Lafayette Says 'Yes' to Fiber62 percent vote to proceed ( old news - 02:51PM Sunday Jul 17 2005) tags: Fiber · municipalResidents of Lafayette, LA turned out in large numbers on Saturday to register their vote whether a bond offering to fund a city-wide fiber-optic project should be approved. The Daily Advertiser reports that with a 27 percent turnout, they voted 12,290 to 7,507, or 62 percent to 38 percent, to proceed with the controversial fiber-to-the-home project. "It humbles me a bit that Lafayette's citizens put so much trust in their leadership. Now, we need to prove them right and show that other 38 percent that they can trust us and look to us to move this community forward," said City-Parish President Joey Durel.
Related:- After Five Years Of Fighting, Lafayette Gets Their Fiber
- Tuesday Evening Links
- Seattle Still Considering FTTH Network
- Australia Announces $31 Billion Fiber Network
- Time Warner Cable Backlash Continues
- Incumbent Dirty Tricks In Wilson, NC
- Utopia Hits 100Mbps
- Chattanooga Offers Fiber To The Home
|
 
moby866
Premium
join:2000-10-07
Above you |  Very good news
| |
|  | 
Mactron
Happy 4th
Premium
join:2001-12-16
CM94sv
| Re: Very good news Good news for service to the community. Probably not so good for the 1300 employees of the SBC wireless center that SBC will close now like spoiled children. WaW, you didn't play by my rules. I'll just my ball (jobs) and go home. Waw, Waw !! Gotta love Monopolies. 
--
If only the Verizon CSRs worked this well.  | |
| | | 
technick
Premium
join:2000-12-16
Loganville, GA | Re: Very good news You mean bellsouth right? I didn't know SBC had a center in the area. | |
| | | | 
sbcisheaven
@swbell.ne | Re: Very good news Actually the call center in question is a Cingular Wireless call center in which SBC owns 60% and BellSouth owns 40% | |
| | | | | 
Nightshade
sic semper tyrannis
Premium
join:2002-05-26
Salem, OR
| Re: Very good news I think Cingular would have no problem acquiring 100% ownership of one of their call centers if BellSouth makes good on the threat they made against the good people of Lafayette. 
--
Just say "no" to bad code | |
| | 
LiamJunket
Premium
join:2002-03-03
Ocean City, NJ
 ·Comcast
1 edit | said by moby866  :Perhaps this will inspire other places to do the same. I hope so too. But I am sure Bell South and Cox aren't done battling yet. The next battle in this war will no doubt be in the courts. Monopolies have large legal staffs with nothing to do but help maintain those monopolies.
--
My Web Page
Join Red Room Forum | |
| | | RadioDoc
58ef2c0
Premium,ExMod 2000-03
join:2000-05-11
 ·AT&T Midwest
| Re: Very good news BellSouth serves Lafayette not SBC, but don't let facts get in the way of a good rant.
Another commenter noticed the 27% turn-out. I noticed the "turned out in large numbers" puffery in the story posted here. Can't say that this was a ringing endorsement, unfortunately. Just that 17% of registered voters said "yes", 10% said "no" and 73% said "who cares". I seriously doubt that this win--and I think it was good for Lafayette--"will inspire other places to do the same". More likely, it will confirm what many local governments already think: This is a niche issue, with very little popular support. Oh well.. | |
| | | | TheGhost
Premium
join:2003-01-03
Lake Forest, IL
clubs: | Re: Very good news Maybe they should have said "relatively" large turnout. | |
| | | |
Former Cajun
@verizon.ne
 from:
SRFireside
| That's not just spin; 27% really is a very good turnout for an off-season vote like this, particularly if that was the only issue on the ballot. | |
| | | | | 
pnh102
Reptiles Are Cuddly And Pretty
Premium
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD
·Comcast
| Re: Very good news said by Former Cajun:
That's not just spin; 27% really is a very good turnout for an off-season vote like this, particularly if that was the only issue on the ballot. I'd be pissed about the amount of money wasted in holding this vote. Why not have elections every 2 years to coincide with Presidential and Congressional elections instead?
--
Hey Fast Eddie... you're next! | |
| | | | | |
Unregistered user
from:
PeterCollins
| Re: Very good news Special elections are held all the time. While I agree that regular elections should be consolidated as much as possible, I have nothing against an exception or two. And besides, it was BellSouth and Cox that forced this election anyway, so you can blame them as much as anyone.
Congratulations to the the people of Lafayette for giving these corporations the collective finger. | |
| | | |
broadband bart
@covad.net | Given that only around 50% of registered voters turnout to vote for president of the US, 27% turnout for an off-year election is indeed, a strong turnout. Lots of other bond issues have passed with turnout like that. | |
| | | mjcrocket
Mjc
join:2000-12-02
Abingdon, MD
| said by LiamJunket :said by moby866 :Perhaps this will inspire other places to do the same. I hope so too. But I am sure Bell South and Cox aren't done battling yet. The next battle in this war will no doubt be in the courts. Monopolies have large legal staffs with nothing to do but help maintain those monopolies. It isn't so much that the next battle will be in the courts, as it will be in the regulatory process to get this project approved.
This project still needs the approval of the Public Service Commission. The method of insuring or guaranteeing the bonds also has to be approved by the Public Service Commission. In the event that the revenue from this project is not sufficient to make payments, the city's entire utility system will be responsible for the payments; the proposal that was voted on clearly stated this. Unfortunately, it appears that this provision might be in violation of Louisiana law; which would also require the ruling by the Public Service Commission.
Most importantly, even if these issues are overcome; the venture still needs to win the approval of Wall Street, if the bonds are to be sold in sufficient quantity to produce the required amount of money. This takes us back to the way the bonds are going to be insured or guaranteed. If the PSC does not approve the method stated in proposition, the bonds will be very difficult if not impossible to sell; and unfortunately the project will die or not be constructed as planned by the city.
Also don't forget that the proposition stated the money could be used for anything needed by the entire utility system, it isn't restricted to just the fiber system!
It is going to be very interesting to see how this all plays out over the next several months, and if the full system really appears by 2007 as the city leaders have stated. | |
| | | |
pnh102
Reptiles Are Cuddly And Pretty
Premium
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD
·Comcast
| Re: Very good news said by mjcrocket :In the event that the revenue from this project is not sufficient to make payments, the city's entire utility system will be responsible for the payments; the proposal that was voted on clearly stated this. This is yet another reason why municipal broadband sucks. If a private network were to fail, the only people who would be screwed would be the investors who voluntarily chose to take the risk. If this network fails, all of the people who didn't vote for the network would now be paying higher utility bills to cover the costs of the failure. This is no different than raising taxes to pay for the system and it most certainly isn't fair to those people who aren't interested in the network.
Seeing as how just about every single municipal broadband system in the USA is subsidized by either taxes or by some other municipally-run utility, no one can make the argument that these systems are in any way better or more cost-effective than a privately run system. It's just that more people get screwed over when the government drops the ball.
--
Hey Fast Eddie... you're next! | |
| | | | |
broadbanderexpanderc
@66.100.x.x
| Re: Very good news Cross-subsidization is illegal for public entities in La, like in most states. I don't know where your information comes from on the matter, I suggest you read the John Kelly paper on the matter and the Rizzuto and Wirth paper he wrote his piece as a reply to. | |
| | | | | | mjcrocket
Mjc
join:2000-12-02
Abingdon, MD
| Re: Very good news said by broadbanderexpanderc:
Cross-subsidization is illegal for public entities in La, like in most states. I don't know where your information comes from on the matter, I suggest you read the John Kelly paper on the matter and the Rizzuto and Wirth paper he wrote his piece as a reply to.
I got the information from the proposition itself:
»68.156.56.19/Images/Fiber.htm
"said bonds to be payable first, from the net income and revenues of the communications system and second, to the amount necessary, from a secondary or subordinate pledge of the revenues of the utilities system."
It might be illegal in LA; but the proposition the people voted on clearly states that is exactly how the bonds will be paid if the fiber system does not generate enough revenue to make payments. If it is illegal and the above wording is challenged, then the results of the vote are illegal and the project is dead in its current form.
Further, the above article contains the following quote from LUS Director Terry Huval:
"If LUS starts building out the fiber network and no one buys services, the debt will be about $3 million, which LUS’ other divisions can absorb"
An article in today's newspaper, (The Advertiser) contains the following information related to this matter:
»www.theadvertiser.com/apps/pbcs.···318/1002
"LUS representatives said they believe state law allows the system to use its existing electric, water and sewer utilities as a second guarantor for the fiber project. BellSouth representatives disagree.
If it is prohibited from backing the fiber bonds with its other divisions, LUS may not be able to sell the fiber bonds or may have to sell them at higher rates than planned."
The same article also contains the following summary of the project:
"Bonds to be paid back, first using revenues from the fiber system, then if needed with revenues from other LUS divisions, such as electric, water and sewer.
Bond money goes to other LUS divisions if the fiber project is unsuccessful."
Along with the following summary of what is next:
"What's next:
Louisiana Public Service Commission is writing rules that may affect fiber rates and whether LUS can guarantee bonds with other utility divisions.
PSC meets Friday in Mandeville. LUS is not on the agenda posted on PSC's Web site."
It looks to me like the proposition voted on Saturday has a long road to travel to determine if the vote was legal and in turn if the project is legal or has a chance of being constructed. | |
| | | | | | |
broadbanderexpanderc
@66.100.x.x
| Re: Very good news Wow. Yes, this is of dubious legality then. I wonder what he PSC will find. Perhaps there is some legal leephole that has to do with a bond finance limitation for the project. As it stands, something seems wrong. Either the Utility will have to raise prices to cross-subsidize illegally or they have enough money to build a surplus and keep rates the same, which is absurd for a public power company. Interesting to see how this pans out and where this money comes from. | |
| | Kearnstd
Elf Wizard
Premium
join:2002-01-22
Mullica Hill, NJ
| the corperations will just take it to the federal level is all, they will buy some more congreeman or find a way to sneak an Anti-muni bill into some form of Homeland Security act so that it slips under the radar.
--
[65 Arcanist]Filan(High Elf) Zone: Broadband Reports | |
| 
JPuppy
Java Heathen
Premium
join:2002-11-24
Honesdale, PA
clubs: | Awesome I hope this turns out well, for their sake and for Munis that are trying to get the ball rolling.
--
Official BBR Grouch | |
| fiberguy
My views are my own.
Premium
join:2005-05-20 | Don't care... I don't care who launches advance technologies such as fiber to the home just as long as they are launched.
It's good that a po-dunk part of the country will get a great service, but I still personally don't care if it's muni run or not. | |
| | 
AbBaZaBbA
Premium
join:2002-07-10
Long Beach, CA
| Re: Don't care... said by fiberguy :I don't care who launches advance technologies such as fiber to the home just as long as they are launched. It's good that a po-dunk part of the country will get a great service, but I still personally don't care if it's muni run or not. trust me here... if verizon was the only provider to rollout ftth all over the us, they woudl drive everyone out of business at first, but then later when no one can compete they'd jack rates to higher than they were before. It's how monopolies work. | |
| 
rodoke
join:2003-10-28
Carbondale, IL
·Charter Pipeline
| It's good to see that people can get what they want at least once in a while. Compared to the past successes of telcos and cablecos, it's encouraging to see that some people don't just blindly accept those companies' FUD and promises.
--
英語の言葉は綴り難い。 | |
|
lippy
@comcast.net | no to taxes wow, taxes paying for fiber. What a shame. | |
| | | | | 
jap
Premium
join:2003-08-10
038xx
·RoadRunner Cable
·Verizon Online DSL
1 edit | Re: no to taxes Nothing wrong with taxes. Nothing wrong with taxes paying for anything the people want. CableCos & Telcos were (& to a lesser extent still are) all massively subsidized to perform rural build-outs and they robbed the people blind. With muni subsidies, at least, the money stays local and the jobs created are local. Connectivity is a great community asset; no reason it should be run by hit&run corps that may or may not follow-though & always outsource what they can.
EDIT: whooops! Reply is meant for the aptly named Lippy, not badmagicnumber. Sorry. | |
| RayW
Premium
join:2001-09-01
Layton, UT
clubs:
·XMission
|  But on the negative side
73% of the people either said they did not care or that what ever side they would vote on would fail, so why go vote.
That means that only 17% of the people voted for it and 10% against it. I do not care which side you are on, the telco/cable side or the town side, this just points up one of the biggest problems with democracy. If Joe six-pack is content to sit in front of the telly sucking on his suds (no sexist meaning intended), then a very minor minority will decide what happens, good or bad.
Where were the other 36,000 or so people? Do they not care that the call center was threatening them if they did this or that the City maybe was doing a boondoggle or that maybe this is the best idea since (insert favorite best idea), or any number of reasons to hit the polls? It is not like like it is all that hard to vote (well, except for a few places that you can think of).
[/RANT]
--
I am not lost, I find myself every time. | |
| 
ScottMo
Premium,MVM
join:2000-12-15
Stony Brook, NY
| Government run? Why is everyone so gung-ho on this? I can't imagine what a fiasco a muni-run FTTH would be. This city of 110,000 is going to take $125 million from a bond and build FTTH. Don't they have better use for $125 million than to spend it on fiber? Except that the bond issue says that the utility company can spend the $125m on said by bond:
"...for repurchasing or paying any such bonds and for constructing, acquiring and improving the combined waterworks plant and system, electric power and light plant and system and sewer systems of the City..."
The city's plan is to "test" out their fiber network in a few neighborhoods to see if people will buy it. If its not a hit, the utility company (LUS) will just abandon it. If it loses money the utility company will cover the bond costs from water/sewer/electrical bills. Whether you have FTTH or not, you'll pay for those who do.
Municipalities running what should be provided by for-profit companies (telecommunications) are generally a poor deal. | |
| |
chaser7016
@68.34.x.x | Re: Government run? They should just use the investment to build it and then hand the admining, marketing, customer serivice, etc to private businesses like Earthlink or NetZero. That would be great for competition and for the proliferation of broadband! | |
| | 
firephoto
KDE
Premium
join:2003-03-18
·Verizon west (ex G..
| said by ScottMo :Municipalities running what should be provided by for-profit companies (telecommunications) are generally a poor deal. And why should these services be provided by for-profit companies? My electricity, water, sewer doesn't come from a for-profit entity so why does my ability to talk on the phone or use the internet have to?
My county has ftth and so does the other two counties close by and they are all connected together and they are all public entities running them. Now if you are an individual and want service you have to go through a private ISP since this state passed a law to protect the telcos and slow the progress of the public utilities deploying fiber but it doesn't add significantly to the cost unless you choose an isp with a high price. If you didn't have to go through an isp you would probably save about $15 a month. Also in this county they are using radios in a lot of places they can't serve with fiber directly but the public utility is providing those radios to the isp so that essentially is part of the utility fee. Also with small percentage of the population using the fiber it is paying for itself so I would expect wholesale prices to remain where they are or even fall somewhat as time passes and for them to deploy fiber directly to some of the more rural areas.
So I guess I'm still wondering where these bad municipality run ftth deployments are?
--
Location: N48°05.3' W119°48.5' | |
| | |
ScottMo
Premium,MVM
join:2000-12-15
Stony Brook, NY
| Re: Government run? said by firephoto :And why should these services be provided by for-profit companies? My electricity, water, sewer doesn't come from a for-profit entity so why does my ability to talk on the phone or use the internet have to? I didn't say they had to, I said it was generally a poor idea. For-profit companies generally (there's that word again) do a better job at controlling costs and providing innovation than do public sector entities. When companies compete, the consumer is *generally* better off. Consumers get lower prices, and faster innovation.
said by firephoto :So I guess I'm still wondering where these bad municipality run ftth deployments are? I actaully said telecom, not just FTTH, but if you'd like info on failed broadband here's a short list:
Orlando
Marietta & Trion, Georgia as well as Washington
While it can work, I'm not sure sinking $125million of taxpayer money into a technology that could, at some point in the near future, be rendered obsolete is the best use of public money. If that happens to a corporation, its the stockholders who suffer. If it happens to a public sector company, its the little guy who suffers. Broadband is still a young industry.
Heck we even have a story in BBR of Stratellites being put up over Colombia. Five stratellites at a total cost of $50 million. I'm sure 1 Stratellite would cover Lafayette and that pro-rates to $10 million. I understand that FTTH is more than just broadband, but hopefully I made my point. | |
| | | | wtansill
Ncc1701
join:2000-10-10
Falls Church, VA
1 edit | Re: Government run? said by ScottMo :<snip> I actaully said telecom, not just FTTH, but if you'd like info on failed broadband here's a short list: OrlandoMarietta & Trion, Georgia as well as Washington While it can work, I'm not sure sinking $125million of taxpayer money into a technology that could, at some point in the near future, be rendered obsolete is the best use of public money. If that happens to a corporation, its the stockholders who suffer. If it happens to a public sector company, its the little guy who suffers. Broadband is still a young industry. I understand that FTTH is more than just broadband, but hopefully I made my point.<snip> No, you've not made the point. The first story concered free wi-fi. It did not mention any details such as how widely the system was promoted, how good the service was (dead spots, speed, etc.) that may have prevented its uptake. The second article was interesting in that you ignored the closing point of the article:
"Of course muni-supporters will suggest such failures are the result of poor planning, poor implementation, or the wrong socio-economic setting. Hired "experts", employed by incumbents, often testify at town meetings and suggest such disasters are the norm. If you've read this column frequently, you've seen success stories outweigh the disasters by a wide margin.
In the end, these local municipal efforts wouldn't exist if private industry and government had done their part to get America wired with broadband. Something incumbents forget as they launch legal efforts to crush them or PR campaigns to spin them: their very existence is proof-positive of industry and federal & state government's failure to get the job done.
Also noted in the article was the fact that the system was sold to a cable company. Hmmm -- must not be a total failure if the cable company bought it.
My point being that of course there will be failures. There is no such thing as a 100% success rate. Your mistake is to think that such failures are solely the province of municipalities. The screw ups and failed projects initiated by the telcos never see the light of day unless one looks at telco/cable SEC filings. Regardless, you the ratepayer will foot the bill.
For instance -- I read one of Verizon's DEF 14/A proxy statements a few years back. Turns out that that year Verizon had written off a 900 million dollar investment in (I think) Mexico (I'm too damn tired and lazy to look it up just now -- definitely a country south of the border though). Also, Verizon's stock had declined about 50% from it's peak. But guess what? Chairman Ivan Seidenberg got a fat raise. Sure glad he doesn't work for a muni...
--
That which does not kill me merely prolongs the agony. | |
| | | | |
ScottMo
Premium,MVM
join:2000-12-15
Stony Brook, NY
| Re: Government run? said by wtansill :... The first story concered free wi-fi. It did not mention any details such as how widely the system was promoted, how good the service was (dead spots, speed, etc.) that may have prevented its uptake. The second article was interesting in that you ignored the closing point of the article:... So what's your point? That a public wi-fi setup was operated poorly? THAT was my point! In the second article, I ignored nothing since I didn't quote it, I merely presented a link to it.
said by wtansill :...Also noted in the article was the fact that the system was sold to a cable company. Hmmm -- must not be a total failure if the cable company bought it.... Built for $35 million; sold for $11.2 million. Obviously it has value, not just the value the taxpayers put into it. Which is also part of my point: if a city loses money on a venture who foots the bill?
said by wtansill :My point being that of course there will be failures. There is no such thing as a 100% success rate. Agreed
said by wtansill :Your mistake is to think that such failures are solely the province of municipalities. Never said that, never implied it. I said that if a failure happens to a corporation, its the stockholders who suffer (ie: those who voluntarily agreed to buy a piece of the company). If a failure happens to a public-sector company, it effects every one of the people in that area, from the ratepayers to (in this case of public bonds) to every tax paying citizen and company whether they use the service or not.
said by wtansill :The screw ups and failed projects initiated by the telcos never see the light of day unless one looks at telco/cable SEC filings. Regardless, you the ratepayer will foot the bill. Except if I chose to move from Verizon to MCI, or Sprint, or one of the many other phone comapnies out there. Then I do not have to pay for a company's failure. See the difference? I have a choice . If teh telco ventrue pays off for them, customers are attracted to their offerings. If my utility company has a failure (say like trying to build a nuclear power plant in a populated area), everyone pays as there are no alternatives to the public utility.
said by wtansill :...Chairman Ivan Seidenberg got a fat raise. Sure glad he doesn't work for a muni... So muni CEOs are paid according to how well they run the business? Really? | |
| | | | | | wtansill
Ncc1701
join:2000-10-10
Falls Church, VA
| Re: Government run? said by ScottMo :Except if I chose to move from Verizon to MCI, or Sprint, or one of the many other phone comapnies out there. Then I do not have to pay for a company's failure. See the difference? I have a choice . If teh telco ventrue pays off for them, customers are attracted to their offerings. If my utility company has a failure (say like trying to build a nuclear power plant in a populated area), everyone pays as there are no alternatives to the public utility. You may or may not have an alternative such as MCI, Sprint, etc. available to you. In your area, perhaps you do. Down in the area we're debating? They may not have the choices you seem to think they do (don't live there, so I can't confirm one way or another). Certainly the incumbant monoply doesn't want them to think so.
said by ScottMo :So muni CEOs are paid according to how well they run the business? Really? No, of course not. I only point out that the telecomm companies do not, in my opinion, have such a great track record either. Given the fact that the local monpolies do not see fit to serve the area, I see no reason to scoff when the local muni decides to step up to the plate on behalf of its citizens. If it's a failure, at least they have tried something rather than sitting around complaining and the bondholders take it in the shorts the same as the bondholders would if it was a commercial venture.
--
That which does not kill me merely prolongs the agony. | |
| | | | | Goldman
join:2002-06-21
Maumelle, AR
| said by ScottMo :Why is everyone so gung-ho on this? I can't imagine what a fiasco a muni-run FTTH would be. This city of 110,000 is going to take $125 million from a bond and build FTTH. Don't they have better use for $125 million than to spend it on fiber? Except that the bond issue says that the utility company can spend the $125m on said by bond:
"...for repurchasing or paying any such bonds and for constructing, acquiring and improving the combined waterworks plant and system, electric power and light plant and system and sewer systems of the City..."
The city's plan is to "test" out their fiber network in a few neighborhoods to see if people will buy it. If its not a hit, the utility company (LUS) will just abandon it. If it loses money the utility company will cover the bond costs from water/sewer/electrical bills. Whether you have FTTH or not, you'll pay for those who do. Municipalities running what should be provided by for-profit companies (telecommunications) are generally a poor deal. How about this?
The Outstanding Public Debt as of 17 Jul 2005 at 09:28:58 PM GMT is:
$ 7,854,851,288,911.00
Each citizen's share of this debt is $26,487.22. | |
| | |
ScottMo
Premium,MVM
join:2000-12-15
Stony Brook, NY
| Re: Government run? said by Goldman :How about this? The Outstanding Public Debt as of 17 Jul 2005 at 09:28:58 PM GMT is: $ 7,854,851,288,911.00 Each citizen's share of this debt is $26,487.22. That sure is a sad figure, but I'm not sure of your point... | |
| |
FiberNow
@cox.net
| Not sure if you followed the story the whole time or not, but Cox and Bellsouth flat out refused to either lay FTTH themselves and offer services on it, or cooperate with the city if the city layed out the fiber and allowed them to actually offer the services. The administration begged them to do it for a while, until they got fed up and decided it was best to do this themselves. | |
| | 
Tsume
My little Toby.
join:2004-02-23
Winter Park, FL | If COX and BS would just up the damned speed and quality of service, we wouldn't have this problem. | |
| | 
footballdude
join:2002-08-13
Imperial, MO
| said by ScottMo :city of 110,000 is going to take $125 million from a bond and build FTTH That's over $1,100 per person. Isn't that in the ballpark with what Verizon is spending to install fiber? Wasn't this thing supposed to have some kind of cost benefit? | |
| | |
ScottMo
Premium,MVM
join:2000-12-15
Stony Brook, NY
| Re: Government run? said by footballdude :That's over $1,100 per person. Isn't that in the ballpark with what Verizon is spending to install fiber? Wasn't this thing supposed to have some kind of cost benefit? According to the census link in my first post, Lafayette has 47,000 housing units. Assuming that they use most of the money for laying FTTH, that comes to about $2,600 per household. I'm not sure what Verizon's costs are, but this article (click "Barriers to Penetration" - no sophomoric jokes please) notes that the cost to provision a home "... is estimated at $1,500". So Lafayette is spending 60% more for its FTTH rollout. Take from it what you will... | |
| | | 
Time
Premium
join:2003-07-05 | Wow.. Our schools are giving children terrible educations and they are using tax money to build a fiber network? That's ridiculous. | |
| |
See 9 replies to this post | |
pcscdma
Chocobo Chocobo Random Battle
Premium
join:2004-01-14
Winterset, IA
clubs: | Tax dollaz I think if someone yells out "This project uses tax dollaz" long enough, then it becomes permanently embedded in their brain.
Cox and BS can suck it!
--
Posting .sig | |
| clickart5
join:2002-03-22 | What is Fiber? May I ask what is Fiber network since I lived in lafayette. | |
| | 
Octopussy2
Premium
join:2003-03-30
Batavia, IL
| Re: What is Fiber? To get back on track a little....CONGRATS Lafayette!!!! I knew you could/would pass your referendum! With political support from both parties and support from businesses, realtor associations, Home Builders, and many, many others, there was no way you were going to lose! You also had the support from your Chamber of Commerce. That was key.
We are proud of you up here in the Tri-Cities!!! WAY TO GO! You had vision and you are the big envy of a lot of people at the moment. Savor your victory!
--
It's muni-licious! »www.tricitybroadband.com | |
| | | Jasper1970
join:2002-12-29
Finksburg, MD | Re: What is Fiber? I think it is great that they voted to install fiber...This country is based on popular vote. So how can Telco's like Verizon, SBC etc. be able to stop a city from installing there own fiber. I dont get it? Anyway congrats to Lafayette. | |
| | | | Cod
join:2000-07-05
Greensboro, NC
1 edit | Re: What is Fiber? You guys don't bitch when your local city government entity deems certain websites 'offensive' or 'pornography' on this municipal project and starts filtering content. Not saying its gonna happen, but all it takes is a few councilmen/women to raise a stink and start implentmenting filters.
I'd also like to see #'s of this city of 110,000 of how many plan to subscribe and how many the muni needs to stay out of the red. | |
| |
anoooooooooooo
@comcast.net
from:
SRFireside
| fiber is faster-cable
cable usually uses copper, fiber uses light, which can trasmit data much faster with less loss.
max theoretical rate for fiber approach 100gb/s i heard, as oppose to 100mb/s for cable.
residents should be able to get 10-15mb/s on fiber...at near or less than cable price. | |
| | | 
SRFireside
join:2001-01-19
Houston, TX
·RoadRunner Cable
| Re: What is Fiber? Finally someone who actually answered the question.
Now as for City Council using the municipal broadband to censor content that's not likely to happen. For one this project is not controlled by City Council. They are just getting the ball rolling. Council members can raise a stink all they want, but they won't have the option to "vote out" Playboy.com and whatnot. Second you have seen the kind of backlash that happens when communities try to ban just library content. You'll get that to the Nth degree trying to close entire web portals. | |
| 
gissa
I Hit Things With Sticks
join:2002-01-28
Hyde Park, MA
·RCN CABLE
1 edit | Future viability of this project They are using revenue bonds to pay for this project. So the bondholders are being paid interest from the revenues this project generates. What happens when a Baby Bell comes in and installs their own fiber undercutting the muni? All customers will go for the better price and the city could end up defaulting on their debt; making additional debt more expensive and sending the overall financial situation of the muni down the drains...
I guess it could very well play out like this unless there is some rule the muni has that would eliminate the risk of competition. | |
| | Jasper1970
join:2002-12-29
Finksburg, MD
·Verizon Online DSL
·Comcast
| Re: Future viability of this project All I am saying is how can a telco or what ever company can stop a city from putting in it own internet services? Thats like me buying a house and want to paint the exterior. Then have a stranger come by and say you cant do that. I really dont get it.....Please explain to me how they can do that? | |
| | |
gissa
I Hit Things With Sticks
join:2002-01-28
Hyde Park, MA
·RCN CABLE
| Re: Future viability of this project Hey Jasper -
The bells' argument against muni build-outs is that, in many cases, the munis regulate the actions of the bell companies. So they say it is not appropriate to be competing against the institution that regulates them. I can see the reasoning, but I have never trusted the Bells. | |
| | | | wtansill
Ncc1701
join:2000-10-10
Falls Church, VA
| Re: Future viability of this project said by gissa :Hey Jasper - The bells' argument against muni build-outs is that, in many cases, the munis regulate the actions of the bell companies. So they say it is not appropriate to be competing against the institution that regulates them. I can see the reasoning, but I have never trusted the Bells. If the incumbants provided the service, then certainly the muni would regulate it. The argument fails however, since the incumbants are not providing the service. Muni regulations, therefore, are a non-issue.
--
That which does not kill me merely prolongs the agony. | |
| | TheGhost
Premium
join:2003-01-03
Lake Forest, IL
clubs: | Would be like a few Comcast examples where they cut prices in areas of competition, supporting those prices with monopoly profits from elsewhere, until competition is driven out of business. They then raise prices to recoup losses. | |
| 
thisismyname1
join:2004-07-26
00000 | Send some FIOS over my way... I would love a 30/5Mbps.That would definitely be sweet...very sweet.
All I can get is 8Mbps/768Kbps.:( | |
| | jimbo2150
join:2004-05-10
Youngstown, OH
 ·Dreamhost
·Armstrong Zoom In..
| Re: Send some FIOS over my way... Hey, dont complain, that is better than most of us can get! I have 3Mbps/512Kbps and that is the fastest this area has to offer at the moment. I have SBC and from reading in the forums the rumors that SBC might bring back the 6Mbps plan this summer, but now people are saying its canned! AKA - I probably have to wait a minimum of 1 year (probably longer) before I see any faster speeds.
On another note; Congrats Lafayette for the great victory over companies that probably would have ignored your needs eitherwise! I hope this sets a huge example that We The People are tired of waiting for companies to crawl off the couch!
I originally thought that Seattle's 'Utopia' would be that leader, but they seem to have run into quite a few snags. Hopefully LA can become that leader to say "Where's the competition?" | |
| GhostDoggy
join:2005-05-11
Duluth, GA
| 38% can GTH? It makes you wonder what percentage was decided upon before deciding to move forward. First, 62% of those that voted said yes, but 38% voted against it. And what percentage of the voters represent the population? I guess they figure only the voters count, and that only 51% is needed.
I say those 38% should move. | |
| |
FiberNow
@tsged.com | Re: 38% can GTH? No percentage was really decided on by anyone in the Lafayette administration. It was a simple majority election. | |
| | | Drex_CS
join:2005-05-11
canada | Re: 38% can GTH? Simply put, if you don't vote, you don't get to say anything.
In my city, we had our Municipal and Provincial elections the other day (think, Mayer and Governor) and our turnout was below 20%... people just don't care anymore *sigh* | |
| ThornyRose
join:2005-07-18
Scott, LA
| Wife of a Call Center Employee WOOO HOOO! It PASSED!
My husband, who is one of the 1,300 employees with the Cingular Call Center in question, came home with so much propagandized mess spewing from his mouth last Thursday that I, quite unabashedly, giggled in his face and asked him how brainwashing felt. Instead of relying on an obviously biased opinion, I relied on my own research to reach an informed "YES" vote.
For those who don't know the conditions here in Lafayette, I will be more than happy to enlighten you. Cox has a waiting list of over a month to get beginning service, or repairs to damaged lines. BellSouth, that maven of telecom, regularly leaves phone lines in need of repairs for over a week or more. There's no apology for the wait, no sense of urgency. As far as phone lines go, imagine that you are a mother with ill children, and you're told that your land line will be fixed, at the soonest, in seven WORKING days. It's depressing, to say the least. I've got a cell phone to fall back on, but imagine those who do not. Customer service is an absolute joke. "Ma'am, there's nothing we can do." is a phrase I've heard from both of those jokers often.
Yes, folks, we PAY to be treated like we're barely worth acknowledgment. But you can bet your sweet buns that either of these fine corporations will sic one of their 'reminder callers' on any person who doesn't pay their bill on time, though. It's natural to assume we're worthless...unless we're late sending the check.
I've often wondered why these huge corporations don't have enough people in this area to decently service their customers. Is it because it costs too much to actually have enough people on hand? Is it because they experienced a growth spurt in subscribing households?
Of course not. It's cheaper to hire three CSR's part-time (IE, no insurances or perks to pay) to make excuses to irate subscribers than it is to keep one technician hired full-time and on the road in a company truck. Once again, economic sense overrides taking care of the customer.
FTTH has passed, and I've never been more jubilant. LUS has done a fantastic job with electricity and water, and I really can't wait to be first in line for fiber. I just can't contain my glee in telling BellSouth and Cox to shove it where the sun doesn't shine in two years.
As for my husband losing his job...There are other jobs out there. And personally, if his job hinges on the whims of a crackpot like Oliver and his henchmen, then I'm glad my hubby will be somewhere else. Besides, the call center has major problems keeping lower management right now, they're leaving like rats off a sinking ship, and middle- to upper-management decisions are very much like a Dilbert strip on crack. Makes me wonder when the water's going to swamp the deck & sink the whole darned thing.
Yes, I'm happy that LUS has cleared the voting hurdle. There will be more court battles looming, if nothing else to be a drain on City-Parish resources.
But I will say this...Last week, Cox raised rates in every city in Louisiana EXCEPT Lafayette. Coincidence? I think not. But it will be interesting to see if Cox and BellSouth will settle for a smaller piece of the pie, or if they cut their own throats and settle for NO pie.
Yeah, I know, them leaving completely doesn't make sense to me, either.
Viva le Lafayette et Joey Durel!  | |
| | wtansill
Ncc1701
join:2000-10-10
Falls Church, VA
| Re: Wife of a Call Center Employee said by ThornyRose :For those who don't know the conditions here in Lafayette, I will be more than happy to enlighten you. Cox has a waiting list of over a month to get beginning service, or repairs to damaged lines. BellSouth, that maven of telecom, regularly leaves phone lines in need of repairs for over a week or more. There's no apology for the wait, no sense of urgency. As far as phone lines go, imagine that you are a mother with ill children, and you're told that your land line will be fixed, at the soonest, in seven WORKING days. It's depressing, to say the least. I've got a cell phone to fall back on, but imagine those who do not. Customer service is an absolute joke. "Ma'am, there's nothing we can do." is a phrase I've heard from both of those jokers often. Hmm -- sad to see that nothing's changed. My mother was from Texas, and she and my father moved back to the farm to take care of my grandmother back in the late 70's/early 80's. It was nothing for the farmers there to lose money on their crops because the phone lines were down and the SBC folks (Southwest Bell at the time, I think) didn't feel like prioritizing a repair schedule. As a result, the farmers couldn;t get price quotes or let folks know that the had crops to sell... They also suffered with party lines into the 80's as well -- I think 8 farms shared a single line. The more things change, the more they remain the same...
BTW -- I assume your hubby os right pissed just now...
--
That which does not kill me merely prolongs the agony. | |
| | | ThornyRose
join:2005-07-18
Scott, LA
| Re: Wife of a Call Center Employee Hehehe He's actually not po'd...He's revamping his resume'
He's resigned to the bill passing, but he's waiting to see what his company does now. In the meantime, he's sending out feelers on his options. The only news we've gotten since yesterday was that they are cutting the call center's hours from a closing of 11 pm to a closing of 9 pm effective August 1.
I'm interested to see if this is a cost-saver, or a sign of things to come. | |
|
haysr
@cox.net | Rates I live in New Orleans and my rates where not raised. | |
| | ThornyRose
join:2005-07-18
Scott, LA
| Re: Rates »lafayetteprofiber.com/Blog/2005/···uge.html
There's the link. I was wrong, it wasn't Louisiana per se...It was Baton Rouge and surrounding areas.
Since the story is in archives (June 15), I wasn't able to retrieve it from the newspaper itself. You get the gist, though
Sorry about the error! | |
| | | |
|
|
·
