Provo should take full advantage of iProvo

I would like to take this opportunity to express why Provo should proceed with the funding and build-out of iProvo as proposed.

1. The current telecom/networking/video infrastructure in Provo is old and dilapidated. It consists of copper cable, either twisted pair (telephone lines) or coaxial cable (video/networking also used for some telephone service). It is owned by the current monopoly utilities, who have no real incentive to replace/upgrade it while they can still get some money out of it, especially since it is fully or nearly fully depreciated. It is also extremely limited in the bandwidth or amount of signal traffic that it is capable of carrying.

Fiber, on the other hand, does not have the limitations of the outdated copper network. It is also impervious to things like noise on the line due to moisture and electrical disturbances. Fiber is also not subject to corrosion and breakdown from the elements as copper is.

2. The fiber project does not get the city into the telecommunications/networking/video business. It does provide an infrastructure, much like streets and roads, that service providers can use to deliver telephone, networking and video services. The city would, as the owner of the infrastructure, charge those providers for using the fiber network, much like a toll or gasoline tax is charged to those who use the roads. Those fees would be used to retire the bonds used to fund the build-out and maintain the system. Once the bonds are retired, excess funds could be put into the city's general fund, helping to decrease the general tax burden or the fees charged to service providers.

3. The use of sales tax revenue bonds is a financing vehicle used to obtain a lower interest rate on bonds. The sales tax revenue is used as collateral, but fees from use of the system would pay off the bonds. Sales tax would only be used in the extremely small chance that usage fees were insufficient to pay off the system. There is some small risk of that, but it is minuscule compared to the economic advantages to be gained from having such a system. Since no tax money is anticipated to be used to actually pay off the bonds, building this system will not result in higher taxes for Provo residents.

4. Where infrastructure is economical, reliable and well- maintained, economies flourish. No one can anticipate the kind, size or number of businesses that may be influenced to locate in Provo because of the availability of a great telecommunications infrastructure, but look at what happened to communities where railroads, roads and electric power were first made available.

5. Building only part of the system in "phased rollout" would be unadvantageous, because it would put service providers in the position of not being able to offer their services to as many potential subscribers, limiting the possibility that they would be able to recoup their costs, and potentially jeopardizing the entire project because some providers might bail out.

6. iProvo is not intended to force all Provo residents onto the system. The providers would compete with Qwest, Comcast and other current providers, possibly causing the current providers to lower their rates to compete with the new services and attempt to keep existing customers.

7. Current telecommunications providers are not automatically ruled out as far as use of the iProvo network. It is possible that they may see the advantages of not having to own and maintain their own infrastructure, and eventually use the iProvo network to provide their services. Only time will tell.

8. Will it get outdated or supplanted by another technology, such as wireless? The big problems with wireless are bandwidth and signal reliability. Line-of-sight (being able to see without obstruction from antenna to antenna) is a huge problem. In some cities using wireless, complete sections of a wireless network can be interrupted by something as innocuous as a parked delivery truck. Weather also plays a large part in the reliability of wireless communications. Fiber is immune to both of these considerations. Some other technology could come along that is better, but right now there is no other "better" technology. The alternative is to wait for a new technology to emerge, while other cities take initiative and gain the advantages that Provo will not have.

David Griffith is the Rivergrove Neighborhood chairman.

Copyright C 2004 Deseret News Publishing Co.
Provided by ProQuest Information and Learning Company. All rights Reserved.