I’d advise UTOPIA supporters in or around Orem to show up to the meeting at 1031 W. Center St. Orem on Tuesday October 25 at 2PM. There will no doubt be disinformation by the truckload that will have to be countered.

UPDATE: Per Chris Nichols, the president of the Utah County Association of Realtors, the Utah Taxpayers Association has been un-invited from the event. He stated that his goal is strictly to discuss the implications of transfer of title when a homebuyer has chosen to finance the installation including how it appears when doing a search on the property. He also made it clear that any attempts to derail the discussion beyond that would be thoroughly unwelcome.

Chris also stated that UTOPIA was invited, but the person whom he named as “someone who has done work for UTOPIA” was not a name I’m familiar with. Granted, I don’t know everyone on their payroll, but if the PR department doesn’t know anything about it, it kind of maybe didn’t exactly go to the right person. Sounds like they both had their wires crossed on that one.

For the record, he was pretty mad at me and spent over 10 minutes chewing me out on the phone. I tried to explain why I formed the opinion I did, but he had no interest in hearing it. The website for the event links straight to the light-on-facts UTA website and lists a smattering of candidates for city council in Orem, both of whom are anti-UTOPIA (though one of them is being a realist about the situation). These combined with questions that appear to imply that the UTOPIA contract causes significant real estate sale issues created a very bad public face. The website itself also has no contact information as to who the responsible party would be.

My take? He wasn’t holding a tight enough leash on his employee Oldroyd who then worked with the UTA to try and sneakily co-opt the event for his own political purposes. My publicizing of it was very embarassing (and understandably so) and he needed to take it out on someone right then and there. Hey Chris? No hard feelings this time, but maybe try to be a bit more understanding of where someone else is coming from next time around. A lot of bloggers wouldn’t be as gracious as I am to heavily update an article to show both sides.

UPDATE 2: For those who are interested, I have a copy of the robocall used to publicize the event. Link is below.

UCAR UTOPIA Robocall

First off, the UIA bonds are not an unconditional loan. They are funds that will be secured by payments from subscribers. If there aren’t enough subscribers to secure repayment, the money doesn’t get touched. You would think that such an arrangement would be acceptable to an organization that purports to represent taxpayers as it clearly shifts the burden from the taxpayers as a whole to the subscribers. Attempting to characterize the UIA as a big grab-bag is a big lie.

Secondly, the UTA says that UTOPIA is running a $20M deficit in “operating expenses”. The problem, however, is that their version of “operating expenses” is entirely unclear. I’m betting that they chose to include equipment depreciation and possibly even the bond payments in that figure in order to paint a much more dire picture than actually exists. For all of the accusations by the UTA that UTOPIA doesn’t disclose enough information, it’s hypocritical and extremely irresponsible of them to distort the numbers for the purposes of supporting their arguments.

Remember the last time the UTA tried to organize an anti-UTOPIA protest? UTOPIA and its supporters showed up and ended up turning half of the attendees into subscribers. Let’s show them it can be done again. Centerville meets tonight (October 19) at 7PM, Orem is October 26 at 6PM, and Payson is October 27 at 6PM. All meetings are at the respective city hall. Let’s show the UTA that lying won’t get them very far.

For one, I do not think that the data collection process will prove to be granular enough. The current plan calls for going down to the census block with no block greater than 2 square miles. In some cases, this gets down to a block size of of a couple dozen homes. Not too bad, but some of the census blocks in my area can be 50+ homes. That’s a pretty big swing and gives providers an out to claim service in a census block even if they can only provide service to a single home in it. That’s the same problem as the FCC’s current ZIP code-level stats, just on a smaller scale.

I also don’t think enough metrics are being considered. While the standard upload and download speeds will be collected, there was no discussion on comparing the advertised and delivered speeds. Given that delivered speeds are often half of what is advertised, that’s kind of a big deal. Pings will be collected via online speed tests (powered by Ookla, unsurprisingly), but that doesn’t give an idea of performance over time. I also didn’t hear anything about measuring uptime, another critical component of quality broadband. The speeds measured may also be capped at 50Mbps, no doubt to cap high-bandwidth networks like UTOPIA and iProvo. UTOPIA also asked if open-access networks and general compliance with net neutrality could be mapped, but that’s something that may or may not be included.

Some of the data won’t see public scrutiny. The mapping effort will include address-specific points and middle/last-mile network backbones, but the general public won’t get to see it. While I can understand that some providers might not want to provide a blueprint for competitors to steal their customers, the need for public disclosure is much, much greater, especially in cases where franchise agreements, easements, or other public concessions have been involved. We deserve to know what we’re getting for our money.

We’re also stuck using the FCC definition of broadband, a measly 768K downstream and 200K upstream. Granted, we’ll get the speeds reported, but that definition of “broadband” is unacceptable to anyone who has actually used a real connection. This low minimum is the fault of the FCC and no doubt required by NTIA, but it would be nice to see a higher standard set by the state. (As long as you’re going to pick fights with the feds, pick ones that count.)

It’s not all bad, though. Data will be differentiated between service types, including DSL, cable, and fiber. Wireless will be split up into both fixed and mobile, an important distinction since point-to-point is pretty easy. All of the public data will be available via an interactive map that will allow overlaying demographics, anchor institutions, and even various service types (i.e. seeing where both cable and fiber are available).  The first round of mapping data will be available in January with semi-annual updates for at least two and as many as five years.

Mapping isn’t the only topic, though. The state is looking to wire over 400 buildings across the state as part of a push to anchor institutions. UEN has also committed to wiring as many K-12 schools, colleges, and universities as possible in a push to get some kind of high-bandwidth service to underserved rural counties.

Competition for service also came up. At least one rural user complained that while broadband is available, it’s too expensive. A number of rural providers in attendance took exception to this, though it’s hard to do a price comparison without the data at hand. The map, however, doesn’t lie about speeds: 10Mbps service is primarily in the Wasatch Front, St. George, and those few rural towns where the incumbent has done a fiber build to consolidate copper and HFC plants. Rural areas have fewer competitors. That’s a tough truth, one I hope that will be highlighted once data is available.

Between now and the next summit, the Utah broadband website will be up at broadband.utah.gov and a second round of data may be submitted to the NTIA. In those intervening months, it is critical that you share your thoughts and ideas with the folks in charge of the effort. Tara Thue is leading the effort and has asked that any questions or suggestions get e-mailed to her at tthue@utah.gov. You can also follow the Broadband Broadband Project folks on Twitter as @UtahBroadband. And if you want to see my live-tweeting of the summit, visit this link.

As always, be respectful and don’t act like a jerk. You aren’t going to win anyone over with an attitude. I’d like to be there myself, but I’ll be out of town on business.

The convention runs from April 10-15 in Las Vegas, a relatively short drive from here. As a 14-year former resident of Sin City, let me tell you right now that if you want to go, you had better get a pass and a hotel reservation now. If you don’t, you’ll be staying in Mesquite or Primm and driving an hour each way. NAB is the biggest convention in the city and all of the nice hotels, not-so-nice hotels, and better dumpsters will be booked for the week.

So don’t delay: go register now with the code A913 to get your free pass today.

UTA Postcard Side A

UTA Postcard Side B

In their usual style, it purposefully misrepresents the SAA and plays loose with the facts. Here’s a few highlights.

• Before UTOPIA came to town, private companies would not invest in Brigham City. Both Comcast and Qwest refused to provide broadband service to residents despite repeated requests from the city to do so. After Brigham City joined UTOPIA, both companies started to roll out services. Chasing away private capital indeed.
• Sure, your house could be sold at a foreclosure sale if you fail to pay your part of the opt-in SAA. The same thing happens when you fail to pay your property taxes, your mortgage, or any other expense associated with owning a house or taking a loan out against it. Yet, for some reason, the UTA doesn’t seem to think those items are unfair. Nice spin, guys, but not paying your bills will, surprise, result in consequences. No duh.
• The UTA has purposefully inflated and misrepresented the city’s share of the expenses associated with the SAA. Brigham City has chosen to pay to hook up all city buildings with UTOPIA service. That accounts for well over half of the money the UTA is talking about and provides a legitimate service to the city. It is also entirely unknown what costs, if any, the city will have to carry for the bond to go through. This is because it depends entirely upon the number of people who sign up. Unless the UTA has some kind of magic crystal ball that I don’t (which I seriously doubt), they’re just making crap up. Again.
• The UTA is actually calling it a negative point that you’re paying $25 and don’t get service included at that price. I hate to break this to them, but there isn’t a provider on earth that would provide even a single part of a triple play for just $25/mo., at least not without line subsidies (like Qwest and the USF). This is just a nonsensical argument. It’s like complaining that the taxes you pay for roads don’t include a car.
• The UTA also points out that the money from the sale of your home will be used to pay off the costs of the SAA. Again, duh? What, does someone expect that the bond magically disappears because you sold your house? It’s another nonsense argument.

The flier is nothing more than a pathetic attempt to derail a project with significant community involvement and backing. The UTA isn’t looking out for taxpayers; they’re covering for their members. Let Brigham City’s residents spend their money how they want to, m-kay?