Subways are different than internet or wireline systems. (To me wireline and cable are the same thing.) Subways, like roads require land, land, lotsa land, all in one continuous piece. That requires a municipality to consider what's best for it, and "take" the necessary land if it isn't available. Wireline services only require, at most, poles near the street / road, which the municipality already owns. On my street in Florence, the City of Northampton owns 9 feet in from the street edge. I believe it is actually a measured from the street center line. There are many municipalities in Massachusetts that own their electric company. Wakefield and Chicopee are two that I know about. So there is nothing stopping a municipality from owning a internet wireline, service utility. Owning a wireless utility is another different matter. That is regulated by the FCC. I don't think there is a frequency band available that would allow coverage over a reasonable distance to make a wireless system practical. A place in CA did try many, many WiFi-like nodes. It didn't offer useful service. Jim Ussailis Original email: ----------------- From: Robert Heller heller at deepsoft.com Date: Wed, 28 Sep 2016 13:48:56 -0400 (EDT) To: townwebsites at gmail.com, Hidden-discuss at lists.hidden-tech.net Subject: Re: [Hidden-tech] Subways in the hilltowns At Wed, 28 Sep 2016 10:35:32 -0400 "Town Websites" <townwebsites at gmail.com> wrote: > > Content-Language: en-us > > > Well, no. But when subways are built in the city, such as the red line > which added service porter, davis, and alewife in Cambridge and Somerville, > property values there went up. > > > > Why the heck can't the state help the hilltowns by letting them get > broadband? > Its complicated. :-) The subways are subsdized and people are ok with that (more or less). And there aren't any sort of private alternitives. The only "competition" with the subways are the surface streets, which are also owned by the government. So building a subway is something of a nobrainer. In the case of telecom, there are private companies providing telecom services and the idea of the government jumping in and providing it the same way as the government provides transportation (eg roads, etc.) is seen as unfair to the private companies providing telecom services, *even though those same private companies providing telecom services* are not in fact providing it in certain areas (because it is not "profitable" to do so). So, the towns have to provide the telecom services *as a fee for service* deal. And do so in a way to be self-suffiencent. Not that the towns doing it is somehow "profitable" (it is not really), but the towns still need to make a small "profit" (called "retained earnings", since there are no stockholders to get dividends or anything). > > > Charlie Heath > > > > > MIME-Version: 1.0 > > _______________________________________________ > Hidden-discuss mailing list - home page: http://www.hidden-tech.net > Hidden-discuss at lists.hidden-tech.net > > You are receiving this because you are on the Hidden-Tech Discussion list. > If you would like to change your list preferences, Go to the Members > page on the Hidden Tech Web site. > http://www.hidden-tech.net/members > > -- Robert Heller -- 978-544-6933 Deepwoods Software -- Custom Software Services http://www.deepsoft.com/ -- Linux Administration Services heller at deepsoft.com -- Webhosting Services _______________________________________________ Hidden-discuss mailing list - home page: http://www.hidden-tech.net Hidden-discuss at lists.hidden-tech.net You are receiving this because you are on the Hidden-Tech Discussion list. If you would like to change your list preferences, Go to the Members page on the Hidden Tech Web site. http://www.hidden-tech.net/members -------------------------------------------------------------------- mail2web LIVE ? Free email based on Microsoft? Exchange technology - https://link.mail2web.com/LIVE