Illinois Cities Will Fight On > Naperville

Naperville

said by cbrigante2:

---

I'm kinda shocked to hear that opinion coming from a Naperville resident. Your town just got lit up a few months ago for a large portion of residents on the west side. If you are trying to say that Comcast and SBC are any better than big government running your internet service?

---

I responded to you in another thread as well mocycler.

I will say this much: I don't think you appreciate the economic significance of broadband.

The availability of broadband has a significant impact on many types of businesses. The fact that it took so long for the big2 to service the tricities may have significantly harmed local business, and business-related real estate development. Superior municipal service would attract businesses from neighboring areas, and could lead to significant indirect economic benefits to the tri-cities.

The consumer side of broadband is another matter entirely. Im sure you still think "most users would be teenagers playing games or downloading music," but that is an ignorant and uninformed view to say the least. Broadband is not just a luxury entertainment service.

Maybe you feel it is a "non-essential service," but I disagree, as do many others. More than one past employer of mine would have seen their offices collapse into chaos if their internet service failed. Many business models are becoming increasingly dependent on reliable high speed internet access.

On the residential side, some apartment-seekers weigh internet access options in evaluating where they would like to move.

the list goes on...................

reply to mocycler

said by mocycler:

---

What I am saying is that government has no business putting up taxpayers' wallets as security for yet another non-essential service. If Comcast, SBC, or anyone else enters a market and fails, the taxpayers don't have to eat the bill. And that's the way it should be.

---

reply to Kaltes
Kaltes...I see you are in LA. I grew up and currently live in Naper(rhymes with "paper")ville, Illinois. Just a few miles from the Tri-cities. Been there a billion times. I know this area and how people think.

There is anecdotal evidence as to the value of broadband to the local economy, but trust me, there is no real weight to this claim. And even if there was, that does not justify the government stepping in. Only a handful of citizens even deemed the issue important enough to show up to vote...and of those, 6 in 10 don't want the government to back it.

I am absolutely not changing sides: If this concept is so clearly outstanding, then they should have no trouble at all attracting private money.

peace,
mocycler

reply to Kaltes
It is so nice to see someone with vision posting here (Kaltes). And who sees that this project was not just about cable , internet and phone service, but for the economic growth of the TriCities. That is why Mayor Klinkhamer and I hope Mayor Schielke roll out some sort of fiber to the industrial parks and businesses even though this failed this time around (and I hope this comes up again).

More than a few businesses have chosen to leave the area or not locate here due to the dismal choice for high-speed internet services. Let's see....you can pay $750 on up for a T1 line because a huge area of businesses can't get DSL services. Not to mention the upload speeds offered to businesses are too slow in many cases for what businesses need. No Comcast cable modems are offered to businesses-just T1s-because they cost more money of course! The TCBB venture would've allowed for every home and business to have fiber and choose the service they wanted at a price far below what is currently offered to them (if anything is offered at all).

Without businesses staying here or new business coming to the area there is no one to dilute our tax base and our taxes go up! New e-commerce or any new businesses would've been nice to dilute our tax base. TCBB would've encouraged new businesses to come. I personally know of 2 businesses who now are leaving because of no high-speed internet connectivity except a T1. That may not seem like a lot to you mocycler, but what a shame to lose businesses in our community over something so simple that could be provided, and at a reasonable cost. Without economic development you really don't have a whole hell of a lot.
[text was edited by author 2003-04-04 09:42:16]

You can argue every point with a counter point on this issue - taxes go up because businesses leave. Real estate prices could skyrocket becauses businesses would flock to a fiber network town. Blah blah blah.

It was voted down, the people have spoken. Mocycler is right, if this network is such a slam dunk, then the people who want it should band together, form a corporation, take out loans against their own personal assets, and build it. Then, when you become millionaires, you can laugh at us people who think it's a bad idea.

Not very many people spoke. Voter apathy was pretty apparent this April and Spring Break didn't help voter turnout. Neither did the scare tactics and all out lies that came from the SBC and Comcast camps.

That's ok. Eleven more percentage points and this would've gone the other way. Forty percent says to me that a lot is wrong with what we have out here. 60%-40% is not some huge margin to "win" by. Folks lost out on choice. And some folks lost out on getting any high-speed Internet at all-unless a resident wants to pay an arm and a leg for it for a T1. Do you have access to DSL? How about a cable modem? Well I don't. And it would've been nice to have had that choice. I have been waiting for 6 years. Why should I have to wait until SBC or Comcast deems me worthy of receiving their service? Or do you have that "I got me mine so I really could care less if you got yours" mentality? This system would've provided for everyone. And like the Kane County Chronicle said this morning...."forty percent is big enough to reach service thresholds needed for profitability". So, like the supporters of TCBB tried to tell everyone and the feasibility study showed....this would've been profitable (a slam dunk) and no one's property taxes would've ever been touched. That's why Comcast and SBC spent an estimated 2 million dollars to defeat this project. It would have worked.

Why some folks don't want to pay less money for better services and local accountability with money that stays local is beyond me.

Will somebody please explain the all out lies that they told? It's my impression that they marketed their side by stating the tax implications should the project be a complete failure. If this project was built and nobody signed up, what would happen? If they couldn't sell the network or lease it, what would happen?

The numbers I've heard are something like $150 a year property tax increase on a $200,000 home spread over several years.

I don't want to hear about "it wouldn't fail". This is not the answer to my questions. Assume nobody signed up - what happens with taxes??

Why does everybody assume that SBC/Comcast is going out of their way to NOT service your community? These companies are in business to make money by selling lines (voice/data/tv). With regard to feasibility studies - the tricity spend $100k for some company in Georgia to do this study which took many weeks to complete. Man, pay me $100k and I'll put together a 700 page study which will document how the Cincinnati Bengals should've won the SuperBowl last year. My point, anything can be made to look good on paper.

If you feel so strongly towards this, use your own money and/or borrow money to build it yourself with your neighbors. Plain and simple.

said by AuroraJock:

---

Will somebody please explain the all out lies that they told?

---

said by AuroraJock:

---

I don't want to hear about "it wouldn't fail". This is not the answer to my questions. Assume nobody signed up - what happens with taxes??

---

said by AuroraJock:

---

Why does everybody assume that SBC/Comcast is going out of their way to NOT service your community?

---

said by AuroraJock:

---

These companies are in business to make money by selling lines (voice/data/tv).

---

said by AuroraJock:

---

If you feel so strongly towards this, use your own money and/or borrow money to build it yourself with your neighbors. Plain and simple.

---

"Do you believe it is proper to spend taxpayer money on the electronic delivery of pornography?"

Not a lie. Unethical, yes, but a blatant lie to the community?

The vote was about the GOVERNMENT building this, not the PEOPLE WHO WANT IT. GO Bonds are issues to government agencies because of their taxing powers or ability to raise taxes. Privatize this network so the people who want it use their own moneys/assets to build it - don't leverage majority of taxpayers money that want nothing to do with this.

Somebody, I'm still waiting... What happens if this network does not get any subscribers and they can't sell it?? Anyone???

AuroraJock did you advise Clinton on his grand jury testimony? I mean, come on, lets not play semantic games. SBC and Comcast were WILLFULLY DECEPTIVE in their efforts to thwart TCBB. They did everything they could to manipulate the voters into voting against the venture. The marketing and lobbying types who came up with their campaign happen to be skilled and highly paid liars, and these people know that they can make technically justifiable statements given in a form that will invariably lead the listener/reader to a false conclusion. To call such a thing "not a lie" is form over substance.

SBC/Comcast repeatedly claimed that TCBB would be paid for by taxes. This is a lie. It would be paid for by subscriber fees. The negligible risk taken by the taxpayers is not something that equates to the CERTAINTY of tax increases that SBC/Comcast explained. To suggest that SBC/Comcast did not engage in lies/deception only further erodes what little credibility you have left.

""Somebody, I'm still waiting... What happens if this network does not get any subscribers and they can't sell it?? Anyone???""

Asked and answered as well: If the TCBB were to fail in a catastrophic way and essentially go bankrupt, the taxpayers would be required to continue paying the bonds. This is the only risk the taxpayers face, and given all the information available, this risk is negligible.

"But if it is so likely to succeed, why dont you do it privately?!" would be your natural response, yes? Well I have an answer for that as well:

»Yes, too bad indeed.

The TCBB proposal is about community pride and self-reliance. A private company, even one founded by locals, would never have the degree of community accountability that the TCBB venture would. The elected officials are merely doing their jobs and trying to secure a better quality of life for their residents.

reply to AuroraJock
They wouldn't get zero subscribers. I would sign up. All the members of the citizen group would sign up. 40% of those voting would've signed up. People were told that next year when failure was realized (first of all failure would not be realized in year one.....)they would all owe $2300 on their taxes next year. WRONG. No one would owe $2300 next year on their taxes. Not after year one. $2300 would never be owed in a year. If money was ever going to be needed from property taxes everyone's amount owed would depend on the assessed value of their house. DUH! SBC employees went door to door telling people I will lose my job after this vote if you don't vote no. Comcast took out full page ads listing cities who run cable TV, high speed Internet, and telephone utilities and listed them as failures. WRONG. None of them are failures. In fact, flat out lies were told about them. How do I know? I called the heads of those utilities and have letters from them stating what was in those ads were a lie. I will send those to you if you wish to see them. These responses from utility heads of those cities in question were listed on the website www.tricitybroadband.com. Not sure if they are still there or not. Check it out for yourself. There are many other lies that were told. Lies told should be there....along with the printed ads and literature from Comcast and SBC.

I am with Kaltes on this one. After 511 muni success stories the Tri-Cities would not be the first to fail at this. Those buildouts didn't result in higher taxes. And this wouldn't have resulted in higher taxes either.
[text was edited by author 2003-04-04 16:11:53]

Okay, I went to the site...

I see the ads put out by SBC/Comcast. First, it does say $2300 worth of taxes, but it nowhere does it say (from what I saw on that site) that those are due by year 1 for a homeowner.

Second, unethical tactics are used in elections. As a bystander, proponents of the network are claiming that SBC/Comcast is an evil empire, spreading lies and deception to the voters. Okay, point taken. SBC/Comcast has nothing positive to say about this network, but the network advocates have nothing positive to say about SBC/Comcast (even though both companies have in fact rolled out service to a good majority of the residents of these communities and are continuing to rollout service in the face of this negative publicity).

From what I see here, and from what you people tell me, SBC/Comcast claims that tax dollars are at stake. The risk of taxes going up, while very negligible, is there and is real. This is factual, albeit unlikely.

I see advocates of this network posting about 40% of the people want it. Well, I saw about 6500 voters vote yes, out of a population of 85,000. 40% seems like some mis-information on behalf of the advocates.

I do not question that other communities have had success, but in another comment I made, I questioned whether or not those communities were serviced with either cable and/or DSL prior to their networks being built - nobody provided any info about this. The SBC/Comcast ads on your website do document where they got their findings about how those communities were considered failures. Unfortunately, being considered a failure is in the eye of the beholder. From the municipal standpoint, success may be breaking even, or a 10% annual profit. From SBC/Comcast's point of view, this could be considered failure. So, I really don't care what other communities have done. Can a municipal system drive down prices? Sure. But the bottom line, the majority of voters don't want their tax dollars on the line and voted it down. Would they be taxed? It looks like no, but the risk alone is too great for them to gamble with. So for those residents who want the network, you won't get those people. The recourse is to build the network with private funding.

Besides, what sort of credit implications does $60 million worth of bonds have on future lines of credit? (i.e. the towns take out the loans for the network, then in 2 years try to get more bonds for school or other upgrades) Not rhetorical, but posing the question - has this issue been addressed? To my knowledge, towns do NOT have unlimited borrowing potential - so you run the risk of losing funding for other projects.

Schools are a separate taxing body. Upgrades for the system were figured into the $62 million. You can read about what that $62 million encompassed in the feasibility study. All three cities have better credit ratings than Comcast and SBC. The credit ratings are listed on the TCBB site as well. You can check current ratings online. I am by no means a bonds specialist but the City Administrator of Geneva is an accountant by trade and bond lawyers were brought in to get the final bonding authority etc....Municipal bonds sell like hotcakes from what I understand.

People were told that $2300 was due after year one in taxes. When do you think that $2300 is due? How would you know? How is it broken down? Where does it say failure will be realized after, say, 3-5 years? And that the cities have 15 years to pay off the bonds? And that $2300 would not be paid in a lump sum? Well, the SBC gentleman who came and knocked on my door said I would have to pay that next year. He told me 10 munis failed and went broke and this was going to fail and go broke and I would pay $2300 in taxes next year. You can believe what you want and try to split hairs or spin this how you'd like it, but you don't live here and you didn't get half the phone calls or junk I did in my mailbox. Not everything people got around here was put on that website.

SBC and Comcast are NOT serving everyone. And they have no intention of doing so. And if they are getting bad press they brought it on themselves with the phone calls to people's homes about porn and teachers losing their jobs, harassing people at their doors when they were told people were voting yes for broadband-police were called etc...People were being harassed by their employees. So, you are feeling sorry for the bad press SBC and Comcast brought on? Do you work for these guys? And what about the businesses these guys don't serve? And the money being extorted for T1's when far cheaper rates could be charged for high-speed internet access? You get T1 service or nothing? That is being provided for out here?

There is risk in life my friend. Every day you decide to walk out your door, right? The risk is negligible that a lightning bolt may strike you down, but you walk out the door and go to work. At some point everyone has taken a risk. There would be zero businesses if no one had taken a risk-ever. This risk was negligible. Studies were done. And this was advisory in nature. If circumstances changed the govt. could've backed out.

The population you are looking at is including township population. Only those served by City Electric services would've been included. That's just over 30,000. And only 14,000 homes would've been passed year one and the penetration rate did not have to be 1/3 for cable, Internet and telephone as stated on the SBC ads. They said, and I quote "unless they immediately sign up 1/3 of all businesses and households in each community, they'll have to raise your property taxes to cover the tab." That, my friend, is a lie. And if you need me to explain that further it would be my pleasure to do so.

reply to AuroraJock
[QUOTE= AuroraJock ]]Somebody, I'm still waiting... What happens if this network does not get any subscribers and they can't sell it?? Anyone???

said by AuroraJock:

---

"Do you believe it is proper to spend taxpayer money on the electronic delivery of pornography?"

Not a lie. Unethical, yes, but a blatant lie to the community?

---

reply to AuroraJock
Only one thing here deserves attention:

said by AuroraJock:

---

Unfortunately, being considered a failure is in the eye of the beholder. From the municipal standpoint, success may be breaking even, or a 10% annual profit. From SBC/Comcast's point of view, this could be considered failure.

---

said by AuroraJock:

---

So, I really don't care what other communities have done.

---

said by AuroraJock:

---

Can a municipal system drive down prices? Sure. But the bottom line, the majority of voters don't want their tax dollars on the line and voted it down.

---

said by AuroraJock:

---

Besides, what sort of credit implications does $60 million worth of bonds have on future lines of credit?

---

reply to ravital

Let's be fair...

Fairness is always welcome, as are honest disagreements. Thank you for raising the level of the debate here. Of course, drug dealers use roads to run away from police, johns use them to pick up hookers, and ambulances and fire trucks use them to save lives.

I may be confused, I'm not sure whether it was you who confessed to the abominable sin of being a Libertarian but if so, I would submit that to the best of my knowledge and without being a pure libertarian myself (only a somewhat dirty one), the only thing for me that stands above the principle of limited government, is the principle of government as the employee of the voter. If voters want to spend their tax money on a new stadium or a new weathervane on the roof of Town Hall, for whatever reason good or bad, at least up to a point, it's their money and their vote that count above anything else. Separate from that, there are sound business and economic reasons for developing reliable broadband that is not owned by a private sector entity. We've just lost a local company here in southern NH, Enterasys, who announced it is planning to move to MA. Among the reasons they cited were the proximity to academic centers that produce engineering talent (ignoring the fact that so much of that talent has moved to tax-free southern NH), as well as the attraction of the Route 128 loop, which is the East Coast's near-equivalent of Silicon Valley. The one thing no one is talking about: The availability, or lack thereof, of reliable and affordable broadband in the area. Look at who my ISP is and you'll understand.

There are many people here who defend the practices of ILECs, RBOCs or whatever they are called this week, using arguments so lame and so half-baked that it's not hard to see they have a personal interest in the issue, and without professing to know who they are employed by, it's not difficult to draw that conclusion, even if it's only a probability and not a certainty. I have no idea who you work for and it's no one's business really, but even if you are employed by them, I'm glad to see you can be fair and rise above that level for an intelligent debate. Thank you.
[text was edited by author 2003-04-05 19:54:54]

reply to Octopussy2

Re: Naperville