Tri-Cities Try Again

the only reason comcast and sbc are bitching is probably because they make less money that way

They probably looked at where one municipal system failed and made it seem as if all municipal systems fail.

Seems like typical behavior for these 2.

Have a similar set up near here that works very well and offers great competition for Comcast & Qwest.

Not only has this muni system been good for residential customers but also for local businesses, local loop rates are half what Qwest charges and most CLEC's have partnered with them to get the better rates.

said by BizFinancing:

---

Seems like typical behavior for these 2.

---

Every dog has his day, I wouldn't be suprised if their day wasn't too far away.

said by Mikemnm:

---

the only reason comcast and sbc are bitching is probably because they make less money that way

---

And they'd have to provide better levels of service than they do now and not have rate increases everytime they turn around. the cablecos/telcos want to give as little as possible and charge as much as the people will bear.

I think that their inflexibility to grow is coming back to haunt them.

Not to be too picky: "local adds" s/b "local ads".

If the government is providing your Internet, what is to stop them from controlling your access to content deemed inappropriate? Local governments attract busy-bodies who think they know what's best and often try to force their views on others.

Local governments also approve franchise agreements with the private sector cable cos right now. They allow for "adult content" right now.

and whats stopping theme from spying on your internet activities wasn't there a news thing about the FBi wanting to put some kind of filter so that they can look at the web content that is being viewed whats stopping them if there the ones who are actually providing the service

You're right.

But I'm a heck of a lot more afraid of Comcast than I am of my Mayor.

The lesser of the two evils is my local gov.

The same thing that stops private providers from blocking access to certain content would stop municipal providers.

Municipalities would have no reason to behave any differently than any other provider. (Except that their purpose would be to provide service, rather than to provide profit.)

said by JTRockville:

---

The same thing that stops private providers from blocking access to certain content would stop municipal providers.

Municipalities would have no reason to behave any differently than any other provider. (Except that their purpose would be to provide service, rather than to provide profit.)

---

So you think your local muni will only charge what it takes to run the system? Before long you will be paying to provide service for free to schools, hospitals, the local government, those less fortunate who cannot afford internet service. And of course let's not forget that this will be another way to add an additional tax to support whatever it is they want to support/spend money on and not have to increase sales or property taxes. Good luck to all.

Private companies are required to provide compensation, such as service to schools, hospitals, local government, and the less fortunate, because they use public property for private profit. Since municipalities are not private, and do not profit, they are not obligated to provide such compensation.

Municipal systems provide lower cost services, and enormous economic benefits to a community.

The Govt. needs pron, too.

so why not make it super high speed!!!:)

Let's do this right!

This will not work in a capitalist market.
See: »www.fcw.com/geb/articles ··· 4-04.asp

If I wanted to come and set up a WISP in one of these cities, now I cannot (or would be foolish to do so). How can you compete with the entity that regulates you? The same goes for Cable and Telco. No municipality should be able to compete in the private sector against companies over which it holds authority or regulatory power.
Say that I do choose to compete with the municipality. First of all their funds are raised with taxpayers dollars backing the bonds. I, on the other hand, must raise capital funding.
Secondly, if the municipality starts to feel threatened by my superior service and lower prices, they may start denying my permits, revoking my business license, or having the building inspector harass me. Don't think it will happen? It will.
The govt. (big or small) has no place competing in the telecom sector.
Instead of using taxpayer dollars to fund a BB system, perhaps they should concentrate on finding other ways to foster competition in the private sector.

As I posted earlier this week....

Read on from Jim Baller, the lawyer defending in front of the Supreme Court.....

»a257.g.akamaitech.net/7/257/2422/24mar..

"We are disappointed by the Supreme Court's ruling today in the Missouri case. Three points stand out from the majority's opinion.

"First, the Court made clear that the decision is not a ruling on the merits of municipal telecommunications. The Court merely observed that municipalities have a "respectable position" on this, that there are arguments on the other side, and that the FCC has "minced no words" in saying that "participation by municipally owned entities in the telecommunications business 'would further the goal of the 1996 Act to bring the benefits of competition to all Americans, particularly those who live in small or rural communities in which municipally-owned utilities have great competitive potential.'" Slip Opinion at 4-5.

"Second, the majority gave two main reasons for finding that the term "any entity" in Section 253(a) does not cover public entities. One reason was that Congress could not have intended to create the "crazy quilt" of potential outcomes from state to state that could result if "any entity" were interpreted broadly. We, like the dissent, would have preferred that the majority decide the case on the basis of the facts before it, rather than on the basis of hypotheticals that may never arise.

"Third, the majority's other main point, in which Justice Scalia concurred, was that Congress had not spoken with sufficient clarity in Section 253(a) to satisfy the Court's high standards for determining whether a federal statute preempts a traditional state power. We disagree, but when eight justices of the Supreme Court have spoken on a point like this, we must accept their conclusion.

"As to the future, we note that only a handful of states currently have barriers to municipal entry, and we hope that other states will take to heart the FCC's admonition that such barriers are unwise, unnecessary to achieve any legitimate state interest, and contrary to the purposes of the Telecommunications Act. Some states have already reversed or relaxed barriers enacted in the past, and we hope that this trend will continue as well.

"We also hope that state legislators everywhere will realize that, without the involvement of local governments, our Nation cannot achieve our national goal of rapid deployment of truly advanced and affordable telecommunications services and capabilities to all Americans, including those in rural and high cost areas.

"A victory in Missouri case would have been helpful, but it is by no means the end of the road. The economic, educational, occupational, environmental, quality-of-life and other stakes for communities across the United States are so high, that they have no real choice but to continue to press forward whenever and wherever necessary."

Jim Baller
The Baller Herbst Law Group, P.C.
2014 P Street, NW
Suite 200
Washington, D.C. 20036
(202) 833-1144 (phone)
(202) 833-1180 (fax)
www.baller.com

In a addition, there's a requirement to play by fair franchising rules. What a muni collects in franchise fees from Comcast, they must also charge themselves.

In regards to a muni feeling threatened by your "superior service", I don't think it's going to happen. I'd maybe think about it if Comcast or SBC was going to run fiber to my home ever in the next 20 years. They're not, but my city could. I think I'll back my elected officals and my hometown rather than the Pirates of San Antonio & Philadelphia.

said by nunya:

---

Instead of using taxpayer dollars to fund a BB system, perhaps they should concentrate on finding other ways to foster competition in the private sector.

---

That's lovely sentiment in theory, but fostering competition hasn't panned out in practice. I'd be delighted to see my tax dollars fund a municipal system that will eventually save the members of my community tons of money.

And who will be watching the Muni? Themselves? Please. You are entitled to your opinion as a user, but you need to sit back and look at the picture from the perspective a potential provider (now and in the future). I will walk right by any city even considering a municipally owned system. So will most other providers with any sense in their head. Now you are left with a single provider forever.

Should I get access to the tax payer dollars too? Just like a Muni?
Yeah right. I'll mail a letter out to every resident in town and tell them to send me $3 for my new WISP service. By the way, they are welcome to pay me another $30/month if they want to use the system. Realistically, that's what a Muni is doing.
Fortunately (hopefully) the taxpayers will have a say in how their money is used. I know I would be P.O.'d if my tax dollars went to fund a system that could easily be handled by the private sector. If there is money to be made in this region, somebody will find a way to make it.
If this were a participant funded co-op, I wouldn't have any gripe- because the govt. and tax dollars would be out of the picture. Perhaps the Muni needs to spur competition by granting (easy) easement, waiving permit fees, etc... to a co-op group (or any other facilities based competition).

said by nunya:

---

You are entitled to your opinion as a user, but you need to sit back and look at the picture from the perspective a potential provider (now and in the future). I will walk right by any city even considering a municipally owned system. So will most other providers with any sense in their head. Now you are left with a single provider forever.

---

Can you cite an example where this has happened?

Tacoma's Click! network is a wonderful example of a municipal system competing with a privately owned system. It seems to work fine.

said by nunya:

---

Should I get access to the tax payer dollars too? Just like a Muni?

---

Absolutely not! You're free to tack on 40% profit if your system is successful. Isn't that enough?

said by nunya:

---

Perhaps the Muni needs to spur competition by granting (easy) easement, waiving permit fees, etc... to a co-op group (or any other facilities based competition).

---

That's not what's preventing competition. Predatory pricing, anti-competitive behavior by incumbents, and extraordinarily high capital costs are the insurmountable barriers.

Why should public dollars fund private enterprise (by doing the things you suggested)? Will the public get to share the profits?

Once again, I will defer to a more learned writer:

High-Speed SONET to Your Illinois Door? SBC, Comcast Say No
»www.tricitybroadband.com ··· ws18.htm
December 17, 2003 © ePrairie

By James Carlini

CHICAGO – Most communities have politicians who are still reinventing horse-and-buggy laws and ideas. When one Illinois community begins to look at fiber-to-the-door infrastructure, millions are spent by the usual suspects in the name of squelching, writes adjunct Northwestern professor James Carlini.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Not much coverage was given to what should have been heralded as both a technological and an economic development breakthrough for a municipality in Illinois.

A visionary-led community creating high-paid, high-tech jobs (that could have been easily filled by all those who were laid off from SBC, Lucent and other companies within the telecom and cable industries) got no credit or accolades by media. In fact, many in the media and many politicians just didn’t get it.

The community wanted to create an all-fiber network to the doorstep of every household to provide huge bandwidth and adjunct services. In essence, it wanted SONET to your door.

One community had all this ready to go until it was beaten by a multimillion-dollar campaign that was funded by the dominant local phone company and the dominant local cable company, which both stood to lose control and a subscriber base forever. A municipality taking over? No way.

I’m talking about a well-documented study by the tri-city group of St. Charles, Batavia and Geneva, Ill. to develop an infrastructure that would essentially put a fiber-optic connection to everyone’s door and effectively put both Comcast and SBC out of business in their geographic area.

A similar idea was put forth in Anaheim, Calif. several years ago for 300,000 subscribers. Similarly, it was beaten down by the incumbent phone company as something that would create job loss. How shortsighted and totally false this was (just like the local ads generated by both Comcast and SBC).

In Illinois, the tri-city group was beaten down by a well-organized scare tactic approach by SBC and Comcast, which both would have lost out on revenues. Based on what the companies spent against it, it was a great plan.

The supporters of the referendum spent about $3,000 to promote the idea to the citizenry while the two telecom companies spent about $2 million to squelch it. It’s funny how these companies tout their community involvement and charity giving yet they are willing to blow $2 million against a community that has a better, more cost-effective approach than they do for subscribers.

No Technology Until It’s Time
Like the old Gallo Wine commercials with Orson Welles that used to say “we will sell no wine before it’s time,” some phone companies have the same motto when it comes to dictating when subscribers should have the use of new technology. There is no reason you can’t have fiber to the door now for all applications (especially if the municipality already owns the telephone poles).
In the case of the tri-city area, there are already lines and infrastructure in place to deliver electricity, which is done at a cost savings of 30 percent over ComEd. If you had the option in your community to save 30 percent on your electricity bill, I’m sure you’d jump at the chance.

Forget Wi-Fi as the hot technology. The real infrastructure breakthrough would be fiber-optic lines to the door that deliver everything from phone service to cable TV to meter reading for the utilities. Think of it as bandwidth becomes a non-issue and the applications that can fit on it are almost endless. Even more, the solution can be done today rather than a decade from now.

Municipal Porn, Teachers Out of Work
With a proven track record of providing cheaper services, the tri-city group developed a whole plan to provide fiber to the house (FTTH). The group should have won the referendum. Instead, people were bullied and cajoled by deceptive ads and threats of losing jobs. People were told that the fiber-optic network would put teachers out of work and the municipality would be promoting porn by selling adult channels.
When all else fails, start a fear campaign. Geez. Tell them anything so we don’t lose the revenues.

Wake up. Shame on the community members who were too apathetic to vote on something that would have put their community in the forefront of utilizing new technology infrastructure. This fiber-optic infrastructure would have created a more sophisticated learning environment and a service delivery capability. This would not only better the community value; it would also create real jobs for local people, too.

Shame on the media for not seeing this as a real story of a community trying to bounce back in a recession. Was their fear of recognizing and promoting it because of their own company greed? Some were getting full-page ads from Comcast to vote “no” on the referendum. As they say, you don’t bite the hand that feeds you.

Shame on the higher-level politicians who always give lip service on what they are going to do to promote job and economic growth in this state while their idea is to get some retail jobs opened up that pay minimum wage.

Sealing Your Third-Rate Fate
Most politicians don’t know a broadband size from their waistband size. They talk about creating jobs for people who have lost high-tech jobs but invariably point to their great accomplishments as a local Home Depot opens up or a Starbucks gets built in a neighborhood. Big deal!
Those jobs don’t replace ones lost at Lucent, Motorola and many of the other high-paying tech jobs that somehow evaporated in Illinois and other states.

Instead of highly skilled, out-of-work people settling for a sales job at Carmax or a clerk job at Home Depot, these people could have utilized their real skills and provided a community with state-of-the-art capabilities for less than what subscribers are paying now for cable TV.

Real economic development means creating real jobs that can support a family. Buy a house, buy a car, send your kids to college, and most of all, pay big clumps of money into the tax base. So many states are in deficit spending because they have lost high-paying tech jobs to recession and global competition.

Politicians and teachers have to realize that the well has gone dry and they should over the next five years be looking at 20 percent cuts rather than 5 percent raises. Government spending has to reflect what they are taking in. When you lose tens of thousands of highly paid jobs, you don’t keep spending like (as our observant governor says) a bunch of drunken sailors.

All these technological Amish better wake up. The politicians who just don’t get it should not be reelected. Companies that keep you in a stranglehold and force you to use old technology to perpetuate their obsolete infrastructure and business model should be left to die like they should in a real capitalistic society.

Providing more channels on an obsolete coaxial cable plant does not equate to delivering everything on high-speed fiber-optic lines to your doorstep (especially when the fiber-optic route is cheaper and will create local jobs).

We are behind. Japan has a much better offering of ADSL. It is a plug-and-play, “no engineers necessary” service with a 26 Mbps downlink for about $30 a month. They look at 8 to 10 Mbps like a utility that should be readily available and they have more fiber in their network so they can offer higher speeds on the remaining copper.

We need to move forward fast because competition worldwide puts more emphasis on giving people a better infrastructure to work with than we do. In some cases, they are not only catching up; they are surpassing us. So why was this positive initiative by a community stifled by the “big lie” approach?

By the way, other communities are doing this and saving money today. Read the Web sites and see the success stories. Forget the one-page ads. As Donald Rumsfeld just said on TV: “Those who tell untruths are ultimately punished.” Can’t get fiber? Go buy a dish!

Carlinism: You need superior infrastructure to be a superior nation. Anyone blocking the advancement of infrastructure should be looked at as a saboteur.

You dont have ONE provider - You have one NETWORK provider - nothing wrong with that - we dont have ten airports in one city do we? No - we have one airport and ten companies selling tickets inside it. You cannot get around the fact that you can only lay so much cable - you can't make more room and even if you could you would still have tons of digging going on disrupting daily life every day all the time and who wants that? You keep saying it would be foolish for you to get into the WISP business because you would be competing with the government and tax dollars but I say to you - What you are doing is just like if someone wanted to start their own private airport - I really could care less if you think its a bad idea to compete for your own private gain against something that serves the community better than you ever could.

I would LOVE to see your response to that.

---

That's not what's preventing competition. Predatory pricing, anti-competitive behavior by incumbents, and extraordinarily high capital costs are the insurmountable barriers.

---

HMMMM. What do incumbents have to do with my business? Absolutely nothing.
How am I going to raise capital when it comes to going head to head with City Hall? Who would be stupid enough to give me their hard earned money and expect something in return?

---

Can you cite an example where this has happened?

---

Not yet. But it will.

---

Why should public dollars fund private enterprise (by doing the things you suggested)? Will the public get to share the profits?

---

Exactly my point. And what happens when competition starts to get in the way of govt. profits? They stamp out the competition or regulate the hell out of it.

I started to apply for the Rural Broadband initiative loans and grants. Shortly after diving into the mountain of paperwork, I realized that these loans are only catered to ILECs, CLECs, and other large corporations. My guess would be it's a nice little return for campaign contributions. Not people like me who actually want to push out into rural America.

Fortunately, my philosophy will probably be reflected by the courts and stymie Muni broadband until the rest of us can fill in the gaps. Co-op it, or forget it.

I think a lot of this talk is just posturing by muni's to get the CableCo's and Telco's to upgrade their systems. A lot of times it works.

I have blanketed two "major" rural areas that were without cable or DSL announcing my intention to provide wireless service. Within a matter of weeks the local cable company was running fiber out and stringing coax to these areas. Coincidence? Maybe, but I always kind of doubt it.

said by nunya:

---

said by JTRockville:

---

Why should public dollars fund private enterprise (by doing the things you suggested)? Will the public get to share the profits?

---

Exactly my point. And what happens when competition starts to get in the way of govt. profits? They stamp out the competition or regulate the hell out of it.

---

Munis use public dollars for public enterprise (not private). The goal of a muni system is to provide service for low cost, as opposed to private enterprise's goal of profit. So there isn't a situation where competition could get in the way of govt. profit.

Unfortunately the ILECs and cable companies have left little choice but for customers to rely on MUNIs to provide the service. The ILECs are the one that were given their infrastructure "free" through cost-plus implementation and now don't want to share. It is cost-prohibitive for all but a MUNI to run the type of infrastructure now required.

ILECs want and competitor to now run a complete/redundant infrastructure to all homes without the guarantee the ILECs had of customers - the risk/reward just isn't there and the ILECs never had to face that risk. It is also an issue of critical mass - the ILECs were allowed to reach this state w/o competition and w/guaranteed profits.

TheGhost

---

So there isn't a situation where competition could get in the way of govt. profit.

---

Riiiight. And we should all join hands and sing in a circle around the big oak tree in the green pasture while doves fly over and rainbows sparkle.

said by nunya:

---

---

So there isn't a situation where competition could get in the way of govt. profit.

---

Riiiight. And we should all join hands and sing in a circle around the big oak tree in the green pasture while doves fly over and rainbows sparkle.

---

Aren't most of the muni's started in places where no one else would bother to roll out service, or where it was highly overpriced? As far as I can see, these places were crying out for affordable broadband, but nobody came. Perhaps you should make it your goal to contact these areas that are attempting to start muni's, and tell them you'd like to offer your service there. I mean, any place that's willing to spend taxpayer money and take it all into their own hands would only want to do it as a last resort. Isn't this the perfect thing for you to guage where people would be willing to buy your service? I

I say get in right now, instead of stumbling by 5 years from now attempting to offer service. Can't do it now? Then you lost a perfect chance for profit, and it's entirely your fault for missing the boat.

said by nunya:

---

If I wanted to come and set up a WISP in one of these cities, now I cannot (or would be foolish to do so). How can you compete with the entity that regulates you? The same goes for Cable and Telco. No municipality should be able to compete in the private sector against companies over which it holds authority or regulatory power.

---

The problem is not being a WISP it is figuring out how to get households wired with high-speed connectivity that costs $2,000-$3,000 per household with revenue generation capability of only $25-50 per month.

We are at a watershed event. On the one hand we can encourage private enterprise to wire local neighborhoods. In that case one or more private companies get to be the gatekeeper over how the community develops. Or communities can take control of this resource and optimize it for local conditions.

One needs to keep in mind just how disruptive the Internet is. For the first time in history we have a common transport mechanism that does not care what information it carries. Does not make any difference to the network if the bits are data, voice, television, print media, real time telemetry or what have you. This is a a concern for the builders of the network and the users. The FCC is trying to encourage local access competition. I do not think that is going to happen any more that competition is the most effective way to provide roads, water, sewer, fire, police or airports.

The problem getting private industry to build out the first mile is that there is not a lot of money to be made delivering the bits. Once the first true high speed network is built in an area there is little economic justification for a competitor to build another. The owner of the access network does have a lot of incentive to bundle other services with local access and control who gets to use the network.

We need to think of broadband access as a service that is delivered on a cost plus basis to everyone. That service in turn is used by private enterprise to deliver profitable services. Open access means the owner of the first-mile network cannot discriminate against any entity. Once you have the true high-speed network your “Telco” or “Cableco” can be anyone who can set up shop on the Internet. That is the promise of the Internet. This is much the same as the government managing roads with private enterprise competing to deliver services or the Air Lines sharing government owned and operated airports.

said by nunya:

---

Say that I do choose to compete with the municipality. First of all their funds are raised with taxpayers dollars backing the bonds. I, on the other hand, must raise capital funding.
Secondly, if the municipality starts to feel threatened by my superior service and lower prices, they may start denying my permits, revoking my business license, or having the building inspector harass me. Don't think it will happen? It will.
The govt. (big or small) has no place competing in the telecom sector.
Instead of using taxpayer dollars to fund a BB system, perhaps they should concentrate on finding other ways to foster competition in the private sector.

---

These are largely red herring arguments. The municipality cannot discriminate against competitors.

The real advantage a municipality has is not the lower cost of capital – that exist but it is not a huge advantage rather it is the ability to invest for the long term – 10-20 years and because the community does not have legacy business model to protect. A for profit enterprise needs to return 10-15% annually to its investors; munis do not have that requirement – they need, actually they must breakeven. Even if the Cablecos and Telcos were able to write-off the billions invested in obsolete technology they still need to figure out a way to generate 10-15% per year to investors.

It all comes down to what sort of control you prefer at the local level: your town government or a multinational corporation. In the survey conducted of our town last year 77% of the respondents said they supported the town building a FTTP network. This ought to be something the local communities decide for themselves. If private enterprise is such a good deal there is no incentive for locals that do it themselves. Why pass laws taking freedom away?

»www.gcpud.org/Zipp/providers.htm

Now tell me how that doesn't work in a capitalist system? That's competition if I have ever seen it in the exact way it should be - you just want to keep crying about how its fooling to start a wisp in these places when NO ONE WANTS IT IN THESE PLACES - They have FIBER! What don't you get? No one cares about WISP'S when you have fiber - and if the MUNI system totally sucked or whatever - you could setup shop just like over builders do right now when the local cable company sucks and make some money - is that foolish because there is already another cable company there?

You say the government will strong arm you but I have a hard time believing that you wouldn't win a case in court if they did this to you.

Not only that! But you know if any place that has a muni system that isn't working - I have a REALLY hard time believing that the people in these places would be ok with their government strong arming someone trying to setup a service that they all really want as well - remember people in the government are elected and they can be un-elected.

Easy. In a capitalist system, you DO NOT compete with the govt. How hard is that to understand? What don't you understand about "Taxpayers Dollars" and lack thereof for my capital expenditures?

Win a court case against City Hall? Ha. Who's going to pay for MY lawyer? You think they would work on contingency for this kind of case. Hell no. YOU may not care about a WISP, but the people who are being served by them sure do.

It could work just as easily for fiber. The city can refuse easement rights to an overbuilder. If a city is going to play fair, they are going to have to relinquish all authority over their competition. Then the only unfair advantage they have is funding a system with taxpayer dollars.

said by nunya:

---

Easy. In a capitalist system, you DO NOT compete with the govt. How hard is that to understand? What don't you understand about "Taxpayers Dollars" and lack thereof for my capital expenditures?

---

I’m sorry but I must really be dense. What do you mean in Capitalist system you do not compete with the government? Seems to me private enterprise does just find building Airports and roads even though ownership of these capital improvements are government owned. These systems are typically designed to be self funded so the expense of the system is born by the user not general ratepayer. That is something local communities should be able to decide for themselves. It is possible to structure these projects so even if they fail it does not affect general taxpayers.

said by nunya:

---

Win a court case against City Hall? Ha. Who's going to pay for MY lawyer? You think they would work on contingency for this kind of case. Hell no. YOU may not care about a WISP, but the people who are being served by them sure do.

---

You have lost me again. No one is proposing prohibiting building a WISP network In our case we are looking to solicit ISPs to use the fiber backbone to provide wireless service. How is this any different from single a franchise agreement with a local Cableco? The franchise agreement typically has an exclusively clause preventing to city from striking a deal with a competitor.

said by nunya:

---

It could work just as easily for fiber. The city can refuse easement rights to an overbuilder. If a city is going to play fair, they are going to have to relinquish all authority over their competition. Then the only unfair advantage they have is funding a system with taxpayer dollars.

---

As long as the entity provides non-discriminatory rates for rights of way access I don’t see what the problem is. If this becomes a problem it is a simple matter to pass nondiscriminatory legislation at the state level.

I guess I’m missing your fundamental argument. If a local community wants to build its own network why should the state or the federal government prevent them from doing so? If they screw up it is their problem, if they provide an unattractive environment for private enterprise private enterprise will go elsewhere. We have local towns here in New Hampshire that have chosen to refuse building permits to fast food franchises and big box retailers. Seems to me the best way to encourage diversity and experiment with different ideas is to let towns try to optimize what works best for themselves. That way we have thousands of experiments going on all over the country rather then one size fits all federal mandate.

said by nunya:

---

Easy. In a capitalist system, you DO NOT compete with the govt. How hard is that to understand? What don't you understand about "Taxpayers Dollars" and lack thereof for my capital expenditures?...

---

Taxpayer dollars are at virtually zero risk in funding Muni broadband. If you are unable to obtain venture capital it is probably due more to the lack of soundness of your "business plan", your relatively miniscule assets, and lack of track record. Sounds like your biggest trouble is caused by your own lack of business acumen, and a piss-poor business plan; i.e., as another poster pointed out, NO ONE cares about WISP when FTTH is available. So, either take your "business plan" to an area where there is no competition, ILEC, CLEC or MUNI, or give it up. If you think that Muni fiber networks are non-competitive, wait until you, like they, must go head to head against the incumbent Telco's and Cablecos (funded with additional dollars from their new "regulatory fee recovery" charges).

What makes you think WISPs should have any less regulation than Telcos or Cablecos, or for that matter, Muni's?

Isn't serving the public at the lowest cost for the best service the name of the game?

If you can't offer value, you have none. A CLUE the lack of available, willing venture capital lining up at your door should have provided?

I dont know what you mean by you do not compete - Do you mean you dont do it because its not wise because you dont have a even playing field or because thats not how a capitalist system works?

And who is going to pay for your lawyer? Well - YOU ARE - that is how a capitalist system works haha who do you expect to pay for your lawyer? You seem to have enough money to start a WISP - you must have some kinda money to afford a decent lawyer

And I still dont understand what you dont get - Why would anyone care about a WISP if they got good working service from fiber? Its not that I dont care - its a matter of fact - you want the best service so why would you want a service that is slower/limited and possibly more expensive and quite likely to be?

We build airports and let air lines sell tickets - why can't we build networks and let companies sell services?

Now your just answering non-rhetorical questions. I guess the sarcasm wasn't obvious enough. Of course I know I would get stuck paying for my lawyer.

I can see I have a big chunk of the tri-city bb team working against me here. I will not back down from my belief that the government entering the BB business is wrong, and a bad thing. At the very least, they should be required to give up all authority over anyone who might compete against them. I think forming a non-tax based co-operative would probably end a lot of municipalities legal problems. If the people want BB bad enough, let them invest in it with their own money.
Fortunately bigger fish than myself have lawyers and cash to throw at it and make it go away. The lesser of two evils I guess, as they do not want to see me succeed either. For the time being, I guess we have a common enemy.

I've pretty much made all of my points, and there is no reason to repeat them.

I don't work for or have anything to do with Tri City BB in any manner other than I think MUNI's are a good idea - Also I just L O V E how you can't actually debate the facts but just stick to your obsolete thinking and wont even try to think about how something else might work better.

Its simple - you want to make money off the people and they don't want you to - you understand this and you don't like it - there can't be anything else about it

The analogy I made earlier about the airports - if you can find something wrong with that I will change my mind right as you make an argument as to why its a bad idea.

Its that simple you could just tell me what's wrong make your case and that would be it but I don't think you can make your case and I don't think you will even reply to me.

As a frequent flier, I got a chuckle out your airline analogy. Look at the current state of the airline industry- Inefficient, poor (or no) profits, poor service, heavily regulated, overpriced, and passengers are left to foot the bill.

I've debated the facts. I feel I'm right, your wrong. That's it. How much farther can you go? Get over it. I'm not going to sit here and type everything else over again. Your entitled to speak your opinion, but there's no need to goad me or try to provoke a flame war just because I do not agree with you.

It wasn't an analogy to the whole airline industry - Is that what I said? I said the airports - municipal airports are just like municipal fiber networks - that's the analogy. You haven't once made a case that makes sense you keep coming back with things like you just said that don't make any sense - why? I ask you to make a case and you come back blindly saying you think you are right when you can't even come up with one reason MUNI's are a bad idea and then you list a reason that has nothing to do with what I asked you to do probably because you simply cannot come up with one reason.

Nuff said

quote:

---

"Should tax money be allowed to provide pornographic movies for residents?"

---

The Truth Translated:

We are concerned about our bottom line the children, do we really want to see this competition on tv?

While you are at it, please cancel your Spice, Playboy and other adult packages through us, we are concerned you aren't getting quality time with the family.

*Cough*, smells like bullshit, *cough*.

Here are some examples of municipal systems, and the kind of benefits they bring to communities. Looks like the muni system would be a very smart move for Geneva, Batavia, and St. Charles, Illinois.

Grant County Washington, population 78,000
The Grant County Public Utility District leases access to it's fiber network to 9 ISPs who provide voice, video, and data services. The economic boost and community benefits are outlined in this article: Fiber-to-the-home drives development in Grant County, Wash. (pdf). Although it's early in their deployment, they've already seen around $8 million in economic benefit.

Cedar Falls Iowa, population around 36,000
As a commitment to economic development, the municipal-owned utility constructed a Broadband Fiber Optic Communications System. See details of the network here. Economic and community benefits of the CFU Cybernet can be found here (pdf). The study concludes: "There may be no single thing more important in a community’s efforts to achieve economic well-being than to grasp the role that telecommunications plays in creating meaningful jobs, enhanced education and world class healthcare. Now, more than ever, the direct link is evident between advanced communications and productivity and economic development."

Glasgow Kentucky, population around 15,000
The city-owned power company provides broadband over the fiber. Their prices are extremely attractive, because they've decided to only try to recover costs - not generate revenue. From an article in the San Antonio Express News, February 2002: "Utility superintendent William Ray estimates that since Glasgow began offering cable in 1989, $32 million of residents' money has stayed in town that otherwise might have been vacuumed by giant telecommunications companies — which often don't offer advanced services in rural areas like Glasgow anyway."

And many others...

Alabama: Lincoln, Opp, Foley, Scottsboro
Alaska: Angoon, Kake, Kiana, Kotlik Arkansas Conway, Lockesburg, Paragould
California: Anaheim, Alameda, Burbank, Los Angeles, Palo Alto, San Bruno, Santa Rosa
Colorado: Center, Copper Mountain, Longmont
Florida: Gainesville, Key West, Lakeland, Leesburg, Newberry, Ocala, Valparaiso
Georgia: LaGrange, Fairburn, Marietta, Newnan, Thomasville
Iowa: Akron, Algona, Alta, Bancroft, Cedar Falls, Coon Rapids, Danbury, Dayton, Denison, Grundy Center, Harlan, Hartley, Hawarden, Hull, Independence, Indianola, Lake View, Laurens, Lenox, Manilla, Manning, Mount Pleasant, Muscatine, New London, Orange City, Primghar, Rock Rapids, Sac City, Sanborn, Sibley, Spencer, Tipton, Wall Lake, Waterloo, Westwood
Kansas: Altamont, Baxter, Cawker, Columbus, Courtland
Kentucky: Bardstown, Barbourville, Bowling Green, Frankfort, Glasgow, Williamstown
Maryland: Easton
Massachusetts: Braintree, Chicopee, Holyoke, Shrewsbury, Westfield
Michigan: Clearwater, Coldwater, Crystal Falls, Hillsdale, Holland, Lowell, Negaunee, Norway, Wyandotte
Minnesota: Bagley, Coleraine, Elbow Lake, Fosston, Jackson, Marble, Westbrook, Windom
Missouri: Newburg, Springfield, Unionville
Nebraska: Lincoln
North Carolina: Morganton
New Hampshire: Keane
Ohio: Archbold, Butler County, Celina, Cuyahoga Falls, Hamilton, Lebanon, Niles, Wadsworth
Oregon: Cascade Locks, Eugene, Lexington, Lincoln County Public Utility District, Springfield
Pennsylvania: New Wilmington, Pitcairn
South Dakota: Beresford
Virginia: Blacksburg, Leesburg, Lynchburg
Washington: North Bonneville, Sumas, Tacoma
West Virginia: Phillipi
Wisconsin: Oconto Falls, Two Creeks Wyoming Lusk, Bailroil

"If the utility did not attract enough subscribers to financially succeed, taxpayers would be left with the bill and stuck with paying the bonds."

Can someone from Tri-Cities, please, please, please, assure me this statement, lifted directly from the Kane County Chronicle article, is some nasty SBC/Comcast lie and not a single penny of taxpayer dollars are at risk?

I also want to know who will put up the "seed money" and pay the overhead and interest until this brilliant idea takes flight and starts turning an alleged profit.

If you can do all that, I'll vote "yes" this November.

I live off Route 38 and can't get broadband. But I don't expect anyone else to pay for my ticket.