Lafayette Builds Municipally-Owned Fiber Broadband

[owensdj]

Controlled rollout begins after five years

Lafayette, LA is beginning to roll out city-owned fiber Internet service that gives customers 10Mbps download and upload for just $28.95. 30Mbps and even 50Mbps are also available at very reasonable prices. AT&T and Cox Cable filed lawsuits to stop it, but the city won in the end. They're also using the fiber to provide digital TV and phone service.

Is city-owned fiber networks the answer to the nation's broadband problem? I know I'd jump to that 10Mbps plan in a heartbeat. I pay $37.95 for 3Mbps/384Kbps DSL from AT&T.

 

[KentState]

The city that I was from in Ohio had their own infrastructure which competed with Time Warner. It cost them a ton of money, didn't make a dime, and in the end was sold to AT&T for pennies on the dollar. So basically, the tax payers funded a project and are still paying for it.

 

[Schadenfroh]

IMO, the government should not provide broadband service even if it is not tax payer supported (operates "like" a company).

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: owensdj
Controlled rollout begins after five years

Lafayette, LA is beginning to roll out city-owned fiber Internet service that gives customers 10Mbps download and upload for just $28.95. 30Mbps and even 50Mbps are also available at very reasonable prices. AT&T and Cox Cable filed lawsuits to stop it, but the city won in the end. They're also using the fiber to provide digital TV and phone service.

Is city-owned fiber networks the answer to the nation's broadband problem? I know I'd jump to that 10Mbps plan in a heartbeat. I pay $37.95 for 3Mbps/384Kbps DSL from AT&T.

Hard to say without knowing the full details of the cost and how much tax payers not using the system are paying. Minnepoplis rolled out a city wide wifi program that was over budget and has underperformed. To top it off they are running it like an actual business which is rare in govt terms and their price is higher than Qwest.

I think the infrastructure costs of such a system are a burden for cities. And once it is setup the usual malaize of govt will cause the system to errode to the point of futility. They will offer 10Mbps for the rest of eternity and I bet the service quality will be low.

 

[sandorski]

If you can afford it and Private Industry is not providing it, build away. Might be better to lay the cable, then Lease it out to Private service providers though.

 

[BoberFett]

City owned infrastructure makes absolute sense. We don't want 5 different companies trying to run sewer or water, why would we want them running separate telecom infrastructure? If the city chooses to outsource the actual service then that's a separate decision, but owning the lines is just smart.

 

[Jaskalas]

10mb both ways for 1/4th the price AT&T offers 6mb/500k? It'd be like heaven.

 

[OCGuy]

Yea, I really want to government to provide my internet service :roll:


For those of us lucky enough to have a skill-set that someone is willing to pay us for, we'll take the uncensored internet. Thanks.

 

[spidey07]

Most of the cities that have tried this fail. The cities don't take into account the massive amount of money in operating the network, which is actually much higher than the capital used to build it. The service winds up losing so much money that the city eventually sells rights to the lines in an effort to stop the bleeding.

 

[BoberFett]

Originally posted by: spidey07
Most of the cities that have tried this fail. The cities don't take into account the massive amount of money in operating the network, which is actually much higher than the capital used to build it. The service winds up losing so much money that the city eventually sells rights to the lines in an effort to stop the bleeding.

Which is why they should own the lines and lease them to a company who knows how to run a network. It's silly however to rely on a company to bring the physical lines to you. As long as they can charge you high prices for the old speeds, where's the incentive to rush to bring you better service?

 

[DisgruntledVirus]

Originally posted by: BoberFett

Originally posted by: spidey07
Most of the cities that have tried this fail. The cities don't take into account the massive amount of money in operating the network, which is actually much higher than the capital used to build it. The service winds up losing so much money that the city eventually sells rights to the lines in an effort to stop the bleeding.

Which is why they should own the lines and lease them to a company who knows how to run a network. It's silly however to rely on a company to bring the physical lines to you. As long as they can charge you high prices for the old speeds, where's the incentive to rush to bring you better service?

Exactly.

Cities own the lines, but lease them to companies who provide the service. The same way small telecom companies lease lines from larger ones. ISP's provide the operation and all the city does is own the lines and manage upgrades in the lines.

 

[bobcpg]

City owns the lines like they own the roads, but let you choose who provides you with internet, tv, phone. Just like I can choose UPS, FedEX or USPS to deliver my packages.

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: BoberFett
City owned infrastructure makes absolute sense. We don't want 5 different companies trying to run sewer or water, why would we want them running separate telecom infrastructure? If the city chooses to outsource the actual service then that's a separate decision, but owning the lines is just smart.

They turned on the Large Hardon Collider in secret and the worst fears have been realized! We agree. :Q

 

[rudder]

Originally posted by: owensdj

Is city-owned fiber networks the answer to the nation's broadband problem? I know I'd jump to that 10Mbps plan in a heartbeat. I pay $37.95 for 3Mbps/384Kbps DSL from AT&T.

OT a bit... you better call AT&T. I pay that and get 6m/768k DSL. Not as good as the Lafayette deal though.

My power company offers fiber service... only not in our town yet. Maybe they will run the 10 miles of fiber and hook a brother up. Actually I looked at their prices and AT&T has them beat by $20.

I do wonder if these municipalities will respond to customer complaints quicker than private companies. AT&T has been good for me, but our local cable provider (charter) has notoriously bad customer service.

 

[theeedude]

Would be nice to have some competition to the phone company from the public sector. Right now I am getting 768kbps from AT&T DSL, and they are in no hurry to upgrade their network, still giving me the ole you are too far from CO excuse. This is 3 blocks from Apple's main campus in Cupertino. We have Silicon Valley engineers who are supposed to be designing the future of the computing industry living firmly in the past, at least in terms of broadband. So don't be surprised if the new technologies are going to come from countries who are more with the program.

 

[fleshconsumed]

Originally posted by: Ocguy31
Yea, I really want to government to provide my internet service :roll:


For those of us lucky enough to have a skill-set that someone is willing to pay us for, we'll take the uncensored internet. Thanks.

Funny considering these are exactly the same arguments that cox/AT&T tried to use to persuade Ladayette against muni fiber when they did their push polling.

http://lafayetteprofiber.com/B...tricks-pushy-poll.html

And why did they had to resort to their little lies? Because Lafayette can now provide internet service at speeds and price that even Verizon FIOS cannot touch.

 

[StageLeft]

Stupid idea, extremely expensive. At least it wasn't citiwide wifi.

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: BoberFett
City owned infrastructure makes absolute sense. We don't want 5 different companies trying to run sewer or water, why would we want them running separate telecom infrastructure? If the city chooses to outsource the actual service then that's a separate decision, but owning the lines is just smart.

A road or sewer pipe is not the same as running a fiber line down the street. One is absolutely impossible to duplicate and has a high footprint. The other is small and can have mutiple lines run.

The problems with justifying the infrastructure by the city is the cost. It is expensive to drop the lines and maintain them. Instead of having a private company fund these projects via rate increases on people using the system. The city will impose the costs for all tax payers. And I question in this situation whether or not we would see an increase in service for the cost. Judging by how road and bridge systems are maintained by the govt. I will go ahead and say fiber optic or copper networks would erode at similar rates. Meaning reduced service and a high cost.

 

[Farang]

We have that here. It resulted in huge savings on cable bills and the rebuilding of cable infrastructure by competitors who had let their system fall apart for 25 years. The argument I've heard disputing its success usually says they jacked up our electricity rates, but we have some of the lowest rates in the country so I have a hard time buying that.

 

[theeedude]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: BoberFett
City owned infrastructure makes absolute sense. We don't want 5 different companies trying to run sewer or water, why would we want them running separate telecom infrastructure? If the city chooses to outsource the actual service then that's a separate decision, but owning the lines is just smart.

A road or sewer pipe is not the same as running a fiber line down the street. One is absolutely impossible to duplicate and has a high footprint. The other is small and can have mutiple lines run.

The problems with justifying the infrastructure by the city is the cost. It is expensive to drop the lines and maintain them. Instead of having a private company fund these projects via rate increases on people using the system. The city will impose the costs for all tax payers. And I question in this situation whether or not we would see an increase in service for the cost. Judging by how road and bridge systems are maintained by the govt. I will go ahead and say fiber optic or copper networks would erode at similar rates. Meaning reduced service and a high cost.

And yet this system has better service at a lower cost, while it is the telecom companies who are living off their decaying infrastructure and delaying investments in upgrading it, and they expect the cities to leave it up to their bean counters to decide what broadband services their citizens will have.
Roads and bridges are maintained pretty damn well where I live. They are repaving scenic roads in the mountains here that are mainly used by bikers with very few cars on them aside from weekend cruisers. I doubt if those roads were privately owned the owner would be able to raise the money to maintain them through tolls.

 

[Mxylplyx]

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: BoberFett
City owned infrastructure makes absolute sense. We don't want 5 different companies trying to run sewer or water, why would we want them running separate telecom infrastructure? If the city chooses to outsource the actual service then that's a separate decision, but owning the lines is just smart.

A road or sewer pipe is not the same as running a fiber line down the street. One is absolutely impossible to duplicate and has a high footprint. The other is small and can have mutiple lines run.

The problems with justifying the infrastructure by the city is the cost. It is expensive to drop the lines and maintain them. Instead of having a private company fund these projects via rate increases on people using the system. The city will impose the costs for all tax payers. And I question in this situation whether or not we would see an increase in service for the cost. Judging by how road and bridge systems are maintained by the govt. I will go ahead and say fiber optic or copper networks would erode at similar rates. Meaning reduced service and a high cost.

And yet this system has better service at a lower cost, while it is the telecom companies who are living off their decaying infrastructure and delaying investments in upgrading it, and they expect the cities to leave it up to their bean counters to decide what broadband services their citizens will have.
Roads and bridges are maintained pretty damn well where I live. They are repaving scenic roads in the mountains here that are mainly used by bikers with very few cars on them aside from weekend cruisers. I doubt if those roads were privately owned the owner would be able to raise the money to maintain them through tolls.

You certainly have alot of faith in the government to run things

 

[BarneyFife]

Originally posted by: Ocguy31
Yea, I really want to government to provide my internet service :roll:


For those of us lucky enough to have a skill-set that someone is willing to pay us for, we'll take the uncensored internet. Thanks.

If you had half a brain, you'd realize that the private industry has already brain washed you alot more than the govt will ever have.

 

[quest55720]

I see nothing wrong with the government run broadband in smaller communities were the telecoms won't. I do think it should be run like a business and charge enough to make enough to pay back the investment in the infrastructure. It is better than giving a check to the telecoms and praying they follow through.

 

[MetalMat]

I grew up in Lafayette and this was a big issue when I was in college. At the time I was for this because I was a little naive, but now I know that the government is terribly inefficent at running many things that are better run by private companies. However, that all said and done, I do think that COX does have a pretty big monopoly in the city.