A year later after emailing several times to be willing to ‘test’ IPv6, I still have yet to receive a reply…

In regards to your comment stating “If you’re publicly traded, then SOX already requires SOC 1.”, I believe what you mean is that by obtaining SOX compliance you are by default SOC1 compliant…correct?

In other words, SOX does not in fact require you to separately and distinctly obtain SOC1 compliance in order to be compliant with SOX.

Just wanted to clarify my understanding please.
Thanks!
Dana

XMission commissioned a study on building a fiber-optic network in a 5000 home Salt Lake City neighborhood. The most expensive part of doing this is getting “glass in the ground” or leasing poles from Rocky Mountain Power. For 5000 homes, the cost of the network without electronics was $8 million. The electronics to support 5000 homes would have been under $200,000, or pretty close to $40/per house (this was 5 years ago). Fiber-optic installation labor comprises the majority of the cost.

If you read Jesse’s article I linked to you’ll see that not only the existing value of the network is $50M, but that you’re going to continue paying $3.3M a year to service the debt over the next 12 years, bringing the grand total to $90M that Google is receiving for $1.

No, I wouldn’t pay $50M for iProvo. You’re already doing that. I’d demand my city open it up so I got the best deal possible from competing providers.

Also the network is not worth $50 Million. How did you come up with that number? Is that what you would pay for it? If so I have an Athlon 64 I bought in 2005, want to pay me $200 for it while you are at it?

I understand that Google Fiber has the potential to disrupt your business model and you have every right to be upset about that. Your exaggerated claims of corporate welfare, however, are not going to find any sympathy in Provo.

It is also worth noting that XMission’s “market power” in Provo has been next to nil since the dial-up days. We’ve never been allowed to provide service on iProvo, in spite of attempts to do otherwise. Kansas City is no different. When taxpayer funds are used to build infrastructure, that infrastructure should stay open and not belong to one private entity.

You can’t fault Google for that, nor can you fault Provo City. It is just the American way. In the world of technology Google has its fan club just like any other celebrity. It is a household name that everyone knows. Since the announcement of Google Fiber you’ve had the equivalent of “screaming fans” begging just to have Google glance in their direction. They aren’t playing music that other musicians can’t play. They’ve just arranged all the notes in a order that resonates with the fan base and are creating hit after hit.

Google has promised a fiber drop to every home in the city for $30 each. The mayor said there are about 15k homes in the city that already have the fiber run to them, and 20k that still need to have it installed. Provo currently charges $700 to do this installation. Utopia charges $2,750. That means Google’s cost will likely fall somewhere between $670 and $2720 per home. Multiply that by 20k and you have $13,400,000-$54,400,000 in infrastructure costs. Will there be people who won’t want a $70 gbps or free basic internet? Probably. But regardless it is still going to be a multi-million dollar investment upfront. Not to mention the cost of replacing old network equipment to bring the network up to speed. Is xmission or another local company in a position to take on that kind of investment in infrastructure?

‘“Do you think the sale of a public asset warrants public discussion?”’

Certainly. They had 6 public meeting to explain the deal and answer questions. I attended the first of these meeting. The $1 sales price was laid out, along with the promises Google has made. The mood in the room was something just short of euphoria. The public discussion occurred, and the public are totally on board with this.

You sound like just like CenturyLink, who apparently sent a letter to the city counsel voicing their concern that the city didn’t give ample time for public discussion before rushing to a decision. You think CenturyLink really cares about the opinions of Provo residents? The citizens of Provo are overwhelmingly for this deal. It is ISPs worried about losing market power and potential expansion that seem to be the ones who have a problem with the iProvo sale. As far as I’m concerned as a resident of Provo, this is a slam dunk.