Cities of the UTOPIA consortium -- the publicly owned fiber-optics network -- are considering this week whether to obligate taxpayers on a plan that would extend bond guarantees from 20 years to 33 years.

It's a big decision in light of the lukewarm business results we've seen so far.

Provo City, with its own version of the fiber-opitics dream known as iProvo, faces similar difficulties in assessing how to move forward.

If the cities can't come up with a plan to make the fiber-optics project pay off -- and soon -- they should admit they're in over their heads and craft an exit strategy.

Both UTOPIA and iProvo have used up money at high speeds. For example, iProvo has lost at least $1 million a year since it began in 2003, and is expected to lose about $2 million this year. That's a total loss since its inception of at least $9.5 million.

In the 11-city UTOPIA consortium, which includes Orem, Lindon and Payson, city councils will be considering this week whether to refinance their debt. In the worst-case scenario, cities could be on the hook for $503 million. For Orem, that's $109 million; Lindon, $15 million; Payson, $12 million.

It should be emphasized that if UTOPIA makes money the cities won't owe a dime. Bonds would be guranteed by tax dollars as a back-up that would be tapped only if UTOPIA goes under.

"If" is the operative word. If we build it, they will come. But what evidence do taxpayers have today that would give them great confidence in a positive outcome? The track record is dubious. UTOPIA has fallen far short of what it claimed in the beginning. By now it was supposed to have more than 24,000 customers. It actually has a little over 7,000.

It's true that fiber-optics promises great future benefits. Most experts agree that it's going to be the state of the art for data transmission for decades. Fiber-optic connections still offer the most speed to users and may yet draw more customers.

It's also true that some benefits of the public investment have been hidden. For example, the iProvo and UTOPIA initiatives appear to have driven down the cost of Internet access provided by incumbent telecom companies, Comcast and Qwest. The competition between those two is ferocious, and it's been fueled, at least in part, by the fiber-optic alternative. That's a public benefit that needs to be factored in when discussing public risk.

And there is risk. Technology is changing in unimaginable ways. Take the 33-year UTOPIA bonds. Did you imagine 33 years ago, in 1975, carrying a little telephone everywhere in your pocket? How about a telephone on which you could watch TV or get the news or message a friend? In the next 33 years, a technical advance could come along to lessen or even erase the value of UTOPIA's or iProvo's fiber-optic technology -- though it's hard to see how one could get much faster than the speed of light.

Calls for selling the iProvo and UTOPIA networks may be premature, if only because selling them for anything but a fire sale price isn't an easy job. American Fork has been looking at selling its broadband network since 2006, with no sale finalized yet.

So here we hang on the horns of a dilemma. The networks are losing money. They're having a hard time servicing their debts and completing their build-outs. Their business performance is weak, for whatever reason -- difficulties with service providers, poor marketing, state law that prohibits cities from engaging in retail business.

So what are the next steps?

First, the councils considering the UTOPIA refinancing plan absolutely must ask plenty of tough questions. This project got off the ground fueled by no small amount of hype and wishful thinking. A frank assessment of the realities is needed now. If tough questions can't be answered at one meeting, it is essential to discuss them fully at another, and another, and another.

Taxpayers in the UTOPIA cities will be on the hook for half-a-billion dollars if the refinancing proposal goes through. That kind of money could go a long way toward building Utah's transportation infrastructure or serve some other need. Normally, cities will agonize for months over spending a few thousand bucks. They shouldn't blithely put millions at risk without deep and thorough examination.

As for iProvo, it's expected this week that a panel will be created to review the network's finances. We trust the panel, council and the mayor will provide the necessary hard-headed analysis of the network, along with firm plans for increasing its revenues.

For both systems, lofty promises and vague hopes pinned on a marketing campaign just don't seem to cut it. This is a fundamental question of cost vs. value to customers.

Clear, specific and realistic plans are essential now, including definite timelines and benchmarks. Financial goals and sales goals must be set and reached. If benchmarks are not met, exit strategies should be invoked.

Do you agree?