Municipal Report Trouble in Utah's Utopia Monday Feb 02 2004 13:54 EDT Utah's 18 city municipal fiber project faces some late speed bumps as opponents take to the court-room to slow their progress. Supporters hint that state lawmakers and those opposed to the half a billion dollar project are changing the rules just as the project begins to truly take shape. - There's no shortage of op/ed pieces springing up around the web chiming in on either Utah's UTOPIA project, or Provo Utah's goals of building their own network (see the FAQ). The majority of these Op/Ed reports, like this one in the Daily Herald, all follow the same fundamental ideology. While they rightfully question the financial planning of such projects, there’s also usually the suggestion that private industry is getting the job done and/or local governments and communities don't belong in the telecom industry. Yet supporters argue if the job was getting done, would these communities be investing millions in building their own networks in the first place? Utah's Utopia project will bring fiber to nearly three quarters of a million people in 18 different cities, costing almost a billion dollars to complete. Not the sort of project one whips up when happy with area connectivity. The very existence of municipal operations indicates private industry deployment at least deserves some examination. The opponents of the Utopia project have been ramping up their efforts to block the project from moving further. Legislation was introduced into the Utah Legislature that aims to put some considerable financial restrictions on the creation of muni-operations (see Salt Lake Tribune), including the restricted use of existing tax revenue. Supporters of such project argue these operations have every right to utilize tax revenue if a community supports such a project. Similar pre-emptive efforts are ongoing in other states such as Wisconsin to restrict municipals, or keep them out of the telecom industry altogether. "We've spent a lot of time and money working on Utopia under the rules the Legislature gave us," says West Valley City Mayor Dennis Nordfelt to the Tribune. "Now that that we are at the point where we are moving forward, it seems to me it will be bad faith on the part of the Legislature if it were to pass this bill." Qwest, who will wind up being Utopia's primary competitor, supports the bill as an effort to bring competitive balance. "If we are going to have to compete against a government-sponsored network, then it should be on a level playing field," says Qwest's Utah president Jerry Fenn. "This bill doesn't prevent Utopia from operating, it just raises the hurdle and says the system should be self-sufficient." Fenn recently asked "Why provide a Rolls-Royce when a Chevrolet will do?" The likely reason? Qwest's "Chevrolet" service (DSL) is only available to roughly 60 percent of residents in the state. Converge Network Digest offers a good (though dated) technical overview of the Utopia project. |
RayW Premium Member join:2001-09-01 Layton, UT 1 edit |
RayW
Premium Member
2004-Feb-2 1:56 pm
That figuresThose who want to let QWest and AT&T and Comcast (circular incline plane) the people are out lobbying in force. | |
| | KickrootJava Heathen Premium Member join:2002-11-24 Honesdale, PA |
Kickroot
Premium Member
2004-Feb-2 3:11 pm
Re: That figuressaid by RayW: (circular incline plane)
I'm sorry, I'm dense, is that a way of saying screw? | |
| | | ronpinImagine Reality join:2002-12-06 Nirvana |
ronpin
Member
2004-Feb-2 4:02 pm
A modest proposalUTAH to Qwest: quote: "OK, we'll only lay fiber in areas that you say don't want to -- within 5 years"
| |
| | | RayW Premium Member join:2001-09-01 Layton, UT |
to Kickroot
Re: That figuressaid by Kickroot:
said by RayW: (circular incline plane)
I'm sorry, I'm dense, is that a way of saying screw?
Got it in one | |
|
woody7 Premium Member join:2000-10-13 Torrance, CA |
woody7
Premium Member
2004-Feb-2 2:33 pm
BlahBlahBlahBlahBlahBlahBlah.......If the cablecos and the telcos can't or won't do it, then its ok for munis to step in.........the underlying theme in all these articles is that unless confronted with the local munis getting done what the cable/telcos can't/won't do nothing will ever happen....it's take take take, and not give.... also bwaaabwaaabwaaabwaaabwaaabwaaabwaaabwaaa your not playing fair | |
| ameniteThe Soylent - It's People Premium Member join:2002-11-21 Ridgewood, NJ
1 recommendation |
amenite
Premium Member
2004-Feb-2 2:50 pm
Key point omitted...quote: "If we are going to have to compete against a government-sponsored network, then it should be on a level playing field," says Qwest's Utah president Jerry Fenn.
If the goal of a broadband project is to bring connectivity to everyone in a region, then "leveling the playing field" must also include regulation requiring the other providers to do so. No more cherry picking, no more skipping the low return regions, etc. Broadband as a utility is the model they are working towards, not broadband as a selectively provided high-profit add-on service. | |
| | garagerock Premium Member join:2002-06-14 Louisville, KY |
Re: Key point omitted...said by amenite:
quote: "If we are going to have to compete against a government-sponsored network, then it should be on a level playing field," says Qwest's Utah president Jerry Fenn.
If the goal of a broadband project is to bring connectivity to everyone in a region, then "leveling the playing field" must also include regulation requiring the other providers to do so. No more cherry picking, no more skipping the low return regions, etc. Broadband as a utility is the model they are working towards, not broadband as a selectively provided high-profit add-on service.
Agreed, wholeheartedly. Isn't the muni in question "levelling the playing field" without Qwest? | |
|
LostMile Premium Member join:2002-06-07 Coloma, MI |
LostMile
Premium Member
2004-Feb-2 3:17 pm
Yugo with a blown head gasketFenn recently asked "Why provide a Rolls-Royce when a Chevrolet will do?" The likely reason? Qwest's "Chevrolet" service (DSL) is only available to roughly 60 percent of residents in the state. And the other 40% of the telco's hostages are stuck with Yugo service (2k dialup). | |
| vic102482 Premium Member join:2002-04-30 Upper Marlboro, MD |
Im all for government sponsorhipBroadband can be a utility if enough people need it. If a county wants to put THEIR money together to make THEIR own network, I see no reason why this should not happen. | |
| | bistro777Donuts-Is There Anything They Can't Do? Premium Member join:2002-02-07 Englewood, CO |
Re: Im all for government sponsorhipUtahPolitics.org is a non-partisan Web site dedicated to the discussion of political happenings around the State of Utah. Heres their take on this - - Senate Bill 66, drafted by Senator Bill Hickman (R) St. George was handcrafted by Qwest to protect their monopoly and kill the UTOPIA project. Best viewed with telnet to port 80. | |
|
GNXPowerGot Boost? Premium Member join:2003-12-18 Huntington Beach, CA 1 edit |
GNXPower
Premium Member
2004-Feb-2 4:10 pm
They only thing these companies deploy fast...is friggin' LAWYERS! You need digital cable rolled out, an RT you gonna see it in your lifetime...hell no. They going to have to compete with those WILLING to deploy and they'll deploy lawyers faster than you can take out your wallet and overpay for their services...if you even get them. | |
| ronobI'M Fixin It join:1999-10-18 Fort Lauderdale, FL |
ronob
Member
2004-Feb-2 6:24 pm
How soon they forget."If we are going to have to compete against a government-sponsored network, then it should be on a level playing field," says Qwest's Utah president Jerry Fenn.
A point that always seems to be left out-How did the infrastructure the telephone companies call theirs come to be? Answer:The majority were subsidized with taxpayers money. | |
| ctceo Premium Member join:2001-04-26 South Bend, IN |
ctceo
Premium Member
2004-Feb-2 8:50 pm
SolutionBPL | |
| |
Livin' in Utah w/o a connectionQwests "vette" Is the slowest piece of crap around. They announced rollout in last 98' and i still don't have it in my area. I'm all for the utopia project. Not very many people around utah know about it. | |
| pnh102Reptiles Are Cuddly And Pretty Premium Member join:2002-05-02 Mount Airy, MD |
pnh102
Premium Member
2004-Feb-3 8:19 am
Privatize the effortInstead of throwing taxpayer's money at lawyers, why not create incentives for private companies to expand broadband service instead? The job will get done much faster and more efficiently. Here's some ideas that will work:
- Allow any company the right to lay cables, build infrastructure, etc. on its own dime without forcing them to share it.
- Allow any company that does this to deduct the expenses from their taxes for an extended, finite amount of time to make it easier for them to recoup the investment.
- Provide location-based tax incentives that give more of a tax reduction the "further out" that broadband needs to be deployed.
- Punish government agencies/people in authority who illegally restrict access to franchise rights for a particular area.
In short, get government regulation out of the way, and you'll have broadband everywhere, and it won't cost taxpayers a dime. | |
| | RayW Premium Member join:2001-09-01 Layton, UT |
RayW
Premium Member
2004-Feb-3 9:15 am
Re: Privatize the effortsaid by pnh102:
In short, get government regulation out of the way, and you'll have broadband everywhere, and it won't cost taxpayers a dime.
Yes, and if you lived outside the city, you probably still would not have telephone service. Not that I think today's regulatory systems could not be improved (made honest?), but it was government interference that gave us the telephone system coverage we have today. And although I can not prove it, I have read that the city taxpayers foot the bill for Joe and Jill country to get telephone service. And that was because no phone company wanted to service those outside of the most profitable areas (sound familar to some stories you have heard hear?). | |
| | | |
Agent 86
Anon
2004-Feb-3 12:48 pm
Re: Privatize the effort"And although I can not prove it, I have read that the city taxpayers foot the bill for Joe and Jill country to get telephone service."
They also subsidize Joe and Jill's farm business. It ain't right, but it's the way of the world. It's all about $$$. | |
|
| ravitalJust Another Pesky Independent Nh Voter Premium Member join:2001-07-19 Merrimack, NH |
to pnh102
said by pnh102: In short, get government regulation out of the way, and you'll have broadband everywhere, and it won't cost taxpayers a dime.
Really? Let's see: said by pnh102:
•Allow any company the right to lay cables, build infrastructure, etc. on its own dime without forcing them to share it.
So later the company is free to set whatever price they want since subscribers won't have a choice of providers - interesting idea of "level playing field" indeed. That will cost subscribers more money. said by pnh102:
•Allow any company that does this to deduct the expenses from their taxes for an extended, finite amount of time to make it easier for them to recoup the investment.
A tax break that doesn't cost taxpayers anything? What a wonderful invention! said by pnh102:
•Provide location-based tax incentives that give more of a tax reduction the "further out" that broadband needs to be deployed.
See above. said by pnh102:
•Punish government agencies/people in authority who illegally restrict access to franchise rights for a particular area.
Punish them for insisting on collecting fees - protecting the taxpayer - and for protecting existing structures? Is that really what's going on? Are munis restricting the provider's access? Or have they spent the last decade trying to convince providers that subscribers are waving greenbacks at them and they don't want to take them? That was the most desperate spin I've ever read on this topic. | |
|
|
broadband as a utility: Control VS. ChoiceAs one previous poster said, and I agree with him/her, the only thing they roll out fast is lawyers. ROFL! I support that broadband should be a utility like gas or electricity. Perhaps the govt can lay out an "electronic national infrastructure", much like our existing interstate highways, and ISPS can "lease" out access to it to provide DNS/email/hosting/etc services/voice over IP. If the big companies want a piece of the pie, then they too can lease it and BECOME an ISP themselves. The point is, CONTROL of the local loop/infrastructure should be taken away from private industry, since obviously they will not serve you if they feel the region won't be a good investment. I call that electronic "racism". I don't understand why Qwest is trying to slow down the project, when clearly it is underserved to begin with. Qwest should roll out broadband in UTah instead of rolling out lawyers.:D | |
|
| |
|
|