Personally, yes (but I'm not in the market having just moved). Montana is a beautiful place that has yet to be overran by greedy entrepreneurs seeking to raise profits by lowering their costs. I kinda wish you weren't trying to bring more people to the state so that I could retire in a quiet place.

Most of the start-up crowd seems to think that it's worth paying several times more rent to be physically near the big money in SanFran. But there are a few cities that have an active tech scene (Dallas and Kansas City come to mind) that have managed to make it. The difference is that those were decently sized cities with lots of other infrastructure to start with. Can a city with a population under 100,000 offer the other infrastructure needed to create a successful business? You've got fast internet, but do you have enough blue collar workers to support your office needs? An airport big enough to offer flights out to important meetings that can't be done virtually? There are several other things to consider when picking a city to base a company from.

I'd recommend getting in touch with the Chamber of Commerce to see how you can come together to pitch the city. Helena is certainly a nice place, but you have to sell the other aspects than just fast internet.

> Most of the start-up crowd seems to think that it's worth paying several times more rent to be physically near the big money in SanFran.

It's not an unfounded belief, imo. I've been trying to convince several of my friends to move to San Francisco, and the "it's too expensive" refrain is something I'm getting a little tired of hearing. Yes, it's expensive, but in general, the salary and other income opportunities make it worth it for a decent software engineer.

I don't know how much the cost of living is in Montana, but I'm from Alabama, and I assume it's relatively comparable, and I had a 40K/year job there. My rent was $500/mo. I'd say my monthly expenses were a little less than $1600/mo, which puts my annual expenses at around 20K. Over the last five years in SF, my annual expenses approached 60K, mostly toward rent (like you said, rent is high). Whoa. That's crazy, right? But let's stop and do the math.

Let's throw out a nice round number and say my average income over those first few years in SF was ~120K and say 30% tax rate, to keep things simple. In San Francisco, 120K (income) - 60K (expenses) - 36K taxes = 24K savings. In Alabama, 40K (income) - 20K (expenses) - 12K (taxes) = 8K savings.

My expenses in Alabama were 1/3 that of SF -- the rent was almost 6 times cheaper in Alabama than my rent in SF is! But in San Francisco, my increased salary means that I'm saving three times as much in San Francisco versus Alabama. My cost of living in SF is 3x higher than my cost of living in San Francisco -- but my income is also 3x higher! And I'm not even included income from stock or freelance work. (Granted, I could get stock and freelance work elsewhere, but again, like you said, "the big money" is in SF, so roughly the same math would apply.)

All this is to say that, assuming you enjoy living in an urban environment and are responsible with your money, it IS worth paying several times more rent to be physically near the big money in SF. A dollar is a dollar anywhere in the United States. Saving 24K per year for 5 years gets you awfully close to 125K, well on your way to a nice house pretty much anywhere else in the country - Montana included. It would take you over twice that long to get to even 100K if you lived in Alabama.

Is it worth paying a high rent to enjoy the benefits of living in SF? I think so. I love SF -- the city, the culture, the weather, the working environment, and yes, the money. There are times when I wish I had a bigger house, but by and large, I'm extremely happy here.

But more to OP's point: Would I move to Montana? I agree with you. There would have to be really, really attractive incentives aside from money. Great schools, great entertainment, friends, family, and plenty of job opportunities. Solid infrastructure is a must, but my day job isn't my identity -- there are another 12-18 hours in a day that command my time and energy as well, and those needs must be met!

I agree it can sometimes be a good comparison for SF, but I think there are a lot of circumstances where it isn't. Depends on the particular pair of cities, and your other preferences, like type of housing.

For one thing, though this may not apply to Helena, the salary differential is not nearly that big when you compare to many other cities. You can easily make over $100k working in tech in lots of places that are comparatively cheap: Austin, Pittsburgh, Houston, Chicago, etc. I think you will have trouble running the numbers on salary vs. CoL in Google Mountain View vs. Google Pittsburgh in a way that makes Google Mountain View come out ahead. I think whether you prefer to rent or buy also makes a difference. SF is just about doable on a high salary to rent, but requires serious wealth to buy. But the strategy you allude to of renting there a few years and saving up to later buy elsewhere is plausible.

Yes. As a full-stack eater who lives a full car life-style I think it would be fun. I have a variety of interests which include skiing, camping, hiking, beer, and restaurants. I also enjoy diverse scenery (like mountains). I'd get all that if I moved to Helena and would be happy not to live in a city full of the self-righteous .

I love to hear about burgeoning tech scenes in places other than SF and NY. Good luck to you.

Same here, it would be nice for SF and NYC to have some more competition for the tech scene, which may force them to loosen their restrictions on housing.

I'd argue that all it takes to start a company is a place to sleep and a good Internet connection (and good beer, but that's me). Also, fun fact, you could buy a house in Helena and pay less than your rent in NYC.

I grew up in Helena and I currently work for a Seattle-based startup. I will be visiting the week of July 27th and would love to check out the office space and learn more about your venture. I've always considered moving back to Helena but opportunities like this were previously few and far between. Let me know what you mean by "come visit"!

We work out the The Shop, a co-working space on Last Chance. Heck yes come and say hello!

https://www.facebook.com/theshophelena

Thanks! I'll follow up via facebook.

No.

I'm a pescatarian who lives a car free lifestyle. I have a variety of interests which include museums, musical theater, night clubs and restaurants. I also enjoy cultural diversity. I'd have to give all that up to move to Helena, while taking such a huge financial hit that it be difficult to move back to a city that fits my lifestyle.

Lots of trout in Montana.

Visit, yes. Move, probably not.

Maybe instead of an incubator, you should focus on local education. 'Growing your own developers' outside of Silicon Valley seems to be a trend. It's working in Nashville, at least.

Can you speak more to this? When I worked for a Nashville-based company about two years ago, the hiring prospects were awfully limited.

I'm a Nashville-based software developer, so maybe I can lend some color to parent's comment.

Parent may be speaking about the Nashville Software School[1]. Very recently it has been turning out some great talent in the 0-2 yrs of experience range.

The rest of this post is pure anecdote from the perspective of someone that has hired tech workers in Nashville, both full time and contract.

We seem to have a decent (but not enough, never enough) supply of junior devs (0-2 yrs experience). Really experienced talent seems more elusive. I believe that it's here, I just think most of it is employed already.

Additionally, the tech scene here is a little strange. There's an ever expanding pool of web folks (e.g., Rails, Node, etc) and a surprising amount of more Enterprise experienced developers (e.g, C#, Java) that arose as result of all the HealthTech hiring that's been going on the last several years. So veteran (e.g., 7+ years) software developers I've encountered seem to skew toward Enterprise.

There's some startup activity here[2], and we're seeing some larger non-healthcare outfits set up shop in Nashville (e.g., Warby Parker, Lonely Planet). The technology scene here is really starting to come together, but it's by no means a Silicon Valley, NYC, Boston, or even Austin yet, really. It's getting there, but we're still a ways from seeing Music Row's inevitable transformation into Silicon Row ;)

[1] http://nashvillesoftwareschool.com/ [2] https://angel.co/nashville

Interesting, thanks. I was working for a healthcare startup (almost but not entirely a contradiction in terms) that was painfully, painfully enterprisey, so that certainly could have been part of our experience.

We weren't looking for juniors, either, which complicated things.

I was indeed talking about NSS. Thanks for elaborating and bringing links for the lazy.

They still are, honestly. 'Good ole boy' healthcare companies abound. So, lots of cruft to view if you are looking for a gig. However, there are some excellent software shops in town doing things 'the better way'.

I hated the cruft enough to build my own private company.

>'Good ole boy' healthcare companies abound

Ugh. Tell me about it. The old guard in tech around here has led to some real hair pulling moments for me.

I think we're headed for a schism, though. Can't wait.

A local (Springfield, MA area) entrepreneur started this non-profit http://thetechfoundry.org when he couldn't find enough people to hire (more sysadmin/IT Pro then dev, but still interesting)

I'm in Boston and I'd love to spend some time teaching folks. Hard to fit it in, though.

I like working at startups for a variety of reasons.

To pull a number out of my hat, let's say that one in twenty random tech startups would be a good fit for me (based on tech used, experience needed, culture, mission, pay, etc).

Say I find a great startup in Helena (where Helena is a stand-in for the many US cities trying to foster a tech scene). It's one of, say, 15 up-and-coming tech startups in the area. I move to Helena and work there.

What happens when that startup goes under (which is more than likely for any early-stage startup anywhere)? What happens when it doesn't go under, but I no longer want to work there for whatever reason, since companies necessarily change significantly as they grow? There are 14 other companies in my target size, and odds are none of them are a good fit. But I've moved here, settled in, made friends, etc, and now I have to deal with either the high social and financial cost of moving, or settle for companies I'm a worse fit for.

That's the main reason I live in SF and not any of the other cities trying to be the next SF. If my startup goes under, I can pick up a similar job at another in a few weeks without having to change apartments.

That is a very good point. In my mind I was targeting those who are working on their own company, their own idea, no matter the cost, without accounting for those who would be working for them.

I'm personally in Bozeman, and while Helena has quite a bit going for it, I doubt I'll leave.

However, I would say that Bozeman is becoming quite the magnet for startups - we get a bunch of experienced developers who are sick of working for Oracle and a pipeline of CS majors straight out of MSU. A lot of execs also love to live here with all of the outdoor activities, so they bring a branch of their companies and startups here.

The lifestyle is very different from that of the city (I just recently went to our home office in NY, so speaking from very recent experience). Entertainment here consists primarily of outdoor activities (skiing, hunting, biking, hiking, 2/4 wheeling, fishing, etc) than it does plays, theaters, and museums. You'll also be driving at least some of the time... the nearest store is typically 3-4 miles from your house, not 3-4 blocks. Public transport exists, but not to the same degree as it does in a large city: a bus will visit a particular stop every hour or more, instead of every few minutes.

It's a different pace of life, but I love it.

Possibly.

I've worked for a few years around the edges of boosting a startup scene in a rural area that's roughly the same population as Helena. It's very, very difficult work. Part of the trouble is that you meet a lot of really nice, well-intentioned people, but ... the talent just isn't there. You see a lot of bad results from a lot of effort.

You have to have someone there that is the go-to person for building and supporting tech businesses in the area. We had a great guy here, but he eventually moved on to other things and nobody else has yet filled the hole he left. It has to be what they spend 100% of their time doing, and they have to be well enough compensated for it that they don't start looking for other opportunities.

You have to provide a real incentive for talent to come and stay, and unfortunately office spaces and fiber connections aren't enough. Talent seems to be drawn mostly to other talent and unique projects, so if you can convince somebody with a good reputation to move there, that will help.

For startups specifically, money can be a problem in rural areas. Promising startups will eventually need either venture capital or some really fantastic business funding. Other people in our community have been told to their face (by VCs) that they'd never get funding because there's no talent in our area.

And rural areas can have other issues too. Small-town politics, a local rag for a newspaper, too much isolation can all wear people down, even those of us that prefer small rural areas to living in dense metropolitan places.

Congratulations on building out your fiber network though, that's a hell of a job. We've got a local ISP that's been trying to do the same for several years now. They've been held up by federal bureaucracy for the last two years...

Sure! As a Vermonter, I'm sure I would find a lot of fun things to do in Montana. We are friends with a lot of folks in the nordic skiing community in Wyoming, Colorado, and Alaska and they all sound like great places to live if you enjoying running, biking, hiking and cross-country skiing. Bonus points if there is a ski jumping scene in Helena.

Awesome! My renters are from Utah and collegiate Nordic Skiers. For ski jumping you'll have to trek to Bozeman/Big Sky or down to Utah.

I would. I just graduated w an MS in nuclear eng and have been doing django dev for a while. I'm not so sure I'm a natural "hacker"/engineer but I've certainly been at it for a while. I currently work at a fast food place. Let me know if you want to talk.

Deal. It may be a month or two (we will post on HN if/when it gets going) but the goal is to provide a space where people can commit themselves to an idea. Will it be Y-combinator? Not at all. Can you rent a 3 bedroom house for $800 a month while working on a dream while mountain biking/hiking/skiing? Most definitely yes. Sofi.com already has 50 developers in Helena and is hiring more; the state has just as many devs as Sofi; you will have other technical people to socialize with outside of your company. The state also has a dev group that meets on a regular basis -- http://bigskydevcon.org/

Right here. This is what is wrong with our economic system and why I support UBI. Nuclear engineer flipping burgers. Totally absurd.

People should really stay away from using acronyms that are not known by the general public. By using the acronym UBI you assume 90% of the HN crowd understands what you're talking about? I google'd "ubi" and I got "Ubi -The Voice Of The Internet", "Ubi Interactive", "Ubi - The Ubiquitous Computer - Voice-Activated & Always On" and "United Bicycle Institute". So I have really no idea of what you support.

I believe GP is referring to 'Universal Basic Income' [1], however I've never seen it referred to as 'UBI' before.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basic_income

Sorry yes, my mistake. Universal Basic Income. It was slightly off topic too but it really grates me to see obviously skilled people unable to pursue their interests professionally.

Why is that absurd? If your skill/focus is X and nobody needs X, that doesn't entitle you to a job anyways. If somebody is a nuclear engineer flipping burgers, I think the real question is why haven't they refocused themselves to work on something which is more in-demand and likewise would take advantage of their obvious aptitude for mentally challenging subjects.

Your position assumes that if a skill is not profitable it is not worth doing. I respectfully disagree with that premise. Who knows what kind of potential we are letting waste away because, due to lack of circumstance, resources and connections, it's not profitable to exploit it? I believe that by giving everyone a guaranteed minimum livable income, in turn freeing them from the shackles of wage-slavery, we would unlock an as yet unknown potential in humanity and foster an age of unrivaled innovation unlike anything we have seen up until this point. With the technology we have, one person can change the course of the future, yet we are content to let clearly qualified and skilled people flip burgers (edit: roll burritos in this case)? That's like running a company and confining your CTO mopping the floors all day.

Rolling burritos.

Yes, but not for 1Gbps internet. SSH is all I really need tech wise. The most important thing would be a group of people who are really into development and have experience scaling systems. Unfortunately that is much harder to find outside of the bay in a concentrated way.

Why not do remote development, then?

My parents retired to Helena the same year I moved to the SF bay area (2001). We're from Pennsylvania. I find Helena to be dry, wind-swept, and lacking an intellectual community (smoking, drinking and gambling are more prominent). Also it's a pain to fly to/from (requires an expensive connecting flight on a regional jet). Bozeman or Missoula might be a more attractive proposition.

It's not entirely without charm, of course. Here are some photos I took on a solo hike out the back of my parents' place: https://www.flickr.com/photos/beefman/sets/687958

About smoking and drinking -- Montana has the most breweries per capita in the nation. I suggest you try drinking beer sometime as it may put hair on your chest ;)

> it may put hair on your chest

One thing I like about being on the west coast is the slow dismantling of the gender binary.

Some of our women have hair on their chest. We don't judge here, nor ask people to self censor in fear of offending someone.

Kalispell was beautiful from the day I spent there.

I grew up in Kalispell! I'm glad you liked it though it's too bad you couldn't stay longer.

I would not. It's pretty as hell, but it's too small, too remote, too homogeneous. My wife would have a hell of a time finding a job, and I'd be too worried about stability and backup opportunities.

Show me the money ! :) Just kidding. For a person like me, it largely depends on if I really believe in the products you're making.

Tangent: I am interested in the FTTH rollout you mention. Can you share a few more details about that?

Agreed -- as someone living semi-rural (rural, but not middle-of-nowhere) I've often wondered about the economics of a fibre rollout, our only choices at the moment are very pricey wireless (for the level of service)

But not in a position to move to Montana!

I have some familiarity with this from Australia's FTTH (now FTTx) rollout:

Since you mention that you live in a semi-rural area, one hugely important factor is the density of premises along a street. The less dense an area, the fewer potential customers you can "pass" by installing a new fibre cable down a street. Not all premises that you pass with a cable will want to sign up and pay for a fibre plan.

Construction can be made dramatically cheaper if it is possible to re-use existing infrastructure. This is important, as if you are laying underground fibre then the cost of digging new trenches (~AUD$100/m) is a huge component of the total construction cost. For example, when installing underground fibre, if there is existing underground duct with capacity that can be used then it is far cheaper to re-use that (~AUD$20/m) than digging new trenches. Similarly, if there are existing poles that can be rented then installing aerial cables (~AUD$30/m) is cheaper than digging trenches, but more expensive than using existing underground duct [1].

Another way to re-use existing infrastructure to reduce construction cost is to make use of existing cable, such as copper lines or HFC, instead of laying fibre over the full path from the exchange to the premises. The quality/speed of the connection will not be as good as a pure fibre connection, particularly if the existing infrastructure is old/degraded. These approaches are now being favoured in Australia's national broadband project [2].

[1] note that in the U.S. labour costs are lower than in Australia, so don't take these cost-per metre estimates too seriously. These costs exclude the cost of the fibre itself, which is typically a few dollars per metre.

[2] personally I think it is short-sighted to embark on a major infrastructure project and then try to save money by avoiding building the new infrastructure, and instead re-use the existing degraded infrastructure. These decisions were hugely influenced by political factors after a change of federal government, i.e., the old plan was necessarily bad and needed changing because the previous government started it.

Thanks for the great info.

We are ~10Km from the nearest village that likely has decent bandwidth, though no idea on the backhaul available from there.

Still 10K @ $30 (AUD/CAD)\m would be $300K+ to put it along existing hydro infrastructure. Wonder what the likelihood of getting 100 households to put up say $3-5K in installation costs would be? That would represent a decent fraction of those reachable along that stretch, and those nearer in may already have DSL.

Very crudely, you might want to multiply that $300k guesstimate by a factor of 2 or 3 to take into account the cost of cabling off the main stretch, splicing, splitters, installing "lead-ins" / "drops" to each household, etc. Although if you were only serving a hundred households you could plausibly serve them all from a single large fibre cable along the main stretch by "pulling off" a couple of fibres into a smaller cable per household. This wouldn't require any optical splitting gear, so that might make things a bit cheaper.

For reference, the overall construction costs for Australia's FTTH rollout was somewhere around AUD$1000 - AUD$2000 / premises -- probably toward the high end of that scale, but the order of magnitude is right. This would underestimate the cost for a semi-rural area. In Australia's project they use fixed wireless / satellite for some areas where FTTx was not cost-effective.

Another thing to keep in mind is the maximum optical path distance -- from memory this is probably somewhere around the 20km mark from the exchange, probably a bit less, will depend upon the technology used. That still gives you a ~10km buffer region of potentially reachable households around your main fibre-atop-hydro stretch.

It's pretty awesome actually. Montana's in a lucky spot; our power company in the 90's got deregulated and decided they wanted to be the next WorldCom. They threw down a Billion dollars of assets down, went bankrupt, and now Montana has an excess of backhaul fiber. As such we are able to buy bandwidth at reasonable rates. When combined with peering at the SIX in Seattle, we can provide a very nice service for rather cheap compared to other rural locations. That, and we are designing our network more like a datacenter which has greatly reduced costs.

I'd need a damn good bookstore, donut place open late, plenty of non-American food, used and/or new record store, and a music venue that gets good bands if not famous ones. I can make my own fun after that.

Ah the closest Montana town for you would be Missoula then. http://www.factandfictionbooks.com/ + https://plus.google.com/105085381942018445206/about?gl=us&hl... + http://www.earcandymusic.biz/ or http://www.rockinrudys.com/ + http://www.ticketweb.com/snl/VenueListings.action?venueId=23... and http://eventful.com/missoula/venues/the-wilma-/V0-001-001441... and http://tophatlounge.com/events/

I live in a city about the size of Helena but less geographically remote. There is a good private university but not much of a professional tech community.

As a sysadmin by trade, trying to pivot into software development/engineering, I wonder if I should study and work in a 'hub' city (like the Bay Area) with lots of bright and eager minds, or somewhere with cheap rent and few distractions (like Helena) so it's easier to tune out the world and hit the books/code.

There are odd places that regularly produce startups, such as Huntsville Alabama, but it has been an aerospace hub for 60 years. What is Helena's track record for producing startups?

Keep in mind that high speed internet won't make an idea into a product people want. The critical issues in tertiary markets are access to smart capital and technical talent. How does the incubator plan to make money? What is the Ruby/Python/Clojure/etc. community like?

Good luck.

Yes, Montana is a beautiful state and I am getting a little tired of paying out the nose for a small apartment with no land. I imagine I'm not the only one.

Helena is pretty far east. I love northwest Montana - but I've never seen Helena. What's the case for Helena?

I'd say Helena is catching up in a big way with the social attractions of Missoula and Bozeman. Lewis & Clark Brewing has been a huge benefit to the local social scene; as has the Hawthorn and Blackfoot brewing. The surrounding country is prime for boating, backpacking, hiking, climbing, and especially mountain biking (check out Gravity Guild Garage). If you're perfect night involves getting drunk on craft cocktails at the hottest gastropub then Helena might not be for you though. Though I would suggest some local whisky from Whistling Andy's in Bigfork, RoughStock in Bozeman, Willies in Ennis, etc.

Its a chicken & egg scenario. Most folks are not going to want to move there because there's not many tech opportunities, and there aren't many opportunities because no one is ready to move there.

What else is there in terms of opportunities in the tech industry in Helena besides your new ISP?

http://www.sofi.com has an office in Helena and is hiring. There are state positions, and with access to high-speed Internet, remote jobs.

Although Helena seems nice, if I was trying to build a growing company, I would be concerned about access to talent. Whats nice about tech hubs is that there a lot of people in those areas with the skills and experience necessary to help build software based companies.

I'd love to see blog posts or any write-ups about your experiences founding an ISP.

It's a party like 1999. We were planning on doing an AMA at some point. Any specific burning questions?

I'll work anywhere so yes

It's hard to say. In your opinion, what kind of advantages would an early-mover have? (As opposed to someone who waited for the startup ecosystem to evolve a bit before moving)?

1 gbps ftth might be an advantage

That's been available in several other areas of the country for a while now, and people don't seem to be moving to those areas in droves either.

As a recent graduate looking for work I'd be very interested.

No. I've recently driven through on my way to Seattle and while the countryside was beautiful I don't think I could handle the local culture or lack thereof.

How exactly does one properly evaluate the local culture from the freeway, anyway?

I would in an alternate life, but obligations preclude it now. Would a startup in Helena hire a dev in his late 40s? I'd also consider retiring there, or Alaska.

It depends on your salary requirements. Something a lot of people have trouble with is a massive pay cut on paper. A $150K job in San Francisco pays $65k in Montana. That said, the cost of living here is much lower while the quality of life is much higher.

Perhaps post this as a poll? http://news.ycombinator.com/newpoll

If you're hiring remote sysadmins, I'd work for you. I love carrier-level challenges, but not enough to move to Montana.

Yes, especially if you invest in my startup. The low cost of living is compelling coupled with possibilities of a remote team.

No. Already live in a low cost of living place closer to better attractions. But some people won't care...

No, there is nothing to tie most developers to Montana, especially other work opportunities.

Aye - seems very "eggs in one basket"-e.

I could see folks that are starting a new business with relatively few employees and no immediate plans for explosive non-remote worker growth being interested though.

As for me, I don't have a reason to move to a small city without many non-related work activities to engage in. I like the city life. I understand that others would embrace the slower-paced outdoor Montana life style. However, for me it is not a selling point :(

Exactly. If the startup fails after a year (which is a high probability for any startup), you're going to have to pay for an expensive relocation back to where the jobs are. Other risks (of any job) include: they can fire you at any time, it could end up being a shitty place to work, etc. So being able to find another job is very important.

A business in an isolated location like that might have more luck hiring remote employees.

I'm from Montana. Absolutely not.

I have some friends who have a vision systems startup in Bozeman.

Free internet, office space, and no taxes for those in that office space might do it.

The only state taxes are property taxes -- so as long as you don't buy a house you're good.

Yes.