 RickPremium,MVM
join:2001-02-06
Waterbury, CT | reply to nixen
Re: I'm sorry but.. 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! |
|
Ahrenl
join:2004-10-26
North Andover, MA | 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. |
|
 nixenRockin' the BoxenPremium
join:2002-10-04
Alexandria, VA | 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 |
|
RickPremium,MVM
join:2001-02-06
Waterbury, CT | 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 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. |
|
Ahrenl
join:2004-10-26
North Andover, MA | said by hottboiinnc: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. I agree, but I think just building the network themselves is more important. Each community has allowed the multi-billion dollar telco's build their networks on public ROW's and make billions for their shareholders. Now, when they have repeatedly refused to provide the new services the community wants, it's time to go it on their own. AT&T/others don't seem to realize that they're at the mercy of each of these communities, especially as the cost to build these networks continues to plummet. The non-competing private network were necessary back when people didn't understand the important of communications systems. I know I spend $200's a month on communications now (cell, cable, internet, phone) and I have the cheapest packages on every service. With a lot of people doing the same, you don't need national companies to subsidize the capex (not that they really did in the first place, even if they do now). |
|
