KoolMoe
Aw Man
Premium
join:2001-02-14
Annapolis, MD
clubs: | reply to TKJunkMail
Re: 'If you build it, they will come.'
Will they? Just pushing the FUD or do you have actual evidence to support that prediction?
KM
--
Don't Lie - Be Kind - Realize your Potential |
|
TKJunkMail
Enjoy the sun
Premium
join:2002-03-03
Avalon, NJ
 ·Sprint Mobile Broa..
 ·Comcast
| said by KoolMoe  :Will they? Just pushing the FUD or do you have actual evidence to support that prediction? KM There have been plenty of news items showing they are losing money. I see nothing to indicate that that situation will change. Eventually the sales tax increase pledged to back the bonds will kick in.
--
--
My BLOG
My Web Page |
|
KoolMoe
Aw Man
Premium
join:2001-02-14
Annapolis, MD
clubs:
 ·Verizon FIOS
 ·Speakeasy
| Your avatar fails to hypnotize me into the pro-monopoly stance you advocate!
Yeah, not profitable yet. Two years into the project, about $100 million spent, and revenues increased from $123k to $1.5m in the last fiscal year.
Pretty good growth, it seems to me, for a two-year old project.
And the model is what It Should Be. Private companies owning infrastructure and providing services leads to monopolies, negligible competition, stagnant innovation, and increased prices. Muni-owned infrastructure opened to private companies providing services IS the right way to do this.
KM
--
Don't Lie - Be Kind - Realize your Potential |
|
pnh102
Reptiles Are Cuddly And Pretty
Premium
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD
·Comcast
| said by KoolMoe :Two years into the project, about $100 million spent, and revenues increased from $123k to $1.5m in the last fiscal year. So they are still down by $98+ million. Even with all of the advantages of not having to pay taxes or deal with regulations like private businesses do, they are still deep in the hole. Who is going to cover that cost? Even if they made $2m a year in revenue it will take at least 49 years to pay off that initial investment and even that doesn't factor in all the money they are going to spend maintaining this network.
--
Only SHATNER is Kirk. |
|
KoolMoe
Aw Man
Premium
join:2001-02-14
Annapolis, MD
clubs:
·Verizon FIOS
·Speakeasy
| Or...they increased their revenue in one year's time by 1000%. If they can keep even half that growth, this year they'll do $9 million in revenue. Hey, suddenly that's 11 years to pay off the investment.
They do a quarter of that growth next year, that's $22.5 million. WOW, only 5 years to pay it off!
Of course, none of that is profit, more loans will be needed, costs will continue, and the above would be a pretty outstanding growth rate.
But it's just as possible as the negativity y'all are insisting upon.
AND it allows actual services competition and allows for more consumer choice. Yeah, there's a loss of infrastructure competition which is a necessary downside, IMO, considering the nightmare the current ILEC/Cable monopolies have created.
I wonder how long it took AT&T to be profitable with their government credits?
KM
--
Don't Lie - Be Kind - Realize your Potential |
|
Raptor
Not a Dumptruck
join:2001-10-21
London, ON
·Rogers Hi-Speed
·Bell Sympatico
| reply to KoolMoe
said by KoolMoe :Your avatar fails to hypnotize me into the pro-monopoly stance you advocate! LOL  Can't blame him for trying.
--
....where's my fiber? |
|
pnh102
Reptiles Are Cuddly And Pretty
Premium
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD
·Comcast
| reply to KoolMoe
said by KoolMoe :Or...they increased their revenue in one year's time by 1000%. If they can keep even half that growth, this year they'll do $9 million in revenue. I am sure they could increase the revenue by 100000000000% a year too. Then they would not only be profitable, but they would kick everyone else's butt!
said by KoolMoe :Of course, none of that is profit, more loans will be needed, costs will continue, and the above would be a pretty outstanding growth rate. But it's just as possible as the negativity y'all are insisting upon. The only difference here is that if a private company screwed up like this, then only its shareholders would be left holding the bag. When Utopia runs out of money, it will be the taxpayers left holding the bag, even those who did not voluntarily choose to take the risk.
--
Only SHATNER is Kirk. |
|
KoolMoe
Aw Man
Premium
join:2001-02-14
Annapolis, MD
clubs:
·Verizon FIOS
·Speakeasy
| Ah, such is life of the American Tax Payer. When the huge S&L collapse occurred in the 80's, who bailed out this private industry? The poor American Tax Payer...
Utopia was voted on and passed, such is the life of the American Tax Payer. The minority are always responsible for the majority's failings.
But instead of the doom'n'gloom of how inevitable it appears to you that Utopia will never be profitable and will ultimately need to default on the loans...why not be willing to see how it'll work out?
Again, my biggest support for this type of system is the neglect and abuse apparently inherent with the current ILEC/Cable monopolies. Until wireless becomes better and more established - and assuming the ILECs and Cable Cos don't grab up all the frequencies - I Don't Like the current model of infrastructure + services At All.
Do you have any objection beyond the possible Tax Payer responsibility IF the project fails (and I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt that the deals is indeed structured that local American Tax Payers are indeed ultimately responsible).
KM
--
Don't Lie - Be Kind - Realize your Potential |
|
pnh102
Reptiles Are Cuddly And Pretty
Premium
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD
·Comcast
| said by KoolMoe :Ah, such is life of the American Tax Payer. When the huge S&L collapse occurred in the 80's, who bailed out this private industry? The poor American Tax Payer... This does not serve as justification for the taxpayer to be on the hook for everything. With this logic we should perhaps have taxpayer-backed grocery stores, drink bottling companies and pharmaceutical companies, because after all, these industries are critical and should be insulated from the conditions of the free market.
said by KoolMoe :But instead of the doom'n'gloom of how inevitable it appears to you that Utopia will never be profitable and will ultimately need to default on the loans...why not be willing to see how it'll work out? There are plenty of muni-fi projects which "make" money by skimming revenue from other municipally run services. However, government-run entities like Amtrak are proof enough that the government needs to simply stick to what it was chartered to do and not branch out into things that are better suited for the private sector.
said by KoolMoe :Again, my biggest support for this type of system is the neglect and abuse apparently inherent with the current ILEC/Cable monopolies. I don't like the fact that there's no In-N-Out Burger near me, does this mean I should petition my town hall to subsidize one? Just because we don't have things that we want doesn't mean that the government should become the solution to all the problems we face.
said by KoolMoe :Do you have any objection beyond the possible Tax Payer responsibility IF the project fails My primary objection lays in that governments have greater responsibilities. Things like good schools, low crime, and such are better tasked to local government than running of an ISP.
--
Only SHATNER is Kirk. |
|
KoolMoe
Aw Man
Premium
join:2001-02-14
Annapolis, MD
clubs:
·Verizon FIOS
·Speakeasy
| This does not serve as justification for the taxpayer to be on the hook for everything. With this logic we should perhaps have taxpayer-backed grocery stores, drink bottling companies and pharmaceutical companies, because after all, these industries are critical and should be insulated from the conditions of the free market.
Of course that's not what I'm suggesting at all. It's silly to take the debate to that extreme. I understand what you're saying about the unfairness to taxpayers. My attempted counterpoint was 1) in response to your faith the project will fail - though perhaps that wasn't very clear - and 2) that taxpayers have had to bail out much bigger and actual criminal failures before without tragic results.
Sometimes the risk is worth it.
There are plenty of muni-fi projects which "make" money by skimming revenue from other municipally run services. However, government-run entities like Amtrak are proof enough that the government needs to simply stick to what it was chartered to do and not branch out into things that are better suited for the private sector.
Why assume they'll need to "make" money by skimming from other services? Let the bias go and see what happens...?
I do generally agree that gov't run services can be failures, from a profitability standpoint, like Amtrack. However, my local government seems to maintain sewage, roads, water, and emergency services just fine.
Hmmm.
I don't like the fact that there's no In-N-Out Burger near me, does this mean I should petition my town hall to subsidize one? Just because we don't have things that we want doesn't mean that the government should become the solution to all the problems we face.
Again, a silly extension. Things like food services have been proven to work just fine in a free market situation. Things like telecommunications have proven to not. There can be plenty of fast food restaurants in the town that will support them - all they need is a building, roads (gov't maintained!), and employees.
The same, IMO, cannot be said for telecommunications. Infrastructure is massively disruptive and expensive. Franchise agreements almost guarantee no competition.
If your town only had one restaurant because the existing one had the influence and money to block all others then, sure, maybe you should petition town hall.
My primary objection lays in that governments have greater responsibilities. Things like good schools, low crime, and such are better tasked to local government than running of an ISP.
I generally agree! However, the internets is increasingly a necessity, not a luxury (to be debated!). Where the free market is NOT providing services, I don't have a problem with local governments stepping up, if approved by the constituents, to do so.
For every muni project that didn't work out or is in financial trouble, I bet there are just as many stories about how those communities now have broadband options they did not have before due to ILEC/Cable indifference or unwillingness. And where the muni project is still viable, I bet costs from all providers are a good bit lower for the residents.
Aren't those good things?
KM
--
Don't Lie - Be Kind - Realize your Potential |
|
