I lived in the DC Metro area when I first heard about UTOPIA, a public residential fiber optic utility backed and garanteed by several Utah municipalities. I was skeptical and blogged about it back in 2003. This Deseret News editorial did a great job putting into words the concerns I had about the project:
Yes, fiber optic is far superior to anything currently available. Yes, it is inherently superior to wireless communications. But 20 years is an eternity in the telecommunications realm, and private markets tend to have minds of their own. It would be dangerous to leave taxpayers vulnerable to an industry that is best wrestled with by men and women who want to risk their own cash.
…When the market is ready, private companies will build fiber optic networks, or perhaps something even better. The good thing about that approach is that taxpayers will benefit, rather than having to pay.
They were right…and oh how I hate them for it! Now that I live in Layton, UT (a UTOPIA city) I check the UTOPIA website nearly every month to find out if they have more information on when my city is going to get hooked up to the fiber optic goodness we have been promised. I just hope they’ll get to my house before Layton’s government picks up on what a bad idea this is and backs out of the project.
Utah Taxpayers Association is sounding the alarm today in a post about what a failure UTOPIA’s sister project iProvo has turned out to be. Even though I agree with them about how bad an idea these projects are I almost wish they’d wait a year or so until my house is wired before they ratchet up public opinion against it!
UPDATE 4/25/07 10:24AM
Jesse Harris, one of the excellent Utah bloggers on my blogroll to the right, has a blog dedicated to the support of UTOPIA and municipal fiber optic networks that is worth checking out if you are interested in this topic. I’m not completely sold on the idea that government should make a run at a market that private entities aren’t willing to try investing in but he makes some great arguments. I definitely agree with his disgust with Qwest and Comcast and their pathetic nearly non-existent efforts at providing a viable second generation network in Utah.
UPDATE 04/11/2007: This post has been bumped up due to recent comment activity. Thanks to Dan, Emily, and Craig for the new and useful information and discussion!
For me this article by Emily Bingham Hollingshead is the final word on vouchers in Utah. Long story short: We don’t need subsidies for private schools in Utah because there is substantial doubt it would do any good and because Utah’s public school system is succeeding anyway. Vouchers are a waste of money in Utah…PCE should take their money and invest it in some other state’s Republican politicians.
Hat Tip: Utah Amicus
The Senate Site, one of the better blogs from the right in Utah, had this to say about Utah’s apparently successful petition process for a referendum on the voucher law:
Word on the Street is that our anti-voucher group has amassed enough signatures to put an referendum on the ballot. If so, some congratulations are in order – that was not an easy task.
Getting a referendum on the ballot should be an easier task.
When the Republican legislature repeatedly enacts controversial legislation opposed by most Utahns (vouchers, the very foolish soccer stadium give away, the blank check for Energy Solutions, etc.) more and more citizens see that the process for overriding the offending political party’s mischief needs to be simplified.
Government by referendum is ugly but government by an easily corruptible party machine which faces little effective opposition is worse. Until Utah’s Democratic party becomes more politically effective Utahns need protection from the negative effects of one party rule. We need an easier petition process for overriding bad legislation like that which the Republicans gave us last session. 93,000 signatures is an unreasonably high threshold for getting a referendum on the ballot.
4/10/2007 08:36 UPDATE:
Jesse commented: “I don’t think that it’s the number of signatures that’s unreasonable, but rather the time allowed to gather them. 45 days? That’s nothing. Our western neighbor allows several months to get that many signatures for a ballot question and ends up with at least 5 questions per election.”
This is a good point. Extending the period for signature gathering is probably the best way to open the referendum process to more extensive use. Eliminating the requirement for getting 10% of voters from the last election within multiple counties should be considered as well.
