I, btw-- I made a mistake-- iProvo is selling for 40.6 mil, not 4. I'm also putting together an e-mail to more fully explain my position and the reasons for it. The email address I have is [EMAIL PROTECTED] and they post all the stuff at http://www.provo.org/util.iprovo_sale.html
On Wed, 2008-06-04 at 08:40 -0600, Robert LeBlanc wrote: > I wish I knew about this. I would have been there to pick up another 3 > minutes from where you left off. We could have gotten a lot of UUGers there > and really taught them a thing or two! > > Robert > > > On 6/4/08 2:20 AM, "Todd Millecam" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > I just thought I'd let you know--I went to the Provo city council > > meeting last night to discuss the sale of iProvo to Broadweave > > Networks. > > There's been some recent financial trouble with the iProvo network--and > > they're looking to sell it for roughly $4,000,000. As you might > > know--there has been some very different opinions as to the mayor's > > quick decision to sell the fiber optic lines into the private sector. > > Most people who are politically active are in favor of this sale, but > > not in the way it's being sold. > > > > Oh, and to let you know--Mstar told city council that they would make > > them a better offer than Broadweave. I stood before them right before > > the Mstar representative and said, "Whether you keep the network or not, > > I believe that the financial troubles of the iProvo network are caused > > by a failure of ISPs to give a minimum level of service to their > > customers. There have been times where they will throttle a person's > > uplink speed down to 200kbps on certain protocols--when a fiber optic > > line is capable of so much more. Broadweave has not earned my > > trust--and I have no reason to subscribe to lines owned by them. I have > > other friends who have moved to coaxial cable because of this failure to > > provide adequate service. > > "There needs to be a legal minimum requirement set on bandwidth, both > > uplink and downlink for all ports, packets, and protocols." > > The council asked me what I thought a reasonable minimum bandwidth > > would be. I told them a 2mbps is more than a reasonable minimum on a > > fiber optic line--but that it would have to increase over time as the > > technologies improve. I also told them that it is not unreasonable to > > provide, at this time, 50mbps over a fiber optic line. > > I got a bit of an applause--which was quickly silenced because it was > > against city-council procedures. > > I would've said more about how distributed networking is the way of the > > future, but each person was limited to 3 minutes. > > Where do you stand on this issue? > > > > > > -------------------- > > BYU Unix Users Group > > http://uug.byu.edu/ > > > > The opinions expressed in this message are the responsibility of their > > author. They are not endorsed by BYU, the BYU CS Department or BYU-UUG. > > ___________________________________________________________________ > > List Info: http://uug.byu.edu/mailman/listinfo/uug-list > > > -------------------- BYU Unix Users Group http://uug.byu.edu/ The opinions expressed in this message are the responsibility of their author. They are not endorsed by BYU, the BYU CS Department or BYU-UUG. ___________________________________________________________________ List Info: http://uug.byu.edu/mailman/listinfo/uug-list
