mjcrocket
Mjc
join:2000-12-02
Abingdon, MD
| said by JTRockville  :True enough. But it seems to me a muni system, funded the way Tri-Cities proposed, is the best way to avoid taxpayer-funded infrastructure. NO! The last proposal by the Tri-Cities group was to use a type of bond financing that had a credit rating lower than "Junk Status". In other words, they were proposing to go to a form of "Loan Shark" financing; the very worst type of financing possible. Further, if I remember correctly; the financial consultant they were getting their advice from had no experience with planning, constructing, or operating any type of cable system.
Insuring, or guaranteeing any bond is the responsibility of the organization issuing the bonds. They would still count against the credit limit of the city or town that issued them, limiting the amount of other bonds that they might want to issue for other projects. If payments on these bonds were to go into default, the credit rating of the issuing city or town would be lowered and the interest rate on the bonds issued for other projects would go up!
In the Tri-Cities debate we NEVER once heard anything from the people promoting the project that they would purchase any of the bonds! If their financing model was such a good thing, why didn't they want to purchase any of the resulting bonds?
As best I can find out there are only 17 Muni Fiber systems operating in the US. There are about 55,000 municipal governments in the US. Contrary to what we are reading here on BBR; I don't exactly consider 17 communities a great rush by communities to provide this advanced service! Further, if there was such a great rush the Fiber to the Home Council would be keeping their list of systems up to date! Their currently published list has not been updated for the past year! |
