I agree with Andrew. iProvo was a great idea from the very beginning that was
almost foiled by some State Legislators that are owned (cash already in pockets)
by Qwest and Comcast.iProvo's problem is not the idea or even the
implementation it is in the management. There has not been any change in course
or directions since problems starting surfacing a long time ago. We keep
hitting our head against the wall and still wonder why it is bleeding. The only way to save iProvo is to get rid of the management depend on
the staff (i.e. - not the management) that got this thing up and running on the
ground level and start righting this ship.Garlick has done enough
damage. How many "staffers" has he fired, forced to leave or re-assigned and
not one of them has been replaced? Some of them were integral to the startup
and success of iProvo but because of more management decisions were let go.
Others have already left or are trying to abandon ship as soon as possible
because they know that current management is searching for an iceberg. The only
thing that can change this is new management!
Throw out option 2 as a cure for the ailing iProvo. Requiring City Departments
to pay for usage is nothing more that robbing the taxpayers to subsidize the
I fully support iProvo for the reasons stated above. It is a good investment and
will pay off over time. I like it.The major problem, IMHO, is not
with the infrastructure of iProvo but with the service providers. They have the
appearance of being immature startup businesses with an almost 'mom and pop'
style. I have seen very little marketing being done by either provider. If the
service providers were more established and mature, then Provo would have no
problem with the costs of the infrastructure.
Business schools will be able to use iProvo as a case study in bad management.
Cities should not invest tax payer dollars in risky projects. How
many more years of deficits are Provo taxpayers going to endure? Someone is
getting rich out of this investment and it is not citizens. I hope
they spell the names of the leaders that are supporting this boondoggle (for the
Sounds like we need to wait before selling out. Lets see how the grid affects
us. I hate to see the comcast monopoly continue. IProvo is sometimes infuriating
but they are getting better. comcast is infuriating al the time. I'm
with Andrew. We have already waited a good while. No need to give our investment
to some private group when we may be close to the Grid. That would be a fabulous
technological advance for the city and us taxpayers not to mention the economic
The simple fact: Cities evaporate when unable to provide the fundamental
infrastructure for business. We live in an information society.
Telecommunications bandwidth is the fundamental infrastructure. Qwest and
Comcast Would Not provide what we needed because they couldn't justify the
expense. (Maybe because they pay the Qwest CEO Seventeen Million a year.) iProvo and UTOPIA are having start up difficulties - due to obstructive
legislation foisted on Utah by Qwest and Comcast. But without the competition
of iProvo, I would still be waiting for broadband capacity here in Northeast
Provo. Few Utahns are aware that a second generation internet is
being launched this summer. It's called "the Grid" and it's TEN THOUSAND TIMES
FASTER than the world wide web. The Grid is a pure data network that runs
exclusively on dedicated Fiber Optic Cables; not on a hodge podge of copper
wires, cables, and switches designed decades ago to carry phone calls.
iProvo and Utopia are pre-wired to connect our homes and businesses to the
coming Ultra-Net. How long will Comcast and Qwest subscribers have to wait for
ultra bandwidth? FOR-EV-ER. God bless Provo'S foresight! Give iProvo and
UTOPIA time. Do not be penny wise and pound foolish.Andrew Wilson
Steven Titch has serious honesty problems and depending on his opinion is a
serious blunder. He regularly distorted events in committee hearings that I
attended last year and often fails to disclose that he counted Qwest as a client
for over two years. His distortions and outright lies give him zero credibility
as a serious source on telecommunications policy.
Of course privitazation would work for......Quest or any other provider but
would it work for the people of Provo. The expenditures for iProvo are public
information but would they be for any private provider, NO. So while Provo is
trying to provide a service to its citizens, private providers would be
ultimately working to make a profit with a service. With iProvo we'd know what
citizens would pay but with private providers we may not know. I'm sure some
citizens who are smart would get better services for less but others would pay
for more profitable services (in the eyes of the service providers) and maybe
not even know about the less expensive services. In other words it wouldn't be
in the best interest of the private company let people know about alternative
solutions. So I don't believe in a report by someone who has interests in Quest
saying iProvo isn't doing its job. Privitazation is good for many things, it's
not good for all things.