WHAT IS MUNICIPAL BROADBAND?
Municipal broadband is a city owned network that connects residences and business of Cambridge, operated in the best interests of the City and its residents.
WOULD A MUNICIPAL NETWORK BE A FIBER OPTIC NETWORK?
Yes. Nobody builds new networks using copper cables of the type Comcast uses for much of Cambridge. Any newly built network would be fiber-based.
WOULD THE CITY HAVE TO CREATE AN "INTERNET DEPARTMENT” FOR A MUNICIPAL NETWORK?
To build the network, the City would employ experienced consultants and contractors. While the City could operate the network, it's more likely it would form a public private partnership with one or more Internet Service Providers (ISPs) to provide services on the City-owned network. Read more about the alternatives being studied here.
WOULD A MUNICIPAL NETWORK RESPECT NETWORK NEUTRALITY?
The City should, as part of its contract with an ISP require the network to treat all web sites identically.
WOULD A MUNICIPAL NETWORK RESPECT ITS CUSTOMER'S PRIVACY?
Yes. That, too, should be a contractual requirement of any ISP.
WOULD MUNICIPAL BROADBAND BE ANY BETTER THAN CURRENT OPTIONS?
A new network would (because of its use of fiber optic connections) be more reliable and faster than current options. More importantly, as a city utility, it would be operated in the best interests of Cambridge residents. A municipal network would keep revenue local--funding Cambridge priorities rather than corporate priorities.
HOW MUCH WOULD IT COST the city?
The feasibility study released in March 2023 estimated “the network could require an upfront public capital contribution of $150 million.”
HOW MUCH WOULD I HAVE TO PAY FOR MUNICIPAL BROADBAND?
While we believe that there are enormous benefits beyond the monthly price of municipal broadband, we understand this is a big deal for many residents. Price depends on many factors and any service offering will have to deal with competitive price pressure from Comcast,the biggest internet provider in Cambridge. However, the service will be far better than what Comcast can offer at any price.
The CTC study surveyed residents’ price sensitivity. If the city does not build a municipal broadband, Comcast won’t have to react to the competition it would provide. A municipal broadband system would also set pricing for certain groups to provide less expensive service to those who can’t afford it. Based on city-run surveys, we know that a majority of residents are willing to pay the same price or more for a higher quality municipal broadband service.
After all this investment by the city you mean my internet isn’t free?
It’s true that for most, a municipal internet would not be free. Think of it like a utility, like your water or electric bill. It costs money, but it’s a quality service that’s regulated so private companies can’t overcharge you. For those that can’t afford it like those who live in low-income housing, Cambridge will include a lower priced subsidized service. Addressing the access portion of digital equity is one of the main objectives of the municipal broadband service.
Studies have also shown that a municipal broadband brings real competition. Comcast may decide to lower their prices, improve their service offerings, and/or improve their level of customer service. That could be a huge indirect benefit to residents and businesses, easily millions of dollars a year, perhaps tens of millions per year going forward. That alone could justify an investment by the city.
I like my Comcast, why can’t I just stick with it?
You can! While we think municipal broadband would be a better service than what Comcast can offer, having a choice is ultimately best for all. Not only that, but as studies have shown, cities that have broadband competition have lower prices for better service. Cambridge has tried to invite competition from the likes of Starry, Astound (formerly RCN), and Verizon. None of them have nearly enough incentive to expand to the same levels as Comcast. So even if you decide to stick with Comcast your service will improve when Cambridge introduces a municipal option.
Why doesn’t the city just provide free wifi for everyone?
The city provides free wi-fi service in public buildings like libraries, youth centers, some outdoor parks, and outdoors at Newtowne Court and Washington Elms, but citywide wifi coverage is not practical. Blanketing the city with access points would first require building a citywide fiber network to connect to thousands of outdoor access points. But the wireless signals from these outdoor access points would not reach many indoor locations. Finally, maintaining and operating thousands of outdoor access points would mean additional ongoing expense for a poor quality of service.
What about 5G? I can get wireless internet now from T-Mobile and Verizon, isn’t that good enough?
5G providers aren't required to address public policy goals the way a municipal broadband would. Issues like bait-and-switch pricing (a low entry price that goes up after a while) or data caps (additional charges once you exceed some amount of use) or privacy issues (selling your browsing history to the highest bidder) still exist. The wireless providers have always been exempted from net neutrality rules, even when the FCC classified internet access providers as Title II common carriers. And none of the providers are required to do anything to address digital equity. Comcast does have a program providing low-priced internet to those with low-income, but there are many barriers to signing up and it’s a limited service.
A fiber to the home network, which is how a municipal broadband service would be built, is future-proof. Today a symmetrical gigabit connection would be the likely entry level of service, but such a network could easily support 10 gigabit connections and beyond, simply by changing some of the equipment at each end of the fibers. With an HD video stream currently requiring 25 megabits per second, a few people just streaming video in the same household can easily exceed the capacity of most connections available today. And our demand for more bandwidth is only going up. None of the wireless providers will ever match the capabilities of fiber to the home as each of their base stations is also served by a similar fiber and then the connection is shared with dozens or hundreds of customers at the same time.
So while 5G connections might be acceptable today, they will quickly become second class connections, only valid for mobile use but inadequate for the demands of tomorrow.
HOW WOULD A MUNICIPAL NETWORK PROVIDE ACCESS TO THOSE WITHOUT THE ABILITY TO PAY?
Currently, low income residents have a single choice: Comcast's Internet Essentials program. Internet Essentials is a terrible offering that provides third rate service, if you can get it. A municipal network could offer discounted access for a much better level of service, subsidizing those who cannot afford full price. This would enable the city to provide a permanent and financially sustainable way to help address digital equity in Cambridge.
WON'T WIRELESS TECHNOLOGIES MAKE THIS NETWORK OBSOLETE?
No, a fiber optic network, once built, can be easily upgraded with better and faster connections. Wireless technology that can compete with a fiber optic network does not exist, despite all the marketing hype around 5G.
HAVE OTHER CITIES ACCOMPLISHED THIS?
Yes! Chattanooga, Tennessee provides 1 gigabit-per-second Internet service to their entire community, as does Cedar Falls, Iowa. Many smaller towns in Massachusetts do this as well. There are over 900 communities in the US which are served by either by municipal or cooperatively owned networks with many more on the way.
These cities found that they were unable to rely on private Internet Service Providers and built out their own public networks. Residents are benefiting from faster service at lower prices. The cities themselves often see additional benefits derived from smarter public utilities. Chattanooga's electricity utility estimates it saves a million dollars a year thanks to their fiberoptic network.