[Cialug] Iowa Municipal Telecom Legisation

[Dave J. Hala Jr.]

My complaint isn't about the "Evil Telco's" per say.  My complaint is
that large companies have entirely too much influence in the legislative
process. In this case it just happens to be Telco's. Ten years ago it
was Lennox Industries.  You could really call it democracy by dollars.

I understand that he who has the gold makes the rules, but it doesn't
mean that I have to like it.  When the playing field is slighted by
someone with a lot of gold, its bad for all of us. 

I'm really opposed to this type of legislation. Communities should be 
able to give it a shot if they choose. Why take the option off the
plate?




On Tue, 2005-02-22 at 14:45, Michael Osten wrote:
> On Feb 22, 2005, at 10:50 AM, Dave J. Hala Jr. wrote:
> 
> > 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.
> 
> 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.
> 
> It really isn't a case of the evil telecoms forcing over-priced 
> products on cities.
> 
> 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.
> 
> 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?
> 
> Below is a quote from Alan Wells, the CEO of Iowa Telecom in the Des 
> Moines paper:
> 
> 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 … 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.
> 
> 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… . 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.
> 
> 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).
> 
> 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.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> --
> Michael Osten
> http://www.bleepyou.com/~mosten/pgp.txt
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Cialug mailing list
> Cialug@cialug.org
> http://cialug.org/mailman/listinfo/cialug
-- 

Open Source Information Systems (OSIS)
Dave J. Hala Jr. <dave@osis.us>
641.485.1606