For those who may not know the scope of the problem, 32 of the 101 cities and towns in the 4 western counties (Berkshire, Hampshire, Franklin & Hampden) have no access to broadband Internet, while another 30 in the region have limited or intermittent access. This is not merely an inconvenience. Leaving some of our communities without the infrastructure needed to grow their economies, expand educational opportunity, or improve their quality of life, is unacceptable. Traveling across the 48 communities I represent in the Berkshire, Hampshire, & Franklin district, I am continually amazed at how pervasive the issue of broadband connectivity is. The dairy Farmer in Charlemont who wants to diversify what his land produces, needs broadband to get those new value added products to a larger market. The architect in Worthington needs high speed Internet to upload and download schematics and return his work at the speed of business to his clients. And the financial planner who works in new York City, but has a second home in Sandisfield, would love to move to the Berkshires full time, but can’t if he can’t keep up with market trends and keep in touch with clients.
The Administrations proposal has several key aspects: (1) Funds will be used to purchase durable assets. As with any other cutting edge technology, broadband (especially wireless) is changing at a rapid pace, the last thing we need to do is use tax payer dollars to purchase something that will be obsolete in a relatively short time. So these resources will purchase towers, fiber, conduits and other essential portions of the network, which will be used for years (no matter technological trends) (2) A Massachusetts Broadband Institute will be established to work through the various proposals from the private sector. The institute will ensure wise and efficient expenditure of the fund and will bring together the institutional knowledge of Berkshire & Pioneer valley Connect, the John Adams Innovation Institute at MTC, and the various local broadband committees that have proliferated in unserved communities. (3) Perhaps most important is what Massachusetts will not do. The Commonwealth will not be a service provider. We will partner with any provider who is willing to work to make this venture successful. At the local level, Richmond Networx, WiSpring, Crocker.com, and others, have made great strides to expand connectivity. This effort will seek to build off their efforts and make further expansion more economically feasible.
Thankfully, the Administration recognizes the problem. They heard it loud and clear campaigning in western Mass. They’ve heard it loud and clear governing across the Commonwealth. Now they’ve answered the call with a plan that will bridge the digital divide. In a state where we pride ourselves on our ability to innovate, we must not let any barrier – geographic, economic, demographic – stop us from ensuring that opportunity is expanded to all. This announcement takes a major step in ensuring one more barrier is knocked down.
I look forward to any input from the BMG community on the proposal, the challenge, and the possibilities that come with expanded broadband access. Keep up the good work and thanks for keeping the dialogue going.
While I’m sick of hearing Western and CCod Massholes gripe about spending money on the MBTA, I do support quality, appropriate infrastructure for the whole state, and broadband access is certainly appropriate.
<
p>
I wonder: does Senator Ben Downing support increasing the funding for the MBTA, either through the legislature taking back some of the massive debt they handed the T a few years ago, or through some other method?
stomv … thanks for the question. First, you make a good point. Some times, those of us from the far reaches of the state like to harp on certain projects or agencies. That doesn’t mean there isn’t a kernel of truth in those complaints, it just means that we aren’t aiming or concerns or displeasure at the right target.
<
p>
As to the specific question, I think you said it best yourself. I do believe we need to invest in our infrastructure across the state. I won’t regurgitate the numbers from the Transportation Finance Commission or the Pioneer Institute; we all know the situation is serious. So would I consider your proposals, absolutely. But I’ll have to admit, I don’t have the full financials of the MBTA before me right now, nor could I review them in short enough order to reply to your post. I guess that leaves me here … if the funding was warranted and justified, then yes.
<
p>
Your question highlights an important point – infrastructure needs are different in the different regions of the Commonwealth. Public transit needs are different in Pittsfield than in Boston and the MBTA communities. Priorities are different. Broadband availability is a priority in western Mass, while access to high quality public transit is an issue in Roxbury, parts of Somerville, etc. (Quick note – broadband penetration/use is actually more dependent on income than on geography. Now the rural communities I represent are also, in many cases, economically challenged. But it?s interesting to note that 80% of Boston Public School students don’t have broadband Internet in their homes. Not because it?s not available, but because it?s too expensive)
and I even allowed you to effectively choose where that increased spending would go by not specifying it myself.
<
p>
I’ll make it clearer: You pick the project(s) for which you would support added MBTA funding. Could be expansion of the green line, could be commuter rail expansion further west, could be spending more to give buses dedicated lanes and priority at traffic lights.
<
p>
For which MBTA projects that you could possibly imagine would you support an increase in current MBTA funding?
I would support expansion of the green line to currently unserved parts of Somerville. Considering that Somerville, I believe, is the most densely settled community in the Commonwealth, the project makes sense and has been too long coming.
<
p>
I also believe that commuter rail to south eastern portions of the Commonwealth is a project whose time has come.
<
p>
In theory, I like the idea of giving buses dedicated lanes and priority at traffic lights, but I’d have to see just how the proposal would work in the more dense settings.
<
p>
That being said, I fully admit to not knowing all of the proposed expansions of current MBTA service. Much as I’d be shocked if one of my colleagues in an MBTA served community knew the different proposals for Pittsfield’s downtown, for the revitalization of distressed mills in Adams and North Adams, or the impact of utility rates on the paper industry in Berkshire, Hampshire & Franklin counties. The point is, for every community in our commonwealth to thrive, members of the legislature from different regions have to understand that different regions will have different needs. And that we all work, in a respectful manner, to meet all those needs
This is terrific news. Thank you. I’m amazed at the number of communities that do not yet have reliable broadband access. At this point, it’s a utility, in the same way telephones and electricity became utilities in their time (although I’m old enough to remember the joys of party lines). $25 million seems a small investment to make in the economic vitality of Western Mass. The gains go well beyond jobs and the tax base, although I think those gains will repay the investment. They also go to the ability of the children in those towns to have access to the resources required for a 21st century education, including the ability to do tasks such as applying to college. In 2007, being from a small town shouldn’t mean you have been left behind in the information age.
<
p>
I like the overall outline of the proposal as well. It seems to me that it’s a modern equivalent of the state highway system: in the same way physical roads connect the towns across the Commonwealth, the broadband investments the proposal has in mind would seem to build the backbone of the internet to a point where individual towns and regions can find the best way to the last mile.
<
p>
This is a nice example of “we’re all in this together.”
Overcoming isolation and enabling communication will lead to benefits, many of which cannot be foreseen.
<
p>
BlueMassGroup and this discussion would not be occurring at all without the internet. This proposal is a wise use of the Commonwealth’s resources in my opinion.
$25 million on this while our roads ands bridges are crumbling?
So “the financial planner from New York with the second home in the Berkshires…….” Gimme a break.
since when did this become a function of state goverment?
that, if not for government, will never be put into place by the free market because the profits per mile just aren’t there.
<
p>
Of course, this ignores all of the positive externalities to the community [and to tax revenue] that this provides — everything from making communities more desirable to higher income considering moving to MA [or moving from], to helping to reduce traffic and pollution by encouraging telecommuting. Additionally, businesses which will grow from access to broadband will generate more tax revenue, and generate more jobs [generating even more tax revenue].
<
p>
Broadband is network infrastructure, and network infrastructure will never be rolled out by for-profit utilities on a wide scale without the law requiring them to do so [and potentially paying for part of it]. The same holds true for telephone service and later, 911 service. Rural electrification projects. Yadda yadda.
..and I agree with Ruppert that the state should be spending its money on maintaining its transportation infrastructure. Which, because of the hemorraging of monies for the Big Dig, it is not doing. So why this boondoggle?
<
p>
Broadband? I’m sorry, but that’s a buzzword. Anyone who has access to a telephone like can get access to the Internet via dial-up. Dial-up may be slow, but it is reliable. Why should people in the more expensive portions of the state (eastern MA) continue to subsidize those who wish to live in the less expensive portions of the state? And, especially financial planners from NYC who just happen to have 2d homes in the Berkshires (and who probably don’t pay any income tax to MA).
<
p>
I understand that Mr. Downing wants to “bring home” some bacon to his constituents, but this is ridiculous.
Dialup isn’t cutting it these days, and will still less over the next decade. Don’t pretend it’s adequate for regular users, nevermind those who could actually add to the productivity of a rural area, like telecommuters and business owners.
<
p>
Even my parents, on AOL dialup, broke down and got a cable modem. They live in rural NH and had been waiting for years for a long-promised DSL capability which never materialized. The cable access is quite a bit more expensive and if we kids were still school-aged, I doubt they could have afforded the difference. They decided that it was far to necessary to keep waiting. The initiative in MA rural areas could have really helped them.
<
p>
My dad runs a business, and use of the internet, while not required, helps him a damn lot…therefore with his productivity increased, he can contribute more. It seems definitely like something government should get their hands into – the private market is not going to deliver on its own, nor should it be expected to (since it’s not profitable) but broadband is becoming necessary for productivity. Or how about this: if you think dialup is so adequate, then go ahead and downgrade your ISP and live with dialup for a year.
How much will this proposal cost per person who gets access to broadband?
<
p>
And, why not encourage local communities to roll out broadband networks? It’s been done elsewhere in tUS [a town in Utah IIRC, and others].
<
p>
So, why not provide legislative muscle to help towns roll their own infrastructure — and own it instead of giving a handout to the tel|cable cos? If the town owns the fiber, it can lease it to an ISP or run it in house, it can provide discounts to low income folks, use the infrastructure for town needs, and free the townsfolks from the obnoxious behavior of the tel|cable cos that we Eastern Massholes have to put up with.
<
p>
How ’bout it?
<
p>
Ruppert – where’s the free market? In this case, it’s failed, miserably. The major providers will tell you that they won’t provide service below 20 homes per mile. Some of the more creative carriers have gotten down to 17 homes per mile, but that barely scratches the surface of the more rural sections of the commonwealth. As for business, the Worthington Health Center pays 44 times the average cost of a T1 line statewide. That cuts directly into the services they can provide, but it’s necessary for all the paperwork they are mandated to file on line.
<
p>
Raj – I’d have to disagree that residents of western Mass are “subsidized” by residents of the East. If anything, expanded and enhanced connectivity could and will allow more people from Eastern Mass to live in less expensive communities, enjoy the quality of life, and hopefully, over the long run, takes some of the cost pressure off communities in the East. As to dial-up, if the Internet is your primary form of business, is just too slow.
<
p>
Also, it should be noted that there are just as many “underserved” communities outside of western Mass as there are in the 4 western counties. There are 3 major levels of service in broadband – (1) unserved – not a single home/business has access to broadband, no privates can/will provide (32 of the 33 are in the 4 western counties, 1 in Worcester County); (2) underserved- only portions of the community are served (total of 63 in the state – 30 in western Mass, 33 outside – including parts of the Cape, Plymouth, Essex, Middlesex, and other counties); and the (3) served communities (and we can distinguish between those served by a monopoly, duopoly, or truly competitive market place.
<
p>
Cost – best rough estimate. $25 million that will serve some 200,000 residents (home and business) – $125 per person. That doesn’t even begin to talk about where there will be cost savings, improved efficiencies in government, etc. In fact, DTC Commissioner Gillett, in her previous capacity at MIT, has conducted several studies showing how broadband investment improves economic activity.
<
p>
Why can’t municipalities do it? First, our municipalities in western Mass are under the same financial constraints as those in eastern Mass. Additionally, many of our school districts are dealing with declining enrollment and our towns are dealing with dwindling tax bases. Without regional solutions, coordinated by the state, a solution will be piecemeal at best.
…Anyone in the western part of MA can have Internet access via dial up if he or she has a telephone line. In many areas, those who have access to a telephone line can get DSL service. That is also a form of “broadband” although they don’t usually use the term for that. (When we wanted to go to DSL in Wellesley, Verizon didn’t let us, because they wanted to expand their fiber optic service, and, yes the Verizon fiber optic service has proven to be very good.)
<
p>
The obvious fact is that you are still spilling platitutudes and you still do not get it. Anyone can get Internet service who has a telephone line. “Broadband” is just a buzzword. I do not understand why you do not understand that fact, the fact is that you don’t. You want people in eastern Massachusetts to subsidize some of your consitituents–like the financial planner whose first home is in NYC.
<
p>
You also obviously haven’t worked in a firm in eastern MA. I have. Regarding your comment If anything, expanded and enhanced connectivity could and will allow more people from Eastern Mass to live in less expensive communities… that is stupid in the extreme. People who work in firms want to be in the “home office,” not in satellite offices or in their homes. Why? Regardless of how hard people in the satellite office or in their home work, their endeavors are not going to be recognized by management, which reduces the potential for their advancement. I’ve noticed that numerous places. The idea that someone in a firm would want to work out of their home or out of a satellite office is idiotic–they won’t be advanced if they aren’t seen by management.
<
p>
As a last issue As to dial-up, if the Internet is your primary form of business, is just too slow. the Internet is not a “form of business.” It is a tool. Like a pen or pencil or 41 cent stamp. I really do wish that politicians would understand something, but apparently, they don’t.
<
p>
That said, why don’t you get the state government to finish its repairs of the Rt 16 overpass over Rt 9 in Wellesley (the state is responsible for that boondoggle) before you do this silliness? Oh, that’s right. Wellesley residents aren’t among your constituents. The NY financial planner who has a 2d home in the Berkshires might be a constituent. Or at least a contributor to you.
Raj – the working definition we have used in our efforts for broadband is as follows – “Broadband – Refers to telecommunication that provides multiple channels of data,
voice and video over a single communications medium, typically using some form of frequency or wave division multiplexing. When referring to Connect (Berkshire and PIoneer Valley) efforts, broadband is minimally defined as symmetrical 1.5 MB/s or asymmetrical > 1MB/s downstream and
384K upstream. Based on this definition, DSL is broadband (along with other technologies, including some forms of WiMax and WiFi, fiber, etc.), while other technologies (dial-up and satellite to name a few) are not.
<
p>
As to the “form of business” … I missed a section of a sentence when copying and pasting from a word document. I meant to say, “primary form of communication for your business.”
<
p>
Finally, your point and the point others have made about the current state of our transportation infrastructure are well made. The Hadley Overpass, the main bridge into North Adams, is a perfect example of our failure to invest in our transportation infrastructure. In the past few weeks, McNearny Road Bridge, in the town of Becket, was closed. Closing of this bridge will force public safety vehicles to drive 15-30 minutes out of their way, putting all the residents in Becket and surrounding towns at risk. We need to make all those investments. Each and every district and community across this commonwealth has bridges, roads, and stories just like this.
<
p>
However, I don’t accept that these endeavors are either/or propositions. Will the state prioritize certain transportation projects? Absolutely. Just as the legislators whose communities are affected by the Rt. 9/Rt. 16 situation will advocate for those projects, I’ll advocate for Hadley, McNearny Road, and others in my district.
<
p>
And finally, I will openly admit that the connectivity issue is more so, if not entirely, an issue for western Massachusetts. And Raj, the financial planner came to a broadband forum I attended the other night. It was the first time I met him. I believe his name was David, although that could be incorrect and I have not received any contribution from him.
“Broadband – Refers to telecommunication that provides multiple channels of data, voice and video over a single communications medium,
<
p>
If you want multiple channels into the house, it is quite easy to get multiple telephone lines into the house. We had three lines into our house in Wellesley. Your constituents in Western MA could provide the same if they wanted to, without sucking on the public teat (the MA taxpayer) for “broadband”.
<
p>
I know enough about the technology to know what symmetrical 1.5 MB/s or asymmetrical > 1MB/s downstream and 384K upstream means, but I’m still amazed. (Actually, I probably know more about the technology than you do). But you have not answered the question. Why should taxpayers in eastern MA pay to have your constituents be able to hook up to that, when they can easily hook up to dial-up? Even over multiple channels?
<
p>
Your comment …while other technologies (dial-up and satellite to name a few) are not is just more evidence that “broadband” is nothing more than a buzz word. What is your goal? Internet connection? Or Internet connection on testosterone? If people want to pay for the latter they can, but it isn’t necessary that they do it at taxpayers’ expense.
Senator Downing’s definition of broadband is correct. The key part of the definition is over one medium, which is perhaps a poor choice of words but intended I believe to mean over one line. No definition of broadband will include more than one line as you have suggested.
<
p>
Your comment related to home office/satellite office may be representative of your experience, but I believe is not representative of general business practice. For example many, many sales reps work out of their home as do many software engineers and there are many other professions that have a large base of employees working out of a home office. They, for the most part do not suffer from the stigma you mentioned. I do agree that was a problem 5 – 10 years ago.
<
p>
Hey, I’m not sure if I’m for spending this amount of money on providing broadband access to western mass, but I do applaud Senator Downing for opening it up for discussion and I think he deserves more respect than being called disingenuous, uninformed and promoting definitions that are “horse manure”
<
p>
The key part of the definition is over one medium
<
p>
is accurate. Let me parse that. The digital/voice splitter in broadband is at the Telecom’s central office. With multiple lines into the house, the splitter is…at the central office. I’m not sure what significance the difference is. We had three wires into the house, all from the central office. We did reduce them to two when we got Verizon’s FIOS service, but we do have several wires into the house. And we didn’t need to have government subsidies to do it. BTW, we still have our dial-up Internet provider for email service.
<
p>
Regarding many sales reps work out of their home as do many software engineers and there are many other professions that have a large base of employees working out of a home office maybe. But, as far as I can tell, more then a few of them use mainly text messaging, which goes fairly well over dial-up. But, if their engagers (employers, whatever) believe that they need faster service, they can pay for it. They don’t need the taxpayers to provide it for them. And that last is the issue.
How about engineers using ssh, sftp, or svn? ssh can make due with dialup [but lag can really lower QoS], but if he’s using sftp to move anything more than text small files, dialup is unacceptable. Same goes for svn. If the engineer is moving around schematics, large data sets, etc., dialup is too slow.
<
p>
How about folks who want to teleconference? Even DSL and cable are only so-so… dial up is impossible.
<
p>
How about folks who have to tunnel into another machine to access their desktop? Be it Windows or otherwise, the bandwidth and latency requirements to represent a graphical desktop exceed dial up.
<
p>
For software engineers, dial up is unacceptable. For other engineers, it varies, but there are plenty of engineers working with data sets or file types that exceed the capabilities of dial up.
<
p>
The problem is that their employers can’t pay for a service that doesn’t exist. Nobody’s asking that the access be free; the question is: should the state government consider high[er] speed fiber a part of infrastructure in the same sense that it considers roads, water, sewer, etc? You think no — that it’s a lower level infrastructure who’s positive externalities don’t justify public investment. Others disagree.
I mean to suggest that the town should own all of it. I’d have no problem with a town/state partnership for the town to start laying fiber, and owning the infrastructure. Once the town owns the network [paid for in a combination of state funding and town bonds], then the town can either (a) run the ISP directly, charging its citizens, or (b) lease some or all of the bandwidth to commercial ISP[s], getting its return on investment that way.
<
p>
In this way, the town is not subject to the cherrypicking of customers, the terrible customer service and price that monopolies in communication have typically provided, or even possibly the questionable policies most ISPs implement w.r.t. copyright infringement, DMCA, searches without warrant, and other privacy/freedom issues.
<
p>
Private ISPs and tel|cable cos have been terrible about these things, especially if they’re the only bandwidth in town higher than 56kps. So long as the public is going to get this project going, why give it back to the players who’ve done such a poor job?
In this way, the town is not subject to the cherrypicking of customers, the terrible customer service and price that monopolies in communication have typically provided, or even possibly the questionable policies most ISPs implement w.r.t. copyright infringement, DMCA, searches without warrant, and other privacy/freedom issues.
<
p>
…a town owned Internet infrastructure is going to be any different with regards to the bolded part than a privately owned ISP. City and town governments are subject to the same copyright laws as private companies. And city and town governments (and state governments, for that matter) are quite famous for sharing information with each other and with the federal government, particularly in regards income tax issues.
<
p>
Before the predescessor of Comcast got the license to install cable TV in Wellesley, the town’s DeptPublic Works made a pitch to install cable TV itself (it had already owned the electric power distribution system). I don’t know who in town government was payed off, but the DPW lost out to the private company. I would not expect towns to own the Internet service “distribution” any time soon.
is not the same as cave in for.
<
p>
With a publicly owned infrastructure, the town can more easily foster multiple higher bandwidth ISPs. With competition, you’re more likely to get lower prices, but also better service. What does better service mean in this case? Perhaps it means the ISP doesn’t roll over and give up customer data without a warrant to the RIAA, MPAA, anyone who doesn’t like your critical analysis of them or their product, etc.
<
p>
Income tax issues are irrelevant, a red herring. Given that multiple services will compete on service, and given that service entails how likely the ISP is to roll over at the sight of a threatening letter, if you believe that municipal owned network infrastructure can foster competition, then it follows that municipal owned networks can foster better legal protections for their users. That’s what I’m really getting at.
With a publicly owned infrastructure, the town can more easily foster multiple higher bandwidth ISPs.
<
p>
…regardless of whether the infrastructure is publicly owned, customers have numerous ISPs that they can deal with. We have theworld.com (my current email provider, and I’m not going to drop them), Verizon.net (our current–in the US–ISP), CompuServe (which we’re getting rid of), we had AOL, and in Germany we’re going with TKS, an english language branch of Deutsche Telecom.
<
p>
None of whom are town operated. There are numerous solutions. Town ownership of the infrastructure is somewhat irrelevant.
<
p>
Regarding then it follows that municipal owned networks can foster better legal protections for their users
<
p>
I would appreciate it if you would provide a citation, because I have no reason to believe that that is true. I sincerely don’t. I’m not trying to pull a “gotcha,” but I sincerely don’t believe it.
for broadband, the most commonly available number is 0 or 1. Occasionally there are 2 ISPs available. Part of the reason is federal regulations on how telcos have to share copper pair vs. coax vs. fiber. You’re stuck in a dial up world my friend, as evidenced in many of your comments on this thread.
<
p>
Multiple dial up ISPs have resulted in better or worse QoS in terms of legal protection, but that hasn’t in broadband because there is so infrequently any real competition between choices.
<
p>
Want to learn more? Check out IEEE’s article about Utopia, Utah
…as a computer? Dialup is to broadband as an old-fashioned typewriter (without spellcheck or delete) is to a word processor…
<
p>
Try doing ANY business without broadband.
If it is so needed, so great and so “reasonable” of a cost why dont those communities float a bond, add a betterment charge like I have to pay for my sewer line? Also coastal communities are now putting betterment charges in place for sea wall projects. As an inland Senator are you interested in susidizing us for sea walls….I doubt it. How many deficient bridges in your district?
Great opportunities here. Network Infrastructure Commissioner, Assist Network Infrastructure Commissioner, Assistant to the Assistant Network Infrastructure Commissioner and on and on. Lots of places to put slugs and their little sluglings. The state and local governments tend to pay about half the wages of what technical people get. (That way they can hire more.) The lower pay means that they don’t get America’s best and brightest. So then they hire “contractors and consultants” to do the real work. Many of these are tied in with the politicians. So it goes.
<
p>
Reminds me of the original sewage processing plant for Boston. Not the one they have now, but the one that was built in the ’50s or ’60s. It was built with Federal funds and was supposed to be self-sufficient. The sewage would be processed for methane gas. The gas power would drive the pumps and processing equipment. The Feds turned it over to the City of Boston. Now you have to have some kind of education to run something like that. Those educated people cost money and probably live in the Western Suburbs. Ain’t gonna vote for Boston Politicians. So they hired slugs. Lots of low paid slugs, happy to get a job and grateful to the appointing politicians. The slugs had no idea how the process worked, so the sewage went straight to the harbor.
<
p>
Why can’t we learn from our history?
This is ridiculous. That $125 per person figure is only if those people decide to subscribe.
<
p>
Further, this expenditure is not for a complete and total access solution, but only for the infrastructure. The broadband providers will still have to invest funds for the rest of the system, so what you are proposing is in fact a subsidy for those broadband companies.
<
p>
But who cares, right? After all, it’s only $25 million of taxpayer money. That money grows on trees.
I should have added that I don’t want to give the impression that I think government subsidies for corporations are always bad, just that I find it disingenious for the Senator to not admit what this is.
<
p>
Let’s call a pig a pig, shall we?
Call it what it is, a subsidy for fast western mass porn download. Porn! It’s a right.
but in western MA, it’s online scrabble, baby!
Weboggle!
What politician hasn’t got a “New!” pet project. Maybe get a “New!” building or “New!” highway named after him or her. Oooh!, wouldn’t that be nice.
<
p>
I’d like to vote for the politician that can come up with a plan to save the “old.” infrastructure that we have. I’ll save my vote. I guess “old.” doesn’t garner any votes so these snake-oil salespeople can go on hawking the “New!” to the yokels.
<
p>
“Hurry, hurry!. Step right up and see the ‘New!’ Never-you-mind that the roads, bridges and tunnels are collapsing, take your mind off all that with the ‘New!'”.
I guess “old.” doesn’t garner any votes so these snake-oil salespeople can go on hawking the “New!” to the yokels.
<
p>
In the olden days, with “new,” politicians would gather to cut the ribbon. With maintenance and repairs, not so much.
<
p>
A cynical analogy, but very apt.
Hi Senator,
<
p>
1. I very much appreciate your responses in the comment section.
<
p>
2. While the comments are a bit on the ill-tempered side, I have to agree with the gist. To be convinced of the need for gov’t intervention, I’d first want to be convinced that you’ve aggressively explored other solutions.
<
p>
Lots of rural people get high-speed internet by satellite, from companies like Wildblue and Hughesnet.
<
p>
Prices start at $50 a month. Why isn’t this a reasonable approach?
Satellite, like wireless, does not provide the redundancy that other options do. That doesn’t mean it doesn’t work, but if we are going to make this investment, we want to make sure the network does not quickly become obsolete (this would explain – along with geographic concerns why we wouldn’t just go with an all wireless solution) and that the network is buisness grade.
The problem with satellite connection is speed. 1.5 MB may be fine for a home connection, but not for business. And business is what we are talking about in western mass. I get a kick out of people here talking about subsidies for the T and no one has asked any questions about this or any of the other bond items, but $25 million for western mass has been the cause of great consternation on the part of some here. What a double standard! Before anyone asks, I was one of those who placed in, and advocated for the $55 million for better transportation for the T in the Longwood Medical area in last year’s economic stimulus bill. If we need to spend money, it shouldn’t matter where it is in the state.
This is about jobs, not porn. This is about the ability of businesses in those unserved and underserved areas of the state being able to compete with those areas in the country and around the world that have a modern telecommunication system. If one merely googles on the economic advantages of broadband and better data transmission, one would find that the Wharton School has said that slower transmission speeds in the USA will lead to a loss of over one trillion dollars over the next decade for American businesses. There are numerous articles dealing with the need for better telecom services for our business and our economic development efforts. The fact that we are posting on this site is proof of the power of the Internet.
Let’s take one example of the need for Internet connection in those underserved areas. The average salary of a biotech job in Massachusetts is $98,000/year, according to surveys done by the industry itself. That is far more than the nearest competitor state. (New York, our nearest competitor, was third with an average salary of $58,000!) So why do businesses come here when above the line costs are so out of line with our nearest competitors? They have to because we have the more venture capital firms, angel investors, colleges and universities, research hospitals and infrastructure than almost anywhere else in the world. We have Harvard and MIT and Umass Medical. We have the top five research facilities as measured by NIH grants. We have more college grads than any other state and this has lead to a productivity rate of 20% over the national average. In short, we have this great critical mass that makes this area attractive despite our cost structure. But what happens after the bio company goes to market with a new product? Manufacturing moves to some other state where costs are much less. They don’t have to do so. Meditech is investing in a new facility in Fall River where the average pay will be around $35,000/yr. In western Mass, our housing prices and average salaries are comparable to North Carolina, a state everyone points to for comparisons. However, without a strong data transmission network upon which these companies can work, we can’t downstream our own company?s manufacturing needs.
Our current Western Massachusetts industry base suffers also. During the press conference announcing this bond initiative, Rep. Pignatelli told a story about a woman who was a sole proprietor of her own business. The night before the press conference the woman sent off her quarterly tax information to the DOR with the press of a button. The morning of the press conference, the transmission was still sending this information over her dial up service! That should be unacceptable anywhere in a state that credits itself as a high tech leader.
If that were not reason enough, consider that most state agencies are sending out many of the new regulations and updates over the Internet to save paper. For many small towns, it is impossible to receive these transmissions.
Every once in a while something comes along that I am amazed is questioned. This is one of those things. The need to be connected for data transmission is so obvious; I am amazed that people are questioning it. Perhaps those who question this should unplug for a few days and see how life has become dependent on the speed and reliability of the Internet. They may as well say that we shouldn’t bother to put roads in western Massachusetts.
Now, I know that you have not been objecting as much as questioning. I have been working on this for twent years. I took out incumbent system to the SJC in 1992, and cofounded
the Berkshire Connect system that has delivered more high speed internet connections in Berkshire County. However, in spite of our efforts out here, there is a need for the state to step in and insure that everyone has access. This is not something that we are doing in a vacuum. Most other states are attempting to do the same. Over the last few days, I have talked to people from California, Vermont, South Dakota, New York, Kentucky, and Virginia about their attempts to wire their states. Each state knows that it must be able to transmit data in order to be competitive. We are in danger of lagging further behind if we don’t start to take action now.
What about my betterment suggestion?
like i,m paying for my sewer line.
and $25 mil will take care of our regions seawalls.
During the press conference announcing this bond initiative, Rep. Pignatelli told a story about a woman who was a sole proprietor of her own business. The night before the press conference the woman sent off her quarterly tax information to the DOR with the press of a button. The morning of the press conference, the transmission was still sending this information over her dial up service!
<
p>
…is a silly example. If she didn’t want to print out the what must have been 1000s of pages if it took that long to send, she could have burned a DVD-ROM or two with the information and mailed it to the Dept Revenue. A couple of 41 cent stamps, at most. In the unlikely event that the Dept Revenue doesn’t have the ability to read DVD-ROMs, then you have a real problem with state government.
<
p>
But it doesn’t require taxpayer subsidies of private companies, which this proposal amounts to.
Not a silly example at all but symptomatic of the problems experienced by all of our citizens in Western Mass. Your solution is unacceptable. If one were to mail their information to DOR, as an example, one would have to either overnight that info, at considerably more expense than 41 cents, or mail several days in advance of the end of quarter. If one takes the latter option that means that any financial obligations have to be paid earlier than you would have a similar business pay in Wellsley. Multiply that by all the businesses affected and it is a drag on our economy.
The Boston Herald gets this. See their editorial today and believe me, these guys don’t like state spending.
What I find silly is your assertion that dial up is just as good as any other internet connection. That is very silly.
Not a silly example at all but symptomatic of the problems experienced by all of our citizens in Western Mass. Your solution is unacceptable. If one were to mail their information to DOR, as an example, one would have to either overnight that info, at considerably more expense than 41 cents, or mail several days in advance of the end of quarter.
<
p>
I’ve done quarterlies, and all that is required of quarterlies is that they be postmarked by the due date. So your plaint that the filer has to mail the returns so that it will arrive on the due date falls on deaf ears.
<
p>
Your comment If one takes the latter option that means that any financial obligations have to be paid earlier indicates that you have no idea what the filing relates to. The quarterly filing relates to the return that an employer is supposed to file. Normally, an employer is required to pay weekly or bi-weekly to the state and federal government, regardless of the return filing. Don’t you understand anything?
<
p>
Regarding The Boston Herald gets this, I do not give a tinkers’ damn what the Boston Herald gets. Neither should you.
It’s not a silly example, just one of a million out there.
<
p>
For instance, I pay my bills online now. I visit the websites and log in, click click type, pay my bills. Meanwhile, I’m checking my bank balance online, making sure I don’t pay more than I actually have, etc. I use Excel to track it as I’m doing it. Zipity zip, I’m done, in less than half the time that it used to take me, when I had to gather all the bills, write the checks, then you have to get to a mail box…I’m not saying it can’t be done the “manual” way, or that it’s so very onerous, but it’s certainly a damn sight harder than my new system, which would be almost SLOWER than the paper way of paying bills if I were on dialup.
<
p>
To say that broadband doesn’t speed up the productivity of anyone, personally or in business, is to be completely ignorant of the uses of the internet these days. Again, I say, go downgrade your own access to the internet to dialup and come back in a year.
Raj, I have no idea what the woman in the example is filing, however, even though it has been twenty one years since I was in the private sector, I am pretty sure that I paid my sales tax on a quarterly basis. Additionally, we had testimony last year during our listening tour on the economic stimulus bill of how retailers were paying their quarterly taxes when some of their accounts receivables were net 90 days. This lead to a situation where taxes were due before they were paid resulting in short term expenses from borrowing to pay taxes.
<
p>
(Double space)
<
p>
You have made my point for me. Paying taxes on a weekly or bi-weekly basis is even more impractical than quarterly. And as Lynne has pointed out, paying bills is a pain on dial up. I wouldn’t do it. Add that to the poor condition of our phone lines where signals drop or twisted copper wires are so noisy that a signal can’t be maintained and we have an untenable situation.
<
p>
As for your comment on being vicious, and of course, the follow up “Don’t you understand anything?? I can only say that after 21 years of some of the things I have heard as a legislator I don’t find this to be particularly vicious. You are simply rude.
I’m not sure you need to be too worried about a commenter who doesn’t even “believe in” social science.
I am nor worried, but this should be about an exchange of ideas. I don’t think such comments are warranted if they are caustic. Even those who don’t believe in social science have a right to post. After all, if we all thought the same way, I’d be out of a job! Thanks!
…the fact appears to be that you had no idea what she was trying to send, or why, or why sending a DVD-Rom would not have been sufficient.
<
p>
I’ve done tax payments on behalf of my employee to the state on a monthly basis (which is what the state required). The state was very nice about sending out the appropriate forms on an annual basis. Also for me as an “estimated taxpayer.” Mailed them in, no problem. It is beyond credulity that someone who did not have broadband could not do the same within a limited time period. Or by mail.
<
p>
Mr. Bosley, let’s get real. What you really want is that the taxpayers of the state of MA subsidize your constituents who want to live in western MA. That is the real issue, isn’t it?
<
p>
Moving down a bit to KBusch @ Wed Aug 08, 2007 at 00:22:15 AM EDT I do wish that you would stop putting words into my mouth. “believe in” is a religious phrase. I could do a litany as to why I hesitate to believe that what is categorized as a social science is a science, but, at this point, I’ll refrain.
but only if the senator agrees to relocate some Commonwealth departments and offices to North Adams.
<
p>
Let’s see, which one first?
<
p>
How about the Department of Revenue?
<
p>
Senator? How about it? Jobs for your district!
Springfield was once a powerhouse that provided jobs for much of the West of the state. The Springfield rifle, and all it stood for are legendary.
<
p>
Today’s jobs are related to the communications infrastructure as surely as they are to the “brick and mortar” infrastructure.
<
p>
While I would like to see promotion of historical tourism, based on the former Springfield factory and its civil war history, Springfield needs to also have “information age” technology, as does Pittsfield and beyond in order to compete for the jobs and start ups of today.
<
p>
I do not know the best way to do that, and am not sure why some of the comments are hostile and/or juvenile, but then that can be expected where the 1st amendment and open communication take place. Thank you for letting me know just how poorly the information infrastructure currently is in your district.
<
p>
What degree of cell phone coverage does your district have?
<
p>
Verizon is pioneering a card where anyone with a verizon cell phone can also have broadband speed with a gizmo hooked up to their laptop or computer, if they have the hardware to support the “gizmo”.
<
p>
I saw one of those in action while traveling, and was amazed.
<
p>
Our household is wired for wifi at our own cost, which means 4-8 users have no problem having broadband speed.
<
p>
This was done as the household has a law office, and also an Information Technology professional who must at times respond to international issues.
Living in Springfield, I have a bit of a different take on this. Springfield has broadband. Lots of it. We have several major fiber cables running through the city. I have broadband through Comcast, and I used to have DSL before that.
<
p>
This isn’t at all about bringing broadband to Western MA urban areas. It’s about bringing it to smaller rural towns, those without enough population to make it attractive for a private company to do so.
<
p>
In other words, it takes an urban amenity and makes it available to rural areas at similar prices. This makes rural areas more attractive, and could encourage more people to move to rural areas to escape the “nastiness” of the urban areas.
<
p>
So maybe this isn’t such a good thing. It’s a little like saying “the town of Rowe doesn’t have a Starbucks, so the state should subsidize each coffee so one gets put there”. I know, that’s extreme, because broadband is considreed “infrastructure” and Starbucks is frivolous, but the point is that we have these things called “urban areas”, and if this state subsidizes the benefits that come with living in dense quarters to allow them to occur in sparsely populated communities, then the only thing left in urban areas are the drawbacks of density.
<
p>
I would argue that one reason for the failure of urban areas is the significant subsidization of the transportation network that allowed people to cheaply and easily live many miles from where the jobs were. If you look at what is slowly happening, non-urban areas are very deliberately attracting away the best things from urban areas and leaving urban areas with the worst things.
The question is… do you improve cities by improving the quality of the cities, or by reducing the quality of the sub/exurbs?
<
p>
It’s interesting that Senator Ben Downing supports this plan to the tune of $125 per person benefitted. I wonder if he’d support an increase of $125*[591,000+101,000+85,000+77,000+55,000] for subway riders in Boston+Cambridge+Quincy+Somerville+Brookline? It’s a mere $114 million, and $125 per person would go a long way toward the MBTA (a) retiring old debt that’s killing their annual budget, (b) expanding the green line into Somerville and the orange line as well, (c) improve the terminals, providing handicap accessibility, digital monitors of train status, and even climate control, and begin (d) the important long term projects of making the green line 4 tracks Kenmore to Gov’t Center, as well as trying to bury more of the B line [longest line in terms of mph of train] and the E line [competing with autos for physical space]. Then, maybe we could talk about including all the extra towns around who have bus service, and get them some subway or at the very least some dedicated bus lanes in a network to provide legitimate QoS improvements. Then, maybe we’ll talk about including the population of every town in MA with commuter rail [well over 50% of MA’s population] and give the MBTA $125 per person for expanding the line westward and toward the Cape, improving the crossings and the track to improve speed, connect North and South Stations, etc.
<
p>
I have no problem improving the quality of life and services in rural areas — but it does seem like Beacon Hill has done little to improve the quality of life within the Boston metro. Transportation has gotten worse for city dwellers, not better [the Big Dig doesn’t help us as much as suburbanites, and T fares have gone from $1.00 to $1.70 in short order], the murder rates are on the rise, the schools aren’t noticeably better on a wide scale, and so forth. That more people live outside of Boston than in Boston shouldn’t be used as an excuse on Beacon Hill to ignore the city proper in favor of the richer suburbs and exurbs. Boston-metro is the economic engine of Massachusetts, and it’s being treated like the maid and not like a member of the Massachusetts family.
The T gets ~$700Mil from the state every year. The Green Line extension will cost an additional $800 Mil and the New Bedford line will cost $1.2 Billion (with a B). I’m guessing that comes out to a bit over $125/person served by those projects.
<
p>
If what I’m hearing is correct, both of those will receive money in the Governor’s pending capital plan, and I imagine (though don’t know for sure) that Senator Downing and Rep. Bosley will both support the Governor’s proposal.
<
p>
Furthermore (and this is directed at everyone else), of course the Senator and Representative are going to advocate for a project that brings a much-needed upgrade to their communities! That’s what they were elected to do, and they should be voted out of office if they don’t. That in and of itself doesn’t negate the worthiness of the project.
<
p>
$25 million is a lot of money, yes, but it’s also only .1% of our annual state budget. Our state pays for plenty of things that don’t serve every citizen of the Commonwealth, and for a region as widespread an sparsely populated as Western Mass, it certainly doesn’t make sense for Senator Downing’s 48 municipalities to each come up with and implement their own broadband* system. That would be the height of inefficiency and waste.
<
p>
As if no legislator from Western Mass, the Cape, Worcester, or anywhere else beyond 495 has ever supported a project that was of sole or primary benefit to Boston… sheesh.
<
p>
*Broadband: Generic term used deliberately to annoy raj, because he knows more about technology, business, and Germany than the rest of us combined. (Well, certainly Germany, at least…)
Well, I wouldn’t classify an absence of a subsidy for broadband as “reducing the quality of the sub/exurbs”. And I don’t see a lot of “improving the quality of the cities” either — just the opposite, as cities have become the dumping ground for the problems of the Commonwealth, including group homes, substance abuse treatment centers, homeless shelters, and anything else that no suburbanite would ever, ever want next door to them.
<
p>
There was an article in the Springfield Republican just last week about how a plan to “relocate a drug and alcohol treatment facility to a former nursing home” in the rural town of Hadley was dropped because of “concerns voiced by neighbors and town residents and the likelihood that due to the town’s processes the facility “would not easily transition to Hadley.”
<
p>
According to the article, “At a meeting in June, neighbors expressed concerns about property values, supervision of clients and vandalism and said it was not an appropriate location for such a facility.”
<
p>
The center will remain in Holyoke, because, I guess, those things don’t matter to those nasty urban residents.
<
p>
However. when urban areas have a proliferation of negative things, decreasing the concentration will unfortunately mean that this will reduce the quality of life in the sub/exurbs. You could even make the argument that by increasing the quality of life in urban areas, the lack of demand (and a drop in property values, allowing in the “riff-raff”) will decrease the quality of life in the other areas. But that quality of life is artificially high because those areas have been allowed to exclude such things in the past.
<
p>
We just need a better balance, because our urban areas are hardly sustainable anymore.
You hit the proverbial nail on the head. It’s about balance. Despite the arguments for or against this proposal, I don’t think anyone in this thread believes our more sparsely populated areas should be left behind, nor does anyone believe we should make our cities a “dumping ground.”
<
p>
Environmentally, there are too many reasons to list here to support every and any effort to make our cities more attracive places to live. The most important of which is, cities are the most sustainable and efficient ways of living. Similairly, there are just as many reasons to list here for supporting economic development in more rural regions of the state. Whether it’s to ensure local food sources, open space preservation, or to protect the natural environment that drives the tourist economy, all of these are important. The Commonwealth’s future isn’t as one big city, one big farm, or one big suburb. We need to strike a balance, by making all of our communities economically viable and vibrant and by having all of our communities do their part when it comes to situations like the one you point out.
Cell service is actually worse, but people make do and part of that is towns not being receptive enough (pun not intended) to the placement of cell towers. It’s a speed bump I believe we’ve gotten over, but it’s still a challenge.
Not everyone who lives in the Berkshires lives in their “second home,” y’know. Most of us are year-round residents who live, work and play here.
<
p>
And it’s not that we want the hill towns and mill towns to have all the amenities of Boston, Worcester or Springfield. In an information-based society, I hardly consider broadband access an “amenity.” I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: Broadband access is to the 21st century what rural electrification was to the 20th. (And if you’d grown up on a farm in the 20th century, you’d realize just how important rural electrification was.)
<
p>
It’s not an either-or; we can fund roads/bridges AND lay the groundwork for statewide broadband access. Maybe we can’t do 100% for both all at once, but we can do both smartly, within budget and within a reasonable time.
<
p>
WF
(who is one of those year-round residents, up in North Adams – as Dan Bosley will attest, we couldn’t even get TOUCH-TONE here until the early 1990s)
As someone who grew up in the Metrowest area, went to college in the Berkshires, and currently lives in Boston, I find it ABSOLUTELY hypocritical for those of us out here to moan and complain about supporting increased internet connectivity in western Mass. I live next door to Logan Airport, which receives a good portion of its funding from where? Tax dollars. No one ever says, “we should only use tax dollars from Worcester eastward for Logan” even though the majority of people from western Mass who fly leave via Bradley in CT or Albany, NY. I would love to see the reaction of people posting on this if THAT idea was floated on this site by someone from out that way (though it would probably take a week for them to post follow-up responses with their current capability)
<
p>
Quite frankly the biggest difference between those of us who live closer to Boston than to Albany, in internet terms, is that of choice. We have the ability to sit on our high horses in Wellesley and complain about those greedy, ungrateful, hillbillies out west, how dare they want the us to help give them the same ability to access the internet as we have, because we have not had to ask that question. As an undergrad the ability to access the internet was a vital tool in my educational endeavors. The system that we had on campus was decent, if not great, but that was ON campus. If you lived off campus, which many students did, your life was much more difficult. You either suffered through slow and many times unstable connections, or you had to come to our small computer lab and hope that something was free. This did not just hamstring students, it also crippled the institution as a whole. How hard do you think it is to get a modern high-school student to attend an institution of higher learning that does not have a reliable and speedy internet connection?
<
p>
While I could go on at length about internet difficulties during my time at my alma mater, (which I otherwise absolutely love and share with Rep. Bosley, in the interest of disclosure) I will only say further that I was one of the lucky ones in Berkshire county. As slow as our connections on campus could be, they were often lightning-quick compared to what was around us and that is a shame. The communities and people of western Mass. are no less deserving of broadband than those anywhere else in the state, even if it takes government assistance to bring it there. I hope people on this side of the world remember that the next time they ask for an extension on the “T” or a flyover for a faster route to the Cape, or another such project.
I live next door to Logan Airport, which receives a good portion of its funding from where? Tax dollars.
<
p>
Logan should have been cashiered years ago, in favor of a modern airport in (ta da!) the Ft Devans land. Logan isn’t going anywhere. It has no land to expand on. It’s a nightmare.
<
p>
I’ll give you an analogy, from here in Munich. (Sorry for you people who hate my references to Munich.) When we first started coming here, in 1985, the only airport was Muenchen-Riem, a small, WWII era airport near the center of the city. In the early 1990s, the Munchener Flughafen GmbH had the wherewithall to acquire a number of hectares about 30 KM north of Munich on which to build an airport. Terminal 1 opened in 1996. It was 1 KM long. Terminal 2 (devoted to Lufthansa) opened several years thereafter, They are planning for a third terminal. And they have not only room for two runways, but also for a third runway and probably a 4th runway. And the only entities that will be disturbed are the cows.
<
p>
Why did Logan Airport GmbH not acquire the Ft Dedhams property for use as an airport?
<
p>
BTW, I have beat on this issue for months. Public transportation. There are two–yes, two–S-Bahn links between the Munich Airport and the central city. AND there is a proposed magnetic levi-train link.
<
p>
Note upstream to Lynne…
<
p>
My dad runs a business, and use of the internet, while not required, helps him a damn lot…
<
p>
…that’s interesting, but the fact is that issue is not whether it helps him a damn lot, but who is going to pay for it. I apologize if I was not sufficiently clear. The issue is who is going to pay for it. The Patrick proposal says that the general taxpayer will. In olden times, utilities were required to provide universal service, in exchange for the right to be “government-regulated” monopolies. Now, they aren’t–aren’t government regulated, that is.
<
p>
BTW, my pen worked very well when I was filling out the silly quarterly form for the Commonwealth. And BTW, I did pretty well without “broadband” for over a decade.
<
p>
And to stomv @ Mon Aug 06, 2007 at 11:36:26 AM EDT
<
p>
Part of the reason is federal regulations on how telcos have to share copper pair vs. coax vs. fiber. You’re stuck in a dial up world my friend, as evidenced in many of your comments on this thread.
<
p>
No sir or madam, it is an issue of who is supposed to pay for what, and why, and why state government is supposed to do a subvention on behalf of the proposed providers. I seriously do not know why you cannot understand the difference.
<
p>
Actually I can understand Downing’s interest in this issue. Unless he can get people to stay in his district, he will have no district. That aspect has been noticed years ago. But that is no reason why we, living elsewhere in MA, should support his desire to maintain his district as a district. If he can’t maintain his district as a district (because the people leave) he’s probably screwed as a legislator.
<
p>
and upthread, I pointed out that we merely disagree on whether or not this counts as infrastructure we reasonably expect the government to pay for or not. I don’t care how it happens that much… if the gov’t regulates it to happen or installs it itself.
<
p>
I think widespread broadband infrastructure is part of the modern infrastructure requirements of a healthy community. As such, I think the government has a role in making it happen. I have no problem with the government shelling out cash if it can demonstrate that the net benefit is positive, either through economic growth [and tax revenue] and quality of life improvement, or through revenue collected through the infrastructure itself, or some combination of both.