Tag Archives: Royce Van Tassell

Is Macquarie a good deal for UTOPIA cities? The math says yes

By | | ,
37 Comments

It’s not very surprising to see Royce Van Tassell attack UTOPIA and its proposed deal with Macquarie. He is, after all, vice president of the Utah Taxpayers Association, a group that receives contributions from Comcast and CenturyLink. It is surprising, though, to see him make up his own facts and numbers. A fair look shows that the deal is much better than Macquarie is willing to say out loud.

A lot of hay has been made over the requirement in the deal to have the utility fee rise with CPI. The criticisms, however, assume that the cost to provide service and the revenues from subscribers are both static. Why is it a reasonable assumption that neither of these things will also rise with inflation? It isn’t, so inflation is entirely a non-argument.

Royce also gets some very basic facts wrong about the deal. This covers 163K addresses, not 157K. Macquarie has stated clearly that the utility fee will include network refreshes every seven years at a cost of about $60M each time, but he’s claiming that it’s not included and that equipment refreshes will happen as often as every three years. Royce claims that upgrades will be incredibly expensive, yet 100Mbps electronics from 10 years ago were more expensive than 1Gbps electronics are today. There are so many errors of fact in his op-ed that it’s hard to take any of his conclusions seriously.

And so let me break down the very simple math of how the deal works and what it will actually cost subscribers.

Let’s take a worst case-scenario first. Assuming a take rate of only 30% and a utility fee of $20, the total cost of the Macquarie deal will be $1173.6M while revenues are estimated to be $1000M. Less $500M to pay for the existing bond obligations, you’re looking at a total cost over 30 years of $673.6M or an effective utility fee of $11.48 per month per address. That’s a lot less than the stated fee.

But what about the best case scenario? That’s assuming a take rate of 50% and a utility fee of $18. This brings the total cost to $1056.2M and total revenues to $1500M. Less the $500M for existing bond obligations, you’re looking at $56.2M over 30 years or a scant $0.96 per month per address. It’s pretty hard to get upset over a fee that small.

So really, it all depends on the take rate. The question is what take rate we can reasonably expect. Brigham City got a 28% take rate with a $3000 installation charge, but Macquarie will eliminate it. Provo managed to keep 35% despite having disastrously bad providers like MSTAR and Broadweave, but Macquarie has well-respected ISPs like XMission, Veracity, and many other local companies. If Macquarie achieves this take rate, the cities hit the “wash” point where their costs are the same whether or not they opt to go with the deal. That point is about at a 38% take rate. I’d like to think just about anyone can do 3% better than Provo.

Even at the point where the deal is a wash financially, cities still get a completed network with an included basic level of service for every resident. Comcast and CenturyLink will slash their prices substantially in response to the competition (at least 50% in Provo) so that every citizen benefits regardless of if they use the network. Even for someone with a very basic Internet connection that wouldn’t use the network, they would be paying no more than $11.48 to potentially save at least $15, a net gain. The cities also get a $100M annual revenue stream at the end of the 30-year contract, effectively making the worst case scenario break even after less than seven years of ownership.

Given the very easily attainable goals and the high likelihood of reaching them, it would be ridiculous for cities to not move forward with negotiations under Milestone Two. Or to listen to a naysayer like Mr. Van Tassell that’s paid to say the things he says.

Was HB60 an inside play by the Utah Taxpayers Association? All signs point to yes

By | | ,
3 Comments

Utah Taxpayers AssociationOnce HB60 hit the wires, I was quick to file a GRAMA request to find out what kind of communication Rep. Curt Webb had been receiving on the bill. Most of it is angry emails from Utah residents, many of whom were not accepting Rep. Webb’s cut-and-paste boilerplate reply about “transparency”. Here’s what he wrote along with my comments on each part:

Somehow the bill has gotten mischaracterized in the public eye. I have met with lobbyists and industry people over the past few days. I believe that much of the misunderstanding has been cleared up, and you may see a few minor amendments to provide that clarification. If it did what is being said of the bill, it would violate all of my conservative free market principles and run contrary to my voting record.

Actually, Rep. Webb, we understand the restriction all too well. You’ve been had. Just own the turkey and move on.

The bill does not prohibit infrastructure expansion. In fact it addresses no other entity than UTOPIA. UTOPIA is government entity created by an interlocal agreement and the public asks for and deserves transparency and accountability of them. The bill requires that any city into which UTOPIA expands become a member city. HB60 is not designed to damage UTOPIA is any way, but rather to provide clarity and accountability to citizens who may be involved in that expansion.

When UTOPIA builds in a non-member city, it has to negotiate a franchise agreement with that city like any other telecom builder. It’s already on a level playing field. Non-member cities can enforce transparency and accountability via this agreement. The only distinction with a member city is that the franchise agreement has been negotiated in advance for the entire municipality. By prohibiting UTOPIA from negotiating franchise agreements except on a citywide basis, you’re making them play by a different set of rules. That is, at the very core, damaging.

Why? Example: We must keep in mind that UTOPIA is an entity composed of member cities. If an expansion were installed in a non member city, and problems with the network arose; who would the citizens in that area turn to? That user is not a citizen of the proviing [sic] entity. Their own non member city could say “We are not UTOPIA.” If they turned to UTOPIA for help, those member cities could say “You are not our constituent”.

We’ve already established that the franchise agreement gives the non-member city power to establish and enforce terms with UTOPIA. It seems like Rep. Webb either doesn’t understand franchise agreements or is convinced that unless cities increase their involvement with UTOPIA, they won’t enforce the provisions of them. The former is most likely as the latter is simply outlandish. Unless, of course, he’s conceding that cities don’t properly enforce the terms of franchise agreements with operators like CenturyLink and Comcast. That, however, seems unlikely.

The bill only applies only [sic] to government entities as providers, (iProvo no longer applies), and requires as a matter of government accountability to users, that expansion areas become member cities. Some already have.

The cities are and have been accountable to their citizens, member or not.

Email between UTA and Curt Webb on HB60

Email between UTA and Curt Webb on HB60

So I find myself wondering how his confused logic spawned this bill in the first place. Then I came across the one email not between Rep. Webb and someone furious at this bill: an exchange between himself and none other than Royce Van Tassell of the Utah Taxpayers Association! Most telling, Rep. Webb emailed Van Tassell directly and out of the blue to solicit their talking points on the issue.

Unshockingly, the UTA has the same fundamental misunderstandings of how franchise agreements work as Rep. Webb expressed in his missive. Van Tassell also alluded to the push coming straight from UTA’s president, Sen. Howard Stephenson. Don’t take my word for it: read the email yourself.

This is just the latest in the long and disturbing trend of incumbent providers funneling money into a sitting senator’s company to influence the legislative process from the inside while keeping their hands “clean”. How the voters of Draper can tolerate it is beyond me. It’s my hope that they’ll wise up to it and send Stephenson packing.