moby866
Premium
join:2000-10-07
Above you |  Very good news
Perhaps this will inspire other places to do the same. |
|
Mactron
el camino Real
Premium
join:2001-12-16
CM94sv
| Good news for service to the community. Probably not so good for the 1300 employees of the SBC wireless center that SBC will close now like spoiled children. WaW, you didn't play by my rules. I'll just my ball (jobs) and go home. Waw, Waw !! Gotta love Monopolies. 
--
If only the Verizon CSRs worked this well.  |
|
GOLFnSUN
Enjoy the sun
Premium
join:2002-03-03
Avalon, NJ
 ·Sprint Mobile Broa..
 ·Comcast
1 edit | reply to moby866
said by moby866  :Perhaps this will inspire other places to do the same. I hope so too. But I am sure Bell South and Cox aren't done battling yet. The next battle in this war will no doubt be in the courts. Monopolies have large legal staffs with nothing to do but help maintain those monopolies.
--
My Web Page
Join Red Room Forum |
|
RadioDoc
58ef2c0
Premium,ExMod 2000-03
join:2000-05-11
 ·AT&T Midwest
| BellSouth serves Lafayette not SBC, but don't let facts get in the way of a good rant.
Another commenter noticed the 27% turn-out. I noticed the "turned out in large numbers" puffery in the story posted here. Can't say that this was a ringing endorsement, unfortunately. Just that 17% of registered voters said "yes", 10% said "no" and 73% said "who cares". I seriously doubt that this win--and I think it was good for Lafayette--"will inspire other places to do the same". More likely, it will confirm what many local governments already think: This is a niche issue, with very little popular support. Oh well.. |
|
TheGhost
Premium
join:2003-01-03
Lake Forest, IL
clubs: | Maybe they should have said "relatively" large turnout. |
|
technick
Premium
join:2000-12-16
Loganville, GA | reply to Mactron
You mean bellsouth right? I didn't know SBC had a center in the area. |
|
Former Cajun
@verizon.ne
 from:
SRFireside
| reply to RadioDoc
That's not just spin; 27% really is a very good turnout for an off-season vote like this, particularly if that was the only issue on the ballot. |
|
pnh102
Reptiles Are Cuddly And Pretty
Premium
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD
·Comcast
| said by Former Cajun:
That's not just spin; 27% really is a very good turnout for an off-season vote like this, particularly if that was the only issue on the ballot. I'd be pissed about the amount of money wasted in holding this vote. Why not have elections every 2 years to coincide with Presidential and Congressional elections instead?
--
Hey Fast Eddie... you're next! |
|
Unregistered user
from:
PeterCollins
| Special elections are held all the time. While I agree that regular elections should be consolidated as much as possible, I have nothing against an exception or two. And besides, it was BellSouth and Cox that forced this election anyway, so you can blame them as much as anyone.
Congratulations to the the people of Lafayette for giving these corporations the collective finger. |
|
Kearnstd
Elf Wizard
Premium
join:2002-01-22
Mullica Hill, NJ
| reply to moby866
the corperations will just take it to the federal level is all, they will buy some more congreeman or find a way to sneak an Anti-muni bill into some form of Homeland Security act so that it slips under the radar.
--
[65 Arcanist]Filan(High Elf) Zone: Broadband Reports |
|
mjcrocket
Mjc
join:2000-12-02
Abingdon, MD
| reply to GOLFnSUN
said by GOLFnSUN :said by moby866 :Perhaps this will inspire other places to do the same. I hope so too. But I am sure Bell South and Cox aren't done battling yet. The next battle in this war will no doubt be in the courts. Monopolies have large legal staffs with nothing to do but help maintain those monopolies. It isn't so much that the next battle will be in the courts, as it will be in the regulatory process to get this project approved.
This project still needs the approval of the Public Service Commission. The method of insuring or guaranteeing the bonds also has to be approved by the Public Service Commission. In the event that the revenue from this project is not sufficient to make payments, the city's entire utility system will be responsible for the payments; the proposal that was voted on clearly stated this. Unfortunately, it appears that this provision might be in violation of Louisiana law; which would also require the ruling by the Public Service Commission.
Most importantly, even if these issues are overcome; the venture still needs to win the approval of Wall Street, if the bonds are to be sold in sufficient quantity to produce the required amount of money. This takes us back to the way the bonds are going to be insured or guaranteed. If the PSC does not approve the method stated in proposition, the bonds will be very difficult if not impossible to sell; and unfortunately the project will die or not be constructed as planned by the city.
Also don't forget that the proposition stated the money could be used for anything needed by the entire utility system, it isn't restricted to just the fiber system!
It is going to be very interesting to see how this all plays out over the next several months, and if the full system really appears by 2007 as the city leaders have stated. |
|
sbcisheaven
@swbell.ne | reply to technick
Actually the call center in question is a Cingular Wireless call center in which SBC owns 60% and BellSouth owns 40% |
|
Nightshade
sic semper tyrannis
Premium
join:2002-05-26
Salem, OR
| I think Cingular would have no problem acquiring 100% ownership of one of their call centers if BellSouth makes good on the threat they made against the good people of Lafayette. 
--
Just say "no" to bad code |
|
pnh102
Reptiles Are Cuddly And Pretty
Premium
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD
·Comcast
| reply to mjcrocket
said by mjcrocket :In the event that the revenue from this project is not sufficient to make payments, the city's entire utility system will be responsible for the payments; the proposal that was voted on clearly stated this. This is yet another reason why municipal broadband sucks. If a private network were to fail, the only people who would be screwed would be the investors who voluntarily chose to take the risk. If this network fails, all of the people who didn't vote for the network would now be paying higher utility bills to cover the costs of the failure. This is no different than raising taxes to pay for the system and it most certainly isn't fair to those people who aren't interested in the network.
Seeing as how just about every single municipal broadband system in the USA is subsidized by either taxes or by some other municipally-run utility, no one can make the argument that these systems are in any way better or more cost-effective than a privately run system. It's just that more people get screwed over when the government drops the ball.
--
Hey Fast Eddie... you're next! |
|
broadbanderexpanderc
@66.100.x.x
| Cross-subsidization is illegal for public entities in La, like in most states. I don't know where your information comes from on the matter, I suggest you read the John Kelly paper on the matter and the Rizzuto and Wirth paper he wrote his piece as a reply to. |
|
broadband bart
@covad.net | reply to RadioDoc
Given that only around 50% of registered voters turnout to vote for president of the US, 27% turnout for an off-year election is indeed, a strong turnout. Lots of other bond issues have passed with turnout like that. |
|
mjcrocket
Mjc
join:2000-12-02
Abingdon, MD
| reply to broadbanderexpanderc
said by broadbanderexpanderc:
Cross-subsidization is illegal for public entities in La, like in most states. I don't know where your information comes from on the matter, I suggest you read the John Kelly paper on the matter and the Rizzuto and Wirth paper he wrote his piece as a reply to.
I got the information from the proposition itself:
»68.156.56.19/Images/Fiber.htm
"said bonds to be payable first, from the net income and revenues of the communications system and second, to the amount necessary, from a secondary or subordinate pledge of the revenues of the utilities system."
It might be illegal in LA; but the proposition the people voted on clearly states that is exactly how the bonds will be paid if the fiber system does not generate enough revenue to make payments. If it is illegal and the above wording is challenged, then the results of the vote are illegal and the project is dead in its current form.
Further, the above article contains the following quote from LUS Director Terry Huval:
"If LUS starts building out the fiber network and no one buys services, the debt will be about $3 million, which LUS’ other divisions can absorb"
An article in today's newspaper, (The Advertiser) contains the following information related to this matter:
»www.theadvertiser.com/apps/pbcs.···318/1002
"LUS representatives said they believe state law allows the system to use its existing electric, water and sewer utilities as a second guarantor for the fiber project. BellSouth representatives disagree.
If it is prohibited from backing the fiber bonds with its other divisions, LUS may not be able to sell the fiber bonds or may have to sell them at higher rates than planned."
The same article also contains the following summary of the project:
"Bonds to be paid back, first using revenues from the fiber system, then if needed with revenues from other LUS divisions, such as electric, water and sewer.
Bond money goes to other LUS divisions if the fiber project is unsuccessful."
Along with the following summary of what is next:
"What's next:
Louisiana Public Service Commission is writing rules that may affect fiber rates and whether LUS can guarantee bonds with other utility divisions.
PSC meets Friday in Mandeville. LUS is not on the agenda posted on PSC's Web site."
It looks to me like the proposition voted on Saturday has a long road to travel to determine if the vote was legal and in turn if the project is legal or has a chance of being constructed. |
|
broadbanderexpanderc
@66.100.x.x
| Wow. Yes, this is of dubious legality then. I wonder what he PSC will find. Perhaps there is some legal leephole that has to do with a bond finance limitation for the project. As it stands, something seems wrong. Either the Utility will have to raise prices to cross-subsidize illegally or they have enough money to build a surplus and keep rates the same, which is absurd for a public power company. Interesting to see how this pans out and where this money comes from. |
|
