Excluding cases where muni broadband doesn't suck, why does muni broadband suck?
Personally I wouldn't mind more access to dark fiber à la Stokab, much like the dry copper pairs of yesterday.
If the default state of muni broadband of is suck, what is the root cause? Is it a people problem and/or can something be done to improve on the default state?
Jared
Same here.
Municipal broadband promotes the ability for more operators and customers to get access to network at a stable price. That's why I really like the Stokab model.
Mark.
Muni broadband sucks for several reasons but the most important one is:
Competition. Municipal broadband eliminates it. If it's not obvious
why, feel free to Google how competition and monopolization impact
product quality. It's a pretty universal trait.
If you were to structure muni broadband to enhance competition rather
than limit it, you might get a different result. For example, if
municipalities installed and leased fiber optic cables to every
structure but didn't provide any services on those cables, relying
instead on third parties directly billing the customer to do so, it
could work out as well as having municipalities pay for roads and
letting people buy their own cars and trucks to use on them.
Regards,
Bill Herrin
In many municipalities, you can choose your electricity provider. And yet there are not multiple companies running power lines to every house.
It is easy to make the argument “muni broadband sucks because no competition” but it is much more difficult to back it up with hard data.
Take a look at Nebraska for instance. Here, by law, electricity is a public utility. And yet we have some of the lowest rates and highest uptime in the country. No competition, low prices, stellar service record.
I’m generally all for private enterprise. But when those private enterprises take public money, don’t do what they are supposed to do with it, squander it, and nothing changes, again and again, well, what’s that definition of insanity?
Here in Lincoln, Nebraska, we actually do have fiber available at every address in the city. And a private company did it. 100 percent underground, all 96 square miles of the city. They did it all in about two years. I can get 50Mbps synchronous for $45, 500 for $70 or gig for $99. TV and phone also if I want it. Local support too, not India.
They now have fiber in 15 Nebraska cities and two in Colorado and are expanding rapidly. Why? A great product at a great price with outstanding customer service. Spectrum is losing customers like crazy as a result, and precisely zero people are shedding any tears (Spectrum salesmen excepted).
It can be done. Is it an investment? Yes. Just like anything else. Some investments have a quicker return on capital than others.
+1 on the investment lifecycle requirement. It can require a 10-20 year vision. The problem we have right now is due to squirrel chasing on the part of some companies the money that could have been invested in locking in markets was spent on other investments. You see a big difference between forward looking companies and their network performance and those that are backwards looking.
I had to build fiber to my house because the fiber near my home (about 1200’ away) was not in a position to be upgraded or maintained in such a way to deliver service to our area. This is a very common trend I’ve observed.
My county did a large broadband survey where a contractor drove by every home/property to determine what was there. Many addresses without service have multiple fiber providers at the road, it’s just not the “right fiber”. This also includes spare conduit and space that was built out in a forward thinking model that others have to duplicate later because the assets are lost or forgotten in paperwork.
I also see a number of the smaller ISPs (and some bigger ones) who are like “you can watch Netflix and zoom, what’s your problem?” When there are end-users that are willing to pay for the higher speeds. Not every home is going to spend $8k or $100k to get service, but they certainly do exist and make the business case more feasible.
- Jared
> Muni broadband sucks for several reasons but the most important one is:
>
> Competition. Municipal broadband eliminates it. If it's not obvious
> why, feel free to Google how competition and monopolization impact
> product quality. It's a pretty universal trait.
>
>
> If you were to structure muni broadband to enhance competition rather
> than limit it, you might get a different result. For example, if
> municipalities installed and leased fiber optic cables to every
> structure but didn't provide any services on those cables, relying
> instead on third parties directly billing the customer to do so, it
> could work out as well as having municipalities pay for roads and
> letting people buy their own cars and trucks to use on them.In many municipalities, you can choose your electricity provider. And yet there are not multiple companies running power lines to every house.
Hi Andy,
Take a closer look at how that works. Your electricity vendor is also
the one who chooses which generating companies to buy from. You're
stuck with the municipal distribution network (just like you're stuck
with the municipal roads) but you have a choice in who you buy
electricity from and how you structure it. Want a flat rate? There's
someone who will sell you that. Want a discount for load shedding?
There's someone who will sell you that too. Carbon neutral? Someone
for that too. You can bet wrong and suffer for it (see: Texas winter
storms) but mostly you get better power service.
A comparable Internet setup would be where the municipality implements
a local network distribution service and then you buy from the
Internet provider of your choice. He bills you and passes the muni's
distribution portion onward. He makes his own arrangements for
upstream Internet or whatever services he elects to vend. Max speed,
flat rate, 95th percentile, IP addresses, etc. are controlled by the
competitive Internet provider who, if you're unhappy with him, could
be replaced.
I’m generally all for private enterprise. But when those private enterprises take public money, don’t do what they are supposed to do with it, squander it, and nothing changes, again and again, well, what’s that definition of insanity?
Yes it is, which is why I'm also against subsidizing large carriers to
build out monopoly networks.
Regards,
Bill Herrin
Hi,
Glass and Copper (and aluminum) infrastructure is a natural monopoly, similar to water service.
It was purely by chance IMHO that we ended up with Cable Co and Tel Co internet competing with each other in many locations in the US.
That was aided by the following:
Technology for TV over telephone wire really did not exist at the time
Telcos were not very interested in PayTV at the time
Technology for Telephone over Coax really did not exist at the time
Cable Co’s were not very interested in Telephone service at the time
Basically they were viewed as two very different businesses, with very different physical plant needs. Now both of them are primarily fiber based, with Coax or Telephone Wire (in many cases you can not even call it twisted pair) as the very last interconnect segment.
We can all agree with hind sight (and a lot of us at the time) that the Tel Co’s made some very stupid decisions. Perfect example being installing remote DLC/SLC units when the demand for analog dial tone skyrocketed, along with more copper in the ground/on poles in neighborhoods. At first this blocked ADSL deployment until remote DSLAMs were installed, then it turns out most were NOT close enough to enable VDSL2 or g.FAST for the majority of customers serviced by them. They were both “in the way” and “too far away” at the same time. If instead of the DLC/SLC units the Tel Cos had instead favored (with the correct tariffs) moving any residential customer who requested a second POTS line to ISDN BRI, they would have saved all of the physical plant work, which has turned out to be a horrible investment.
We learned a long time ago that water lines, sewer lines, and electric lines were natural monopolies, and should either have a municipal granted license, or should be run by the municipality.
The next generation last mile will almost have to be a similar structure for Layer 1 and a form of Layer 2, with Layer 3 and above services being sold by anyone who wants to provide the service. This will collapse Cable Co, Tel Co, and independent ISPs onto the same physical infrastructure. This will work well for dense locations of course.
Wireless ISPs, and LEO based ISPs will still of course have a major role to play for at least several decades if not more.
I also agree entirely that most consumers will “pay the ISP too much” for service they “don’t need”. I have worked with several people who were paying for Gigabit Cable Service, with 30Mbit upload, or in Spectrum territory, they had 400Mbit service with 20Mbit upload, and the “downgrade” was 200Mbit service with 10Mbit upload. Being as that was a single individual with very low upload needs beyond video meetings, I recommended he downgrade to the 200/10 service. In all cases, a proper WiFi network and wireless offloading has made far more difference vs upping the cable co speeds. My personal sweet spot right now is 100/20 business cable or 100/100 small business fiber (for the few spots that have GPON service in Tucson). The next tier of business cable is 200/20, and I find the extra 100Mbit download really does not change much. If it was 200/30 or 200/40, I would probably consider it.
None of the realities of current “needs” and “wants” really are going to change the financial need to consolidate physical networks. Unfortunately instead of it being a Layer1/2 provider and L3+ competition, most Internet networks in new developments around here are being deployed as physical layer and service monopolies. The home builder will make an alliance with Cox, Comcast, or CenturyLink, and then the others will not build out physical plant in the community.
-Harry
The government entities that I’ve known of building middle or last-mile fiber infrastructure have reported that none of the incumbent operators wanted anything to do with it. Not during planning, construction, post-construction, etc.
If your whole model is monopoly services (att/verizon/cabletown) why would you bother entering a service area where you might have competition? (and an operational model which is radically different from your other properties)
I don’t think it’s necessary for the ‘incumbent telco’ (or cabletown) to need/want to participate with the municipal dark-fiber-equivalent deployments, is it?
All that’s needed is a couple (one to start) local ‘isp’ that can service what is effectively a light-duty L1 and ethernet plant, and customer service(s).
This wouldn’t be for the purposes of entering a new market, but an opportunity to shed your high-cost legacy infrastructure and provide better service in existing markets.
Getting the incumbents on-board certainly isn’t a requirement. The post I was replying to favored a future where all providers converged on one infrastructure. I was saying that wasn’t likely to happen.
Once upon a time, William Herrin <bill@herrin.us> said:
A comparable Internet setup would be where the municipality implements
a local network distribution service and then you buy from the
Internet provider of your choice.
That's sort of how it works where I live. The city-owned non-profit
utility company wanted to build out a network to support smart metering,
better monitoring, etc. They contracted out to someone to build fiber
to the curb throughout the city, got their piece for the smart meters
and such, and then leased access to anyone that wants it.
They signed Google Fiber as the initial carrier, who then has people
come run the fiber from the curb to the house and install the ONT and
router. I think GFiber is the only company selling service city-wide on
it, although I think there are some companies doing business services in
some areas.
It's not quite the same as the multi-vendor electricity setup, where
only one company actually delivers the amps to your house, but kind of
close.
So far, the old-school carriers (AT&T, Comcast, and WoW) I think have
ignored the utility's network. About three months after the utility
fiber was buried on my street and I got Google Fiber, AT&T came through
digging up yards again to run their own fiber. They then advertised
promotional rates that were $20/month more than GFiber (and the AT&T
rate required a bundle and a contract, while GFiber required neither).
I can't imagine they got many takers except from people who just stay
with AT&T out of momentum.
I'd think that eventually, AT&T/Comcast/WoW would switch over to the
utility's network, at least in new developments, but who knows. I have
no idea how the prices works out for them vs. building and maintaining
their own thing.
We've had two cable TV companies available at most addresses since the
mid-1980s, which meant we had some of the lowest cable prices in the
country for a long time. About the time Dish/DirecTV cranked up, I
think both recognized they could get away with raising their rates to
something competitve with the satellite providers. No actual collusion
or anything (probably), but our cable rates went up really fast there
for a while.
Which is the Stokab model.
Was the assumption that the city would be providing both the fibre and the Internet service? No, that would not necessarily work.
The city should provide base infrastructure, lease it to operators at the same price, and get out of the way. End of.
Mark.
Mark Tinka wrote:
> Which is the Stokab model.
Does it use single star?
The city should provide base infrastructure, lease it to operators atthe same price, and get out of the way. End of.
With single star topology, that's fine.
However, with PON, only the provider with the largest share can win
the initial competition, after which there is monopoly.
Masataka Ohta
[...]
Getting the incumbents on-board certainly isn't a requirement. The
post I was replying to favored a future where all providers converged
on one infrastructure. I was saying that wasn't likely to happen.
If there's any regulation, it ought to be along the lines of:
If you use the public ROW, you cannot be an L3 provider.
Let the last mile people connect last mile entities to ISPs.
Let ISPs compete for consumers based on service, not on what
infrastructure they have to a geographic group of consumers.
There will be unintended consequences, but it does stop "silo" issues
and forces things towards common infrastructure.
I'll let Mikael confirm, but last time I checked, Stokab was mostly (if not all) Active-E.
Mark.
No. Most of the municipal proposals I see are open access, even with a PON design.
If the network is not a “one fiber per customer” design, then the muni network will own the entire GPON/XGS-PON infrastructure (fiber, splitters and lit electronics). The ISP is just providing bits, customer service, billing, and maybe the inside install and CPE. Sometimes, the transport to the customer is a fee paid by the ISP to the network owner. In other cases the end-customer pays the fiber transport cost directly to the network owner, and then pays a separate bill just for their desired ISP service. This is all designed for open access with each ISP having their own NNIs and service VLANs on the lit network to connect back to their ISP service network.
Often the muni owners are looking for a “network operator” that is usually one of the ISPs on the network, who will handle all the physical administration and connection work for the lit network, and is paid some sort of fee for doing this. They have to stay neutral as the operator, when dealing with other ISPs, with contract requirements and SLAs for maintaining the network for all involved.
There are several successful municipal or utility district owned open access fiber infrastructure projects in the US. Some of the implementations even allow the customer to “self service” switch to a new ISP as desired, via a web portal and have several choices for providers.
Occasionally a muni network will want a single ISP for the entire network. They will offer an ISP an exclusive contract for a fixed period of time, and negotiate for the lowest possible price for their residents for the bandwidth provided. I know of muni owned networks where the residents are paying $30/month for full 1GigE ISP service, and all the other costs are paid by their property taxes servicing a long term bond for the construction costs.
In South Africa (we don’t have city-owned/operated fibre access), all the major fibre operators run a GPON network. They all provide open access to the ISP’s they partner with. So far, it seems to work well. I’d say only one of the fibre operators is not an ISP (there may be more, it’s a big country). The rest are, but they run the businesses as a silo so that they are fair to both their ISP divisions as well as the 3rd party ISP’s they partner with. Mark.
That's actually untrue - I just remembered that the City of Cape Town actually does build fibre. It's not very clear to me to what extent they operate it, particularly beyond supporting municipal departments:
It's possible some other cities are doing the same, but the message I was pushing is that pretty much all FTTx of note going into homes, businesses and data centres is being built and operated by the private sector.
Mark.
It's in swede-crypt, but it boils down to single strand of fiber from a central area node, to the basement, one for each apartment. However, the building owner has to arrange for the cabling within the building. It's single star, and typically the "node" it's all connected to will serve thousands of apartments. So an ISP will colocate in this "node" and can then rent fibers to provide FTTH services, at a fixed monthly cost (last I heard it was in the ~10USD a month range).
Stokab isn't alone in this model, they're not the most successful, there are better examples of this.
Sweden is also home to a lot of worse examples, all from "muni networks" that will be L2 transport providers, that will have L3 networks, to the ones who are L2/L3 but also sell services themselves. It's a zoo.
There is muni broadband that sucks and there is muni broadband that is great. Without defining what kind of muni broadband we're talking about it's impossible to have a productive discussion.
Sweden is mostly Active-e. There is some PON nowadays though.
Stokab typically only rents out dark fiber, so they don't have any of it.