When I was 17, I read a paper written by then-presidential candidate, Eugene McGovern. It talked about the absolute necessity of measuring ALL decisions we make in government by the principles we believe in.
A friend, commenting about this blog, said that I had used a great deal of space criticizing the incumbant, and very little space actually explaining my points of view.
He was right. Here's my criteria that I will use making decisions on the City Council:
1. Does it need to be done? Governemnt should only do what really needs to be done. Even cities must differentiate between wants and needs. What determines if a thing is a need? Many things, but the final determination can NEVER BE MONEY! By that I mean, if we are only doing it to get money, or not doing it because it costs money, we need to reconsider. There has to be a higher purpose, or need, than the dollar.
2. Is no one else doing it? If it needs to be done, and there really is no one else to do it, then we have to. Simple. See what is needed, do it.
3. Can we do it better than anyone else? If someone IS doing it, and they could actually do a better job than we could, we should let them.
How does this look in real life? Let's take the example of the $40 million iProvo deal. Had I been on the Council when the decision was made, I would have answered the previous questions like this:
1. Does Provo need a fiber optic network? Certainly, some people consider a high-speed internet connection a necessity. When electricity was first offered to the public, people probably said, "We don't need that!" Now, we cannot exist without it. The world is changing. Perhaps iProvo was a need. Answer to question #1 -- maybe.
2. Is no one else building a fiber optic network? Well, not at the time. In hindsight, we now know that UTOPIA came along just months after we passed the bond. But when we passed it, five other companies had agreed to build the network, and then not done so. But eventually someone would have. So the answer to question #2 is, -- eventually.
3. Can we do it better than anyone else? No. Private enterprise could. UTOPIA got an incredible bonding rate because of the shared liability. # 3-- no.
"Maybe", "eventually", and "no" are not good enough answers to justify $40m. And ultimately, money WAS the bottom line. It was a possible revenue stream for the city.
That being said, I was NOT on the Council, and so the deed was done. And that brings me to rule #4. Try not to do damage. We do have a fiber optic network, and it must succeed. Nay saying, second-guessing, and recriminations will not help. So I will keep my mouth shut, and keep my iProvo subscription. I will hang in there with the program. Let's be grateful for what we have. I do love the high-speed connection!
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
A critically important part of the fiber optic story has to do with how the telecom industry ripped us off while failing to deliver on their promises. As part of the federal Telecommunications Act of 1996, they received about $200B in increased fees and relaxed regulations in exchange for a promise to replace ALL copper lines with fiber optics capable of a minimum of 45Mbps of potential bandwidth. Instead of building this network, they pumped it into long-distance, cellular and DSL operations, putting us at least a decade behind countries like South Korea and Japan. Even The Netherlands has better broadband.
After a massive rip-off like this, you have two options: pursue expensive litigation to hold telecom accountable (and likely bankrupt it in the process) or strike out on your own to build what they didn't. I don't shed many tears for them, especially since both Qwest and Comcast have open invitations to join either network. I suppose competition scares the snot out of those monopolists.
Post a Comment