Press Release: UTOPIA Launches New Citizens Advisory Network

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:

UTOPIA Executive Director Todd Marriott has announced the formation of the UTOPIA Citizens Advisory Network (U-CAN) to help provide feedback from the public on the direction UTOPIA is going. Jesse Harris, a local activist who runs FreeUTOPIA.org, has been selected to chair the new group. Harris has spent significant time and effort following developments related to UTOPIA since September of 2006. “Our goal is to help spread the word about UTOPIA and provide ideas on how the network can improve,” he said. He continued: “I’m very excited to bring the community of municipal telecommunications supporters together so that we can help make this network succeed.”

U-CAN plans to hold its first meeting on Saturday June 28 from noon until 1:30PM at the Ruth Vine Tyler Library, 8041 S Wood Street in Midvale. A representative from UTOPIA will be on hand to answer questions from meeting attendees. Regular monthly meetings will be scheduled across the Wasatch Front to give residents of all member cities an equal chance to participate.

About UTOPIA: UTOPIA is a consortium of 16 Utah cities that provides a next-generation fiber optic network for providers of telecommunications services and provides some of the fastest Internet speeds in the nation. It promotes a competitive marketplace by allowing smaller private companies to lease the network and provide services to residents within its service area and is open to allowing new providers and services on the network.

About Jesse Harris: Mr. Harris is an IT professional from White City Township and activist for municipal fiber optic networks. He has been blogging about municipal fiber optic projects and telecommunications at FreeUTOPIA.org since September of 2006. He is a recognized authority on municipal telecommunications projects in Utah and has been interviewed about UTOPIA and iProvo by the Salt Lake Tribune, Deseret News, Salt Lake City Weekly and Daily Herald. 

iProvo Sale Approved

By a slim 4-3 margin, Provo's Municipal Council approved the sale of iProvo to Broadweave with Sherrie Hall Everett, Steve Turley and Cindy Clark voting against the deal. Now the ball is in Broadweave's court: perform or your name is mud. This puts Provo citizens in a tough bind. If Broadweave fails to meet its financial obligations (which I very much anticipate), the city and its residents get back a network with no providers and may have to pay to buy back the video head-end and any upgrades done. On the flip side, a lack of municipal ownership means citizens aren't as invested in the success of iProvo.

Best of luck to you Broadweave, but few of us regular Joes think you can do it.

(Read more from the Deseret News and Tribune.)

Letter to Provo's Municipal Council

I sent the following letter to members of Provo's Municipal Council on June 2, 2008.

Greetings Members of the Council;

I apologize for the last-minute nature of this communication. I've been waiting to collect as much information as possible before I e-mail you important information on why Broadweave is the wrong company to sell iProvo to.

Certainly basic honesty seems to be an issue with Broadweave. As of May 15, they have neglected to obtain business licenses in any municipality where they do business. Washington City has considered referring the matter to enforcement. (See: http://www.freeutopia.org/2008/05/15/broadweave-lacks-proper-business-licenses-corporation-filings/) They also have repeatedly misrepresented their company's age, claiming to have existed since 1999, yet nothing shows that the company existed prior to 2003. In an interview today, Steve Christensen, Broadweave's CEO, is now claiming the company has been around since 2003. Why the lie? (See: http://www.freeutopia.org/2008/05/16/broadweave-did-not-exist-prior-to-2003-website-claims-first-contract-in-1999/
and http://www.freeutopia.org/2008/06/02/broadweave-doubletalks-iprovo-on-couchcast/) They have also talked up the importance of equipment ownership and the poor value of open networks while failing to practice what they preach. (See: http://www.freeutopia.org/2008/05/19/broadweaves-double-talk-on-open-networks/ and http://www.freeutopia.org/2008/05/20/broadweaves-double-talk-on-equipment-ownership/) It is even rumored that they have tax liens filed against them by the state for failure to pay their withholding taxes for November and December of 2007. (See: http://www.freeutopia.org/2008/05/16/evaluating-the-iprovo-asset-purchase-agreement/#comment-4887) Can you really trust a company that shows so many signs of being untrustworthy?

This says nothing of their expansion plans either. The Eagle Broadband network they have purchased in Houston was a seriously distressed asset. In order to make it usable, they need to build a NOC, negotiation franchise agreements and transport rights and replace some vital missing equipment. They also need to overcome a negative consumer perception. At the time that OEN, the previous network operator, went out of business, there were 1500 customers, all of whom lost their service with zero notice. That kind of poor experience means they will be plowing millions upon millions into a network with a strongly negative customer perception. This says nothing of their attempt to pursue developments in Nevada, Arizona, New Mexico and California, pursuits that will require even more money that they do not have.

So what of their technical experience? While Veracity brings in a lot of smart guys, Broadweave itself has zero experience delivering video in Traverse Mountain and has fewer than 30 video customers in Sienna Hills, a subdivision sitting in one of the areas hardest-hit by the subprime mortgage meltdown. Integrating the Veracity team, one that offers very limited video experience, will take months and result in major system hiccups. They will also have to attempt to integrate city employees from the NOC, many of whom are highly opposed to the transaction and have negative opinions of their soon-to-be co-workers. Replacing these highly-skilled employees will be very expensive and have a strong negative impact on network operations, especially in Utah's tight labor market.

The option you are presented with is a terrible one, to spend 19 years financing the operations of a dishonest company with big dreams and small execution that plans to acquire a basket full of technical and HR problems. I urge you in the strongest possible terms to reject this rent-to-own arrangement and find some other way to resolve the problems behind iProvo.

If you have any additional questions, I would be more than happy to answer them and would request that this letter be entered in as part of the public record on behalf of proponents of open municipal fiber optic networks.


Jesse Harris
(801) 937-4471

http://www.coolestfamilyever.com/
http://www.freeutopia.org/

Broadweave's Doubletalk on Project Sizes

If you're going to inflate your company size, it's best not to leave evidence to the contrary. Broadweave claimed in a press release that the Traverse Mountain community encompasses over 8,000 homes, yet an interview between KSL Radio and Steve Christensen of Traverse Mountain shows the project to be more along the scale of 3,500 homes. This isn't the only instance either. Broadweave claimed before Provo's Municipal Council on Tuesday May 27 that the Sienna Hills area in Washington City would provide them access to over 20,000 residences, yet the entire utility easement encompasses only 740 acres. Unless the developer is looking at cramming more than 27 residences into each acre, the claim is simply absurd. Maybe they're already counting unpromised future contracts in that total. Didn't other companies already try that one?

Broadweave (Double)Talks iProvo on CouchCast

Online talk radio show CouchCast had Steve Christensen on as a guest to discuss the sale of iProvo. Go ahead and give the show a listen.

A few observations:

  • Steve Christensen said himself on the show that Broadweave has been around since 2003, yet this conflicts with his statements to the Provo Municipal Council and the data found on Broadweave's own website. I'm glad that he's finally telling the truth about Broadweave's age, but why lie in the first place when it can be easily debunked?
  • Steve played the blame game regarding the phone problems again, saying that the network technology is the problem. (I can only assume he's blaming the portals.) However, he's also blamed the existing providers since they outsource their phone operations and don't own their own phone switches. Which is it? I haven't heard from any UTOPIA customers that report the same voice issues that iProvo seems to have, so I'm not betting any money on the providers as the issue. If it is the portals, why not go with a cheaper TA instead of replacing the entire portal? Sure, it makes sense to switch to another portal for future installations, but it makes little sense to do a wholesale replacement of existing equipment for all customers.
  • A central reason why telecommunications sucks so bad is that we've been pumping state and federal dollars into propping up incumbent phone carriers like Qwest while enforcing very few requirements that serve the public interest. A key point of municipal broadband is that if we're going to require public money to provide universal access to telecommunications, we should start demanding public ownership of the infrastructure as well. Steve Christensen correctly points out that public money is required to make it work, but incorrectly assumes that we have to continue this pattern of what Frank Staheli calls the "butt kiss" market to make it happen. It's corporate welfare at its best, insisting that a public good be subject entirely to private ownership but with plenty of public funds.

I've yet to find anything about this deal that doesn't instill a lack of trust and undermine confidence in Broadweave's ability to execute and straight-talk.

Reminder: iProvo and AFCNet Meetings on Tuesday

Just a friendly reminder that Provo will be entertaining the motions to sell iProvo at a municipal council meeting on Tuesday the 3rd. The meeting will be starting at 5:30PM instead of the normal 7PM (h/t: Gary Thornock) and will include a lot of other business items as well. It's possible that they will vote at this meeting, but I'm betting they punt for the time being to take more time to evaluate the deal. I expect the hearing to last a VERY long time, just like the last one.

American Fork will also entertain a final motion to sell AFCNet to Orem-based Surpha, a company that I know precious little about. Given that the city has experience with Surpha as an ISP and it has been negotiated largely in the open for months now, I'm guessing the vote is just a formality. That meeting is also on Tuesday the 3rd, but at 7PM.

The MSTAR Legal Threat: Do they have a case?

I just took a moment to read through the city's code for disposal of surplus property to see if, as a non-lawyer, I could validate MSTAR's claims that they have a shot at legal action should the sale of iProvo be approved as currently constituted. After perusing Title 3, Chapter 3.04 of the city code, it seems like they don't really have much to lean on under that section. The mayor has broad authority to enter into contracts and ask the council to approve them after the fact and many of the normal requirements for the addition of properties to the Surplus Property List can be waived by council resolution. Even the requirement for a cash purchase can be waived by resolution.

It's possible that some section of state law trumps the city code regarding the sale of real property, but I don't seem to be able to find it. Utah Code 10-7-86 makes adoption of the Utah Procurement Code optional, not mandatory and large chunks of Utah Code 10-8-2 seems to be word-for-word what's in the city code. As much as I dislike the way in which this RFP was conducted, I'm having a hard time finding anything illegal about it, though this doesn't preclude anyone from filing a civil suit to block the sale.

I'm curious to know exactly what MSTAR's argument is and welcome any comments that might shed light on it.

Notes from the iProvo Hearing

Last night, Provo's municipal council heard presentations from Broadweave, Veracity, the energy board and the telcom board on the proposed sale to Broadweave. There was a bit of new information and a lot of council skepticism. I don't have a play-by-play so much as some random thoughts.

  • Both the energy and telcom boards are eager to cut and run as fast as they can. Energy doesn't want to be forced to cross-subsidize from their own funds in the face of an increased need for additional power generation capacity. Telcom, it seems, is unconvinced that the city can effectively run the network and expressed frustration that their suggestions and feedback were rarely translated into action. While I can understand the position of the boards in terms of their own self-interests, I don't necessarily agree with them.
  • MSTAR is seriously cheesed off about the lack of an open RFP and made some not-so-vague intimations that it planned to sue to stop the sale should it be approved. They also expressed a lot of frustration that their own proposal to lease the network as the wholesale operator was turned down despite having lined up financing sources to bring them current and provide a significantly larger chunk of surety. One of the reasons MSTAR was denied was concern over not maintaining the open nature of the network. Irony much?
  • Broadweave plans to raise prices. Most triple-play and Internet customers can expect a $10-15/mo bump in pricing to maintain their current level of service. This is something I've previously suggested at the wholesale end to be passed on to the retail customer. The annual shortfall of $2M annually worked out to around $200 annually per subscriber, a difference that would have been easily made up for with a small bump in pricing. I don't get why Provo didn't seek to increase fees until the network was solvent, then ease up again later. I don't see how private ownership is the only way to make this happen.
  • Broadweave plans to offer new tiers of service. Their PowerPoint showed off about 6 different Internet packages from 3M/512K for $20/mo to 60M/60M for a waller-busting $180/mo. Again, something I've been suggesting for months now, that there be a value tier for grandma to increase subscriber units and a power user tier for folks willing to pay for more bandwidth. Again, I don't see how Broadweave's plans are any different from any other smart network operator.
  • Broadweave is buying the Eagle Broadband network in Houston. They plan to pay a scant $274K to pick up the fiber connected to 4000 homes. That might sound like a deal at under $65/household, but that's fiber only without franchise agreements, a NOC, transport rights and so forth. It's also a seriously distressed asset that left a bad taste in users' mouths after suddenly disappearing without notice. The existing customers will be hesitant to sign up for services after an experience like that and it will take a significant investment to make those assets useful again, most likely through expensive network expansion. Building a NOC with a phone switch and video head-end will easily run in excess of $3M.
  • Both Comcast and Qwest have concerns about the fairness of this deal. Both companies submitted letters to the city council expressing concern that Broadweave could get more favorable tax and right-of-way treatments under this deal, though neither is in opposition to a sale.
  • Broadweave is projecting that triple-play wholesale costs will drop from $43 to $15 per month. I don't know how this would even be possible. It's common knowledge that cable TV providers barely eke out a profit on television alone, a product that retails at $40+ per month. Anyone with more experience on transport costs care to chime in?
  • Broadweave was spooked by a lot of what I uncovered. Steve Christensen dedicated a slide of his presentation to "addressing" many of the concerns and irregularities that I've brought up in various venues. He failed to refute their lack of business licenses (something I noted to the council during my public comments), downplayed the investment required for the network in Houston and didn't have much of a rebuttal beyond "gimme a break" on the HomeNet comparison. Christensen also tried to downplay the involvement of his father in Traverse Mountain while failing to note that at least one uncle, possibly two are also principles in the project.
  • Members of the council are very skeptical of this deal. Steve Turley, Sherrie Hall Everett and Cynthia Clark hit hard with lots of questions and doubts about the terms of the agreement and the RFP process. Cynthia Dayton also said that she wouldn't consider it without a close look at Broadweave's financial statements even if it took an NDA to do so. Alarmingly, she has been requesting this information for weeks without any action. Cindy Richards seemed to agree with me that pursuing networks across 6 or more states means that the council should make sure that the financial backing is there. There's also a lot of concern at the pace this project is proceeding at with Mayor Billings trying to force this through on a tight timeline. My personal prediction is a 5-2 vote against the sale with George Stewart and Midge Johnson voting in favor.
  • The RFP may have been made vague so that customers didn't get spooked and bolt. Both Kevin Garlick and Mayor Billings brought up the fiber network in Marietta, GA that sold for 30% of its initial price claiming this was because the project was advertised as being for sale. While I can see this point, it wouldn't have been an issue had a provision of the sale been to maintain an open network and honor contracts with the existing providers. Once the sale became public, many other interested parties came out of the woodwork with better terms. Too bad that the city is obligated to treat Broadweave's offer with exclusivity through September.

My takeaway is that this deal is that the council recognizes that Broadweave is getting in way over its head despite the planned acquisition of Veracity and doesn't feel confident extending long-term financing under the current proposed terms. Some folks are as skeptical as I am, others are more optimistic. With all I've seen and heard, it's obvious to me that Broadweave should stick to what it knows, greenfield developments and exclusive service areas.

Details of the Sale of AFCNet

As usual, David Rodeback is on top of the AFCNet situation in American Fork. According to him, Surpha will buy AFCNet for $500,000 and make interest-only payments for the network with a goal to pay it off by the end of 2012. They'll lease fiber capacity from the city from American Fork to Orem (ostensibly to connect up to their POP) and become the big bad bill collector for ISPs behind on their payments to the city, keeping half of the money and putting the other half into the purchase price. The city isn't dumping the debt incurred as a part of network construction, but they also aren't ditching their fiber lines going to other cities.

Without more details about Surpha, I don't know if this particular owner-financed deal fares any better than Provo's current boondoggle. On the one hand, the purchase price is low and the financing is for just 3.5 years. Surpha also has a working relationship with the city as an ISP on the network. On the other hand, Surpha hasn't updated its website in almost 2 years, their stock price is in the sewer and there are rumors of investors who want blood. I'm approaching this one with cautious optimism.

Multimedia Edition: Mayor Becker on UTOPIA, Utah Taxes Now Conference on Muni Telecom

Coming to you today is a two-fer of audio on UTOPIA.

First up is a conversation on KCPW's Midday Metro where Salt Lake City Mayor Ralph Becker responds to a caller question on Salt Lake City's future with UTOPIA. He's definitely supportive of local decisions regarding the matter, though he's also cautious about joining because of the slow sign-ups and cost issues involved. His solution? Get the voters to speak up and say yea or nay. Listen to the full response here (MP3 Download). h/t: Paul Alexander who called in the question and sent me the MP3 response.

Second is a panel discussion on iProvo and UTOPIA at the Utah Taxes Now Conference with Utah Taxpayers Association President Sen. Howard Stephenson, Provo Mayor Lewis Billings and UTOPIA's new Executive Director Todd Marriott. Given that this is a UTA-sponsored event and the panel discussion was titled "The Collapse of Municipal Telecom in Utah", you've gotta know that the audience was probably stacked against both iProvo and UTOPIA. For those that have been listening to the discussion on municipal networks for a long time, you probably won't find a lot new in this discussion, but it's worth listening to anyway. The full conversation can be played from UtahPulse.com here (embedded audio). h/t: Utah Policy Daily who linked the audio of the conference.