 ScottMoOnce in a LifetimePremium,MVM
join:2000-12-15
Stony Brook, NY | Government run? Why is everyone so gung-ho on this? I can't imagine what a fiasco a muni-run FTTH would be. This city of 110,000 is going to take $125 million from a bond and build FTTH. Don't they have better use for $125 million than to spend it on fiber? Except that the bond issue says that the utility company can spend the $125m on said by bond:
"...for repurchasing or paying any such bonds and for constructing, acquiring and improving the combined waterworks plant and system, electric power and light plant and system and sewer systems of the City..."
The city's plan is to "test" out their fiber network in a few neighborhoods to see if people will buy it. If its not a hit, the utility company (LUS) will just abandon it. If it loses money the utility company will cover the bond costs from water/sewer/electrical bills. Whether you have FTTH or not, you'll pay for those who do.
Municipalities running what should be provided by for-profit companies (telecommunications) are generally a poor deal. |
|
| They should just use the investment to build it and then hand the admining, marketing, customer serivice, etc to private businesses like Earthlink or NetZero. That would be great for competition and for the proliferation of broadband! |
|
 firephotoKDEPremium
join:2003-03-18
Brewster, WA
 ·Frontier Communi..
| reply to ScottMo
said by ScottMo:Municipalities running what should be provided by for-profit companies (telecommunications) are generally a poor deal. And why should these services be provided by for-profit companies? My electricity, water, sewer doesn't come from a for-profit entity so why does my ability to talk on the phone or use the internet have to?
My county has ftth and so does the other two counties close by and they are all connected together and they are all public entities running them. Now if you are an individual and want service you have to go through a private ISP since this state passed a law to protect the telcos and slow the progress of the public utilities deploying fiber but it doesn't add significantly to the cost unless you choose an isp with a high price. If you didn't have to go through an isp you would probably save about $15 a month. Also in this county they are using radios in a lot of places they can't serve with fiber directly but the public utility is providing those radios to the isp so that essentially is part of the utility fee. Also with small percentage of the population using the fiber it is paying for itself so I would expect wholesale prices to remain where they are or even fall somewhat as time passes and for them to deploy fiber directly to some of the more rural areas.
So I guess I'm still wondering where these bad municipality run ftth deployments are?
--
Location: N48°05.3' W119°48.5' |
|
|
|
| reply to ScottMo
said by ScottMo:Why is everyone so gung-ho on this? I can't imagine what a fiasco a muni-run FTTH would be. This city of 110,000 is going to take $125 million from a bond and build FTTH. Don't they have better use for $125 million than to spend it on fiber? Except that the bond issue says that the utility company can spend the $125m on said by bond:
"...for repurchasing or paying any such bonds and for constructing, acquiring and improving the combined waterworks plant and system, electric power and light plant and system and sewer systems of the City..."
The city's plan is to "test" out their fiber network in a few neighborhoods to see if people will buy it. If its not a hit, the utility company (LUS) will just abandon it. If it loses money the utility company will cover the bond costs from water/sewer/electrical bills. Whether you have FTTH or not, you'll pay for those who do. Municipalities running what should be provided by for-profit companies (telecommunications) are generally a poor deal. How about this?
The Outstanding Public Debt as of 17 Jul 2005 at 09:28:58 PM GMT is:
$ 7,854,851,288,911.00
Each citizen's share of this debt is $26,487.22. |
|
ScottMoOnce in a LifetimePremium,MVM
join:2000-12-15
Stony Brook, NY | reply to firephoto
said by firephoto:And why should these services be provided by for-profit companies? My electricity, water, sewer doesn't come from a for-profit entity so why does my ability to talk on the phone or use the internet have to? I didn't say they had to, I said it was generally a poor idea. For-profit companies generally (there's that word again) do a better job at controlling costs and providing innovation than do public sector entities. When companies compete, the consumer is *generally* better off. Consumers get lower prices, and faster innovation.
said by firephoto:So I guess I'm still wondering where these bad municipality run ftth deployments are? I actaully said telecom, not just FTTH, but if you'd like info on failed broadband here's a short list:
Orlando
Marietta & Trion, Georgia as well as Washington
While it can work, I'm not sure sinking $125million of taxpayer money into a technology that could, at some point in the near future, be rendered obsolete is the best use of public money. If that happens to a corporation, its the stockholders who suffer. If it happens to a public sector company, its the little guy who suffers. Broadband is still a young industry.
Heck we even have a story in BBR of Stratellites being put up over Colombia. Five stratellites at a total cost of $50 million. I'm sure 1 Stratellite would cover Lafayette and that pro-rates to $10 million. I understand that FTTH is more than just broadband, but hopefully I made my point. |
|
ScottMoOnce in a LifetimePremium,MVM
join:2000-12-15
Stony Brook, NY | reply to Goldman
said by Goldman:How about this? The Outstanding Public Debt as of 17 Jul 2005 at 09:28:58 PM GMT is: $ 7,854,851,288,911.00 Each citizen's share of this debt is $26,487.22. That sure is a sad figure, but I'm not sure of your point... |
|
| reply to ScottMo
Not sure if you followed the story the whole time or not, but Cox and Bellsouth flat out refused to either lay FTTH themselves and offer services on it, or cooperate with the city if the city layed out the fiber and allowed them to actually offer the services. The administration begged them to do it for a while, until they got fed up and decided it was best to do this themselves. |
|
 TsumePremium
join:2004-02-23
Johnson City, TN | reply to ScottMo
If COX and BS would just up the damned speed and quality of service, we wouldn't have this problem. |
|
wtansillNcc1701
join:2000-10-10
Falls Church, VA
1 edit | reply to ScottMo
said by ScottMo:<snip> I actaully said telecom, not just FTTH, but if you'd like info on failed broadband here's a short list: OrlandoMarietta & Trion, Georgia as well as Washington While it can work, I'm not sure sinking $125million of taxpayer money into a technology that could, at some point in the near future, be rendered obsolete is the best use of public money. If that happens to a corporation, its the stockholders who suffer. If it happens to a public sector company, its the little guy who suffers. Broadband is still a young industry. I understand that FTTH is more than just broadband, but hopefully I made my point.<snip> No, you've not made the point. The first story concered free wi-fi. It did not mention any details such as how widely the system was promoted, how good the service was (dead spots, speed, etc.) that may have prevented its uptake. The second article was interesting in that you ignored the closing point of the article:
"Of course muni-supporters will suggest such failures are the result of poor planning, poor implementation, or the wrong socio-economic setting. Hired "experts", employed by incumbents, often testify at town meetings and suggest such disasters are the norm. If you've read this column frequently, you've seen success stories outweigh the disasters by a wide margin.
In the end, these local municipal efforts wouldn't exist if private industry and government had done their part to get America wired with broadband. Something incumbents forget as they launch legal efforts to crush them or PR campaigns to spin them: their very existence is proof-positive of industry and federal & state government's failure to get the job done.
Also noted in the article was the fact that the system was sold to a cable company. Hmmm -- must not be a total failure if the cable company bought it.
My point being that of course there will be failures. There is no such thing as a 100% success rate. Your mistake is to think that such failures are solely the province of municipalities. The screw ups and failed projects initiated by the telcos never see the light of day unless one looks at telco/cable SEC filings. Regardless, you the ratepayer will foot the bill.
For instance -- I read one of Verizon's DEF 14/A proxy statements a few years back. Turns out that that year Verizon had written off a 900 million dollar investment in (I think) Mexico (I'm too damn tired and lazy to look it up just now -- definitely a country south of the border though). Also, Verizon's stock had declined about 50% from it's peak. But guess what? Chairman Ivan Seidenberg got a fat raise. Sure glad he doesn't work for a muni...
--
That which does not kill me merely prolongs the agony. |
|
 DrexBeer...The other white meat.Premium
join:2000-02-24
La Place, LA
kudos:1
 ·AT&T U-Verse
| reply to firephoto
said by firephoto:And why should these services be provided by for-profit companies? My electricity, water, sewer doesn't come from a for-profit entity so why does my ability to talk on the phone or use the internet have to? You guys obviously don't understand Louisiana politics. If it's not "for-profit" for the politicians, then they're not doing it. Gotta grease those palms and screw the people. 
--
Powered by Beer |
|
| reply to ScottMo
said by ScottMo:city of 110,000 is going to take $125 million from a bond and build FTTH That's over $1,100 per person. Isn't that in the ballpark with what Verizon is spending to install fiber? Wasn't this thing supposed to have some kind of cost benefit? |
|
ScottMoOnce in a LifetimePremium,MVM
join:2000-12-15
Stony Brook, NY | reply to wtansill
said by wtansill:... The first story concered free wi-fi. It did not mention any details such as how widely the system was promoted, how good the service was (dead spots, speed, etc.) that may have prevented its uptake. The second article was interesting in that you ignored the closing point of the article:... So what's your point? That a public wi-fi setup was operated poorly? THAT was my point! In the second article, I ignored nothing since I didn't quote it, I merely presented a link to it.
said by wtansill:...Also noted in the article was the fact that the system was sold to a cable company. Hmmm -- must not be a total failure if the cable company bought it.... Built for $35 million; sold for $11.2 million. Obviously it has value, not just the value the taxpayers put into it. Which is also part of my point: if a city loses money on a venture who foots the bill?
said by wtansill:My point being that of course there will be failures. There is no such thing as a 100% success rate. Agreed
said by wtansill:Your mistake is to think that such failures are solely the province of municipalities. Never said that, never implied it. I said that if a failure happens to a corporation, its the stockholders who suffer (ie: those who voluntarily agreed to buy a piece of the company). If a failure happens to a public-sector company, it effects every one of the people in that area, from the ratepayers to (in this case of public bonds) to every tax paying citizen and company whether they use the service or not.
said by wtansill:The screw ups and failed projects initiated by the telcos never see the light of day unless one looks at telco/cable SEC filings. Regardless, you the ratepayer will foot the bill. Except if I chose to move from Verizon to MCI, or Sprint, or one of the many other phone comapnies out there. Then I do not have to pay for a company's failure. See the difference? I have a choice . If teh telco ventrue pays off for them, customers are attracted to their offerings. If my utility company has a failure (say like trying to build a nuclear power plant in a populated area), everyone pays as there are no alternatives to the public utility.
said by wtansill:...Chairman Ivan Seidenberg got a fat raise. Sure glad he doesn't work for a muni... So muni CEOs are paid according to how well they run the business? Really? |
|
ScottMoOnce in a LifetimePremium,MVM
join:2000-12-15
Stony Brook, NY | reply to footballdude
said by footballdude:That's over $1,100 per person. Isn't that in the ballpark with what Verizon is spending to install fiber? Wasn't this thing supposed to have some kind of cost benefit? According to the census link in my first post, Lafayette has 47,000 housing units. Assuming that they use most of the money for laying FTTH, that comes to about $2,600 per household. I'm not sure what Verizon's costs are, but this article (click "Barriers to Penetration" - no sophomoric jokes please) notes that the cost to provision a home "... is estimated at $1,500". So Lafayette is spending 60% more for its FTTH rollout. Take from it what you will... |
|
wtansillNcc1701
join:2000-10-10
Falls Church, VA | reply to ScottMo
said by ScottMo:Except if I chose to move from Verizon to MCI, or Sprint, or one of the many other phone comapnies out there. Then I do not have to pay for a company's failure. See the difference? I have a choice . If teh telco ventrue pays off for them, customers are attracted to their offerings. If my utility company has a failure (say like trying to build a nuclear power plant in a populated area), everyone pays as there are no alternatives to the public utility. You may or may not have an alternative such as MCI, Sprint, etc. available to you. In your area, perhaps you do. Down in the area we're debating? They may not have the choices you seem to think they do (don't live there, so I can't confirm one way or another). Certainly the incumbant monoply doesn't want them to think so.
said by ScottMo:So muni CEOs are paid according to how well they run the business? Really? No, of course not. I only point out that the telecomm companies do not, in my opinion, have such a great track record either. Given the fact that the local monpolies do not see fit to serve the area, I see no reason to scoff when the local muni decides to step up to the plate on behalf of its citizens. If it's a failure, at least they have tried something rather than sitting around complaining and the bondholders take it in the shorts the same as the bondholders would if it was a commercial venture.
--
That which does not kill me merely prolongs the agony. |
|
