[Cialug] Iowa Municipal Telecom Legisation

[David Champion]

So, rather than fix the legislation that the telcos must endure, let's=20
make municipalities use similarly messed up rules. Gotta love that.

Municipalities provide all kinds of public utility services, like=20
electricity, water, sewer, and sometimes cable TV and phone. All of=20
these are complex and expensive, and yet hundreds of towns in Iowa=20
manage to support them. Why should internet service be MORE regulated=20
than any of those?

Seems to me like a win/win situation would be for XYZ ISP to contract=20
out to a municipality to do this (doubtful that the town would have the=20
resources to do it themselves). Then the town handles the support /=20
billing / day to day junk that would be a hassle for the ISP, and the=20
ISP gets paid for the big contracting and probably for providing the=20
upstream bandwidth.

-dc

Michael Osten wrote:
>=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 suc=
h
>> load of crap.
>>
>> Internet infrastructure should be a public utility, if a community wou=
ld
>> choose to have it that way... Communities should not be hampered by th=
is
>> 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
>=20
> As a disclaimer, I work for a telecom, which also happens to be the=20
> largest ISP in the state of Iowa.  However, my opinions are not that of=
=20
> my employer.
>=20
> It really isn't a case of the evil telecoms forcing over-priced product=
s=20
> on cities.
>=20
> What people fail to realize the telecom industry is one of the most=20
> heavily regulated industries in the country.  Telecoms are forced to do=
=20
> hugely unprofitable things for the benefit of public good.  Such as=20
> running telephone lines into rural areas.  Sometimes running millions o=
f=20
> dollars of infrastructure to areas that serve a very small amount of=20
> people.  Such a small amount that the cost would never be recuperated=20
> simply because of the regulated prices that telecoms can charge.  We=20
> currently have DSLAM's in areas that serve fewer than 10 people,=20
> providing the only hope these people currently have for affordable=20
> broadband.  The small towns that we serve have no hope of providing=20
> service to their residents, it is simply to expensive and complex. This=
=20
> is not profitable for us, but is the cost of doing business.   Telecos =

> are fighting these municipalities simply because they put local=20
> municipalities on a unleveled, unregulated playing field with the=20
> 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=20
> coming of VOIP products that are completely unregulated, and do not=20
> require the infrastructure that the telecoms have been forced to put in=
=20
> place.  Other "for-profit" entities we can compete against, but tax=20
> payer fed, and deficit running municipalities used to hemorrhaging mone=
y=20
> we can not.
>=20
> You also need to look at why cities would want to do this?  Is the=20
> service they currently have so terrible and overpriced?  I doubt it. =20
> Sure to people like us, fiber to the door would be nice, but do you=20
> really think "Joe six-pack" really needs or wants to subsidize said=20
> fiber, or wireless for that matter?
>=20
> Below is a quote from Alan Wells, the CEO of Iowa Telecom in the Des=20
> 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=92s the need we=92re tryin=
g to=20
> address =85 Is telecom and capacity on the network holding us back from=
=20
> economic development? I don=92t think so. If it was, I think we=92d hav=
e=20
> heard a lot more about communities coming to us or somebody else saying=
=20
> 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=20
> responsibility for without a demonstrated need.
>=20
> Q. Is that a statement in opposition to OpportunityIowa?
> A. I wouldn=92t say opposition. Whoever makes the decision about the ne=
ed=20
> for fiber to the home really needs to understand the costs and risks=20
> that go along with it and make sure those costs and risks are warranted=
=85=20
> . If a community decides it=92s being held back because of=20
> telecommunications, it really take a close look whether that=92s the ca=
se=20
> 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=20
> 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=20
> utility, would in the world would you complain to if it wasn't up to=20
> your standards?  We all know how well government handles our tax money.=

>=20
>=20
>=20
>=20
>=20
> --=20
> Michael Osten
> http://www.bleepyou.com/~mosten/pgp.txt
>=20
> _______________________________________________
> Cialug mailing list
> Cialug@cialug.org
> http://cialug.org/mailman/listinfo/cialug
>=20