Comcast rejected by small town, residents vote for municipal fiber instead • Hacker News Board

Re: Comcast rejected by small town, residents vote for municipal fiber instead

#121

Post by lotsofpulp » Wed, Dec 12, 2018, 5:09 PM UTC

dsfyu404ed wrote: post #114

lotsofpulp wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Water, gas, and electric utilities work great. What is different about internet?

Electric and gas are usually not municipally owned. Water is usually municipally owned but it's intentionally subsidized to the point where even poor people can afford it with relative ease so I'm not sure it makes sense to compare it to internet because presumably internet would need to be approximately pay for itself.

My point is there is some governmental oversight with regards to the quality and access (including price) so that all members of society have access to it, and since it doesn't make any sense to run a different pipe or cable to each residence, internet should be treated in the same manner. Internet is a requirement in today's world, and it's crazy that you can barely get a 1mb or 2mb upload in many places, and that's not even fiber.

Re: Comcast rejected by small town, residents vote for municipal fiber instead

#122

Post by foldr » Wed, Dec 12, 2018, 5:09 PM UTC

magduf wrote: post #40

ams6110 wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And who in the government of a small town is competent to design such an architecture? Who is competent to hire a competent company to design such an architecture? In the case of my town the answer is nobody. Our municipal internet project has been a boondoggle of incompetence, false starts, and mismanagement. Going on a decade. Meanwhile the people using Comcast or AT&T generally have usable service. I'm not a fan o…

I don't see the problem here. The government doesn't need to be competent to design anything; the job of government is to control the funding and legalities, and contract with companies that can do the work. If the government isn't competent to hire a competent company, that's the government's fault, and by extension, the voters'. If the voters can't elect competent people to run their government, that's really OK: t…

>If the government isn't competent to hire a competent company

In a small town, there may just not be anyone with the necessary knowledge and expertise. You can't vote for someone who doesn't exist.

Re: Comcast rejected by small town, residents vote for municipal fiber instead

#123

Post by Coldgamr » Wed, Dec 12, 2018, 5:09 PM UTC

bilbo0s wrote: post #107

bliblah wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The difference is that in this case because this is a more "local" power you, the consumer/voter, actually have the power to hold them liable. Imagine living in a Town with less than 2.5k people living in rural midwest and comcast screws you over, what are you going to do? They only answer to Stockholders and "big fish" markets. Elected officials care and respond to votes and the smaller the area of control, the easi…

> Imagine living in a Town with less than 2.5k people living in rural midwest... And: > Elected officials care and respond to votes and the smaller the area of control, the easier it is to get your voice heard... I think either you haven't lived in such a town, or small towns in Wisconsin, where I'm from, are atypical in this regard. Not sure which, since I've never personally lived in any small town outside of Wisco…

A more broad question. Why is it that corrupt officials continue to get re-elected? Especially in a small town (speaking as someone who has never lived in a small town), it seems like the residents would be better informed of a representative's corruption.

Re: Comcast rejected by small town, residents vote for municipal fiber instead

#124

Post by simplify » Wed, Dec 12, 2018, 5:15 PM UTC

bilbo0s wrote: post #107

bliblah wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The difference is that in this case because this is a more "local" power you, the consumer/voter, actually have the power to hold them liable. Imagine living in a Town with less than 2.5k people living in rural midwest and comcast screws you over, what are you going to do? They only answer to Stockholders and "big fish" markets. Elected officials care and respond to votes and the smaller the area of control, the easi…

> Imagine living in a Town with less than 2.5k people living in rural midwest... And: > Elected officials care and respond to votes and the smaller the area of control, the easier it is to get your voice heard... I think either you haven't lived in such a town, or small towns in Wisconsin, where I'm from, are atypical in this regard. Not sure which, since I've never personally lived in any small town outside of Wisco…

Your comment doesn't offer a rebuttal other than "you haven't lived in such a town". I'd be interested in hearing more.

Re: Comcast rejected by small town, residents vote for municipal fiber instead

#125

Post by nonce413 » Wed, Dec 12, 2018, 5:16 PM UTC

Hey, local news on HN! I'm glad to see Whip City Fiber is spreading so far up north. They started in Westfield (40k people), and then moved to building out local towns that are basically similar kind of "hilltowns" places that have been neglected by Comcast et al for years.

Westfield Gas and Electric has been Westfield's municipal power company for as long as I can remember, and I've heard few complaints about their management. This is not their first time providing Internet service, as they used to run a dialup ISP back in the day.

The concern about future upgrades is kind of ridiculous in context - the Verizon infrastructure here is still at the bare minimum, with no hope of ever being upgraded. I have no doubt that when the gigabit infrastructure is finally looking outdated and slow, Verizon will be sitting there offering the same "high speed" 3Mbit. That is, if they haven't convinced the feds to allow them to sell the copper for scrap.

The service itself is a lone single mode fiber, with a GPON terminal. Installation planning was done by a WG&E employee who even showed up in a bucket truck. Installation was in two parts - one entire contractor to direct bury a flexible conduit with the length of fiber, and a second contractor to complete installation on both sides of the burial. My speed tests show basically full gigabit up/down.

(Also, comments by new accounts start off dead now?! I made a throwaway because I'd rather not state my explicit location as part of my main profile)

Re: Comcast rejected by small town, residents vote for municipal fiber instead

#126

Post by ghaff » Wed, Dec 12, 2018, 5:17 PM UTC

Coldgamr wrote: post #123

bilbo0s wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Imagine living in a Town with less than 2.5k people living in rural midwest... And: > Elected officials care and respond to votes and the smaller the area of control, the easier it is to get your voice heard... I think either you haven't lived in such a town, or small towns in Wisconsin, where I'm from, are atypical in this regard. Not sure which, since I've never personally lived in any small town outside of Wisco…

A more broad question. Why is it that corrupt officials continue to get re-elected? Especially in a small town (speaking as someone who has never lived in a small town), it seems like the residents would be better informed of a representative's corruption.

It’s rarely corruption as such. In a genuinely small town, you have town officials maybe making $30K per year and decisions like the one discussed here being voted on by the 10% who care enough to show up at a town meeting. Most probably hadn’t heard what was going on if there’s no town newspaper.

I don’t mean to sound bleak. I live in a small town. In general public works does a fine job. I’m not sure I’d trust them to make the right decision on and rollout broadband.

Re: Comcast rejected by small town, residents vote for municipal fiber instead

#127

Post by bryanlarsen » Wed, Dec 12, 2018, 5:22 PM UTC

foldr wrote: post #122

magduf wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't see the problem here. The government doesn't need to be competent to design anything; the job of government is to control the funding and legalities, and contract with companies that can do the work. If the government isn't competent to hire a competent company, that's the government's fault, and by extension, the voters'. If the voters can't elect competent people to run their government, that's really OK: t…

>If the government isn't competent to hire a competent company In a small town, there may just not be anyone with the necessary knowledge and expertise. You can't vote for someone who doesn't exist.

In theory this should be simple:

1. find a similar town that has good municipal internet 2. ask them who did it for them 3. hire those people

If everybody knows they are ignorant, you're probably OK. The big problem is in the towns where people think they have the expertise but don't.

Re: Comcast rejected by small town, residents vote for municipal fiber instead

#128

Post by nonce413 » Wed, Dec 12, 2018, 5:23 PM UTC

rayiner wrote: post #16

I feel like people are being shortsighted about municipal fiber. It’s not a one time and you forget it thing. Verizon has upgraded the FiOS network several times since 2005. We have some towns on the eastern shore of MD that did municipal cable, back when that was the state of the art. Those systems are lagging far behind Comcast now because nobody wants to raise rates to generate cash for upgrades. Municipal fiber i…

> Verizon has upgraded the FiOS network several times since 2005

The what network?

Your comment is reasonable in the abstract, but I'm sorry to say that in the specific context it's ridiculous. There is little functional difference between a municipal network that has trouble convincing residents to spring for an upgrade, and a company that will never see a profit in it.

Except that municipal network is currently offering 1Gb/1Gb with a possible future difficulty, while the Verizon network is offering 3Mb/384kb and hasn't been touched since it was deployed two decades ago.

Re: Comcast rejected by small town, residents vote for municipal fiber instead

#129

Post by davexunit » Wed, Dec 12, 2018, 5:25 PM UTC

This is a tangent but Charlemont is a nice little town situated at the foot of an Applachian mountain along the very scenic route 2. It's well worth driving up and over the mountain (through Florida... the town) into North Adams if you're ever in the area.

Re: Comcast rejected by small town, residents vote for municipal fiber instead

#130

Post by cowsandmilk » Wed, Dec 12, 2018, 5:28 PM UTC

bronco21016 wrote: post #86

I hate Comcast with a passion and have always fantasized about living in a progressive municipality that provides fiber to the home. However, a few years ago I bought a home and it’s only been over the last 6 months or so I’ve realized how horribly corrupt and mismanaged small city governments can be. We’re being sucked dry by our mayor who hired her cousin as city manager for an exorbitant compensation package. They…

Keep in mind, Charlemont has no mayor and most issues, including this one, are decided by open town meeting, which is literally direct democracy where residents show up and everyone gets one vote. No one has the ability to hire someone for an exorbitant salary without literal approval by a direct vote of all residents who show up at a meeting.

This isn't to say open town meetings are perfect. There is a definite skewing towards retired people without kids in who shows up in many towns in MA. In this case, ~160 or 1,300 residents voted, so hardly the whole town. But if you care about an issue, you have far more of a voice than you do in cities run by mayors and city councils. For instance, Boston residents literally had no voice in the city's negotiations with Verizon about FiOS and didn't even hear about it until they jointly announced their deal.