Sorry, Comcast: Voters Say “Yes” to City-Run Broadband in Colorado

Megalith

Megalith

24-bit/48kHz
Staff member
Joined
Aug 20, 2006
Messages
13,000
Voters in Fort Collins, Colorado, yesterday approved a ballot question that authorizes the city to build a broadband network, rejecting a cable and telecom industry campaign against the initiative. While the vote doesn't require the city to build a broadband network, it gives the city council the permission it needs to move forward on the plan if it chooses to do so.

The proposal passed despite a well-financed advertising campaign to defeat it. The political issue group Priorities First Fort Collins reported spending $451,564 on its campaign, while the grassroots group Fort Collins Citizens Broadband Committee, which supported 2B, spent only $9,250. Supporters believe that the city could do a better job of delivering fast and affordable internet service than private service.
 
Mixed feeling on this.
I don't think the government should be running a broadband service, but the semi-monopolies the cable and telecoms have in most places results is a complete lack of competition and of course high prices and abuses like low data caps.
 
nutzo said:
Mixed feeling on this.
I don't think the government should be running a broadband service, but the semi-monopolies the cable and telecoms have in most places results is a complete lack of competition and of course high prices and abuses like low data caps.
Click to expand...
I don't see what the issue is with having the option. If the telecoms conspire together to not provide competition then I think it's the perfect place for the government to step in and provide some.
 
nutzo said:
Mixed feeling on this.
I don't think the government should be running a broadband service, but the semi-monopolies the cable and telecoms have in most places results is a complete lack of competition and of course high prices and abuses like low data caps.
Click to expand...

What I would like to see is gov't build out fiber networks, then sublet it out to companies and let them compete for subscribers. Barring that happening, then if the gov't can provide better then let them. I grew up living in a municipality that ran it's own cable company which also became my first broadband, and it was decent enough and I didn't feel like I was missing anything not having Comcast or whoever was in the neighboring areas.
 
The nature of the business is long term. Turning a profit inside of five years is rare.

In the case of muni systems, which are not-for-profit enterprises, one measure of "success" is defined as the level of their "take rate," that is, the percentage of potential subscribers who are offered the service that actually do subscribe. Nationwide, the take rates for retail municipal systems after one to four years of operation averages 54 percent. This is much higher than larger incumbent service provider take rates, and is also well above the typical FTTH business plan usually requiring a 30-40 percent take rate to "break even" with payback periods.

https://muninetworks.org/content/successes-and-failures
 
nutzo said:
Mixed feeling on this.
I don't think the government should be running a broadband service, but the semi-monopolies the cable and telecoms have in most places results is a complete lack of competition and of course high prices and abuses like low data caps.
Click to expand...

I would refuse to use government broadband. Outright refuse. However, I agree with your qualms in the other direction, but the answer isn't a government ran infrastructure. The states create the shitshow that we see when it comes to cable monopolies. They create deals with unions and corporations to block access.

Armenius said:
I don't see what the issue is with having the option. If the telecoms conspire together to not provide competition then I think it's the perfect place for the government to step in and provide some.
Click to expand...

The solution would be to create open access laws and prevent the deal making that has allowed this to occur. Wired did a wonderful write up a few years ago basically stating the case.

https://www.wired.com/2013/07/we-ne...-government-for-dismal-broadband-competition/
 
Typing this response using my municipality run fiber connection: No data caps. Not exactly the fastest (~15Mbps down and 25 up). Pricing is competitive -- I'd get a slightly better Mbps on Frontier's FiOS.


Oh yeah, here's the kicker -- when I need tech support I get someone LOCAL that I can actually communicate with. They typically fix any issues on the spot or within an hour.
 
nutzo said:
Mixed feeling on this.
I don't think the government should be running a broadband service, but the semi-monopolies the cable and telecoms have in most places results is a complete lack of competition and of course high prices and abuses like low data caps.
Click to expand...
Why though? As long as they arnt banning private sector isp then this is nothing but a win for the consumer. Just for contrast there's a smaller city near me that did this and it's amazing. They are the only provider that offers 1gig symmetrical while all the private sectors would only offer 50MB/s plans. Was surprising how quickly the private sectors started rolling out fiber to compete with them. I wish I lived there, I can only get 150/150 for the same price they pay for 1000/1000
 
Jeremy C said:
What I would like to see is gov't build out fiber networks, then sublet it out to companies and let them compete for subscribers. Barring that happening, then if the gov't can provide better then let them. I grew up living in a municipality that ran it's own cable company which also became my first broadband, and it was decent enough and I didn't feel like I was missing anything not having Comcast or whoever was in the neighboring areas.
Click to expand...
This has always been my opinion as well.
 
I think Longmont (just south of FoCo) already has this, but I might be thinking of something else.
 
Jeremy C said:
What I would like to see is gov't build out fiber networks, then sublet it out to companies and let them compete for subscribers. Barring that happening, then if the gov't can provide better then let them. I grew up living in a municipality that ran it's own cable company which also became my first broadband, and it was decent enough and I didn't feel like I was missing anything not having Comcast or whoever was in the neighboring areas.
Click to expand...
My understanding is that how broadband (or cell service) is in UK, but i could be wrong.
 
Domingo said:
I think Longmont (just south of FoCo) already has this, but I might be thinking of something else.
Click to expand...

It does and I use it. NextLight offers symmetrical gigabit for $50/mo (assuming you sign up within 3 months of the initial offer) with no data caps. In Longmont's case the city had already built out fiber years ago for other municipal functions and is now offering the last mile connection to the residence. Throughput is generally around 920mbps up and down and uptime has been 100% for the last year. I downloaded a 2GB patch on Steam yesterday in less than 40 seconds.
 
Jeremy C said:
What I would like to see is gov't build out fiber networks, then sublet it out to companies and let them compete for subscribers.
Click to expand...

That is what they're trying to do in my city....have "open access" fiber lines owned by the city and then multiple providers can use the lines.

Not sure how this Colorado deal is set up, I haven't read enough about it yet.
 
I lived in Fort Collins from 2005 to 2012. Broadband access was terrible - 3Mbit DSL, or extremely over subscribed comcast (800kb at peak usage periods) and you paid $50 / month either way. Century Link and Comcast were just milking everyone in town. I applaud the city for doing this - they should have done it 10 years earlier.
 
MavericK said:
That is what they're trying to do in my city....have "open access" fiber lines owned by the city and then multiple providers can use the lines.

Not sure how this Colorado deal is set up, I haven't read enough about it yet.
Click to expand...

In Longmont, at least, NextLight is owned and operated by the city. I do not believe they have any intention of allowing third parties to use the lines.
 
I think this is good in the sense that it will force comcast to not be such an ass hole to compete.
 
I bet taxes that you can't opt out of pay for it and then the state turns around and either sells it or rents its use out to comcast for cheap.
 
This is one of the few times I would actually like to see the government step in. The monopolies that comcast and att have has to stop.
 
regional monopolies formed through knowing collusion between ISP giants who are buying each other out & forming conglomerates that refuse to upgrade their allocated bandwidth or node hardware until its a decade antiquated because theres no fucking competition so """"why not""""

...made this sort of thing inevitable.
 
Last edited:
nutzo said:
Mixed feeling on this.
I don't think the government should be running a broadband service, but the semi-monopolies the cable and telecoms have in most places results is a complete lack of competition and of course high prices and abuses like low data caps.
Click to expand...
Agreed. Government always screws things up, but it is really hard to screw things up worse than Comcast.

I doubt it will actually get built anyway. Comcast spends tens of millions on local elections, so nobody gets elected in local politics without being owned by Comcast already.
 
nutzo said:
Mixed feeling on this.
I don't think the government should be running a broadband service, but the semi-monopolies the cable and telecoms have in most places results is a complete lack of competition and of course high prices and abuses like low data caps.
Click to expand...
Utilities.
 
I was stuck with Cox Cable until the city started it's own fiber broadband, along with TV and phone service, in 2009. They had the most brilliant and timely marketing opportunity, too - I live in Louisiana, the Saints were undefeated heading into Week 15, and that week's game was being broadcast only on the NFL network, which Cox did not carry but the city's fiber did. A shitload of people jumped ship (myself included).

The point of that boring recap was to say that the municipal service turned out to be faster, more reliable, and more robust than Cox's. It wasn't until the following year that Cox bothered to upgrade their offerings and channels and begged people to return with discounted introductory months. If competition had never been introduced, who knows how long it would have taken Cox to improve their service or offer more reasonable rates.
 
I'm VERY much a free market guy but preventing municipal broadband is bullshit. There is no real competition in these markets AND if your telling me as a private enterprise you can't provide the same service for less cost and still make a profit your full of shit, especially when you already have the infrastructure that a government enforced monopoly gave you first rights to and have already realized a return on.
 
MavericK said:
That is what they're trying to do in my city....have "open access" fiber lines owned by the city and then multiple providers can use the lines.

Not sure how this Colorado deal is set up, I haven't read enough about it yet.
Click to expand...

Open fibre networks is common over here in Finland, which overall is a good thing for consumers from a price and options point of view, only a side effect comes to my mind though. This was at work when a connection stopped working and ISP X whose line it was reported there's also ISP's Y and Z cables running there as well so we have to contact ISP Y which has to contact ISP Z. Then ISP Z reports to ISP Y which reports to ISP X which reports to me. lol Took a week to fix, oh well it was a very small workplace with a few computers only so obviously not a prob but yea, was pretty funny.
 
RPGWiZaRD said:
Open fibre networks is common over here in Finland, which overall is a good thing for consumers, only a side effect comes to my mind though. This was at work when a connection stopped working and ISP provider whose line it was reported there's also ISP's X and Y cables running there as well so we have to contact ISP X which has to contact ISP Y. Then ISP Y reports to ISP X which reports to me. lol Took a week to fix, oh well it was a very small workplace with a few computers only so obviously not a prob but yea, was pretty funny.
Click to expand...

The idea behind open access is that the lines aren't owned by the ISP, they are all owned by the city. So it seems that there should only be one call, going to the city if they are managing the fiber lines themselves.

Might get more complicated if the ISPs handle the fiber going to your actual home from the trunk line, but yeah.
 
My bad this wasn't a fiber connection, forgot that critical part, was some slowass dsl network through some bad quality copper cables. Anyway 3 ISPs involved in one case was pretty funny, especially when it was in middle of nowhere and there's like 3 computers at that office, felt almost bad for them trying to communicate whit each other and solve that one.
 
Always a fan of muni's providing better service than Telco's. It doesn't mean they can or will, but competition is good.
 
I will be interested in what the people of Fort Collins, CO will be using in 10 years?

Probably exactly what they have now, at 2x the price, like all "services".

Poor suckers.
 
Absolutely no problems with it and I would welcome it with open hearts if that is to ever happen in my city. The alternative is to support monopoly which is just as bad so I'll take "communism" over monopoly any day.
 
Last edited:
Anyone who gives Comcast the middle finger is good in my book. It's crazy to have only two or in some places three isps. Comcast and ATT are hurting consumers with their "Whichever one you don't like, it doesn't matter, cuz you'll be back" attitude.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top