doc
@155.58.x.x
| reply to DSLJohnny
Re: How about some common sense...
Bellsouth and Cox have plainly stated that they will not provide FTTH in Lafayette. It is estimated that it will be at minimum ten years, probably 15-20, before they reach markets of such size. Of course they say that its because the city doesn't "need" that much bandwidth (even though they're providing FTTH in larger markets), the truth is that they have invested so much in their antiquated copper system that they can't afford to roll out fiber.
Rather than trying to partner with the city to provide the service, they've decided to tie up the entire project in litigation to protect their profits. . . hardly a noble tactic. I'm all for free enterprise, but if that enterprise refuses to provide a service the government has every right to intervene on behalf of its people |
|
Gilitar
join:2000-11-20
Mobile, AL
 ·AT&T Southeast
| reply to JonR800
said by JonR800  :Fight of their life.... haha... where's the proof on that one? United States broadband hasn't seen the same evolution as the rest of the world. Have you seen BellSouth's plan for future broadband? If it takes the government stepping in to give the lazy greedy telecom giants a kick in the pants, then so be it. If they're so worried about Lafayette and other communities offering fiber, then why don't they beat them to it? You have hit the nail on the head. If BellSouth would meet the publics needs this wouldn't be happening. I think the government could do a better job than Bellsouth at this point. Bellsouth is a dinosaur that can't evolve fast enough for the customers needs. We all know what happened to the dinosaurs! |
|
Drex
Beer..It's What's For Dinner
Premium
join:2000-02-24
La Place, LA | reply to bogey780
Yeah! I thought I wasn't supposed to be paying taxes on food and gorceries. WTF happened with that?
--
Star Wars Galaxies -- The best form of birth control on the market. |
|
Octopussy2
Premium
join:2003-03-30
Batavia, IL
| reply to JTRockville
For the first Tri-City referendum in April 2003, the cities put the question on the ballots and the idea was to use G.O. Bonds. The length of the loan (or terms of the bond repayment) was around 15-17 years.
The second referendum was put on the ballots by the citizen group Fiber For Our Future (residents of Batavia, Geneva and St. Charles, IL). The question in this referendum prohibited the cities from using any tax-backed financing to build and run the broadband utility. Revenue bonds could've been used or private financing (private investors)were going to be found. The length of time for paying back the financed money would've depended on the negotiated timetable between the cities (non-profit utility) and the private investors.
--
It's muni-licious! »www.tricitybroadband.com |
|
pcscdma
Chocobo Chocobo Random Battle
Premium
join:2004-01-14
Winterset, IA
clubs:
| reply to Stumbles
said by Stumbles :Oh wait, the local governments can't possibly know what they are doing with such high tech stuff. Yeah better leave it to the fat corporations and let them suck the money out of a local area rather than letting that money be recirculated within the community. You don't let illegals run the books for the government. You don't let the Barney the dog run homeland security. Why would they let someone who is unqualified for the job do the job?
--
"The bad news is that we are told that Michael Powell, one of Washington's better bureaucrats, is calling it quits today after four years at the helm of the Federal Communications Commission." - WSJ 2005/01/21 |
|
ricep5
Premium
join:2000-08-07
Jacksonville, FL
·AT&T Southeast
 ·AT&T CallVantage
·VoicePulse
 ·Comcast Formerly ..
| reply to Stumbles
"Now to the point. How about checking with the customers of other municipalities that have their own fiber before making such a blanket statement."
Ashland, Oregon is a great example of muni based fiber that the citizens really like. I know of 3 businesses who relocated there just to get access to the cheaper bandwidth.
"The Federal Government, State Governments and Local Governments DO run our highway system. Could it be better?"
In 1983, there was a proposal to privately finance a multi-lane toll based highway from Chicago to Kansas City that would only allow trucks. It reached the feasibility status, but finally became bogged down when DOT couldn't make a ruling as to how it would be "regulated". (ie: numbering, law enforcement, speed limits, contract set-asides, etc.) The firm doing the feasibility saw themselves as no different than a railroad. (DOT disagreed) When railroads were finished being deregulated, the feasibility was killed.
It's a very interesting discussion when you see the private sector attempting to provide traditionally "public" services and vice versa. |
|
JTRockville
Data Ho
Premium,MVM
join:2002-01-28
Rockville, MD
clubs:
·LINGO
 ·Sprint Mobile Broa..
 ·surpasshosting
 ·Verizon FIOS
| reply to ricep5
Along with choices for funding, are choices for length of payback time. If I recall ( Octopussy2 can probably verify), the TriCity bonds had to be paid back sooner than 30 years. |
|
ricep5
Premium
join:2000-08-07
Jacksonville, FL
·AT&T Southeast
·AT&T CallVantage
·VoicePulse
·Comcast Formerly ..
1 edit | reply to JTRockville
Tax-Exempt Muni's can be sold to anyone. Municipalities are using their bonding authority to have the bonds issued. They can be revenue bonds from taxes or from other sources, in this case fiber subscribers.
Everyone gets confused that somehow because the municipality is using their bonding authority that the taxpayers will somehow be responsible. This would be the case if the city issued revenue bonds to build a bridge and payment was directly linked to taxes paid by the local citizens. Another example is when school districts issue referendums on adding to the tax rate to finance school construction. The purpose of the tax increase is to directly pay the cost of the bonds.
In this case if the bonds default because they can't get enough subscribers immediately, then typically they will be refinanced over a longer term, sold to others at a discount, or in worse case, liquidation to cover the bond default.
A good example of tax-free bonds that defaulted was the WHOOPS scandal of 1981. This power cooperative in the northwest used the State of Washington's tax-exempt bonding authority to finance the construction of dams and a power grid to supply power in rural SE Washington. The bonds defaulted because they overestimated how much ratepayer revenue they could acquire to pay the bondholders. Washington did not lose a dime over it. The WHOOPS bonds were refinanced and merged into another grid cooperative.
The "private" investors they speak of are the open markets where tax-free muni's are sold and brokered. So if you have a part of your 401k invested in a low-risk tax free mutual fund, then you have invested in some form of municipal based infrastructure project. |
|
Octopussy2
Premium
join:2003-03-30
Batavia, IL
| reply to JTRockville
That is exactly what we said JT. Thanks for pointing out our model of financing. And many municipal models can be funded in many different ways - not all affecting the taxpayer. It really depends on each city and their needs as to how a build may be financed. Citizens in some cities MAY vote to use tax-backed bonds, such as G.O. bonds, to build a utility because they are sold at a much lower rate. Many may not choose that path.
Of course SBC and Comcast didn't care that private investors were to be used to fund the FTTH/FTTB utility here. They still lied on their mailers going to the homes of Tri-City residents claiming what a "risky" venture this would be for the taxpayers. Not to mention the same message in their TV ads, newspaper ads and told by mouth by the "walkers" they hired who went door-to-door telling residents of "higher taxes" they would face when inevitable failure would come to the Tri-City utility. It was all a huge FUD campaign.
--
It's muni-licious! »www.tricitybroadband.com |
|
JTRockville
Data Ho
Premium,MVM
join:2002-01-28
Rockville, MD
clubs:
1 edit | reply to bogey780
I guess it boils down to whose lies the taxpayers want to fund:
The representatives they voted for, or corporate bullies. |
|
bogey780
join:2004-03-19
Here | reply to JTRockville
Any promise made in Louisiana by anyone in the state is a lie. Any promise made by someone to the state is a lie.
We all remember the Stelly Plan. |
|
bogey780
join:2004-03-19
Here | reply to JonR800
How much competition do you think there is in the world?
Cable broadband doesn't exist in the most advanced telecom infrastructure. You can only get 1 source for the connection. Chew on that. |
|
JTRockville
Data Ho
Premium,MVM
join:2002-01-28
Rockville, MD
clubs:
·LINGO
·Sprint Mobile Broa..
·surpasshosting
·Verizon FIOS
| reply to ricep5
said by ricep5 :Lafayette has tax-exempt bonding status and can finance a fiber deal over the 30 year life of the bonds. Are you sure thay's how Lafayette plans to finance the venture? Municipalities have lots of choices. The TriCities proposal was backed only by private investors. (from their pdf flier)
What does this cost?
NOTHING TO THE TAXPAYER. Private investors will fund approximately $58M - $62M to build the utility. The services offered will be 10 - 15% cheaper than those other service providers are offering.
How is it paid for?
The necessary money will be raised ONLY by securing private investment. Much like a mortgage, the Cities will own and operate the system, while private investors will receive interest paymentsuntil the funding is repaid. Payments on the “mortgage” will be generated from the user fees.
Will it raise my taxes?
No. Not a chance, because private investment backs the entire project. In addition, the referendumquestion specifically prohibits the utility from using tax-backed financing. Any allegations, which claim taxes will be raised to finance this project, are false and an attempt to mislead the voter. |
|
ricep5
Premium
join:2000-08-07
Jacksonville, FL
·AT&T Southeast
·AT&T CallVantage
·VoicePulse
·Comcast Formerly ..
| reply to JonR800
JonR800 sez; "If they're so worried about Lafayette and other communities offering fiber, then why don't they beat them to it?"
The problem is BellSouth can't "profitably" provide fiber in the same fashion as the municipality.
Lafayette has tax-exempt bonding status and can finance a fiber deal over the 30 year life of the bonds. BellSouth can issue bonds to finance the fiber draw as well, but they will pay a higher interest rate for them because they are not tax-free. BellSouth has to charge higher rates because, not only are they paying off those higher cost bonds, but also must pay shareholders a dividend and pay executive bonuses. And with Wall Street very short-term oriented, they will want those bonds paid off very quickly so the higher profit will come sooner on the back end.
BellSouth can claim to be misquoted all they want, I read the original interview, it was a threat clear and simple. However a BS State President has no more influence on a Cingular call center than a field technician. His role is to play up to the state utilities commission on lobbying efforts, not set operational policy.
Serious egg on BellSouth's face when it was disclosed that the parish is subsidizing the call center. Can you say "biting the hand that feeds you". |
|
bjbrock
join:2002-10-28
Mcalester, OK
| reply to DSLJohnny
Verizon is a monopoly to the point they are guaranteed existence. And due to the off the wall regulations the FCC has been spewing, we have government in the back pocket of the Bell's running the show.
Telco's were born under monopoly protection. Their infrastructures were built buy rate payers and they were to be trustees for the rate payers. Any other form of operations is 180% out from the purpose of their protection. Since they no longer meet this role as trustee, they should no longer be allowed any protection as a utility or legal monopoly. I reitterate, their infrastructure is supposed to be the rate payers infrastructure. The telcos could not have built the infrastructure without the protection of a utility. And for them to act as though they earned or developed this infrastructure as a competitive company is nothing short of stealing or a breach of their fiduciary duties to the rate payers! |
|
Stumbles
join:2002-12-17
Port Saint Lucie, FL
| reply to AboutBell1
Hmm, unless I'm mistaken. The Federal Government, State Governments and Local Governments DO run our highway system. Could it be better? Maybe. But then I guess the global information network used by the DOD is a piece of crap.
Now to the point. How about checking with the customers of other municipalities that have their own fiber before making such a blanket statement.
Oh wait, the local governments can't possibly know what they are doing with such high tech stuff. Yeah better leave it to the fat corporations and let them suck the money out of a local area rather than letting that money be recirculated within the community. |
|
AboutBell1
AboutBell
Premium
join:2004-12-13
| reply to DSLJohnny
said by DSLJohnny :As much as y'all hate BellSouth and monopolies, do you really want government running your communication services. Shouldn't we really be trying to LIMIT government? How is a private company supposed to compete with a government? Just why would BellSouth want to even show up if the government is running the communication services? And yes, believe it or not, Bellsouth is not in a monopoly position in broadband - they are actually in the minority providing broadband. And they are in the fight of their life with the cable companies. Why don't you just let private enterprise duke it out. BellSouth and the cable companies. Government?? give me a break! John It makes about as much sense as Gov't running the car highway system. What makes the information highway that much different? |
|
JonR800
Premium
join:2003-08-06
Farmington, MI
| reply to DSLJohnny
Fight of their life.... haha... where's the proof on that one? United States broadband hasn't seen the same evolution as the rest of the world. Have you seen BellSouth's plan for future broadband? If it takes the government stepping in to give the lazy greedy telecom giants a kick in the pants, then so be it.
If they're so worried about Lafayette and other communities offering fiber, then why don't they beat them to it? |
|
JTRockville
Data Ho
Premium,MVM
join:2002-01-28
Rockville, MD
clubs: | reply to DSLJohnny
Sounds to me like municipal systems will provide the perfect compliment to a market dominated by telephone and cable companies. A "rule of 3s" so-to-speak. |
|
DSLJohnny
join:2001-01-25
Atlanta, GA
| As much as y'all hate BellSouth and monopolies, do you really want government running your communication services. Shouldn't we really be trying to LIMIT government?
How is a private company supposed to compete with a government? Just why would BellSouth want to even show up if the government is running the communication services?
And yes, believe it or not, Bellsouth is not in a monopoly position in broadband - they are actually in the minority providing broadband. And they are in the fight of their life with the cable companies. Why don't you just let private enterprise duke it out. BellSouth and the cable companies.
Government?? give me a break!
John |
|
