Comcast rejected by small town—residents vote for municipal fiber instead
-
With Comcast, they were going to have to pay the construction on TOP of the higher subscriber fees.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Comcast rejected by small town—residents vote for municipal fiber instead:
With Comcast, they were going to have to pay the construction on TOP of the higher subscriber fees.
I am not saying that it is not good deal to go with the municipal system, just that based on household income and the % of participation needed to keep costs down may not work out as planned.
If 10% of the possible 70% needed to keep costs lower are under $12K per year, they could afford Comcast's $10 per month but not the $99 for Gigabit. It is not stated in the article but the town would need at least 80% of the town at median income levels (to hit the 70% participation rate) to make it work without increase in fees or additional taxes.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Comcast rejected by small town—residents vote for municipal fiber instead:
With Comcast, they were going to have to pay the construction on TOP of the higher subscriber fees.
Like I said, unless I am misunderstanding something, the town will have to raise taxes of $.29 per $1k to get the $1.4 Mil and also charge $79 - $99 per month?
-
@pmoncho said in Comcast rejected by small town—residents vote for municipal fiber instead:
@scottalanmiller said in Comcast rejected by small town—residents vote for municipal fiber instead:
With Comcast, they were going to have to pay the construction on TOP of the higher subscriber fees.
Like I said, unless I am misunderstanding something, the town will have to raise taxes of $.29 per $1k to get the $1.4 Mil
yes
and also charge $79 - $99 per month?
Depending on the subscriber count.
-
@pmoncho said in Comcast rejected by small town—residents vote for municipal fiber instead:
@scottalanmiller said in Comcast rejected by small town—residents vote for municipal fiber instead:
With Comcast, they were going to have to pay the construction on TOP of the higher subscriber fees.
Like I said, unless I am misunderstanding something, the town will have to raise taxes of $.29 per $1k to get the $1.4 Mil and also charge $79 - $99 per month?
Yes, but they 1) Have to raise $450K either way and 2) they only raise it IF they don't get enough subscribers and only IF they don't do Comcast.
With Comcast they have to raise taxes either way. Without Comcast, they might not have to.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Comcast rejected by small town—residents vote for municipal fiber instead:
@pmoncho said in Comcast rejected by small town—residents vote for municipal fiber instead:
@scottalanmiller said in Comcast rejected by small town—residents vote for municipal fiber instead:
With Comcast, they were going to have to pay the construction on TOP of the higher subscriber fees.
Like I said, unless I am misunderstanding something, the town will have to raise taxes of $.29 per $1k to get the $1.4 Mil and also charge $79 - $99 per month?
Yes, but they 1) Have to raise $450K either way and 2) they only raise it IF they don't get enough subscribers and only IF they don't do Comcast.
With Comcast they have to raise taxes either way. Without Comcast, they might not have to.
correct.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Comcast rejected by small town—residents vote for municipal fiber instead:
@pmoncho said in Comcast rejected by small town—residents vote for municipal fiber instead:
@scottalanmiller said in Comcast rejected by small town—residents vote for municipal fiber instead:
With Comcast, they were going to have to pay the construction on TOP of the higher subscriber fees.
Like I said, unless I am misunderstanding something, the town will have to raise taxes of $.29 per $1k to get the $1.4 Mil and also charge $79 - $99 per month?
Yes, but they 1) Have to raise $450K either way and 2) they only raise it IF they don't get enough subscribers and only IF they don't do Comcast.
With Comcast they have to raise taxes either way. Without Comcast, they might not have to.
Ok. So I did have a little misunderstanding. I thought the $1.4 mil had to be raised (via taxes) no matter what.
-
I think it is a smart risk. Long term cost savings, potential short term cost savings, and control of their Internet. Plus having their own has a lot of potential to encourage business investment. Would only take one small business to make all of the different. Having no Internet, like today, would drive businesses away completely. Having Comcast only would do little better, no smart business would consider the location.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Comcast rejected by small town—residents vote for municipal fiber instead:
@pmoncho said in Comcast rejected by small town—residents vote for municipal fiber instead:
@scottalanmiller said in Comcast rejected by small town—residents vote for municipal fiber instead:
@pmoncho said in Comcast rejected by small town—residents vote for municipal fiber instead:
@mlnews said in Comcast rejected by small town—residents vote for municipal fiber instead:
Comcast offered to wire up Charlemont, Mass. for $462,000—town said, "no."
A small Massachusetts town has rejected an offer from Comcast and instead plans to build a municipal fiber broadband network.
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.
Using https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charlemont,_Massachusetts
With so few homes, the % needed to keep costs down may be hard to reach with a median income of $50K per household and 10% of the population around the poverty line.
I sure hope it works out for them though.
Only $833 / person in one time construction costs. Assume that's $3300 / household to cover.
Comcast would likely be something like $90/mo and this will likely cost more like $10/mo (in taxes, direct fees, whatever.) That would suggest that it would pay for itself in four years, and be a massive cost savings for the poor after that.
And that's assuming no businesses or grants involved in the process, which might lighten the load considerably. Or if there is cash in the village coffers, then they could avoid interest and it would be closer to three years to pay off.
I unless I misunderstood, the town will still charge $79 a month and $99 if only 40% adoption.
$79 for Gigabit, not $200 for 100Mb/s or whatever with caps that Comcast does. My family in Houston pays hundreds and gets flaky service and can't even download Steam games at Christmas without paying penalty fees.
They might offer way cheaper for people not wanting Gigabit speeds. It's still a massive gap over Comcast. And if they got the penetration, they were paying for the construction entirely from the subscriber fees.
I don't like Comcast but we never have issues like that. Ours is $85 a month for 200 down. It's been very very reliable.
-
@stacksofplates said in Comcast rejected by small town—residents vote for municipal fiber instead:
@scottalanmiller said in Comcast rejected by small town—residents vote for municipal fiber instead:
@pmoncho said in Comcast rejected by small town—residents vote for municipal fiber instead:
@scottalanmiller said in Comcast rejected by small town—residents vote for municipal fiber instead:
@pmoncho said in Comcast rejected by small town—residents vote for municipal fiber instead:
@mlnews said in Comcast rejected by small town—residents vote for municipal fiber instead:
Comcast offered to wire up Charlemont, Mass. for $462,000—town said, "no."
A small Massachusetts town has rejected an offer from Comcast and instead plans to build a municipal fiber broadband network.
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.
Using https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charlemont,_Massachusetts
With so few homes, the % needed to keep costs down may be hard to reach with a median income of $50K per household and 10% of the population around the poverty line.
I sure hope it works out for them though.
Only $833 / person in one time construction costs. Assume that's $3300 / household to cover.
Comcast would likely be something like $90/mo and this will likely cost more like $10/mo (in taxes, direct fees, whatever.) That would suggest that it would pay for itself in four years, and be a massive cost savings for the poor after that.
And that's assuming no businesses or grants involved in the process, which might lighten the load considerably. Or if there is cash in the village coffers, then they could avoid interest and it would be closer to three years to pay off.
I unless I misunderstood, the town will still charge $79 a month and $99 if only 40% adoption.
$79 for Gigabit, not $200 for 100Mb/s or whatever with caps that Comcast does. My family in Houston pays hundreds and gets flaky service and can't even download Steam games at Christmas without paying penalty fees.
They might offer way cheaper for people not wanting Gigabit speeds. It's still a massive gap over Comcast. And if they got the penetration, they were paying for the construction entirely from the subscriber fees.
I don't like Comcast but we never have issues like that. Ours is $85 a month for 200 down. It's been very very reliable.
I deal with it mostly in Houston and Atlanta. Atlanta has been expensive, but no caps, but totally unreliable (up to ten outages a week.) In Houston it's been expensive, heavily capped, and slow.
-
In Rochester we don't have those kinds of outages. Maybe it's because we're a much smaller city or because our infrastructure is better maintained
I'd refuse to pay for service like that.
-
@stacksofplates said in Comcast rejected by small town—residents vote for municipal fiber instead:
@scottalanmiller said in Comcast rejected by small town—residents vote for municipal fiber instead:
@pmoncho said in Comcast rejected by small town—residents vote for municipal fiber instead:
@scottalanmiller said in Comcast rejected by small town—residents vote for municipal fiber instead:
@pmoncho said in Comcast rejected by small town—residents vote for municipal fiber instead:
@mlnews said in Comcast rejected by small town—residents vote for municipal fiber instead:
Comcast offered to wire up Charlemont, Mass. for $462,000—town said, "no."
A small Massachusetts town has rejected an offer from Comcast and instead plans to build a municipal fiber broadband network.
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.
Using https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charlemont,_Massachusetts
With so few homes, the % needed to keep costs down may be hard to reach with a median income of $50K per household and 10% of the population around the poverty line.
I sure hope it works out for them though.
Only $833 / person in one time construction costs. Assume that's $3300 / household to cover.
Comcast would likely be something like $90/mo and this will likely cost more like $10/mo (in taxes, direct fees, whatever.) That would suggest that it would pay for itself in four years, and be a massive cost savings for the poor after that.
And that's assuming no businesses or grants involved in the process, which might lighten the load considerably. Or if there is cash in the village coffers, then they could avoid interest and it would be closer to three years to pay off.
I unless I misunderstood, the town will still charge $79 a month and $99 if only 40% adoption.
$79 for Gigabit, not $200 for 100Mb/s or whatever with caps that Comcast does. My family in Houston pays hundreds and gets flaky service and can't even download Steam games at Christmas without paying penalty fees.
They might offer way cheaper for people not wanting Gigabit speeds. It's still a massive gap over Comcast. And if they got the penetration, they were paying for the construction entirely from the subscriber fees.
I don't like Comcast but we never have issues like that. Ours is $85 a month for 200 down. It's been very very reliable.
wow - lucky you.. 150 down costs $99 here
-
@DustinB3403 said in Comcast rejected by small town—residents vote for municipal fiber instead:
In Rochester we don't have those kinds of outages. Maybe it's because we're a much smaller city or because our infrastructure is better maintained
I'd refuse to pay for service like that.
In most places - if you refuse to pay for service like that, then you simply have no service at all.
-
@Dashrender said in Comcast rejected by small town—residents vote for municipal fiber instead:
@DustinB3403 said in Comcast rejected by small town—residents vote for municipal fiber instead:
In Rochester we don't have those kinds of outages. Maybe it's because we're a much smaller city or because our infrastructure is better maintained
I'd refuse to pay for service like that.
In most places - if you refuse to pay for service like that, then you simply have no service at all.
Sad but true.
-
We are lucky. We pay $90 for gig symmetrical at our HQ. The branch is like $300 for 1000/500
-
Where I'm at, you pay $49 for ATT DSL 7.5 down (that is it) or $90 to Spectrum for 100Mb down.
I am in a suburb in OH but I live on a dead end street of a main street. 400 yards away ATT Fiber Uverse with 10/100 for $79. They won't run down my street at all.
-
@pmoncho said in Comcast rejected by small town—residents vote for municipal fiber instead:
Where I'm at, you pay $49 for ATT DSL 7.5 down (that is it) or $90 to Spectrum for 100Mb down.
I am in a suburb in OH but I live on a dead end street of a main street. 400 yards away ATT Fiber Uverse with 10/100 for $79. They won't run down my street at all.
make a deal with someone close by to install to their premise and use Ubiquiti gear to send it to your house.
-
@JaredBusch said in Comcast rejected by small town—residents vote for municipal fiber instead:
@pmoncho said in Comcast rejected by small town—residents vote for municipal fiber instead:
Where I'm at, you pay $49 for ATT DSL 7.5 down (that is it) or $90 to Spectrum for 100Mb down.
I am in a suburb in OH but I live on a dead end street of a main street. 400 yards away ATT Fiber Uverse with 10/100 for $79. They won't run down my street at all.
make a deal with someone close by to install to their premise and use Ubiquiti gear to send it to your house.
That would be nice wouldn't. Just need to cut down some dense 100' Oak and Maple trees too.
Although, I could use another friend.
-
@pmoncho said in Comcast rejected by small town—residents vote for municipal fiber instead:
@JaredBusch said in Comcast rejected by small town—residents vote for municipal fiber instead:
@pmoncho said in Comcast rejected by small town—residents vote for municipal fiber instead:
Where I'm at, you pay $49 for ATT DSL 7.5 down (that is it) or $90 to Spectrum for 100Mb down.
I am in a suburb in OH but I live on a dead end street of a main street. 400 yards away ATT Fiber Uverse with 10/100 for $79. They won't run down my street at all.
make a deal with someone close by to install to their premise and use Ubiquiti gear to send it to your house.
That would be nice wouldn't. Just need to cut down some dense 100' Oak and Maple trees too.
Although, I could use another friend.
zero line of sight at all?
-
@Dashrender said in Comcast rejected by small town—residents vote for municipal fiber instead:
@pmoncho said in Comcast rejected by small town—residents vote for municipal fiber instead:
@JaredBusch said in Comcast rejected by small town—residents vote for municipal fiber instead:
@pmoncho said in Comcast rejected by small town—residents vote for municipal fiber instead:
Where I'm at, you pay $49 for ATT DSL 7.5 down (that is it) or $90 to Spectrum for 100Mb down.
I am in a suburb in OH but I live on a dead end street of a main street. 400 yards away ATT Fiber Uverse with 10/100 for $79. They won't run down my street at all.
make a deal with someone close by to install to their premise and use Ubiquiti gear to send it to your house.
That would be nice wouldn't. Just need to cut down some dense 100' Oak and Maple trees too.
Although, I could use another friend.
zero line of sight at all?
Correct. I just don't know if I could put up a 30' pole on their home and mine to get a line of sight.
Trust me, it is really f***ing annoying around here. The only solution is to move but that won't happen anytime soon.
ATT and DirectTV came around recently and I seen my neighbors switch over. Then they realized how crappy ATT DSL was and how the Dish's hard a hard time getting a signal through the trees on a windy day. Needless to say, all 8 of them switched back to Spectrum.
