Quantcast
Opinion

Time to abandon iProvo

Comments

Return To Article
  • Jesse Harris
    Dec. 6, 2007 2:26 p.m.

    Brent: I was at the meeting and my understanding is that the city does not currently contribute anything to iProvo in exchange for its use of the network.

    Agit8r (or should I say, Mark Towner): Whatever portion of iProvo is used for city services ought to be paid for by the city as a legitimate function of city government. How's that twisted?

  • Agit8r
    Dec. 5, 2007 6:37 p.m.

    Jesse Harris:
    "Once the city starts paying iProvo for its own usage, the financial picture is bound to change drastically."

    What kind of ridiculous statement is THAT? If the city pays itself, the financial picture will look better. That is the most twisted logic I've ever heard. It is still city debt, paid for by taxpayers.

  • samhill
    Dec. 5, 2007 4:01 p.m.

    I'm surprised that all the people who are complaining about the inherent efficiency and efficacy differences between the private and public sectors seemed to be forgetting the source of the problem with iProvo. It started by choosing the wrong private contractor to do the initial installation and marketing. Not to mention all the private consultants hired to design and guide the process.

    The issue is more complex than the simple differences between public versus private projects.

  • Scott
    Dec. 5, 2007 3:40 p.m.

    To say that competition does not occur on iProvo is factually wrong. It actually allows for greater competition due to the fact that providers on the network do not have to sink loads of $ into the infrastructure (very high costs of entry.) They compete on services that are provided on the network. This works very well for airports and other services type industries. The US is falling behind in internet access speeds due to the fact that companies like Qwest and Comcast continue to promote & leverage their antiquated technologies at our expense. Essentially they are telling us that we only need what they want to offer without upgrading their infrastructure. I live in an area where I can only purchase Comcast services, Qwest is not even willing to provide service to our relatively affluent area. An example of the future: look at the new network speeds that MStar offers their customers, 50 Mbps upload and download. This is many times faster than either cable or DSL can come close to offering. Competition with government entities is just latest the Qwest propaganda. Let us truly see Qwest and Comcast compete with the future!

  • iWhat?
    Dec. 5, 2007 12:38 p.m.

    I think it's because they named the company "iProvo," which is a cheap rip-off name, similar to all the Apple products. At least be original! iPod, iSkin, iMac, iTunes......iProvo? I don't think so.

  • Brent
    Dec. 5, 2007 11:37 a.m.

    Jesse, perhaps I don't understand the whole issue but the article says: "A report in this newspaper on Tuesday said city leaders are leaning toward having city departments pay more for the services they get from iProvo". The implication is that they are paying something.

  • A Different Anonymous
    Dec. 5, 2007 11:31 a.m.

    Utah Republican is really a Utah Democrat or Utah Socialist.

    ONE PEOPLE, ONE UTAH, ONE *EDUCATION* SYSTEM
    ONE PEOPLE, ONE UTAH, ONE *TELECOM* SYSTEM
    Following your reasoning we could continue the analogy:
    ONE PEOPLE, ONE UTAH, ONE *HOSPITAL* SYSTEM
    ONE PEOPLE, ONE UTAH, ONE *TELEVISION* SYSTEM
    ONE PEOPLE, ONE UTAH, ONE *NEWSPAPER* SYSTEM
    Maybe we could even take it so far as to say:
    ONE PEOPLE, ONE UTAH, ONE *RELIGIOUS* SYSTEM

  • Dan
    Dec. 5, 2007 10:51 a.m.

    I'm hoping Utah Republican was making a sarcastic point.

    "ONE PEOPLE, ONE UTAH, ONE *EDUCATION* SYSTEM
    ONE PEOPLE, ONE UTAH, ONE *TELECOM* SYSTEM"

    If so, it's a great one. Stalin would have loved iProvo.

  • Anonymous
    Dec. 5, 2007 10:37 a.m.

    This is simply incredible that such a taxpayer funding governmental business was ever allowed to get a start in the first place. Only in Provo could such a scam take place.

    There are laws and unfair competition committees which obvioulsy failed where Provo taxpayers are conderned. Disgraceful. Simply a gross miscarriage of justice on a municipal scale.

  • Jesse Harris
    Dec. 5, 2007 8:24 a.m.

    What this editorial completely ignores is that city departments have not been paying iProvo for their usage thus contributing to its stated losses. Once the city starts paying iProvo for its own usage, the financial picture is bound to change drastically. I'm appalled that you would ignore and omit such a crucial piece of the financial picture.

  • Brent
    Dec. 5, 2007 8:18 a.m.

    Governments derive significant income from commercial enterprises via the taxes they levy. If Qwest, Comcast, XMission or any other provider used the same business model they would be out-of-business in a heartbeat. iProvo should also be out-of-business. Using tax dollars of all residents of a city to subsidize a service to a few who subscribe to it is unconscionable, especially when they are in competition with commercial enterprises that they are taxing. Those businesses are then paying taxes to an entity that is in competition with them. Governments should not be in business to be a business.

  • Agreed
    Dec. 5, 2007 8:12 a.m.

    Well said! Government cannot run private telecom businesses as well as the private sector. Same with Utopia, it will likely rear its financial head at a later date as cities continue to fund loser projects at taxpayers expense.

  • Utah Republican
    Dec. 5, 2007 7:15 a.m.

    I'm tired of hearing complaints from groups like the Deseret Morning News and the Utah Taxpayers Association that socialism is inefficient and costs money. That's not the point. The goal is a community bases system

    In general:
    ONE PEOPLE, ONE UTAH, ONE SYSTEM

    Specifically
    ONE PEOPLE, ONE UTAH, ONE *EDUCATION* SYSTEM
    ONE PEOPLE, ONE UTAH, ONE *TELECOM* SYSTEM