I can't believe that people would actually think it is a good idea to invest tens of millions of dollars on something like UTOPIA when it is clear that the communications technology industry is changing and innovating so rapidly.

Utah taxpayers are going to sink a fortune into this system that is going to be obsolete in five years.

The iProvo system can be very easily upgraded to provide much faster downloads and uploads.

At least 85% of the cost is in the fiber cable and construction. This part of the system has a bandwidth per home on the order of many, many Gigabits per second.

As for the Tribune article, first they opposed UTOPIA because of untried technology (fiber to the home). Now that that is proven, they're proposing WiMAX, which isn't even coming out until next year. I think you have to ask if their objections are technology-based or if they're just tossing out technology ideas as convenient to meet a political agenda.

So what is the SL Tribune's political agenda? Are you saying they are in Qwest's back pocket?

I assume that iProvo can be easily upgraded, but why haven't they? The real promise of fiber is not going to be realized at 3Mpbs.

Fiber is and will continue to be significantly more flexible than any wireless system is at any given point in time. Its just the nature of the technology. People assume that deploying a network like WiMax will be a lot cheaper than fiber and that's not necessarily the case.

There seem to be two primary categories of objections:

1.) The technology isn't right.

2.) This isn't government's business.

To (1) I say "hogwash." Fiber is exactly the right technology. Its flexible and long-lived. There zero doubt in my mind that from a technological standpoint a fiber network will be able to be maintained over the 20 year life span of the bonds to provide first rate service.

To (2) I refer back to the many comments I've made about other collective infrastructure projects that government has taken on. Building this network is one of the most important things we can do to build a competitive advantage over place that are not willing to do so and are willing to live with whatever Qwest and Comcast are willing to give them.

I am firmly of the mind that building UTOPIA is right and that fiber is the right technology. I worry more about its governance. To reach its potential, it has to be governed in a way that provides maximum opportunity and this mean maximum freedom of choice and maximum opportunity for innovative companies to use the network to provide services. For that reasons, I'm not a believer in exclusives of any kind, although I understand from a political and financial reason why they were done.

BTW Daniel, I know the 3Mb bandwidth of the iProvo network is a favorite whipping horse of yours, but its a complete red herring. The network can support much more than that as built. That's simply a product choice that was made for the pilot stage. As more providers come on (and yes, I'm back the exclusive thing again) the choices will expand and you'll be able to buy everything from 128K to 50Mb if you want. Don't confuse product choices with technology limitations.

3Mbs isn't a red herring, rather I am trying to make the point that if we are being promised a broadband utopia, then deliver the utopia. iProvo, as I currently understand it, has no benefits over other options currently available.

I'm not saying that there isn't the capacity for improvement. Fiber truly provides incredible opportunities. It just would be nice to be able to access those opportunities. Technological capabilities mean nothing if there isn’t a product to deliver them.

Anyone who thinks that wireless is going to make fiber obsolete has never used a wireless network. I live in Riverton where the only "broadband" I can get is wireless. I have had 2 different providers and my experience with both has been the same. Wireless is fine if you are just surfing web pages...but if you are doing anything that requires quality of service (games) it just doesnt cut it. I can be in a game and watch my ping times pop between 50ms and 200ms...while that doesnt sound bad...it causes games to jitter, sometimes making it unplayable. Given a choice...I will take the land line any day of the week.

Another point on fiber becoming obsolete in 20 years, right now qwest is providing broadband over 100+ year old copper lines. I highly doubt fiber will become obsolete in 20 years...what is faster than the speed of light?

With all networked technologies merging (TV, phone, internet), it just doesnt make sense to run multiple lines for each kind of service. There should be one set of lines that everyone shares. And since qwest wouldn't want to share with comcast any fiber lines it lays...it seems right that the city provides the lines that all service providers use.

I disagree with Phil when he states that there are two arguments against this plan. I think there is only one and I don't think it can be overcome as easily as Phil claims.

The technology is neither wrong nor right. There are probably cases where fiber optics will be the most useful and economically feasible communications medium for families and businesses for many years to come. In other cases wireless will be preferred because of new consumer devices and hardware solutions that are being developed to exploit its many benefits and because of its potential to reach far flung neighborhoods. If in the next 5-7 years the advances that are currently planned for wireless come to pass it will provide nearly as much bandwidth as fiber…for less cost. The point isn’t that fiber is a better or worse solution than wireless. The point is that it isn’t for government to decide for citizens and businesses what their best option is!

The only good argument against UTOPIA and similar projects is that government shouldn’t be spending taxpayer money to provide services that are better handled by the market. Communications technology IS NOT like streets or sewage or other services that clearly are natural monopolies. It is changing and advancing at a rapid pace…especially as deregulation of the industry takes place (it is taking place) and as competing technologies create new ways of communicating. Utahns will suffer if they let the technocrats who are pushing UTOPIA and IProvo talk them into ignoring these facts and into creating a static one-size fits all centrally planned and taxpayer financed communications system. Even if lots of companies can participate in providing services in such a system the municipalities that have created the infrastructure will have a vested interest in protecting their finanancial investment against new technologies that will compete against it...and that could cause real problems

I agree that Comcast and Qwest are moving too slowly right now in providing advanced communications technology...but they will be forced by the market to change that practice soon enough. Utah can't afford to isolate itself from the benefits provided by an invigorated and growing communications industry by going off on its own. Consumers will refuse to be left behind. They’ll use the new technology as it becomes available (because its cool and new and it improves their lives) and taxpayers will be left with the tab for an underutilized and overpriced UTOPIA.

I can’t agree that fiber is the right technology. It is great technology, but I’m not convinced that it is the “right” technology. Individuals choose what is “right” (ie. what they spend their money on) by considering a number of factors—price, longevity, projected needs, flexibility, etc. For example, the car that is “right” for me, isn’t “right” for someone else. I want a car that I can easily parallel park, that is fun to drive, and reliable. Other people consider other needs, such as whether their families can fit in the car.

With technology, we make the same types of choices. One of my favorite technologies ever was the Concorde. What a beautiful idea it was. Can you imagine how nice it would be to travel at Mach 2! It was such an important idea, and one that businesses were so obviously overlooking, that the French and England governments stepped in to create this wonderful technology. It was promised to usher in a new era of air travel.

The reality of Concorde was that it didn’t usher in a new era of air travel. It provided a great service for those who were willing to pay, but ultimately Concorde was retired from service because it was too expensive. The French and English governments thought that Boeing, Lockheed, McDonnell-Douglas, and whoever else was producing airplanes at the them were betting wrong by not producing a supersonic passenger plane. In the end, we see that the private companies bet right and the French and English bet wrong.

The “right” choice in air travel is akin to the “right” choice for the provision of internet bandwidth. Speed is one factor, but price, and flexibility other factors. Phil argues that “Fiber is and will continue to be significantly more flexible than any wireless system is at any given point in time.” This statement only looks at one dimension of “flexibility.” Fiber doesn’t have the flexibility to travel with you. I can’t take fiber from my house to my car, to work, and back again.

Fiber is the “right” choice for some, for others it is not. For some people the “right” choice is 7.1 Mpbs of bandwidth for $200 a month, while others it is 760Kpbs for $35. Fiber can deliver both, but fiber isn’t needed to deliver either. The Concorde was the “right” choice for some, but in the long run, it wasn’t the “right” choice for commercial aviation.

I’m not saying that Utopia is the Concorde of internet bandwidth (though it could be). I am saying that we should take heed before we declare that something is the “right” technology for a given product because people choose what is right for them given a large number of factors. We should especially take heed when we assume that we know more than AT&T, Comcast, Verizon, Qwest, and whomever else we think should already be laying the fiber. If there is a large, unexploited market for fiber, and fiber is going to last for so many years, then why aren’t these companies laying the fiber? Why aren’t these companies laying fiber in areas that are more densely populated than the Wasatch Front if the unmet demand is so great? Have these companies systematically underestimated demand or has Utopia systematically overestimated demand?

Here's an interesting broadband experiment in Canada--Broadband over powerlines. There are some drawbacks, but it is an interesting idea. http://www.thestar.ca/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/Layout/Article_Type1&c=Article&cid=1075936210031&call_pageid=968350072197&col=969048863851