Our communities had been exploring the concept of offering cable television, high-speed internet & telephone services via a municipally owned & operated fiber to the home plant as a result of continuing complaints concerning the lack of DSL or cable modem services for high speed internet, and the abysmal customer service and rate increases on the cable TV side.

As the issue came to referendum questions in late January 2003, we knew it was time to step up and support the cities’ efforts. We gave presentations at PTO meetings, Lion’s Clubs, VFW Posts, etc. We raised funds for yard signs, marched in parades, wrote letters to the editors of our local newspapers, etc. If anyone would listen, we would present.


2) What do you see as the advantages of a fiber to the home project for your communities? What are its advantages over other broadband technologies?

In the TriCities case, we see FTTH/FTTB as the best long-term solution for our communities. Unlike most other communities, all three cities own and operate their own electric plants. My electric bill is paid to the City of Batavia, not ComEd. My rates are, on average, 30% lower than what my neighbors pay ComEd.

Having ownership of our electric grid is a huge advantage. We have highly trained staff working for a utility that is used to providing life critical services 24/7/365. Much of that same staff also already works on our existing municipal fiber networks that serve our electric substations, schools, and city and county buildings. This network alone is already saving the taxpayers money.

We see a FTTH build as an offering that goes leaps and bounds beyond what any traditional player would bring to our market. In addition, we think our cities can better use that utility to provide services the incumbents wouldn’t think of providing in a package. Think electric and water meter reading. Think telemedicine with a direct link to our local hospitals and health departments. Think private business networks at 100-megabit speeds from town to town. Think distance learning with several of our local (and “not so local”) colleges or National Labs (Fermi & Argonne) that will be on our existing ring before the end of the year. Instead of the “triple play” that the incumbents are trying to offer, we’re shooting for the “octuple play.”

Fiber For Our Future believes that a fiber optic backbone is the best long-term solution for the TriCities because of our existing electric utilities and because of the services we want our cities to offer. That being said, fiber may not be what every city needs or can afford. If your cable service is fine, your city doesn’t have an electric utility, or only want to provide internet services, wireless may more than suit your needs. At a recent wireless conference I spoke at, one gentleman had done amazing things with wireless networks for 18 tribal nations in California (see http://wiki.cuwireless.net/wirelessWiki/SessionNotes2b and http://www.sctdv.net). The truth of the matter is that your build will depend on the services you want to offer. An all fiber optic network suits the long-term goals of the TriCities best.


3) Why should a project like this be publicly owned?

A better question might be why shouldn’t a project like this be publicly owned? A municipal fiber optic plant is infrastructure. Our roads, water plants, sewer systems, and in some cases electric and gas are infrastructure. Historically, the public sector (local or state) has maintained infrastructure for the common good. This is no different.

Allowing the private sector have full control over the telecommunications infrastructure, while at the same time allowing PACS that represent them to push legislation that strives to block public entry, is a recipe for disaster. We believe that any entity should be allowed to play, and if a city wants to get into this business, they should be allowed to make that decision for themselves.

Because most private sector companies do not have the desire to overbuild the incumbent providers, true facilities based competition is severely lacking. This is the precise location a municipal competitor is needed.


4) Who are the incumbent cable and phone companies in your area and how did they respond to the municipal plan?

Our local incumbents are Comcast and SBC. They responded in a manner similar to what you are seeing in Lafayette.


5) We've been somewhat surprised by the tactics the incumbents in our area have used and are wondering how closely your experience matches ours. What tactics were used in the Tri Cities area?

I suppose the best way to warn Lafayette is to keep repeating the following line:

“The first casualty when war comes is truth. ~Hiram Johnson.”

Make no mistake; this is a war to them. You will be stunned by the disinformation campaign laid out by your incumbents.

Rather than rehash all of last year’s TriCity Broadband referendum, I’ll simply point you to our website. See the bottom of the page at http://www.tricitybroadband.com/index_old.htm. These are some of the ads run by Comcast & SBC. Also, visit http://www.tricitybroadband.com/pr.htm to see most of the recent and past press concerning our battle.

However, to provide a quick overview, the following took place:

a. 3 double sided, full color, 11” X 17” mailers talking about all the supposed “failures” in municipal broadband to every home in the TriCities zip codes – 90,000 residents or about 30,000 households – paid for by Comcast.

b. 4 double sided, full color, 5.5” X 8.5” mailers talking about all the proposed “property tax referenda” to every home in the TriCities zip codes – 90,000 residents or about 30,000 households – paid for by SBC.

c. Push Polls by both SBC & Comcast during the same week. See http://www.tricitybroadband.com/news1.htm. “Do you know this will take jobs away from teachers?”

d. Local Radio spots

e. 30 second television spots against the TriCities effort.

f. Comcast coffee mugs with free coffee two days before the election

g. Retirees and employees going door to door telling how this would cause them to lose their pensions.

h. etc., etc., etc….

You name it, they will do it. The incumbents will spend whatever it takes to bamboozle the citizenry into thinking they’ve got the same thing you’re trying to offer already in place.


6) What happened in the aftermath of the defeat of the municipal plan in the Tri-Cities?

We finally got some upgrades. Comcast rebuilt their plant and started offering cable modems. SBC expanded the reach of their DSL offering somewhat.

We also got “upgraded” prices from Comcast. In January of 2003, the cost for Standard Cable with one Premium channel was $48.47. ONE YEAR LATER, that same service cost $65.83 (Standard Cable + a digital converter + Premium Services). We still have areas not covered by DSL and Comcast’s customer service is still lacking.


7) Where do things stand now?

After an entirely citizen driven petition drive, all three cities will see this on the ballot when they go to vote for President this November.

Comcast is already driving around our towns with billboard trucks touting their services. Billboard trucks are not something we usually see in the Fox Valley. In Chicago, sure, but not in the TriCities.

SBC Illinois President Carrie Hightman has gone on a local AM radio station saying that a FTTH building will require your house to be rewired. That’s just plain silly.

Another SBC NetworkOps President, Kirk Brannock has stood before the Batavia City Council saying that "3 meg down is all you'll ever need" and that FTTP "technology is not proven." One of the best lines though was "What are you going to do with 20 megabits? It's like having an Indy race car and you don't have a track to drive it on." This coming from the same company that has a FTTH system in Mission Bay, CA. See that story at http://www.tricitybroadband.com/misc/latimes041904.htm. By the way, you can watch the entire video of SBC’s presentation to the Batavia City Council (with comment added by FFOF) at http://66.17.198.223/videos/SBC%20visits%20Batavia's%20City%20Council.wmv.

It's precisely this type of attitude that pervades SBC and Comcast. That's fine if they want to have that belief, but at the same time, they shouldn’t try to block us from providing better.

posted:8/29/04