Posted: 10/31/2005 2:59:47 PM
MYTH: Cities don't have the expertise to run a communications company.

FACT: Expertise, in the form of human and technical resources, is readily available.

This myth has been often repeated over the years as new municipal communications systems were created. Yet these systems are all operating extremely well. How did they do it? How did they develop the expertise to operate a communications company?

Quite simply, they hired it. Here are just two examples:

• Spencer Municipal Utilities (SMU) had no problem finding the key personnel it needed to plan for and operate its system. For the most part, those people already lived in the Spencer area, working for other communications companies.

Posted: 10/31/2005 2:58:42 PM
MYTH: Municipal communications utilities have an unfair advantage over private companies.

FACT: State laws keep the playing field level between municipal and private providers.

Over the past several years, the Iowa legislature has repeatedly affirmed support for the existence of municipal telecommunications utilities.

Support has come with conditions demanded by private cable and phone companies to “level-the-playing- field.” Most of the conditions that limit municipal telecommunications utilities are contained in section 388.10 of the Iowa Code. Many of the charges leveled against municipal telecommunications utilities allege inequities that have been dealt with in the law.

Posted: 10/31/2005 12:15:19 PM
MYTH: City-owned communications systems are like mini-ICN's

FACT: City-owned communications utilities serve different purposes than the ICN.

The cover of one of the color brochures mailed by “Project Taxpayer Protection” to residents of cities that will vote on municipal telecommunications asks “Used the ICN Recently?” Inside is an outrageous attack on the state-owned Iowa Communications Network (ICN) – a fiber optic network consisting of over 3,400 miles of state owned fiber optic cable and over 3,500 of fiber leased from private telecommunications and cable companies. The purpose of the brochure is obvious – to claim that the ICN is a failed system and to describe community-owned networks as mini-ICNs.

Posted: 10/31/2005 12:13:43 PM
MYTH: Cities give preferential treatment to municipal providers over private providers.

FACT: Cities are required by law to treat municipal providers the same as private providers.

Iowa Qwest president Max Phillips was quoted in a Dubuque Telegraph Herald article, claiming that municipal telecommunications utilities put his company at a competitive disadvantage by manipulating the fees charged for use of public rights of way:

"The city controls rights-of-way, fees for how we use or build and use the city's infrastructure," Phillips said. "All of a sudden, the city has jurisdictional authority to manipulate the situation and advance themselves." (Dubuque Telegraph Herald 10-26-05)

Mr. Phillips has no excuse for making such a statement. It is not true.

Posted: 10/27/2005 2:44:27 PM
MYTH: Anti-municipal groups have the best interests of Iowans in mind.

FACT: These groups are supported by private communications companies who want to preserve their monopolies.

In the past several weeks, new groups with names like “Project Taxpayer Protection Committee” and “Citizens for Common Sense Solutions” have appeared on the Iowa landscape. Their mission: to stop the formation of new municipal communications utilities in Iowa. To accomplish this mission, they have spent untold thousands of dollars mailing glossy ad pieces, urging citizens to vote NO.

When considering the message of these groups, we urge citizens to ask the following questions.
1.

Posted: 10/27/2005 2:42:38 PM
MYTH: Municipal communications utilities are a financial drain on their communities.

FACT: Municipal communications utilities not only pay their own way, they create big savings for citizens.

Groups opposed to municipal communications utilities claim that community-owned systems are bad investments for the citizens who own them. Let’s bust this myth with the facts.

Myth 4a: Municipal communications utilities lose money.

Opponents of municipal telecom claim that existing municipals are money-losers. To the extent that they attempt to support the claim at all, they typically choose numbers or use a technique that distorts the picture. For example, they often count capitol investments as annual operating expenses. That’s wrong.

Posted: 10/26/2005 3:49:58 PM
MYTH: Municipal communications utilities are a bad idea

FACT: 100 years later, it's the same song with a different singer.

“Municipal Ownership Costly And Dangerous”
“Municipal Ownership Uneconomic”
“Why Municipal Service Is Expensive”
“Municipal Ownership Is Always A Failure”

Do these statements sound familiar? Surprise…they aren’t the headlines in the latest mass-mailing by the “Project Taxpayer Protection Committee” or the “Citizens for Common Sense Solutions” and their mega-communications company supporters.

These words were written 100 years ago on the topic of municipal ELECTRIC utilities by people who didn’t want to see public power ownership.

A century of experience tells us that these claims were not true.

Posted: 10/26/2005 3:40:31 PM
MYTH: If an utility is approved by voters, city officials will build a municipal system even if it doesn't make sense.

FACT: City officials will build a system only if it makes sense for the community.

One of the scare tactics employed by the mega-communications providers is to claim that city officials are willing to risk public money on unproven ventures. They will charge forward and build a municipal communications utility even if it doesn’t make sense. Experience tells us that these scare tactics are simply NOT true.

Since 1994, a total of 54 cities in Iowa (not counting those voting this November) have held referendums on the creation of a municipal communications utility. Of those 54 towns, the referenda were approved in all but 3 (Greenfield in 1997, Lake Park in 2003, and Vinton in 1997).

Posted: 10/26/2005 3:16:59 PM
MYTH: The success of municipal communications systems should be measured the same way as private communications companies.

FACT: Different communications companies have different missions.

Private companies like the ones behind the Project Taxpayer Protection Committee and Citizens for Common Sense Solutions like to compare how municipals and private utilities operate. We reject this comparison because the mission of a private provider is so different from the mission of a municipal communications provider.

Private cable and phone companies are in business for one reason and one reason only: to maximize profits for their shareholders. To fulfill their mission, they charge the highest rate that the market or regulators will bear in order to make as much money as possible.