When does pricing get so high and service get so terrible that government has to step in to provide a service that is not integral to any life, limb, or pursuit of happiness? Don't get me wrong, if the citizens of whatever jurisdiction want to succumb to the wiles of some huckster (yea kids, I just used that grandpa word) and opt to pay for another boondoggle then get after it. I think from the description of Utopia I have read that is a fair description even if you were not personally involved with it. But really, had those cities, provided excellent streets without potholes? Reduced crime to a level where every citizen felt safe no matter of time or place? Provided the best and purest drinking water? EMS coverage to the point that a stroke rarely ended in debilitating damage? Fires put out so fast people are amazed?
Probably not but they decide, while struggling to perform services that are the core of their mission to go ahead and try some other even more complex challenge. I rail against these types of projects not because they typically fail, which they do, but because they serve as a distraction from the true mission of local governments. The task they often face are daunting and these serve as distractions like the gladiator games while Rome crumbles. Having seen it from the inside I know how easy it is for a group of elected officials to love the bright shiny package yet unopened than to fix last years Christmas present that is broken and thrown behind the toy chest. And because they are dealing with other peoples money the risk seems so small. That is the other issue, most, not all, but most of the people making these decisions are ill equipped by both education and experience to make those decisions. But as long as I don't have to bail them out with my tax dollars go for it. But there in lies the rub, often I do, and so do you because they ask for some federal grant or assistance when the get in over their head. Stick to the basics. Water, fire, police, streets. Let the free market system take care of everything else. OK...yeah right, the internet is a utility just like the rest. Oh pleeeaaase. People have likely died because of it but I doubt few lives have been saved due to it. Perfect your core mission under budget. Reduce taxes on citizens, Prove you can do a great job doing SOMETHING...ANYTHING...then move on to something new and shiny that you don't comprehend that sounds really nifty. On Sun, Oct 30, 2016 at 10:41 PM Roger Timmerman <timmer...@gmail.com> wrote: > It is a very political discussion that will likely never result in any > form of consensus, especially among this group because of financial > interests involved, as to whether or not government should be involved in > building fiber networks. However, from my perspective (and UTOPIA > Fiber's), interest in this from municipalities has skyrocketed recently. > Google Fiber was the worst thing for actually bringing fiber to > communities. There were a few that benefitted, but the rest said, "Hey, we > don't have to build municipal fiber because Google is coming!" Over 1100 > communities submitted applications for Google Fiber and any that were > considering it put their plans on hold. Since that time and now, existing > providers have continued to fall further behind meeting the demands of > their communities, demand has dramatically increased, and Google Fiber > expansion is over. > > We are in an extremely competitive area in Utah but we still see demand of > our fiber network growing. In all of our cities except for Tremonton > (Frontier is the ILEC), we have Centurylink, Comcast, Rise Broadband, > Vivint Wireless, and many other smaller WISPS providing services without > our fiber. The fact that we continue to see take-rate increases in all of > our cities suggests that either those other companies are getting worse > (Comcast has ranked up to become #1 most hated in America), or demand for > fiber-based services is increasing faster than those companies' ability to > provide it, or maybe some of both. Centurylink has a lot of areas in our > cities where they have even built GPON, but we are not losing customers to > them. Their pricing is too high, and their service is terrible. > > During the Google Fiber courting period I never heard from cities looking > for advice or help on how to get their city connected, but now I am > contacted regularly. I truly believe we will see a huge increase in > municipal fiber projects and would encourage those on here that see this as > a bad thing to consider how they might benefit from it. > > We had a small local CLEC in Brigham City called Brigham.net that spoke > out against us because they though that when built the city it would put > them out of business. We met with them and explained how we operate, and > they quickly 180'd because they realized they could become a provider on > the network. Now they have customers in several cities and offer 1Gbps > service instead of their old DSL offerings over Centurylink. Meanwhile, as > Centurylink upgrades their networks with fiber they are shutting the doors > on the CLECs. > > I like what Ammon is doing, but it isn't big enough for much economy of > scale for them or their partners. However, there are a lot of cities that > are hungry for municipal fiber options now that Google Fiber has left them > high-and-dry. If you're a good provider, have a good reputation among your > customers, and can be competitive, you ought to do well on a municipal > fiber system so long as it is open-access. > > Roger > > > > > On Sun, Oct 30, 2016 at 6:46 PM, Lewis Bergman <lewis.berg...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > > On Sun, Oct 30, 2016, 6:19 PM <fiber...@mail.com> wrote: > > Lewis Bergman wrote: > > At the root is that you somehow believe government involvement is always > good. > Now don't you go putting words in my mouth! > I never said such a thing. > > > You have made a case for it > > I do not think government involvement is always good. Neither do I > believe that government involvement is always bad. > > By your own words, you fall into the latter camp. I consider both > positions to be extreme, and not a considered approach. Always having a > knee jerk reaction rarely leads to an optimal result. > > Don't go pouring words in my mouth. Not everything,but most. > > > History doesn't back you up, especially where broadband is concerned. > Oh, goodie! A history lesson! Please tell me more. Out of the 450 > community networks in the US, how many did not work out and why? > > Go ahead, enlighten me. > > > Government, most any government, does a pretty poor job if what it > should be doing much less tasks it > > has no business doing. > I'm sure government does a lot of things wrong and the wrong things. > Use your vote to change that. You'll have a chance to do so agsin next > week. > > > You must be unfamiliar with the US system if you thinks voting changes > much of anything around here. Neither party is interested in smaller > government or generally making things better. > > > You sound like someone who makes a living directly benefiting from tax > dollars. > > Or even worse, done quasi governmental agency with the tax or secured > money benefits but no accountability. > I'm so sorry to disappoint you. > Why do you have something against people who get paid with tax dollars? > Does this animosity extend to police, firefighters and enlisted > personnel? > > Nice. Sure. I hate everyone. Basic logical fallacy. Police and > firefighters are actually part of what the government should be doing. > Enlisted? Why stop there? What about officers? Puppies, babies. > > What a load of emotional bait. I would have thought you were above that. > > > > Jared > > >
