UTOPIA (Cont'd)

Jesse Harris has returned from D.C., and provides responses to my 2 questions on UTOPIA.

My questions (posts here and here) were (1) whether UTOPIA is financially viable and (2) why UTOPIA is cherry picking in non-pledging cities.

You can read Jesse's thoughtful response at FreeUtopia.

On point 1, Jesse argues that the big costs have been sunk and that additional costs will be much smaller as additional homes are passed -- meaning a lower overall cost/subscriber than the very high current figure. That might be. I'd like to see some numbers (e.g., additional cost per marketable home passed).

On point 2, I think we simply disagree whether it is appropriate for UTOPIA to be in the business of establishing the policy and practice of deploying systems only in new subdivisions where homeowners will be forced to use the product (since the homeowners will be forced to pay for it with their HOA fees). To me, this seems like a very significant departure from UTOPIA's original mission -- ubiquitous service.

To clarify, I don't think the directors of UTOPIA intend to work "malice" in the non-pledging cities. Rather, it goes back to point 1; are its actions being guided by desperation? Such a significant departure from a core-mission principle seems to signify the "neon paint" phase of the business plan. That is a phrase my wife and I use when we see struggling businesses scribble "Clearance" or "Everything must go" in neon paint on their windows; rather than being something included in the original business plan, it is an addendum added to the plan (usually the last chapter of its existence) when things haven't worked out quite as well as originally hoped.

Regardless of intent, as I described here, I believe that cherry picking does work harm to communities that abandon requirements for uniform and equal services for all citizens.