[Cialug] Iowa Municipal Telecom Legisation

[Neal Daringer]

you just have to love that song by warren g. i think it was called regulate=
.


On Tue, 22 Feb 2005 14:45:32 -0600, Michael Osten <lists@bleepyou.com> wrot=
e:
>=20
> On Feb 22, 2005, at 10:50 AM, Dave J. Hala Jr. wrote:
>=20
> > Its another example of Republican Bush-O-nomics.  Its more legislation
> > sold under the guise of "Improving the business Environment" Basically,
> > its eliminating community players in potential Telco markets.
> >
> > I wouldn't be surprised if a new bill popped up saying that ISP's had
> > to
> > use MS servers, in order to protect us from Cyber Terrorism. Its a such
> > load of crap.
> >
> > Internet infrastructure should be a public utility, if a community
> > would
> > choose to have it that way... Communities should not be hampered by
> > this
> > Kind of B.S.   They don't need feasibility studies, they have the
> > community to answer to.
> >
> > It offends me to the point where I become almost insane enough to run
> > for public office.
>=20
> As a disclaimer, I work for a telecom, which also happens to be the
> largest ISP in the state of Iowa.  However, my opinions are not that of
> my employer.
>=20
> It really isn't a case of the evil telecoms forcing over-priced
> products on cities.
>=20
> What people fail to realize the telecom industry is one of the most
> heavily regulated industries in the country.  Telecoms are forced to do
> hugely unprofitable things for the benefit of public good.  Such as
> running telephone lines into rural areas.  Sometimes running millions
> of dollars of infrastructure to areas that serve a very small amount of
> people.  Such a small amount that the cost would never be recuperated
> simply because of the regulated prices that telecoms can charge.  We
> currently have DSLAM's in areas that serve fewer than 10 people,
> providing the only hope these people currently have for affordable
> broadband.  The small towns that we serve have no hope of providing
> service to their residents, it is simply to expensive and complex. This
> is not profitable for us, but is the cost of doing business.   Telecos
> are fighting these municipalities simply because they put local
> municipalities on a unleveled, unregulated playing field with the
> heavily regulated, "for profit" telecos.  This really also has nothing
> to do with internet access per-se.  IMHO it has more to do with the
> coming of VOIP products that are completely unregulated, and do not
> require the infrastructure that the telecoms have been forced to put in
> place.  Other "for-profit" entities we can compete against, but tax
> payer fed, and deficit running municipalities used to hemorrhaging
> money we can not.
>=20
> You also need to look at why cities would want to do this?  Is the
> service they currently have so terrible and overpriced?  I doubt it.
> Sure to people like us, fiber to the door would be nice, but do you
> really think "Joe six-pack" really needs or wants to subsidize said
> fiber, or wireless for that matter?
>=20
> Below is a quote from Alan Wells, the CEO of Iowa Telecom in the Des
> Moines paper:
>=20
> Q. There is an effort to bring fiber to the home with OpportunityIowa.
> What are your thoughts on that?
> A. You have to take a step back and say what's the need we're trying to
> address =E2=80=A6 Is telecom and capacity on the network holding us back =
from
> economic development? I don't think so. If it was, I think we'd have
> heard a lot more about communities coming to us or somebody else saying
> we have a development need. How can you help us meet it? (Fiber to the
> home) is an awful lot of money for cities and communities to take on
> responsibility for without a demonstrated need.
>=20
> Q. Is that a statement in opposition to OpportunityIowa?
> A. I wouldn't say opposition. Whoever makes the decision about the need
> for fiber to the home really needs to understand the costs and risks
> that go along with it and make sure those costs and risks are
> warranted=E2=80=A6 . If a community decides it's being held back because =
of
> telecommunications, it really take a close look whether that's the case
> before deciding to spend millions of dollars of city money to go build
> something.
>=20
> I think that Mr Wells is right, the only sane reason to use tax payer
> money for infrastructure is where private enterprise would be too cost
> prohibitive (ie roads, power plants, etc).
>=20
> Here is also something to think about, if the communities take over a
> utility, would in the world would you complain to if it wasn't up to
> your standards?  We all know how well government handles our tax money.
>=20
> --
> Michael Osten
> http://www.bleepyou.com/~mosten/pgp.txt
>=20
> _______________________________________________
> Cialug mailing list
> Cialug@cialug.org
> http://cialug.org/mailman/listinfo/cialug
>