Letter to the editor: Fibrant’s cost
Should the public sector ever compete in the business world with the private sector? Today, taxpayers are supporting this business venture with higher property taxes. In other words you are paying an additional 12 cents added to your property taxes just to keep Fibrant in business. In the business world, if Fibrant were a private venture, it would have been shut down because they could not make enough money from the service offered to cover expenses.
Here is the rub: If Fibrant were to charge its customers an amount needed to cover existing debt and operating expenses, it would be overpriced in the marketplace because similar services offered by the private sector are cheaper.
Why was it decided that another television provider and electronic service was needed for Salisbury when there were already many private sector providers offering this service? While it may be true that Fibrant’s service was the very latest and fastest offered at that time, things change, new innovations surface and keeping up-to-date can be expensive. It is also necessary to be redundant; that is, if something happens and service offered is interrupted, it is necessary to have an alternative ready available to restore service. All of this requires additional money invested over time and the question is, should the taxpayers be required to fund this operation with tax dollars? Tax payers don’t get to vote on this but the people they send to office do; so, if you think this is not an appropriate venture for government shouldn’t you be telling them that?
One of the greatest concerns of the people is how government spends our tax dollars. They can continue to kick the can down the road and let someone else handle it but a day of reckoning always comes.
— Richard Roberts