West Virginia Looks to Potentially Add State Run ISP
-
hahahahahahaha
@article said:
"This plan may not be perfect, and certainly has its opponents, but the legislative process will take care of finding ways to improve the proposal."
-
All humor aside, I am all for the state to do this though.
My hometown (Highland, IL) was long forgotten when it came to the internet.
The phone company refused to install DSL back in 2000 and to this day still offers no broadband service.
The cable company did have basic cable internet services in 2001 but refused to upgrade anything after that (no DOCSIS 2/3).
So local citizens and businesses got together and proposed a municipal fiber project. The cable company suddenly got very interested. They sent reps to council meetings with all kinds of misinformation. They also suddenly had trucks in town all day everyday and began to offer new higher speed services.
Thankfully, the scare tactics did not work and the citizens voted to fund the creation of Highland Communication Services.
-
@JaredBusch said:
All humor aside, I am all for the state to do this though.
Me too, I would love to see WV do something like this. Both because it would likely be great for them and because it would serve as a model and a wake up call for other states.
-
I've yet to hear an instance where municipal fiber has failed. This just seems like a good win for the state and the consumers.
-
@coliver said:
I've yet to hear an instance where municipal fiber has failed. This just seems like a good win for the state and the consumers.
Probably because it is generally only being put in by municipalities that the existing companies do not truly want to be in.
-
@JaredBusch said:
@coliver said:
I've yet to hear an instance where municipal fiber has failed. This just seems like a good win for the state and the consumers.
Probably because it is generally only being put in by municipalities that the existing companies do not truly want to be in.
Really? I know of one place that had two incumbent companies and they still installed municipal fiber. It worked great and forced the other two to lower their prices to compete. Anecdotal for sure but it is one example.
-
@JaredBusch said:
@coliver said:
I've yet to hear an instance where municipal fiber has failed. This just seems like a good win for the state and the consumers.
Probably because it is generally only being put in by municipalities that the existing companies do not truly want to be in.
That's a good point. Hard to fail when you only test it where there isn't competition.
-
The part that I find difficult to understand is - if the state is going to do this, how do they not kick the shit out of every other incumbent because the state should only need to charge enough to keep the network going and moving forward, not make a profit.
Of course so many will look for a way to make it into a profit center and then they are doomed.
-
@Dashrender said:
The part that I find difficult to understand is - if the state is going to do this, how do they not kick the shit out of every other incumbent because the state should only need to charge enough to keep the network going and moving forward, not make a profit.
Of course so many will look for a way to make it into a profit center and then they are doomed.
Keep in mind that they need to charge enough to cover the cost over time of the roll out. And they don't want to just roll out where it is profitable but also where it is not. They have a LOT of rural areas to cover. Every driven through? This is going to be rough for them.
So while they can beat the prices of the incumbents, in theory, they do have some extreme costs ahead of them that they need to cover over time AND they need to earn enough so that they can keep upgrading and keep rolling out to more and more rural areas.
-
@scottalanmiller said:
@Dashrender said:
The part that I find difficult to understand is - if the state is going to do this, how do they not kick the shit out of every other incumbent because the state should only need to charge enough to keep the network going and moving forward, not make a profit.
Of course so many will look for a way to make it into a profit center and then they are doomed.
Keep in mind that they need to charge enough to cover the cost over time of the roll out. And they don't want to just roll out where it is profitable but also where it is not. They have a LOT of rural areas to cover. Every driven through? This is going to be rough for them.
So while they can beat the prices of the incumbents, in theory, they do have some extreme costs ahead of them that they need to cover over time AND they need to earn enough so that they can keep upgrading and keep rolling out to more and more rural areas.
Yeah, I keep forgetting about those rual folks.
-
@Dashrender said:
Yeah, I keep forgetting about those rual folks.
Please... they like to be called "West Virginianers"
-
@Dashrender said:
The part that I find difficult to understand is - if the state is going to do this, how do they not kick the shit out of every other incumbent because the state should only need to charge enough to keep the network going and moving forward, not make a profit.
Of course so many will look for a way to make it into a profit center and then they are doomed.
Here it was an incumbent company instead of a province but they worked it out.
TL;DR (I can't find the cursed article now damn it) - last mile service shares the poles / conduit. One company can't hog the pole / conduit. Some agreement was made on maintenance etc too.
-
@scottalanmiller It's okay to call them "West Vur-jeye-ners" if we use an Appalachian accent right???
