joshua_montgomery (Joshua Montgomery)


Comment history

Google Fiber is coming to nine more cities; but Lawrence is not on the list

I think the best way to bring them to town is to build the network ourselves and invite Google to be a carrier on it.

I wrote an Op-Ed on it for ArsTechnica:

February 20, 2014 at 2:56 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Duplex and apartment development moving forward at the Kasold Curve; speculation about Google and Lawrence

Chad, the City did indeed participate in Google's original competition and later <a href="">set up a web page</a> to further entice Google. The web page was taken offline when Wicked asked for equal treatment of our local fiber project.

I've been in regular contact with Google and would definitely be excited to have them enter the Lawrence market as a retailer on a community wholesale network. It would be exciting to have Google play a part in a local market where there are multiple choices for broadband.

For those of you who might not be telecommunications policy wonks, Susan Crawford did an EXCELLENT <a href="">interview on NPR</a> last week that really clarifies the issue.

Susan sites Stockholm as an example of a community that built a common carrier network that has provided substantial benefits to its citizens. In Stockholm residents can choose from five providers and are able to purchase 1 Gigabit connections for around $30/Month.

It is an excellent interview and well worth a listen.

February 10, 2014 at 1:55 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Letter: Broadband control

Folks interested in engaging with this important Issue can find more information at:

February 8, 2014 at 12:07 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Lawrence and High Speed Internet - Left Behind or Moving Ahead

When we proposed "Freenet Kids" in 2008, part of the project was a City wide fiber backbone that would have put Lawrence in a great place to expand. The project was bank funded. All we requested from the City was a loan guarantee. ( )

Almost a year ago now, we proposed a fiber project that would have mirrored the success of Chatanooga, TN.

While the City of Lawrence it trying to figure out how to respond, the Kansas legislature is trying to make it illegal for municipalities to work with providers to expand access.

It is long past time that the City takes this issue seriously. Cities that were bypassed by the Interstate withered and died. Open access fiber is the Interstate of the future, it will allow businesses to thrive and give communities access to the global economy.

Please take a moment to support our efforts here:

February 4, 2014 at 6:28 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

Kansas legislative hearing on broadband cancelled

We were happy to help kill this bill.

Stay informed about broadband access in Kansas, like us at

February 3, 2014 at 11:05 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Capitol Report: ALEC, broadband, guns, religion

Folks interested in stopping the train wreck that is Kansas SB 304 "The Incumbent Telecommunications Company Protection Act." can learn more and take action here:

February 2, 2014 at 2:25 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Editorial: Need for speed?

Mr Forer,

We offered the operation as a gift. That means all of the revenue and all of the debt.

Since Kris and I took full ownership of the company in 2012 the operation is profitable. That means we are bringing in enough funds to cover all of our expenses and fully fund depreciation, amortization and interest, with some additional funds left over to pay down our principle balance.

All Internet Service Providers carry debt. WoW!, for example, took on $1 Billion in debt obligations to purchase Knology. AT&T carries $76 Billion in debt as of the end of last quarter.

Our offer was a very attractive one and was made in good faith. We offered the City an operation with a multi-million dollar valuation to be operated in the best interests of the citizens of Lawrence.

The path we are pursuing is our second preference. Our third option is to focus on high revenue customers with an eventual goal of exiting the Lawrence market through a liquidity event. We do not want to do that, but the opportunity costs associated with operating an ISP in Lawrence have gotten to be too significant.


Joshua Montgomery

Wicked Broadband

January 23, 2014 at 2:13 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Editorial: Need for speed?

Ms. Gordon,

I've seen several of your posts regarding this issue and am glad to see you feel passionate about it.

I wanted to clarify that our first preference in this process was to give our operation to the City as a gift. This would have given the city a profitable seed from which to grow a municipal fiber network including low cost backhaul, a customer base, billing system, support staff, DMCA & CALEA compliance, etc.

It would also have the effect of keeping the City out of court. In communities where the municipality has undertaken FTTP projects incumbents have sued repeatedly to kill the projects. By taking our existing operations as a gift, the City would de-facto be in the Internet service provider (ISP) business. It would present a fait accompli.

The savings in legal fees alone would have justified the City's acceptance.

I also wanted to point out that the City of Lawrence applied for Google Fiber during the registration period. <a href=">The City even had a website specifically set up to attract Google Fiber</a>. Provided the network is built as a common carriage system, we support this concept.

We feel the best way to bring Google Fiber to Lawrence is to build the infrastructure in advance. If, for example, the City had pursued our <a href="">Freenet Kids</a> proposal in 2008, the City would already have had a fiber ring in place. It would have been built at our cost. Instead it is 5 years later and the city is paying to build its own fiber ring.

The only community that has successfully jumped the line to receive Google Fiber is Provo, UT. They did it by <a href="">building the infrastructure themselves, then giving it to Google, a $40 Million subsidy</a>.

We think we might be able to replicate that here by building a common carriage network that has four (4) active fibers at each address. We can then offer Google one fiber to attract them to the community.

The remaining fibers will be available to all comers on an equal basis. This includes WoW!, AT&T, Dawn Fiber, Mercury Wireless or anyone else.

By installing additional capacity, we promote competition and innovation. This will have the effect of lowering prices and improving service for everyone.

The City recently spent <a href=""> $435,000 on a sewage tank at the Airport<a/> with the hopes that it MIGHT attract new businesses. The overall cost of the project? $1.9 Million.

Surely $500K and advantageous pricing on unused fiber capacity is a reasonable expenditure for a Fiber To The Premises (FTTP) project that reaches 459 businesses with 3,762 employees.


Joshua Montgomery

Wicked Broadband

January 23, 2014 at 11:03 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

City advisory board wants to further consider $500k grant to Wicked Broadband

Mr. DiVilbiss,

From the KU Small Business Report submitted to the Lawrence PIRC 1/21/2014, Page 18:

"Google received stunning regulatory concessions and incentives from local governments, including free access to virtually everything the city owns or controls: rights of way, central office space, power, interconnections with anchor institutions, marketing and direct mail, and office space for Google employees. City officials also expedited the permitting process and assigned staff specifically to help Google. One county even offered to allow Google to hang its wires on parts of utility poles - for free - that are usually off-limits to communications companies"

January 22, 2014 at 5:26 p.m. ( | suggest removal )