I think you have to be careful about claiming $10K cost per subscriber – taking the raw money spent and dividing it up among the users ignores many network realities. The cost of the head end and such should not be included in that per user cost. Nor should the more expensive connections for institutions and businesses that are taking much higher-cost services than residential users.

As for your $3500, I assume that is using the money lent from the City pool. This is not an accurate way of accounting – the city is earning interest on the money it loaned to BT, which means that unless the city were to just walk away from the network (and extremely unlikely prospect), the taxpayers will be getting a return on that money in the pool greater than if it were just sitting unused in the pool. So the idea that this money has come from the taxpayers is somewhat off – especially as this pool sees net income from Burlington electric and presumably other city-run enterprises.

I would also note that while 8M Symmetric is the fastest advertised rate, faster speeds are available for those who need them. But yeah, pricier than you might find in Lafayette.

BT made an early presumption that in a liberal college town a publicly owned network would have lots of intrinsic appeal. For many, it does . . . but these folks, the ones Christopher Mitchell hears, were hooked up awhile ago, and in numbers that fell well short of BT’s original hopes. Support for BT drops off steeply outside of the “true believer” camp, and the mood among those not connected to BT–digitally or literally, is seething. Remember that more than $10,000 has been expended to connect each BT subscriber, and $3500 of that has come–legitimately or not–from lots of Comcast subscribers and those who don’t want, or cannot afford, to connect. The mantra-response of the mayor– that Burlington Telecom is a “gem”– is technically correct, but betrays an unbelievable political disconnect from the mood among most taxpayers.

I would think the engineering study issue could be reviewed as part of an overall independent review of the system. I think municipalities need to better organize to listen and understand the challenges they are going to face, particularly from incumbent providers, and be ready and prepared to counter the propaganda.

Right now, it’s every person for themselves on the city council, and it’s shameful to watch.

It’s my feeling that if you give the opinion leaders in broadband what they want, which is usually fast, reliable, and affordable speed, they will be your biggest evangelists, and will counter the “muni broadband is socialism” crowd quite effectively.

In some interviews I’ve given, I’ve also clued in the media to be on the lookout when using astroturfers for soundbites. A lot of media people don’t understand the issue of fake consumer groups.

In the end, I think Burlington Telecom is on the right track, but it needs to revise its marketing, and even if Comcast is overselling, BT should be able to ramp up speeds (see Lafayette, Louisiana for an example of a success story.)

They need to capture a bigger percentage of the market to counter the inevitable talking point that you will hear soon enough from BT opponents and political opponents of the city administration that the whole thing is a boondoggle with too few customers, at which point Comcast will offer to cut a check to buy it and get rid of it.

That said, communities must do the best they can to understand the costs when they go in, and when those costs change, they have to be open and transparent about it even though it gives strategic info to competitors.

I’m working on a longer report about how this occurred and what lessons muni networks can take.

I take issue with your characterization of suggesting the Comcast speeds (DOCSIS 1 or 2, I believe) are better than the BT speeds. BT actually provides what they advertise whereas Comcast gives an empty “up to” promise. In this market, my impression is that Comcast is more congested than in most.

Finally, the matter of getting the final cost estimates misses the real difficulty – how soon they have to finishing building to the 7.5% of town that is on the granite ledge. This is in negotiation at the Public Service Board. Until they have the date, they cannot know how much to refinance because the closer the date, the more they need to borrow (a date further away allows them to pay cash from incoming revenues on more of the build). Another 7.5% is a pain because Comcast claims they have exclusive on the MDUs and condos are another problematic area where they must negotiate with the landowners.

None of this is easy, but when you watch people testifying on it, BT has enormous public support – it the Mayor that is unpopular.

Also, while I’m in the minority, I’d take an 8 Mbps symmetric connection any day over my 22/5 asymmetric one at the same price…upload speeds matter to me.

That said, in both cases Comcast’s marketing machine has you convinced that they have BT beat out of the gate. Which is incorrect.