"Tech will cause a real estate crash"

This little article on the CNN site attracted my attention because Nielsen, the man interviewed, is one of my favorite design/usability experts. (I'm even more fond of the fellow he has partnered with, Nelson.) So I stopped and read the article.

All that is basically claimed is that the web and associated technologies will lead to a more dispersed workforce in the future. Living in a large city will be necessary for fewer kinds of jobs and so people will be better able to leave the city and live in the countryside. This isn't new, of course, but it did set off a little moment of reflection. People don't actually seem to be dispersing into the countryside and as futurists have predicted for more than a decade. There is a lot more telecommuting. But mostly folks are telecommuting from other locations in the city or in the surrounding suburbs. So far at least, there has not been the move to the countryside that has been predicted (a prediction that Nielsen repeats).

Futurists tend to overemphasize technology and underemphasize the social context in which it has to operate—people mostly like their colleagues and operating in a social vacuum is not the best way to succeed at most jobs. So there is a social rather than technical limit to how far telecommuting is likely to go. But it is also true that in-city telecommuting is much more successful than its country version. And I suspect that a large part of that difference lies in the fact, which Nielsen and futurists ignore, that you can't really get big pipe broadband in the country. If you want full-frame teleconferencing with your creative team, you cannot do it from a house in the country.

No, for the near future at least, your best bet to back off the city lifestyle and still keep your job will be to try to find a nice smallish city with some huge pipes and settle in there. I'd look for a place with good music, good food, and a laid back atmosphere. But that's me.

Broome says she's not 'vicious' person

Here's the whole of a brief in today's Advocate (with the caveat that my streaming video-based recollection is that it was Mike Michot whose invitation to eat in Lafayette that elicited Broome's rueful reply):

State Sen. Sharon Weston Broome, a Democrat from Baton Rouge, told the Senate Commerce Committee last week that she had taken a lot of heat from Lafayette residents angered that a bill she authored would hurt Lafayette Utilities System's proposed telecommunications project.

After supporting amendments that excluded Lafayette from being affected by the bill, she asked City-Parish President Joey Durel to tell his constituents she's not the "ugly and vicious" person described in some of the e-mails she received.

Durel extended Broome an invitation to come to Lafayette and "eat some of that good food."

"Let me know when it's safe," Broome responded.

Thanks go out to the readers of Lafayette Pro Fiber who participated in the letter-writing and calling campaign that left Broome with the impression that even a senator from Baton Rouge wasn't immune to an outraged defense of Lafayette.

(Just for the record: I don't think anyone accused Broome of being ugly and vicious...complacently uniformed, unreflectively ignorant, and a willing tool of corporate interests to the detrement of the people whose interests she claims to champion come to mind. But not ugly or vicious. See earlier stories: 1, 2, 3)

Cox ups speeds dramatically—in Northern Virginia

Its always pleasing to see what a little competition can do. Broadband reports notes that Cox has raised its speed cap dramatically in Northern Virginia—to as much as 15 megs download for its most expensive residential tier—in an apparent attempt to slow losses to fiber-optic based competition from Verizon. (A little much-needed competition is one of the chief advantages of LUS' plan to build a fiber-optic network in Lafayette. It suggests yet another reason to vote yes on July 16th even if you are perfectly satisfied with Cox: "Vote yes! For better service....from Cox!")

Northern Virginia near Washington DC is one of the nation's wealthiest "exurban" communities but has long complained of wretched Internet service. So it makes sense that Verizon would move aggressively in this area. And it makes sense that Cox would fight to protect its wealthy customers. And that is the simple and largely true explanation. But saying that doesn't explain why this response is banner news on the Internet sites devoted to broadband. Why is this competitive response surprising and unique? After all, Verizon is rolling out its fiber in places across the country. The answer seems to be, at least in part, because in Northern Virginia Cox can respond—and in most places the cablecos can't come near matching Verizon's fiber. And for that near-parity it appears to owe gratitude to a meddling government. As broadband reports notes:

A skirmish between Cox and Fairfax county started in 1999, when the cable company purchased the network of Media General. Cox was slow to update the newly acquired networks - which - if you take a trip back to our forums in 2001, offered a connection quality easily bested by a 300baud modem hooked to a Wildcat! BBS.

Fairfax County took action against the provider for delays and hit them with a $2 million fine. They then began fining them $2,000 each day they failed to meet upgrade obligations. By 2003, the half-a-billion dollar upgrade of the old Media General network began to take shape.

So in forcing Cox to meet its contractual obligations locally, Fairfax County probably made it possible for Cox to nearly effectively answer a real competitive challenge. Of course, if there had been real competition in the area before Verizon arrived bearing fiber, it would probably have not have been necessary for the county to insist on adequate infrastructure.

Cox raised the cap on its premier tier of service to a nominal 15 megs in response to the challenge from Verizion for these prime customers. It's a great upgrade at first glance—and we got a similar but lesser sort of upgrade (it maxes at 6 megs for the highest-priced tier locally, I believe) not long after it became plain that LUS wasn't going to back down on its plan—but Cox's new Northern Virgina offering remains 10 dollars more than what Verizon is charging for the same speed cap. And not all speed caps are the same. When any company, be it Cox, Verizon, BellSouth, or presumably LUS, sells you a certain download/upload speed (its 15/2 in Northern Virginia) they are really selling you not a speed but a cap. They are telling you that you can use up to but not beyond a particular number, the cap.

Time out for a brief explanation: cable companies cannot sell you a guaranteed speed because you are on a shared line with other users. In one common example, they split 24 megabytes between users in a neighborhood of many potential users. As long as their service is unpopular they can deliver the 5 megs you've paid for. But if 5 users all try to download at the same time they're trying to use 25 megs--1 meg more than is available--and if 10 users try it, nobody can get more than 2.5 megs--half of what you thought you paid for. It's in the cable company's best interest to oversubscribe the lines and it is industry standard procedure to do so. Hence, no guarantees.

The implication is pretty clear: raising the cap is useful only if the bandwidth is available. If Cox Northern Virgina hasn't really increased capacity, then it is little more than a marketing ploy in terms of your day-to-day experience. The cap—the advertised speed—is much less interesting than the raw bandwidth available at your door. All things being equal, if Verizon has much more headroom in its system (and it does), then you are more likely to get the advertised speed. And it's 10 dollars a month cheaper.

Right now all these details and technicalities really don't matter much in Lafayette. But this is just the sort of reasoning we'll have to go through if LUS gets the chance to build our network. And expect such reasoning to tend in favor of the system with real headroom: LUS'.

Standing Up—Acadian Home Builders Association

In a press release today the Acadiana Homebuilders endorsed Lafayette's fiber optic project, calling for a "yes" vote on July 16th.

AHBA, according to Boudreaux, is always interested and supportive of economic development endeavors which could potentially bring new businesses and new jobs to the area which in turn keep up the demand for new housing. Keeping Lafayette on the cutting edge of technology is an exciting prospect to stimulate both new businesses and job growth.

Boudreaux adds, “We’re proud to add our name to the growing list of organizations that have come out in support of this project.”

Congratulations to the homebuilders for standing up for Lafayette.

Standing Up—Rebuild Lafayette North

Rebuild Lafayette North, the organization that sponsored the debate between Mike Stagg and Tim Supple, has decided to endorse the fiber optic project and to urge voters to vote Yes on July the 16th.

...the Committee for Rebuild Lafayette North joins other community leaders and organizations in urging the voters of the City of Lafayette to determine their own destiny and to approve the “Bond Sale Proposition” on Saturday, 16 July 2005, thereby providing the Lafayette Utilities System the opportunity to proceed with expansion of its fiber optic network to every home and business.

The organization cites digital divide, universal service, development, and educational reasons, among others. It's all set up in classic resolution form, replete with many "whereas" and the final, resounding, "therefore." You can get a look at it at Fibre911 which is hosting a copy.

"LUS fiber plan gets exemption from bill's rule"

The Advocate's story on yesterday's Senate Commerce Committee (posted late to the website) hearing clarifies some issues left over from yesterday and points to one of the highlights of the session: the potential involvement of New Orleans in laying a fiber optic network of its own.

There were, you will recall, two critical issues as far as Louisiana municipalities were concerned: the requirement of a vote (and potentially multiple votes) and the question of effectively fining any city that decided to provide some competition for the current providers. The issue of a vote was settled in favor of Cox in spite of protests from Lafayette and the Louisiana Municipal Association that coming back this year to rework a bill written last year after extensive negoitiations and compromise was simply not the way things should be done. A more normal legislative procedure would be to let such a hard-won bill have a little life before trying go back in and change the negotiated settlement. Here's the way the article puts it:

As the bill stands with the new amendment, any municipality planning to enter the communications business in the future -- such as New Orleans -- would have to put the issue to a vote.

The second issue, of fining cities for daring to oppose Cox or their local cable provider, is more complicated. Blanchard does a good job of distilling it:

The Senate committee also addressed the issue in Broome's bill that would allow cable companies to rid themselves of paying franchise fees should a city enter the telecommunications business. The panel agreed to an amendment which, in effect, made such an exemption something that would never happen -- as the law stands now.

This amendment means that if a municipal government calls an election -- which the law in its current form would require in all cases -- and the public OKs the issue, then the franchise and contractual obligations of the cable companies would not be suspended.

This is a real win for the municipalities of our state. What the vanishing act may well point out is how poorly drawn the bill was in the first place: both of its central points were ammended in ways that completely changed their effect. On voiding franchise agreements it seems that the bill violated the state constititution on at least two accounts: 1) It effectively voided valid contracts. Louisiana's constititution simply forbids this. 2) had the effect of granting the use of public resources for free—something else that is rightly unconstitutional in this state. But far beyond the legal stupidity of the law as it was originally drafted is its political foolhardiness. Consider trying to speak in favor of a bill that would fine Lafayette 900,000 dollars a year —about 9 million dollars total the way the bill structured it—and giving all that money to "the cable company" because Lafayette had the nerve to actually do something that "the cable company" didn't care for: offer a little competition. This might all sound reasonable while talking to a lobbyist over dinner. A little wine will do wonders. But my guess is that it would have been much harder for the Honorable Broome to defend on the floor of the senate. How many of her constituents on Baton Rouge's "northside" would have the least increment of sympathy for Cox? How would her mentor, now Baton Rouge's mayor, Kip Holden, really feel about opening up this can of worms? There's a name for stuff like this: political suicide. Ms Broome got off easy.

New Orleans

By far the most interesting new development from the committee meeting was the broad hint from Tom Ed McHugh, head of the Louisiana Municipal Association, that New Orleans was actively considering some form of fiber-optic network. This will not be entirely a surprise to regular readers but I've never seen it mentioned publicly outside of this blog and one of Blanchard's analysis pieces. My own position was that it seemed far-fetched but that in Louisiana stranger things had happened. I remain of that opinion. You might think that the recognition that this bill could effect the largest voting block in the legislature—and the commerce committee—might auger poorly for the bill. Not in our version of local politics:

Two state senators from New Orleans on the Senate panel -- Francis Heitmeier and Ann Duplessis, both Democrats -- said they wanted the election requirement added to the bill because they are concerned New Orleans could embark on a plan similar to Lafayette's.

Only a few cities in Louisiana have the capability to follow Lafayette's lead, McHugh said.

New Orleans is "next in line," he said.

There is are a few more tidbits in regard to this part of the story:

The New Orleans Sewerage and Water Board has a series of bills in this session looking to make it easier to lay conduit for fiber-optic cable with sewer pipes.

New Orleans Mayor Ray Nagin is a former Cox Communications official who has visited Lafayette while the city worked on its plans to offer telecommunications services.

All the earlier news about New Orleans had pointed toward a buisness-oriented city-owned ring in the downtown business district across Canal from the Vieux Carre. But the above and a story I found recently which made it clear that all of New Orleans is slated for a mandatory sewer upgrade argue for much, much broader possibilities. And here I thought Broussard and Mayor Langlinais might be next....

2theadvocate.com: News

"Tri-Cities Trials"

The Independent has published a piece we should all go out and look at entitled "Tri-Cities Trials." You'll probably recall the Tri-Cities battle for fiber, it's been discussed pretty extensively on these pages and LUS and the administration have treated the ugly fight there as a preview of the battle plan they expect Cox and BellSout to roll out here. In the Tri-Cities the the warning shot was a push poll. We've seen that here. But the deluge that followed was truly amazing and we await the flood.

What we, as citizens of Lafayette will be most interested in is the picture of what might be coming and a hint from those who've experienced the onslaught as to what it will feel like and how to best understand what is happening when the whirlwind descends. The Ind doesn't offer up that story directly. What it does is hand you a loosely linked series of three personal vignettes drawn from major players on the the profiber side. The faces are chosen to represent a mayor, a city Information Technology (IT) guy, and an ardently profiber housewife. They are pretty much allowed to tell their own story.

And what you can learn if you listen carefully amounts to a mosaic image of what the experience was like. The mayor, Kevin Burns, feels abused. Emblematic of his outrage is push poll call that his father received. It isn't hard to imagine how the Mayor felt when his father got a call floating some bit of nastiness about his son that the phone company wanted to spread around the city in hopes of tarnishing his son's reputation—as a way of eroding support for a potentially competitive system that threatened their profits. The father's response was a shocked: "My Kevin?" My guess is that his son the mayor's response wasn't nearly as printable. Mine would certainly wouldn't have been. We do know that if he wanted to complain it wasn't easy:

Burns was equally incensed by the lack of accessibility he had to the people pulling the strings at Comcast and SBC. “Even in war there are rules of engagement,” he says. “We had a hell of a time trying to find the decision makers. I kept asking, ‘Who do I call?’”

All, in all, you get the picture of a public officials, who thought that they were doing a good think for their people getting run down by a team for whom fair-play wasn't a part of the rule-book. It feels, from reading the article, that that is what still stings.

The IT guy is insulted. The idea that the local crew couldn't do a perfectly good job of managing a system was bizarre. "It's not rocket science" he says metaphorically--meaning that its been a long time since running a decent FTTH system was a mysterious venture involving not readily accessible talents. You want an good network engineer, you hire one. It's implementation not science or new product development. He's also irked, in the manner of engineers everywhere, that anyone would oppose doing a project that they themselves won't try. If your thing is crafting good products and (pretty much obsessively) making sure they run right—and this is the framework through which engineers view the world—then you are going to be really insulted by the type of people who tell you first that they won't do it and then that they won't let you do it. It doesn't seem right or sensible.

The "offer" from the incumbents to build a local system when asked was viewed as particuarly insulting:

"Geneva was interested in getting AT&T Broadband to build a high-speed fiber optic network. To start, the city wanted to link its public schools and government buildings with fiber. In June 2000, AT&T Broadband said it would build Geneva’s fiber network for $4.8 million, leased out to the city over 10 years. The city would be limited to speeds of 100 megabits per second, and after the 10-year lease was paid, AT&T would still own the network."

That, of course, was seen as insulting. Both technologically and from a business point of view to accept it would be irresponsible. To offer it was insulting. Pete Collins sounds plenty insulted.

Annie Collins is angry. She's the mother with three kids who's active in the Rotary and wants to help revitalize downtown. She got pulled into this fiber thing, got angry, and is not the sort to let it go. The anger is easy to hear:

“It’s not too hard to understand that your communities need new businesses to survive,” she says. “It’s not too hard to understand that you don’t need big corporations in your community controlling how much you’re paying for these services, when you can have your own hometown utilities creating jobs. It’s not too hard to understand that competition is good. That’s all you need to understand. Do you get your bill from Comcast and not get it? I mean, what don’t you get? Why is that so hard?..

Her advice to Lafayette rings true:

“Be suspicious of corporations that are lying to you,” she says. “They are only concerned with their profits. I don’t think your local cable and phone company really care about any economic development for your community..."

All in all the takeaway lesson for Lafayette is to prepare to be abused, insulted, and angry. I'm not sure it's news or something we want to look forward to. But by all accounts it's what's coming.

They get it in Seattle: city is told it must rewire

Yo folks, you know uber cool Seattle of Microsoft fame? The place out of which all those nifty realnetwork video trailers are streamed? You'll be surprised to find that Lafayette is actually out ahead of Seattle in regard to understanding broadband basics. But hey, the folks in Seattle aren't so uncool that they aren't starting to figure it out on their own. As reported in "Seattle is told it must rewire," the city got something a little different than what it bargained for when it sent out a blue ribbon panel to examine the potential for a city-wide broadband network:

Seattle City Council member Jim Compton, chairman of the Utilities and Technology Committee and a sponsor of the task force, said he was surprised by the findings.

'We sent them out to find out if we should do citywide Wi-Fi, and I thought that's what the business model would point to,' Compton said. 'Instead, they came back and said that is one of the things we should do, but more important for our broadband future is a citywide fiber-optic network.'

Hey, that's what happens when you send tech types out to really look at a problem. They figure things out:

The recommendation of fiber comes as a number of cities, including Spokane and Philadelphia, have approved construction of less expensive wireless networks. But wireless, including an emerging technology known as WiMax that can cover many square miles, does not provide the bandwidth or security necessary for applications such as telemedicine, remote learning or interactive government. It also has issues with network interference and spectrum licensing, Clifford said.

"The long-term problems and challenges that Seattle faces are not likely to be solved by wireless," he said. "What Seattle and all cities will need is a big, big pipe capable of 25 to 100 megabits (per second) each way."

Yup. Exactly. And Seattle, while it may have a reputation as a slacker haven, knows it can't just sit around and wait for all that broadband goodness to come along at the convenience of the incumbent providers. If they want their city to prosper they'll have to invest in themselves:

The idea of a municipally supported network that provides high-definition television, voice over Internet, on-demand movies and other services could put the city in competition with telephone and cable companies. Though there are potential ways for the city to work with those incumbents, the report indicated that it would be a mistake for Seattle to wait for "private markets" to drive the construction of new networks.

"Without the city playing any role and without taking the initial steps we outlined, other cities are going to fare much better because there will be more robust competition," Clifford said.

I have to say they play a good game of catch-up. They even understand that the city will provide competition if it goes this route. It's clear they get it in Seattle.


Want to know more? You can download the study, Report of the Task force on Telecommunications Innovation, and look through it yourself.

Broomes' bill transformed

The Broome Bill was voted out of the commerce committee this morning, 4-3, and sent to the floor of the senate where it should be heard in the next few days. It was only reported favorably with a raft of amendments that appear to have exempted Lafayette from its provisions. Some of the consequences of the changes are clear. Some are less so.

What's crystal clear: Should any municipality choose to try to follow Lafayette's lead, it will have to go to a public vote if this bill becomes law. A clause was inserted that makes Lafayette's bond election count; we won't have to have a second election should this bill pass and be signed into law.

What's less clear: a clause "D" was sticken from the draft language. I'm no lawyer and so don't understand how it works but the consensus at the committee hearing seeemed to be (I watched the streaming video) that striking this resulted in Lafayette not having to put up with the onerous "fine" that would transfer $900,000 from Lafayette back into the pockets of Cox Communications if we had the nerve to do this for ourselves. No doubt this will clear up over the next few days. What is still less clear: how this will affect other municipalities. This is bad law and Lafayette's gain shouldn't become other municipalities' loss.

But, for Lafayette at least, the news is good.

Broome Bill: Movie at 9:00 (am)

According to the senate website page on "Live Broadcasts," the commerce committee hearing today will be streamed. So you should be able to listen to and watch the sausage being made. The stream is set to start at 9:00 and until then you'll get some sort of error message when you try to activate the link. (You'll need the realaudio player to listen.) The agenda says the Broome Bill, aka SB 126, aka Cox's anti-Lafayette amendment to BellSouth's anti-Lafayette law, is the first item up. As I recollect they do tend to try to get the most contentious issues out of the way first, but are also amenable to last minute agenda changes. So if you watch pay close attention to the first few minutes when any such changes will be announced.

And yes, you'd get a much better and bigger picture with less breakup if you had fiber to the home.

"Lawsuit against LUS moves to federal court"

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.

Standing Up—Layne St. Julien

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. :-) )

"Utilities lawsuit headed to federal court"

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.

Cox's "Broome Bill:" Call to action

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.

Incumbents Fight to Reward Market Failures

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.

Diverting your attention

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.

It's all about money: the bond commission

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.

It's all about Delay: The Bond Commission

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....

What's being said: "BellSouth. By any means necessary?"

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.

Fiber election on

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.

"LUS 'In Lieu of Tax' is really a hidden tax"

Ok folks, I took a look at this morning's Advertiser and saw a "guest editorial" attacking fiber. More of the silly ILOT rationale, I thought. (I've covered this here recently here.) But, lo and behold, a quick search of the page reveals nary a mention of fiber. I was shocked. I had been sure this was an anti-fiber editorial.

And it was...but of the FUD (Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt) variety. You just get up and try and smear your opponent. You don't even have to mention what you are really against. Far and away the largest advantage that the proponents of a fiber optic plan has is the good name of LUS and the deep-seated approval of the job it is currently doing among our citizens. So it has become a theme among the anti-government contingent that is opposed to LUS' project that there is something, anything, everything wrong with LUS. And this editorial is about nothing more than trying to tear LUS down. Let's see: 1) identify it with "government"—Neal discovers that it is nothing more than a branch of the LCG. (Implication: Ugh.) 2) That the elected city council runs the government (a news flash) and that this list of actual human beings hold the reins. (Implication: Don't trust these men.) 3) These guys are doing things to you "on purpose." (Implication: Bad men.) 4) This bad thing is the "in lieu of tax" portion of the fees you pay for the services you get which are, like the taxes from private concerns they replace, used to support the general fund. (Implication: shocking, surprising) 5) ....good grief, do I have to go on?

You get the picture: government bad, therefore LUS not to be trusted. These council guys are deceiving you by doing what every administration has been doing in the public eye for generations and what every municipality with a municipal utility has always done. It's all been bad and dishonest in all those years and in all those places. And you shouldn't trust any of your blackhearted neighbors or the government you elected.

What's hidden here is not a "tax." What's hidden is the actual agenda behind Neal's attack on LUS: his opposition to the fiber optic initiative. This is eerily reminiscent of the failed petition drive in which opponents loudly trumpeted that all they wanted was a vote . . . this wasn't about being against the plan. That was untrue, and their opposition to the idea of LUS providing a little competition for BellSouth and Cox has continued unabated. This isn't about LUS and ILOT. It's about a plan to build a fiber optic network that is so popular that it can't be effectively opposed directly. At least not until you tear down the proponents.

It's not government you should distrust. It's folks who make their arguments in this way.

The Town Hall Meeting in the news

You've got two stories in the dailies on yesterday's Town Hall Meeting at the Robicheaux Center. The Advertiser's story is at "Fiber vote moves to next step" and opens with a topic briefly discussed at the meeting: this morning's bond hearing and the worry that the incumbents will try to use the occasion to delay the progress of the project.

A couple of newsworthy items came out of the meeting—which is fairly surprising considering the nature of the event. One, on how the fiber rollout would be ordered I, at least, took as a joke. The tone of the meeting, to the surprise of folks like me, was almost entirely positive. I keep on thinking that there is really some grassroots opposition out there but I don't see it walking door to door and I don't see it at any public gathering. One newsworthy item may well have been more a product of the celebratory atmosphere than a real intention--there was certainly a lot of faux joking back and forth up front with stagey "don't say its" being uttered, but nonetheless Durel said:

If a neighborhood strongly votes against the fiber project and it passes, "We're not going to shove it down their throats," Durel said. "They're going to be the last to get it."

Do I really believe it? No. What will drive deployment patterns will be marketing concerns and the physical realities of network integration. But saying so certainly pleased the crowd.

Occasionally indications that the fiber build will not end when the city is built out emerge. With a complex net being laid to serve all the schools with fiber, a lot of the in-place infrastructure to continue to hook up homes and businesses will be in place. Such a hint emerged yesterday:

Asked why only city residents will have access to fiber, Huval said LUS is owned by residents in the city and serves primarily those in the city.

"We own the poles, we own the rights of way," he said. "Can we service outside the city of Lafayette? You bet."

Conversation went on to touch on the possibilities of LUS doing so itself or of partnering with local municipalities or electrical power companies. Slemco, a local, nonprofit, publicly owned coop is the obvious candidate there.

One tidbit that wasn't reported was that Terry Huval made unambiguous reference to LUS' internet service being the "same up and down." The more technical term is "symmetrical service" and for anyone who is a producer of digitial products or who wants to send large files of any sort out of their connection, this is a very big deal. The incumbents restrict your ability to send files to the internet to a small fraction of the speed they advertise that you can receive service. The most fundamental reason is that their legacy systems are strained to provide modern services at all and they "steal" bandwidth from the upload side in order to make your "download" or surfing experience more palatable. LUS won't be so constrained; they'll have a modern system with bandwidth to burn, so symmetrical service makes sense—but this is the useful sort of detail we just haven't been getting. And a detail that will enthuse the group of folks that use the internet creatively.

The Advocates's story, 'Town hall' crowd backs fiber optics, focuses more on the tone of the meeting and the positive response of the crowd, which no one could argue. But it wasn't apparent from the first. In fact, an older fellow in the back revealed it by one of his garrulous questions...having asked a number of prickly questions and forcing Terry Huval to get specific with dollars and off his "20% less" mantra, he turned around and asked how many people would buy fiber if they could. To the surprise of all including the older gentleman, a sea of hands went up. (He said he'd asked the same question at the Clifton Chenier Center to a very different response.) The next question was about the vote and when a similar, if smaller sea of hands went up, the rest of the meeting focused on the few folks who said they hadn't made up their minds. (Those guys were very patient and took the scrutiny in good spirit.)

Town Hall Meeting reminder

Tonight there will be the first of a series of Town Hall Meetings sponsored by LUS to offer citizens a chance to meet face to face and ask questions of the principals in neighborhood meetings across the city.

Tonight's event is in the Robicheaux Recreation Center, 1818 Eraste Landry Road, at 6:00.

"Report: Bridging 'digital divide' "

The Advocate's article on the digital divide report, Bridging 'digital divide,' walks the reader through a good summary of many of the report's main points and is recommended for getting a quick fix on some of the more substantial points of the report. An example:

Another recommendation suggests the possibility of LUS providing a "basic" Internet service at a low bandwidth at "nominal cost or even no-cost," to increase the number of people on-line in Lafayette, the report says. The bandwidth should be sufficient for people to use e-mail or browse the Internet slowly.

Any public-private partnership or franchise using the LUS system for wireless service should also include a low-cost tier of service, the report says.

More:

The report also calls for aggressive marketing any digital divide program and for Lafayette to develop a "strong, community-oriented Internet service provider, or ISP, possibly through a public-private partnership.

The ISP would develop local Internet content including employment opportunities, child-care services, housing availability, education opportunities, cultural and arts events, and local organization calendars.

Low- or no-cost Web-based programs for common applications, templates for things such as résumés and how to set up a Web presence could be made available through the program.

The discussion, what there was of it, centered on who would be served and the cost of serving them. (Disappointingly, no one chose to take up the ideas offered. Though in fairness the council was given little time to digest ideas.) My impression was that those asking were either concerned to limit the the cost by limiting the population served or to make sure that there was a real, monetary commitment to at least the poorest constituents.

The questions boiled down to: "Who will this serve and what will it cost?" And the answer, I think, is: "Everyone and less than you'd think, but still some real money." That's going to sound like an inadequate answer to both politcal camps--those wishing to limit the program for political reasons and those wishing to hard wire substantial funds for political reasons. For the first group "everyone" is scary. For the second group "less than you think" sounds suspiciously like an attempt to minimize the commitment. My own judgment is that both groups are missing the forest of our common purpose for the trees of familiar, almost knee-jerk concerns.

The big picture, the forest, is that Lafayette simply must find a way to utilize and expand the talents of all its people. For selfish reasons as well as alturistic ones we all want to live in a healthy, vibrant community of people eager to move themselves, their families, and the community as a whole forward. That requires that we serve everyone, and not simply the smallest number to which a benefit can be limited. There are portions of the report dealing with the provision of rebuilt computers or new, low-cost ones that are means tested. Those will benefit only the poorest. But the vast majority of the recommendations will benefit us all—but in differing degree. And therein lies the real story. Most of the recommendations are carefully crafted to avoid a demeaning means test. You can use the local "super" internet portal no matter who you are--but it will be most valuable to those looking for jobs, affordable child care and other local benefits. You can install a Linux disk and Open Office whether or not you own a full version of the latest Microsoft Office suite. You can take advantage of the very low-cost tier of internet service --if the speed trade-off in communicating with the world outside it is worth it to you. All of these things represent offering those with the least service currently access to the functionality that only the more wealthy can afford to afford today.

It shouldn't be an unfamiliar model. The daring experiment of offering everyone access to public education is, historians tell us, what turned a backwoods agricultural confederation into a continent-spanning powerhouse. The established nations of Europe with their lycee, gymnasia, and (not) "public" schools thought it a waste of resources to offer those possibilities to all—and their economies still suffer from having too-early restricted the potential of their citizens in the name of saving a little in educational funding. Access to the internet should be the same — something we offer all our citizens because it is the right thing to do...and because we are confident that the investment will benefit us all.

Offering these services takes only a little money and should be easy to justify simply on the grounds of making LUS' service more attractive. Only a few more subscribers would pay for the additional cost and this is precisely the sort of marketing logic that drives portals like Yahoo to offer extensive calendaring, gaming, and ema