| reply to AuroraJock
Re: Funding Model Just because there is a angle for revenue or profit going to investors doesn't necessarily mean it won't compete well. It's almost the same as if government tax dollars were funding it because municipal broadband is also proposed as a way to generate extra revenue for the municipality, though not to a great extent. At least that's what I hear.
I know about the other providers out there, but keep in mind many, many locations can only get ILEC DSL services and of course cable broadband normally involves only one provider in the region (with maybe Earthlink piggybacking to keep regulators from thinking Time Warner is backing out on their deal). Also I think in this case Comcast and SBC are the only options.
Regarding the smear campaign in relation to porn I do believe it was uncalled for. They were using guilt by association. I don't think it's fair to put to blame an Internet service provider because content that can be found online is unacceptable or illegal. It's liken to the MPAA suing Roadrunner because users offer movie downloads. SBC and Comcast were doing just that. Politics or not it's a distortion of the truth to make it sound like a municipal broadband service endorses child pornography... especially when the ones doing the accusing harbor the same content. |
|
|
|
| I agree with some of your points, however Covad does maintain presence in all of SBCs RTs in the Chicago area and DLS wireless does have coverage as well (go to dls.net if you don't believe me). CLEC DSL is no less available that ILEC DSL for these communities. So Comcast and SBC are not the only 2 options.
The funding option and subsequent guarantee fo cheap service was their main selling point, now even some of these towns mayors are saying the cost savings is only probable, not guaranteed with this new model.
I agree with you to an extent about the porn issue. I must point out that I also agree it was uncalled for, but that does not necessarily make it "lie" like the proponents say. Distorting facts to support your cause is commonplace in politics and lobbying. The fiber group is just as guilty for distorting facts in their favor with the past election results and tax burden on the previous referendum. There are, however, things that a government should not get behind. To my knowledge (and correct me if I'm wrong), you cannot obtain a copy of "Juggs" magazine at the Geneva, IL Public Library, nor should you. Why? Because a public operated library system shouldn't be used to provide this content. Quite similarly, I don't think it's ideal for a government to provide internet access to a society that has proven time and time again that it cannot resist pornography. Currently, there appear to be 18 registered sex offenders in Geneva and Batavia combined. St. Charles has no listings. |
|
 batageekSlave To The DuopolyPremium
join:2003-01-25 | Still stuck using SBC lines to reach wherever via DSL.....
Rates that are going to go up any day.
"Should tax money be allowed to provide pornographic movies for residents?"
That's the exact reason the tricities want it. It will help to support the fledgling TriCity porn industry too.
"Do you believe local schools will have to cut teaching staff, increase class sizes and eliminate after school programs because the Tri‑Cities broadband referendum competes with existing school referendums?"
Can you say SEPARATE TAXING BODY FROM CITY? Thought so...
Wait, I know, the porn industry could employ the out of work teachers....
"Would a government broadband invade privacy and allow the government to listen to your telephone conversations, monitor the Internet sites you visit and know what cable shows you watch?"
Do you mean any more than Comcast? See »www.detnews.com/2002/technology/···3526.htm
Privacy? What about this from you?
"Quite similarly, I don't think it's ideal for a government to provide internet access to a society that has proven time and time again that it cannot resist pornography. Currently, there appear to be 18 registered sex offenders in Geneva and Batavia combined. St. Charles has no listings. "
I'm so happy you know what's best for us. That must be the only reason we want it.....screaming fast porn. The moral compass for TriCity voters? Thanks for checking up? Porn causes all sex offenders? All sex offenders are the result of porn? Give me a break....
Using that logic, guns cause death, not the people pulling the trigger...
Distort nothing......LIES
--
»www.tricitybroadband.com |
|
| »www.n2h2.com/about/press/usage_stats.php
Go ahead and read it. Not very supportive of your desire to have government internet, huh? Let's focus on a few interesting nuggets from this...
More than 60 percent of companies have disciplined - and more than 30 percent have terminated - employees for inappropriate use of the Internet.
27 per cent of Fortune 500 companies have battled sexual harassment claims stemming from employee misuse and abuse of corporate e-mail and Internet systems.
Keep bitching. Facts are facts. A lot of people use internet for pornography or other inappropriate uses. Is that the reason you guys want to build it? Please, don't embarrass your own lack of comprehension here. I'm not talking about good intentions. I'm talking about practical applications and usage. With this EMPIRICAL DATA, and with the COMMON KNOWLEDGE THAT PORN IS WIDELY AVAILABLE FOR FREE ON THE WEB, should the government provide the link? By you not addressing the Juggs Magazine comparison, I would assume that your local public library won't provide the content. Then why should they provide the link for the digital content? That's the real topic of discussion. Don't insult me by claiming that I "know whats best".
Don't want to use SBC lines, go with DLS or Comcast. You people just won't address some issues pertaining to this argument. You dance around the topic and take the offensive in any way you can, yet you keep ignoring some key critical components of this network. Go ahead, keep ignoring the fact that other options are there and keep spewing out misinformation (ie LIES). |
|
| Actually, if you want to get technical...County Govts. or municipalities often hold and sign the franchises for the cable companies. Here it is Comcast (the #1 cable company profiting from porn). By holding the franchises the Govt. is actually already approving and profitting from your porn.
--
It's muni-licious! »www.tricitybroadband.com |
|
| reply to AuroraJock
"The funding option and subsequent guarantee fo cheap service was their main selling point, now even some of these towns mayors are saying the cost savings is only probable, not guaranteed with this new model."
As the person who has been doing all the research on the potential financing models for the Tri-Cities, for the citizen's group, I think I am uniquely qualified to speak to the different options available. If you have questions about the options you may ask me directly. Cheap service is still a selling point and we still expect to be 10%-15% lower than anything Comcast and SBC will be offering. When Comcast and SBC drop their rates EVERYONE still benefits from competition. However, we will still have the superior backbone and the larger view in mind for our residents, unlike the incumbents who stooped to disgusting behavior during last year's referendum battle.
The Cities are NOT putting this on the ballots this year. The citizen's group is trying to. The facts and truth of this year's referendum battle lie with the citizen's group. www.tricitybroadband.com
--
It's muni-licious! »www.tricitybroadband.com |
|
batageekSlave To The DuopolyPremium
join:2003-01-25 | reply to AuroraJock
therapy.......please. |
|
| reply to Octopussy2
Okay, answer these questions...
What was the profit margin based on the old model from last year? What is the profit margin for this years model? What sort of contractual arrangment will the villages have with the owners of the network? Who ultimately decides on what to charge? How can you expect a 10-15% lower price when Batageek has pointed out in the past that a not-for-profit coop is in charge of negotiating your wholesale buyrates? How do you intend on providing Comcasts new Sports Network debuting this fall? Many local sports broadcasts are going to be shown on this network and it is replacing Fox Sports Net Chicago. For your backbone, both SBC and Covad have multiple backbones, with BGP failover built in. Both the SONET level and ATM stuff have capacity to last for many years to come. Please identify how your proposed backbone will be superior. |
|
batageekSlave To The DuopolyPremium
join:2003-01-25
1 edit | Octo:
don't even bother. this is a troll that has been going for too long.
"What was the profit margin based on the old model from last year?"
The profit margin last year assumed different take rates for each service offered. Based on those take rates, the system would have begun operating in the black in year three.
"What is the profit margin for this years model?"
The profit model for this year has not been established. Since any private sector backer will do their own study, it really doesn't matter what we say. And again, a muni doesn't need a profit margin...it just needs to exist, pay its bills, and break even.
"What sort of contractual arrangment will the villages have with the owners of the network?"
Who knows? All we the citizen group are stipulating is that the financing is not backed by taxes. As long as the private investor makes his return, that's all he should care about too. And again, it's assumed to be city owned and operated, otherwise, as you've pointed out elsewhere, there would be no need for a private sector company to go to referendum.
"Who ultimately decides on what to charge? How can you expect a 10-15% lower price when Batageek has pointed out in the past that a not-for-profit coop is in charge of negotiating your wholesale buyrates?"
Last year's feasibility study ran the financials. Again, read the study. The savings in a muni typically come from the lack of overhead the likes of Comcast & SBC typically carry combined with the longer payback model.
"How do you intend on providing Comcasts new Sports Network debuting this fall? Many local sports broadcasts are going to be shown on this network and it is replacing Fox Sports Net Chicago."
Negotiate. Just as Kutztown, PA has done for the same reason. Everything is available for a price.
"For your backbone, both SBC and Covad have multiple backbones, with BGP failover built in. Both the SONET level and ATM stuff have capacity to last for many years to come. "
The proposed tricity ftth plant would be able to tie directly into several providers, even easily bypassing the Geneva CO if so desired. AT&T, Sprint, McLeod, MCI, & AboveNet all have fiber pulls within the TriCities. Pulls they'd be happy to have miss the Geneva CO.
"Please identify how your proposed backbone will be superior."
Tell me, where's the SBC fiber to the home in the TriCities? That's right....not here. And not here for a long time to come.
Fiber For Our Future wants an all fiber network that's designed to serve the long term goals of a city, not the short term profit of a company.
END OF POST. END OF DISCUSSION. YOU DON'T VOTE HERE ANYWAY.
--
»www.tricitybroadband.com |
|
| quote:
Tell me, where's the SBC fiber to the home in the TriCities? That's right....not here. And not here for a long time to come.
Fiber For Our Future wants an all fiber network that's designed to serve the long term goals of a city, not the short term profit of a company.
SBC doesn't have FTTH because SBC has more marketable investments on the burner. If your plan is to deliver FTTH and it barely sells, then your investors will garnish your fiber network. What's worse is that if it fails, you'll have BIG time trouble trying to attract private investors (or voters backing a tax supported network) for your NEXT project. |
|
1 edit | reply to batageek
Batageek, as soon as somebody like me brings up valid points, you consistently go on the defensive. You can call me a troll all you want, I bring up valid points for why this network shouldn't exist.
You freely admit you have no profit model done on this new version, and you have no idea about the contractual arrangement between the private entity and the local government. So, in essence, you have no detailed business plan.
I read the feasibility study last year. But once again, this model was based on the towns financing it. With the unknown that is the contractual obligation of the villages to the private investors, I'll ask again... Who ultimately has the final say in pricing??? You want to solicit voters, but you are not answering basic questions and you don't have a detailed business plan.
I also asked how your fiber backbone will be superior, yet you answered this question identifying the last mile. Please, how is the BACKBONE superior?
Okay, for the umpteenth time, Comcast and DLS.net both bypass the local telephone plant. Are you able to comprehend this? Let me know if you don't understand this. Why won't you admit that there are other options available? Do you feel that if you admit that there are 4 facilities based ISPs that you network is harder to sell to the voters?
This all comes back to my original point. Your group consists of a small number of techno-geeks who think a fiber connection would be cool. You come to these public message boards and cry about a lack of options, yet when someone calls you on this, you blatantly ignore the facts. Last years business model called for a 30-something percent penetration rate for the network to be successful. I find that 30% is an unrealistic target. Your own mayors say that cost savings is only "probable". Plus, there are 2 facilities based DSL providers, 1 cable provider, and at least 1 WISP. That means that your fiber network will be the 5th facility based ISP. Then, you've got any number of resellers out there. Now, if you are going to be the 5th broadband company, and you have NO IDEA of a business model, how can you realistically expect this network to be successful?
Please, Batageek or Octopussy, post the following info and end this dicussion once and for all.
1. Post the number of YES votes, the number of NO votes, and the number of absentee ballots submitted, and the number of voters that didn't vote for the 2003 proposal. NO percentages, actual counts only please.
2. Post the number of registered voters per household, and the total number of households.
3. Post the number of households required to make the network successful
4. Didn't the cities do a survey prior to the feasibility study regarding internet and asking if people were satisfied? Post those results. |
|
batageekSlave To The DuopolyPremium
join:2003-01-25 | Boogie & AJ:
I don't' particularly care why investors like this project, just that they do. I can't read their minds, or their logic. And as a taxpayer in the TriCities, all I should care about is whether there is any potential for tax liability. The liability was limited last year and is non existent this year.
The concept for the long term makes sense.
The concept brings facilities based competition. Should the cities decide they don't want to be in this business 5 years down the road, they can lease the plant out to anyone they see fit. Either way, still real competition.
(AJ, maybe they can even step up the quality of porn, just for you.)
CITY OF BATAVIA VOTES=01
Bond Issue Proposition 22 of 22 precincts counted
YES..................................... N/P 17 2,411 34.20
NO...................................... N/P 18 4,639 65.80
CITY OF GENEVA VOTES=01
Acquire antenna television system 18 of 18 precincts counted
YES..................................... N/P 10 1,575 40.81
NO...................................... N/P 11 2,284 59.19
CITY OF GENEVA VOTES=01
Acquire public utility for phone service 18 of 18 precincts counted
YES..................................... N/P 14 1,550 40.38
NO...................................... N/P 15 2,289 59.62
CITY OF GENEVA VOTES=01
Operate public phone service 18 of 18 precincts counted
YES..................................... N/P 19 1,511 39.75
NO...................................... N/P 20 2,290 60.25
CITY OF ST CHARLES VOTES=01
Issue bonds for telecommunications syst 27 of 27 precincts counted
YES..................................... N/P 15 2,691 39.03
NO...................................... N/P 16 4,203 60.97
AJ - Is fiber superior to copper? Nuff said. Again, I refer back to the L.A. Times article about SBC using fiber. Even they get it....why the heck can't you.
As to Comcast, Comcast has raised rates in the TriCities. Did you know that in January of 2003, the cost for Standard Cable with one Premium channel was $48.47 (see page 2)? Were you aware that ONE YEAR LATER, that same service cost $65.83 (Standard Cable + a digital converter + Premium Services)? (see »www.tricitybroadband.com/2004.htm for details direct from Comcast.) In the absence of any competition (or threat thereof), it would be far worse.
As far as realistic penetration numbers, I didn't make them up...Go argue with the consultant, UTI. Look to the penetration numbers with other muni builds across the country. They are routinely in the 40% to 60% range.
As to previous studies and surveys, I believe both Batavia and Geneva still have that info on their sites. See »www.cityofbatavia.net/projects/B···and.html and
»www.geneva.il.us/bb/faq.htm
Number of households.....READ »www.geneva.il.us/bb/Broadband%20Sect5.pdf start on page 20.
Anything else?
--
»www.tricitybroadband.com |
|
| quote:
Anything else?
Yes. If this actually makes it on a ballot, in order to promote your voter turnout that you'd like to see voting for this, do you actually have any private investor bids yet? If so, what bids do you have? Are these secret bids?
What interest studies and polls has your group done to conclude that the only reason that people voted it down (by a more than 2-1 margin, no less) in all 3 cities was the concept that it was tax subsidized?
Has it at all occurred to you that your group is (as was pointed out previously) only interested in "a cool FTTH service" and that no one else really cares? Your claim of "no competition" has been refuted by facts 4 times now. You are beginning to sound like Bush and Cheney when you say that despite the mountains of evidence otherwise, there is absolutely zero competition in broadband, phone and tv services in the tri-cities area. And we all keep saying, when you got your brain washed, did you get it waxed too?
In fact, you mention yourself that the major backbones will be used wholesale for your project. If there are major backbones to provide these services, why would it be necessary to have the municipality offer the last mile of fiber to the house? Aren't private companies able to do this already? Why haven't they? If it's so feasible and so profitable, you'd think that AT&T (your major fiber connection, per your claims) would have already done something in this arena. They CERTAINLY have more money to throw around without having to pitch the idea to contracted private investors. Especially when AT&T isn't offering FTTH, DSL nor TV services of any kind anymore- they have ZERO incentive to see a plan like this fail.
Your idea failed last vote because people don't fucking care. They just don't want a FTTH now. It wasn't the taxes. You're not dealing with a group of farmers that want a community phone company to serve 8 farms in a 3 county area. People in the tri-cities simply don't WANT the service and they aren't even going out to VOTE for this because THEY DON'T CARE.
If it's such a great idea and you can get private investors, why not set up your own company? Wouldn't that make more sense? More profit right? It's ALL yours then!
Boogie |
|
batageekSlave To The DuopolyPremium
join:2003-01-25 | Tell you what....go to AT&T....tell them you've got a FTTH system that you want to tie into their backbone....see what they say. They're all about it. Don't believe me? Try it.
What AT&T doesn't have is the will to run the last mile. The municipality does, and the people (and equipment) to do so.
If it can get on the ballot and the most potential voters in the next 4 years can have their say on the issue, how is it not totally fair to the citizenry. This is the best chance to get the true voice of the people. Should be a great turnout with the current Love/Hate view people have on Bush.
People should care. If they don't, then they shouldn't gripe about the crappy service they do get.
If they don't want it in November so be it. I'll be happy to let it die.
--
»www.tricitybroadband.com |
|
| reply to boogie74
"Your idea failed last vote because people don't fucking care. They just don't want a FTTH now. It wasn't the taxes. You're not dealing with a group of farmers that want a community phone company to serve 8 farms in a 3 county area. People in the tri-cities simply don't WANT the service and they aren't even going out to VOTE for this because THEY DON'T CARE."
NICE language Boogie...when all else fails start swearing about things. We have done surveys here and you can even download the survey from our web site and take a look at the questions we asked.
It does not matter what you think, frankly. If we get the signatures of the voters here (which has begun)to put it on the ballot and then we pass it,, I guess we will see who cares, won't we? Nuff said.
--
It's muni-licious! »www.tricitybroadband.com |
|
| reply to boogie74
said by boogie74:
Your claim of "no competition" has been refuted by facts 4 times now.
I dunno. The fact that rates have hiked as much as they have tell me there is something to having more competition in that area. Also I haven't seen any strong refuting regarding competition in that area. Just comments that have been responded too equally well.
FTTH is a good idea... if the line carrier did just that... carry the line and let companies lease it out. Will this particular plan end up like that? I don't really know, but at least it's a step up from just having to chose from an inflated cable bill and an ILEC (Covad might be in the area, but I know what SBC charges CLEC's for use of the lines and almost in every case there is no competition). |
|
| said by SRFireside:
said by boogie74:
Your claim of "no competition" has been refuted by facts 4 times now.
I dunno. The fact that rates have hiked as much as they have tell me there is something to having more competition in that area. Also I haven't seen any strong refuting regarding competition in that area. Just comments that have been responded too equally well.
FTTH is a good idea... if the line carrier did just that... carry the line and let companies lease it out. Will this particular plan end up like that? I don't really know, but at least it's a step up from just having to chose from an inflated cable bill and an ILEC (Covad might be in the area, but I know what SBC charges CLEC's for use of the lines and almost in every case there is no competition).
I'm not sure how you're making your point here. You seem to be saying that high cable rate increases (phone service cost hasn't gone up at all- DSL cost in fact has gone down) automatically equal zero competition in phone, broadband and TV.
You literally said, "Covad might be in the area, but I know what SBC charges CLEC's for use of the lines and in almost every case there is no competition." Sounds too much like "Covad may be there, but even still, there is zero competition."
This is sounding like "80% of the people in Iraq want the US to leave immediately, but still, the majority of the people there want us to stay!" You can't have it both ways.
Boogie |
|
| reply to batageek
Batageek, the SBC article you posted in a previous thread specifically stated that SBC thought that fiber was not feasible for where existing copper already existed. It also went on to say that ILECs thought that WIRELESS technology posed a more serious threat. If SBC is SO SOLD on fiber, where is it?? Oh, it's just available in test markets that I can count on 1 hand.
Ok, let's look at other muni networks. You claim they have 40-60% penetration rate. Great! Now, how many facilities based competitors are in those communities? Please post FACTUAL NUMBERS. I'm sick and tired of debating opinion with you. NUMBERS PROVE YOUR ARGUMENTS WRONG.
You failed to post the number of voters who didn't vote. You continue to ignore facts of existing competitors that already exist there. You won't address these topics head on, rather you dance around them and spin doctor facts to try to mislead voters. Here's a good question for Octopussy... when you guys are out lobbying voters, do you tell them that they can get $65 10mbps wireless NOW in the tricities??? Or do you mislead them and cry about a lack of competition? |
|
| reply to Octopussy2
said by Octopussy2:
It does not matter what you think, frankly. If we get the signatures of the voters here (which has begun)to put it on the ballot and then we pass it,, I guess we will see who cares, won't we? Nuff said.
Translation: It does not matter what you think. As long as our group can mislead people to get just enough signatures, we'll ram this thru local legislation before anybody knows what happened.
Please, Octopussy, do you tell your voters that this network will be the 5th facility based ISP in the tricities? |
|
batageekSlave To The DuopolyPremium
join:2003-01-25 | reply to boogie74
Typical Bell spin.....How does Covad reach your home????Ummm....hmmmmm......leased Bell Line.....HMMMMM
Didn't that wholesale line price just go up too? Hmmm....We swear...no price increases...really....
In the Tricities, we have SBC controlling the physical phone lines. We have Comcast controlling the pyhsical cable plant. There are still many areas unserved by DSL service. Cable modem service was just completed in St. Charles this past Spring. Customer service continues to be abysmal.
This would be a competing phyical plant, one not owned by the SBC or Comcast.
Competition, espcially with local control and local responsibility, is good. And, it would seem, even better with private sector investment fronting the build cost.
--
»www.tricitybroadband.com |
|
