Massachusetts Signs New Broadband Law - Aimed at helping 95 communities with little or no broadband...
Links: home · search · speed test · login · more ·
Links: New Topic
Forums »
Dodge @ 5th Aug 01:24PM:
A whole institute huh?
How about just send a memo to Verizon and Comcast and ask how much they want to wire the missing areas? No matter how much they say it will still be less than running an "institute"
reply
Jerkface @ 5th Aug 01:25PM:
Massachusetts
has now set the bar for america. We need a nat'l broadband strategy. Fios for ALL!
/end sarcasm
reply
punker @ 5th Aug 01:29PM:
repost
i thnink they posted something about this before
reply
SierraRob @ 5th Aug 01:43PM:
Re: A whole institute huh?
Sure, and then Verizon and Comcast will gleefully take the money, and drag their feet, and never actually build out to the underserved areas, and make all sorts of excuses why they can't, and things will stay just as they are.
Public corporations run by Wall Street cannot be counted on to solve this problem.
reply
deadzoned @ 5th Aug 01:48PM:
The only way
This will be the only way that this country will be able to truly get broadband to un-served areas of our country.
It will be a tough fight. Massachusetts can expect to get hit with multiple lawsuits and a huge mis-information campaign by Comcast and Verizon hoping to disrupt their plans.
reply
digitalfreak @ 5th Aug 01:49PM:
Wait for it
Waiting for the obligatory TK / Openbox 9 comment on how this is a Very Bad Thing.
reply
viperlmw @ 5th Aug 02:12PM:
Re: A whole institute huh?
said by SierraRob :
Sure, and then Verizon and Comcast will gleefully take the money, and drag their feet, and never actually build out to the underserved areas, and make all sorts of excuses why they can't, and things will stay just as they are.
Public corporations run by Wall Street cannot be counted on to solve this problem.
I would disagree with your first point. The State of Idaho contracted Qwest and a WISP (I can't remember who) to install Broadband in numerous cities/towns with no service. The deal was, the state picks up the tab for 1/2 the cost, and the carriers were under commercial contract to meet certain milestones/completion at certain time intervals. The WISP was contracted because Verizon would not agree to those terms in their old GTE/ConTel areas. Qwest, however, jumped all over that money, installed new fiber mux's and DSLAMS in numerous areas. Total time, about 18 months from conception to completion. Idaho is now pretty well wired, with every Qwest CO serving DSL. And Idaho is about as rural as it gets. Some DSLAMS were installed in towns no bigger than 500 people. So it can be done with the proper incentives.
reply
TK Junk Mail @ 5th Aug 02:12PM:
Re: A whole institute huh?
This new "Broadband Institute" just replaces one Massachusetts already had called the "Wireless and Broadband Development Fund", which accomplished nothing. All they did was up the money set aside for that fund from $25,000,000 to $40,000,00 in the new bill and transfer the money and obligations of the original fund to the new fund.
See here for the details:
»www.mass.gov/legis/bills/senate/···2796.pdf
the Massachusetts Technology Park Corporation, established pursuant to section 3 of chapter 40J of the General Laws, shall transfer the balance of the Wireless and Broadband Development Fund to the Massachusetts Broadband Incentive Fund.
And here is where the government drones hand out the pork to the party faithful:
The institute may provide and pay for such advisory services and technical assistance as may be necessary or desired to carry out its purposes.
--
My BLOG .. .. Internet News .. .. My Web Page
Ask yourself one question: 'Do I feel lucky?' Well, do ya punk?
reply
posthaste @ 5th Aug 02:15PM:
Typical
So let me get this straight ... they added $40 million in debt to be used to lobby the federal gov't and beg for money from "private funds"?
Outcome: another new, worthless dept to add to the already bloated State bureaucracy
Winner: the newly-minted, and likely handsomely paid, MBI desk jokeys.
Loser: the people.
Next...
reply
TK Junk Mail @ 5th Aug 02:30PM:
Re: repost
said by punker :
i thnink they posted something about this before
Massachusetts proposed this last August as the Broadband Incentive Fund. It finally got passed by the legislature this year.
»www.iberkshires.com/story/24066/···ced.html
And the BBR story:
»Massachusetts Tackles Broadband Black Holes
--
My BLOG .. .. Internet News .. .. My Web Page
Ask yourself one question: 'Do I feel lucky?' Well, do ya punk?
reply
amarryat @ 5th Aug 02:31PM:
wireless
So there are 32 communities in MA where Verizon Wireless broadband cards won't work?
reply
CJPC @ 5th Aug 02:34PM:
Overstated
The irony is (not counting wireless providers) in parts of Boston it is still a monopoly through Comcast. Large parts of the city cant get DSL via verizon, fios is a pipe dream, and the RCN buildout stopped. So, some of us just have one option, even in the city!
--
Visit The Broadband Photo Forum
And since your there visit The Broadband Photo Forum FAQ
reply
amarryat @ 5th Aug 02:43PM:
Re: Overstated
and Boston's muni wifi plan fizzled out just like everywhere else.
reply
probboy @ 5th Aug 02:43PM:
Re: wireless
Yes. Service from all providers is pretty abysmal in Franklin county.
reply
nasadude @ 5th Aug 02:48PM:
Re: Wait for it
said by digitalfreak :
Waiting for the obligatory TK / Openbox 9 comment on how this is a Very Bad Thing.
nah - they just don't like govt money spent to help consumers (govt money is for wars, big business and rich people that have friends in high places); consumers and the little people must fend for themselves.
it appears this plan doesn't rule out shoveling money to the incumbents ("private sector"), so that's OK; the "private sector" will spread the wealth to the right people and make sure most of the money goes to them.
reply
anon @ 5th Aug 02:48PM:
msg deleted
deleted by a moderator
reply
amarryat @ 5th Aug 02:49PM:
Re: wireless
So we are going to spend $40 million to give an additional option (besides satellite) to 75,000 people? Nice.
reply
neil0311 @ 5th Aug 02:54PM:
Re: A whole institute huh?
said by Dodge :
How about just send a memo to Verizon and Comcast and ask how much they want to wire the missing areas? No matter how much they say it will still be less than running an "institute"
That's MA. Nothing worth doing isn't worth spending taxpayer dollars to do, along with as many hacks and relatives of the legislators can be hired.
We didn't get broadband in Leominster until 2003, when the Comcast-ATT Broadband merger went into effect. I agree, wouldn't it be more cost effective to see what the blockers are for the major providers like Comcast, AT&T, and Verizon to provide access, and then provide tax incentives and direct subsidies to allow those providers to connect. Seems much easier than another drain on taxpayers.
reply
nasadude @ 5th Aug 02:56PM:
Re: Overstated
So, some of us just have one option, even in the city!
[sarcasm]you're obviously a disgruntled, lying consumer since that map shows the Boston area has "three or more competitors"[/sarcasm]
unless you interpret "three or more competitors" to mean "three or more different companies that offer service somewhere in the city, but not necessarily in the same area as another service provider"
reply
anon @ 5th Aug 02:57PM:
msg deleted
deleted by a moderator
reply
ninjatutle @ 5th Aug 03:10PM:
Re: A whole institute huh?
Didn't Verizon do something like this in Pennsylvania? I remember people here whinnying and whiny about it. I thought I would never hear the end of it but I guess I have.
reply
BSD24 @ 5th Aug 03:28PM:
wasting more money
Why should my tax dollars go to pay for another community not having internet!
--
BSD
reply
anon @ 5th Aug 06:55PM:
Re: wasting more money
You don't know how lucky you are.
reply
Ahrenl @ 5th Aug 04:53PM:
Re: wasting more money
Actually they're municpal bonds, although I didn't look into weather they're revenue (guaranteed only by the assets) or general obligation (guaranteed by the total taxable base). Regardless YOUR tax dollars are going to much less worthy things in this "great" state. I believe there will be a question on the ballot this year to eliminate the 5.3% income tax, perhaps you should vote for that.
Other tidbits:
In the 95 communities with either limited or no broadband availability whatsoever, more than 220,000 households and over 25,000 businesses lack adequate broadband. Studies show that communities with broadband access experience measurable increases in jobs, business expansion and property values. Other broadband-enabled benefits include improvements in public safety and access to health care, educational opportunities and civic participation. Additionally, the new law will create efficiencies across municipal and state government. The Department of Revenue estimates that the commonwealth will save $300,000 annually once every town hall can conduct its business online.
"For far too long, residents of the communities I represent have been blocked from the on-ramp to the information superhighway," said state Sen. Benjamin B. Downing, D-Pittsfield. "Today we see true progress, backed by a $40 million state investment, to bring broadband to Western Massachusetts. It has been a pleasure working with my colleagues in the delegation and the Patrick administration to secure swift passage of this legislation, and I look forward to continuing our collaborations to achieve of our collective goal: universal broadband access in all of Massachusetts."
reply
probboy @ 5th Aug 06:20PM:
Re: wireless
Yep, along with (eventual) bailouts of both the Turnpike Authority and the MBTA. Hopefully the General Court allows us, the people, to vote on eliminating the income tax this November; I'm not looking forward to the monetary crisis that would result, but it would finally force this state to live within its means.
Of course the elimination of the income tax would probably just mean that our property taxes would skyrocket.
Edit: I also forgot to mention the massive tax breaks for both the biotech and film industries. The health insurance mandate that mysteriously costs more than first expected, etc, etc.
reply
BSD24 @ 5th Aug 08:00PM:
Re: wasting more money
Ahrenl,
So like many other towns have done, the towns or maybe even cities involved need to use their own resources or provide tax exceptions or some other means of encouraging companies to extend broadband to the affected areas. That way the town is taking care of themselves. Let them pay for it. Just like the town that made residents pay for the street work that was done somewhere in Massachusetts (can't remember exactly what town it was)... They did that because of cost, the town/city cannot afford it, among other things like gas and stuff that we cannot afford ourselves. Why should we be happy with the money-happy governor giving away money like this all the time. One word of why, Democrat..
reply
Cabal @ 5th Aug 08:00PM:
Re: A whole institute huh?
Yet another epic waste of tax dollars in Massachusetts. Who'da thunk it?
reply
amarryat @ 5th Aug 08:33PM:
Re: wireless
I can see where the property taxes would go up due to probable local aid reductions, but in the end I think the taxpayer would benefit. You are right, the state would be forced to live within its means, but maybe not. You know this state - they'd raise other taxes and fees to make up the difference. Remember when we had the most successful lottery in the nation resulting in loads of extra revenue for the state? They spent it all and still have a deficit.
reply
EPS @ 6th Aug 11:36AM:
Re: Overstated
Hm? RCN is an overbuilder, so their area overlaps others. Verizon and Comcast overlap. Yes, there are parts of the city that have 3 or more providers to choose from... it's just not the entire city.
Boston is probably screwed when it comes to FiOS- they held out for some sort of better promise to prevent feared "redlining", and now VZ's resources on urban deployment will be focused on NYC for the foreseeable future...
reply
anon @ 6th Aug 12:33PM:
Re: A whole institute huh?
PA set a mandate for its largest telcom providers that they must have 100% broadband coverage 1.5Mb/s. Verizon and Embarq by 2010, others by 2011. They gave tax breaks = to the cost in 2006 to finance it.
reply
Ahrenl @ 6th Aug 02:45PM:
Re: wasting more money
I'm an independent, and the Republicans are just as bad. Don't bother blaming political swaths. Romney's Universal Healthcare has been the biggest wealth transfer this state has ever seen, and we haven't even seen the tip of the ice-berg.
I have no problem with Municipal revenue bonds. It's the investors taking risks, with the state foregoing taxes (on the project) in order to target the capital investment.
reply
PDXPLT @ 7th Aug 12:06PM:
Re: A whole institute huh?
Qwest has done a good job of deploying rural DSL here, too. We have both Verizon and Qwest territory here, and the boundary between Qwest and Verizon is very interesting: you see those mini-DSLAMs that Qwest uses, installed along the roads in their territory. On the Verizon side of the line (ex-GTE), as in Idaho, Verizon has told them to go pound sand.
In D.C., Verizon's lobbyists have been saying that they want USF-type money before deploying further, so subscribers in their lower-ROI rural areas are essentially being used as leverage to get more gov't $$$.
The biggest problem with the small-town areas in Massachusetts is that they have the misfortunre of being in Verizon terrority.
reply
Thank you for using lo-fi dslreports.com - report bugs
© 99-2008 silver matrix LLC
