The Suffolk piece

– summary –

If you are concerned to learn details about the Suffolk piece, start here. The discussion below is a summary.

If you want to finish up the story on Concord, proceed on this page.

The Suffolk piece tries to frighten Concord voters - their phrase, quoting them, is "Caveat civitas - let the townsperson beware!"  To do so they cite a "sixty percent chance of losing money," really meaning for the voter the town effort will fail.

1--Most fundamentally, Suffolk proceeds through a lengthy Monte Carlo analysis (which we have already done ...) - but they set up a Potemkin town plan that does not exist.  Dan is investigating many possibilities, I understand; it has been pointed out numerous times we do not have a plan 'til we do more serious work.

Had the Suffolk people in fact wanted to help in Concord, their failure here should not have occurred.  Sadly instead, the core of the Suffolk piece is boxing at a phantom - its premise simply does not exist, so its conclusions are without any meaning.

Most tellingly - ask yourself why Comcast has spent so much money (paid 'study,' repeated presentations, three expensive mailings, fancy website, full page ad, deceptive mass calling campaign) to stop the little town of Concord MA:  They know we are likely to succeed, if we do proceed - that is their driving fear.  The industry historical record confirms it too, as we see next.

2--Suffolk glaringly omits virtually all the main cases in the muni history - pre the recent spate of FTTH, practically all of almost a hundred muni systems have been successful.  Had Suffolk accurately reported the industry experience, there would have been no historical support for a more than fifty percent failure probability, or even five percent.  Instead there is exactly the reverse:  The real historical record bears overwhelming comfort for excellent prospects and success in a Concord net.

If Comcast's report of one failure among 100 municipal systems historically is true (Comcast's credibility has evaporated, though here they will tell us the worst they think they can get away with ...), then this is an industry with 99 percent probability of success for towns like Concord , in fact. That makes it one of the most stable capital expenditures possible - a deep and abiding comfort when we require conservative town finances.

This Suffolk 'research' cannot hope to garner respect when it pointedly omits the cases, like Kutztown, most relevant to its study.

3--Suffolk also tries to scare off Concord, arguing 'the industry is increasingly competitive.'  It cites inroads by direct satellite, numerous ISPs, and Comcast's deep competitive pockets.

As already said, we always aimed to compete with Comcast - and win, as indeed Comcast's actions indicate they too expect we will do.  Comcast's HFC cannot offer the services possible with FTTH - the competition Suffolk imagines simply does not exist.

We will likely convert ISPs, eager to ride on our fiber, into customers.  Competition from direct satellite is in the same category as Comcast's HFC, a red herring:  satellite is even more constrained against offering the services unique to FTTH.

These failures about technology, but most seriously in logic, permeate the piece - they gut it, as becomes unfortunately clear:

4--Suffolk's treatment of technology, in a piece with technology necessarily as one center, repeatedly muddles it.

Most inexplicable, they turn a blind eye to FTTH in the Concord net.  As a result, they argue conclusions with no basis, regarding future capital outlays, regarding upgrades, and regarding service provision.

More perniciously Suffolk tries to promote broadband powerline.  This diversion would leave Concord permanently hobbled against Comcast, the incumbent, and so fatally vulnerable.  Maybe the cable industry would love that, but no thank you from Concord.

At best the Suffolk piece is confused about the realities which it supposes to analyze.  In a piece where technology is one key, this leaves it no basis to proceed.

5--The amount and degree to which the Suffolk document fails to present supportable logic removes any possibility to consider it seriously.

In one of the more obvious cases, the Suffolk piece tries to use economies of scale in favor of its argument (page 10).  In the very next paragraph it says in effect, forget economies of scale.  The logic of the whole thing is in fact thoroughly muddled around 'economy of scale - or not?'

At the end of the piece, Suffolk tries to whip up a scare about loss of not-for-profit status.  The threat is profit making in telecommunications against private sector actors - while the piece conveniently forgets that electricity distribution also makes what amount to profits in an industry that also has seen the introduction of private sector competitors.

The ambivalence around scale economies probably unearths a driving force in this cable industry effort as authored at Suffolk.  If we do it right, the scale economies favor us, and they lose their monopoly - that is searing motivation to try to stop us.  And the hobbled logic in the Suffolk piece - the two above are samples - sweeps away any basis to take their piece seriously.

These five summaries about the Suffolk piece - and there is a fair amount more in the full narrative - leave me scratching my head, "why?"  Personally I can only imagine some significant desperation, with the knowledge of the last year's developments and how likely we may be to succeed.  Presumably otherwise the piece would not reach so hard and so be completely flawed, but instead might have merited at least some small respect.

With this summary on Suffolk in hand, let's now put our eye back on the ball:  what our own network will bring that we will not get another way.

--broadband that is future proof, via FTTH

--no impact on taxes, and safety for the bond rating

--services that only FTTH can allow us

--so better life, and learning, in Concord

--prices that only we will allow (see my original Kutztown pdf)

--so, prices that bring seniors on, and the whole town

--new service providers, over our open net, for instance the town as a hotspot

--service that is local, with pride and CMLP quality and management

--evolution into new technology and services as they come, rather than years and decades later, with innovators riding over our infrastructure and bringing in new capital

We still have to do the hard work, put together a serious plan, and figure out when it is time.  But that is not today's task.  The immediate job is to complete the next vote in TM.

At the special TM, I was more than impressed at the spirit of cooperation that pulled across any number of town boards, to effect the land purchase within such a demanding schedule.  It is just that cooperative spirit that brings a network to town.  The pieces are in place, with Dan and his team hard at work - crucially that team now includes seasoned telecoms expertise.

David Allen

top