Google+

Broadband Bytes for 2011-11-19

Powered by Twitter Tools

Broadband Bytes for 2011-11-12

Powered by Twitter Tools

From Muni to Co-op? UTOPIA Model Paves a Way

A lot of people wonder why someone with my libertarian tendencies would support municipal broadband. I’m often trying to explain to them the massive market corruption that has occurred largely at the hands of bungled state and federal regulation, often getting a glazed look in return. By the time I start talking about the barriers that keep private companies from even trying to crack that nut, I might as well have Ben Stein speaking on my behalf.

And yet, these significant barriers to entry are the reason why private companies don’t step up to try and fix the telecommunications landscape despite the poor customer service ratings of the dominant players in the industry. For those that can actually secure financing, they are often bled to death with Standard Oil-style undercutting and mountains of regulatory red tape. Even in an ideal situation, it often takes 7-10 years for telecom projects to produce black ink, well beyond the attention span of most speculators investors.

Because there seems to be little hope of fixing the regulatory landscape, finding investors who don’t expect unrealistic returns on investment, and undoing the entrenchment of incumbents, having municipally-backed networks fill the gap seems to be the option of last resort to try and establish some semblance of competitive choice. While a lot of muni supporters would be loathe to admit it, a large part of this is because munis have a very large well of money to draw from to survive long-term assaults: the almighty tax dollar. They can simply ride out the storm until incumbents wear down, throw their hands up, and turn their attention elsewhere.

UTOPIA’s current model alleviates some of this unpalatable use of tax money by shifting the costs of construction onto users, and only building when those sections are financially sustainable. In a lot of ways, it is similar to the New Deal-era co-ops for rural electrical and telephone service. The municipal backing, however, grants a lot of advantages when it comes to financing the project, gaining right-of-way, and cutting through regulations, things that a stand-alone co-op would have significant difficulty accomplishing.

That said, the idea of buying a piece of the network and becoming a stakeholder sets the foundation for a future model of assigning ownership back to users. It would be entirely possible for UTOPIA, once financially sustainable, to turn itself into a co-operative with the users in control of the network. This would absolve the city from being required to manage telecom, but it would still put users squarely in charge. For cities considering building a network but worried about the long-term effects, this paves a way for them to seed a network and let it grow itself, expanding to universal service as any profits are reinvested into the network.

Is this something UTOPIA could do? Maybe. There’s a lot of old model baggage that weighs things down, and cities went in with the initial promise of padding city budgets. Still, it’s an interesting possibility for networks new and old.

Get your fix on Google+

Most of you already know that the links from Broadband Bytes posts are posted both to Twitter and Facebook, but now you can also get your fix on Google+. If that’s your preferred way to digest content, feel free to give the new page a Circle.

Broadband Bytes for 2011-11-05

Powered by Twitter Tools

UTOPIA Restructuring the Bonds

UTOPIA appeared before the Tremonton city council a couple of weeks ago to discuss refinancing the current bonds held by the network. As you may recall, the bond market went sideways after these bonds were issued resulting is a significantly higher interest payment than was planned for. This move is meant to change up the bond structure to normalize the interest payments and reduce volatility. No, it’s not another request for money money, though I can already hear the Utah Taxpayers Association gearing up to spin it that way. The principle, term, and payments will remain entirely unchanged, but the cities still have to sign off on it. It may be possible, however, to secure an even better rate on the bond as rates are well south of 4% right now.

If you get any scare messages about UTOPIA wanting to get more money, be sure to set the record straight.

Broadband Bytes for 2011-10-29

Powered by Twitter Tools

UTOPIA and iProvo as Campaign Issues

The Deseret News brought up that UTOPIA and iProvo are proving to be campaign issues in the upcoming municipal elections. (h/t: Brian Merrell) The article itself provides a good background on the financial details of the networks (and an added bonus that the Utah Taxpayers Association is little more than a lackey for Comcast and CenturyLink), but not much in the way of where candidates stand. Personally, I’ve found them to fall into one of three categories.

The first is the obvious municipal network supporter. They’re in favor of the network and are willing to do what it takes to make it successful. Long-time boosters like Dan Snarr and JoAnn Seghini fall into this category. You’ll find them to be few and far between because of the amount of flack so many of them catch.

The second is the opponent who wants to acknowledge reality. They don’t think joining the network was a good idea, but they know the reality is that the decision has been made and they have to make the best of it. In some ways, they are the best option since they won’t pull punches when something isn’t working the way they think it should. John Curtis is a good example.

The last is the opponent who has plenty of complaints, but nothing in the way of solutions. They’ll rant all day long about how the network was a terrible decision, it should have never been done, and no good can come of it. They completely fail to propose any real solutions, and the “just sell it” attitude pays no heed to making the city take a financial bath in order to prove their ideological point. These people are a reckless danger to any city they govern since they are willing to make you, the taxpayer, pay dearly in order to kill off their non-favored programs. George McEwan is a prime example of this kind of low-information irresponsibility (and he was thankfully eliminated from the election for failure to file financial disclosures).

So as you head to the polls in your city, ask yourself which of these candidates is going to make good decisions for the city. Ask yourself who each one of the candidates fits from your list. You’ll know what to do.

Broadband Bytes for 2011-10-22

Powered by Twitter Tools

Utah County Association of Realtors Planning Anti-UTOPIA Meeting in Orem

See below for update.  It appears that astroturfing isn’t just for the Utah Taxpayers Association anymore. The Utah County Association of Realtors, a very powerful lobbying group, has been organizing a “public forum” entitled “What does UTOPIA mean for your home?” and has been using robocalls to promote attendance at it. The call says that UTOPIA will be in attendance, but they never extended an invitation to them. They did, however, extend an invitation to the Utah Taxpayers Association and two anti-UTOPIA candidates for city council. Unsurprisingly, the low-scruples ousted Utah County GOP Chairman Taylor Oldroyd is the prime organizer.

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

Copyright © All Rights Reserved · Green Hope Theme by Sivan & schiy · Proudly powered by WordPress

Bad Behavior has blocked 833 access attempts in the last 7 days.