UTOPIA: the Buck Stops with the Cities
I want to go on record now, to state that Utah should not bail out cities for the huge indebtedness they will incur because of their involvement with UTOPIA.
In 2004, the Legislature warned the cities that they would lose their shirts on UTOPIA, but several cities went ahead anyway. The argument was, “How dare the State interfere!” Exactly. They made their bed.
UTOPIA clearly has failed. (It has abandoned its reason for being – complete build out; its product is inferior to the competition; and its new financing scheme laughably balances, by proposing to charge customers an installation fee of $1,000 for what currently can’t be given away for free. Somewhere, Ken Lay is saying, "Now that's chutzpah!"). To play out the string a little longer, though, UTOPIA wants to tap into more debt, backed by the full faith and credit of the cities, of course. For a project that has failed in every measure, cities are using one credit card to pay off another.
Make no mistake; the cities clearly know that UTOPIA is in a death spiral. However, they don’t want to face the music now. Instead of currently facing the financial consequences of stepping into a competitive arena they know nothing about, cities are lining up to increase their future indebtedness to the staggering amount of $500 million – more than doubling the stakes. Pointing out the joke of the whole thing, the refinancing scheme makes only the merest pretense of moving forward, by allocating just $11 million to new build, which is not enough money to build anything. (Before being sold off, the Charter system in little old St. George struggled, because of inadequate investment. And Charter had invested over $20 million on upgrades to its existing system there. To put things on more of a Wasatch Front scale, Comcast recently has invested $500 million to upgrade its Utah system).
In order to mask their problems for a little while longer, cities are piling huge sums of debt on the taxpayers. Given the budgets of the pledging cities, the $500 million indebtedness is enormous. It will hurt them, and it could hurt the State. The cities are in trouble, and they are making decisions that will put their citizens in real jeopardy.
I guarantee that those cities will marshal all of their considerable political clout, to petition the State to bail them out of their financial straits. They will say, “A different city council got us in this mess. We are innocent. Please bail us out.”
My answer: no. At times, cities need assistance from the State. But not when they knowingly make horrible decisions, just to avoid accountability. Every one of these cities clearly knows what it currently is doing. Each city is hiding from accountability – for a season – by burying its problems under a pile of money.
In 2004, the Legislature warned the cities that they would lose their shirts on UTOPIA, but several cities went ahead anyway. The argument was, “How dare the State interfere!” Exactly. They made their bed.
UTOPIA clearly has failed. (It has abandoned its reason for being – complete build out; its product is inferior to the competition; and its new financing scheme laughably balances, by proposing to charge customers an installation fee of $1,000 for what currently can’t be given away for free. Somewhere, Ken Lay is saying, "Now that's chutzpah!"). To play out the string a little longer, though, UTOPIA wants to tap into more debt, backed by the full faith and credit of the cities, of course. For a project that has failed in every measure, cities are using one credit card to pay off another.
Make no mistake; the cities clearly know that UTOPIA is in a death spiral. However, they don’t want to face the music now. Instead of currently facing the financial consequences of stepping into a competitive arena they know nothing about, cities are lining up to increase their future indebtedness to the staggering amount of $500 million – more than doubling the stakes. Pointing out the joke of the whole thing, the refinancing scheme makes only the merest pretense of moving forward, by allocating just $11 million to new build, which is not enough money to build anything. (Before being sold off, the Charter system in little old St. George struggled, because of inadequate investment. And Charter had invested over $20 million on upgrades to its existing system there. To put things on more of a Wasatch Front scale, Comcast recently has invested $500 million to upgrade its Utah system).
In order to mask their problems for a little while longer, cities are piling huge sums of debt on the taxpayers. Given the budgets of the pledging cities, the $500 million indebtedness is enormous. It will hurt them, and it could hurt the State. The cities are in trouble, and they are making decisions that will put their citizens in real jeopardy.
I guarantee that those cities will marshal all of their considerable political clout, to petition the State to bail them out of their financial straits. They will say, “A different city council got us in this mess. We are innocent. Please bail us out.”
My answer: no. At times, cities need assistance from the State. But not when they knowingly make horrible decisions, just to avoid accountability. Every one of these cities clearly knows what it currently is doing. Each city is hiding from accountability – for a season – by burying its problems under a pile of money.
posted by steve u. at 4/23/2008
Subscribe
33 Comments:
I had way too much response to fit into a comment, so I posted it here.
I only have two things to say.
First how can you say, "its product is inferior to the competition;".
Second, Read the blog by Jesse.
Luke,
Even though its governmental subsidies allow UTOPIA to offer cheaper services, consumers deem it inferior by not subscribing to it.
"UTOPIA clearly has failed. (It has abandoned its reason for being – complete build out; its product is inferior to the competition"
Steve, as a Utah resident and someone enjoying Utopia service, I don't know how you can say it has failed. The network offers unbelievable speeds that no other product on the market currently compares to. I can get 100 Megabits today over Utopia, please point me to another provider that can offer that!
Second, you say that its reason for being was "complete build out". Yes, that was one of many many reasons. And keep in mind that they are not abandoning that as you imply. Instead they are opting to ensure financial stability before undertaking future phases but nothing will take precedence over that, not profits or anything else.
Steve, you wrote:
"Make no mistake; the cities clearly know that UTOPIA is in a death spiral. However, they don’t want to face the music now. Instead of currently facing the financial consequences of stepping into a competitive arena they know nothing about, cities are lining up to increase their future indebtedness to the staggering amount of $500 million – more than doubling the stakes."
According to my calculations though Steve, if Utopia could increase it's subscriber base by 3 times it's present level, it would not only completely support operating costs but would also be able to meet other obligations.
Would they be able to get that many subscribers? The present data would show that yes, they would. In 2006, the penetration level for Utopia was 20% (4844 subscribers out of 23,805 marketable addresses), and as new addresses came online in 2007, it was 16% (6161 subscribers out of 37,160 marketable addresses). With the addition of the phase 2 construction cities, there is a potential for around 180,000 marketable addresses. If UTOPIA met the same penetration level as they have historically, that would as a conservative estimate make 27,000 customers. That would easily be enough to bring UTOPIA to a revenue-neutral level.
The cities are essentially deciding right now if they want to give up and pay or give it a chance to continue.
Also, you say that $11 million isn't enough to build out the network. Keep in mind though that parts of the phase 2 cities have already been built out but construction had been halted because of cash flow problems.
The new plan truly has a chance of success and as many cities have decided already, it's better to give that a try than to give up right now (which would mean paying large sums for the next 20 years, which I agree, the state shouldn't bail them out for).
By all my calculations, they have a reasonable chance of success with the new plan and even if it failed outright, with the new customers online cities have the potential to pay less than they would have to pay now if they decide not to re-bond.
This post has been removed by the author.
Mike,
UTOPIA was supposed to be the anti-Qwest regarding cherry picking. But, now it is using Qwest's line: "We'll build out, when it makes economic sense."
In other words, UTOPIA, like Qwest, will redline poorer areas. (UTOPIA is 14% built out in West Valley City -- and will remain 14% built out; yet, WVC voted to further saddle itself, so that UTOPIA services can be offered to WVC's richer neighbors; this is the slop that results when no one is tending the shop or even knows how to tend shop; UTOPIA's folks are spinning like mad, and the cities, assuming they aren't simply punting, don't know enough about telecom to even know what questions to ask).
And, no, you can't get 100 Mbps. UTOPIA (falsely) advertises that speed, but the providers only offer residents "up to" 10 or 15 Mbps (except for XMission, which does offer a 50 Mbps product) -- about the same as Comcast (12 Mbps), but more expensive than Comcast.
As Comcast moves to the DOCSIS 3.0 system next year, it will have 100 Mbps up and down. If UTOPIA is still in business then, it goes bankrupt.
The financials of UTOPIA never pan out. Even if it were to attract more subscribers (not likely, charging an installation fee -- which was the only way to make the fiction of the new financing balance on paper), the cost of adding those subscribers exceeds any added income. Hence, a death spiral.
Another view: investments can be judged on the basis of value. The most a private provider would pay for the UTOPIA system (basing it on a per-subscriber number, since the typical cash flow method would yield a negative number) would be approx. $25,000,000. Double that number, for added measure. Yet, the cities are being asked to back UTOPIA to the tune of $500,000,000. Only government would consider acting so foolishly.
Steve said: "And, no, you can't get 100 Mbps. UTOPIA (falsely) advertises that speed, but the providers only offer residents "up to" 10 or 15 Mbps (except for XMission, which does offer a 50 Mbps product) -- about the same as Comcast (12 Mbps), but more expensive than Comcast."
I'm sorry Steve, but that's just wrong. I know you hate Utopia, but don't let that hate get in the way of the facts. I got a quote a few days ago from XMission for 100 Mbps over Utopia. Would you like me to send you a copy?
With that kind of speed I can setup full HD video-conferencing between several office locations where Utopia is available.
Not only that but fiber will potentially allow for far greater speeds than even that in the future.
Steve said: "UTOPIA was supposed to be the anti-Qwest regarding cherry picking. But, now it is using Qwest's line: 'We'll build out, when it makes economic sense.'
There's still a HUGE difference between that and Qwest. There are many cities in Utah today that still don't even have DSL. Qwest doesn't care about spending money in places that will never be profitable. Utopia WILL spend money in places even if they aren't profitable as long as they can break even on the whole. They don't even have to break even in areas that might never break even. Qwest has no motivation to push DSL to some of these areas, instead they'd rather pocket profits. They are a company, so making profits is important. Utopia on the other hand just wants to break even, and then any excess will go to completely unprofitable areas even though there would never be a chance of making a profit there. If you can't understand the difference between that and what Qwest is doing, this conversation isn't worth having.
UTOPIA still has their goal as ubiquitous service and there are no plans to change that; areas with lower demand will just have to wait longer for the connections. The trade-off to the cities has been a lower amount of risk than Provo but at a reduced build-out rate.
I'd also note that cities with high build-out rates including Lindon and Midvale have approved the new bonding because they don't want to short the other cities who've been waiting for service. Also consider who's getting the first build-outs after the bonding is done: RUS cities including Brigham City, Tremonton, Payson, and Perry. These aren't exactly wealthy suburbs and the projects there are almost complete anyway. It wouldn't be smart at all to abandon a 95% area just to satisfy the needs of West Valley, no matter how badly I feel for them at having to wait so long.
As far as speeds, MSTAR and XMission both offer the 50MBps service even if Nuvont/Veracity don't. Also consider that top-tier cable Internet service is $56.95/mo from Comcast for much less speed. If we do a true apples-to-apples, a 15Mbps connection on UTOPIA runs $40/mo from any of the three providers and blows Comcast out of the water, especially on uploads.
Comcast likes to talk big on DOCSIS 3.0, but they won't talk about where it's going: markets where they need to compete with Verizon's FIOS. Utah is pretty low on the priority list, especially when the existing DOCSIS 1.1/2.0 equipment can still skunk Qwest's new FTTN on speed. Even if they did roll out DOCSIS 3.0 here, their network can't support it. About 3/4 of the 4GBps coax last mile is dedicated to video services and the remaining 1Gbps has to satisfy the Internet and phone needs of anywhere from 500 to 2000 users. This means that it would only take 10 users going full-throttle on the Internet connection to effectively saturate the last mile. Comcast's plan for this is to hope and pray that someone comes along with much better compression technology that allows them to delay badly-needed upgrades once again. This is why Comcast has been engaging in BitTorrent blocking and randomly shutting of high-bandwidth users without warning. (I've also already pointed out that Comcast's planned DOCSIS 3.0 service is 50Mbps/5Mbps, not 100Mbps/100Mbps as you claim.)
Steve wrote: "As Comcast moves to the DOCSIS 3.0 system next year, it will have 100 Mbps up and down. If UTOPIA is still in business then, it goes bankrupt."
Steve, I'll forgive you're poor reasoning since you're probably not an engineer. First, lots of people have pointed out that Comcast will likely be focusing on areas where they compete with Verizon first, not Utah. Second, the current DOCSIS standard used by Comcast has theoretical limits far higher than are currently deployed as well. However, several issues come into play like distance, but another major one is that bandwidth is shared in a community. You are not going to see 100 MB upload with Comcast probably ever with their existing cable infrastructure.
Finally, fiber has FAR more potential as a transmission medium with technology available commercially even today that will support as many as 80 channels per fiber with wavelength-division multiplexing that can allow speeds in the range of terabits per second.
Steve said: "The financials of UTOPIA never pan out. Even if it were to attract more subscribers (not likely, charging an installation fee -- which was the only way to make the fiction of the new financing balance on paper), the cost of adding those subscribers exceeds any added income. Hence, a death spiral."
Steve, that's not true either! It seems to me that you are just looking for an excuse to hate Utopia and you're sure it's going to fail without even taking a hard look at it!
First, you say that the cost of adding subscribers exceeds the any added income. Could you prove this with the numbers?
Let's look at the numbers.
Between 2005 and 2006 when Utopia added 4494 subscribers, the operating costs increased by 55.08% while the operating revenues increased by 1159.96%! Then between 2006 and 2007, the operating costs actually decreased by 4.01% while the operating revenues increased by 49.55%. According to the fiscal year 2008 budget (which if you look historically since 2004 UTOPIA management has predicted one year advanced budgets with deadly accuracy), Utopia projects an increase of 4.06% in operating expenses and an increase of 102.71% of operating revenues.
Looking at the numbers shows no basis for your statement that adding more subscribers increases the cost more than the revenue. Utopia has always been a system where economies of scale are critical and each additional subscriber decreases the marginal cost significantly.
Relax, Mike. I got XMission's speed from its website (http://www.xmission.com/about/pricing/#utopia). Note that I clarified "residents."
Jesse is right, though, that MStar also offers a 50 Mbps package "where available."
I don't hate UTOPIA. I hate the constant misrepresentation, scapegoating, and inflated projections that bump it from one failure to the next. But, for the sake of the State's well-being, I hope that economics and mathematics are repealed and that its predictions defy everything the telecom market has seen to date. I hope in a few years that Mike and Jesse will be able to tell me they told me so. But, if that doesn't happen, I hope they'll join me in telling the cities that the State shouldn't bail them out.
This post has been removed by the author.
Jesse,
You can't say UTOPIA is dedicated to ubiquitous build out, if it will do it when and if it gets around to it. That is lip service.
I'm seriously committed to getting down to 200 pounds. Someday.
I've sat through dozens of meetings where Qwest says the exact same thing UTOPIA is now saying. It'll build out the entire town, if and when economic conditions warrant the investment. Just don't talk about schedules or accountability standards.
So, let me now correct my statements made in 11/07 on my blog and, possibly, yours, where I said that UTOPIA hadn't completely abandoned its commitment to build out in pledging cities. It has. Build out is accompanied by targets and short timelines, not nebulous affirmations.
Steve, XMission will offer the 100 Megabits to businesses if you ask for it. There seems to be at least an inkling of it here:
http://xmission.com/products/connections/utopia/
I hope you also take the time to read my post here on how I support Utopia while still being someone who places believes in free markets since you seem to believe free market is the only way to go:
http://www.freeutopia.org/2008/04/23/where-utopia-is-today-a-response-for-rep-steve-urquhart/#comment-4744
You said: "I hope that economics and mathematics are repealed and that its predictions defy everything the telecom market has seen to date." I'd be happy to get into more numbers with you, you seem to imply that Utopia has no chance of success. I don't think it has an infallible chance of success, but it certainly does have a reasonable chance of success in my estimation after an in-depth analysis. I am tired of people just saying it can't succeed without actually showing me numbers. I'm ready to get into the nitty-gritty here.
I will also add my voice to Jesse's that under no circumstances should the cities receive a "bailout" from the state. I would fight against such action. The cities wanted the autonomy to make the decision, they should live with the consequences of their actions. They shouldn't try to get the state to take on their obligations anymore than the state should try to take away their ability to create their own obligations.
Steve said: "You can't say UTOPIA is dedicated to ubiquitous build out, if it will do it when and if it gets around to it. That is lip service."
"I've sat through dozens of meetings where Qwest says the exact same thing UTOPIA is now saying. It'll build out the entire town, if and when economic conditions warrant the investment. Just don't talk about schedules or accountability standards."
Answer me this though: why would Qwest EVER invest in a part of a city that will never be profitable? There is no reason for a private business to do that. Their goal is to maximize profit. If doing an action will never bring profit, they will NEVER do it.
If Utopia is making excess revenue, they are not distributing it to shareholders, they are reinvesting it into their network, 100%, and they won't stop until everything is completely built out. Will Qwest take their profits from last quarter and bring DSL to West Haven, Utah? (Still without DSL) No, they won't until it is "profitable". For Utopia, it doesn't have to be "profitable", they just have to be breaking even.
Mike,
You win for tonight. I'm going to bed.
Email me your phone number (surquhart@utah.gov). I'd love to get together with you and Jesse over a meal.
Along with not being an engineer, I'm not an accountant or a telecom expert. But, as I look at the cost per marketable house, giving a realistic take rate (which will be reduced by any upfront cost; you've gotta give me that point), I don't see how it ever pencils. But, I'm always happy to learn and thrilled to have good dialogue. Thanks to you and Jesse for some good back and forth today.
Okay, one more comment, then bed.
I grant your last point (assuming 1:25 is your last point). UTOPIA has built where a private company likely wouldn't for some time. That is a virtue.
Flip side, it has built in locations where it really doesn't add much to the market -- other than the presence of government and its crushing power.
Bottom line that should be determined before significantly more indebtedness is incurred: can/might its decisions pan out? Unfortunately, the cities are allowing themselves to be rushed, admitting that they don't feel their concerns are being adequately addressed. And, why the rush? Did no one at UTOPIA or any member city envision this moment 5 months ago, as I did on this groundbreaking blog?
Steve, those are very good questions/comments. You said, "it [utopia] has built in locations where it really doesn't add much to the market".
Since no maps have been publicly released as to where Utopia is exactly, I have a hard time evaluating that, but you're probably right. I certainly would have started out in areas that needed it more. As I said before, there are people here in Utah TODAY that have absolutely no options for broadband except perhaps a terrible satellite provider with very high latency and very high costs (and modem-speed upload). I assume this is one of the "mistakes" the Utopia people talk about that they've made. Hopefully new management will bring better decision-making. The cities should demand accountability.
"can/might its decisions pan out?" I think the answer to that is yes, but I do agree that cities should take the time to do due diligence on it, just as they might if a contractor for, say, a city road was over-budget and behind schedule.
Your questions are ones that I'm not fully qualified to answer. I obviously have faith in the system, and I think by looking at the publicly released numbers and state auditors reports there is a chance for it to succeed, but it is going to take the right management and good decision-making. The ones that can really answer your questions are the Utopia management; and fortunately, the cities are asking the questions now.
Have a good night.
I thought I had a response to Steve's last comment for me. But it didn't make it for some reason.
But in response, addition, to Mike's last response I'd like to add that even in areas that already have Broadband services of one or both cable / dsl the availability of Utopia is influencing pricing for fear of losing customers.
I think MStar's comment about "where available" for the 50Mbps, is because they also provide services on iProvo and they haven't talked Provo into letting them offer that speed yet.
I'll see if I have any other thoughts on this long discussion I slept through.
I'll admit to being a little sour-grapes about UTOPIA because it's not available to me (in Lehi). That said, I think Steve would fully agree with me on two points - and I hope everyone else could agree to these two things as well.
1. I hope UTOPIA succeeds
2. If it fails the State should not be footing the bill for the cities.
David: I think we all can get behind those sentiments.
As for getting access in Lehi, you'd need to start asking your city council to look into it. UTOPIA has changed the way they'll do business with new cities to require them to completely finance the fiber optic rings on their own, so it might be a harder sell than it was to the initial cities. Based on their prior cost estimates, that could be anywhere from $6-8M to get the entire city hooked up. The good news is that the main fiber backbone runs along the UPRR and would be easy to attach to.
Steve:
I still haven't seen you back up this claim: "its product is inferior to the competition;"
Say what you want about UTOPIA, but I don't think you can say with a straight face, or at least without a Qwest gun to your head (or lots of their money in your coffers) that fiber optic is inferior to cable or DSL, or that it does not have a significantly bigger upside. You make some valid points, but when you write something like that, either your credibility goes out the window, or you demonstrate an ignorance of the technology.
Steve, I have no argument with your points that UTOPIA cities should not expect a bail out from the state. UTOPIA should be left to succeed or fail in the market on its merits. I personally think it will succeed. Can we count on you as a legislator not to give in to the temptation to change UTOPIA's playing field yet again with legislation intended to influence the outcome? Whatever failings local governments have, and we all know they exist, the legislature is also guilty of trying to be a "super-city council" and micromanage the affairs of cities. Please tell us you will leave UTOPIA alone and not legislate its failure.
Mensch,
Fiber is state of the art. But, it is too simplistic to say, "Fiber is better; therefore, UTOPIA rocks for consumers."
Unless we're talking about stringing beads on it, a consumer only receives benefit from fiber through the delivery/business skills of some provider. By all accounts, XMission appears to pass the test of being a good provider. MStar, Nuvont, and Veracity apparently don't. Because of their apparently poor business skills, it seems their customers receive an inferior product -- even though it is over FTTH. That is part of the reason that take rates are low.
Thanks for the reply, Steve. So is your argument that until there are more providers with sufficient delivery/business skills, we should wait on UTOPIA, i.e., if there were 10 providers with XMission's skills and service, UTOPIA would make sense?
Steve: Based on some things I heard last night, there's at least one VERY major company with extensive triple-play service who is willing to join UTOPIA once it passes a certain number of addresses. I'm pretty sure I shouldn't name names in public, but I'd be happy to discuss it with you privately.
From what I've heard, there are also several other larger and well-known telecommunications companies that will join as the network grows. Some of them are looking at the magic 50,000 household point, a point that will be passed should the new bonds pass and they hook up the RUS cities.
Steve, you know that I have been a long time active supporter of you. I have not, so far, been given any reason to change. Still, in the case of UTOPIA, I'm some what confused, even though I have followed UTOPIA with considerable, I yet have no position on UTOPIA other than to recognize their right to exist. It is one thing for you to be transparent about your position about state funding for public unitlities that compete with private competitors, such as Qwest. It is quite another thing for you to use your bully pulpet to make war on UTOPIA and to actively participate in its failure. What's going on here? Voin Campbell
Proponents of UTOPIA throw around numbers and shift the arguments without facing the basic fact that when measured against their promises, the project has failed.
From a purely engineering standpoint (yes, I am one) the basic premise of UTOPIA is quite flawed. Most businesses simply don't need the bandwidth being offered. Those that do, will often wisely have their systems hosted at a provider who already has "big pipes" (and who also provide physical security, robust backup power systems and other benefits.)
I'm also a little puzzled how anyone can claim with a straight face that UTOPIA won't start throttling users, favoring rich neighborhoods over poor and so forth. I think the reality of running the network will get in the way of wide eyed utopianism (pun intended) and arguably already has.
(I apologize for entering this anonymously. Google isn't accepting my password. Joe.)
Steve wrote: "From a purely engineering standpoint (yes, I am one) the basic premise of UTOPIA is quite flawed. Most businesses simply don't need the bandwidth being offered. Those that do, will often wisely have their systems hosted at a provider who already has "big pipes" (and who also provide physical security, robust backup power systems and other benefits.)"
Steve, I can't tell you how wrong you are. Most businesses absolutely rely on having good bandwidth, and what's especially important for business moreso than individuals is good upload speed. This isn't talked about enough. The current providers out there offer terrible upload speeds at a high cost. I don't know why you insist on taking such a hard stance on a subject you know little about.
Honestly, name me a business, any business, that uses computers and has more than 20 computers on premises and more than one location that wouldn't benefit from the increased speeds of UTOPIA. It is such an enormous issue for businesses that currently face high telecommunications prices and very few provider options.
Well, I could find you a few hundred businesses here in the state of Utah, and yes, many in your home town that for them this is an enormous issue and a very important one.
In my opinion, businesses stand to benefit far more than individuals with UTOPIA. Qwest's current offering for dedicated business circuits includes T-1 lines that start around $300 per month for only 1.5 up/down. (And the price can go far, far higher if you're not located in the most ideal and easy servicing location for Qwest). That's $300 dollars for a speed of 1/20th the initial speed offered with UTOPIA.
And you honestly think 1.5 megabit up/down is sufficient for most businesses today?
Voin,
I'm crafting a response for you. In brief, though, UTOPIA does compete with private companies. It chases away capital from companies that don't want to bet on shared infrastructure (for reasons that are being manifest by UTOPIA and iProvo) and that don't ask for government subsidies.
Mike T.,
Check again. I didn't write that. Anon did.
And, by the way, I'm not sure that being an engineer automatically qualifies you to know very much about the financial aspects of telecom. But, then again, the financials of UTOPIA really don't matter much to some people.
Steve, I apologize for attributing those comments to you. Looking over it again, I clearly made a mistake there.
As to your comment about financials, you're right being an engineer doesn't make me qualified, but I'm not just an engineer, I'm also a manager with a business degree. In addition, I'm a hobbyist economist and spend a lot of time going over numbers. I'm comfortable battling with financial experts, going over cash flow statements, income statements, balance sheets, etc. and I've spent significant time going over them in this case in a very specific way with Qwest's number (they are publicly traded), the UTOPIA financial records, and other information. I would love to go over numbers with you and show you why UTOPIA can work financially.
Post a Comment
<< Home