Month: May 2005

This Advertiser story is pretty much the same story that the Advocate carried yesterday. And my interpretation of the event remains the same. Where the lawsuit will be heard is less interesting than the fact that the lawsuit is an obvious ploy intended to give some, any, basis for smearing a valued Lafyette institution. (See yesterday’s longer version) On reflection I have only one thing to add: it’s not only the charges made that are intended to fuel negative publicity; it is also the extensive 10-year fishing expedition through LUS records that is intended to locate something, anything, that can be spun to tarnish LUS’ reputation.

Watch for it. And when it appears, allow yourself some anger at the sorts of people who fund lawsuits like this.

It probably goes without saying that I really like this letter. And yes, we are related–by marriage.

The point Layne makes is exactly the right one:

David’s argument goes wrong at the point where he overlooks the fact that there is no free-market competition for telecom services in Lafayette now. This is exactly why Lafayette was not in line to get fiber until LUS hatched its Fiber For The Future plan. What we have here today, in effect, is two side-by-side monopolies, Cox and BellSouth, who don’t have to upgrade their services or lower their prices to keep us as customers because there are no other providers. And they’ve gone so far as to try to pass laws to keep it that way.

Anyone who thinks the “free market” should provide fiber optic services misses the point that there is no free market in any telecommunications service in Lafayette and that Lafayette won’t begin to look like it has a free market—one with the attendent decreases in price and increases in service—until LUS provides the first real competition in both the phone and the cable segments.

Now I know that will just sound crazy to some folks: LUS is government! How can they be participants in the free enterprise system? No Way!

Well, there is a way, but you have to reason about it differently from how the ideologs tend to reason.

There are roughly two sorts of ways to think about things like this: those who reason from first cause and those who reason from consequence. (Sorry for the jargon, stick with me for a minute…I hope the distinction will prove useful.) Those who reason from first cause require the world to be broken up into distinct categories, into black and white, and connected according to rigid rules. If you know the categories and rules, you just deduce whatever it is you want to know. This is the mindset of classical mathematics; philosophers called a related pattern idealism. On the other hand, those who reason from consequence are more likely to notice that you can’t usually draw hard and fast lines between categories and that the rules describe rather than prescribe regularities in relationships. They recognize that we actually are most attuned to consequence: we try things and wait to see what happens. Then we decide what to do based on what has actually happened—not our preconceptions as to what should have happened. We make our real decisions based on the consequences we observe. This is the mindset of classical science and philosophers called the related pattern empiricism.

(The point, please? Ok, I’m getting there.) Well, folks who think ideally, who reason from first cause and rigid categories, can’t begin to see how we have anything but free enterprise because we have private companies offering goods for sale. That’s enough for them to know: it fits the definition. On the other hand, folks who reason from consequence look around and notice that the world isn’t so neat and that the consequences of free enterprise, the reasons we actually like it, that competition for our business, is not actually happening. From their point of view (and mine, and Layne’s), there is no free enterprise where there are none of the desirable fruits of free enterprise.

From this second point of view LUS would be providing the first signs of an actual free market in telecom—complete with lower prices and better service. LUS will be bringing free enterprise in telecom to Lafayette . . . not in any way “hurting” it.

I’m a proponent of the old adage of “By your fruits shall you know it.” And I think it’s the right way to reason about our situation. So it’s not so crazy to say:

LUS is bringing free enterprise to the Lafayette market. Kudos to Layne for saying it right out loud.

(Sorry, folks, for the foray into philosophy, sometimes there just doesn’t seem to be a better way. I’ll try and keep it down. 🙂 )

More of the same old same old. I am finding it easy to get truly weary of the new tactic of trying to tear down LUS through lies and innuendo.

The news part of this story in the Advocate is that the oh-so-convienent-for-the-corporations lawsuit that alleges that LUS has overcharged its customers has been moved to federal court as a consequence of the fact that the only real charges that allege something specific has to do with federal regulations that require LUS to help balance the electrical grid in our region. Other charges are in the suit, but they are “publicity charges” without any real facts that can be judged. They exist only to fuel publicity releases and for inclusion in flyers and mail pieces during the final weeks.

The “news” part of the story, though, is the least interesting part. What is emerging is a pattern for how the incumbents and their allies want to pursue this fight: through tearing down the proponents instead of mounting any of their unsuccessful argument.

Does anyone, anyone, really believe that this lawsuit, which alleges that LUS overcharges its customers on some esoteric bit of federal “fuel adjustmen,” is anything other than a ploy to smear the utility as we go into this referendum on a fiber optic network LUS will build and run? LUS’ excellent reputation is the single greatest reason not to believe the tales the incumbents tell about failures and municipal incompetence. The solution for BellSouth and Cox? Smear LUS. This lawsuit was an opening salvo in that. Neal Breakfield’s recent anti-fiber editorial that declined to mention fiber in favor of smearing LUS was the most recent.

You know, when we first went into this fight, even anti fiber people were willing to admit that LUS was an excellent utility and that Terry Huval and Joey Durel were honorable men. Back in those halcyon days the argument was over the idea…and, frankly, ideology. But what has happened is that the opponents have discovered that the idea of a municipal fiber optic utility is widely accepted as a good one. And that the sort of ideology that makes your local police, utilitities, and city council into something evil is not an ideology that sensible people share. So, lacking a convincing argument, falling back to smearing people and institutions is acceptable.

So when you start to see a pattern of stories about and hear opponents of a municipal fiber network focus on how you should feel suscpicious of an institution that you and your neighbors trust, ask yourself if the opponents are really watching out for you as they pretend…or for a couple of corporations whose only interest in Lafayette lies in the profit they can extract and ship to Atlanta.

Do you recall the hoorah over the anti-Lafayette bill filed in our state legislature by Senator Broome on behalf of Cox Communications? That’s the bill that would force a second election on Lafayette should the upcoming referendum pass, and fine the people of Lafayette almost a million dollars if they chose to invest in a municipal telecommunications utility –and give that money to Cox. Oh, and as lagniappe, it would further restrict the rights of every municipality in the state to do what Lafayette is hoping to do.

That it borders on the unbelieveable doesn’t mean that our state legislature isn’t capable of blindly passing it. The bill faces its first hurdle in a committee hearing in the Senate Commerce Committee. It should die in committee and all members there should be encouraged to vote “NO.”

What we all need to do is to contact the good Senators who sit on that committtee and make our opposition plainly known. An email would be good. A phone call would be much better. And, if you’ve got some spare jack, try a telegram…how many of those do they get these days?

Your phone call will be most effective with your senator. In Lafayette that’s Mike Michot and he’s already on Lafayette’s side. Calling the others can only help but won’t be as effective as a call from their hometowns. THE most effective thing you can probably do is to email or call your friends who live in or near the other senators’ districts and ask them to contact their legislators. We all know how to talk and cell phones pretty much kill long distance costs. Ask your friends and family for a favor. Ask them to ask theirs.

The other senators live in Metairie, Gonzales, Chalmette, New Orleans (2), Livingston, and Winnfield.

Resources for the fight:

Don’t need to read more? Want to get on the phone now? Want to email your friends with the info they need on their senator? Here’s your page.

Want some fighting language for when you call? Sure, glad to help: The Advertiser Editorial; Lafayette Pro Fiber’s outrage, next day’s.

Looking to try and understand the issue a little better? I understand—just be aware we don’t have much time. The Advertiser news story, The bill itself, Last year’s almost equally obnoxious law that it modifies.

Here is something all folks who have Lafayette’s best interests at heart should be able to agree on. This bill is a naked attempt to punish Lafayette, put forward on Cox’s behalf. Let’s see where the loyalties of those who claim to be for fiber, for our citizens deciding our fate, and for Lafayette stand on this one. Do they take effective action to protect Lafayette and the decisions that her people make at the polls? Or do they side with Cox? This should be an easy call…let’s see what the anti side calls for on their sites.

Louisiana has a Broadband Advisory Council which has a major flaw: the commission is dominated by interests that are the major reason that broadband (even by the ridiculously inadequate definition of the FCC — 256 Kbps) is either not available or not affordable in most of rural Louisiana.

The Washington Post has a story today indicating that the lack of broadband is a problem even in fast growing areas of northern Virginia. Leaders there recognize that this lack of broadband access is acting as a brake on economic growth there.

The big private sector companies (Verizon is specifically mentioned) claim they can’t make money on the infrastructure investments they’d have to make there. This is prompting a closer look at the possibility of public sector network buildouts.

Naturally, the private sector companies are aghast at the idea.

No, they’d rather have network buildouts subsidized and are aggressively moving to keep other potential rivals (in this case, broadband over power lines via electric utilities) out of the market.

The recognition that abundant, affordable bandwidth is creating a clear divergence between the economic interests of communities and the interests of the traditional providers of bandwidth who clearly have neither the funds nor the business model to make the infrastructure investments necessary to bring that bandwidth to those communities. The incumbents’ fight to kill the LUS fiber to the premises project is a hot-spot where the separation of interests has erupted into a major fight.

A similar problem existed around the delivery of electricity in the U.S. for much of the early 20th Century. Investor-owned utilities would not invest in rural America, thereby depriving those living there of the benefits of electricity. The Rural Electrification Administration (REA), now the Rural Utilities Service, was the institutional response created to respond to that electrical divide. It cleared the way for the creation of member-owned electric co-operatives that delivered bandwidth to places which ‘the market’ failed.

If Louisiana (and/or the federal government) is serious about pulling rural Louisiana (America) across the Digital Divide, the model to do that exists. The question is whether political leaders can learn to distinguish between the interests of their constituents from those of the incumbent providers. It’s clear the incumbents are not having any trouble making that distinction.

David Hays (AKA Hayes) has had published yet another letter that indicates the poverty of the anti-fiber position. Without a positive vision for Lafayette, or even a very effective negative anti-fiber flag to fly, the opposition has taken to smearing the city, LUS, and —when useful— the police department.

Earlier this week we saw (and reported on) the spectacle of an anti-fiber guest editorial in the Advertiser that did not so much as mention fiber—much less any argument against the plan—but instead spent all its energy trying to tear down LUS and implying that there was something “hidden” and dishonest about the LUS “In Lieu of Taxes” contribution to the city’s general fund. The idea that such a visible and common practice across the country and for generations in Lafayette is hidden and misrepresented is simply puzzling if you don’t understand the writer’s hidden agenda: convincing you to think poorly of the proponents of Lafayette’s plan without addressing the plan itself.

This practice of misdirecting your attention continues unabated in today’s Advertiser letters…

David Hays’ letter would like you to minimize BellSouth and Cox’s misdeeds, to look away from what they actually did, and to infer that the city and our police department are worse in any case. He’s dead wrong; let us indulge ourselves in the tedium of showing how, step by step and line by line. He begins:

The push poll makes it clear that the incumbents will do foolish things in the LUS FTTH battle.

No, let us not indulgently characterize the push poll as “foolish” —that is truly inadequate. The push poll was dishonest, it was intended to perpetuate and spread what the poll writers knew were lies. The absurd quality of the lies reveals that those offering it think of the people of Lafayette with nothing less than contempt—rationing TV! Really, how gullible do they think we are? The most disgusting part of it all was the attempt to stir up a little racial animosity by spreading the lie that only the south side would get fiber. Do we really want to write off as “foolish” the kind of corporation that would decide to call every household in the city and spread that particular lie? No, foolish is the thing you call this if you are unwilling to condemn what needs to be condemned—as David Hays is unwilling to condemn the actions of those his acts aid. He goes on:

Either they’re lying, or they’re not in control of their own organization. I don’t know which is worse.

Oh come now, it is easy to say which is worse; an organization that is willing to pay for an attempt to inject a series of lies into the community as a matter of corporate policy is far worse than one that has a few out-of-control underlings doing so. There is no question that the poll lies. All you have to do is look at the questions. They are designed to transmit lies. Pure. Simple. That is the idea; the purpose. So the question that the writer is really trying to direct our attention to is whether that lie is due to out-of-control underlings in some way that might excuse the “real” company. But no such excuse is possible in this case. The problem is that this is the second push poll. The problem is that it wasn’t any “irresponsible underling” at the local level that took credit for the most recent one. It is very clear from the account of both companies that this was a policy decision that did not take place at the local level. The pretense that it is reasonable to interpret what happened with the push poll as a couple of on-the-street-level guys who somehow “got foolish” one afternoon is not credible and should not be floated. We all know better. Then comes the real kicker:

It’s kind of like when the cops beat the downtown restaurant owner, except in this case no one got hurt. It’s a good thing. Only the city can get away with that kind of thing.

Ah, we get to the real point: we should think of our city government and police department as “kind of like” BellSouth and Cox, only worse. Because, apparently, only they “can “get away with that kind of thing.” Really? As I understand it, an uncomfortable investigation is going on within the police department right now. It is certainly NOT city policy to beat up restaurant owners. On the other hand, it certainly IS BellSouth and Cox’s policy to use push polls to spread lies in our community. They’ve done it twice. They themselves have excluded the excuse of “rogue locals.” This is corporate policy. Anti-fiber partisans do no one, least of all their own cause, any favors by flinching from the truth about their brothers-in-arms.

David Hays

Lafayette

David Hays is not from Lafayette; he is from Grand Coteau in St. Landry parish and will not be able to vote in our election. We’ve had a pointed discussion about this point on these pages. He is the same fellow as the David Hayes from Grand Coteau that had a letter published on May 10th.

P. S. If this letter sounded familiar to regular readers of this blog, that is because it IS familiar. You first saw it here more than 2 weeks ago.

The Advertiser’s article on the bond commission ruling approving the July 16th referendum focused on the mechanisms of arriving at that decision and the delaying tactics used by BellSouth and Cox—tactics which failed. But the Advocate’s story chiefly looks ahead to the Public Service Commission (PSC) and the possibilities for mischief there.

The PSC is charged not only with setting rates for LUS but also, oddly, for making sure that those rates are higher (yes, higher) than what LUS might otherwise decide to charge. This oddity is in conflict with the most fundamental reason for the PSC’s existence: to protect the consumer from monopoly-fueled overcharges. It emerges from the capture of the PSC by those it is supposed to regulate. Usually such “capture” takes place quietly and through the backroom persuasions of lobbyists and “influentials.” But in this case it takes place through the more naked exercise of state power: law.

Act 793, last year’s compromise bill that mitigated BellSouth’s attempt to outlaw LUS’ project, includes a clause that sends LUS to the PSC for regulation to ensure that the price LUS charges includes amounts tacked onto the “paper costs” that equal what the PSC (under heavy lobbying by its familiar friend BellSouth) can be convinced to believe is the cost of taxes, right-of-way fees, poles and anything else that can be construed to be an expense of a private company that a public utility does not pay. Notice that it is nonsensical to charge your citizen-customers for taxes, especially taxes to yourself that you do not pay. Notice that it is nonsensical to charge your citizen-customers for renting property you own. Notice that all this “extra” charge goes into the “in lieu of tax” category that opponents have tried to make into an issue…but that they don’t bother to go after BellSouth or even mention that their ally has made what they ask for—”returning ILOT”— impossible.

All that is a fair chunk of what local BellSouth chieftain John Williams’ father was worried about when he asked for delay until the PSC issued its rules:

BellSouth Louisiana Vice-President Tommy Williams told the commission Thursday it should wait for those rules to be finalized — and for a third feasibility study on the project — before approving the vote and bond issuance.

At issue, Williams said, is what he called “uncertainty” over the proper interpretation of a state law passed last summer.

Williams pere apparently didn’t talk about forcing faux costs on LUS, instead he referred to “uncertainty” over cross-subsidization; and it’s true that those will be a weird and new thing for the PSC to consider since it is much more likely, in the usual run of events, to insist that profits from related ventures (like the profits from BellSouth’s minority stake in Cingular) be considered when corporation apply to raise their rates at the PSC. But even the obscure reference to cross-subsidization doesn’t really conceal much about what BellSouth actually hopes to do at the PSC. The PSC doesn’t usually worry about being obligated to force higher costs on customers because they are disallowing a desire by a regulated company to invest in lower prices locally by using money from its other operations. In the normal run of events that would be considered a “good thing.” But hey, preventing LUS from doing what the PSC would encourage BellSouth to do is what BellSouth’s law forces them to do.

From the point of view of BellSouth it’s all about the money. It’s real interest in regulation at the FCC isn’t “fairness,” it is in using the state to artificially maintain as much of its current price as it can. It doesn’t want to lower its prices; it wants to raise LUS’. What BellSouth will want to do at the PSC is force higher prices on LUS than it would otherwise consider. It is all about the money. What the corporations have come to regard as “their” money.

Don’t let that slip by you the next time these guys come at you claiming to be doing something “for the taxpayers” or out of “concern for the citizens of Lafayette.” That is, simply put, a lie. Their acts, if not their words, are all about insuring that the price you pay is as high as is possible. That’s the real agenda and what you should remember when asked to believe anything that implies that they care about you or Lafayette.

The Advertiser has a good, fleshed out story on yesterday’s bond commission vote that approved the date for Lafayette’s fiber optic referendum. I recommend you sit down and read it through; this little moment has produced a nice view into the inner workings of this debate. And the view isn’t pretty. You’ll be treated to a glimpse of the proverbial sausage being made—and it’s both distasteful and fascinating.

What we are seeing is a game of position and maneuver. The side of light in our story, the pro fiber optic side, is working to shorten the game, to reduce its exposure to attack and to drive on to the final, decisive battle as quickly as is possible and with all its forces intact. The dark side, aka the incumbents Cox and BellSouth, wants to stretch out the process in order to give itself more opportunity to develop effective lines of attack and peel off the popular and institutional support of what it regards as an illegitimate rebel alliance against the natural order of things. The massive dark star of an unstoppable public relations blitz hangs on the horizon, adding unspoken tension to the scene: when will it arrive? And when it does arrive, will BellSouth and Cox have developed any, any at all, ammunition which will be effective against the people of this unique Acadiana community?

With that in mind let’s take a look at this latest skirmish. We have a white knight, Lady Blanco, letting the commission clearly know that her hometown has her support. Reports from beyond the newspapers indicate that the secretary of the treasury, Mr. Kennedy, was also instrumental in establishing a supportive atmosphere for the partisans from Lafayette.

Lafayette came asking the commission for two things: to be allowed to have the vote on July 16th and to be given permission to sell the bonds—without returning to the commission—if the referendum is successful. Every visit to the bond commission is an invitation to an ambush from the point of view of the Lafayette partisans and they weren’t interested in exposing themselves again.

BellSouth and Cox inserted themselves into the discussion in order to try and delay matters as much as they could. For their forces, every visit to the state capital is an opportunity to roll out the dark-suited forces of their legions of lobbying commandos. They know that the light of public exposure will soon fade and that they only have to wait until it does to regain their accostumed influence.

There were all sorts of feints offered by the corporations. They want to say that the law that Lafayette is using is the wrong one. (They got lucky on that one before.)

BellSouth attorney Gary Russo objected to the state statute under which LUS plans to issue its bonds. It was the same argument BellSouth and Cox used successfully in court in February to stop an earlier bond sale and pressure LUS into calling the July 16 election.

But that was parried by:

Jerry Osborne, bond attorney for LUS, argued that LUS is using one of several laws available in which to borrow money, the second oldest in the state that has been used hundreds of times.

Nicholas Gachassin Jr., first assistant state attorney general, after a quick review of the district judge’s ruling and state statutes, said he saw no reason the Bond Commission could not approve the bond sale Thursday contingent upon voter approval in July.

The committee went with LUS…

Then there were several different ploys trotted out to try and force a third feasiblity study onto LUS. (These guys like repetition: Cox’s bill, (2) which is prefiled in the senate, is designed to force a second election—and fine the city 900,000 dollars we have the gall to vote against the desires of the corporations.) Apparently the outcome of the previous two studies didn’t come up with figures that Cox and BellSouth like. So they went out and hired the Heartland Institute to retread a study that sounds an awful lot like the one that SBC (another baby bell like BellSouth) apparently commisioned during the Tri-Cities fight. I bet you can guess what that “study” showed. We’ve reported on the Heartland Institute before and they are no more credible today than they were then. So maybe, the corporate lawyers suggested, the bond commission should do their own study. Or maybe wait until the Public Service Comission sets up some new rules. But they should wait.

Delay, obscure, and obfuscate. That’s the tactic.

The word on the street is that the lawyers for the incumbents will file suit today. That, should it happen, will be more of the same. Really, you don’t need all the details that exert such a fascincation for me. It’s all about delay….

The reaction to the push poll story continues to rattle around the web. We’re not the only ones amazed. In Lafayette, as far as I can tell from those I talk to, we tend to respond with humor and amazement at the stupidity and with only a relatively minor chord of disgust.

Elsewhere disgust is the primary response.

Dave Burstein over at dslprime has a few choice words in response to the Independent editorial that stood the Independent’s pollster Verne Kennedy up in front of a firing squad and pulled the trigger. Says he:

Fighting municipal fiber builds isn’t a cause that justifies throwing away all your ethics. Bellsouth’s behavior in Louisiana should have consequences throughout the company. When BellSouth’s Bob Blau makes a speech in D.C., the respect he’s earned is diminished if his company falsifies the truth down south.

It’s time for Duane Ackerman to make sure his company lives up to his ethical standards. Bellsouth already donates too much money to the sleaziest folk in politics, lining up alongside Verizon and SBC with literally millions of dollars.

Of course I don’t expect that anyone will be so uncouth as to suggest that they don’t believe Bob Blau when he stands before the FCC or Congress asking to re-monopolize the phone network in the name of “competition.”

But really, maybe they should.

Oh, and if you want to see what the readers of Broadband Reports has to say just click right on over.

The last smidgen of doubt concerning the date of the upcoming fiber optic network referendum has been removed. The bond commission has set the date for July 16th.

Not only was the date set but LUS also received permission to sell its bonds as well. Getting that permission now means that further delaying tactics at the bond commission will not be possible.

Apparently both Cox and BellSouth attorneys were in attendance and presented passionate pleas that were turned down by the Commission.

So the election will indeed be on July 16th. If the project wins, we should all be wired by July 16th, 2008. (Barring, of course, further incumbent delaying tactics.)

The Advertiser carries the story in a news update.