State ownership of teleocommunications is essential. We cannot trust free market capitalism to run our telecommunications system.

If we abandon UTOPIA, then capitalist shareholders will continue to reap profits! We can't let this happen.

I'd rather have a government-owned telecom system that loses money than a privately-owned system that made money for its shareholders. If UTOPIA loses money, we can always make up the difference by taxing Qwest and Comcast.

33 year bonds to pay for a system that will be obsolete in a third of that time. And it won't be upgraded for 50 years. That is the socialist way. I take it that you are counting on Social Security as the only source of your retirement. A true socialist would never put money into an IRA or a 401(k) since they get their gains from evil capitalists. These retirement accounts may actually own Qwest and/or Comcast stock. Dividends payed by these evil capitalists are paid to shareholders (you might just be one of them).

Jay, your airport analogy (even if it is the hypothetical use by your critics) is a poor one.

UTOPIA is not like adding another airport to the existing ones. It would be closer to say that it would be adding a spaceport to the airport.

The capabilities and potential uses of the fiber network used in UTOPIA versus the coax/copper network of either Comcast or Qwest is not an "apples to apples" comparison.

It may be true that other technologies may make UTOPIA obsolete someday. In fact, I hope and presume that will happen...someday. The important point is that now, it is UTOPIA that is the obsoleting technology, and one that is increasingly important to have available to more peopel.

I sincerely hope that UTOPIA succeeds and ernestly wish I had the opportunity to subscribe to it. Sadly, Sandy has been and has chosen to remain a high-tech desert.

As recently as a few months ago, the UTOPIA advocates were still trying to get Sandy to ride this elevator down. Kudos to Sandy's elected officials and administration for seeing this boondoggle for what it was and sparing us the albatross that UTOPIA is destined to become.

33 years ago the PC and Mac were fairly new on the scene and disks were still floppy, if you weren't using a card reader. How far we've come is barely a predicter of how far tech will go in the next 33 years. The 11 cities would be wise to pull the plug on this now, cut their losses and use their reveues for true core projects. Or they could cut taxes if they can't find something useful to spend it on.

Private industry wasn't providing anything. Dialup was getting really old especially when the crappy phoneline wouldn't allow it to connect faster than 28.4K.

Finally with the threat of UTOPIA Qwest graces us with a slow 1.5MB. Comcast will give us a little faster, but demands we subscribe to cable we don't have time to watch.
Both at a cost WAY higher than UTOPIA.
UTOPIA will work if the busy bodies get away from it and let them install to high tech neighborhoods who will pay for the services, instead of requiring that they install first in rural areas which can't return the investment.

I'd rather have the city owned fiber network where an unlimited number of companies can compete for my business rather than a Qwest owned fiber network where I'm still stuck with Qwest as the provider.

UTOPIA will provide the marketplace where competition can occur.

The way I see it is if everyone hadn't hampered UTOPIA so much it would have done exactly as projected. Seriously do you like paying 60 bucks to Comcast for an internet connection that is a fraction of the speed you'd get through UTOPIA with UTOPIA being half the price? I have a 1.5 through Qwest (which translates to about 756k) yet if UTOPIA would move into sandy I could get 10x+ the speed for the same price.

You guys are complaining about fiber optics being obsolete, read up on "The Grid". Fiber optics has some rather nice possibilities. Besides how old is the technology of the wires that Qwest is using for it's DSL?

What's wrong with a city backed fiber optics network? It gives more chance for companies to compete. Why do you think Comcast and Qwest have been fighting it so hard. What's wrong with UTOPIA advertising? Would it be that they would lure away customers from the 2 giants? It's not like they are taking away their business unfairly, after all, Comcast and Qwest could still be a provider on the UTOPIA network.

What's wrong with a city backed fiber optics network, Sinder?

You might want to go talk to Provo City about that. I'm guessing there will be a lot of people willing to tell you what's wrong.

Where there is a monopoly, the price and service are too high, and barely existent.

Where there is competition, prices go down, and quality goes up.

Name one product that doesn't benefit from competition.

Apparently you don't pay for your high speed internet, but you will learn what competition means, if you call comcast for pricing in an area where UTOPIA is up and running, vs an area where Comcast is the ONLY option.

Thank heaven no one had your attitude when the started to lay telephone lines a hundred years ago. "no way, that will be obsolete in ten years and we will have to do it all over again"

Learn what fiber is, before you lump it in with copper and coax cable.

@11:47 enlighten me, because if I could choose a city with UTOPIA access and still have a reasonable commute to work, I would move.

...but I actually and completely agree with Jay on this one. We might well argue about why the government monopoly phone and cable companies have not done a better job of providing high bandwidth to the neighborhoods or how to remedy that. But another taxpayer backed monopoly is probably NOT the way to go. I recall that long distance rates did not drop because government introduced a new monopoly, but because they broke up the monopoly they had previously granted.

I also note that broadband internet is NOT an essential service. It is a nice-to-have, a luxury for most and for those for whom it is a legitimate business need, it is available. For residential use, there are some good options between DSL, cable, and fixed point wireless at perfectly reasonable prices.

If government wants to help in this area, modify building and development codes to require that new subdivisions be wired for high speed data with fiber to each home and then out to a box on the edge of the development. That is orders of magnitude less expensive than adding fiber later. Yet these cities subsidizing UTOPIA continue to allow development without fiber.

Jay, none of your articles on Utopia have represented the plight of the consumer, the little guy. After the everyday grind of facing big government with many regulations and high taxes and then dealing with big business and its often poor service and high prices, we feel unrepresented. With internet, its like "dancing with the mastadons". One false step and we get crushed. I was the first business to go on Utopia. Its saves me $700 a month with 10X speed of the competition. Speed is everything with computers and businesses requiring technology. I know other businesses that moved to Utopia cities because of the technology. Our country is behind on internet technology. Fiber optics gets us back in the race. I agree that government is not the best place for this development but at least Utopia is trying to help small businesses. If nothing else, it provides choice. This by itself has lowered the price for consumers in Utopia cities. Please note that the competition has lowered its prices only in Utopia cities. I pay $50 more per month for my home service than when I lived in a Utopia city.

That's it. I am convinced by all of this banter.

I am going to build a new uber-speedy network, ran by a private corporation, using public funds, with a bond for 20 years. I will convince the cities to go along with this by embellishing the anticipated # of subscribers, providing totally unrealistic costs costs to build a fiber network, and stating that it is good for competition. And then when I run out of money, I will go back for more, with a longer term commit.

Does that sounds like a good business to you? Utopia is good and fine, if they got someone who could really 'run' Utopia. But in their current state, they need to pull the plug.

Utopia is good in that it puts the providers on notice that if they don't provide the service, the people though their governments will. Yes it is preferable if the providers do it.

Socialism isn't a dirty word. Our military and schools are socialistic and than heaven for that. Unless you think that only those that can afford it should be educated or protected.

In case you've forgotten, Quest and Comcast simply refused to increase local high speed data access until AFTER iProvo demonstrated an alternative. It is true that Utopia and iProvo are temporarily faltering -- largely as a result of hobbling legislation foisted on Utah by Comcast and Qwest lobbyists. But technology continues it's advancement in unabated.

Did you hear about the Grid? It's a second generation European scientific internet coming on line this summer. The Grid is TEN THOUSAND TIMES FASTER than the current internet. Why is it faster? Because it uses dedicated FIBER OPTIC CABLES instead of antiquated networks designed to carry telephone conversations over pairs of copper wires.

During the 19th century Railroads were the crucial infrastructure necessary for community growth and progress. City fathers who could not somehow convince the Railroad to come to their towns saw their towns evaporate as more connected cities thrived. It's the same today, except the crucial infrastructure is telecomm bandwidth. The future will revere leaders like Lewis Billings, Provo's mayor, who had the courage and foresight to place Utah in the forefront of connected cities.

Citizens may get nervous about tax allocation... but the future is expensive. And the future is NOW.

iProvo and Utopia are how old now and Qwest/cable have yet to have a "plan" take fiber to the premesis? And now I am supposed to get excited that Qwest has a "plan" to role out fiber. Good thing some of the local governments were responsive because business wasn't.
3rd airport? Come on Jay, if you believe that then ask the Deseret News to go back to a single overpriced T1 line for all of your traffic and all of the reporters can only use dialup.
If the Deseret News wanted to do some real reporting and contribute to the public discussion, then do a price comparison of the municipalities with public fiber versus those without. A pre and post price is also needed. If it shows my taxes went up $1 a month but my average cable bill went down $15, I am still benefiting from the fiber even if I don't subscribe.

This is the most ridiculous article ever. We need UTOPIA now more than ever to free us from the Qwest/Comcast monopolies

When government operates or subsidizes business, there are always problems. Politics makes a poor partner for business decisions. The Utopia leadership has all bailed out. Their main service provider teeters on the brink of failure. They have spent their money unwisely. Now we are asked to commit more. There comes a time when any business must perform or be re-structured. Utopia and iProvo are in dire need of this re-structuring. Government is directly in the way of allowing normal business adjustments to occur. It's time to clean this up not extending the commitment.

Utopia today; Utopia tomorrow; Utopia forever!

Why would Qwest and Comcast spend hundreds of thousands of marketing dollars and reduce prices in Utopia cities? Because they are protecting their monopolies.

Both Qwest and Comcast know they can't compete with the speeds offered on a fiber-to-the-home network, so they are doing everything they can to squash the 'newcomer' and keep their customer base.

Utopia only stands to gain a set fee, designed to cover the maintenance of the network. For the financial risk, pledging cities may see some kickback in the years to come. But the real competition is between providers like XMission, MStar, Veracity, and others on the Utopia Network - being able to compete on a higher level.

Is it fair for a company such as XMission to have to use it's competitors copper lines to provide a competing service? Doesn't that give Qwest the upper hand knowing how many customers XMission has and knowing which homes to target with marketing to take XMission's customers? That is not fair enterprise. Providers need a neutral playing field on which to compete, not one controlled by their competition.

You are absolutely right. It's like making a third airport.

Here's the difference. The first two airports only allow a single airline's planes each.

An independent solution to the last mile problem is the only way you will get real competition.

It is always good to look up quoted sources. The Pacific Research institute is far from an agenda-less NPO.
A large percentage of its income is directed towards political lobbying (Pacific Research Institute Tax return 2005). It should be noted that 95% of its revenue is gained via donations from organizations such as Exxon Mobil, Chevron Texaco and the Whitehouse Writers Group, as well as many Private Foundations, themselves backed by major corporate entities (Pacific Research Institute Annual Report 2004).
If you could prove that the private sector alternative to municipal communications was infant organ harvesting, they probably would extol the virtues of robbing babies of their lungs.
Utopia would be more on schedule if Qwest had been less litigious in it's business practices. Bogging people down in court is not capitalism, providing a better product or better price is capitalism. I can only imagine where Utopia would be if the judge levied a large "wasting the court's time" fine on Qwest every time they filed another project stalling suit with no legal merit.
Lastly, the "third airport" analogy works only if one of our airports serviced only one company, and the other charged monstrous fees for other airlines.