Utopia in UtahLargest Muni-network to date ( old news - 09:15AM Monday Nov 17 2003) tags: Fiber · competition · alternatives Utah gears up to build the largest and most ambitious municipal fiber network to date. Mentioned in our last Municipal Report, UTOPIA (Utah Telecommunication Open Infrastructure Agency) is the focus of this article (free reg. required) in today's New York Times. The ambitious $450 million network will connect some 17 Utah cities, and should provide cable, phone and broadband service to some 723,000 residents in 248,000 households and 34,500 businesses. Jerry Fenn, president of the Utah division of Qwest, is quick to dismiss the network in the article, inquiring "Why provide a Rolls-Royce when a Chevrolet will do?" Oddly Fenn forgets to mention that their personal brand of "Chevrolet" service (DSL) is only available to roughly 60 percent of residents in the state. Construction on the UTOPIA network is set to begin next spring.
Related:- Powell, Wyoming: Population 5,500, Gets Fiber
- Seattle Still Considering FTTH Network
- Time Warner Cable Backlash Continues
- Utopia Hits 100Mbps
- Pittsburgh City Council Approves FiOS Franchise
- Powell Completes FTTH Build
- What Network Neutrality Is REALLY About
- TDS Telecom Launches 50 Mbps Fiber
|
 
batageek
Slave To The Duopoly
Premium
join:2003-01-25
| No fiber builds This line of thinking (Qwest) seems to be in line with the other Bells....."We're not going to build fiber until we get our way---with no competition." WAHHHHHHH.....
It also goes along with their "We know what's best for you and we'll give it to you when WE think you need it" approach.
GO UTOPIA!
--
»www.tricitybroadband.com | |
|  | | | |
batageek
Slave To The Duopoly
Premium
join:2003-01-25
| Re: No fiber builds Yes but the difference is that most CLEC's aren't going out of their way to fight Muni-builds either. SBC (and Comcast too for that matter) would rather spend money on marketing and lawyers rather than just upgrading the damn plants.
I'm all for operating at a profit, but for God's sake, if a muni wants to put in something you won't, get the hell out of the way.
--
»www.tricitybroadband.com | |
| | | | 
pnh102
Reptiles Are Cuddly And Pretty
Premium
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD
 ·Comcast
| Re: No fiber builds said by batageek  :
I'm all for operating at a profit, but for God's sake, if a muni wants to put in something you won't, get the hell out of the way.
I partially agree with you on this one. If a new private company wants to run its own wires and offer service (as Conestoga Communications (nee Telebeam) did in State College, PA) then the government must not allow anything or anyone to interfere with that deployment.
However, if I was a stockholder or a private business owner facing "competition" from a government agency which doesn't have to face the same kind of tax or regulatory scrutiny that I do, then I would fight this tooth and nail, as it would be my business going under.
Of course, if I willingly decided to deep-six my own business by not providing the services my customers want, or by lobbying the government to create a regulatory environment that discourages investment (as the phone companies did with TA1996, the USF, etc.) then I have no one to blame but myself when competitors filled the void.
--
The tobacco industry is more respectable than the telemarketing industry. | |
| | | | |
batageek
Slave To The Duopoly
Premium
join:2003-01-25
| Re: No fiber builds pnh102:
Not trying to be argumentative here, but really the muni's have to go through most of the same things the private sector does. If they're offering phone service, they have to be a CLEC and follow all the rules laid out by the FCC. Munis have to play within the "fair market" rules that the Bells and cable cos play. They have to pay pole attachment fees that are in line with what is charged to the incumbents.
As far as tax scrutiny goes, I feel that I have a heck of a lot better chance of seeing true expenditures out of my local government than I do out of the private sector. By law, all the muni books are wide open for inspection. I have the ability to approve or disapprove with my vote. My vote counts for a lot more in the local government, than it does as a SBC or Comcast shareholder.
Speaking from my experience, the private sector also has advantages the public does not. They can spend all the cash they want to fight munis going into business....the munis cannot. If the muni has to go to referendum to get authority to build, the muni can't spend cash to promote the concept...the private sector can and will spend all sorts of cash to obscure the truth. Hate to beat a dead horse (insert graphic here), but look at all the garbage SBC and Comcast pulled just to fight the proposed TriCity munibuild (www.tricitybroadband.com ). They flat out lied and spent a ton of cash doing so.
Again, I'll take the muni. They work for me.
--
»www.tricitybroadband.com | |
| | | | |
batageek
Slave To The Duopoly
Premium
join:2003-01-25
| pnh102:
Never mind...In PA's case, you're right....
PA IS ruled by idiots..
See below
»www.pennlive.com/printer/printer···5001.xml
State House panel changes, OKs broadband bill
Friday, November 14, 2003
BY DAVID DeKOK
Of The Patriot-News
The state House Consumer Affairs Committee, by a lopsided vote yesterday, amended and then approved HB 30, the Chapter 30 reauthorization bill favored by Verizon Communications and the Pennsylvania Telephone Association.
It becomes the first of five Chapter 30 reauthorization bills to get out of committee.
Chapter 30 is the 1993 state law that requires the state's telephone companies, notably Verizon, to bring their networks up to modern standards and provide all state residents with access to broadband high-speed Internet service. The law expires on Dec. 31.
"It still needs to be improved," state Consumer Advocate Irwin Popowsky said of HB 30. "There is not enough protection for consumers or advancement of broadband deployment."
The House committee hearing was held in a small Senate hearing room in the upper reaches of the Capitol. Many late arrivals found no space inside and were forced to stand in the hallway outside and try to hear what was going on in the room.
An omnibus amendment introduced by Rep. William Adolph, R-Delaware, the committee chairman, and Rep. Joseph Preston, D-Allegheny, the minority chairman, was approved on a 21-4 vote. All other amendments, which were offered by Rep. Ron Buxton, D-Dauphin, and Rep. T.J. Rooney, D-Lehigh, were defeated on similar lopsided votes.
Buxton wanted a stronger Lifeline program of reduced telephone rates for the poor than the committee was willing to provide. He expressed exasperation at the large number of changes HB 30 would make to the original Chapter 30 law, which he helped to pass in 1993 and which he continues to believe is basically a good law.
Among provisions in the amended HB 30 are the following:
Removal of the inflation offset from rates for noncompetitive services is intact. Popowsky has estimated that this will be worth $2 billion to $3 billion over 13 years to Verizon alone.
This will enable telephone companies to raise residential and small-business rates, subject to some limitations. It is portrayed by the PTA as a fair payoff for improving their networks, although the original Chapter 30 provided billions of dollars in incentives for improvements.
Municipalities and school districts continue to be barred from offering their own broadband Internet or other telecommunications services in competition with a regulated telephone company. The amendment grandfathers Kutztown, the Glendale School District and any other public entities currently offering telecommunications services.
The state Public Utility Commission is banned from requiring local telephone companies to offer wider local calling boundaries, a perennial issue in the state's vast rural areas.
A provision in HB 30 allowing telephone companies wide latitude to escape their network modernization plans on file with the PUC is changed in the amendment to allow the PUC to approve changes to the plans "upon good cause shown." However, the PUC is banned from modifying the plans without the permission of the companies, a perennial Verizon complaint.
HB 30 requires broadband Internet roll-outs to continue, but allows smaller telephone companies to opt for a revised requirement enabling them to escape deployment to the last 20 percent of their customers unless the customers submit a "bonafide retail request," meaning they must persuade as many as 50 neighbors to sign up for the service for a year. The PTA believes many rural residents do not want broadband Internet.
DAVID DeKOK: 255-8173 or ddekok@patriot-news.com
Copyright 2003 PennLive.com. All Rights Reserved.
--
»www.tricitybroadband.com | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | lesopp
join:2001-06-27
Land O Lakes, FL
| Not to mention the Rolls-Royce vs Chevrolet analogy. A Freudian slip perhaps? Is Qwest admitting that their cheap approach is responsible for crappy products.
Proof the RBOCs just don't understand competition. The question should read, "How is it when a Chevrolet will get the job done, people choose something different... | |
| | | 
J D McDorce
Premium
join:2001-12-29
Westland, MI
| Re: No fiber builds If Qwest really wants to use automotive analogies, it would likely be more appropriate to describe their DSL offerings as the Cadillac Cimmaron - an entry level product sold as a luxury product (with Verizon and SBC's entry level products filling the role of the Sunbird and Cavalier).
While there is no argument that Qwest is an RBOC, I would stop short of buying into Qwest's actions and understandings being representative of all RBOCs. | |
| | 
dvd536
as Mr. Pink as they come
Premium
join:2001-04-27
Phoenix, AZ
| said by batageek :
This line of thinking (Qwest) seems to be in line with the other Bells....."We're not going to build fiber until we get our way---with no competition." WAHHHHHHH
Qwest?????? Fibre?????? HAH! they seem to think 640/256 and 256/256 is plenty. they arent even TRYING to compete in any areas broadband or not. they have the slowest broadband(if u want to call Qwest DSL broadband). even verizon has picked up speeds and lowered prices.
--
You can never be too rich, too thin or have too much Bandwidth | |
| |
pnh102
Reptiles Are Cuddly And Pretty
Premium
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD
·Comcast
| Who gets the check? Who's paying for this project? Is it private investors who will shoulder all of the risk, or is it taxpayers who will be footing the bill (as always)?
I really hope that government-provided broadband never comes to PA. Corrupt government officials here already know of enough ways to waste my money. They don't need any new ideas!
--
The tobacco industry is more respectable than the telemarketing industry. | |
| | 
rit56
join:2000-12-01
New York, NY
| Re: Who gets the check? yeah you're doing great with Verizon now........ Pennsylvania got the worst screwing imaginable courtesy of the local politicians allowing Verizon rob the good citizens of Pennsylvania and not holding them accountable for promises never delivered. God I am so tired of getting screwed by corporations and Politicians. when's the next revolution? | |
| | |
pnh102
Reptiles Are Cuddly And Pretty
Premium
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD
·Comcast
| Re: Who gets the check? said by rit56 :
yeah you're doing great with Verizon now........ Pennsylvania got the worst screwing imaginable courtesy of the local politicians allowing Verizon rob the good citizens of Pennsylvania and not holding them accountable for promises never delivered.
As if Verizon wasn't screwing everyone in this state before with overpriced toll calls and ridiculously small local calling areas? Competition from cell phone providers has already solved that problem for me and many other people in this state. Verizon might have won the battle and gotten a boatload of free cash from rate payers, but as more people stop using them as their landline service, they are going to be forced to provide their wares at cheaper prices, or be forced out of business. I still feel that the consumers of this state are now finally able to hold Verizon accountable for what they are doing, precisely because of the competition from cell phone and cable TV companies.
--
The tobacco industry is more respectable than the telemarketing industry. | |
| | nshulga
join:2002-06-06
Morrisville, PA | I'd prefer municipal broadband to Verizon and Comcast.
NS | |
| | 
zabes63
join:2003-04-05
Batavia, IL
| I have to agree with you that I would be very suspect of government run operation on a State or Federal level.
I do not, however, have the same qualms about it being operated on the local level.
The incumbents have demonstrated over and over again that they could care less about our needs or the economic development in our area. I trust my local officials to do what is best for the promotion of my community, and if they don't, they can always be replaced.
Make a call to have Eddy's (whitacre) head on a plate and see how far you get.
--
A Jobless recovery is not a recovery at all!! | Tri-City Broadband | |
| | |
pnh102
Reptiles Are Cuddly And Pretty
Premium
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD
·Comcast
| Re: Who gets the check? said by zabes63 :
I do not, however, have the same qualms about it being operated on the local level.
...
Make a call to have Eddy's (whitacre) head on a plate and see how far you get.
That might be true about your area, but in Pennsylvania, the local (or state) government is the last entity I'd put in change of an industry as important to the country as Internet access. Here's a few examples of poorly run municipal services going on out here:
•The Philadelphia Gas Works - A municipally run natural gas provider that weaves itself in and out of financial ruin. Prices are among the highest in the country and service is terrible at best. The concept of shutting off deadbeat customers is relatively new to them. Unfortunately, there's no other gas provider, so...
•The City of Coatesville, PA, recently approved a referendum that orders the city to stop trying to acquire privately-owned land outside the city limits by use of eminent domain powers. The land was to be used for a city-owned recreation facility that would "energize" the economy of the city. Even though the referendum was approved, the city manager still continues to defy the will of the people and pursue the acquisition. Nearly $1 Million has been wasted on legal action related to this case.
•The members of the state employees pension fund decided in the late 1990s to invest the bulk of their cash into high-flying stocks like Enron, Global Crossing, and Worldcom. We all know what happened next. What was the accountability provided? About $400 Million in local tax hikes and continued investment in these kinds of stocks, with the hope that the "gambler's fallacy" would ring true and wipe away all the losses.
If I recall correctly, 2 of the 3 towns in the Tri-Cities Broadband initiative wanted to continue to implement a municipally owned broadband network even though it was voted down. If a local community is going to ignore the will of the people and implement something against their wishes, how can it be inferred that the same local government would respond favorably to the problems that people will have with this network?
--
The tobacco industry is more respectable than the telemarketing industry. | |
| | | |
zabes63
join:2003-04-05
Batavia, IL
| Re: Who gets the check? said by pnh102 :
The members of the state employees pension fund decided in the late 1990s to invest the bulk of their cash into high-flying stocks like Enron, Global Crossing, and Worldcom. We all know what happened next. What was the accountability provided?
You're absolutely correct here, but keep in mind that the vast majority of victims here were private investors, who, along with the government administered pension funds, were suckered and taken for a ride by the all powerful "private sector". As a former Worldcom employee, I can tell you that it wasn't just the investors that were effected.
said by pnh102 :
If I recall correctly, 2 of the 3 towns in the Tri-Cities Broadband initiative wanted to continue to implement a municipally owned broadband network even though it was voted down. If a local community is going to ignore the will of the people and implement something against their wishes, how can it be inferred that the same local government would respond favorably to the problems that people will have with this network?
You recall somewhat correctly, the two cities, St. Charles and Batavia, are looking into the possibility to provide commercial services to under-served areas. It is a far cry from the Video/Voice/Internet proposal that the electorate chose to decline in the referendum.
Like I said, if my neighbors think that this is the wrong course of action, they can always make their opinions known in the next election. | |
| | | | | 
Nam Vet
Premium
join:2001-12-03
Allentown, PA | Re: Who gets the check? seeing as how the rboc's and cable incumbents lied to everyone (look at the surveys) I hope you do try again.
--
H O W T R U E : If you want something done, ask a busy person to do it | |
| | | | |
batageek
Slave To The Duopoly
Premium
join:2003-01-25
| Actually it's all three cities - Batavia, Geneva & St. Charles. Surveys were been sent to all commercial customers asking if they were interested in muni offered isp and point-to-point services within the TriCities. It also suggested using the existing muni fiber networks as the backbone, rather than building a new system.
--
»www.tricitybroadband.com | |
| | | | | | |
Nam Vet
Premium
join:2001-12-03
Allentown, PA | I, for one would like to know how that 2+ billions that vz absconded with was dispersed!
--
H O W T R U E : If you want something done, ask a busy person to do it | |
| | rahvin112
join:2002-05-24
Sandy, UT
| said by pnh102 :
Who's paying for this project? Is it private investors who will shoulder all of the risk, or is it taxpayers who will be footing the bill (as always)?
I really hope that government-provided broadband never comes to PA. Corrupt government officials here already know of enough ways to waste my money. They don't need any new ideas!
Question: How does UTOPIA plan to finance the network?
The UTOPIA business case indicates that wholesale usage fees, charged to service providers based on their use of the network, will generate enough revenue to pay the capital investment costs, operating expenses, and debt service obligations associated with building and maintaining the network. No taxpayer money will be needed. However, in order to secure a competitive interest rate on the bonds that UTOPIA will issue to cover the cost of network construction, member cities may pledge to guarantee some of the debt.
IMO this is the way it should be done if any municipal services are offered. They won't provide the TV, Network or Phone service, Just the pipe. Anyone else including Comcast and Qwest can tap into the pipe and sell services. | |
| | | Sprinter99
join:2003-10-10
Grants Pass, OR
| Re: Who gets the check? if you'd like to see what a good fiber network can provide, check out the Ashland Fiber Network in Ashland, OR.
»www.ashlandfiber.net/
I live a few miles north of there and am lusting after their bandwidth and services. Notice how the website links to local ISPs who use the fiber for broadband services. | |
| | Bullet257
join:2003-11-18
Orem, UT
| In the case of Utopia the project is funded by a revenue bond from a private sector Investment bank as stated in the article. Also, the "Inter-local cooperative agreement" passed by the Utopia member city councils, which created the governing body, does not grant authority to the Utopia board to "raise taxes" and stipulates that the system must be self supporting.
In addition, Utah House bill 149 passed in 2001, with support of the cities involved, explicitly prohibits ANY "cross subsidization" from any other public funds. Utopia is also a wholesale transport system and NO retail services are provided by the muni's or Utopia and the incumbents are free to use it to deliver their services if they chose to. However, the big telcos and cable companies, to a lesser extent, have become better litigators and lobbyists that service providers and competitors, plus there is no known cure for the cranial-rectal impaction they suffer from. | |
| nasadude
join:2001-10-05
Rockville, MD
·Comcast
| good luck.... hope they can do it. At least one small part of one state in the U.S. won't be stuck in the internet dark ages for the next 10 years.
Besides, the bells are already backing off FTTH/FTTC and analysts are saying the bells will ride DSL for several more years. If they want fiber, they WILL have to build it themselvse. | |
| 
amenite
The Soylent - It's People
Premium
join:2002-11-21
Ridgewood, NJ
clubs:
 ·Verizon Online DSL
| Euphamisms quote:
Jerry Fenn, president of the Utah division of Qwest, is quick to dismiss the network in the article, inquiring "Why provide a Rolls-Royce when a Chevrolet will do?"
Translation = "Why give them a Rolls Royce when you can give them a Chevrolet and pocket the difference?"
--
Time is an abstract concept invented by carbon based life forms to monitor their constant decay.-Thunderclese | |
| 
viperpa33s
Why Me?
Premium
join:2002-12-20
Bradenton, FL
·Bright House
| 2 points of view There are 2 points of view here, 1 for the people and the other about profits. I agree that the government shouldn't be in the telelcommunications buisness, but I also agree that the companies aren't doing enough to make sure everyone is hooked up.
I'll give a example of a similar situation. I know a guy who lives in Pennsylvania. He lives on a street with about 10 other famlies. The cable company refuses to spend the money to run cable. My friend either has to spend $1,800 to have the cable company run the cable or get satillite. Of course he chose satillite.
These are the kind of situations that the municipalities are getting tired of, people being left out in the cold. A company like Qwest don't care whether 40% of Utah has no DSL or phone service. They base there buisness on profits and they want to get the maximum return on there profits in the shortest amount of time.
For years the municipalities have been screaming at the telelcommunications for years only to fall on deaf ears.
Now that the municipalities are doing what the companies like Qwest won't do, Qwest is screaming that it's the wring thing to do. I am not against Qwest making profits, but at what cost?
Qwest says that you should only give a customer what they need, nothing more, nothing less. If Utah rolls out fiber now, that means Utah won't have to upgrade later. Not in a companies buisness sense of only upgrading as you go.
Qwest calls Utah's initative a Rolls Royce, but doesn't it all come down to of Utah giving the people what they want? Ten again who will end up paying this 450 million dollar fiber optic network? | |
| wentlanc
You Can't Fix Dumb..
join:2003-07-30
Maineville, OH
| One dollar per day This is roughly the cost over 5 years for the 282,500 homes and businesses to pay for the network. I don't know about anyone else, but I'll give up a dollar a day in taxes to be free from the monopolies of the telcos and cable companies.
puritan | |
| | | lesopp
join:2001-06-27
Land O Lakes, FL
| Side Point I followed the link to utahtaxpayers.org and found an incorrect description of the Federal USF, as it pertained to a consumer phone bill. After reading the description I was left with the impression it is a tax the consumer pays. The USF is paid by communication companies and they pass the charge along to the consumer to avoid revenue loss. | |
| | | RayW
Premium
join:2001-09-01
Layton, UT
clubs:
·XMission
| Re: Side Point said by lesopp :
I followed the link to utahtaxpayers.org and found an incorrect description of the Federal USF, as it pertained to a consumer phone bill. After reading the description I was left with the impression it is a tax the consumer pays. The USF is paid by communication companies and they pass the charge along to the consumer to avoid revenue loss.
I called the phone company a few years ago on that, they claimed it was a federally mandated fee that we had to pay. Guess it just depends on whom is gouging whom.
--
I am not lost, I find myself every time. | |
| 
Poopsmith
That's Mr. Smith To You.
join:2003-03-12
Boulder, CO
| Good for Utah I wish other Qwest states would show the same support *winks at Colorado*. The Mormons are sick of Qwest's terrible service and so am I. Nothing would give me greater pleasure than see a telco fall because the people decide to build their own network. Man, this article really brightened up my day. | |
| | RayW
Premium
join:2001-09-01
Layton, UT
clubs: | Re: Good for Utah Utah is not just Mormons, Poop. Look at the last Salt Lake City mayor election.
--
I am not lost, I find myself every time. | |
| | | colopioneers
join:2003-11-17
Pueblo, CO |  Re: Good for Utah
| |
| | |
Poopsmith
That's Mr. Smith To You.
join:2003-03-12
Boulder, CO
| said by RayW :
Utah is not just Mormons, Poop.
Poop? That's Mr. Smith to you. | |
| | 
golden eagle
Aquila chrysaetos
Premium
join:2002-08-06
On a cliff
clubs:
| Re: Good for Utah (Shame on others) "The best network in the U.S. will be in Utah - not in New York, not in Chicago, not in Los Angeles." said Paul T. Morris
Something very wrong with this statement. Why aren't New York, Chicago and L.A., the leaders of the "Free World", leading the charge.
--
Pain is just fear leaving the body. | |
| | | altazip
join:2003-08-18
Richfield, UT | Logistics of Fiber in Utah Though Fiber in Utah is a killer idea! When the rubber hits the road I doubt that it will happen. Being in Utah I see this as another boondogle.
just my .02
kent | |
| Lighthop
join:2003-12-08
Salt Lake City, UT
|  Time to tell our cities we WANT this
Tomorrow night (Dec. 9) at 7 pm is a Salt Lake City Council public meeting. If you care about this, show up and ask to speak at the beginning of the meeting. Tell the council you support them in the fiber-to-the-home project. Same with the other cities. It's time our representatives know who we are and that we support UTOPIA. | |
| | | |
|
|
