. So many others do as well. Comcast screwing you over? Quit trying to regulate them. JUST PUT IN YOUR OWN FUCKING FIBER and quit bitching about it. Not only will this town get a much better deal (instead of paying 100/month for 100 MB, they will pay 50/month for 1G), but, they do not have to deal with the issue of net neutrality or caps.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
THERE WILL BE CONSEQUENCES FOR YOUR LIES NAZI FAGGOT KEN DOLL
Filter error: Don't use so many caps. It's like YELLING. Filter error:
That a town can legally offer a commercial service of their own is bad enough. That a government is in a position to deny a business a right to operate there is an outrage.
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
Fuck Comcast
Comcast is cable, not Fiber. "Every fiber installation switches to coax" = ABSOLUTE HORSESHIT.
You're a moron Mi, go suck Mao's dick.
Hi!
You've just committed a "false dilemma" fallacy. A city hall can outsource technical support to a private company that operates in multiple cities. Example: http://www.insitesupport.com/i...
Moreover, this company can also be used to service the infrastructure. These days the costs of running a fiber network are well-known.
About 160 residents voted, with 56 percent rejecting the Comcast offer, according to news reports.
So, about 90 voted for the town to spend $1.4M to create a new municipal service. Wonder how the rest of the town feels about the tax increase 90 residents pushed on to them?
Ken
In this country (US) are numerous forces in play to take away more and more rights from the general population through various tricks and manipulations to get it to a much smaller section of folks living in the same country.
Not allowing municipalities to supply their own Internet service is one of many attempts, please see:
https://broadbandnow.com/report/municipal-broadband-roadblocks/
I am happy to live in a municipality who made it and provides this type of service. After getting rid of ComCast, whose manner in getting out of their claws and get my right required a small claims court case, it just feels better to now "own" it better in some way.
-------------------
The day is not far distant when humanity will realize that biologically it is faced with a choice between suicide and adoration.
-- Pierre Teilhard de Chardin † 10. April 10, 1955
since Comcast doesn't offer service over their entire monopoly area.
just allow them access with severe and strict terms that must be met. Open books for the government to review at any time. Permanent Net Neutrality with random audits. Fixed price of $5 per Month for the next 50 years. Make is so damn unprofitable for them that Comcast will regret ever sticking their nose in it.
Do they dig up the roads or is it like around here where the majority is hung on poles?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
it shows the base cost of broadband internet is $5 bucks a month. Maybe add another $5 for maintenance. I don't know about the rest of you but I pay $100 bucks a month.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
https://cleantechnica.com/2018...
https://cleantechnica.com/2018...
Seems like you Americans keep gobbeling up and putting up with alot of garbage just because of all the Lobbying and commercials the big companies feed you. You dont seem to understand you live in a underdeveloped country compared to the rest of the developed world. And you pay several times more for all services compared to the rest of us.
Something tells me that any local politician running for office in Charlemont, MA, will get a freaking ton of campaign money from Comcast in the next election providing they agree to do whatever Comcast wants, like signing a contract with Comcast and prohibiting any public municipal internet service.
> About 160 residents voted
So... Is that about 1% of the population, 10%, or maybe about 90%? If I looked up the right charlemont, Massachusetts, its just over 10%.
They are paying about $1000 per person to get the municipal fiber installed. Sounds about right. The good news is that things are very cheap from there on. These networks, just like the phone network are expensive to install, but then cheap to operate. So if you ask a company to invest, they are not sure everybody will subscribe. So they make a conservative estimate about adoption rate and price the whole thing accordingly. When the adoption rate exceeds their conservative estimate they quickly start making lots of money. This way everybody chips in and from there on it is cheap to use the system.
And you provide you're own off the shelf router or buy or lease one from the town. Or just plug you're computer straight into that socket in the wall. Or buy or build a cheap little server/router pc and customize that as you're router.
From the story:
"The design work included mapping of all utility poles, design of the fiber distribution network and preliminary designs and cost estimates for the individual connection to each home."
So I'm assuming mostly poles, but either is possible.
Municipal broadband "should" be better, because it is kept LOCAL. In theory, that means those running it should be more accountable to the subscribers, whereas a huge corporation would say who cares what some little town says. Of course in theory, a bumble bee can't fly.
VOIP engineer here. We've had major issues with AT&T crap in fake-bridge mode at customer sites. Limited state tables, poor handling of UDP sessions, and other issues reminiscent of double-NAT-but-not-quite.
Expect a Comcast lawsuit to block this in 5...4...3...2...
Went to them for a 25/5 deal. It was a promo package two years at like 49/mo. The rep said that adding basic cable would be 10 bucks or so more. The closer was that one premium channel was included. I chose HBO. So got my local broadcast channels, bunch of cruft and HBO. I chose to use my own modem/router to save like 10/mo. The tech rep gave me the log in credentials over the phone and we were on line in like ten minutes.
I put the bill on auto pay. I had an equipment headache with the first TV decoder. When I took it in they gave me an upgraded model beyond what I was entitled to get. After two years and change I got posted overseas again. So all service at promo rate with one month at normal rate, which admittedly was a bit steep but was also no surprise. I can recall one outage after a massive`thunder storm. They were too cool when I cancelled my service and brought in my equipment. I know they have`a terrible rep, but my guess was the cord cutting is being felt. They practically gave me the TV bundle. I'll have been away for more than two years so when I re-up I may well qualify for another promo. Woot.
"No fear. No envy. No meanness." Liam Clancy
Pfffft. Ha haha ha ha. Sadly the natural conclusion of the Citizens United ruling. ==> companies have RIGHTS. [sigh]
It's clear you are clueless, or just parroting what you are paid to say.
Care to show even one example of 'bad guys' suing ISP's for blocking 'bad things'?
The fact is Net Neutrality would be exactly the situation you are claiming is so good. You just get a pipe and can do what you want with it, send any data in either direction with no interference from the provider.
Clearly you just shill for some ISP's same as you do for Nuclear. No one with an ounce of common sense could possibly hold the position you claim to believe.
How hard is it?
When convincing someone whose paycheck depends on them not understanding, very very hard.
You are clearly being paid to be this dense.
Exactly the point I was making, thank you!
They are Communists, I know you like that.
The vast majority — 65% — of kids aren't proficient in reading by age 15, despite per-pupil spending increasing four-fold since 1960ies. Not in "troubled districts" — the 65% is a national average.
There is no way to put a good spin on this colossal failure of government — which is why those "journalists" you respect so much have never pointed it out to you — and you blundered into this debate not knowing the facts. Disarmed by actual facts and logic, you've been reduced to attacking the opponent's person — a sure sign of an argument lost...
Which part of four-fold increase are you calling reduced funding?
You attempted to explain this away by pointing out — without evidence — that "charter schools" are worse. Clearly unaware, that "charter schools" are also government-controlled.
That article cites anecdotes — about "charter" schools, which are also government-controlled.
There is no way anyone — even you — would willingly agree to pay 4 times more for the bad service. The only way this situation can persist is because government forces us (at the implicit gun-point of the tax-collector) to keep paying for it.
Of course, you — a Statist — love this and want the same to spread into other aspects of life, such as Internet-service provision. It is both Illiberal and counter-productive — I know you like it, but the rest of us do not.
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
But Spammers will sue ISP's --WindBourne