Super high speed Internet access coming to BCS?

11,072 Views | 62 Replies | Last: 9 yr ago by Prophet00
techno-ag
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Would be really nice if everybody can get their act together. Evidently it's somewhat available but prohibitively expensive.

http://www.theeagle.com/news/local/article_add380b8-245c-5160-8722-b7af2a501398.html

quote:
The College Station City Council entertained a proposal on Thursday to allow business and residents access to cheaper high-speed Internet connections that could allow for virtual reality simulations, real-time genomic sequencing, ultra-high definition video streaming and other applications in the not-too-distant future.

Blair Levin, executive director of nonprofit Gig.U, delivered a presentation to the council during its workshop session. Levin, who was the FCC chief of staff during the Clinton presidency, called upon the councilmembers to consider policy changes that could bring more gigabit-per-second speed Internet connections to town -- roughly 20 times as fast as what's available to most residential phone and cable subscribers, proponents said.

<snip>

College Station is currently serviced by Verizon and Suddenlink, which contract with the city to use easements and infrastructure. Comparatively, Suddenlink announced 30-megabits-per-second service last summer. Gigabit-per-second high-speed Internet is available to residential and commercial customers through various companies, but instillation costs can run into the tens of thousands of dollars, Benham said.

Pale Rider
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
I'd pay a lot of money for this. Anything to leave Suddenlink. I despise that company so bad its ridiculous.
AgProgrammer
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
quote:
The only dissent came from Councilman Jess Fields, who questioned the role of city government in adjusting telecommunication competition.


I know that Jess drops in from time to time so he may be able to explain himself a little bit on this. Why would easing the city regulations and getting out of the way of private companies be questioned as a bad thing?

I would question the role of the city government if they were instituting regulations that made it more difficult for competition in our community. Making it easier for more competition doesn't sound bad for the community...
Pale Rider
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
If the city does anything it should stop giving suddenlink free reign over CS and let competition in.
Diamond Geezer
How long do you want to ignore this user?
I'm really getting TO'd at my neighbor's Suddenlink connection.
jagouar1
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Not sure we need this but it couldn't hurt. Looks like they were selling a membership to this organization http://www.gig-u.org/ rather than anything that would actually bring us better isp's.

That said since verizon will not be bringing us fios anytime soon we really only have one option currently got good high speed internet and that needs to change. We need to get some fiber to the home isp's going in this area.
justcallmeharry
How long do you want to ignore this user?
S
I think it would be great to have more competition in our community. It is my understanding, after a bit of online research, that this could also bring competion for television options also.

What is the government's role? Not sure why it is not fairly apparent, easements, utility poles, etc. I would guess, dunno, that Suddenlink and Verizon have some sort of "understanding" with CS and Bryan.

I think Mr. Fields will let us know what his dissent was all about.

Bottom line - let's check it out. We missed out when Google was checking out communities a while ago, though it sounds like they really did not have much success.

It cannot cost much to look into this possibility, can it?

Harry



[This message has been edited by justcallmeharry (edited 1/25/2013 10:19a).]
robertcope
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Seems like easements and such should have a standard rate associated with them, and that any company or person with the money to spend and the proper bonds, insurance, or whatever else is required should be able to use them. What benefit is there in providing a monopoly to one or two companies?

I'm sure that I am completely ignorant on this subject, so this suggestion probably sounds ridiculous to anyone who has dealt with these issues first hand.

robert
FlyRod
How long do you want to ignore this user?
This would be really nice.
CSTX-Socol
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Pale Rider and robertcope:

Per the College Station city charter, no exclusive franchises exist. So, if a competitor to Suddenlink, for example, wanted to enter the market, the charter absolutely allows that.

For a real page-turner, you can view the CS city charter here: http://cstx.gov/charter

-jgs
ro828
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Pale Rider, when I was a graduate student (early 1970's) there were two cable companies in town. Competition is good. Their offerings back then were comparatively simple, of course, but they were eager to get business.
Pale Rider
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Socol thanks for setting that straight.
redball
How long do you want to ignore this user?
On the surface this sounds great; however, I'm suspicious by nature. Levin & Gig.U are part of the non-profit lobbying firm The Aspen Institute. I couldn't find specific data on Mr. Levin, but the Institute's director is paid $800k/yr for his services. Overall, 22% of their budget is dedicated to "administrative costs" - salaries, travel, marketing, etc. Not terrible, but other non-profits are much more efficient.

I'd also like to know exactly what the city will get in return for its membership fee. On their FAQ page Gig.U lists no specific services other than issuing a Request for Information to service providers. Levin stated Gig.U can provide advice on how to modify city ordinances to help convince private companies to provide services to our area. However, unless there is a compelling business case no private company is going to invest in deploying millions of dollars’ worth of infrastructure to little ol' Brazos County and our 197,000 residents.

I'm willing to listen, but all I've heard so far are empty phrases:

"You have an opportunity to be an early adopter."

"... College Station would be a pioneer in Texas for implementing the changes..."

Translation - Gig.U doesn't have any specific services to offer and is seeking capital to pay some big salaries. That's just my opinion.

Sources:

http://www.forbes.com/lists/2011/14/charities-11_Aspen-Institute_CH0258.html

http://www.gig-u.org/faqs


Scooley01
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
I can't wait for the day when a serious competitor to Suddenlink comes to town, and they finally have to feel the consequences of the substandard service they've been selling for years.
Vox Humana
How long do you want to ignore this user?
The City of College Station is not doing anything to restrict competition in the isp or telecom market. My read of the article left me thinking that the Gig-u folks were raising that same old red herring that the City's regulations are stifling business. The truth is that College Station’s rules in regard to utilities using public easements are pretty much the same as those found elsewhere in the State and in the US. The same can be said about College Station’s development and building regulations.

Removing or reducing those regulations for a newcomer is not the way to encourage competition. In fact, it creates an un-even playing field. Gig-u sounds like a start-up that is looking for a leg up in a competitive market. While I would like to have more choices and faster internet, it is up to the market to bring it to me.
techno-ag
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
quote:
Removing or reducing those regulations for a newcomer is not the way to encourage competition. In fact, it creates an un-even playing field.


Sounds like maybe that's what Mr. Fields was thinking.
Diamond Geezer
How long do you want to ignore this user?
I disagree, Vox. Sounds like business as usual for a city. Relaxing regulations/restrictions, giving tax abatements, etc. are all economic development tools cities use to attract businesses.
jac4
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
I think redball's assessment of gig U is spot on. Trying to bilk money out of us simpletons in flyover country.
Vox Humana
How long do you want to ignore this user?
@Alderman Davis
I guess I never have been a big fan of economic development strategies that put existing businesses at a disadvantage. I know that it happens all the time but I just don't like the idea of government picking winners and losers by manipulating the business environment.

Just because it is done all the time does not make it acceptable.
redball
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Thanks, Jac. I'll also add that Jess Fields is quite often the sole voice of reason on CS council. Jess seems to be the only one of the bunch willing to step back and contemplate such basic political concepts as the role of government. I live in Bryan, but I would vote for him if I could.
AgDotCom
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Not sure where I stand on this but I definitely appreciate the insightful observations made above.

Nice work, folks.
nwspmp
How long do you want to ignore this user?
As someone who was present during one of the meetings, let me clear up a bit.

Gig.U isn't selling a bunch of nothingness. It seemed to me to be consulting services on how the city can change it's own regulations in order to encourage private development in broadband deployment, which is horrendous in this area.

Why would we need these services? Well, I'm of the opinion that if you want to play around with something, then you attempt to give it a go yourself. If you want it done fast, you hire someone. And if you want it done properly while knowing what to do, you hire someone to teach you as you go through it.

Could the local city governments (predominantly College Station) do this alone? Yes, but the reason that would be a bad idea is that the incumbent providers have every reason to stifle any development in broadband deployment (public or private) as it would force them to invest in upgrades themselves rather than translating the margins on broadband service (which are quite high) to profits directly. So, when city and local governments give it a go, they're often VERY quickly legally challenged and mired with the expense of litigation while the situation stagnates. Gig.U appears to offer consulting with assistance in codes that have worked, legally, for other cities. A good example brought up was in the Google Fiber deployment in Kansas City, in which to encourage the city to bring broadband in, the city ensured that whenever Google Fiber requested an inspection of a new site, the city had 2 hours to respond on-site. A 2 hour delay versus several days can mean quite a lot when deploying services on a large scale. Other items like a single point of contact within the city government who handles any requests or communication with Google Fiber means increased efficiency. Neither of these items would fall afoul of our laws (that I know of), would help to reduce the expense of service delivery and reduce risk to investors, while costing no tax dollars, not even a tax abatement. These are the things that Gig.U appears to help offer, and have done for other cities.

And as they did mention, the workings they've put together with other cities were fully open ended, allowing the incumbents to take part as well, so if Verizon or Suddenlink wanted to play, there is nothing stopping them from submitting a bid or answering the RFI.

The availability of inexpensive broadband is a very important factor to startup businesses and tech companies looking to relocate. Not to mention that the big push behind the biosciences that they're trying to do requires big data. One of the examples brought up was Chattanooga, TN, which after a more city-controlled fiber deployment has seen employment rise, high-income employment rise, and more. Chattanooga took a different role than we would here, I assume (publicly owned by the power utility company, which financially keeps them separate), but the benefits need not be. Broadband is a local resource, an ore if you will, that draws business to an area when comparing it to another area without or with lesser options, as we have here.

Verizon and Costreet (Suddenlink's business arm) are the epitome of complacent with business offerings. Installation is LONG and expensive, and that's assuming that the provider makes their time. When a Verizon misses your deployment of fiber for a new business that's launching by six months (as has happened at one place I've been with) that's six months of downtime for an expensive facility. Or when it becomes less expensive to send your 30mbit signal across town via radio than to have Costreet install a 100ft fiber from their tap point to your building, that's a draw away from the area to a new or looking-to-relocate business.

And that's not even looking to this as a residential option! How useful would it be to have an upload speed worth half a whit on my cable modem at home. Or to have somewhat reliable speeds...
redball
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Nwspmp, thanks for first hand report from the meeting. One thing I would like to know is precisely how much Gig.U charges for their consulting services. You laid out some compelling arguments that Gig.U delivered, but how much must the city gamble on the promise that business MIGHT relocate here. I'm a bit wary of the build it and they will come model of government style "business development". TAMU has a 20 GB/sec capability. The Fibertown folks in downtown Bryan have at least a 1 GB/sec pipe into their facility. How did this happen without Gig.U? The free market! Capitalism is an amazing thing and should be left to run on it's own.

On the lighter side:

http://www.despair.com/consulting.html


[This message has been edited by redball (edited 1/28/2013 10:59a).]
nwspmp
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Redball,

I fully agree and believe wholeheartedly in the capitalist form of economics, which is why this plan doesn't seem as odious as others have done with full municipal broadband deployments. Streamlining government interference in commercial development is a good way (to me) to encourage development without resorting to the conventional local government tactics of "throw money at them and see if they like it"

As far as pricing, I don't know on that. It wasn't discussed in any of the meeting I was in. I definitely would want to see numbers before I lent any support myself as well.

And as far as availability of broadband in the area; certainly TAMU has great broadband, however it's not setup that I know of for use by the business community that's not directly dealing with TAMU. Even connected entities are mostly just using Costreet fiber as a backhaul to TAMU. As far as Fibertown; that's a great success story and a good model for how effective broadband is at enabling business. Honestly, I think Fibertown's success (decent broadband availability and datacenter capabilities) should dovetail with reduced government interference in larger deployment quite well. Fibertown shows us that deployment in an area can be financially acceptable, but one of the largest costs of expansion is the buildout. Any reduction in capex on that end encourages investment in deployment.

I'd love to see a Fibertown deployment in an area beyond downtown Bryan (which is great for some business types, doesn't work for others). Their service provision over a larger footprint of the town brings the entire area up.
SumAggie
How long do you want to ignore this user?
unfortunately we have spent all our money on bike and hike trails...
rookie1
How long do you want to ignore this user?
My 2 cents on the many sub-topics:
- I commend CoCS for being open to listening to GigU pitch. No money was spent and it was at the very least a good education about what is happening elsewhere
- I can also understand GigU value proposition. If it is true that other cities have done something and that they know the secret sauce and best practices of how to get it done, then it could be a good investment to pay for their services
- however, I say "could" because it depends on what exactly is included in the services. if it is as simple as running a RFI and providing limited guidance, it would have to be very inexpensive investment to be worth because I think that could be done without their help. However, if the service includes supporting the regulation changes (or de-regulation), creating a package marketing the city as an investment destination, selling that the city has a pro-business stance, etc that could be more valuable. At the end it depends on the ROCI - return on consulting investment
- CoCS should do its due diligence and talk to other of their clients and evaluate what was their ROCI. I agree that "early adopter" and other empty sentences are not tangible.
- it would be great if we got more competition and better services, however I doubt it that we are that attractive on the business case. Verizon has deployed FiOS very aggressively in other higher priority states and has learned a lot about which regions/demographics had better adoption than others. I think they will continue cherry picking carefully before investing heavily here. Plus, there is still a chance that in the long run a wireless infrastructure (LTE) may be a better fit for our density profile

[This message has been edited by rookie1 (edited 1/28/2013 1:25p).]
redball
How long do you want to ignore this user?
quote:
unfortunately we have spent all our money on bike and hike trails...



Sporph
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Two beer cans and a string would be better than Verizon.
AgProgrammer
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
quote:

Two beer cans and a string would be better than Verizon.


Honestly, I'd love to see more options on the business side of things. Verizon isn't really an option because the speeds are so slow and Suddenlink is ridiculously expensive for their commercial services (think 3x as expensive for the same speeds as residential).
SlimM
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Has there been any improvement in satellite internet, or does it still suck?

I'm so tired of Suddenlink and Verizon, I'm willing to try almost anything.
nwspmp
How long do you want to ignore this user?
quote:
Honestly, I'd love to see more options on the business side of things. Verizon isn't really an option because the speeds are so slow and Suddenlink is ridiculously expensive for their commercial services (think 3x as expensive for the same speeds as residential).


Oh, I'd love it if Suddenlink's business arm were only 3x their residential rates! (On second thought, I don't know what their business cable modem rates are within the last five years...)

A company I've done work with pays almost $1200/month for a 30mbit fiber, and I've got 30mbit cable modem for ~$90.

Now, they are synchronous on the fiber, but damn. $100 for the bits downloaded, $1100 for the bits uploaded?
techno-ag
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Bump. Bill Oliver said on the news this morning an announcement is coming soon.
BrazosWifi
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Techno 'knows things'. Sit tight folks. There is a meeting today that may be interesting.
KidDoc
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Please please please get better internet before I move there! I am horribly spoiled in Smithville right now with gigabyte fiber.
No material on this site is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment. See full Medical Disclaimer.
Culligan
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
A Suddenlink technician at our house last Friday said they are preparing for a 1GB down and 50MB up connection to all of B/CS. Should begin rolling out in 2015.

I can't imagine me needing that much anytime soon, but it's good to know that it's available.
Page 1 of 2
 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.