<html><head></head><body><div class="ydp4b13888yahoo-style-wrap" style="font-family:Helvetica Neue, Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif;font-size:16px;"><div></div>
<div><div><div>Eric, I hope you will be at City Council at 8:00pm tomorrow to show
your support for the BATF recommendation to dig deeper into the
technical and financial issues. That is the kind of focused "more time and consideration" that Rob is referring to. The RFP and subsequent consultant agreement was (by the design of staff and the original members of the BATF) focused and therefore limited. The kind of technical evaluation BATF has recommended as a next step was always anticipated to be out of the scope. <br></div><div><br></div><div>It turns out that there was an unintended limitation in the financial area, and as a result the consultant's report provides an incomplete set of options, omitting the public utility approach.
<div><p>That is meaningful on a number of levels. The consultants built $800
per household of Marketing costs into their estimates. The public
utility approach would not need to expend those millions of unnecessary
dollars. $800 times 25,000 households equals $20 million, but it isn’t
clear whether the consultants included the full $20 million in their
$106 million cost estimate. Regardless of the amount, there will be a
substantial cost savings by using the public utility approach.</p>
<p>The Public Utility approach was suggested as an alternative by one of
the state’s preeminent financial advisors in a meeting with one of the
two BATF subcommittees, who reported the results of that meeting to the
BATF. The Public Utility approach would change the political approval
process under the provisions of Proposition 218. It would also
segregate the funds and funding into an Enterprise Fund,
separate/isolated from the General Fund. The Water Fund is structured
that way. The Sewer Fund is structured that way. The Solid Waste Fund
is structured that way. The Utility Service Advisory Commission
oversees both the rates for the Enterprise Fund services and the
associated service costs.</p>
<p>Another huge difference between Municipal Fiber and Dan Carson’s
comparison to the Bullet Train is the existence and reliability of the
revenues. There is no committed revenue stream from the
public/consumers for the bullet train. It is a “build it and they will
come” approach. If a Telecommunications Enterprise Fund were
established in Davis the revenue stream would be established, with every
parcel paying into that fund the same amount or less than they are
paying the monopoly suppliers Comcast or AT&T for Internet services
currently. In my own personal case, our household is paying $39.95 per
month for Comcast’s lowest level of Internet service. The monthly bill
from the Telecommunications Fund would be less than that, so I would
save money every month. That is the antithesis of the bullet train.</p>
<p>In addition, because of the provisions of Prop 218, the rates would
be set for five years. No consumer would be subject to the annual
haggling with their monopoly supplier in order to avoid a steep price
increase.</p>
<p>Hopefully on Tuesday night Dan, and the rest of the Council will see
the wisdom of siding with Dan’s second statement about the the benefits
of improved high-speed broadband for economic development, education,
technological innovation, and addressing the digital divide rather side
with Dan’s first statement of worry about a bullet train-style
boondoggle.</p></div>If you do come tomorrow to reinforce your message in support of the BATF's next steps ... bring as many friends as you can. The Council showed in its deliberations regarding parking downtown that they do see and hear those who attend their meetings.<br></div><div><br clear="none"></div><div>Thank you for your support of Municipal Fiber in Davis.</div><div><br clear="none"></div><div>Matt Williams<br clear="none"></div><div><br clear="none"></div></div><br></div><div><br></div>
</div><div id="ydpb4c1fc43yahoo_quoted_9804557490" class="ydpb4c1fc43yahoo_quoted">
<div style="font-family:'Helvetica Neue', Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif;font-size:13px;color:#26282a;">
<div>
On Monday, June 3, 2019, 10:39:02 AM PDT, Eric Thompson <elt@pacbell.net> wrote:
</div>
<div><br></div>
<div><br></div>
<div><div id="ydpb4c1fc43yiv6952075081"><div><div dir="ltr"></div><div dir="ltr">I’d agree</div><div dir="ltr"><br clear="none"></div><div dir="ltr">I got to wonder how much of a commitment has already been made to Wave</div><div dir="ltr"><br clear="none"></div><div dir="ltr">Eric T</div><div dir="ltr"><div class="ydpb4c1fc43yiv6952075081yqt2713322473" id="ydpb4c1fc43yiv6952075081yqtfd40123"><br clear="none">On Jun 2, 2019, at 10:03 AM, Robert Nickerson <<a shape="rect" href="mailto:rob@omsoft.com" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">rob@omsoft.com</a>> wrote in part:<br clear="none"><br clear="none"><br clear="none"></div></div><div class="ydpb4c1fc43yiv6952075081yqt2713322473" id="ydpb4c1fc43yiv6952075081yqtfd59891"><blockquote type="cite"><div dir="ltr"><p> It would be prudent to ask CC not to make any major
decisions about this at that meeting, but to hopefully give it
more time and consideration. <br clear="none">
</p>
<p>Any thoughts? </p></div></blockquote></div></div></div><div class="ydpb4c1fc43yqt2713322473" id="ydpb4c1fc43yqtfd84549">_______________________________________________<br clear="none"><br clear="none">Please ref our wiki for details, documents and contacts:<br clear="none"><br clear="none"><a shape="rect" href="http://www.dcn.davis.ca.us/~help/dokuwiki/doku.php?id=start" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">http://www.dcn.davis.ca.us/~help/dokuwiki/doku.php?id=start</a><br clear="none"><br clear="none">Davisgig mailing list<br clear="none"><a shape="rect" href="mailto:Davisgig@list.omsoft.com" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">Davisgig@list.omsoft.com</a><br clear="none"><a shape="rect" href="http://list.omsoft.com/mailman/listinfo/davisgig" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">http://list.omsoft.com/mailman/listinfo/davisgig</a><br clear="none"></div></div>
</div>
</div></body></html>