Category: National

Lafayette, the NCTC, and National Policy

Both the Advocate and the Advertiser have posted stories focusing on the latest move in the Cox/NCTC versus LUS/LCG contest being gamed out in the courts. In this turn Lafayette is has filed suit to dismiss a lawsuit filed in in Kansas by the National Cable Television Cooperative (NCTC). That lawsuit was filed in an attempt to block LUS from pursuing a complaint with the FCC.

So…this is a suit to block a suit which hopes to block a filing at the FCC…there’s a legal logic in there somewhere I am sure. Or in the words of the Advocate:

Attorneys for Lafayette argued in court filings that the cooperative’s lawsuit is an attempt “to drag a Louisiana municipal public utility into court on the plaintiff’s home turf in an effort to avoid being held accountable for its conduct before the Federal Communications Commission.”

The Advertiser:

The FCC complaint by LUS Fiber argued that NCTCS engaged “in unfair, deceptive and anticompetitive conduct that has the purpose of effect of preventing LUS from becoming a member of NCTC and thereby obtaining the huge quantity discounts and other that NCTC negotiates for its members…” “We have stated in our pleadings filed today that the court should dismiss NCTC’s complaint in deference to the jurisdiction of the Federal Communications Commission, or alternatively suspend any further proceedings until the FCC has decided the case initiated by the Lafayette complaint,” city-parish attorney Pat Ottinger said.

The story closes, appropriately, with the note:

NCTC’s largest member is Cox Communications, LUS Fiber’s primary competition.

That Cox is engaging in anti-competitive behavior through its influence at the NCTC is the core of Lafayette’s public relations case; and, given Cox’s behavior here in Lafayette, it seems entirely likely. The fact that the other two cities that had initially joined Lafayette in its complaint, but were after filing suit admitted to the membership process, did not have the NCTC’s largest member as competition is damning. That these cities’ corporate competitors do not belong to the NCTC tends to clinch the argument.

In fact, that those other cities had competition that does not belong to the NCTC is a strong argument that more is at stake nationally than simply the interest of a mid-size, aggressive city somewhere along Louisiana’s cost and its huge corporate competitor. As I’ve pointed out previously, other members of the NCTC have engaged in the sort of anti-competitive blocking that Cox has used in Louisiana.

The NCTC used to be a mechanism for small, locally-owned cable networks and municipalities to get relatively fair programming prices for their customers. Over the years the market has changed and single-system mom and pop operations have all but disappeared as large and medium size “mulitple system operators” (MSOs) cable companies have grown by leveraged buyouts of smaller competitors—not by successful competition with other cable companies. Successful head-to-head competition requires building a better network and providing better services. (The route, incidentally, that Lafayette has chosen.) Buyouts only require taking on large debt burdens…burdens in fact so large that they can make finding the money to make major service upgrades very difficult.

Now the NCTC is run by debt-heavy MSOs, not mom and pop, local, cable companies. Cox is merely the biggest. Many other NCTC members are no doubt in the same structural position as Cox cable—heavily in debt—and many of those are in the smaller locales that may be actually losing population. These smaller municipalities could reasonably feel that they’ve lost the local businesses to which they felt loyalty to faceless corporations who do even fewer network upgrades than the small local businesses did. Those small cities and towns are the ones that, nationally, are most likely to consider investment in a fiber network an investment in their future.

The NCTC has a legitimate national function…lowering cable prices for the customers of small cable companies and thereby allowing local alternatives to enormous international telecommunications corporations to exist. The outcome of the current conflict over Lafayette’s membership will be a decision-point for the nation. Either the NCTC will provide that service for all small operators or it will turn itself into an exclusive cartel that uses its purchasing power to push out all competition.

That is a national problem; it is not simply a small side fight down in some damp part of Louisiana.

Correction: It’s been pointed out that Lafayette has not really filed suit in response to the suit. They’ve merely responded to the NCTC’s Kansas suit. Point taken. That is actually clear in the press release. I let a fun line get in the way of a close reading…mea culpa.

LUS Files Suit, Sorta…(updated)

LUS, for a change, has initiated a lawsuit. Or at least an FCC proceeding. Close enough.

In a press release issued today LUS outlined its case for the public. That release underlined the basic irony of the situation that LUS finds itself in: fighting for admittance to a coop whose reason for existence is to help small guys, like LUS, somewhat level the playing field with big guys, like Cox. It’s outrageous that Cox is in a position to try and block LUS. From the press release:

The concept behind the establishment of the NCTC was to allow small cable providers to aggregate their collective buying power for national programming, therefore providing an opportunity for more competition in the cable TV marketplace.

In a move that is reminiscent of the angry days of the fiber fight here in Lafayette Joey Durel blasts Cox’s willingness to block fair competition:

It is a sad day for the free market economy when a corporation hundreds of times the size of a small, community-owned enterprise will use every means necessary to snuff out competition so that they can go back to charging outrageous prices for services.

That’s from the press release, and really that’s pretty much all you need to know. But the complaint to the FCC is only marginally less caustic in its lawyerly way. A reader who’d like to savor the full flavor of this story is encouraged to read it through. But if you’re not in that group, I’ll be happy to replay some of the highlights…

I was intrigued to see that the complaint to the FCC had a politically timely overtone…the introduction begins by emphasizing that LUS depends upon video revenues to “provide ultra-high-speed broadband services.” Devising a high-speed broadband plan is the project of the moment for the FCC and Lafayette’s LUS received much favorable attention in Washington during the plans proceedings, serving as the national poster-child for local initiative for having provided ultra high-speed broadband at a shockingly low price.

The complaint outlines the history of the conflict; and a very suggestive history it is. Congress. The NCTC, the complaint alleges boasts of its inserting a clause into the 1992 Telecommunications Act that assured that the coop would be treated like a cable company by content providers by convincing legislators that this was the only way to insure fair competition between the little systems it represented and the mammoth national cable companies. But, a two-year “moratorium” on new members the NCTC opened up their membership…to Cox and Charter; two of the nations largest multi-system operators. Since that time they’ve apparently quit admitting new members that would compete with their present (expanded) membership.

[The NCTC and its dominant members] are now undermining Congress’s pro-competitive intent by using denial of membership in NCTC as an anticompetitive device to insulate NCTC’s existing members from competition by new entrants.

A footnote offers evidence that Cox and Charter aren’t the only members who have fought against local municipal competition…MediaCom, SuddenLink, Bridgewater Telephone have also engaged in their own versions of the anti-competitive behavior Cox has practiced in Lafayette.

Lafayette wasn’t the only municipal provider caught in this trap. Chattanooga, Tennessee and Wilson, North Carolina were similarly denied membership–right up to the moment that they demonstrated they’d bring a complaint in conjunction with LUS to FCC. Then, suddenly, they were notified that the NCTC had reconsidered. LUS and its lawyers draw the obvious conclusion and urge the FCC to do the same:

NCTC’s discrimination against LUS cannot be explained on legal or factual grounds. In fact, the only significant distinction between LUS and Chattanooga/Wilson is that LUS’s major rival, Cox Communications, is NCTC’s largest member as well as a prominent member of NCTC’s Board of Directors, whereas Chattanooga’s and Wilson’s major competitors, Comcast and Time Warner, respectively, are not members of NCTC.

…NCTC’s continued flat rejection of LUS’s membership application, despite LUS’s offer to join under the same terms and conditions as Chattanooga and Wilson, underscores the arbitrary, discriminatory, and anticompetitive nature of the Defendants’ practices. Indeed, to keep LUS out, the Defendants are even willing to go so far as to harm the membership of NCTC as a whole, as the addition of another qualified member would increase the bargaining power of the whole group.

There’s more in the complaint, including a series of emails between Lafayette’s lawyers and the NCTC’s explaining—or rather refusing to explain—why Lafayette was being treated differently, the text of the first joint draft of the cities’ complaint, and the text of the NCTC’s attempt to pre-empt the three cities legal action.

It’s a surprisingly readable and interesting document. And it will be very interesting to watch this go forward. Lafayette has asked for a quick and frankly pretty brutal judgment against the NCTC and the individuals and companies represented on the NCTC board. I look forward to seeing how these companies enjoy having their feet held to legal fire.

Update: Back during the fiber fight when Cox and AT&T were doing everything in their power to eliminate LUS as a possible competitor each ugly episode made national news. The push polls, lawsuits, and incumbent-promoted petitions were widely reported. No small part of Lafayette’s victory was the result of unremitting bad PR in the national press. Those days have returned and the current fight over NCTC membership has garnered extensive coverage.

Local:
The Advertiser: LUS files FCC complaint
The Advocate: LUS Fiber complains to FCC; Cable TV order asked
The Independent: LUS alleges ‘unfair, deceptive’ conduct by Cox, NCTC

National:
Broadband Reports: LUS Files Complaint With FCC Over Cox Blackballing
Broadband Breakfast: Small Town’s Telecom Drama Continues: Municipal Utility Sues Cable Group For Discriminatory Access To Programming
Telecompetitor: NCTC Membership Fight Stirs Up Controversy, FCC Asked to Intervene
FierceCable: LUS blames Cox because it can’t get into National Cable TV Co-Op

FiberFete 2010 on Vimeo

The Fiber Fete videos are up on Vimeo…production took a while but they are up now, look great and are certainly worth visiting—or revisiting. Thanks go out to Eric Credeur who did the work of editing.

If you didn’t get the chance to go to the conference, now’s your chance. And even if you did now you can revisit the presentations and think through what was said. That’s what I plan to do…The quality of the presentations was really impressive. As I review I’ll post any notes worth sharing.

“LUS fights for acceptance”

Richard Burgess of the Advocate’s article is a good overview of one of the issues that have bogged down channel acquisition for LUS Fiber video offerings—a long delay in gaining membership in the cable purchasing cooperative that provides most small, local operators with reasonable wholesale prices for the channels they offer. It’s not just about getting channels at a reasonable price, it is sometimes about getting them at all. (In fact, getting its channel lineup in shape was so arduous that it was the factor cited in the late launch of LUS services in the first place…that, and not any technical or build issue, was the cause of the brief delay in launching the service from January to February of ’09.)

LUS has had an application in to join NCTC, the National Cable Television Cooperative, for a long time now. I had heard they were hopeful and that there was no legal way to deny their participation. There was a long period when the organization simply had a moratorium on new members that only “coincidentally” effected LUS. Other public power utilities with cable arms have joined the organization previously. The NCTC isn’t a small organization with little bargaining power; the alliance of generally small cable companies controlled what was the second largest subscriber base in the nation in 2004, ranking second only to market leader Comcast according to a public power white paper in 2004 (p. 29). The discount the NCTC can command has to be comparable to that which, for instance, Cox can command.

Cox….that brings up an interesting issue raised but not fully explored in the Burgess article. Cox is a member of the NCTC…but is most assuredly not a small operator of the type the coop was founded to benefit, being the third largest cable company in the United States. One would think that Cox would not be a favorite of the little guys…but Cox’s subscriber numbers surely dwarf those of any other member. And those subscriber numbers are an immense help in negotiating good wholesale contracts that benefit its smaller members. If Cox has threatened to withdraw it could be enough to seriously scare the coop. And that would, not incidentally, mean that Cox is seriously afraid of LUS’ competition and even more afraid of what the success of Lafayette could mean for other communities contemplating doing for themselves what the big boys refuse to do for them.

The article makes it clear that Cox is indeed the suspected villain in Lafayette’s version of this story:

City-Parish Attorney Pat Ottinger said in a memo dated May 21 to City-Parish Council members that the cable cooperative’s denial of membership to Lafayette seems to be “a conscious effort to discriminate against municipalities” that are trying to launch their own cable, phone and Internet services.

Ottinger also notes in the memo that Cox Communications, a competitor of LUS Fiber in Lafayette, is among the cooperative’s largest members and has a seat on the board of directors….

Ottinger, in his memo to Lafayette council members on the issue, said the cooperative might be reconsidering its denial of membership for the other two cities “but has continued to refuse to allow Lafayette to become a member.

“It is my understanding that the only distinguishing factor is that Cox is not the competing cable provider in those areas,” Ottinger wrote.

Burgess offers Cox a chance to reply which they decline citing pending litigation but nonetheless piously declare:

…Cox has always embraced competition in Lafayette.

Now that, at least, we know is a bald-faced lie. Cox did just about everything imaginable to keep LUS from starting a competing service—from writing laws to funding an ugly push poll. Cox is not your friend in the digital age if you hale from Lafayette.

“Lafayette and a Level Playing Field”

Chris Mitchell over at MuniNetworks.org has an excellent post up on Terry Huval’s recent testimony before Senator Landrieu’s Small Business Committee. I’ve been swearing I was going to get to an extensive post of my own on this subject for a week but Chris has done a fine job with it. Mitchell is one of Lafayette’s national partisans, a major force driving muni networks nationally, and recently attended Fiber Fete here. He knows our project and knows the national scene. Go to the post, read it, and return here for some local color…

You did go, didn’t you?

Ok, since you’ve already seen Mitchell’s take on the trials and travails of “probably the best citywide network in the US” and the national implications of the battle I’d like to focus on some points that will be especially salient to a local audience…

First, notice that the battle isn’t over. Huval reveals that Cox continues to try and undermine the local community:

“Cox representatives were recently active in attempting to undermine the future of the city’s century-old electric, water and sewer utility system. During a recent rate increase effort for these traditional utilities, Cox representatives were lobbying Lafayette council members to oppose the rate increase in order to adversely affect the utility system’s future viability. All of these examples indicate an underlying strategy to hurt the city simply because the city voters dared to choose to authorize the building of their own telecommunications system.”

During the referendum battle a new saying grew up on several local blogs including this one: “Never trust a word they say.” I hope the current crop of local politicians has learned that lesson. These guys are NOT “your friend in the digital age.”

Both written and video versions of the Huval’s testimony before the hearing “Connecting Main Street to the World: Federal Efforts to Expand Small Business Internet Access” are available. Though I appear to be assigning a lot of work today, both are essential reading/viewing for those that might want to understand Lafayette’s role in the current national debate over broadband as well as the history of the project.

The written version, the “for the record” version is, as is common, much more extensive than the three minutes that the LUS director was allowed before the panel. What is revealed there is a blow-by-blow history of the conflict with the incumbents. The dust has settled enough now that it can be read with a fresh sense of outrage—and a definite sense of pride for city’s accomplishment.

Two points found in the written testimony are worth underlining here: Twice Huval takes the opportunity to say that internet portion is the main emphasis of LUS Fiber and makes clear that Lafayette anticipates a single converged service: True Broadband which Huval defines as symmetrical service of 100 Mbps and above. That shows a clarity of understanding that few in the private sector can afford. Lafayette understands that in the end what the public wants and needs from our data utility is carriage; separate services will be allowed to die when their time passes.The second notable point takes Washington to task: “It is unfortunate that the national policies of the past have failed to even approach a world-class broadband system.” It is perfectly possible to build exemplary world-class networks in the United States. If it can be done in Lafayette it can be done anywhere in the US and the community’s accomplishment is, in this context, an indictment of the political will of the rest of the country.

The video record, as short as it is, is also entertaining. There are three parts worth reviewing for current purposes: 1) The three minute testimony, 2) Huval’s response to Landrieu’s question regarding the role of municipalities, and 3) The “free shot” closing remarks Landrieu granted Huval and the other participants.

The makeup of the panel on which the LUS director appeared was interesting in itself…two of the participants were a former Senator (who got to speak long) and a former Representative (who was cut off). They now “represent” the broadcast and wireless industries respectively. Also included were a representative of CenturyLink, the Monroe company which recently purchased Qwest and a representative of wireless broadband ISPs.

Huval is called at minute 117 of the video and opens his testimony by briefly addressing his salutation to Landrieu in French—to considerable amusement. His comments on the path he hopes the federal government will take are worth repeating:

“We believe that the simple measure of trying to get complete shackles off local governments to provide these services will have the greatest impact on getting broadband out…We have a solution to this problem.”

The senator responds by exhibiting her pride in project and making the point that Huval was testifying at her request in order to provide a place at the table for municipal services.

At minute 136 Huval is given a chance to extend his testimony to the point of allowing local governments to play a role in providing competition.

In his closing remarks near the end of the session the director explains the value of symmetrical upload speeds as a particular advantage for small businesses who can get into the game affordably if a local provider will offer these services affordably, citing Lafayette’s surprising commercial prices and terms. A company like Golfballs.com has “a huge entrepreneurial opportunity.” He closes, though, by returning to the attack on the incumbents, saying that those who would “play games with the system…that shouldn’t count anymore.”

Lagniappe:
At minute 140 or so the guy from CenturyLink talks about Qwest’s long-haul and the ability the new Centurly Link now has to support small places with middle mile backhaul, data hosting, and web-based services. The representative of the company made it clear that his corporation was willing to deal aggressively to offer local ISPs and video providers backhaul on Qwest’s national fiber backbone. To show his bona fides he revealed that the new company was planning to use CenturyLink’s policy of setting local bandwidth managers in place to try and replicate the success the company has had reselling fiber-based capacity. Because that backbone is so widespread—it goes to many places where CenturyLink does not have a competitive business—having local, aggressive managers on the ground in small localities could be a major factor in giving local communities and small ISPs access to affordable backbone. And, yes, CenturyLink now has major backhaul through Lafayette…both over the basin toward Baton Rouge and south to New Orleans along the railroad tracks. Maybe Huval caught Mr. Gerke for a chat after the session?

Portland’s Gigabit Beer Coming to Lafayette…

From the Mayor’s staff blog in Portland Oregon:

Saturday, Mayor Sam Adams, Hopworks Brew Master Christian Ettinger, city staff and local Google fiber initiative supporters were present to send the gift of five kegs of special organic Portland Gigabit IPA to Parish President Joey Durel of Lafayette, Louisiana — the first American city to establish a fiber-to-home infrastructure. Layfayette has proven how useful and efficient the ultra fast network technology can be and Portland is working toward doing the same.

The Gigabit send-off ceremony at PDX was a thank you to Lafayette for leading the way in fiber development and will be enjoyed during their Fiber Fete, an international summit of fiber-to-home, ‘celebrating our future connections,’ Tuesday through Thursday, April 20 – 22.

Now what can you say to that? Besides “Thank You.”

Scuttlebutt has it that Mary Beth Henry, of Portland and NATOA, will be the bearer of the good tidings. Looking forward to it! All five kegs…

“FiberFete Celebrates City’s Fight To Build Its Own Information-Age Utility”

WBS dept.

Broadband Breakfast has a short story up lauding today’s launch of Fiber Fête.

Lafayette gets good press:

The city floated $110 million in municipal bonds in 2005, fought telecommunications companies that cried foul over the move, and proceeded to build the network in addition to a sophisticated 3D imaging center used by Hollywood movie companies to render their animated films into 3D images.

“We had a unique opportunity because we have our own utility company that already had a fiber optic loop that was already in the wholesale end of this business,” says Durel. “This project was about doing something great and raising the bar.”

There are interesting blips about the purpose of the event:

“What Lafayette can show to the world is how to create a network that’s just about state of the art, and that the whole community supports,” explains David Isenberg, FiberFête’s co-organizer along with journalist Geoff Daily. Isenberg is a long-time advocate of such community-driven telecommunications networks. “Lafayette’s leadership also realizes that they need help, that you can’t just hang the fiber on the poles and miracles will happen – they know there’s a lot of expertise out there, and they’re hoping to bring people with a clue into town.”

….The conference is a timely one since the Obama Administration has just released its National Broadband Plan, a national blueprint for how America can stay competitive in the global race to get connected to anyone else in the world through high-speed internet networks. Durel hopes that the city can serve as a model for other cities around the nation.

There’s a lot to learn. It’s an interesting world….

Lafayette, Google and 1 Gig Fiber

LPF noted LUS’ application to the “Google Fiber for Communities” project several weeks ago as a bit of lagniappe to an article about the city’s tech efforts more generally. Both the Independent and the Advocate caught the story late this week, in advance of Fiber Fête. Google’s Minnie Ingersoll, a product manager for alternative access and one of the people shepherding the project will be a speaker at Fiber Fête on Tuesday of next week and that connection is noted by the Independent.

[For those of you who were on a different planet for the last two months—or just from a place which already has its fiber—and missed the fevered internet excitement, here’s the short version: Immediately prior to the unveiling of a National Broadband Plan that pushed an anemic goal of 100 megs in 10 years Google announced that it would fund a testbed project that would offer communities a gig FTTH network. Conditions to apply were minimal: not more than 500,000 people, and a demonstrated eagerness to “accept” a 1 Gig, open network. More than 600 communities officially applied and another 190,000 individuals applied on behalf of their communities.]

Both stories reported that LUS based their appeal on Lafayette’s vision, willingness to battle to build its own network, and on how cheap it would be to up grade LUS current system to the 1 gig standard. As the Independent wrote:

“We already have a system in place and that’s what we were trying to sell to them,” Huval says. He notes that LUS’ fiber network, which reaches internal speeds up to 100 megabits per second, could be upgraded to 1 Gig per second speed relatively easily. “We looked at what kind of things do we bring to the table that might be unique,” Huval adds, “and yet still substantive enough to attract Google’s attention and we felt that the fact that we already have a fiber to the home infrastructure almost completely in place that we have clear unambiguous community support because we had a vote of the people [on fiber] with strong support. We also talked about the strength of the utility system and we talked about our visions for the future, that we didn’t build this system only to have competitively priced cable TV, telephone and Internet, we were looking at building an infrastructure for the future.”

The Advocate’s coverage made it plain that LUS was intent on moving to a 1 gig to the home network even without Google’s help, even but that it would take till the next scheduled round of network upgrades to get there:

The city’s LUS Fiber system already offers top-tier Internet speeds and has the capacity to eventually offer 1 Gbps service, but Huval said Google’s project could speed the pace of development.

He said the advantage that Lafayette offers for Google is that the 1 Gbps speed would be easier to achieve here because the city has already installed fiber lines in most areas.

LUS application chose to present what some might say were Lafayette’s weaknesses in such a competition into strengths—to turn the fact that we already have fiber and some of the fastest, cheapest speeds in the nation into a testament to the community’s dedication to the vision of a faster, cheaper, community-controlled network.

But another part of the difficulty in applying for Google’s support is that the LUS network is not an open network in the sense that Google set down as a condition for gaining its support. Google’s version of network openness is that of “open access” which means that any service provider could provide services in competition with LUS. LUS almost certainly can’t afford to travel that path. It can’t afford to take the risk that the much maligned (un)Fair Competition Act would be used to force it into a premature forced sale if it ran for even a short time a loss—particularly as the law’s chief consumer effect is to put a limit on how low the local utility can drop prices in response to price competition. (The enormity of that unfairness is whole ‘nother post. Or two.) The most immediately obvious problem is that opening the network to Cox invites the cable operator execute a double edged strategy that would use Lafayette’s superior network to undercut LUS’ network offerings on, say the high end, where its own network is bandwidth-constrained, while lowering its price for its low-end offerings to levels LUS would not be able or even allowed to follow. Cox would not, of course, be under any obligation to offer its low-end network to LUS at prices that would allow it to compete fairly over the cheaper, slower network. The slightest misstep in such an open access scenario would put our community’s hard-fought and very expensive network on the block for fire-sale prices. As much as it pains me to say it, unless circumstances change it simply would be irresponsible to open Lafayette’s network.

Of course, circumstances can change. LUS could conceivably reach a tête-à-tête with Google by promising to open their network to any provider that does not own a competing network in Lafayette….there might be something to talk about. Or Google could simply agree to shoulder Lafayette’s risk. It’d still be a cheaper way to build a network as all Google would have to do is promise to get the city out of any hole the new policies put it in. I doubt that LUS suggested any such thing (but would be pleased to stand corrected). Much more likely is that they put their best foot forward where they had a good argument and intended to deal with the hard parts when, and if, Google decided on further talks.

There is, however, another way to try and dodge the bullet of Google’s desire to experiment with an open network; one that I suggested. Eventually I went ahead and made citizens application on behalf of Lafayette that tried to make lemonade not only out of the lemon of already having a network (using the same approach as LUS) but also leaned on the fact that Google went to great lengths to insist that their experiment, well, was an experiment. As far as I can tell most analysts cynically assumed that all that “science” talk was feel-good misdirection meant to underline the fact that Google wasn’t trying to establish a toehold in the business of building a national network. It’s more likely that Google is being perfectly honest. Anyone who has thought much about the roots of their search engine and then watched them build services like Google Apps has to believe that experimentation is is the company’s genes. Google looks like a company that actually took the “knowledge-based” economy seriously. The bit about being the most profitable business in the world is a by-product of successfully making that commitment; not the goal.

What Lafayette could do is offer to make Google’s experiment a LOT better. To improve their knowledge.

Science wienies will tell you that a good experiment controls independent variables…and to make even a stab at that you have to have multiple conditions. Helping Lafayette reach a gig and installing the same experimental apps and resources it does in other “Google gig communities” would give the overall experiment a lot needed validity; it would let you, for instance, decide whether open networks OR local ownership or experimental apps were more important factors in rates adoption and levels of innovative use…or at least it would allow a researcher to think about it with at least some contrasting data. (To prove that Lafayette also cares about research itself I’d point you to the fact Lafayette did its own full-throated “pretest” evaluation of internet attitudes and usage—on its own dime. The DIY attitude extends beyond simply building our own network.)

Sooo…if you want a look at the ridiculously dense, full-throated, Lafayette fan-boi version of the idea that I submitted to Google you can have a gander for yourself: Google Lafayette, La Proposal

There’s NOT an App for That…

But if you write a good one you could win $100,000

A digital inclusion App that is…

The FCC and the Knight Foundation are teaming up to offer an “Apps for Inclusion Challenge” that asks:

technology innovators to review government and community services and develop tools that will improve lives by making it easier for citizens to receive these services through mobile and online applications.

For the FCC’s part—they are interested in increasing the rate of broadband adoption in “lagging” sectors and see potential in useful apps for achieving that goal.

The Knight Foundation is fronting the money. Details are not yet available but the Knight Foundation suggests that they’ve got three core beliefs that this challenge would serve:

First, our ideal of informed, engaged communities; second, our conviction that universal broadband is key to achieving this ideal; and third, our deep interest in using new approaches to connect with innovators.

The inclusion of mobile platforms and highlighting it with the allusion to “Apps” is probably pretty good policy. Recent research shows that more of the poor and minority populations that are lagging in net connection are adopting wireless devices more rapidly than the rest of the population…mobile’s probably a pretty good target.

There’s been a recent push in Lafayette to get more governmental data available online. We’ve even got a placeholder location for hosting data in an accessible form. Some places, like San Francisco, are a bit further along in having its data available in a form developers find useful. It’d be a neat project for somebody—or some civic-minded group of geeks. I’d sure like to have a version for the Lafayette Commons’ gadget page….

Anybody?

Boradband Plan a Pipe Dream?

The response to the National Broadband Plan has been muted nationwide, at least in part because it was released at the climax of the health care debate. The response has been even more muted, if possible in Lafayette…after all, we’ve got ours Jack…real 3 way competition even if AT&T is an also-ran. (Caveat: Economists say a 3-way is not enough. The fact that we’ve got a public option will help immensely.)

But for most of the country the plan would be uninspiring in any context, mainly in that it has failed to grapple with the underlying problem of competition. The plan as currently constructed simply accepts the current nation-wide wireline duopoly. The pretense that wireless competition is large enough and that it is separate enough from wireline to generate genuine competition is just foolish. (I have two friends who’ve worked, in differing capacities, on the plan. Both have expressed deep disappointment. One bitterly.)

The Economist does a great job of summarizing the painful reality of the American situation:

Almost uniquely among OECD countries, America has adopted no policies to require the owners of broadband cables to open their infrastructure to rival sellers in order to enhance competition. America relies almost exclusively on “facilities competition”, the provision of rival infrastructures: a cable provider may compete, for example, with a network that runs optical fibre to the home. True, there is a legitimate worry that forcing a company to rent out parts of its infrastructure to competitors may deter investment, but a review of international broadband policies prepared for the FCC by Harvard’s Berkman Centre for Internet & Society revealed a range of successful compromises in use in other countries. The FCC has availed itself of none of them, and suggests that wireless broadband could instead provide more competition. But wireless data transfer is very much slower and less reliable than fixed broadband; it is more a complement than a competitor.

If America’s facilities-based system were really working, the country would at the very least enjoy first-rate broadband in dense urban areas where providers are most likely to recoup their investments quickly. Yet in February the Saïd Business School at Oxford and the Universidad de Oviedo released a study, funded by Cisco, that produced a broadband quality score based on bit volume and speed, mapped against current and probable future applications. Chicago, America’s best-performing city, ranked 26th, below Sofia and Bucharest.

Lafayette is lucky not to have to rely on the “beginners” sort of broadband plan that has been generated so far. It’s yet another instance of it being demonstrably wiser to do for yourself.

That’s not to say that there is nothing positive to be said about the plan….most importantly it’s a plan worth criticizing. Up till this moment the US has had NO plan. We are admitting that not having a plan is a problem. And, as we all now recognize, admitting that there is a problem is the first step in solving it.

That said there are parts of the plan that, if implemented, could have a real effect on communities like Lafayette. More on that as time allows….