cptninc t1_jder05c wrote on March 23, 2023 at 9:31 PM

How does this compare to simply allowing Verizon to provide TV service without paying tithing? It's hard to imagine the tithing is much more than a rounding error compared to a $194MM capital spend.

stannenb OP t1_jdesrt3 wrote on March 23, 2023 at 9:43 PM

You answered your own question. The capital spend is, at a first approximation, what any entity would have to spend to bring fiber to the premises.

cptninc t1_jdewk0q wrote on March 23, 2023 at 10:08 PM

You're off by about $194MM dollars. If Verizon builds the network, Verizon pays to build it.

stannenb OP t1_jdewquv wrote on March 23, 2023 at 10:09 PM

So you expect Verizon to just give the service away?

cptninc t1_jdex8hu wrote on March 23, 2023 at 10:12 PM

Why would you jump to that idiotic conclusion?

The owner of the network pays to build it. If Verizon builds the network, the city saves $194MM. How many years worth of tithe is that equivalent to? 20? More? Financially, it's a no-brainer to suspend tithe to allow Verizon into the city.

stannenb OP t1_jdexvoo wrote on March 23, 2023 at 10:17 PM

And the residents pay for it with their subscription fees.

You can't wish the cost away. And, as you say, the cable franchise fee, is just rounding error. It can't be both a rounding error and critical part of Verizon's decision making.

cptninc t1_jdf2w6h wrote on March 23, 2023 at 10:52 PM

Verizon charges fees that are the same as what's in the proposal. Same monthly price but without the city making a $194MM spend.

One of the many reasons Verizon is able to match that rate is because it would cost them significantly less than $194MM to build out their network due to their existing infrastructure in the city.

stannenb OP t1_jdfzjw2 wrote on March 24, 2023 at 2:50 AM

Then why haven't they done it already? Oh, that's right, the rounding error.