Community Broadband Networks

So here's the plan.

The CRTC made it's decision.....but we can change that. Municipal television networks? Do we need the integration of big Telecom or can local TV stations newly formed become part of the expression on a international stage by supplying local community news? Local newspapers,  part of the expression of those communities? Access to the internet,  not dictated by cost of usage based billing of Big Telecom that has a monopoly?

Why no development of rural/municipalities communities since wireless already exists? Faster speeds as fiber optic laid in rural/municipalities communities?

***

Google Fiber for Communities: Get Involved

Thank you to all of the communities and individuals that expressed their interest in Google Fiber for Communities. The quality and scope of the responses exceeded our expectations, and we were honored by the thought and effort that went into every submission. One message came through loud and clear: people across the country are hungry for better and faster broadband access.Google Fiber for Communities: Get Involved

***

Breaking the Broadband Monopoly

Communities that have invested in these networks have seen tremendous benefits. Even small communities have generated millions of dollars in cumulative savings from reduced rates – caused by competition. Major employers have cited broadband networks as a deciding factor in choosing a new site and existing businesses have prospered in a more competitive environment.

Residents who subscribe to the network see the benefits of a network that puts service first; they talk to a neighbor when something goes wrong, not an offshore call center. At the municipal fiber network in Wilson, North Carolina, they talk of the “strangle effect.” If you have problems with their network, you can find someone locally to strangle. Because public entities are directly accountable to citizens, they have a stronger interest in providing good services, upgrading infrastructure, etc., than private companies who are structured to maximize profits, not community benefits. Residents who remain with private providers still get the benefits of competition, including reduced rates and increased incumbent investment.

Some publicly owned networks have decided to greatly increase competition by adopting an “open access” approach where independent service providers can use the network on equal terms. Public ownership and open access give residents and businesses the option of choosing among many providers, forcing providers to compete on the basis of service quality and price rather than simply on a historic monopoly boundary.Published May 2010 Author: Christopher Mitchell

***

Municipal Broadband: Demystifying Wireless and Fiber-Optic Options

Quote:

The United States, creator of the Internet, increasingly lags in access to it. In the absence of a national broadband strategy, many communities have invested in broadband infrastructure, especially wireless broadband, to offer broadband choices to their residents.

Newspaper headlines trumpeting the death of municipal wireless networks ignore the increasing investments by cities in Wi-Fi systems. At the same time, the wireless focus by others diverts resources and action away from building the necessary long term foundation for high speed information: fiber optic networks.

DSL and cable networks cannot offer the speeds required by a city wishing to compete in the digital economy. Business, government, and citizens all need affordable and fast access to information networks.

Today's decisions will lay the foundation of telecommunications infrastructure for decades. Fortunately, we already know the solution: wireless solves the mobility problem; fiber solves the speed and capacity problems; and public ownership offers a network built to benefit the community.Published January 2008 Author: Christopher Mitchell