Municipal fiber

[frostedflakes]

http://www.dslreports.com/show...ets-Their-Fiber-100724

We've been tracking the deployment of municipally-owned fiber in Lafayette, Louisiana for years, the project being particularly notable for some of the sleazy efforts made by Cox and AT&T (then SBC) to kill it. Those efforts, back in 2005, included everything from hinting at exporting local support jobs if the deal was approved, to hiring push pollsters to try and convince locals that the government-controlled project would result in politicians rationing consumer TV viewing. Needless to say, Cox and Bellsouth lost.

Click for full size
A few weeks ago, Lafayette Utilities System (LUS) unveiled their pricing for the service, offering triple play bundles ranging from $84.85 to $200, with downstream broadband services ranging from 10Mbps to 50Mbps (all symmetrical). LUS offers standalone symmetrical 10Mbps for $28.95, 30Mbps for $44.95, and 50Mbps for $57.95. There's no caps, no contracts, and no installation fee.

Those prices handily beat not only local competitors Cox and AT&T (it's now pretty clear why they fought so hard), but carriers in other markets too. Comcast offers a 50Mbps tier in select markets for $139.95 (when bundled), but its upstream speed is 5Mbps. Verizon's 50Mbps/20Mbps service costs $144.95/month standalone, or $139.95 when bundled. The fastest speed AT&T currently offers customers is 18Mbps/1.5Mbps, which is $65 a month if you bundle TV service.

According to the Lafayette Daily Advertiser, LUS began officially offering service yesterday after five years of debate. The service is being rolled out in four phases, with all customers expected to be able to receive service by 2011. The first customers were supposed to be online in January, but the launch was delayed by negotiations with broadcasters over channel lineups and prices. Phase I involves wiring two areas on opposite ends of the city.

"This infrastructure will allow Lafayette to continue making great enhancements to our city during a time when many areas are experiencing a slowdown in development," City-Parish President Joey Durel, said in a prepared statement "Beyond these initial services, the LUS Fiber infrastructure will favorably position Lafayette for economic development and other opportunities to move our community forward."

Those are some pretty awesome prices. Why aren't more communities doing this?

 

[Scouzer]

Originally posted by: frostedflakes
http://www.dslreports.com/show...ets-Their-Fiber-100724

We've been tracking the deployment of municipally-owned fiber in Lafayette, Louisiana for years, the project being particularly notable for some of the sleazy efforts made by Cox and AT&T (then SBC) to kill it. Those efforts, back in 2005, included everything from hinting at exporting local support jobs if the deal was approved, to hiring push pollsters to try and convince locals that the government-controlled project would result in politicians rationing consumer TV viewing. Needless to say, Cox and Bellsouth lost.

Click for full size
A few weeks ago, Lafayette Utilities System (LUS) unveiled their pricing for the service, offering triple play bundles ranging from $84.85 to $200, with downstream broadband services ranging from 10Mbps to 50Mbps (all symmetrical). LUS offers standalone symmetrical 10Mbps for $28.95, 30Mbps for $44.95, and 50Mbps for $57.95. There's no caps, no contracts, and no installation fee.

Those prices handily beat not only local competitors Cox and AT&T (it's now pretty clear why they fought so hard), but carriers in other markets too. Comcast offers a 50Mbps tier in select markets for $139.95 (when bundled), but its upstream speed is 5Mbps. Verizon's 50Mbps/20Mbps service costs $144.95/month standalone, or $139.95 when bundled. The fastest speed AT&T currently offers customers is 18Mbps/1.5Mbps, which is $65 a month if you bundle TV service.

According to the Lafayette Daily Advertiser, LUS began officially offering service yesterday after five years of debate. The service is being rolled out in four phases, with all customers expected to be able to receive service by 2011. The first customers were supposed to be online in January, but the launch was delayed by negotiations with broadcasters over channel lineups and prices. Phase I involves wiring two areas on opposite ends of the city.

"This infrastructure will allow Lafayette to continue making great enhancements to our city during a time when many areas are experiencing a slowdown in development," City-Parish President Joey Durel, said in a prepared statement "Beyond these initial services, the LUS Fiber infrastructure will favorably position Lafayette for economic development and other opportunities to move our community forward."

Those are some pretty awesome prices. Why aren't more communities doing this?

Because Americans abhor anything public, even though in some fields public can simply do it better (insurance, electricity, natural gas, telco, etc)

 

[Homerboy]

Originally posted by: frostedflakes
http://www.dslreports.com/show...ets-Their-Fiber-100724

We've been tracking the deployment of municipally-owned fiber in Lafayette, Louisiana for years, the project being particularly notable for some of the sleazy efforts made by Cox and AT&T (then SBC) to kill it. Those efforts, back in 2005, included everything from hinting at exporting local support jobs if the deal was approved, to hiring push pollsters to try and convince locals that the government-controlled project would result in politicians rationing consumer TV viewing. Needless to say, Cox and Bellsouth lost.

Click for full size
A few weeks ago, Lafayette Utilities System (LUS) unveiled their pricing for the service, offering triple play bundles ranging from $84.85 to $200, with downstream broadband services ranging from 10Mbps to 50Mbps (all symmetrical). LUS offers standalone symmetrical 10Mbps for $28.95, 30Mbps for $44.95, and 50Mbps for $57.95. There's no caps, no contracts, and no installation fee.

Those prices handily beat not only local competitors Cox and AT&T (it's now pretty clear why they fought so hard), but carriers in other markets too. Comcast offers a 50Mbps tier in select markets for $139.95 (when bundled), but its upstream speed is 5Mbps. Verizon's 50Mbps/20Mbps service costs $144.95/month standalone, or $139.95 when bundled. The fastest speed AT&T currently offers customers is 18Mbps/1.5Mbps, which is $65 a month if you bundle TV service.

According to the Lafayette Daily Advertiser, LUS began officially offering service yesterday after five years of debate. The service is being rolled out in four phases, with all customers expected to be able to receive service by 2011. The first customers were supposed to be online in January, but the launch was delayed by negotiations with broadcasters over channel lineups and prices. Phase I involves wiring two areas on opposite ends of the city.

"This infrastructure will allow Lafayette to continue making great enhancements to our city during a time when many areas are experiencing a slowdown in development," City-Parish President Joey Durel, said in a prepared statement "Beyond these initial services, the LUS Fiber infrastructure will favorably position Lafayette for economic development and other opportunities to move our community forward."

Those are some pretty awesome prices. Why aren't more communities doing this?

Because the costs and support associated with it are astronomical and most cities and counties these days run at deficits already.

 

[theflyingpig]

I'm going to go out and buy a box of frosted flakes. Or steal one from a fat person. Fat people always have frosted flakes. And ranch dressing. Thanks man.

 

[frostedflakes]

Originally posted by: theflyingpig
I'm going to go out and buy a box of frosted flakes. Or steal one from a fat person. Fat people always have frosted flakes. And ranch dressing. Thanks man.

:thumbsup:

 

[frostedflakes]

Originally posted by: Homerboy

Originally posted by: frostedflakes
http://www.dslreports.com/show...ets-Their-Fiber-100724

We've been tracking the deployment of municipally-owned fiber in Lafayette, Louisiana for years, the project being particularly notable for some of the sleazy efforts made by Cox and AT&T (then SBC) to kill it. Those efforts, back in 2005, included everything from hinting at exporting local support jobs if the deal was approved, to hiring push pollsters to try and convince locals that the government-controlled project would result in politicians rationing consumer TV viewing. Needless to say, Cox and Bellsouth lost.

Click for full size
A few weeks ago, Lafayette Utilities System (LUS) unveiled their pricing for the service, offering triple play bundles ranging from $84.85 to $200, with downstream broadband services ranging from 10Mbps to 50Mbps (all symmetrical). LUS offers standalone symmetrical 10Mbps for $28.95, 30Mbps for $44.95, and 50Mbps for $57.95. There's no caps, no contracts, and no installation fee.

Those prices handily beat not only local competitors Cox and AT&T (it's now pretty clear why they fought so hard), but carriers in other markets too. Comcast offers a 50Mbps tier in select markets for $139.95 (when bundled), but its upstream speed is 5Mbps. Verizon's 50Mbps/20Mbps service costs $144.95/month standalone, or $139.95 when bundled. The fastest speed AT&T currently offers customers is 18Mbps/1.5Mbps, which is $65 a month if you bundle TV service.

According to the Lafayette Daily Advertiser, LUS began officially offering service yesterday after five years of debate. The service is being rolled out in four phases, with all customers expected to be able to receive service by 2011. The first customers were supposed to be online in January, but the launch was delayed by negotiations with broadcasters over channel lineups and prices. Phase I involves wiring two areas on opposite ends of the city.

"This infrastructure will allow Lafayette to continue making great enhancements to our city during a time when many areas are experiencing a slowdown in development," City-Parish President Joey Durel, said in a prepared statement "Beyond these initial services, the LUS Fiber infrastructure will favorably position Lafayette for economic development and other opportunities to move our community forward."

Those are some pretty awesome prices. Why aren't more communities doing this?

Because the costs and support associated with it are astronomical and most cities and counties these days run at deficits already.

It's expensive, but municipalities can spread the costs out over a few decades. It's definitely do-able, assuming they can get past the roadblocks incumbent telcos and cablecos have been putting up.

I didn't realize this, but apparently municipal broadband is very big in Sweden. They also rank among the highest in the world in terms of internet speed and cost.

 

[So]

Originally posted by: Scouzer

Originally posted by: frostedflakes
http://www.dslreports.com/show...ets-Their-Fiber-100724

We've been tracking the deployment of municipally-owned fiber in Lafayette, Louisiana for years, the project being particularly notable for some of the sleazy efforts made by Cox and AT&T (then SBC) to kill it. Those efforts, back in 2005, included everything from hinting at exporting local support jobs if the deal was approved, to hiring push pollsters to try and convince locals that the government-controlled project would result in politicians rationing consumer TV viewing. Needless to say, Cox and Bellsouth lost.

Click for full size
A few weeks ago, Lafayette Utilities System (LUS) unveiled their pricing for the service, offering triple play bundles ranging from $84.85 to $200, with downstream broadband services ranging from 10Mbps to 50Mbps (all symmetrical). LUS offers standalone symmetrical 10Mbps for $28.95, 30Mbps for $44.95, and 50Mbps for $57.95. There's no caps, no contracts, and no installation fee.

Those prices handily beat not only local competitors Cox and AT&T (it's now pretty clear why they fought so hard), but carriers in other markets too. Comcast offers a 50Mbps tier in select markets for $139.95 (when bundled), but its upstream speed is 5Mbps. Verizon's 50Mbps/20Mbps service costs $144.95/month standalone, or $139.95 when bundled. The fastest speed AT&T currently offers customers is 18Mbps/1.5Mbps, which is $65 a month if you bundle TV service.

According to the Lafayette Daily Advertiser, LUS began officially offering service yesterday after five years of debate. The service is being rolled out in four phases, with all customers expected to be able to receive service by 2011. The first customers were supposed to be online in January, but the launch was delayed by negotiations with broadcasters over channel lineups and prices. Phase I involves wiring two areas on opposite ends of the city.

"This infrastructure will allow Lafayette to continue making great enhancements to our city during a time when many areas are experiencing a slowdown in development," City-Parish President Joey Durel, said in a prepared statement "Beyond these initial services, the LUS Fiber infrastructure will favorably position Lafayette for economic development and other opportunities to move our community forward."

Those are some pretty awesome prices. Why aren't more communities doing this?

Because Americans abhor anything public, even though in some fields public can simply do it better (insurance, electricity, natural gas, telco, etc)

It's not necessarily that the public can do better, it's that we've allowed companies to buy monopolies where the government actively prevents competition from driving prices down. I'm not saying that publicly owned isn't preferable in some cases, just that we aren't dealing with a free market in the US.

 

[Scouzer]

Originally posted by: So

Originally posted by: Scouzer

Originally posted by: frostedflakes
http://www.dslreports.com/show...ets-Their-Fiber-100724

We've been tracking the deployment of municipally-owned fiber in Lafayette, Louisiana for years, the project being particularly notable for some of the sleazy efforts made by Cox and AT&T (then SBC) to kill it. Those efforts, back in 2005, included everything from hinting at exporting local support jobs if the deal was approved, to hiring push pollsters to try and convince locals that the government-controlled project would result in politicians rationing consumer TV viewing. Needless to say, Cox and Bellsouth lost.

Click for full size
A few weeks ago, Lafayette Utilities System (LUS) unveiled their pricing for the service, offering triple play bundles ranging from $84.85 to $200, with downstream broadband services ranging from 10Mbps to 50Mbps (all symmetrical). LUS offers standalone symmetrical 10Mbps for $28.95, 30Mbps for $44.95, and 50Mbps for $57.95. There's no caps, no contracts, and no installation fee.

Those prices handily beat not only local competitors Cox and AT&T (it's now pretty clear why they fought so hard), but carriers in other markets too. Comcast offers a 50Mbps tier in select markets for $139.95 (when bundled), but its upstream speed is 5Mbps. Verizon's 50Mbps/20Mbps service costs $144.95/month standalone, or $139.95 when bundled. The fastest speed AT&T currently offers customers is 18Mbps/1.5Mbps, which is $65 a month if you bundle TV service.

According to the Lafayette Daily Advertiser, LUS began officially offering service yesterday after five years of debate. The service is being rolled out in four phases, with all customers expected to be able to receive service by 2011. The first customers were supposed to be online in January, but the launch was delayed by negotiations with broadcasters over channel lineups and prices. Phase I involves wiring two areas on opposite ends of the city.

"This infrastructure will allow Lafayette to continue making great enhancements to our city during a time when many areas are experiencing a slowdown in development," City-Parish President Joey Durel, said in a prepared statement "Beyond these initial services, the LUS Fiber infrastructure will favorably position Lafayette for economic development and other opportunities to move our community forward."

Those are some pretty awesome prices. Why aren't more communities doing this?

Because Americans abhor anything public, even though in some fields public can simply do it better (insurance, electricity, natural gas, telco, etc)

It's not necessarily that the public can do better, it's that we've allowed companies to buy monopolies where the government actively prevents competition from driving prices down. I'm not saying that publicly owned isn't preferable in some cases, just that we aren't dealing with a free market in the US.

That's fair enough. A private monopoly is far more inefficient than a public monopoly.

 

[sdifox]

Originally posted by: Scouzer


That's fair enough. A private monopoly is far more inefficient than a public monopoly.

Au contraire. Private monopolies are far more efficient. They just don't pass the saving onto you. Public monopolies tend to be less efficient.

 

[Linflas]

Is this in the same Louisiana that can't afford to maintain levee systems to protect themselves from flooding?

 

[13Gigatons]

As long as telephone and Cable companies run broadband in America then it's going to suck !!!!

 

[Scouzer]

Originally posted by: sdifox

Originally posted by: Scouzer


That's fair enough. A private monopoly is far more inefficient than a public monopoly.

Au contraire. Private monopolies are far more efficient. They just don't pass the saving onto you. Public monopolies tend to be less efficient.

Does it really matter? It's semantics either way. In my experience EVERYTHING that remains public in parts of Canada is ALWAYS cheaper than the private options...

 

[mrSHEiK124]

30Mbps for $44.95

*drool*

I'm moving to Lafayette, LA. Goodbye Florida, goodbye $60 20/5 FiOS.

 

[RadiclDreamer]

Originally posted by: theflyingpig
I'm going to go out and buy a box of frosted flakes. Or steal one from a fat person. Fat people always have frosted flakes. And ranch dressing. Thanks man.

Why are all of your posts lately dealing with fat people?

 

[sdifox]

Originally posted by: Scouzer

Originally posted by: sdifox

Originally posted by: Scouzer


That's fair enough. A private monopoly is far more inefficient than a public monopoly.

Au contraire. Private monopolies are far more efficient. They just don't pass the saving onto you. Public monopolies tend to be less efficient.

Does it really matter? It's semantics either way. In my experience EVERYTHING that remains public in parts of Canada is ALWAYS cheaper than the private options...

Big difference. Too bad we can't run the crown corps the way private firms are run. The unions will be up in arms.

 

[spidey07]

Check back on this in about 3-4 years. Most cities that have tried it fail because the operational costs get to be so big that the service just winds up losing money. Then the city turns around and sells it to a provider.

 

[Scouzer]

Originally posted by: sdifox

Originally posted by: Scouzer

Originally posted by: sdifox

Originally posted by: Scouzer


That's fair enough. A private monopoly is far more inefficient than a public monopoly.

Au contraire. Private monopolies are far more efficient. They just don't pass the saving onto you. Public monopolies tend to be less efficient.

Does it really matter? It's semantics either way. In my experience EVERYTHING that remains public in parts of Canada is ALWAYS cheaper than the private options...

Big difference. Too bad we can't run the crown corps the way private firms are run. The unions will be up in arms.

While in theory private is more 'efficient', it doesn't mean a damn thing to me when public options are always cheaper.

 

[OCGuy]

I needz duh goberment to own everything

 

[sdifox]

Originally posted by: Scouzer

While in theory private is more 'efficient', it doesn't mean a damn thing to me when public options are always cheaper.

my problem with public service has always been the people that need to be running the things are never the ones running it. Instead you got political pukes that fuck it up. That is the problem. I am not saying private is immune to that, but it is a lot easier to rem mediate in the private sector.

 

[Scouzer]

Originally posted by: sdifox

Originally posted by: Scouzer

While in theory private is more 'efficient', it doesn't mean a damn thing to me when public options are always cheaper.

my problem with public service has always been the people that need to be running the things are never the ones running it. Instead you got political pukes that fuck it up. That is the problem. I am not saying private is immune to that, but it is a lot easier to rem mediate in the private sector.

While you may have a point there, public has been very successful in Canada.

Some exmaples:

- SGI insurance in Saskatchewan. I can get full coverage insurance there for $1100/yr, which is $2500/yr in Alberta (private). There are cities that straddle the border that have this difference in premiums.
- SaskPower - My power bill would be $21/mo in Saskatchewan (public) or $75/mo (private in AB)...
- ATCO Gas (privatized) - When Alberta deregulated gas in the late 90's, everyones heating bill went through the roof. It got so bad the province actually issues a gas rebate every winter now to subsidize their huge error
ICBC - British Columbia car insurance would cost me $1600/yr, versus again $2500/yr in Alberta
MTS - Cell phone plans start at $10/mo in Manitoba, the private companies there actually have special plans JUST FOR MANITOBA so they can compete with the public entity, and continue gouging elsewhere

NONE of these companies use taxpayer money for subsidization

 

[loup garou]

Originally posted by: Linflas
Is this in the same Louisiana that can't afford to maintain levee systems to protect themselves from flooding?

You're all kinds of retarded.

 

[sdifox]

Originally posted by: Scouzer

Originally posted by: sdifox

Originally posted by: Scouzer

While in theory private is more 'efficient', it doesn't mean a damn thing to me when public options are always cheaper.

my problem with public service has always been the people that need to be running the things are never the ones running it. Instead you got political pukes that fuck it up. That is the problem. I am not saying private is immune to that, but it is a lot easier to rem mediate in the private sector.

While you may have a point there, public has been very successful in Canada.

Some exmaples:

- SGI insurance in Saskatchewan. I can get full coverage insurance there for $1100/yr, which is $2500/yr in Alberta (private). There are cities that straddle the border that have this difference in premiums.
- SaskPower - My power bill would be $21/mo in Saskatchewan (public) or $75/mo (private in AB)...
- ATCO Gas (privatized) - When Alberta deregulated gas in the late 90's, everyones heating bill went through the roof. It got so bad the province actually issues a gas rebate every winter now to subsidize their huge error
ICBC - British Columbia car insurance would cost me $1600/yr, versus again $2500/yr in Alberta
MTS - Cell phone plans start at $10/mo in Manitoba, the private companies there actually have special plans JUST FOR MANITOBA so they can compete with the public entity, and continue gouging elsewhere

NONE of these companies use taxpayer money for subsidization

Maybe things are better in the prairies, but here in Ontario it has been one giant clusterfuck. No matter who is running it, the taxpayer is being rimmed.


<---Worked in government for 8 years.

 

[tw1164]

I lived in a municipality (Bristol, VA) that owned its own fiber network a few years ago, and it was cheaper/faster then Comcast at the time. I just looked up what BVU offers today, and its disappointing. Their fastest speed is only 6/384 for $45 a month. I now live in an area that offers Fios and I get 20/5 for about the same price.

 

[Linflas]

Originally posted by: loup garou

Originally posted by: Linflas
Is this in the same Louisiana that can't afford to maintain levee systems to protect themselves from flooding?

You're all kinds of retarded.

Truth hurts?

 

[pstylesss]

Originally posted by: Scouzer

Originally posted by: sdifox

Originally posted by: Scouzer


That's fair enough. A private monopoly is far more inefficient than a public monopoly.

Au contraire. Private monopolies are far more efficient. They just don't pass the saving onto you. Public monopolies tend to be less efficient.

Does it really matter? It's semantics either way. In my experience EVERYTHING that remains public in parts of Canada is ALWAYS cheaper than the private options...

Subsidized by taxes perhaps?