 
DHRacer
Fire Survivor
join:2000-10-10
Lake Arrowhead, CA
 ·Charter Pipeline
 ·Verizon west (ex G..
| Fight on... They don't call them the Fightin' Illini for nuthing!
I would like to see the project get developed somehow. Then it won't matter what happens with SBC and Comcast. Bankruptcies, liquidations, collapse, or bought out? Who cares, they have a city run system.
Too bad the voters were duped. | |
| 
tschmidt
Premium,MVM
join:2000-11-12
Milford, NH
·Verizon Online DSL
·Fairpoint Communic..
| Will Comcast and SBC deliver? It is too bad this got voted down.
It will be interesting to watch how Comcast and SBC respond. 40% is a lot of folks - if I was an incumbent I hurry up and roll out high speed service to nip this puppy in the bud.
My guess is nothing will happens and Ed and company will be in a powerful position to bring this back to the voters in a year or two. | |
|  | 
BK3
join:2001-04-10
Geneva, IL
·AT&T Yahoo
| Re: Will Comcast and SBC deliver? Comcast and SBC have already delivered.
On the day after the vote:
Comcast announces a 33% increase in internet-only subscribers - this was reported on DSLR also.
I here from sources that SBC does NOT intend to expand their network here in the tri-cities. They are of the opinion that what's available is good enough.
This is what they have delivered. We will be back ...
--
Intelligent discussion is invited and encouraged. | |
| | | AuroraJock
join:2003-04-02
Chicago, IL
| Re: Will Comcast and SBC deliver? Comcast's price increase is just for the Tricity, or nationwide?
SBC not building out technology has nothing to do with Tricity fiber, but the Illinois senate vote - which is predicted to keep copper regulated, halting DSL deployment yet again on the statewide level (not just tricity).
Nothing new on either front, and nothing to do with Tricity - just coincidental timing on both.
[text was edited by author 2003-04-03 17:00:47] | |
| | | | 
Kaltes
Premium
join:2002-12-04
Los Angeles, CA
| Re: Will Comcast and SBC deliver? #1. It was a nationwide price increase. All the other Comcast-served areas were given notice of it some time ago.
#2. Please do not insult our intelligence by claiming the timing was coincidental. Comcast began to hike rates early this year. It is obvious that Comcast delayed their notice of the increase until after the vote, because the truth would have hurt Comcast's position.
#3. Many residents getting $43/month might not see the need for bothering with a utility, but once that rate jumps to $57/month, I guarantee you that a large number of people would have turned out to voice their disapproval with Comcast.
Aurorajock you must work for Comcast/SBC, because you've done nothing but spout their propaganda since you joined. | |
| | | | | AuroraJock
join:2003-04-02
Chicago, IL | Re: Will Comcast and SBC deliver? Not trying to insult anyones intelligence. I don't work for Comcast or SBC. And what propaganda do you mean? Name 1 thing I've posted here on this board that is propaganda and not factual. | |
| | | | | | 
ravital
Just Another Pesky Independent Nh Voter
Premium
join:2001-07-19
Merrimack, NH
| Re: Will Comcast and SBC deliver? Alright, I'll name one:
"SBC not building out technology has nothing to do with Tricity fiber, but the Illinois senate vote - which is predicted to keep copper regulated, halting DSL deployment yet again on the statewide level (not just tricity)."
In English: Regulation = Halting deployment. The only way this makes sense, is if it's propaganda.
There. | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
ravital
Just Another Pesky Independent Nh Voter
Premium
join:2001-07-19
Merrimack, NH
| Re: Will Comcast and SBC deliver? said by tschmidt  :
said by ravital :
In English: Regulation = Halting deployment. The only way this makes sense, is if it's propaganda.
As much as I'm in favor of Municipal Broadband and distrust the Baby Bell I don't see how you can call it propaganda.
I believe the propaganda (here it's really a polite way of saying "the lie") is the contention that poor us SBC are too poor to deploy what we promised if regulation doesn't stop strangling us, but we won't get out of the way and let someone else do it, because we LIKE the regulation when it suits us.
Let's be frank here. The FCC decision of last month or so was EXACTLY what the ILECs wanted 12 months ago before they changed six of their minds again, and now that they got what they wanted, they're going to hold their breath to get more candy. Personally, I hope they choke. Some pestholes in the 3rd world not too far from where U.S. Marines are fighting today get better boradband that most of the U.S. You have no idea how much it pains me to say it, but government regulation, even when ignorant and ineffective, is still a lesser evil, at least some of the time. I love capitalism, and I wish these companies were capitalists, right now they are anything but. | |
| | | | | | | AuroraJock
join:2003-04-02
Chicago, IL
| It's not propaganda, SBC just chooses not to deploy services where they deem it not as profitable as other locations. Since Illinois will most likely not deregulate, it's their choice not to deploy (not that it's good for consumers). This is not propaganda, just their business decision. Read about Pronto round 1 for yourself at...
»telephonyonline.com/ar/telecom_p···rt_deux/
It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that since the FCC left regulatory decisions at the state level to figure this one out. | |
| | | | | | | |
Kaltes
Premium
join:2002-12-04
Los Angeles, CA
| Re: Will Comcast and SBC deliver? ACTUALLY, it is not like SBC has some finite set amount of infrastructure investment they must dole out sparingly.
SBC can expand its networks anywhere and everywhere if they want to, but they are choosing not to. This is not a business choice in the sense of cost/benefit. This is a choice to leverage politicians in order to achieve their lobbying goals.
SBC is extorting states by saying "if you do not free us from regulatory constraints, we will only service the most profitable areas."
The states should fight fire with fire, and retort to SBC "If you do not meet our deadlines for expansion, we will force you to resell your lines for less than you do now." | |
| | | | | | | | | AuroraJock
join:2003-04-02
Chicago, IL
| Re: Will Comcast and SBC deliver? On this point I agree wholeheartedly. Furthermore, you'd think since the feds deregulated fiber, it'd spur on the incumbents to build FTTH, but so far, zippo. Cost/benefit still does play a role, however. Interesting interview with Wayne Masters of SBC last year about Illinois and the deployment cost/benefit. He basicly admits that the ICCs open architecture requirement on the first pronto go-round was not an interesting enough business model for SBC to get involved with.
»www.tr.com/newsletters/lmtr/lmtr021502.pdf | |
| | | | | | | | | 
zabes63
join:2003-04-05
Batavia, IL
| Kaltes is dead on in his/her assessment of the following statement:
"SBC can expand its networks anywhere and everywhere if they want to, but they are choosing not to. This is not a business choice in the sense of cost/benefit. This is a choice to leverage politicians in order to achieve their lobbying goals."
If you want proof go to »cityofbatavia.net click on the on going projects link and from there go to the Broadband (Fiber) Project (with Geneva and St. Charles) link. Finally click on the link for SBC "Ameritech on project Pronto"
The synopsis is this: Jim Volk, an alderman for the City of Batavia, and also sits on the Telecommunications committee, attended a conference hosted by, at that time, SBC/Ameritech. The message from SBC was clear, “either side with us and lobby the FCC and the Illinois Commerce Commission or die waiting for DSL deployment in your area.”
SBC all but admitted that the infrastructure was ready and waiting for turn up, but that nothing would be done until they had assurances that they did not have to share access with other providers. The fact that SBC was turning up DSL service within days of the FCC decision last February proves that the network was there and waiting.
This is not an example of a market driven company reacting to its customers needs, it is that of a spoiled brat holding its breath until it gets its way.
[text was edited by author 2003-04-06 04:39:13] | |
| 
dilettante
join:2002-01-01
Haslett, MI
| Yes, too bad indeed. I was hoping this might counter the piratical trends we're seeing as a very few huge (and getting larger) companies control more and more of the broadband market.
At least in some places you still have a choice between cable and maybe one or two DSL suppliers. Never had that luxury here - cable or dial-up, that's it.
Where's that "free market" all of these right-wingers keep hooting about? You know, the one that is supposed to balance out this avarice? Often we're hearing this crap from the same folks who insist it would be evil if government operated a network for public benefit.
I had the idea that in several places these "sole providers" successfully sued local governments when the locals tried to allow (grant franchises to) companies desiring to offer a competing service. So government is good when it supports a monopoly, but evil when it wants to encourage competition or meet a need where a vacuum exists?
I think we see where this is going. Wasn't it called "Soviet-style Central Planning?" | |
| | 
uteck
@mindspring.com
| Re: Yes, too bad indeed. If it were "Soviet-style Central Planning" then the city would decide who can access what, which might have happened. I have no love for SBC, but I can easily see a city government installing spy-ware to spot "terrorists and criminals". You may not realize this, but many of the sole providers have leagely binding contracts that grant them a monopoly in order to entice them to provide service in the first place. Thoughs places will just have to wait until the contracts expire, | |
| | |
Kaltes
Premium
join:2002-12-04
Los Angeles, CA
| Re: Yes, too bad indeed. A government monopoly is accountable to the public precisely because this nation *IS* a democracy. Monopolies are bad, but if given the choice between a government monopoly and a private monopoly, I will take the government every time.
Besides, this situation does not involve a government monopoly. Private entities are free to lower their prices and compete with the utility, and they can manage it because these companies are so huge that they can service the area cheaper than the utility.
BUT even though Comcast *CAN* do it better, they CHOOSE NOT TO, because they DO NOT CARE about anything but squeezing the most profit possible out of residents. The utility's greatest benefit to the citizens is in keeping the incumbents honest.
[text was edited by author 2003-04-03 21:02:16] | |
| | 
mocycler
Premium
join:2001-01-22
Naperville, IL
·AT&T Midwest
| said by dilettante :
Where's that "free market" all of these right-wingers keep hooting about? You know, the one that is supposed to balance out this avarice?
Free market is alive and well. Why don't you give it a try? All you have to do is gather up 63 million bucks and offer to build the network and operate it yourself. If you make a profit you get to keep all the money. If you don't make a profit, it's your tuff luck. That's about as far from "Soviet-style Central Planning" as you can get and still be on Earth.
This is not about competition. It's not about the little guys against the big, bad companies. Heck, it's not even about broadband.
It's about who is going to pick up the tab.
Ironically, the towns of Batavia, St. Charles, and Geneva, IL. are almost exclusively Republican...so it sure seems odd that folks who buy into the "party of small government" are now holding their hand out to the taxpayers for something as mundane as internet service. I'm surprised it even got 40%. They must be getting soft over there.
I'll bet this deal has already cost the taxpayers a bundle: The meetings, surveys, studies, getting it on the ballot, etc.
I don't live in that area, but if I did I would have voted against it. The government is too deep into our business as it is.
The Tri-cities would have been much more successful if they had put all that energy into finding an entrepeneur willing to put up private money to fund the project.
peace,
mocycler
[text was edited by author 2003-04-03 22:00:25] | |
| | |
Kaltes
Premium
join:2002-12-04
Los Angeles, CA
| Re: Yes, too bad indeed. mocycler:
That is about as strong an argument as can be made against the proposal. The libertarian perspective. Your argument is that a minority of beneficiaries want the taxpayers to subsidize them. First of all, "who is going to pick up the tab" is not at issue here. Subscriber fees are what pays the bond debt. The users of the service pay, NOT the taxpayer.
The taxpayer is, however, exposed to paying the bonds if the venture collapses into bankruptcy and utterly fails. If you research other ventures of this type, it will be obvious to you that the risk of catastrophic failure is negligible. So, there is only a slim chance that the 'tab' would be picked up in any way by the taxpayers at large.
You say that, if success is so certain, why not make a private venture? The answer is simple: a municipal venture and a private one are not the same thing.
Comcast/SBC know they can attack and destroy a private venture. All that would take would be some promotions and marketing funding to coincide with the launch of the private venture. The giants are good at frustrating market entry. I doubt that a private venture could get off the ground in the tri-cities area, but the tri-city proposal is a different matter entirely.
The municipality has several advantages:
#1. (cheaper financing) Financing is less worrysome because the bonds are guaranteed and therefore pay lower interest. Private loans would be far more costly and make the break-even point significantly more difficult to obtain, especially when would-be lenders know that Comcast and SBC can use their market power to crush the upstart.
#2. (harder to kill) Even if Comcast/SBC temporarily drop their prices, introduce giveaway promotions, and step up their advertising revenue, the municipal venture will not die. Since the vast bulk of the cost is paid upfront in setting up the infrastructure, and the cities have guaranteed the bonds in the long-term, tricities would not have to worry about being driven into bankruptcy. Knowing that tricities cannot be killed in this fashion, it would be futile for Comcast/SBC to throw away large sums of money in a pointless battle. The end result is that SBC/Comcast will either lose market share or profit margins. Now you can see why they were so afraid of the proposal.
*************************************************
If you stick to some variety of ideological "The government is too deep into our business as it is." argument, I think you are making an irrational choice. Appealing to ideological form over factual substance is no way to make decisions.
To sum up: Assuming that a private venture could somehow equate to the municipal proposal is improper on several grounds. The municipality is likely to succeed where a private venture is likely to fail. | |
| | | |
mocycler
Premium
join:2001-01-22
Naperville, IL
·AT&T Midwest
| Re: Yes, too bad indeed. Kaltes,
First off, thanks for acknowledging and respecting my obviously libertarian views. I suspect you've read my other posts on this topic.
It is true that subscriber fees pay bonds, and there is no real risk to taxpayers. However, bonds are traditionally used for things like schools, sewers, and libraries...things that in and of themselves do not make money, but need to exsist regardless of profit considerations. Furthermore, everyone can identify with the need for new police cars and street lights.
But broadband??? Why not float a bond to give every resident a hot tub??? In a state with a huge deficit, brave cops and firefighters going for years without contracts, and dozens of school districts in the red, the mere idea of government-backed broadband, no matter how financially secure, sounds petty and trite to say the least.
As for your comment that a SBC/Comcast could destroy a private venture, I don't know. If someone walked into the Tri-cities with 63 mil and said, "I'll do it", they would be welcomed with open arms. And if they failed, oh well...better them than Joe Citizen.
I see where you're coming from but I can't go along with government involvement in something like this.
peace,
mocycler
| |
| 
cbrigante2
Cubs 20??
Premium
join:2002-11-22
North Aurora, IL
| Naperville 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? | |
| |
mocycler
Premium
join:2001-01-22
Naperville, IL
·AT&T Midwest
| Re: 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 think you are referring to me, so here goes...
As I said in my post, this has nothing to do with broadband.
And I'm not saying private companies are always better than government at running anything (although in most cases they are).
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.
I'm not changing my mind: If this is a such a surefire deal, let the proponents fork over private money, or find someone who will. I will be the first to congradtulate them as they make their first big haul to the bank.
I addressed this issue in detail at this link:
»Fight FIRE with FIRE
Thanks,
mocycler | |
| | |
Kaltes
Premium
join:2002-12-04
Los Angeles, CA
| Re: Naperville 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................... | |
| | | |
mocycler
Premium
join:2001-01-22
Naperville, IL
·AT&T Midwest
| Re: Naperville 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 | |
| | | | 
Octopussy2
Premium
join:2003-03-30
Batavia, IL
| 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] | |
| | | | | AuroraJock
join:2003-04-02
Chicago, IL
| Re: Naperville 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. | |
| | | | | |
Octopussy2
Premium
join:2003-03-30
Batavia, IL
| Re: Naperville 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. | |
| | | | | | | AuroraJock
join:2003-04-02
Chicago, IL
| Re: Naperville 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. | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | AuroraJock
join:2003-04-02
Chicago, IL
| Re: Naperville "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??? | |
| | | | | | | | | |
Kaltes
Premium
join:2002-12-04
Los Angeles, CA
| Re: Naperville 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. | |
| | | | | | | | | |
Octopussy2
Premium
join:2003-03-30
Batavia, IL
| 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] | |
| | | | | | | | | | AuroraJock
join:2003-04-02
Chicago, IL
| Re: Naperville 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. | |
| | | | | | | | | |
Octopussy2
Premium
join:2003-03-30
Batavia, IL
| Re: Naperville 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. | |
| | | | | | | | | |
ravital
Just Another Pesky Independent Nh Voter
Premium
join:2001-07-19
Merrimack, NH
| 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.
Ah, so only the corporate standards should apply, and if the municipality can't come up to it, then it's a failure? You're right, the municipality is not driven by an all-consuming obsession with maintaining a 540:1 High/Low salary ratio in the organization, it's not SUPPOSED to work for a profit, it's only expected to pay back the debt, and if and when there is a profit, it must be put to use in the form of subscription-rate reduction, property-tax abatement, additional garbage pickup, or some other benefit to the community, or put away for a rainy day. THAT is the difference, that is what the corporation (a cartel, really, not worthy of the title "corporation") would call a failure. And if you don't like the performance, you vote the bums out of office, unlike SBC/Comcast who impose their lofty standards for success and failure on an entire population for a decade at a time.
said by AuroraJock :
So, I really don't care what other communities have done.
That's pretty obvious, don't let yourself be confused by facts.
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.
Now you're mixing financial viability with the will of voters. Make up your mind, what is it about? Because from where I sit, there is no such thing as "the proper" use of taxpayer dollars, if taxpayers want government to spend their money on hot tubs filled with purple noodles, who are you or me to say they shouldn't?
said by AuroraJock :
Besides, what sort of credit implications does $60 million worth of bonds have on future lines of credit?
So the tri-cities now owe their credit-worthiness to SBC/Comcast lying to voters? I suppose Saddam Hussein deserves credit for keeping his people lean and trim. | |
| | | | | | | | | |
ravital
Just Another Pesky Independent Nh Voter
Premium
join:2001-07-19
Merrimack, NH
| [QUOTE= AuroraJock ]]Somebody, I'm still waiting... What happens if this network does not get any subscribers and they can't sell it?? Anyone???
You're still waiting after I gave you a reply that you simply ignored. If X people were so involved in promoting this in the tri-cities, you can be sure they would sign up, so as long as X is greater than 0, your contention that NO ONE would sign up is false.
However, when I look at this:
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?
It is a blatant lie. Some people use their connection to connect them to their workplace and work after hours. Some use it to shop for books from Amazon or socks from L.L.Bean, some to read news articles, and yes, some to watch pornography. But according to SBC, it would ALL be about pornography. ON TOP OF THAT, the myth about taxpayers funding it had already been answered and debunked, but I guess that's not good enough for you either.
I must conclude that you have some interest in defending SBC/Comcast tactics for one reason or another, as logic and facts obviously don't impress you. So I will stop wasting my time on you.
[text was edited by author 2003-04-04 21:34:10] | |
| | | | | | | | | |
See 34 replies to this post | |
| | | |
ravital
Just Another Pesky Independent Nh Voter
Premium
join:2001-07-19
Merrimack, NH
| I'm glad to see I'm not the only one thinking in terms of attracting business to the area.
Correct me if I'm wrong, aren't you and St. Charles large enough for Home Rule, meaning your mayors could go ahead with it anyway, and didn't your mayors say as much?
At the very least, what would be the prospects of putting the question on the ballot again, but in November this time, or maybe even in November 04?
We've had an offer to have the feasibility study done free of charge for us and a few other towns in the area, and we haven't yet gone ahead with it, so it will be years before anything like this is built over here, but we're hoping (while swearing at Adelphia). | |
| | |
tschmidt
Premium,MVM
join:2000-11-12
Milford, NH
·Verizon Online DSL
·Fairpoint Communic..
| 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.
I'd argue that in the information age being connected is as important as mail, telephone, water, sewer, roads and electricity. There is an easy way to address your concern that taxpayers will bear the burden if the venture goes bust. The towns can opt for revenue bonds rather then generation obligation bonds. The down side higher interest rates. Personality if I lived in the area I’d take the risk for the lower interest rate but you bring up a valid point. Other municipalities should consider that route in the future.
First mile access will always be a monopoly or near monopoly. If I have to deal with a monopoly I’d much rather deal with local elected officials then a multinational corporation that has no real interest in my particular town.
Free markets work well while the market is immature and expanding. Once it mature it tends to be winner take all. The incumbent then is in a powerful position to stifle competition. Look at what happened to radio after deregulation. I don't want high-speed access turned into the Clear Channel network.
Municipalities have an advantage compared to private enterprise. Nonprofit and government entities can operate at much lower rates of return, resulting in lower cost to customers. Getting capital for fiber build out by the Telcos and Cablecos is going to be difficult. Building the next generation network is a huge undertaking with a payback period measured in years rather then months. Plus both have very profitable legacy business they are frantically trying to protect. They are in no hurry to deliver true broadband.
I think it likely the only places wired with FTTH in the next 10 years will be municipalities that take control of the first-mile access network. | |
|
cbrigante2
Cubs 20??
Premium
join:2002-11-22
North Aurora, IL
| Taxes for Services Those against the city broadband seem to think that the 60% that voted it down were doing so because they didnt want broadband. They voted it down because they didnt want higher tax rates. If we vote down a school referendum, does that mean we are saying that we want our children to be undereducated? Answer: no. I vote school referendums down because I think the money is not being put to efficient use. I hope (and from the sound of it, this will happen) that the cities keep putting this sucker up on every ballot until it passes like a school referendum. Any guess who would roll out the service real quick if some competition was going up? 2 money grubbing monopolies come to mind. Also to the Naperville resident, my point wasnt to say you were wrong, but that Naperville, itself as big a Republican town as Geneva or Batavia, had it's own public movement to get broadband rolled out. www.napervillebroadband.com comes to mind. Read some of the posts in there to understand what the majority of web-surfing republicans want in your town. | |
| | 
batageek
Slave To The Duopoly
Premium
join:2003-01-25
| Re: Taxes for Services Exactly...They (voters) missed the point due to misinfo spread by the incumbents and the lack of ability (by the proponents) to go buck for buck in a PR battle....
There were no higher tax rates because it's paid for by user fees...backed by property tax? yes. Paid for by tax..no! But the disinfo convinced many otherwise.
Even a republican can see a good deal (no slag to repubs) on the homefront....cheaper rates, better and more services, etc.
Look at it this way, why would the Cities waste their time fighting for this if it wasn't in the best interest of the towns? Why put up with the battle? The local governments could easily throw up their hands and say, "Sorry, we can't help you...Call Comcast and SBC." A lot less skin off their noses.
In regards to Naperville, they do have competition to some extent: Comcast, Wide Open West, and SBC. At least more than the TriCities.
[text was edited by author 2003-04-04 20:07:11] | |
| |
mocycler
Premium
join:2001-01-22
Naperville, IL
·AT&T Midwest
| cbrigante2...
Yes, I am aware that there was talk of municipal broadband in Naperville. Lately though, that has died out since basically anyone (with a few exceptions) who wants broadband in Naperville can get it in one form or another from independent providers.
As for what the "web-surfing Republicans" want, well, they're entitled to their opinion. I don't care as long as they keep their grubby hands off of my checkbook. By the way, I'm not a Republican so you will not see me defend their double-standard.
As I've stated over and over in my other posts...it is not the government's place to get into the internet biz, even if there is little or no financial risk. TCBB has been pablum puking about how their plan will be virtually risk-free and even turn a profit. But if it's so great, why can't they find enough rich Republicans to put their money where their mouth is and fund it privately...for that matter, why couldn't they get enough rich Republicans off their asses and into the voting booth?
Probably because they were all at work surfing the net...on a T1 that someone else paid for. Hmmmmmm.
peace,
mocyler
| |
| | |
Octopussy2
Premium
join:2003-03-30
Batavia, IL
| Re: Taxes for Services If the cities can offer the service, why not? It serves everyone's best interest. People who don't even use the service because they are opposed to the govt. being involved STILL benefit. In the Tri-Cities case specifically, the very same fiber optic network that would provide cable, Internet and phone service to all residents and businesses that wanted it, would also provide for municipal services currently in place (electric and water departments). It would also allow the city to provide (remember the govts. job is to provide) alarm services, both police and fire, directly to the 911 dispatch center in Geneva.
Even those that took no services from the Cities would still benefit. It would give all citizens a choice. That choice would force Comcast and SBC to compete....something they don't do now. If even one new business was attracted to the towns and built a new facility, all residents would benefit because of the tax dollars that company and it's new building would bring to town.
Stop thinking about just internet and look to the BIG picture. What's good for local business is good for local taxpayers. More money in the taxpayer's pocket means more money spent in the local economies. This is good for everyone, not just those that use the city services. | |
| | |
zabes63
join:2003-04-05
Batavia, IL
| Mocycler,
I have to respect your opposition to this on philosophical grounds.
said by mocycler :
As I've stated over and over in my other posts...it is not the government's place to get into the internet biz, even if there is little or no financial risk. TCBB has been pablum puking about how their plan will be virtually risk-free and even turn a profit. But if it's so great, why can't they find enough rich Republicans to put their money where their mouth is and fund it privately
Although I do not completely agree with it, it is the one and only argument that I can accept from someone in opposition to this initiative.
I do have to say this; American history is replete with examples of the government stepping in where the the public sector has either failed or left a void, and we as a country are all the better for it.
I would be more than happy to choose from any number of private sector entities who would provide this type of service to my community in a world of true competition. Unfortunately, the telecom landscape being what it is, does not allow for almost any type of competition. | |
| | | |
|
|
