| reply to batageek
Re: Funding Model 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 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 |
|
| reply to boogie74
Regarding Covad I am saying the rates they as a CLEC have to pay to SBC are pretty high last time I checked. That keeps them from effectively competing with the low rates SBC advertises. Often that >$30 monthly offer is exactly how much (or less) a CLEC has to pay to just lease that line. Not many consumers will go with the more expensive brand and SBC knows it.
How many companies have been established as offering broadband in that area? Comcast, SBC and Covad? Any others? Does anybody know the cost of DSL after that six month special offer is up? Is it back to $60? That would explain Comcast's lack of interest in matching the introductory offer. Also isn't this project also targeting business growth? What about what they pay currently?
I haven't seen enough talked about here to convince myself competition is well and good in that area. Hell I don't think broadband competition is good in most areas in the U.S. for much of the same reasons. The ILEC's all but killed DSL offerings from anybody else and the cable companies hardly ever compete with themselves. What kind of free market do you call that? Survival of the fittest? Hardly... especially when you account for much of our past discussions. |
|
| quote:
Regarding Covad I am saying the rates they as a CLEC have to pay to SBC are pretty high last time I checked. That keeps them from effectively competing with the low rates SBC advertises. Often that >$30 monthly offer is exactly how much (or less) a CLEC has to pay to just lease that line. Not many consumers will go with the more expensive brand and SBC knows it.
Gee... last time I checked, Illinois has wholesale rates for CLECs set at $16- and THAT was just increased from $12! The national average is $19. The HIGHEST wholesale rates run around $25. Too bad that people here on BBR want you to think that wholesale rates are above $30 per line. That just isn't the case.
As far as Covad is concerned, it is Covad's decision NOT to offer dial tone- only DSL over local loops. It might be more profitable for Covad if they bundled dial tone and DSL together. Has it ever occurred to you that the reason that the Bells don't offer unbundled DSL is because at $29 per month it isn't profitable? It MIGHT just be that! That may go against your motto of "anything to squash competition", but it simply makes more sense to offer products that make money than those that don't.
Boogie |
|
| Granted I haven't checked in a while but wholesale were pretty high in my state. Regarding SBC I have seen plenty of predatory practices from them in the past to say they are "just getting by" with that pricing scheme. Besides I don't think the cost/revenue balance equates to diminishing returns on unbundled service, but that's another discussion altogether. This one is about their DSL rates. I asked what the rates were after the six month special period, which I still haven't gotten an answer on. If the rate is back up to $60 or somewhere in that ballpark then yes I say there is room for some competition if said competition can provide the services for less.
The Bells always complain that they have to share their lines and keep saying if CLEC's want to run with the big boys they should buy their own infrastructure. Well here is a new infrastructure being planned outside of their own and they are still complaining. They lobby and fight and whine with so much propaganda on the last election you would think the sky will fall if a municipal broadband infrastructure was built. Since they can't be honest in the matter I don't have much sympathy to see their point of view. |
|
| reply to AuroraJock
This is not just about ISPs. Try to make it just about ISPs if you wish. I talk about all the other benefits of a fiber optic system as well when I speak to people.
The voters will speak with their votes at the ballot box - if this even gets on the ballots. Maybe the people care this year, maybe not. We shall see....
--
It's muni-licious! »www.tricitybroadband.com |
|
| reply to SRFireside
quote:
I asked what the rates were after the six month special period, which I still haven't gotten an answer on. If the rate is back up to $60 or somewhere in that ballpark then yes I say there is room for some competition if said competition can provide the services for less.
What 6 month special? Are you referring to the 12 month contract price of $26.95 for DSL? If so, the month to month rate is currently $49.95. However, you are welcome to resign after the year and still keep the $26.95 rate.
I wouldn't go so far as to say that promotional pricing is the same as predatory pricing. Predatory pricing is when a company offers a product at a low price in order to put smaller competitors out of business- only to raise the price permanently to a higher amount.
I don't see any ILEC doing this. SBC offering DSL at $26.95 for a 12 month contract price is not the same as SBC offering free DSL until all CLECs are out of business- then raising the price of DSL to $50 per month or completely taking it off the market to begin with.
Boogie |
|
| The predatory pricing comes more from Comcast in my opinion considering the consistent rate hikes. The ads here still say six months, but it might be 12. Still you are looking at a regular price of $50 along with Comcast's pricing around the same rate. Haven't seen what Covad offers in that area so I can't say for them. Still seems like it's in the same ballpark ($50-$60 ballpark in this case) as Comcast so again... I say there is room for competition if competition can do it for less. |
|
| said by SRFireside:
The predatory pricing comes more from Comcast in my opinion considering the consistent rate hikes. The ads here still say six months, but it might be 12. Still you are looking at a regular price of $50 along with Comcast's pricing around the same rate. Haven't seen what Covad offers in that area so I can't say for them. Still seems like it's in the same ballpark ($50-$60 ballpark in this case) as Comcast so again... I say there is room for competition if competition can do it for less.
So what you're saying is that IF you assume that SBC charges $50 per month for DSL (even though they charge $26.95 and offer continued service at this price without forcing you to pay more) then there is room for competition because Comcast charges around $50 for service?
This is a bit confusing. That's like saying "IF you assume that McDonalds charges $25 for a Big Mac, then they are guilty of gouging the public"
Do you really want to stand on that argument? Check out the website: www.sbc.com. I've never seen an SBC ad that says "$26.95 for 6 months, then we gouge you at $50-60"
Further, you admit that you don't know what other companies charge for similar services, so you can't possibly claim that other providers are charging more OR less.
What is going to be a problem in this arena, however, is the issue of a state sponsored competitor that is non-profit. When you add this to the mix of private companies that are FOR profit, the state sponsored NON-PROFIT company becomes the one with the predatory pricing that kills all competition completely. How would a non-profit company add competition when in order to compete, a company would have to earn LESS profit than a competitor that earns ZERO profit??
Boogie |
|
| said by boogie74:
What is going to be a problem in this arena, however, is the issue of a state sponsored competitor that is non-profit. When you add this to the mix of private companies that are FOR profit, the state sponsored NON-PROFIT company becomes the one with the predatory pricing that kills all competition completely. How would a non-profit company add competition when in order to compete, a company would have to earn LESS profit than a competitor that earns ZERO profit??
First off if they are line carriers that only deliver the physical connection and lease the lines out to ISP's and LEC's then the municipal non-profit group isn't competing at all in that market. You can't call it competing with SBC's line leasing with CLEC's because supposedly they are leasing at no less (or more?) than the regulated rate. Also just because they are non-profit doesn't mean they will want to maximize revenue like other companies. Over here the Houston Livestock Show and Rodeo is a year round business that makes billions each season. Technically they are non-profit, but they do use that money not only to run operations but in their charitable causes that rely on their help. I am assuming municipal broadband is supposed to bring in some revenue for their respective municipalities.
I haven't read of any adverse affects to competition from other successful muni projects yet so I'm not going to just throw in the towel here. Again if SBC and Comcast didn't do such an underhanded job with their campaigning the last time I might be more inclined to listen, but they took the lower road and that will count against them in my book. Besides I don't even live in the area so technically our opinions are moot since we don't have any voting power on this issue. |
|
| quote:
First off if they are line carriers that only deliver the physical connection and lease the lines out to ISP's and LEC's then the municipal non-profit group isn't competing at all in that market. You can't call it competing with SBC's line leasing with CLEC's because supposedly they are leasing at no less (or more?) than the regulated rate. Also just because they are non-profit doesn't mean they will want to maximize revenue like other companies.
SBC does more than lease lines wholesale to CLECs. They ARE a retail ISP. What made you think that this is about competition in the wholesale market is confusing at best.
Further, non-profit means that there is no profit. Non-profit organizations must come out even after expenses. They are not allowed to "maximize revenue" and skim the proceeds off the top. That would make them PROFIT.
Boogie |
|
| You misread me. If the muni infrastructure is line carrier only then they WON'T be a retail ISP, thus won't be in competition with any company that offers Internet services. The point I was getting at was the only thing they WOULD be competing on would be line leasing.
Non-profit also means the money made is ear marked for purposes other than profit for the company. If proceeds are used to pay for other things the local government needs paying for then it's still non-profit. I thought the example I made with Rodeo Houston made that clear as they make much more money than their operations call for and that money is redirected to scholarships and donations to various schools. Making a little more money to give is one of the concerns of that organization. I would think the municipal infrastructure would also look to maximize revenue for the city. |
|
| said by SRFireside:
You misread me. If the muni infrastructure is line carrier only then they WON'T be a retail ISP, thus won't be in competition with any company that offers Internet services. The point I was getting at was the only thing they WOULD be competing on would be line leasing.
Non-profit also means the money made is ear marked for purposes other than profit for the company. If proceeds are used to pay for other things the local government needs paying for then it's still non-profit. I thought the example I made with Rodeo Houston made that clear as they make much more money than their operations call for and that money is redirected to scholarships and donations to various schools. Making a little more money to give is one of the concerns of that organization. I would think the municipal infrastructure would also look to maximize revenue for the city.
Agreed on all points. However, unless I am missing something about muni-operations, they are selling retail ISP services- not leasing point-of-entry facilities to resellers.
Boogie |
|
