What Problem Are We Trying to Fix?

Working from Home (WFH)

Longmeadow is considering construction of a $25–30 million town-owned fiber network, financed over 20–30 years and ultimately backed by taxpayers. The proposed financial model suggests a 40–50% take rate (roughly 2,320–2,900 of 5,800 homes) is required to break even through subscriber revenue.

Before committing to long-term debt in a town already facing major capital obligations (new middle school, roads, infrastructure), it is reasonable to step back and ask:

What specific problem are we trying to fix?

Do Most Homes Need Symmetrical Gigabit Speeds?

There is a common perception that 1 Gig up / 1 Gig down — or even 5 Gig symmetrical — must be better.

But most households do not use bandwidth that way.

Typical 2026 Residential Usage Needs

[click chart to enlarge]

For most households:

• Download demand dominates. Every household does not need 1 Gig download speed.
• Upload demand matters primarily for multiple simultaneous HD video calls or heavy cloud uploads.

Most residents today report satisfactory performance with:

• 1 Gig / 100 Mbps cable service
• Streaming TV via Roku
• Video conferencing
• Gaming

References:

1. What is the Best Internet Speed for Netflix?
2.  FCC- Broadband Speed Guide
3.  Best Internet Speed for Gaming: Download, Upload & Ping Explained

1.     What are the Current Market Conditions?

Longmeadow is not a broadband desert.

Current competitive landscape:

 - Xfinity / Comcast

•  1 Gb down / 100 Mb up
•  Approximately $85/month
•  5-year rate guarantees (no contract)
•  Planned DOCSIS 4.0 upgrades nationally 

 - Verizon & T-Mobile 5G Home Internet

•  Wireless alternatives
•  Existing wireless technology already supports multi-WFH homes which could dramatically impact take-rate.

New DOCSIS 4.0 technology is designed to enable:

•  Multi-gigabit service
•  Symmetric or near-symmetric capabilities
•  2Gb/2Gb and potentially higher tiers over time

 The competitive environment could shift significantly over the next 5–10 years.

2.     Financial Framework: 5,800 Homes

Assume:

- 5,800 total serviceable homes
- Break-even requires 40–50% take rate
- 2,320 – 2,900 subscribers
- $90/month estimated municipal fiber cost

Annual Revenue at 45% Take Rate (2,610 homes):

2,610 × $90 × 12 = $2.82 million per year

If take rate drops to 35% (2,030 homes):

2,030 × $90 × 12 = $2.19 million per year

That’s a revenue difference of $630,000 annually.

In a 20–30 year debt structure, sustained shortfall can create significant financial pressure. Even if structured as an enterprise fund, bond markets and rating agencies view the municipality holistically.

3.     Capital Risk in Context

Longmeadow taxpayers are already facing:
- ~$100 million local share for new middle school
- Potential additional $200+ million of capital needs for road, water/sewer and storm sewer, school, DPW, etc. improvements as outline in the 5 year capital program (March 2025)
- Inflationary construction costs

Adding $25–30 million of subscriber-dependent infrastructure debt introduces:

• Market risk
• Competitive pricing risk
• Technology evolution risk
• Take-rate uncertainty
• Political risk if a taxpayer subsidy becomes necessary

4.     Is Symmetry the Problem to Solve?

Symmetrical speeds are technically superior.

But the policy question is: 
How many households are meaningfully constrained by 100 Mbps upload today?

If the number is small, then:

• The issue is one of preference, not access.
• The project becomes a competitive choice, not an infrastructure necessity.

That distinction matters when debt is taxpayer-backed.

5.     Technology Risk Over 20–30 Years

Fiber is long-lived infrastructure.

But:

• Cable is upgrading (--> DOCSIS 4.0).
• Wireless 5G continues improving.
• Pricing strategies may change dramatically.
• Promotional competition could suppress municipal take rate growth.

A project financed over 20–30 years assumes:

• Stable subscriber growth
• Competitive resilience
• Sufficient ARPU (Average Revenue Per Home)
• Technology relevance

In telecom markets, those assumptions carry risk.

6.     The Core Policy Question

The town must determine whether this is:
Critical Infrastructure Gap or Competitive Enhancement

If residents:

• Already receive gigabit download
• Have competitive pricing
• Have alternative providers
• Report minimal service dissatisfaction

Then the “problem” may not be capacity.

It may be:

• Price stability
• Local control
• Long-term competitive leverage

Those are policy goals — but they are different from fixing a service failure.

Conclusion

Fiber is excellent infrastructure, but infrastructure should solve a clearly defined problem.

In a town with:

• Existing gigabit service
• Competitive providers
• Major concurrent capital obligations
• 20–30 year borrowing horizon

It is reasonable to ask:

Are we solving a broadband deficiency — or entering a competitive telecom business at scale? 
Longmeadow has already heard from at least one major Internet service company that is interested in investing their own "risk capital" to bring Internet performance improvements to Longmeadow residents as well as serious competition to the existing players.  

Why is the Longmeadow Select Board continuing to block these efforts?  Let's not risk taxpayer money investing "risk capital" in this technology.
                                 _______________________________

I urge all town voters to learn about this Longmeadow Fiber project and the potential impact on the financial well being of our town and not just listen to all of the fiber "hype".

I will vote NO when this project is voted on at the upcoming Town Meeting in May.   

Jim Moran
48 Avondale Road

Vote NO on Article 4

This letter to the Select Board was sent by Mark Gold, a former Longmeadow Select Board member recommending a Vote NO on Article #4 at the Longmeadow Special Town Meeting on Tuesday, November 4.

_________________________________________________

M Gold <mgold129@yahoo.com> Wed, Oct 29, 2025 at 3:58 PM 

To: "selectboard@longmeadowma.gov" <selectboard@longmeadowma.gov>, "jlevine@longmeadowma.gov" <jlevine@longmeadowma.gov>, "alam@longmeadowma.gov" <alam@longmeadowma.gov>, "vhemavathi@longmeadowma.gov" vhemavathi@longmeadowma.gov>
Cc: "adminassistant@longmeadowma.gov" "lsimmons@longmeadowma.gov" 

To the Longmeadow Select Board:

I've stayed away from town politics for the past four months, feeling that the Select Board deserves the right to oversee the town without the peanut gallery getting involved. But my recent reading of Article 4 on the warrant for the November 4th Special Town meeting requires my comments, primarily because it has misinterpreted at best, and twisted at worst, the intent of the streetlight purchase and LED conversion.

Let there be no misunderstanding: the funds that are under discussion for being placed into a "revolving fund", both the lump sum amount and the ongoing revenue stream, are the direct result of the conversion of our streetlights to LEDs. I believe I may be one of only a handful of town residents who lived and understand this entire story. I am happy to go into greater detail at your request, but there can no disagreement that the funds under discussion resulted from the conversion of streetlights to LEDs and the SIGNIFICANT reduction in electricity use in the accounts that charge the town for powering our street lights.

The concern I have, and the reason for this letter, is that the street light purchase and LED conversion was done for one reason, and one reason only: to reduce the cost of that line item in the town budget and allow for the control, if not lowering, of the Longmeadow tax rate. The street light purchase and LED conversion was NOT done to create a "DPW Electricity and Energy Improvement Revolving fund". The diversion of funds from lowering taxes to providing a special fund is a significant deviation from the intent of the LED conversion program. No one, particularly me who individually worked extensively on this program, went through the effort of converting our streetlights so we could create a (pardon the expression, but it seems to apply here) slush fund for the DPW to use to address issues as they see fit.

The purchase of the streetlights has indeed reduced the street light line item cost by eliminating light and pole rental charges. This purchase was accompanied by the conversion of our streetlights to LEDs, and that conversion was not done only to be more "green" and reduce our energy consumption, it was specifically directed at reducing our energy (and overall budget) costs. To divert those saved funds from a reduction in the budget (and effectively a reduction in the taxes that need to be raised) to a revolving fund is a disregard for the intent of town residents and the vote of the town meeting at which funds were appropriated for LED conversion.

In summary, I believe the Select Board and town administration is wrong in submitting this proposal to Town Meeting. The intent of the street light conversion to LEDs cannot be misinterpreted, and as the person who identified this cost savings opportunity and who, along with our Town Manager, worked harder than anyone in town to make this happen, I can state unequivocally that Warrant Article #4 gets it wrong on every account. We should be using the revenue (and accumulated lump sum) into reducing our energy costs and our taxes.

Therefore, I intend to vote against this warrant article, and urge all town residents to also vote against Warrant article #4 at the November 4th Special Town meeting. Funds returned to the town as energy credits should be used to pay other energy costs in town (ideally electricity) and reduce the overall budget of the town.
 

Regards,
Mark Gold

P.S. This letter should appear as "correspondence" in the November 3rd Select Board distribution packet as it is directed to a majority of the Select Board members. To delay it's distribution until after the Special Town Meeting is to further disregard the intent of the voters.

 

A Local Perspective: The Cost of a Municipal Fiber Network vs. Private Options

The Town of Longmeadow is evaluating a plan to create a town-owned fiber-optic Internet network, with construction and operation contracted to the South Hadley Electric Light Department (SHELD). The estimated capital investment is $27 million, to be financed and owned by the Town. The project would take roughly five years to complete.

   

Under the proposed structure, SHELD would not only build the network but also operate it on Longmeadow’s behalf once construction is finished. That includes:

• Hiring and supervising its own staff,

• Managing customer billing and technical support, and

• Providing ongoing maintenance of the fiber system and customer equipment.

In essence, SHELD would act as Longmeadow’s contracted network operator, while the Town retains ownership of the physical infrastructure and the long-term financial obligation.

💰 Prevailing-Wage Requirements and Cost Implications

Because the network is a municipally owned public-works project, Massachusetts law requires that construction labor be paid at the state’s “prevailing wage” rate. These rates — established by the Department of Labor Standards — can run 1.5 to 2 times higher than equivalent private-sector wages for the same type of telecommunications work.

That means Longmeadow’s build cost will be significantly higher per mile than what a private company would pay for the same installation. When combined with public-sector procurement, permitting, and bonding requirements, total capital costs typically exceed those of private builds.

Once the network is built, ongoing operation and maintenance may fall into a more nuanced category. If SHELD provides these services under a service contract as an independent utility entity — not as direct employees of the Town of Longmeadow — prevailing-wage laws usually do not apply to those operational functions.  However, these costs are expected to remain higher than those of private networks, since municipal contracting and staffing rules restrict flexibility and raise administrative overhead.

📊 Comparing the Three Models

Category	Comcast/Xfinity	Private Fiber Company	Municipal Fiber (SHELD–Longmeadow)
Infrastructure Status	Existing, fully operational	New build	New build
Construction Cost	Minimal (incremental upgrades)	Moderate	High (prevailing-wage labor)
Financing Source	Private capital	Private capital or investors	Municipal bonds (taxpayer-backed)
Operations	Existing large-scale staff	Private management	SHELD-contracted operation
Prevailing-Wage Impact	None	None	Required for construction; likely not    for contracted operations
Financial Risk	Comcast shareholders	Private investors	Longmeadow taxpayers/ratepayers

 
Summary

Comcast’s existing hybrid fiber-coax system already reaches nearly every home in Longmeadow and continues to be upgraded to faster standards, reducing the need for costly new construction. A privately financed competitor could theoretically build a new all-fiber system at market-rate labor costs but would bear its own financial risk.

By contrast, the municipally financed network would build new infrastructure at a higher total cost, due to prevailing-wage requirements, borrowing expenses, and the need for a separate contracted operator. If subscriber revenue falls short, ratepayers as well as taxpayers would be responsible for covering the deficit.

As the town evaluates this proposal, the key question remains: 

Will Longmeadow’s investment in a new municipally owned fiber network truly deliver better performance or lower costs than the upgraded systems already available from Xfinity or new private providers?

Jim Moran
48 Avondale Road

A Smarter, Faster, and Cheaper Xfinity Upgrade

After years of dependable but expensive Comcast service, my wife and I decided it was time to take a closer look at our monthly bill — and we're glad that we did. By rethinking what we actually use and how we watch TV, we ended up with faster Internet, the same entertainment options, and major savings every month.

📺 From Cable TV to Streaming

Our original Comcast package included television programming with DVR service on multiple TVs, along with Internet at about 500 Mbps or less.
The total monthly cost? $285.

The reality was that most of those cable channels and extra DVR boxes went unused. So, we made the decision to eliminate the traditional TV programming and keep only Internet service.

To replace live TV and DVR, we switched to Roku streaming (device cost ~ $30-40) and added YouTube TV for ~$82 per month, which includes many local and national channels as well as full cloud DVR capability — perfect since my wife and I often watch shows at times different vs. broadcast time.  It took a short learning curve, but we quickly adapted and found that nearly everything we watched before is available through streaming.  This includes watching Select Board/ School Committee meetings on YouTube Live (streaming).

⚙️ The New Xfinity/Comcast Plan

We recently upgraded to a new Gigabit Internet plan that includes a free Xfinity Gateway modem/router for $85 per month, guaranteed for five years — and best of all, there’s no contract.

That’s down from our previous Xfinity Internet-only rate of $124 per month, saving $39 per month or $468 per year right away.

📱 Free Phone & Verizon Reimbursement

By transferring one of our mobile phone accounts from Verizon to Comcast/Xfinity Mobile:

• We received one full year of free phone service (valued at $480).

• Comcast also covered the remaining $195 phone financing balance on our Verizon plan, reimbursing us via a $195 Visa card.

📺 Bonus Streaming Value

The new plan even includes two years of Peacock Premium streaming at no charge — a $10.99/month value, or $132 per year.

📶 Extra Perk from Verizon

Ironically, Verizon offered a $10/month discount for one year on our second phone line, adding another $120 in savings. (Could this be a competitive retain customer incentive since we transferred one of our two Verizon mobile accounts?)

💰 Total First-Year Savings

Source	Value
Lower monthly Internet rate	$468
Free phone service	$480
Verizon payoff reimbursement	$195
Peacock Premium (2-year value, annualized)	$132
Verizon wireless discount	$120
Total Savings (Year 1)	$1,395

Even after paying $85/month ($1,020 per year) for Gigabit Internet, we are effectively ahead by $255 — meaning our new high-speed Internet and streaming setup is essentially free in the first year.

⚡ Real-World Speed Results

The performance boost has been impressive. Here are the up/down data speeds from the Xfinity Gateway to one of our computers connected via an Ethernet cable. 

• Download speed: 931 Mbps

• Upload speed: 118 Mbps

At the incoming cable connection (Xfinity Gateway), we are receiving around 1.2 Gbps, slightly above the advertised 1.0 Gbps Gigabit plan speed — a great sign that Xfinity’s network capacity has improved locally.

🏁 The Bottom Line

By cutting cable TV, upgrading to Gigabit Internet, and embracing streaming through Roku and YouTube TV, we reduced our total monthly cost from $285 to $167 — and improved both speed and flexibility.

Between the first-year savings, free streaming perks, and better Internet performance, this upgrade has been well worth the change.

Sometimes a little rethinking — and a willingness to learn something new — can lead to faster service, lower bills, and a better experience overall.

Jim & Judy Moran
45 year Longmeadow residents and 35 year customers of Comcast/ Xfinity and prior cable system owners (ATT-Broadband, Media One ...)  

Renovate Glenbrook and Williams Middle Schools

This letter to the editor was submitted to LongmeadowBuzz by Curt Freedman- a long time resident of Longmeadow.

 

 

Dear Editor:

I have lived in Longmeadow since before I was born and completed grades K-12. I attended Glenbrook and was a member of the class of 1973 (Go Bulldogs).  I have firsthand knowledge of busing as I was bused from Primrose Drive to Glenbrook for three years. 

 

For 33 years, I have been a registered professional engineer and practice in 23 states and work as a forensic engineering investigator across the country, as well as instruct renewable energy as an adjunct professor at a local engineering university.  I am tremendously grateful for the professional and academic opportunities enabled in part by my public school education in Longmeadow.

 

My sons have also attended grades K-12 and are each highly accomplished professionals.  My wife, in blessed memory, was a speech/language pathologist and previously contracted with the Longmeadow Schools.

 

I have previously supported the renovation of Blueberry Hill, Wolf Swamp, and Center Schools.  As co-chairman of the Longmeadow High School Task Force Committee, I helped lead the renovation of LHS to its present state.  Our LHS Building team, as supported by the Longmeadow School Committee, actively worked to avoid decisions that would adversely affect abutters or create an unreasonable financial burden to our community.  Although multiple architects recommended a brand-new high school on Russell Field, these recommendations were rejected out of respect for Longmeadow.

 

My direct experience taught me that there is nothing positive about busing; it extends the school day, interferes with participation in school activities, and can create time conflicts with family and homework studies, especially during inclement weather.  An 11 or 12-year-old does not have the independent transportation options of a high school student; a local neighborhood middle school is a tried and proven option.

 

I feel that the proposed combined middle school is fundamentally flawed for the following reasons.   The project conflicts with sustainability, the Longmeadow Long-Range Plan, as well as professional engineering standards.   The project will eliminate multiple sports fields.    The project will lessen the quality of education for the majority of students.   The project will maximize busing/vehicle traffic and cause unresolvable traffic gridlock.  The project will be financially burdensome for our community.  The project will lessen property values for many of our residents.

Renovate Glenbrook Middle School. 
Renovate Williams Middle School.

Sometimes, Less is more.

Let us work together for the best interests of our Longmeadow community.

 Curt M. Freedman, PE
24 Ridge Road
Longmeadow, MA 01106