When citizens in the Illinois cities of St. Charles, Geneva and Batavia voted on whether or not to start a municipal network, local incumbents ran advertisements warning about the financial pitfalls of such projects. One of their examples of such fiscal trouble spots was the Click! network in Tacoma, despite the fact the network quickly found itself running in the black, and did not result in higher taxes. You can find responses to the incumbent claims from Click! representatives at the Tri-cities broadband website.

said by zabes63 :

---

I for one am SHOCKED!!

---

said by redstepchild :

---

Now I look at Tacoms's Click and I do not see any push for them to improve their cable system becasue after all, Cable TV, Internet, and Phone are all secondaries of the network.

---

quote:

---

4. Click does not offer competitvely priced highspeed plans.(3MB or more)
Comcast offers Pro. 3MB is right smack around the corner. Your only hopes of 3MB w/ Click is if you are a business.

---

quote:

---

{b} When will people realize that these municipalities do not have the $$$ for cutting edge cable upgrades?[/b]

So in 5 - 10 years.. when the small cable systems can't keep up with the BROADBAND PUSH, where are you then?

---

quote:

---

1. Click has No Highdefinition tv
Comcast does. What does this tell me? Click network cannot afford to stay with the techno pack.

---

quote:

---

3. Click does not offer local phone service
Comcast does. Infact, Comcast offers highly competitively priced local phone services over it's cable lines.

---

quote:

---

Now I look at Tacoms's Click and I do not see any push for them to improve their cable system becasue after all, Cable TV, Internet, and Phone are all secondaries of the network.

---

quote:

---

The Primary reason is for the electrical company. And the primary needs far outweigh the secondary needs.

---

quote:

---

2.Click cannot afford to have special interest packages
Better hope you don't want any channels in another language.
Be prepared for that Sports package to be canceled if enough people don't order it. Click can't afford to offer anything up and coming.
Comcast does offer International channels and Sports packages. Comcast has enough subscribers to meet those special interests.

---

said by redstepchild :

---

Not to sound like a comercial.. but:

1. Click has No Highdefinition tv
Comcast does. What does this tell me? Click network cannot afford to stay with the techno pack.

---

quote:

---

2.Click cannot afford to have special interest packages
Better hope you don't want any channels in another language.
Be prepared for that Sports package to be canceled if enough people don't order it. Click can't afford to offer anything up and coming.
Comcast does offer International channels and Sports packages. Comcast has enough subscribers to meet those special interests.

---

said by bistro777 :

---

And then Click! entered the marketplace at - $29.95/mo for 1.0/128 or $49/mo for 2.0/256

---

said by AthlGrond :

---

said by bistro777 :

---

And then Click! entered the marketplace at - $29.95/mo for 1.0/128 or $49/mo for 2.0/256

---

...and apparently Qwest is still impervious to competition.

---

said by dvd536 :

---

Qwest just flat out doesnt care. you sure dont see any decent service offers from them (and i doubt you ever will either)

---

said by text of article above:

---

The Click! network was developed as an afterthought; Tacoma Public Utilities already had fiber in the ground, and like many utilities (see our recent article on the subject), decided to put that extra bandwidth to good use.

---

said by RadioDoc :

---

I'm all for competition no matter who is competing, but isn't this cross-subsidization from the power customers?

---

said by pnh102 :

---

I wonder how the non-broadband power customers took the 50% rate hike in electric bills. It sounds like some competition is needed in the electrical market here so that the customers can get lower prices.

---

said by
Broadband Failures
Tacoma, Washington:

---

The Charge: To pay for increased capital costs for their fiber system, Tacoma Public Utilities imposed a 50% surcharge on local electric bills.

Response From The Utility: "I am aware of your citizens group, your upcoming Tri City Broadband Referendum and the aggressive media campaign by those in opposition to your efforts. I review DSL Reports regularly and would like to set the record straight about Click! Network, for those who are interested in facts rather than propaganda.

...snip...

An important note, those opposing your efforts have erroneously connected Tacoma Power’s surcharge during the energy crisis with Click! Network, when in fact the two have no connection at all. At the beginning of the energy crisis (winter 2000), Click! was already constructed in Tacoma and Tacoma Power had over $100,000,000 in cash reserves, which is triple the amount we carry on an operating basis for contingencies. The utility was determining the best way to invest it when the energy crisis hit. Unfortunately the $100,000,000 was not enough, and the utility chose to initiate a surcharge.

---

said by pnh102 :

---

That may indeed be true. Personally, I don't buy it. What privately run power company "just happened to lay fiber optic cable" and then said "oh, we're not using this, lets resell the network!" But I digress.

---

said by JTRockville :

---

you questioned how non-broadband customers viewed the rate increase. Why did you make that distinction?

---

said by pnh102 :

---

said by RadioDoc :

---

I'm all for competition no matter who is competing, but isn't this cross-subsidization from the power customers?

---

Just about all of the towns mentioned in the article had some existing municipally-provided service from which the broadband was piggy-backed. Having low prices is very easy when you can just milk that cash cow. I wonder what the prices would be if a municipally-run operation had to charge franchise fees and pass along the cost of taxes down to its customers as well.

---

quote:

---

I wonder what the prices would be if a municipally-run operation had to charge franchise fees and pass along the cost of taxes down to its customers as well.

---

quote:

---

wonder how the non-broadband power customers took the 50% rate hike in electric bills. It sounds like some competition is needed in the electrical market here so that the customers can get lower prices.

---

said by TACSPEED :

---

More misinformation! The rate hike was due to the price gouging from such companies as Enron.

The Summer of 2000 was the perfect storm. The Pacific Northwest had just gone through a Winter of very low precipitation; the snow pack was at record lows. For those who don't know, the Pacific Northwest gets the majority of its power from Hydroelectric dams. If you don't have water, you can't make electricity folks!

---

quote:

---

Couldn't that $100 Million surplus that the Tacoma utility had have been spent on building a new power plant? By not investing in alternative energy sources, the utility put itself into a position where it was easily screwed by Enron.

---

quote:

---

No electric deregulation in WA, TACSPEED

---

said by TACSPEED :

---

Before the California deregulation snafu, there was some serious thought about deregulation in Washington state, and deregulation was one of reasons for building the HFC system to begin with. Currently our electrical bill is billed in two sections: (1)Energy use (2)Delivery charge.

---

said by pnh102 :

---

How is it Enron's fault that the municipally-run electrical company chose to not build more non-hydroelectric power plants so that they could keep the lights on when there is a drought? Couldn't that $100 Million surplus that the Tacoma utility had have been spent on building a new power plant? By not investing in alternative energy sources, the utility put itself into a position where it was easily screwed by Enron.

---

said by zabes63 :

---

By the same token one could argue that a fiscally thrifty muni operation, minus the ilk of a John Rigas, or other, overpriced, whiney CEO, could show a tidy profit and therefore subsidize electrical customers who don't use the broadband utility.

---

said by pnh102 :

---

I personally would like to see state and local governments provide significant tax breaks and/or other incentives so that private citizens and businesses could have an easier time investing in their own broadband networks for their own towns.

---

said by zabes63 :

---

I just don't see it happening with the influence that the incumbents hold over the politicos.

---

said by pnh102 :

---

I personally would like to see state and local governments provide significant tax breaks and/or other incentives so that private citizens and businesses could have an easier time investing in their own broadband networks for their own towns. Maybe even exempt these kinds of startups from the same fees that are passed down to the customers for a limited time.

You still get the same benefits of locally run operation that you would not have to worry about the government screwing things up and handing the bill to the taxpayers (or ruining the town's credit rating).

---

said by RadioDoc :

---

I'm no fan of Comcast, but it seems to me that the playing field here is not quite level[...]

---

said by RadioDoc :

---

I'm no fan of Comcast, but it seems to me that the playing field here is not quite level and someone (taxpayers?) are already carrying part of the burden for this, including the ones who are not using the cable TV and HSI service it provides. If they are really "competing" then there should be no public money involved.

---

said by RadioDoc :

---

Overseeing right of way is a "cost" of doing municipal business if the municipality is going to be in that business. Unless there is a municipally-owned utility using that right of way, it's irrelevant to this discussion. If these costs are an issue, they should be recouped via franchise fees.

---

said by RadioDoc :

---

I'm no fan of Comcast, but it seems to me that the playing field here is not quite level and someone (taxpayers?) are already carrying part of the burden for this, including the ones who are not using the cable TV and HSI service it provides. If they are really "competing" then there should be no public money involved.

---

said by RadioDoc :

---

said by text of article above:

---

isn't this cross-subsidization from the power customers? What is the rate base for the expenses of laying that fiber and lighting it up in the first place? Are the electric customers paying part of the tab for 'putting the extra bandwidth to good use'? What would the costs be if the fiber had not been there already?

---

Valid question, however, please explain the difference between ILEC copper pairs being subsidized for 100+ years by the telephone rate payers, through GUARANTEED rates of return via state public utilities commissions.

said by wozster :

---

My bill plus tax = $120 per month

Two of my friends (Michal and Jerry) each live in the western part of Johnson County KS where there is competition against Time Warner and pay between $65-$75 for the exact same package that I have.

You Decide if competition is a good thing or not.

---