I think we need more information before making a decision. Some of my unanswered questions:

1. At the last BOD meeting, KL said explicitly that it had not obtained bids from any other internet service provider (and had no plans to do so). Why not? How do we know that we're getting the best possible deal if we haven't looked at any other alternatives? Yes, option #1 provides better pricing than Qwest's full retail rates, but that says nothing about how this option compares to other mandatory, bundled rates from other providers. Without a competitive bid, we have no idea whether this represents the best deal possible. Remember, we're all giving up something of value (our ability to choose our own internet service). I want to make sure that we're truly getting something commensurate in return.

2. How will the 10% revenue sharing be used by the community. I think we need a SPECIFIC agreement about how these funds will be used. "Extra" money has a tendency to slip through our fingers. I would hate to see KL use the funds to cut its operating subsidy or for CCMC to pad its bottom line.

3. What are the community's objectives behind requiring participation in a mandatory internet agreement? In the beginning, KL said that the mandatory internet arrangement with Qwest was necessary to provide them the incentive to lay the fiber optics in the community. That's where the original 5-year contact came from. Now that the contract has expired and those initial investment costs have been recouped, what is the reasoning behind requiring everyone in Daybreak to have the same ISP? Is it to save us money? Is it because they think they can choose better than us? Is it a marketing tool? Is it because they are getting something extra from Qwest on the back end? Is it because it existed for 5 years and now must continue for 5 or 10 or 20 or 50 more? I'm not saying any of these are necessarily bad, but I think we should be really clear about what we're trying to accomplish. Specifically, what happens if another type of service provider (say lawn service or bottled water or fresh milk and egg deliveries) comes into KL's office and says that they can save homeowners $10/month if they only require everyone in Daybreak to sign up for their service. Would this be okay with everyone? If not, why are those services different from internet service? I'm not trying to be argumentative. I just think it's a legitimate question to ensure that mandatory internet today does not become mandatory something else tomorrow. Again, we are being asked to give up something of value (our freedom to choose our preferred service provider); I want to make sure we are receiving something equally valuable in return.

4. I am among those who have experienced major issues with Qwest. I have not used the service in more than 2 years. I work from home and, after the sixth or seventh attempt to get them to fix the service (it was likely a problem in the line between their box and my house), I finally had to move on. I have continued to pay for Qwest AND another service for over two years. If this deal goes through, I intend to try Qwest again in hopes that they will make good on their service agreement. But, let's say that I don't have a good enough attitude and it doesn't work. How long should I continue to pay for Qwest's services? One more year? Two? Three? Ten? At what point, can an individual resident opt-out?

It's probably just my "bad attitude" talking, but I am skeptical whenever *any* company says that they have my best interests at heart and that, in exchange for just a small bit of my personal freedom, they will save me a few bucks a month. Before we all jump on board, I hope we can stop and take a look at the fine print.