DHRacer
Fire Survivor
join:2000-10-10
Lake Arrowhead, CA
 ·Charter Pipeline
 ·Verizon west (ex G..
| Fight on...
They don't call them the Fightin' Illini for nuthing!
I would like to see the project get developed somehow. Then it won't matter what happens with SBC and Comcast. Bankruptcies, liquidations, collapse, or bought out? Who cares, they have a city run system.
Too bad the voters were duped. |
|
tschmidt
Premium,MVM
join:2000-11-12
Milford, NH
 ·Hollis Hosting
·Verizon Online DSL
·Fairpoint Communic..
| Will Comcast and SBC deliver?
It is too bad this got voted down.
It will be interesting to watch how Comcast and SBC respond. 40% is a lot of folks - if I was an incumbent I hurry up and roll out high speed service to nip this puppy in the bud.
My guess is nothing will happens and Ed and company will be in a powerful position to bring this back to the voters in a year or two. |
|
BK3
join:2001-04-10
Geneva, IL
·AT&T Yahoo
| Comcast and SBC have already delivered.
On the day after the vote:
Comcast announces a 33% increase in internet-only subscribers - this was reported on DSLR also.
I here from sources that SBC does NOT intend to expand their network here in the tri-cities. They are of the opinion that what's available is good enough.
This is what they have delivered. We will be back ...
--
Intelligent discussion is invited and encouraged. |
|
AuroraJock
join:2003-04-02
Chicago, IL
| Comcast's price increase is just for the Tricity, or nationwide?
SBC not building out technology has nothing to do with Tricity fiber, but the Illinois senate vote - which is predicted to keep copper regulated, halting DSL deployment yet again on the statewide level (not just tricity).
Nothing new on either front, and nothing to do with Tricity - just coincidental timing on both.
[text was edited by author 2003-04-03 17:00:47] |
|
dilettante
join:2002-01-01
Haslett, MI
| Yes, too bad indeed.
I was hoping this might counter the piratical trends we're seeing as a very few huge (and getting larger) companies control more and more of the broadband market.
At least in some places you still have a choice between cable and maybe one or two DSL suppliers. Never had that luxury here - cable or dial-up, that's it.
Where's that "free market" all of these right-wingers keep hooting about? You know, the one that is supposed to balance out this avarice? Often we're hearing this crap from the same folks who insist it would be evil if government operated a network for public benefit.
I had the idea that in several places these "sole providers" successfully sued local governments when the locals tried to allow (grant franchises to) companies desiring to offer a competing service. So government is good when it supports a monopoly, but evil when it wants to encourage competition or meet a need where a vacuum exists?
I think we see where this is going. Wasn't it called "Soviet-style Central Planning?" |
|
uteck
@mindspring.com
| If it were "Soviet-style Central Planning" then the city would decide who can access what, which might have happened. I have no love for SBC, but I can easily see a city government installing spy-ware to spot "terrorists and criminals". You may not realize this, but many of the sole providers have leagely binding contracts that grant them a monopoly in order to entice them to provide service in the first place. Thoughs places will just have to wait until the contracts expire, |
|
Kaltes
Premium
join:2002-12-04
Los Angeles, CA
| reply to AuroraJock
Re: Will Comcast and SBC deliver?
#1. It was a nationwide price increase. All the other Comcast-served areas were given notice of it some time ago.
#2. Please do not insult our intelligence by claiming the timing was coincidental. Comcast began to hike rates early this year. It is obvious that Comcast delayed their notice of the increase until after the vote, because the truth would have hurt Comcast's position.
#3. Many residents getting $43/month might not see the need for bothering with a utility, but once that rate jumps to $57/month, I guarantee you that a large number of people would have turned out to voice their disapproval with Comcast.
Aurorajock you must work for Comcast/SBC, because you've done nothing but spout their propaganda since you joined. |
|
Kaltes
Premium
join:2002-12-04
Los Angeles, CA
| reply to uteck
Re: Yes, too bad indeed.
A government monopoly is accountable to the public precisely because this nation *IS* a democracy. Monopolies are bad, but if given the choice between a government monopoly and a private monopoly, I will take the government every time.
Besides, this situation does not involve a government monopoly. Private entities are free to lower their prices and compete with the utility, and they can manage it because these companies are so huge that they can service the area cheaper than the utility.
BUT even though Comcast *CAN* do it better, they CHOOSE NOT TO, because they DO NOT CARE about anything but squeezing the most profit possible out of residents. The utility's greatest benefit to the citizens is in keeping the incumbents honest.
[text was edited by author 2003-04-03 21:02:16] |
|
mocycler
Premium
join:2001-01-22
Naperville, IL
 ·AT&T U-Verse
·AT&T Midwest
| reply to dilettante
said by dilettante  :
Where's that "free market" all of these right-wingers keep hooting about? You know, the one that is supposed to balance out this avarice?
Free market is alive and well. Why don't you give it a try? All you have to do is gather up 63 million bucks and offer to build the network and operate it yourself. If you make a profit you get to keep all the money. If you don't make a profit, it's your tuff luck. That's about as far from "Soviet-style Central Planning" as you can get and still be on Earth.
This is not about competition. It's not about the little guys against the big, bad companies. Heck, it's not even about broadband.
It's about who is going to pick up the tab.
Ironically, the towns of Batavia, St. Charles, and Geneva, IL. are almost exclusively Republican...so it sure seems odd that folks who buy into the "party of small government" are now holding their hand out to the taxpayers for something as mundane as internet service. I'm surprised it even got 40%. They must be getting soft over there.
I'll bet this deal has already cost the taxpayers a bundle: The meetings, surveys, studies, getting it on the ballot, etc.
I don't live in that area, but if I did I would have voted against it. The government is too deep into our business as it is.
The Tri-cities would have been much more successful if they had put all that energy into finding an entrepeneur willing to put up private money to fund the project.
peace,
mocycler
[text was edited by author 2003-04-03 22:00:25] |
|
cbrigante2
Cubs 20??
Premium
join:2002-11-22
North Aurora, IL
| Naperville
I'm kinda shocked to hear that opinion coming from a Naperville resident. Your town just got lit up a few months ago for a large portion of residents on the west side. If you are trying to say that Comcast and SBC are any better than big government running your internet service? |
|
Kaltes
Premium
join:2002-12-04
Los Angeles, CA
| reply to mocycler
Re: Yes, too bad indeed.
mocycler:
That is about as strong an argument as can be made against the proposal. The libertarian perspective. Your argument is that a minority of beneficiaries want the taxpayers to subsidize them. First of all, "who is going to pick up the tab" is not at issue here. Subscriber fees are what pays the bond debt. The users of the service pay, NOT the taxpayer.
The taxpayer is, however, exposed to paying the bonds if the venture collapses into bankruptcy and utterly fails. If you research other ventures of this type, it will be obvious to you that the risk of catastrophic failure is negligible. So, there is only a slim chance that the 'tab' would be picked up in any way by the taxpayers at large.
You say that, if success is so certain, why not make a private venture? The answer is simple: a municipal venture and a private one are not the same thing.
Comcast/SBC know they can attack and destroy a private venture. All that would take would be some promotions and marketing funding to coincide with the launch of the private venture. The giants are good at frustrating market entry. I doubt that a private venture could get off the ground in the tri-cities area, but the tri-city proposal is a different matter entirely.
The municipality has several advantages:
#1. (cheaper financing) Financing is less worrysome because the bonds are guaranteed and therefore pay lower interest. Private loans would be far more costly and make the break-even point significantly more difficult to obtain, especially when would-be lenders know that Comcast and SBC can use their market power to crush the upstart.
#2. (harder to kill) Even if Comcast/SBC temporarily drop their prices, introduce giveaway promotions, and step up their advertising revenue, the municipal venture will not die. Since the vast bulk of the cost is paid upfront in setting up the infrastructure, and the cities have guaranteed the bonds in the long-term, tricities would not have to worry about being driven into bankruptcy. Knowing that tricities cannot be killed in this fashion, it would be futile for Comcast/SBC to throw away large sums of money in a pointless battle. The end result is that SBC/Comcast will either lose market share or profit margins. Now you can see why they were so afraid of the proposal.
*************************************************
If you stick to some variety of ideological "The government is too deep into our business as it is." argument, I think you are making an irrational choice. Appealing to ideological form over factual substance is no way to make decisions.
To sum up: Assuming that a private venture could somehow equate to the municipal proposal is improper on several grounds. The municipality is likely to succeed where a private venture is likely to fail. |
|
mocycler
Premium
join:2001-01-22
Naperville, IL
·AT&T U-Verse
·AT&T Midwest
| reply to cbrigante2
Re: Naperville
said by cbrigante2 :
I'm kinda shocked to hear that opinion coming from a Naperville resident. Your town just got lit up a few months ago for a large portion of residents on the west side. If you are trying to say that Comcast and SBC are any better than big government running your internet service?
I think you are referring to me, so here goes...
As I said in my post, this has nothing to do with broadband.
And I'm not saying private companies are always better than government at running anything (although in most cases they are).
What I am saying is that government has no business putting up taxpayers' wallets as security for yet another non-essential service. If Comcast, SBC, or anyone else enters a market and fails, the taxpayers don't have to eat the bill. And that's the way it should be.
I'm not changing my mind: If this is a such a surefire deal, let the proponents fork over private money, or find someone who will. I will be the first to congradtulate them as they make their first big haul to the bank.
I addressed this issue in detail at this link:
»Fight FIRE with FIRE
Thanks,
mocycler |
|
Kaltes
Premium
join:2002-12-04
Los Angeles, CA
| I responded to you in another thread as well mocycler.
I will say this much: I don't think you appreciate the economic significance of broadband.
The availability of broadband has a significant impact on many types of businesses. The fact that it took so long for the big2 to service the tricities may have significantly harmed local business, and business-related real estate development. Superior municipal service would attract businesses from neighboring areas, and could lead to significant indirect economic benefits to the tri-cities.
The consumer side of broadband is another matter entirely. Im sure you still think "most users would be teenagers playing games or downloading music," but that is an ignorant and uninformed view to say the least. Broadband is not just a luxury entertainment service.
Maybe you feel it is a "non-essential service," but I disagree, as do many others. More than one past employer of mine would have seen their offices collapse into chaos if their internet service failed. Many business models are becoming increasingly dependent on reliable high speed internet access.
On the residential side, some apartment-seekers weigh internet access options in evaluating where they would like to move.
the list goes on................... |
|
mocycler
Premium
join:2001-01-22
Naperville, IL
·AT&T U-Verse
·AT&T Midwest
| reply to Kaltes
Re: Yes, too bad indeed.
Kaltes,
First off, thanks for acknowledging and respecting my obviously libertarian views. I suspect you've read my other posts on this topic.
It is true that subscriber fees pay bonds, and there is no real risk to taxpayers. However, bonds are traditionally used for things like schools, sewers, and libraries...things that in and of themselves do not make money, but need to exsist regardless of profit considerations. Furthermore, everyone can identify with the need for new police cars and street lights.
But broadband??? Why not float a bond to give every resident a hot tub??? In a state with a huge deficit, brave cops and firefighters going for years without contracts, and dozens of school districts in the red, the mere idea of government-backed broadband, no matter how financially secure, sounds petty and trite to say the least.
As for your comment that a SBC/Comcast could destroy a private venture, I don't know. If someone walked into the Tri-cities with 63 mil and said, "I'll do it", they would be welcomed with open arms. And if they failed, oh well...better them than Joe Citizen.
I see where you're coming from but I can't go along with government involvement in something like this.
peace,
mocycler
|
|
tschmidt
Premium,MVM
join:2000-11-12
Milford, NH
·Hollis Hosting
·Verizon Online DSL
·Fairpoint Communic..
| reply to mocycler
Re: Naperville
said by mocycler :
What I am saying is that government has no business putting up taxpayers' wallets as security for yet another non-essential service. If Comcast, SBC, or anyone else enters a market and fails, the taxpayers don't have to eat the bill. And that's the way it should be.
I'd argue that in the information age being connected is as important as mail, telephone, water, sewer, roads and electricity. There is an easy way to address your concern that taxpayers will bear the burden if the venture goes bust. The towns can opt for revenue bonds rather then generation obligation bonds. The down side higher interest rates. Personality if I lived in the area I’d take the risk for the lower interest rate but you bring up a valid point. Other municipalities should consider that route in the future.
First mile access will always be a monopoly or near monopoly. If I have to deal with a monopoly I’d much rather deal with local elected officials then a multinational corporation that has no real interest in my particular town.
Free markets work well while the market is immature and expanding. Once it mature it tends to be winner take all. The incumbent then is in a powerful position to stifle competition. Look at what happened to radio after deregulation. I don't want high-speed access turned into the Clear Channel network.
Municipalities have an advantage compared to private enterprise. Nonprofit and government entities can operate at much lower rates of return, resulting in lower cost to customers. Getting capital for fiber build out by the Telcos and Cablecos is going to be difficult. Building the next generation network is a huge undertaking with a payback period measured in years rather then months. Plus both have very profitable legacy business they are frantically trying to protect. They are in no hurry to deliver true broadband.
I think it likely the only places wired with FTTH in the next 10 years will be municipalities that take control of the first-mile access network. |
|
mocycler
Premium
join:2001-01-22
Naperville, IL
·AT&T U-Verse
·AT&T Midwest
| reply to Kaltes
Kaltes...I see you are in LA. I grew up and currently live in Naper(rhymes with "paper")ville, Illinois. Just a few miles from the Tri-cities. Been there a billion times. I know this area and how people think.
There is anecdotal evidence as to the value of broadband to the local economy, but trust me, there is no real weight to this claim. And even if there was, that does not justify the government stepping in. Only a handful of citizens even deemed the issue important enough to show up to vote...and of those, 6 in 10 don't want the government to back it.
I am absolutely not changing sides: If this concept is so clearly outstanding, then they should have no trouble at all attracting private money.
peace,
mocycler |
|
AuroraJock
join:2003-04-02
Chicago, IL | reply to Kaltes
Re: Will Comcast and SBC deliver?
Not trying to insult anyones intelligence. I don't work for Comcast or SBC. And what propaganda do you mean? Name 1 thing I've posted here on this board that is propaganda and not factual. |
|
Octopussy2
Premium
join:2003-03-30
Batavia, IL
| reply to Kaltes
Re: Naperville
It is so nice to see someone with vision posting here (Kaltes). And who sees that this project was not just about cable , internet and phone service, but for the economic growth of the TriCities. That is why Mayor Klinkhamer and I hope Mayor Schielke roll out some sort of fiber to the industrial parks and businesses even though this failed this time around (and I hope this comes up again).
More than a few businesses have chosen to leave the area or not locate here due to the dismal choice for high-speed internet services. Let's see....you can pay $750 on up for a T1 line because a huge area of businesses can't get DSL services. Not to mention the upload speeds offered to businesses are too slow in many cases for what businesses need. No Comcast cable modems are offered to businesses-just T1s-because they cost more money of course! The TCBB venture would've allowed for every home and business to have fiber and choose the service they wanted at a price far below what is currently offered to them (if anything is offered at all).
Without businesses staying here or new business coming to the area there is no one to dilute our tax base and our taxes go up! New e-commerce or any new businesses would've been nice to dilute our tax base. TCBB would've encouraged new businesses to come. I personally know of 2 businesses who now are leaving because of no high-speed internet connectivity except a T1. That may not seem like a lot to you mocycler, but what a shame to lose businesses in our community over something so simple that could be provided, and at a reasonable cost. Without economic development you really don't have a whole hell of a lot.
[text was edited by author 2003-04-04 09:42:16] |
|
AuroraJock
join:2003-04-02
Chicago, IL
| You can argue every point with a counter point on this issue - taxes go up because businesses leave. Real estate prices could skyrocket becauses businesses would flock to a fiber network town. Blah blah blah.
It was voted down, the people have spoken. Mocycler is right, if this network is such a slam dunk, then the people who want it should band together, form a corporation, take out loans against their own personal assets, and build it. Then, when you become millionaires, you can laugh at us people who think it's a bad idea. |
|
Octopussy2
Premium
join:2003-03-30
Batavia, IL
| Not very many people spoke. Voter apathy was pretty apparent this April and Spring Break didn't help voter turnout. Neither did the scare tactics and all out lies that came from the SBC and Comcast camps.
That's ok. Eleven more percentage points and this would've gone the other way. Forty percent says to me that a lot is wrong with what we have out here. 60%-40% is not some huge margin to "win" by. Folks lost out on choice. And some folks lost out on getting any high-speed Internet at all-unless a resident wants to pay an arm and a leg for it for a T1. Do you have access to DSL? How about a cable modem? Well I don't. And it would've been nice to have had that choice. I have been waiting for 6 years. Why should I have to wait until SBC or Comcast deems me worthy of receiving their service? Or do you have that "I got me mine so I really could care less if you got yours" mentality? This system would've provided for everyone. And like the Kane County Chronicle said this morning...."forty percent is big enough to reach service thresholds needed for profitability". So, like the supporters of TCBB tried to tell everyone and the feasibility study showed....this would've been profitable (a slam dunk) and no one's property taxes would've ever been touched. That's why Comcast and SBC spent an estimated 2 million dollars to defeat this project. It would have worked.
Why some folks don't want to pay less money for better services and local accountability with money that stays local is beyond me. |
|
