Court Decides Lafayette Is Good To Go > I'm sorry but..

I'm sorry but..

reply to nixen
It most certainly is LESS about savings. Here's a rough look at the numbers.

Population of Lafayette...110,257 people.
»en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lafayette,_Louisiana

Cost of this project (legal fees paid + the 125 Million buildout cost)..128.5 Million.

COST PER Every Man, Woman and child living there.. NOT EVEN INCLUDING INTEREST OVER THE YEARS= $1165.48

Consider then that per household, there's probably 3 to 4 people living there. That puts the cost per household at something like 4600.00.

And now, what kind of savings could they offer versus someone say like Cox? 5 Bucks a month?
60.00 a year per household? You are talking about an entire lifetime and then some just to be able to even recoup the PRINCIPLE on this investment.

And, we haven't even STARTED talking about the interest.

To even begin to comprehend those numbers..find a financial calculator and plug in 128 million x 20 or 30 years at 6% or so.

And, what you'll arrive at is the ASTRONOMICAL cost of this..never to be recouped investment.

And, furthermore, you have to realize that this assumes everyone even TAKES the service there. What about the households who get to foot the bill who don't even want it nor sign up for it.

This community is insane to proceed with this.

Absolutely insane.

It simply doesn't offer anything critical that isn't already there. It's a luxury that a local government simply can't afford with so many other pressing matters on their plates.

»en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lafayette,_Louisiana
--
The Coyote captured the RR! Roadrunner Rick is now Comcastic!

Since they're using municipal bonds the interest will be ~3%. The principal will be recouped through payments over 20-30 years, just like any other investment. Plus they should have cost savings from city/town use. If they're able to sell services to their local businesses, AND attract more businesses then it will pay for itself even faster.

At 3% interest over 20 years it will cost 3.86m a month which is 35.99/mo per person. That's without municipal savings from schools, police, fire, and additional benefits a fully wired municipal service can bring. That's also without ANY businesses signing up, or accounting for any new businesses coming to the area because of increased opportunity the system will provide.

I still don't think they should bother acting as the ISP to residences, but that's just my opinion.

reply to Rick
Ok, it's clear that you've been drinking a little too much of the Kool-Aide. For some reason, you're under the blind impression that the twin gods of Cox and Bell South actually offer the opportunity for every single household in that community to get fibre-class HSI. Fine. Whatever your religion tells you, I hope you're happy with it.

-tom
--
"Experience should teach us to be most on our guard to protect liberty when the government's purposes are beneficial. The greatest dangers to liberty lurk in insidious encroachment by men of zeal, well meaning but without understanding." -Louis D Brandeis

reply to Rick
It's Louisiana - The Home of the the Bribed and the Corrupt (Governors go to jail almost as much as Congressmen do).

Now, New Orleans has the added distinction of being the murder capital of the world. Of course, if the cops weren't busy looting plasma TVs, no that was someone else; the cops all left. One resigned amid a bribery scandal (the head cop). The Mayor finally figured out: "Even a fool is made to be wise if he keeps his mouth shut."

reply to Ahrenl
The yield on 20 to 30 year triple A rated municipal bonds currently stands at 4.40 ~ 4.47% per bloomberg.com

»www.bloomberg.com/markets/rates/

Sorry, but offhand I can't find any calculators to calculate 128.5 million at that rate over 20 to 30 years.

And, you can't just look at this per person. Per household is what needs to be considered because that's what you'd then compare to whatever cox or bell south currently charges.

There is NO WAY that this is worth it to this community as a whole.

We are talking about a community with people earning 1/2 the national per capita income (only 20k per year versus national average double that)(source..wiki article).

To incorporate such wasteful, unnecessary spending into their lives is outrageous.

Again, at issue here is not a community with no broadband today. And certainly not a rural area with a 100k + population..and double that amount in the metro area.
It's already served by Cox and Bell South.

There is NO savings here..just huge debt piled on people who earn 1/2 the per capita income of the rest of the country.

This community has MUCH more pressing needs than this.

Whomever is behind this initiative is railroading this through the community. If citizens saw these actual numbers of what this is costing them, whether they even want the service or not..they'd probably pass out.
--
The Coyote captured the RR! Roadrunner Rick is now Comcastic!

reply to Rick
Rick, are you for real?

They wouldn't have had to pay all these legal fees if Cox and Bell South were forward thinking companies. Why didn't those 2 companies wire up the city with fibre years ago? Why, because they like screwing people over and raping them and not providing the best data service possible. I only hope/dream/wish that these type of muni-fibre projects take off all over the place in every single city/state!

Sorry that your stock in Cox and Bell South will take a hit as more and more people leave them in droves and run to fibre.

Let's be clear about that which you're suggesting.

Every single home in the community of lafayette, LA..
population 100k or so, should pay something along the lines of 4200.00, which doesn't even include the interest on the debt that will be paid over 20 to 30 years...

Just so they can have FTTH.

They will pay that amount WHETHER OR NOT they even subscribe to the service or whether they even care to have internet service at all.

This will not relieve them of paying for the service monthly either. They will pay that IN ADDITION TO whatever monthly fees wind up being assessed for the monthly service.

They will pay that just for the "privilege" of being able to say that their local government now owns and operates it's own system...putting the local government in the business of being an ISP.

How much money they will save versus paying for service from Cox or Bell South remains to be seen, but do you REALLY think it will be more than maybe 5.00 per month or so when it all washes out? In fact, undoubtedly many who subscribe to Bell Souths lower dsl tiers now will wind up paying quite a bit more.

But, Let's say it's 5.00 on average. It winds up saving them maybe 60.00 per year.

Wow..its sure going to take them a LIFETIME to ever recoup that 4200.00 + investment at that rate..eh?

With interest,it will be THEIR lifetime..PLUS their kids lifetimes as well.

But, understand what it is that they want. This isn't a rural community with no Broadband. Already, Cox and Bell South is there..with broadband. To the planners..apparently that service isn't good enough..despite the fact that in many areas Cox already runs at 15,000k.

What I ask you is this. How in the world is this ever worth it to the people in this community when you break out these numbers?
What exactly would fiber to the home offer them that isn't there already, or will be in the not too distant future with the cable and telco buildouts?

Is this something that is really needed in the face of one of the POORER communities in these united States..in fact..a community who's income is barely 1/2 the per capita income average of the rest of the U.S. ?

What I am saying is that this community has a LOT better things they could be spending their money on.
FTTH is a luxury they can NOT afford.

Whomever is ramming this through has not explained the facts to this community..and broken out these numbers in the way that I have.
Or people would be running to their local leaders and demanding they stop this fiasco now dead in it's tracks.

As for my owning any stock in any cable co...or telco..that just isn't the case.

What I am is responsible when it comes to finances and what people and communities can afford.

And this is one luxury that relatively poor Louisiana city, simply can't afford. Nor does it offer any compelling reasons to try to one up the incumbent cable and telco's.

Perhaps what these companies were doing in fighting them on this issue wasn't just for the sake of their own hides..but also helping to look out for what was right for this community as well.
--
The Coyote captured the RR! Roadrunner Rick is now Comcastic!

Rick, it's really touching to see your deep concerns for the poor people in Louisiana. You mention several times the pre capita income being so low, it's obvious you have done some research on the subject. Did you also look at the cost of living? It's a hell of allot cheaper here in the south you know? And why would someone from CT. really care so much about what mistakes a poor southern Louisiana community might make that would never effect you in anyway what so ever? If you lived in the area you could have voted against it (yes there was a vote & yes it DID pass), and had your opinions heard by all concerned! And that is the problem here as I see it, THOSE CONCERNED, citizens who voted on and passed this, then being sued and dragged through the courts for YEARS by monopolies that refused to provide the type services this community wants and is willing to pay for. I have to say I REALLY question your motives on this subject It's their fight, let them fight it!

reply to Rick
They're not using municipal revenue bonds? I doubt that, which means only the subscribers will be paying the debt, because only the revenue from the service can be used to pay it. Many, many, many municipal bonds work this way. As I've said before even if EVERYONE pays the debt it's only $36 a month INCLUDING the interest over 20 years. Just the principal, using your own numbers, is 4,200 / 20 = $210 a year over 20 years, or less than $20/mo.. sounds horribly expensive.. I'm sure their cable bills would never increase $20's in 20 years.. oh wait..

reply to Ahrenl
I think they would be better off to build the network and allow other providers to lease it. Especially the ISP part. Kind of what CLICK-Network did.

reply to Rick

reply to hottboiinnc