Before We Blame Comcast — or Build a New Network

 

Many residents say they’re not getting the speeds they pay for.

But here’s something worth considering in the Longmeadow Fiber discussion:

Your internet speed is only as fast as the weakest device in your home.

If you’re using:
• An 8–10 year old computer
• A spinning hard drive instead of SSD (solid state drive)
• 8GB RAM or less
• Older WiFi 4/5 hardware
• A 1-Gig Ethernet port on a 1.2-Gig plan

You may never see advertised speeds — even if the network is performing perfectly.

I recently replaced a 10-year-old Lenovo desktop with a modern SSD-based system.

Same Comcast plan 
(1 Gigabit plan- $85/month including taxes, fees and Gateway rental)
Same Xfinity gateway.
Dramatically better performance and measured speeds.

A townwide fiber network build will not automatically fix:
• Old routers
• Outdated laptops
• Mechanical hard drives
• Weak internal WiFi cards

That doesn’t mean fiber isn’t valuable. It means we should separate:

Infrastructure limitations from In-home technology limitations

Before concluding that the problem is “the provider,” it’s worth asking:

Is the bottleneck outside the house — or inside it? 

 

Jim Moran/ LongmeadowBiz, LLC

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