Authored by: cgrotke on Monday, June 29 2009 @ 11:02 AM GMT+4

Bankruptcy is not the same as going out of business. It is restructuring
debt.

So, they'd keep plugging along (maybe someone would buy them),
with a court looking over their shoulder. Of course, if they are too big
to fail, they'll get billions of dollars like a bank or GM.

It is an interesting question, though, about being dependent on few
companies for so much of our lives and business.

It's another reason that Municipal Telecom would be a smart
investment, too. We could build our own system, pay ourselves, and
have an alternative for voice and data communications.

Authored by: KathrynT on Monday, June 29 2009 @ 12:59 PM GMT+4

Yes, Yes, Yes. Ian purposed this couse of action when he ran for the Select Board. It makes whole lot of sense. Municipal what a concept.

Authored by: CrankyYankee on Tuesday, June 30 2009 @ 11:19 AM GMT+4

Another telecom project is in the development stage for central and north central Vermont. Get more info at the following link: www.ecfiber.net

Authored by: Rolf on Monday, June 29 2009 @ 11:07 AM GMT+4

How would this work Chris ?

By that I mean, what are the nuts and bolts, (or the servers and cables if you will) that would be needed?

How many employees? Would they all need to be skilled telecommunication techs?

To what extent does the town government have to be in support of this idea?

I think in general this is an exciting idea, but I don't understand how it would all work, as I know little about telecommunications.

---
Dreams Trump Video

Authored by: cgrotke on Monday, June 29 2009 @ 11:36 AM GMT+4

Here's an article we did a while back:

http://www.ibrattleboro.com/article.php?story=20071121164451101

It explains how Burlington's model works. Around here, estimates were
that we have enough customers to make it work if we include
surrounding towns.

Authored by: Rolf on Monday, June 29 2009 @ 12:23 PM GMT+4

Wow,

what a well written article.

And what an excellent idea.

Rolf

---
Dreams Trump Video

Authored by: paulgardner on Monday, June 29 2009 @ 11:22 AM GMT+4

The PSB or whoever OKed the Verizon to Fairpoint deal in the first place has a lot to answer for. I realize that we were the smallest of the 3 states involved and so had less clout to block or restructure the deal, but we could and maybe should have done so.

In the meantime, this is an opportunity for the state to become more of a player in our infrastructure. If the state government has to get involved in giving Fairpoint tax breaks or other help to keep them afloat we should insist on the state having a vote or two at board of directors meetings in return.
This kind of service is too vital to be run for profit only. Public good needs to have at least equal consideration with wants of investors.

Authored by: tomaidh on Monday, June 29 2009 @ 12:31 PM GMT+4

Instead of disaster, this can be a golden opportunity to take responsibility for our own electronic future.
It doesn't have to be a town or state operated system.
The Co-op model exists all over the country, particularly in the West.
Consumer/Ratepayer owned non-profit coops sprung up to provide power and communication services in areas where Corporations decided the projected profits failed to justify investment $$$.
Included in this scenario should be fiber optic technology to provide broadband for all as well as HDTV.

Authored by: paulgardner on Tuesday, June 30 2009 @ 06:25 AM GMT+4

The for profit model being a bad one for any non-investor, I'd embrace just about anything else. I do think the state/private model has a better chance of being adopted and succeeding because of the resources it would possess to deal with a disaster like last winter's ice storm.

Strange how the ice storm came immediately after the Verizon sale. I remember when the sale was going on, it was said that Fairpoint was a small under capitalized co. An ice storm was mentioned then as the sort of event that could threaten the company's viability.

Authored by: SirCoßn on Tuesday, June 30 2009 @ 08:35 PM GMT+4

Keep in mind the topography out west makes it more affordable for those entities. Not to mention the permitting process.

---
Celebrate Flatulence!!!!!!!

Authored by: spoon on Tuesday, June 30 2009 @ 01:23 PM GMT+4

What I definitely hope this means is renewed interest in a locally (yes, perhaps co-ooperatively) or municipally owned telecommunications network. Exactly how many times do we have to get screwed by corporations?

---
spoon agave

Authored by: H on Tuesday, June 30 2009 @ 03:32 PM GMT+4

Time to visit the Burlington model again...and that means cable, too!

Authored by: cgrotke on Tuesday, June 30 2009 @ 03:34 PM GMT+4

We were able to come up with $32+ million for wastewater treatment.