Colorado Fiber To The HomeGlenwood Springs eyes expanding existing $3.5 million network to residents... 12:19PM Tuesday Apr 08 2008 by Karltags: Fiber · competition · business · alternativesThe city of Glenwood Springs, Colorado is mailing residents a ballot asking their approval to expand the city's fiber network to residents. The city currently has a $3.5 million fiber network in place (we mentioned this back in 2002) that serves just businesses, and the city wants to spend an additional $12 million to offer full triple play services to residents. The original network suffered from, oh, a lack of any business plan whatsoever at one point, according to the Glenwood Springs Post Independent: The best the current network has ever done financially is to lose about $189,000 last year, according to the city...Hecksel said the network got into its current situation through a series of decisions outside the original business plan. A city status report on the network says the network eventually operated with no business plan. Hecksel said public works director Robin Millyard has a saying that describes the current network: "It’s like having a Ferrari in a garage on a gravel road." Alcatel Lucent is telling locals that $10 million a year is leaving the city as users (in some cases feet from an existing fiber loop) pay local carriers for broadband service. The city is currently engaged in the same, never-ending debate we've been having for the better part of a decade in our forums: should the city build the network and compete against private industry if private industry isn't meeting user needs in coverage or speed?
Related:- Lafayette Finalizes Fiber Financing
- Clarksville Fiber Rolls On
- Qwest Still Wishy Washy on IPTV
- Your Own Personal FiOS Account Manager
- Verizon Considers 'Fiber to the Node' FiOS
- Rhapsody Ditches the DRM
- Verizon Starts Deploying New HD Channels
- RCN Moves Forward with Boston Analog Crush
|
 
bent
not broken
Premium
join:2004-10-04
Longmont, CO
clubs:
edit:
April 8th, @12:35PM
| Of course If the telco won't deliver, then the people should deliver it themselves. Are you listening Longmont?
Edit: An effective monopoly can hardly be considered private industry, can it? I know my business doesn't operate in a vacuum. | |
|  | 
en102
Canadian, eh?
join:2001-01-26
Valencia, CA | Re: Of course I agree... Glenwood Springs is nice, and if I'm not mistaken, Telco is Qworst. Is cable Comcast ?
--
Canada = Hollywood North | |
| | |
bent
not broken
Premium
join:2004-10-04
Longmont, CO
clubs: | Re: Of course Yup, Comcast. | |
| | | | | EPS
join:2008-02-13
Hingham, MA
| Well... "The city currently has a $3.5 fiber network" - Looks like they got the network for a fairly large bargain!
I usually oppose such things as wastes of tax money, but I guess since they've already invested in the network it makes more sense to provide the services to make the network less of a money pit. | |
| 
JasonD
@comcast.net
| Sell it to the experts who actually know how to build and run a network. Either to Quest or whoever the cable provider is there, with some guarantees of expansion and delivery. If they aren't interested, find some experienced company who is. In no way should the municipal gov't be involved in running this (as they've already proven).
Do the taxpayers a favor and let someone with marketplace experience act on their behalf. It will be much more successful that way. | |
| | axus
join:2001-06-18
Washington, DC | Re: Sell it to the experts Selling it is sort of a good idea, if it doesn't go from a public monopoly to a private monopoly. Maybe sell shares, get a director, and spin it off into a new company that wholesales to other companies. | |
| | | | 
jonnyb
join:2008-03-15
Haverhill, NH
| i agree with Jason completely but i dont think that any cable provider would be stupid enough to take on a project such as this that would not generate the revenue that it would need to generate in order to make a profit after they purchase and upgrade the network. | |
| axus
join:2001-06-18
Washington, DC
 ·Verizon Online DSL
 ·Cox HSI
| theoretically government favors its own Look at any country with a government-controlled telco monopoly (or telco monopoly-controlled government). They do all kinds of anti-consumer things to prop up their own poor service.
They should be a wholesaler of the network and have open access to other ISPs. You know, like DSL used to be. I don't know if that's efficient on a one city network, but they need to guard against government inefficiency.
That's interesting that they ran their network without a business plan. The only justification they need is boosting the local economy by giving local businesses a competitive advantage of great network access. They're already competing with private industry, though I guess $1000 T1 lines aren't really competition.
I'd suggest sticking to just internet for now if they go to consumers, TV and phone are pretty entrenched and aren't going to get the improvement from fiber that internet access does. | |
|
EagleCO
@cordilleralodge.com
| Fiber failure? I currently live in Eagle, Colorado -- just down the road. A small segment of our community was originally built with fiber. After changing hands a few times, it eventually ended up being gobbled up by CenturyTel.
While the (relatively) faster speeds are nice -- 10/768 -- they have yet to fully utilize the system. For example, they run television over fiber, but have yet to add anything other than basic digital cable, with no HD.
I would assume that although they have the capability to push a great deal amount of bandwidth down the line, they are probably limited by the connection they have to Level3.
They have also implimented a system-wide port-blocking scheme whereby most inbound TCP and UDP packets are blocked/NAT'd. This creates a problem with BitTorrent, Slingbox, etc... Thus far, they have refused to unblock these ports. | |
| alchav
join:2002-05-17
Palm Desert, CA
|  We have to clear something up!
| |
|
unique markets
@verizon.net
| The SouthWest states States in the Southwest USA are not proven markets for broadband... yes, consumers want TV and Phone Service.. but ULTRA HIGH SPEED INTERNET is not a forgone conclusion.. thus, we have an upgrade quandary.. meaning nobody wants to jump in first and build a state of the art FTTH network without guaranteed Return On Investment.. Qwest won't... Bell South was half hearted about it.. now as AT&T.. make that 1/8th hearted.. if there's any heart left..
I say screw the major Phone & Cable companies.. if they haven't had any meaningful discussion with major cities already (2008) about building and whatnot.. the handwriting is on the wall.. build it yourself if you want it.. and don't let them give you any crap about it. And another thing.. I'd go after that USF money as well.. just to PISS THEM OFF even more! Yes, in some places your local government provide services more than others.. this is primarily why the oil companies don't want local communities developing & selling alternative fuels.. they don't want or need competition with Exxon Mobile making 11 Billion in profits per quarter.. If West Virginia & Colorado could sell bio diesel for $.99/galllon, there'd be a run on those kinds of jobs instead of coal mining. | |
| dynodb
Premium,VIP
join:2004-04-21
Minneapolis, MN
| Oh, that's brilliant The BEST the current network- which only serves more lucrative business customers- has done was to lose $189,000.
Now they want to spend another $12 million (plus a few million in inevitable cost overrun) of taxpayer dollars so they can lose even more taxpayer money?
If it goes through, I hope the taxpayers who don't buy the service are happy subsidizing those who do. | |
| 
natter
join:2000-12-18
Littleton, CO
| . Ok, I'm going say it...
Take 10 million dollars, bring in some of the best teachers in the country, upgrade the schools,etc...
Nothing on the "Internet" is worth taking that much tax money out of a small town. God knows the kids don't need to watch Survivor in HD, they should be outside playing..or better yet, reading a book or two..
Sorry, had to say it.. | |
| | s3zer0
join:2008-04-09
| Re: . said by natter  :Ok, I'm going say it... Take 10 million dollars, bring in some of the best teachers in the country, upgrade the schools,etc... Nothing on the "Internet" is worth taking that much tax money out of a small town. God knows the kids don't need to watch Survivor in HD, they should be outside playing..or better yet, reading a book or two.. Sorry, had to say it.. But what if they use the internet to buy books and watch educational movies, take online classes, video chat with their friends from other cultures across the globe! 0.o | |
| | | |
|
|
of packets, expensive service