dslreports logo
 story category
Municipal Report
Playing Louisiana fiber keep-away

Cox and BellSouth continue efforts to derail a community backed fiber service in Lafayette, Louisiana. The companies have brought in experts portraying muni-efforts as childish folly, conducted dubious "push" surveys, warned of big brother surveillance, questioned the usefulness of fiber optic connections; and now that they've "educated" locals - are ready to embrace Democracy and let the people vote.

The launch of Cox's "let the people vote" website and this week's hiring of political pollster Verne Kennedy isn't an indication the company is shifting gears toward Democratic activism. Cox simply is aware that a public vote gives them an advantage over the local effort to get fiber; their deep pocketed PR departments likely able to swing less technically minded voters to their side of the debate.

A similar tactic was used in Illinois by Comcast and SBC, who circulated surveys asking many residents misleading questions, such as whether or not they thought tax-payer money should be used to provide pornography. The efforts worked, the vote failed, and residents of the tri-cities were rewarded with rate hikes as high as 33% in several areas.

According to public testimony from Bill Oliver, president of BellSouth Louisiana, people "don't need" the fiber broadband, phone, cable, and telephone service the Lafayette Utilities System would provide. At a City-Parish Council meeting Oliver suggested that fiber was simply a better method of transport, and wouldn't provide improved services despite the significant increase in bandwidth.

In 2002, Cox Louisiana was one of the few cable markets in the country that saw three rate hikes in one year; a luxury afforded companies with little competition. Regional Cox customers are part of a forgotten Cox division that has been excluded from a series of speed increases customers in coastal markets have enjoyed. Cox is only now starting to provide these customers with connections faster than 1Mbps, yet they're sure fiber is a bad idea.

And there's the rub: Muni operations are the incumbents own creation. Geographical monopolies are battling tooth and nail - state-to-state- to prevent municipal competition; competition born out of the incumbents' inability to provide quality services and bandwidth at reasonable prices. Where would the country's broadband infrastructure be if these companies took money spent on surveys, lobbying, and misleading advertisements, and spent them on upgrades?

Fear mongering is apparently easier. "Would government broadband invade privacy and allow the government to listen to your telephone conversations, monitor the Internet sites you visit, and know what cable shows you watch?", asked Cox executive Gary Cassard at a City-Parish Council meeting earlier this year.

Earlier this month, Cox brought out a number of experts, the majority of whom were tied to incumbent interest and lobbying groups, to testify that municipal plans in the region were "unrealistic". One expert went so far as to suggest it was "inevitable" that such a project would fail.

We're guessing the experts didn't mention that in markets with more than one cable operation (muni or otherwise) consumers usually see rates 17% lower on average, according to data from the General Accounting Office. Also likely omitted was how the 16,000 residents of Newnan, Georgia receive broadband for $25 a month, discussion of how one Minnesota suburb now enjoys $16 3Mbps wireless service, or the growing number of other communities enjoying less expensive alternatives.

Did the experts explore the success of Tacoma's Click! Network, which has brought unprecedented price drops and competition to Washington State ($30 broadband, $25 cable)? Did they mention the township of South Dundas, Canada, which spent a million dollars on a municipal network, and in return saw 62.5 new jobs, $2.1 million in commercial expansion, and $105,000 in increased regional revenues and cost-savings (see pdf data)?

These aren't honest debates over the viability of municipal operations occurring in dozens of states across America. These are not corporate executives seriously concerned with the Democratic process and the quality of service communities receive. These are tactical corporate disinformation campaigns, designed to protect bottom lines and keep competition from arising in the service vacuums these companies have helped to create.
view:
topics flat nest 

Octopussy2
Premium Member
join:2003-03-30
Batavia, IL

Octopussy2

Premium Member

Bottom line

All those incumbents care about is their bottom line. Don't think for one second they wouldn't install fiber to the home if it wasn't prosperous for THEM to do so. They know that FTTP is a far superior technology, it just isn't prosperous for them to rollout those services to everyone, so they say fiber is an unproven technology (like in the Tri-Cities) or they try to refocus the campaign on something completely different then all the benefits a FTTP system can bring to a community.

One can only hope voters see through this in Lafayette and the Tri-Cities.
ParanoiaInc
join:2002-08-28
Tucker, GA

ParanoiaInc

Member

Re: Bottom line

Incumbents are not the only one's that care about their bottom line. Any privately held or publicly traded company (ahem, business) is operating for the purpose of making a profit. Did you forget this? If they weren't, they'd be a not-for-profit entity.

So, while the propaganda coming from all parties may not be valid, don't blame a business for trying to operate in a profitable manner. If no business were to seek a profit you would be doing without a heck of a lot of technology and material goods in your personal life.

Imagine what kind of vehicle you would be driving if all those for-profit automakers closed up shop because they couldn't make a bottom line, or a better bottom line to make better cars next year.

ninepin
@jamsis01.sc.comcast.

ninepin

Anon

Re: Bottom line

paranoiainc brings up a good point about an unrivaled business looking out for number 1, but that will never lead to innovation or anything beneficial for the consumer.

crushing competition leads to stagnation because they only care about money. if they're the only providers there, why would they try to change? however, true competition breeds improvement, because the company now must earn your money with better service, cheaper rates, etc...

think past the "business close = bad" idea. if a business closes it's because someone else does it better. support competition.

cmorda
join:2002-09-07
Ventura, CA

cmorda to ParanoiaInc

Member

to ParanoiaInc
You're right, we can't blame a business for trying to operate in a profitable manner but we should be concerned about deceptive propaganda aimed at voters who are not "in the know" about the issue at hand.
Eliminating deceptive advertising would have little or no negative effect on progressive technology. Deception is a tool for those looking to market a product which cannot speak for itself. Think about "Ronco"... A very popular advertiser yet they have never marketed anything truly revolutionary for the modern kitchen.

dg2
Premium Member
join:2004-01-22
Lowell, AR

dg2

Premium Member

Don't take Cox's word for it

As a Cox subscriber, in their "Middle America Cox" (MAC) division along with Lafayette, I encourage Lafayette to do their own research and not listen to Cox. MAC was passed over for three upgrades in a row. After months of questions going unanswered, and empty promises unfulfilled, we learned yesterday that MAC is finally getting what all other Cox subscribers have had for years - but so far only in Southern Louisiana! Some coincidence?

Check out the Cox forum (»Cox) for more details.

Lafayette government - don't trust Cox just yet! Once you drop this, you're back at their mercy!
TACSPEED
Premium Member
join:2001-04-14
Tacoma, WA

TACSPEED

Premium Member

Re: Don't take Cox's word for it

No coincidence. TCI did the same thing here in Tacoma. For years, TCI would not upgrade the cable system in Tacoma. As soon as the city of Tacoma decided to build Click!, TCI started upgrading the their cable system.
cmos100
join:2004-08-24
Lafayette, LA

cmos100 to dg2

Member

to dg2
You don't know anything about Lafayette politics if you think this is a good idea.

dg2
Premium Member
join:2004-01-22
Lowell, AR

dg2

Premium Member

Re: Don't take Cox's word for it

You're right. I don't know a single thing about Lafayette politics, but I do know Cox and how Cox has treated its customers in the MAC region. I also know that southern Louisiana is the VERY FIRST part of MAC to receive the current upgrades, which are the third round MAC has been left out of.

I'm not saying Lafayette should build this because I don't know if it's a good idea or not. What I do know is that if Cox is opposing it, it's worth looking into.

RealityChecker
@65.247.x.x

RealityChecker to cmos100

Anon

to cmos100
The politics of this area is everything with this deal. No state does politics like Louisiana, from the King Fish Long, to Edwin Edwards. If you think that Cox is worried more about lining there pockets, you don't know greed till you have met the people behind LUS. By the way check out LUS' rates for utilities verses the corporately held entities that surround the Parish. This will give you a clue as to what they are all about. Is it any coincidence that this plan has been well known to everyone in the Lafayette area for about 4 years, but no move for it was made until the new Governor came into power. Is it sheer coincidence that she is from Lafayette, and got her start DEEP in the Lafayette political pull group. Money, Money, MONEY, and now POWER! Always a great combination when greed is the motivation. However knowing Louisiana as I do I am sure they will vote for it then wonder what happened when there is only LUS left and there rates go through the roof.

wolfox
Gentle Wolfox
join:2002-11-27
Dunnellon, FL

wolfox

Member

Re: Don't take Cox's word for it

There is always going to be a struggle for power and money no matter where you live. I will give you an example:

Where I live, Cox held out on cable modems and digital broadband/T.V. service for 2 years after SBC deployed their DSL network. Why? Because Cox wanted the city to sign a franchise agreement that GUARANTEED them monopolistic control in the area before they bothered with upgrade, or HSI deployment. The city finally awarded them a 10 year franchise agreement and within a year, offered digital and HSI service. A neighboring town just 10 miles away had these advanced services at about the same time SBC came to bat with DSL.

You will *never* see a rival T.V. entertainment network anywhere else in this town unless it is piped in on satellite. Can't wait to see what schenanigans will arise next when the franchise agreement expires here in a few more years. Oh, and also being part of the M.A.C. service region - yep, their best "home" class, let alone business class offerings are only 1/6 the offering SBC provisions. I really want to see Cox improve their network because I really want to see the next freebie SBC tosses my way to keep my business.

NostraDumbas
join:2000-10-15
Philadelphia, PA

NostraDumbas

Member

Business is business

As much as I hate what the companies are doing, I gotta admit, I would do the same thing. You gotta do whatever takes to make money. Its genious

TechieZero
Tools Are Using Me
Premium Member
join:2002-01-25
Lithia, FL

TechieZero

Premium Member

Re: Business is business

said by NostraDumbas:
As much as I hate what the companies are doing, I gotta admit, I would do the same thing. You gotta do whatever takes to make money. Its genious

To me it boarders on CRIMINAL.

rpeAMP
join:2000-12-02
San Antonio, TX

rpeAMP

Member

Re: Business is business

said by TechieZero:
said by NostraDumbas:
As much as I hate what the companies are doing, I gotta admit, I would do the same thing. You gotta do whatever takes to make money. Its genious

To me it boarders on CRIMINAL.

Please explain.

BadHat
Hook'M Horns
Premium Member
join:2003-10-14
Rosa's Place

BadHat to TechieZero

Premium Member

to TechieZero
said by TechieZero:


To me it boarders on CRIMINAL.

It's BAU. Nothing criminal about it. I have an issue I want you to favor, I build it up and trash the opponent. Just like politics...
ParanoiaInc
join:2002-08-28
Tucker, GA

ParanoiaInc to TechieZero

Member

to TechieZero
said by TechieZero:
said by NostraDumbas:
As much as I hate what the companies are doing, I gotta admit, I would do the same thing. You gotta do whatever takes to make money. Its genious

To me it boarders on CRIMINAL.

And thankfully you are not the law. If it were criminal then the state and federal regulating entities would either be doing something about it, or ignoring it.
markopoleo
join:2003-04-02
Bonne Terre, MO

markopoleo

Member

Most small towns do this for the sole purpose..

of getting the major cable/DSL companies to expand/upgrade service so they don't have to do it themselves.

And it works most the time, I remember reading this small town of less that 3000 people was going to put in own wireless ISP because they could not get a cable comany only a few miles away to provide cable, so after they made known there intentions the cable company offered to give everyone cable modem access within a year.

Saved the town a million bucks or so
ParanoiaInc
join:2002-08-28
Tucker, GA

ParanoiaInc

Member

Re: Most small towns do this for the sole purpose..

Most, maybe, but not all. Some townships are doing this just to be free of what they perceive are high broadband rates. If they can afford to deploy their own infrastructure and operate it at a non-loss then power to them.

Unfortunately, I have seen not-so-small townships try exactly this and get themselves over their heads. In the end, several of these have run well into the red with a condition they cannot even begin to operate. I know of one locally that did this even when both cableco and telco operators were present with modern broadband well before the township got the proverbial hair up their butts.

But, the is an underlying concern that most residents probably should be addressing if not already haven done so: should the township's entire population pay for such a service when only a portion is wanting the service? While you and I may be wanting such a favorable offering, if it can be offered, I know of a lot of people contrary to my position.

Octopussy2
Premium Member
join:2003-03-30
Batavia, IL

Octopussy2

Premium Member

Re: Most small towns do this for the sole purpose..

Many of these models are being financed in many different ways. The "entire population" is not paying for the service in most muni utility service ventures. Most are paid for through user fees. Some cities are considering private financing or revenue bonds. Some, a blend of financing methods.
8744675
join:2000-10-10
Decatur, GA

8744675

Member

If only...

If only the encumbants would spend all that money and time improving their own service, instead of trying to squash a competitor, we wouldn't be reading this article.

Octopussy2
Premium Member
join:2003-03-30
Batavia, IL

Octopussy2

Premium Member

Re: If only...

And don't forget providing quality service at bargain prices....

Munis can offer local service with local accountability and the money will stay in the community. What more could people ask for?
ParanoiaInc
join:2002-08-28
Tucker, GA

ParanoiaInc to 8744675

Member

to 8744675
Um, not in every case. In concept that is the goal, but reality is not always successful. Heck, broadband isn't the only sector where money seems to get soaked up without successful results.

For instance, Public Television is aa joke in Georgia. Taxpayer money, corporate funding, etc. has done nothing to produce results in converting analog PBS broadcast to digital broadcasts. How is it that Greenville, SC can offer DTV and yet Atlanta cannot?

Someone oaked up some money in their convenient manner and produced zero success. BTW, Marietta, GA tried the MUNI-thing and failed miserably. Sure, you can vote the politicians out of office, but that doesn't recover spent monies and a failed attempt.

Octopussy2
Premium Member
join:2003-03-30
Batavia, IL

Octopussy2

Premium Member

Re: If only...

Just a note on Marietta. They were by no means a "failure" -- they were on track to go into the black in the first quarter of 2006. After that, it would have been a pure cash cow for the city. As it happens, however, the mayor ran on the issue of getting the City out of the telecom business three years ago, and he was willing to dump the system at any cost. Perhaps the best evidence of how well the system was doing is that the purchaser hired 100% of the staff to continue exactly what they were doing before the sale.

It should also be noted here they only offered service to businesses - not the triple play.

BillRoland
Premium Member
join:2001-01-21
Ocala, FL

BillRoland

Premium Member

No coincidence

Its no coincidence that Cox is now integrating Lafayette into its nationwide Cox.net backbone (a huge boost in speed from 1024/128 to 4000/512Kbps) to kick the muni effort in the teeth.

dzgg
@cox.net

dzgg

Anon

Imagine if

Just imagine if the Muni-effort is actually approved. Would get really interesting then. Just the possibility may very well work to get Lafayette LA what they should have had for a long time now, both price and speed wise.

Sadly, big business can't find their assess with a compass, flashlight, and a whole team of proctology's's though as they continue to sink tons of money for the wrong reasons with total disregard for the consumer.

Malakin
@telus.net

Malakin

Anon

Will Free City Wide Internet Access Catch on?

I keep reading more and more about cities offering or considering to offer free city wide internet access and this could be the wave of the future. If the companies don't want to do it and it's only projected to costs a city like Philadelphia $10M to implement and 1.5M/year to maintain then why not, the costs seem trivial compared to the economical and societal benefits. This could massively hurt internet/phone/cell companies if everyone starting switching to using free internet access and to mobile wifi/ip phones using the free services available so there will certainly be a huge corporate resistance, however I strongly believe this is the way of the future.
Here's a Google News search on what Philadelphia is considering:
»news.google.ca/news?hl=e ··· rch+News
Here's a Google News search on city wide wifi in general which shows many cities are implementing it or considering it:
»news.google.ca/news?hl=e ··· rch+News