Since nobody has pointed out the obvious: buying things for $1 in the business world means that the thing has negative book value (= its liabilities exclude its assets), but not so much that you'd want to structure the sale the other way around (= Provo paying Google to get rid of the thing). So Google's not getting $39m worth of stuff for $1, they're getting $39m worth of assets plus $Nm worth of liabilities (where n > 39) for $1. See also: <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peppercorn_(legal)" rel="nofollow">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peppercorn_(legal)</a><p>Also, paying $39m to build something doesn't mean the resulting asset is actually worth $39m any more, but that's another story.<p>(And obligatory disclaimer: I have no personal knowledge of how the valuation was actually made.)
A $39M fiber service that has been a constant drain on the city's coffers and is in serious need of upgrading. I read that the fiber pull is about half the cost of this; the other half is the routers, switches and other equipment it takes to make it work. I'm sure Provo City is breathing a sigh of relief at getting that weight off their back.<p>And I'm hoping that Googke will decide to extend its market to outlying communities. Much of American Fork was wired by the same original company, and my town is next to American Fork.<p>Come on, Google, it's only 12 miles! (My wife already prohibited a move for better Internet connectivity. :)
For $1 and a guarantee that they'll upgrade the network to gigabit speeds. Most of the fiber has been laid, but they still need to do a lot of infrastructure changes.
I am sure many more companies would have been interested in this deal. When it comes to selling the infrastructure built with tax-payer money, the government should be more transparent in its dealings. The city of Provo should have advertised the sale or lease of its fiber infrastructure and let companies bid on it. And the fiber should have gone to the highest bidder. Or at least, accept offers from multiple companies and let the residents decide (through voting) which company they want to give the infrastructure to.
This is something I've seen before, and expect more of.<p>Municipalities[taxpayers] paying to build out infrastructure, "mismanaging it"[then usually underfunding the administration because everyone wants 'small government', and then having the infrastructure scooped up for peanuts by a private company who makes a killing.<p>It's actually happening right now in slow motion in my hometown.