The ongoing debate in Burlington about the use of $17 million in city funds to keep its fledgling telecom utility afloat has taken up a lot of the political, and policy, discussion in the Queen City.
One frequent, and fun, question that comes up in discussions is: Of Burlington Telecom’s 4600 subscribers, how many are city councilors?
I know that’s not the biggest question people have, and the formation of two special council committees is a step into finding out answers to the bigger questions around how the money was spent, and whether or not the current governance structure is adequate. As this week’s lengthy council meeting proved, there is no end to the angles that can, and will, be explored.
I thought it’d be a fun exercise to find out which councilors buy BT and which buy from other companies. Would they fall into neat political categories? Would the pro-BT voices on the council all have triple play? Would the anti-BT voices have Comcast or whomever?
So, I polled the entire council and with all 14 members responding, their answers may, or may not, surprise you.
This article appears in Oct 28 – Nov 3, 2009.
Got something to say?
Send a letter to the editor and we'll publish your feedback in print!
Thanks to all the Councilors for providing this information. Though whether or not you have BT service is probably a very minor component of your stance, this is full disclosure and also shows which Councilors know the company from a customer perspective.
As a subscriber of BT I feel their service has been better than Adelphia/comcast was. With that said I was not a supporter of the city starting BT wnen we voted I voted no, at the time because even back then I had serious concerns of how Burlington Government was being run and had a feeling the city could screw it up somehow. Considering telecommunication has been a great opportunity for most that run telecommunications to screw up I had full confidence Burlington could screw it up better than anyone. I would like personally to thank the Mayor, and the CAO for making my prediction come true. They must go.
Just to help Mister Adrian understand… buying local is about where the money goes just as much as it’s about production. The money that is sent to BT stays in Burlington… the money you send to Comcast leaves the state. That’s a very rough explanation – but ownership does indeed matter in the “buy local” calculation..
Local is an odd word here for either side of the debate.The original hookup crews and probably some now were out of staters. Remember all of those vehicles. I’M Joe cable, contractor for BT, license plates from NH, ME. Mass. were abundant. Maybe that was the begining of the trouble, local was not local. But now with the decisions of Da Mayor and Da CAO it is all a mute point. Hook up crews from out of state now seems minor compared to the Mayor and CAO mishandling $17 milion. The Mayor and CAO must go.
The money that is sent to BT stays in Burlington… the money you send to Comcast leaves the state.That’s a gross oversimplification. Comcast employs local people, and BT pays fees to content providers out of state.Local economies are not discrete systems. Ownership may matter a little in the “buy local calculation” but would buying something from a factory in China owned by an American be “buying American?” Hardly.Local ownership also matters because it comes with risk. How is BT going to pay the city its 17 million back? It was supposed to pay it back in sixty days and it’s been almost a year.****Any of those 9 councilors running BT internet ever consider possibility that Jonathan Leopold is reading their email? He probably isn’t, but stranger things have happened. I use BT and although I always dismiss it, the thought does creep into the back of my mind from time to time. Just remember the Fourth Amendment Leopold! My Libertarian reflex forces me to respect Paul Decelles’s avoidance on principle. But that doesn’t mean I don’t support BT. I certainly do, but only to a point. They better pay that money back. Everything else, as Gordon Gekko would say, is conversation.
HAIK writes: “Any of those 9 councilors running BT internet ever consider possibility that Jonathan Leopold is reading their email? He probably isn’t, but stranger things have happened.”….the desire for victory and secrecy makes one do some unthinkable things. Remember when Bill Belichek wanted so badly to know what the other side was planning that he was willing to break the rules? So it isn’t so much strange as it is a willingness to win at any cost. Of course a smart man such as CAO Leopold has probably not received others emails but it is widely rumoured that he has been informed as to what his detractors are saying.
Its halloween and as the ghosts and goblins meander by it strikes me that The Mayor and CAO are no more than children coming to the door for treats. However the children offer the alternative. Tricks or Treats. The Mayor and CAO offer only one option. Tricks. They must go.As we move forward to the holiday season their holiday baskets must contain only one thing. A subpeona.The audit will speak. Hey the audit need not speak the CAO already admitted he put taxpayers in jeopardy with his decisions. He has cemented the final decision. The Mayor and CAO must go.
I wonder what service Kurt Wright uses. He seems to be in the middle of everything these days trying to keep his face and name out there. Does he support BT by using their services?
Re. "Councilor Paul Decelles (R-Ward 7) doesn't subscribe based on principle. He doesn't think government should be involved in a private-sector activity. He uses Comcast for phone and Internet and the Dish Network for TV."
Any word on whether the Councilor is off the grid, has shut off his curb-stop voluntarily, buys bottled water only, and is renting a Port-O-Let (or has an out-house perhaps)?