claudeo
join:2000-02-23
Redmond, WA
| reply to pnh102
Re: Idiots
said by pnh102  :First this town wants to impose the costs of deploying a broadband network on its citizens. Now it wants to stop a private company from deploying such a network at no cost to its citizens. What is wrong with these people? How do you figure "at no costs to its citizens"? Any use of public right of way (over, under or through it) has a cost to the citizens. |
|
Cod
join:2000-07-05
Greensboro, NC
| said by claudeo :How do you figure "at no costs to its citizens"? Any use of public right of way (over, under or through it) has a cost to the citizens. What exactly is that cost? Not disputing your claim, but perhaps you could elaborate. |
|
pnh102
Reptiles Are Cuddly And Pretty
Premium
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD
 ·Comcast
| reply to claudeo
said by claudeo :How do you figure "at no costs to its citizens"? Any use of public right of way (over, under or through it) has a cost to the citizens. Say AT&T deploys this service in your area but you decide you don't want to use it. Does AT&T send you a bill? Of course not.
As for using the right of way costing people money, if we followed your example, every time I crossed the sidewalk I should have to pay a tax. When any company comes and tears up a street to do any kind of work, its that company that has to pay to fix it, not the government.
--
Rove / Rumsfeld 2008! |
|
marigolds
Gainfully employed, finally
Premium,MVM
join:2002-05-13
Saint Louis, MO
| reply to Cod
said by Cod :said by claudeo :How do you figure "at no costs to its citizens"? Any use of public right of way (over, under or through it) has a cost to the citizens. What exactly is that cost? Not disputing your claim, but perhaps you could elaborate. Well, for one, since this is Illinois the city will be required to map out and digitize the location of all the fiber with no reimbursement (depends on the size of the city, but easily a six figure cost with about $20k/year recurring costs depending on how often AT&T adds infrastructure).
Also, the city will be required to provide (normally through a contractor) locating services on that fiber and be liable for any cuts from bad locates.
Lastly, the ROW that AT&T uses will not be available for other services and if the city wishes to place any services into that ROW (such as sewer and water upgrades) they will have to pay AT&T for that access.
--
ISCABBS - the oldest and largest BBS on the Internet
telnet://whip.isca.uiowa.edu
Professional Geographer
Geographic Information Science researcher |
|
G_Poobah
join:2004-01-17
Schenectady, NY
| reply to pnh102
for example : "every time I crossed the sidewalk I should have to pay a tax"
Well, DUH, that's exactly what AT&T wants. Remember, the whole '2-tier' internet. You can't use the crosswalk unless you pay AT&T. Of course, you could walk 8 blocks out of your way, and maybe get across the street, but AT&T has decided that you need to pay an AT&T 'crosswalk' tax to use 'their' crosswalk.
AT&T wants to install all these crosswalks, but they don't want to do it in a way that benefits the citizens. AT&T is allowed to put in a crosswalk, but it's using the towns streets to do it. And it's the citizens of the town that use the sidewalks, that may or may not use the crosswalk. The town has said "yes, you can put in a crosswalk, but no, you can't make all the laws involving that crosswalk, because we the citizens will determine whats the best public interest use of that crosswalk. It's not to say you can't make money with the crosswalk, it IS to say that you will live by the rules we make when 'operating' that crosswalk'.
--
Flabby? pastey-skinned? riddled with phlebitis? Then you've got a good Republican body! So compare your lives to mine, and then kill yourself. |
|
pnh102
Reptiles Are Cuddly And Pretty
Premium
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD
·Comcast
| said by G_Poobah :Well, DUH, that's exactly what AT&T wants. Remember, the whole '2-tier' internet. You can't use the crosswalk unless you pay AT&T. Well yea... no one is saying AT&T is supposed to offer the service for free and no one is saying that subscriber fees won't be used to offset the costs of the rollout, but the major difference between what AT&T is doing and what muni people wanted to do is that AT&T is not expecting the people who aren't subscribing to the service to pay them for anything.
--
Rove / Rumsfeld 2008! |
|
gao16
join:2006-04-18
Algonquin, IL
| reply to marigolds
said by marigolds :said by Cod :said by claudeo :How do you figure "at no costs to its citizens"? Any use of public right of way (over, under or through it) has a cost to the citizens. What exactly is that cost? Not disputing your claim, but perhaps you could elaborate. Well, for one, since this is Illinois the city will be required to map out and digitize the location of all the fiber with no reimbursement (depends on the size of the city, but easily a six figure cost with about $20k/year recurring costs depending on how often AT&T adds infrastructure). Also, the city will be required to provide (normally through a contractor) locating services on that fiber and be liable for any cuts from bad locates. Lastly, the ROW that AT&T uses will not be available for other services and if the city wishes to place any services into that ROW (such as sewer and water upgrades) they will have to pay AT&T for that access. No offense, but I would take some issue with all of your points.
First, I believe it is the responsibility of the company placing the facilities to map the location of their facilities. If the city govt is keeping digital records, they should already have most of the cost built in to track where the public utilities are placed.
Second, I know it is the responsibility of the owner to locate their own facilities or contract a company to do it at their own expense. The owner(or contracted company) is also responsible for cuts due to bad locates.
Third, generally private utilities like phone,gas,electricty , and cable are put in at about 1'-5'. Water and sewer are usually placed much deeper.
I don't know if these points apply outside of Illinois, but since the story is about a city in Illinois, this should apply in this case. |
|
marigolds
Gainfully employed, finally
Premium,MVM
join:2002-05-13
Saint Louis, MO
| reply to pnh102
said by pnh102 :The major difference between what AT&T is doing and what muni people wanted to do is that AT&T is not expecting the people who aren't subscribing to the service to pay them for anything. Um, muni utilities are built with revenue bonds, not GO bonds.
The muni people are not expecting the people who aren't subscribing to the service to pay them for anything either.
--
ISCABBS - the oldest and largest BBS on the Internet
telnet://whip.isca.uiowa.edu
Professional Geographer
Geographic Information Science researcher |
|
RadioDoc
58ef2c0
Premium,ExMod 2000-03
join:2000-05-11 | reply to gao16
Take issue with all of them. He's not really up to speed with this area.
--
Toolmaster of La Grange. |
|
marigolds
Gainfully employed, finally
Premium,MVM
join:2002-05-13
Saint Louis, MO
| reply to gao16
said by gao16 : First, I believe it is the responsibility of the company placing the facilities to map the location of their facilities. If the city govt is keeping digital records, they should already have most of the cost built in to track where the public utilities are placed. Second, I know it is the responsibility of the owner to locate their own facilities or contract a company to do it at their own expense. The owner(or contracted company) is also responsible for cuts due to bad locates. Third, generally private utilities like phone,gas,electricty , and cable are put in at about 1'-5'. Water and sewer are usually placed much deeper. I don't know if these points apply outside of Illinois, but since the story is about a city in Illinois, this should apply in this case. All of that depends completely on the state.
In Illinois:
Cities are required by law to map private infastructures in ROWs (common for midwest states). I don't know of any state actually that places the responsibility on the private company beyond supplying paper records. Even if the city has a full GIS department, the cost is pretty significant for creating the layers (if they do not have a full GIS department or have to do the mapping in CAD, the cost gets much bigger). To take an example from Geneva, they recently contracted out the electric utility GIS conversion maintenance (not mapping, but conversion), and the cost of maintenance alone was $86k. They choose to contract act because the conversion would have required 100% of staff time for a full year.
»www.geneva.il.us/minutes/PDF_min···0822.pdf
Cities are required to operate or fund the locating service, not the utilities, but can collect franchise fees from utilities to fund this (but AT&T is refusing to pay franchise fees) (might only be true of Illinois, but in other midwest states cities are liable for cuts in their ROW if the locate is bad). Geneva might not be a big enough city to be required to provide a one-call service, yet since they have multiple municipal utilities (water, sewer, garbage, electric) they probably do have their own one-call service. Also, statewide one-call bears no liability at all in Illinois.
As you said, water and sewer are placed deeper than utilities like fiber lines. That means that the city will have to get access through that part of the ROW to do water and sewer upgrades.
--
ISCABBS - the oldest and largest BBS on the Internet
telnet://whip.isca.uiowa.edu
Professional Geographer
Geographic Information Science researcher |
|
gao16
join:2006-04-18
Algonquin, IL
| I will say that I am unsure of the obligations of cities in Illinois to map private infrastructure in the ROW, and the costs involved. Your example of costs incurred by the city of Geneva is flawed, however, because they own their own electric utility.
In Illinois a service named JULIE operates as a one call center for excavators to provide information to all utilities.
JULIE is a non-profit company that does not do their own locating, their costs are covered by the member utilities as are the costs to locate the facilities. JULIE covers the entire state except for the city of Chicago. You can find more detail at »www.illinois1call.com/about_us/c···file.htm. |
|
pnh102
Reptiles Are Cuddly And Pretty
Premium
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD
·Comcast
| reply to marigolds
said by marigolds :Um, muni utilities are built with revenue bonds, not GO bonds. The muni people are not expecting the people who aren't subscribing to the service to pay them for anything either. It doesn't matter how the government tries to pass them off as not costing people money, they do. EVERY municipally run broadband operation is either subsidized by taxes or by siphoning funds from some other municipal service. In the end, non-subscribers in such a model are are paying for service they do not use.
--
Rove / Rumsfeld 2008! |
|
axus
join:2001-06-18
Washington, DC | Isn't this how school districts are funded? Not everyone has school-age children, and not everyone uses broadband, but they are worthwile things to spend for the benefit of society as a whole. |
|
pnh102
Reptiles Are Cuddly And Pretty
Premium
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD
·Comcast
| said by axus :Isn't this how school districts are funded? Not everyone has school-age children, and not everyone uses broadband, but they are worthwile things to spend for the benefit of society as a whole. No one is debating that governments have to spend money on things. The debate is... why would you spend money on things that are being provided at no cost to the government (such as privately funded broadband) at the expense of other things that the private sector won't provide (universal education)?
--
Rove / Rumsfeld 2008! |
|
rahlquist
Redeye
join:2001-10-30
Villa Rica, GA
| While I see and hear your arguments I find it flawed to say that no municipal programs like broadband can work. The simple solution in my book would have been to let the city do its rollout, include a performance mandate to be met. If they couldnt provide the profits needed to be self sustaining then require them after X period of time to shut the network down and sell the fiber to the competition. If anyone at AT&T had half a brain in their head this is what they would encourage if its truly impossible fore muni broadband to make a profit.
Instead the minute they feel threatened they roll out the steamrollers and smash every little iota of competition in their path. No worries though because at the current rate AT&T will be on big fat #@$#@$ Ma Bell again soon and cities will have little choice other than to allow them to do whatever they want. Otherwise AT&T can simply offer to pull out and let the city handle their own infrastructure.
--
Got a new podcast to share? Looking for a podcast?
Pcsites.com |
|
Octopussy2
Premium
join:2003-03-30
Batavia, IL | reply to pnh102
That simply isn't true. You do not understand revenue bonds.
--
It's muni-licious! »www.tricitybroadband.com |
|
BVT
join:2004-10-25
Mount Juliet, TN
| reply to gao16
Tennessee One Call is similar. There is a centralized service that directs the member utilities & underground ROW owners to mark their property themselves.
If they miss mark or do not show up, they shoulder the costs of any damages. They also have to bear the costs of marking their ROW.
A contractor can jerk the utilities around by calling in an emergency order. Then, for whatever reason, let their excavation permit lapse & go get another. Then all utilities have to remark the ROW. |
|
