News -> Cover Story

Waiting to Connect

20101117-cover-0101Wednesday, November 17, 2010

Why LUS Fiber faces its most critical year yet — a behind-the-scenes look at the business’ early setbacks. By Nathan Stubbs

[Editor’s Note: This is part one in a two-part series on LUS Fiber — where it stands and where it’s headed.]

In early October, Lafayette Utilities System Director Terry Huval went to his boss’ office to deliver some bad news. After roughly 20 months in operation, LUS’ fiber-to-the-home telecommunications business was going to have to raise rates for its cable TV services, in some cases by as much as 15 percent. Huval felt he had little choice. The business had staved off raising prices as long as it could, but programming costs — the cost of carrying each channel on its cable system — were scheduled to rise again in 2011. On top of that, the Federal Communications Commission had yet to respond to a complaint LUS Fiber had filed over the National Cable Television Cooperative rejecting its membership application. (LUS alleges in the complaint that its chief competitor, Cox Communications, which now sits on the board of the NCTC, has blocked its membership to the organization, which most small cable providers go through to obtain better leverage in negotiating and buying from cable programmers.)

City-Parish President Joey Durel knew the situation. And the former Durel’s Pet Shop Inc owner also understood the retail business.

“It wasn’t that big a deal to me,” Durel recalls. “What I used to hear in retail is, ‘Why would you complain about this going up when you don’t say anything about the price of red beans going up?’ The point is, it’s an industry issue. Our competitor also raised rates not too long ago. As a retailer, you absorb price increases as long as you can. You try not to pass them off [to customers], but there’s a point where when your suppliers are going up on you that at some point you’ve got to pass it on.”

The news was nonetheless disheartening. Having to raise rates just before completing the citywide buildout of its fiber-to-the-home network, and offering the service to every business and residence in the city, is hardly the way LUS Fiber wanted to punctuate its prolonged rollout. “I knew it was going to be painful,” Huval says. “I knew customers weren’t going to like it. Customers were going to say, ‘Well, you’re doing exactly what Cox used to do.’”

20101117-cover-0102
LUS Director Terry Huval acknowledges LUS Fiber has struggled to meet early expectations.

Fearing the worst, Huval decided to announce the rate increases by sending a letter to every LUS customer. In that letter, dated Oct. 15, Huval begins by thanking customers for being “a loyal supporter of LUS Fiber, the only communications system actually owned by you and every citizen in Lafayette,” before citing rising programming costs and denied NCTC membership as reasons for the rate hike. “A large number of smaller cable providers are saving money by purchasing their programming through this cooperative and we have not been provided any reason why LUS Fiber is being treated differently from those other providers. We have filed a formal complaint with the Federal Communications Commission seeking to address this issue. My commitment to you is that LUS Fiber will continue to provide world-class video, Internet and phone services and that we will always work to keep our prices for our services as competitive as possible.”


The letter concludes by urging any customer with a question to email Huval or call him directly on his office phone.
It was the kind of local, personal touch LUS Fiber had always promised to deliver, and, so far, it appears to have largely curbed any damage from the rate hike. “I had far less than 1 percent of our customers call,” Huval says. “I addressed every one. Talked to every one of them, and at this point I don’t think we’ve lost a customer yet [over the rate increase].”

Huval recently sat down with The Independent Weekly for candid conversations about the tough decisions and challenges the LUS Fiber business has faced since its launch in February 2009. While acknowledging some major setbacks, and potential changes in the overall business plan, Huval remains upbeat and optimistic about LUS Fiber’s future.

“We’ve had to deal with some things we wish we wouldn’t have had to deal with,” he says. “But we’re going to get there. It’s just not the path I initially laid out.”

20101117-cover-0103
LUS Fiber technician Josh Freed installs an optical network terminal box at a new customer's home.

EARLY SETBACKS
As it worked toward its stated launch date of January 2009, LUS Fiber faced an early dilemma. The NCTC — the organization it had planned to join in order to secure all of its cable program provider agreements — had placed a moratorium on new members, leaving LUS Fiber on its own in securing those contracts. As one can imagine, calls from a small municipal utility in Lafayette, La., were hardly a priority for the top executives of a national network like ESPN. Often, the calls weren’t returned at all. Doug Dawson, LUS’ national telecom guru and consultant who wrote LUS Fiber’s original feasibility study, stepped in to help where he could. Using his contacts, Dawson helped facilitate a number of contracts, but heading into January 2009, holdouts remained.

Huval recalls that going into January, LUS Fiber was looking at having to launch its business with several notable exceptions to its cable lineup.

“We were prepared to go ahead while still trying to put channels on our system,” he says. “If we didn’t have them on initially, we felt that the process was moving forward. We were now in sufficient dialogue with the programmers to where it was just down to last negotiations. The contracts, while we may not have had authorization to carry their channel yet, we could see we were getting awfully close. In fact some providers actually let us begin placing their channels on our system even before we had the contract signed, because they knew that we were pretty close to that point and we were trying to get our system started.”

LUS also managed to secure other channels it was missing through an aggregator service — the same type used by hotels to secure select cable channels. The final negotiations pushed LUS back five days past its original deadline, but on Feb. 5, 2009, it began taking orders from its first customers. In securing all the programming contracts, another problem arose. Because LUS lacked the buying power of a large regional cable company or national coop, it was often at the mercy of programmers when it came to negotiating terms. Many programmers, whose fees are based on subscriber numbers, insisted that if LUS wanted their flagship channel on its expanded basic tier — the tier with the highest number of subscribers — it had to carry all their less-popular secondary channels on that tier as well. That’s why you’ll find the full package of five ESPN channels on LUS’ expanded basic channel lineup (by comparison, Cox has only ESPN and ESPN2 on its expanded basic tier). LUS originally planned to have just over 70 channels on its expanded basic tier. It ended up having to carry 83. And because LUS had already pledged to offer rates at 20 percent less than the competition, and gone before the city council with more specific price points, it had already locked itself in on how much it could charge for each cable tier. While a good deal for consumers, this sliced further into an already wafer thin profit margin for LUS’ cable service. “We ended up in a situation where we had a tier that was priced for 70 channels,” Huval says, “that we had already advertised the price, and now we were carrying 83 channels.”

The early difficulties with programmers were compounded by the next beast to rear it ugly head: the set-top boxes.

20101117-cover-0104
Consultant Doug Dawson wrote LUS' original feasibility study and continues to advise on business decisions.

Prior to the launch, LUS Fiber had been beta testing its system in select homes to work out any bugs prior to going public. Repeatedly, there were glitches that came up with LUS’ set-top box for digital cable subscribers. The Motorola-made box was provided by LUS Fiber’s equipment provider, Alcatel Lucent. LUS selected Alcatel from the six companies that responded to its request for proposals for an equipment provider contract worth approximately $30 million. Based in France, Alcatel has touted its involvement in more than 65 fiber to the home, business and premise projects around the world.

Early reviews on the set-top box weren’t great, but LUS Fiber thought it could work through all of the issues. In most cases, LUS, working with Alcatel, found ways to fix most problem with upgrades to the middleware, the industry term for the software in the set-top box, or simple wiring corrections. But as LUS rolled out its public launch, fundamental problems with the boxes became more apparent. The box’s built-in Internet browser was slow and clunky and didn’t support many Web sites. Its DVR function was even more problematic. Often times, shows wouldn’t record or would freeze or pixelate during playback. In one instance, a family reported that their LUS Fiber had done the exact opposite of its pledge — to deliver a 21st century “future proof” product; the family’s DVR had somehow turned back the clock on their TV to the 1950s, replaying only in black and white a recorded program.

“We were forced to deal with all of these individual little issues — gremlins I call them,” Huval says. True to Huval’s moniker, the gremlins proved hard to eradicate. “In general, we got probably 90, 95 percent of them fixed,” Huval says. “That last 5, 10 percent, it wasn’t the system, and in some cases we were learning that the manufacturer just couldn’t get it fixed.”

Finally, the LUS director had enough. He remembers scheduling a conference call with his executive staff, executives at Alcatel and Durel. At the time Huval was attending an American Public Power Association conference in Salt Lake City. “It was around that June-July time frame,” he says. “It was a very terse phone call. It was not the calm Terry Huval that many people see. I was very concerned, very upset that we were still dealing with these issues at that particular point. Generally, the explanation [from Alcatel] for the issues that needed to be dealt with were it would take a couple of weeks to get that done. And a couple of weeks, a couple of weeks and a couple of weeks and the next thing you know I’m in June and in July after having launched in February and still don’t have some of these fixes.”

With negative word of mouth about the problems threatening to affect business, LUS opted to lay off the accelerator with its service rollout. “We weren’t trying to make a big market penetration immediately because we wanted to fix that issue,” Huval says. “I think had we not had the video problems that we would probably have about 30 to 40 percent more customers today, maybe more.” (The rollout recently hit another delay when LUS discovered contractors were not laying fiber wire in the appropriate right of way. The citywide buildout is still a few weeks away from completion.)

20101117-cover-0105
LUS Fiber technicians Lance Morgan and Josh Freed (on ladder) run an overhead fiber line to a home.

It wasn’t until November of last year that LUS Fiber was able to sort through its options with Alcatel and reach a decision on a changeover of its middleware. That changeover, from the old Media Manager system to Microsoft’s Media Room, didn’t begin implementation until June of this year. In late June, LUS Fiber opted to change all of its subscribers over to the new set-top box system, a process it completed in late September. Alcatel supplied the initial order of new set-top boxes in the deal; LUS Fiber then began taking the old set-top boxes and converting them to the new middleware for further use. While LUS Fiber had planned for TV software upgrades in its long-term budget, the process resulted in the business incurring several hundred thousand dollars in expenses, mainly in the form of labor costs, sooner than it would have liked.

“There’s still some issues we’re working out with [Alcatel Lucent] because of this situation,” Huval says, “and they’re owning up to their responsibilities here, and that’s going to assist us as we move forward. There’s more support they can provide to us, some things that they can do to help us move forward and help us keep our system in good working order and offer more services down the road.”

“We did everything we could do,” Huval continues, “to move as quickly as we could on our end to get that [set-top box] transition taken care of, and it’s a relief that we finally got to that point. But those two things back to back, the programming issues and having to deal with the premature replacement of our middleware, took a lot of planning, took a lot of thought, a lot of agonizing on how we were going to do that at a very critical stage of the game. We had some people work some tremendous hours, seven days a week, constantly trying to get this resolved. And I think because of it we’re a much stronger, much more knowledgeable group.”

COX TAKES ADVANTAGE
LUS Fiber’s chief rival, Cox Communications, has often managed to be one step ahead of the game. Perhaps the prime example is the ongoing saga with the NCTC. Shortly after Lafayette sold the bonds for the LUS Fiber project in June 2007, the NCTC sent notice it would be instituting a moratorium on new members at the end of the year. Because of a requirement that companies must be within six months of providing service in order to join, LUS knew it would have to wait out the moratorium to join.

Despite early indications it would only last a year, the moratorium wasn’t lifted until early 2009. As LUS was awaiting word on its application, it learned that Cox had managed to join the coop. The NCTC — an organization traditionally made up of smaller cable operators — allowed both Cox and another corporate telecom giant, Charter Communications, into the fold while LUS and other small companies were kept waiting. The addition of Cox and Charter more than doubled the NCTC’s collective subscriber base and, as a result, its buying power from about 13 million to more than 27 million subscribers. Cox also quickly won a seat on the NCTC’s board of directors.

“Cox was apparently able to join and didn’t run into the delays that we encountered,” Huval says. Last year, Lafayette and two other municipalities seeking to join the NCTC, Wilson, N.C., and Chattanooga, Tenn., notified the NCTC that they were preparing to file a joint complaint with the Federal Communications Commission to force the coop to let them in. The Kansas-based NCTC responded by filing suit against Lafayette, Wilson and Chattanooga in Kansas federal court to prevent them from pursuing the FCC complaint. Shortly afterward, the NCTC dropped its suit against Wilson and Chattanooga and opened the door for the two cities to join the co-op, contingent upon them dropping the issue with the FCC. LUS was notified, without explanation, that its application for membership had been denied.

Representatives from the NCTC did not return a phone message or email from The Independent requesting comment for this story.

20101117-cover-0106
LUS Fiber intentionally slowed its rollout while addressing technical issues.

Lafayette city-parish government had to obtain legal representation in Kansas City to fight the NCTC’s suit. In June, it filed a motion to have the case dismissed, arguing that the NCTC was attempting “to drag a Louisiana municipal public utility into court on the plaintiff’s home turf in an effort to avoid being held accountable for its conduct before the Federal Communications Commission.”

LUS moved forward with its FCC complaint, which it filed in June. “NCTC’s discrimination against LUS cannot be explained on legal or factual grounds,” it states. “In fact, the only significant distinction between LUS and Chattanooga/Wilson is that LUS’s major rival, Cox Communications, is NCTC’s largest member as well as a prominent member of NCTC’s Board of Directors, whereas Chattanooga’s and Wilson’s major competitors, Comcast and Time Warner, respectively, are not members of NCTC.”

“Chattanooga and Lafayette are an awfully lot alike,” says consultant Doug Dawson, who works for both. “On paper, you could swap these two and barely be able to tell the difference.” Lafayette and Chattanooga both used their city-owned utility providers to expand into the telecommunications business. While Dawson is prevented by contract from revealing exactly how much Chattanooga or other clients saved by joining the NCTC, LUS Fiber’s FCC complaint says that the business’ own estimates are that its programming costs would drop approximately 20 percent. Cox Communications has denied any effort to influence the cooperative’s decisions on Lafayette’s membership. LUS Fiber has also maintained that there is no other viable alternative coop to the NCTC.

In the four-year time frame between LUS riding a wave of support to an election victory and the time it began offering services (multiple lawsuits against LUS contributed to this delay), Cox has also busily worked to enhance its local services and image, branding itself as “your home in the digital age” and becoming a ubiquitous sponsor of community events. It also went from offering 15 high definition channels to 80. Meanwhile, LUS’ early momentum waned. Huval recognizes that success now hinges on LUS Fiber’s ability to forge a solid reputation with its subscribers. “For us to succeed,” he says, “it’s going to be from neighbor by neighbor support of what we do. It’s going to be because we have a good reputation. That’s why we won the election.”



Comments (48)add
...
written by Compassionate One , November 17, 2010 - 01:41 pm
Wiki:

The term "Boondoggle" may also be used to refer to protracted government or corporate projects involving large numbers of people and usually heavy expenditure, where at some point, the key operators, having realized that the project will never work, are still reluctant to bring this to the attention of their superiors. Generally there is an aspect of "going through the motions" – for example, continuing research and development – as long as funds are available to keep paying the researchers' and executives' salaries. The situation can be allowed to continue for what seems like unreasonably long periods, as senior management are often reluctant to admit that they allowed a failed project to go on for so long. In many cases, the actual device itself may eventually work, but not well enough to ever recoup its development costs.


...
written by LUS Supporter , November 17, 2010 - 05:29 pm
Where can I get my "I love my LUS Fiber" sign? Cox can kiss my ass.
...
written by b f , November 17, 2010 - 05:30 pm
If Cox wants to play hardball why doesn't LUS just double the fee it charges Cox for using its telephone poles? Why is it Okay for Cox to use anti-competitive practices after screaming for years about unfair competition while LUS is expected to play by the rules?
...
written by ragin_cajun , November 17, 2010 - 06:16 pm
b f --

"why doesn't LUS just double the fee it charges Cox for using its telephone poles? " Why should my Cox bill go up because LUS can't run a network as efficiently as Cox can? Why should Cox subscribers have to absorb the cost of LUS' botched startup?


...
written by ragin_cajun , November 17, 2010 - 06:22 pm
"Where can I get my "I love my LUS Fiber" sign? Cox can kiss my ass. " Well when you get it, why don't you put it out in your front yard and tell your city government to kiss your ass, too? That's who made the law, broke the law, and is failing to enforce the law. Cox just pointed it out.
...
written by James Melancon , November 17, 2010 - 06:24 pm
Is any current financial information available on LUS Fiber?
...
written by Tim Supple , November 17, 2010 - 06:47 pm
They still don't get it. And neither does this paper.
...
written by Resident , November 17, 2010 - 08:28 pm
I'm confident that LUS will be able to work through these issues. The little guy is bound to have start-up issues. But the little guy is bringing awesome technology, while the big guys were content to keep selling second-rate stuff. Cox will try to stifle competition and the haters will keep on hating, but wait until we see the full benefits of fiber optics for business and the medical community. This is the future and I'm glad our city leaped on it.
...
written by Gerald Bertholl , November 17, 2010 - 10:17 pm
After reading this story, it should be apparent to everyone that LUS didn't do their homework......I've saw this time and again with their SCADA project or who can forget the GIS project. If one writes a FUNCTIONAL CONTRACT where the product has to perform or else AND one does their homework they can avoid most/all of the above mentioned pitfalls. For example, the tier system. Come on Terry, this was common knowledge among technical people involved in satellite TV in the early 1980/90's. This project as i've said before and told Dee Stanley, is just like the others LUS has had over the years, they make a big fuss, promise everything and then when the wheels start to fall off, hope the news goes away.......
...
written by LUS comment , November 17, 2010 - 11:07 pm
Somebody at lunch today said LUS went to one of the elementary schools to tell the "kids" about their fiber. Said their kid came home and said "Dad, we have to get LUS fiber". When the dad asked why, the child said "because they told us to tell our parents". She was 9 years old.

Really, LUS is going to children and "explaining" what they should go home and tell the parents?

Say it aint so Joey.
...
written by The Original Northsidian , November 18, 2010 - 02:07 am
No comment on this one!!
...
written by Terry Huval , November 18, 2010 - 02:34 am
Concerning Mr. Bertholl's (a retired LCG, but non-LUS, employee) comments, the LUS SCADA system has not had problems in either its procurement or implementation. The GIS project LUS began worked fine for LUS, which paid for the initiative to help it better serve its customers. Expanding the GIS system to include the rest of of LCG and the other parts of local government some 10+ years later required a different system. LUS Fiber did have a functional specification in its contract with Alcatel-Lucent. That is why Alcatel-Lucent replaced the system when it was clear the system they installed did not meet the bottom line functional spec requirements.

The subsequent poster indicates that LUS Fiber is asking 9 year olds to ask their parents to switch to LUS Fiber. We have no such program. If someone wants to provide me the name of the person who presumably made such a request (my e-mail address is This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it ), I will investigate it further.

Terry
...
written by JaneD , November 18, 2010 - 03:17 am
Keep on LUS! Thank you for having the foresight to bring this technology to our city. Cox said NO to investing in Lafayette, I'm proud that our community chose to invest in itself. I'm proud of my LUS Fiber! And I'm proud of Lafayette!
...
written by LUS comment , November 18, 2010 - 03:27 am
To Terry: So you don't go to grade schools and promote LUS fiber? Tell me so I can tell him he is lying.
...
written by NORTHSIDIAN SHOTGUN , November 18, 2010 - 03:38 am
Aw Fudge, Joey is looking to buy passage to France for his pet councilman to study the act of promoting cable fiber to the city fiber subscribers, this is why the increase in LUS fiber service, the jaunt fund is depleted and Joey must tid bit his cronys.
...
written by Concerned4LFT , November 18, 2010 - 04:59 am
Correction: "In the two-year time frame between LUS riding a wave of support to an election victory and the time it began offering services..."??? 2009 - 2005 = 4 years, not 2. But hey, only off by 50%. That's not bad eh? Kinda sounds like LUS' financials...

LUS has been and still is riddled with problems emblematic of a typical startup venture that underestimates its costs and over estimates its sales. Just about every startup venture that is inexperienced in what it is going into does it. This is nothing new. Been there and done that personally, so I knew it when I read their 30 page waste of paper in 2004 and I'm not surprised now.

The people at LUS/LCG were either too naive to know this or they knew it and were preying on their unsuspecting constituents. Which do you think it is? In either case, it's bad.

[and by "preying" I don't think that they were out to screw the voters. Not by any stretch. But I think they either did not fully grasp the risks, or they knew them but chose intentionally to understate them to sell the project.]

They were off on their finances. They were off on their engineering. They were off on their product procurement. They were off on their operations. All of these things by a LOT, not a little. So, like many things in government that we have just come to live with, they are behind schedule and over budget.

Seriously, so maybe I am asking the same thing again a different way, but who is really surprised by this? Are the politicians and the bureaucrats? Are the voters?

And why is LUS only filing a complaint against Cox with the FCC instead of filing a lawsuit in Federal Court if they really think that Cox did something illegal and anti-competitive? Because they don't have a case. What they are doing is akin to a child saying "Mommy, he hit me!!" If Cox were out there trying to keep LUS from getting programming from providers that would be HIGHLY illegal, but that's not the case. LUS is not entitled to join the NCTC. It's a private organization. None of it's members compete against each other. It's main purpose is to help its members compete against non-members. Allowing in someone who is competing against one of it's members does not fit the mould. LUS should have been prepared for that.

And if the success or failure of the system financially depends on membership in a club that is 100% outside or their control, what kind of brain-dead zombie do you have to be to go into business without having secured that? They knew or should have known that there was a significant chance they would not get in. Again, is this naivety, incompetence or intentional misrepresentation?

One big mistake that LUS made and that the folks who blindly support them also make is that a Fiber To The Home system is NOT the only telecommunications architecture that is capable of bringing to market services that the market wants to buy. Cox' DOCSIS 3.0 / HFC system (Hybrid Fiber-Coax) system has a technical sophistication that is on par with LUS' FTTH system as far as services that the market wants. It can support hundreds of channels, well over a hundred HD channels and up to 300 Mbps Internet speeds as it is now.

When you stack products up side by side, the Cox product offering is actually BETTER than LUS on many if not most things that it offers. Total channels? Cox. More HD's? Cox. Phone? Pretty much the same, but Cox has free calls to all of 337 area code... Cox. LUS has a multi-room DVR that Cox says is coming, but Cox meanwhile counters with vastly more on demand content including prime time that LUS does not have... ok, even. Internet speed? Both offer 50 Mbps download speeds for residential customers. LUS has a higher upload speed, so a slight edge to LUS. But Cox offers all of this to everyone in ALL of Lafayette, not just the City. Big edge to Cox.

Cox did all of this with ZERO $$ of voter money at risk. LUS just raised Utility rates and then "loaned" $5million to the Communications Division. Edge to Cox.

But I think the single most important flaw in their Feasibility Study that they used to persuade the public is that it assumes that the COMPETITION WILL NOT COMPETE! And that was just wrong! Read the previous paragraph again. Does that sound like someone who is not trying to compete, even LEAD the market? I'm not making this up!! It's all true, it's all fact, and you can find it out all on the Internet. LUS assumed that all competitors would choose not to or would not be able to bring competitive products to market. That's just not what happened!

And now on price... well, LUS played pin the tail on the donkey with it's prices and the donkey kicked them in the teeth. They had to come a little closer to reality and now LUS and Cox are neck and neck on price. For a-la-carte prices, LUS has a slight edge. But Cox discounts with bundled services, so they actually come out cheaper in many cases... edge to Cox there. Overall, it's a wash.

And then you get to the single biggest flaw. It's one thing to convince a few voters in a really low turnout special election to let you spend $110 Million dollars. But if your products are about the same price as the competition and they really aren't dramatically better than the competition, then it's a completely different animal to convince individual consumers in a competitive market to buy from you.

If a bear and an alligator are gonna fight, the winner will be determined largely by the terrain.

LUS is on Cox' terrain.
...
written by Soop. , November 18, 2010 - 01:14 pm
The fundamental premise of the LUS Fiber project was flawed: that a telecommunications provider strictly limited to the citizens of Lafayette could compete with national telecommunications providers who could spread costs out over millions of subscribers.

You know, when the initial debate over the project was raging, while I was against the government competing against private business (especially in a constantly evolving field like technology), I took a little comfort in an assumption I made. I assumed/hoped that at the very least, Huval & Co. didn't buy the rosy estimates they were spouting to the public. I thought surely while they are putting a good face forward, they have planned for a tough road. Apparently Huval was surprised to hear cable subscription rates would rise or that the system software would require upgrades. Apparently I was wrong in my assumptions.

Durel ought to publicly or privately ask Huval to "move on" to other job opportunities that surely await such a forward looking thinker. Then, he ought to hire someone to conduct an honest and forthright examination of whether it is more beneficial to "continue digging" or cut our losses now on this Fiber thing by trying to forge some public/private partnership. Because one thing is clear for certain -- FTTH isn't the magic talisman we were told it was going to be.

All the best,

Soop
...
written by Terry Huval , November 18, 2010 - 01:49 pm
I don't know of anyone who is doing this. I am not, and I cannot think of anyone else in our organization who could be doing so. If there is a person going to a 9 year old's class to ask them to ask their parents to buy our services, I would like to know who they are so I can address it. This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it

Terry
...
written by City Dweller , November 18, 2010 - 03:22 pm
Article states complete rollout in coming months. Does that mean apartments, too?
We've been checking in almost daily, awaiting the day we can collectively throw our Cox equipment in the complex dumpster.
...
written by Compassionate One , November 18, 2010 - 03:23 pm
Concerned4LFT- Nice side by side comparison, but one operand was ommitted when doing a cost analysis, even though you mentioned it elsewhere in the post.

The LUS rates just went up 15% and the additional loan of $5,000,000.00 or $6,000,000.00 to FTTH in not computed. In other words, every LUS utility customer is subsidizing the "lower cost" of fiber.

Hmmmmm.....now who is the "low cost provider?"
...
written by ragin_cajun , November 18, 2010 - 05:34 pm
We all very richly deserve this. Any citizenry that asks its government for "more services" and "higher quality of life" instead of producing it themselves DESERVES the inept tragedy that they grovelled for.

Everything that goes on at City Hall, and at LUS, is done with the consent of a majority of the voters.

You voted for it, you got it! Now LIVE with it! Hope you like your Internet. Terry does, Joey does. I'm sure Bertrand thinks it was well worth the price, too. Do you?


...
written by Resident , November 18, 2010 - 06:27 pm
"One big mistake that LUS made and that the folks who blindly support them also make is that a Fiber To The Home system is NOT the only telecommunications architecture that is capable of bringing to market services that the market wants to buy. Cox' DOCSIS 3.0 / HFC system (Hybrid Fiber-Coax) system has a technical sophistication that is on par with LUS' FTTH system as far as services that the market wants. It can support hundreds of channels, well over a hundred HD channels and up to 300 Mbps Internet speeds as it is now."

I guess I'm a blind supporter here since I love getting ultrafast internet for $30/month and have high hopes for the pioneering fiber optic network in business and medical ventures. But let me ask you one thing: was Cox planning on offering this hybrid fiber-coax system BEFORE or AFTER LUS came in with fiber optics? The answer to that could be very telling.
...
written by I noticed , November 18, 2010 - 06:59 pm
Ragin-cajun: It was not the majority of voters. It is the majority of voters that voted. Which was actually a small percentage of all eligible voters. Check the records.
...
written by Soop. , November 18, 2010 - 08:39 pm
I just love the argument FTTH supporters make that the project was worth it if for no other reason than Cox now offers more service than they did before. As if blowing/risking well over $100,000,000.00 in public funds was aok as long as Cox offered a few more channels and a little faster download speed (a faster download speed 99% of the public doesn't notice or utilize). And these are probably the same people who complain when the City wants to spend money on putting in or upgrading parks and other community-related projects.

All the best,

Soop
...
written by Concerned4LFT , November 18, 2010 - 09:32 pm
Resident,

Cox along with most all cable operators started converting from an all Coaxial cable network to a Hybrid Fiber-Coax in the 1990's. Here's some background on that type of network:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hybrid_fibre-coaxial

http://www.dslreports.com/faq/3660

From what I understand Cox started using fiber optics in this area in the late 1990s and was all hybrid fiber coaxial since at least around 2000 or 2001 when they put in digital cable. What all cable operators and telcos have done is push the "fiber edge" closer and closer to the customer. The closer the fiber is to the customer, the more HD's the more total channels, the higher Internet speeds.

As I recall, in 2005 Cox had digital video, DVR, HD video, phone and high speed Internet, and I have been told that at that time it was all over a hybrid fiber network. I think that's the only way they could do it because that's the only way to get reliable 2 way communications required for phone and Internet. I had digital video, DVR phone and Internet from them in '04. I did not have HD because I didn't have an HD TV yet. Not many people did at that time.

I know that Cox has been using Fiber To The Premise for business since about 2003. I know they had the entire St. Martin Parish School Board connected up with gigabit ethernet links since about that time, and I personally started working with customers getting direct fiber fed internet, phone and private network connections starting around 2006, but they had been doing it for a while when I found that out.

The big difference between a FTTH network and a hybrid network is WHERE the service line converts from fiber to copper. If you have service from LUS, you have a copper line for phone, a copper line for Internet and a copper line cable TV. The fiber converts to copper on the side of the house. On a good hybrid network the fiber should be in the neighborhood or down the road somewhere. I know at my Mom's house the fiber node is literally across the street. It's a white box. One of their techs pointed it out to me one day. I know that not all houses are THAT close, but pretty much every house in Lafayette is not that far from a fiber node either. Like less than a mile on average I think I recall, but I've slept since then.

I'm glad you enjoy you're subsidized Internet.

I'm glad I have SLEMCO so I'm not helping pay your bill. DOH!
...
written by Concerned4LFT , November 18, 2010 - 10:19 pm
Soop,

Yes, that fallacy is trumpeted by LUS and regurgitated by the faithful. Go to Cox' web site and in the upper right you can select a location and see locations they have all over the US that have 50 Mbps internet, and all the other stuff they have.

Does anyone REALLY think that LUS caused Cox to bring DOCSIS 3 (for 50 Mbps and up Internet) to Providence, Rhode Island or Phoenix, AZ or Fort Smith, AR?? Or how about the big town of Millville, MA???

But it took LUS to get Cox to bring it to Lafayette, LA... because without LUS, mean old Cox would have continued to PUNISH the citizens of Lafayette and DENY us our God given right to faster Internet speeds than we need for less than we are willing to pay for them! Those fargin' bastages!! (Johnny Dangerously, 1984)

Speaking of manure, does this sound familiar?

"We don't know what's in it. We have to pass the bill so you can find out what's in it." Nancy Pelosi, 2010, on why we have to pass the health care bill.

"We don't know what else it will do. That's why we have to build it, so we will know." Joey Durel, 2005, on what Fiber To The Home will bring aside from Cable TV, Phone and Internet which we already had.

True genius!!!

...
written by ragin_cajun , November 18, 2010 - 10:24 pm
Resident --

There was a time when Cox didn't offer Internet at all -- just cable TV. It didn't take a government ISP to get them to start selling Internet did it? Cox at one time didn't offer HD television, either. Was it a government TV service that pushed them to do that? When ATT brings U-Verse, or Deltacom brings their MetroE service to Lafayette, is LUS gonna take credit for that, too?

I noticed --

" It is the majority of voters that voted...Check the records." No, I'll take your word for it. So what do you think happened? You think all the small government individualists in town just forgot to vote in that election that year? If so, maybe they should have paid more attention. Either way, they still deserve this.

Every controversial thing that LCG has done was voted on. SafeSpeed, Horse Farm, Fiber, AcA, NGO Funding, all of it was done by elected officials. Although Durel MIGHT have changed his tune about some of this stuff, he was also re-elected AFTER he changed his tune. Hell, he ran unopposed.

All of this is the VOTERS' fault. Most of them don't even know who their councilman is, much less what he thinks about government interference in private markets. Until THAT changes, there'll be one LUS Fiber after another.

And it's very possible that if every voter in Lafayette had turned out, the fiber initiative STILL would have passed. Maybe people LIKE government-funded everything....





...
written by Resident , November 19, 2010 - 12:59 pm
Just to make it clear for those who jump to conclusions, I was not suggesting that LUS fiber forced Cox to provide a hybrid network to residential customers. I was simply wondering how long Cox was intending to sit on that technology. Concerned4Lafayette is obviously more well informed than me, but what I do know is that the standard Cox internet service was slow and expensive. I know less about the TV service because I don't tune in to that mind-numbing opiate.

And ragin, I implied none of your rhetorical questions. Check your hyperbole at the door. Of course it must be true that since I like LUS fiber I must be a Marxist communist statist collectivist liberal socialist who likes "government-funded everything."

I really don't care THAT much about this issue. I'll gladly hear objective, rational reasoning for and against...but the whole "government is bad, mmkay" partisan indignation doesn't count.
...
written by AnonTechie , November 19, 2010 - 01:12 pm
Most of you can stop and pick up your "lobbying" checks from Cox now. They called and said the checks were printed.
...
written by andymhebert , November 19, 2010 - 03:30 pm
“That’s why we won the election.”

How can the LPUA call for, conduct and canvas the returns in a special bond election for voters it doesn’t represent, i.e. registered City of Lafayette voters living in Districts not on the LPUA?

It’s similar to what Mr. Oats said “It would be like the people of Alabama voting on (in this case certifying) things in Louisiana.”

Why are registered voters living outside the legal Corporate Limits (taxing district) of the City of Lafayette allowed to change the form of government for a geographic boundary they are not a part of?

It’s similar to what Mr. Oats said “It would be like the people of Alabama voting on things in Louisiana.”

...
written by Monroe St , November 19, 2010 - 06:25 pm
I am in the fortunate (or perhaps unfortunate) position of having to buy internet access in two cities, Lafayette LA and Boulder CO. In Boulder the choices are Qwest DSL or Comcast. Neither of which offers true high speed access in either location I have in that city. Download speeds are lacking and forget uploading at less than glacial. In Lafayette, with LUS I enjoy BOTH TV and Internet at more than double the speeds and half or less of the cost in Boulder. Even with a rate increase it's less than half. And for those of you who don't know, with LUS fiber the upload speed is the SAME as your download speeds, not so with COX cable. This matters if you are doing anything serious with the internet in a business. It also allows real time video access citywide, which could be fun. It's a superior system at lower prices, get into it or get the big surprise. And yes, Cox will subsidize the lower rates until they can 'beat' LUS then watch out, three times what you pay now will be the norm.
...
written by ragin_cajun , November 19, 2010 - 11:01 pm
Resident --

"since I like LUS fiber I must be a Marxist communist statist collectivist liberal socialist " -- If the shoe fits where it.


...
written by ragin_cajun , November 19, 2010 - 11:03 pm
Monroe St --

" Cox will subsidize the lower rates until they can 'beat' LUS then watch out, three times what you pay now will be the norm. " -- I don't think so. AT&T will have a competitive product. And Deltacomm will have a MetroE service that I think will be geared toward business customers. Cox is not the only competitor in Lafayette.
...
written by David Clark , November 20, 2010 - 04:43 am
I waited until July until connecting to LUS Fiber. With my latest bill in hand, I went down to see what LUS had to offer - apples to apples and my total Net/Video/Phone costs are 50 bucks less than Cox a month. I also get polite,timely service. Everytime my cable went out, I waited 'tomorrow' for Cox service.I subscribed to Cox phone and that was a nightmare - I had to take off from work the next morning or have someone at my house and it was at Cox's convinience - NOT MINE.
I had a sign in my yard and I'm putting the damn thing back out tomorrow morning.I think LUS is the greatest thing since sliced bread.If LUS Fiber went ten toes up tomorrow, I'd call AT+T for a phone abd stick a dish on the side of my house before I'd tolerate Cox sorry service and snotty attitude.
...
written by John St. Julien , November 20, 2010 - 04:46 pm
The biggest difference between LUS and Cox is that the money we spend with LUS stays here to bolster our economy and community. Cox ships its money off to distant lands like Atlanta to boost their economy.

PS: there are some interesting points raised here. Even some that I'd like to talk over. But...not with people hide who they really are. It'd be a lot easier to assume that these are real citizens and not Cox shills if people would back up their opinions with their actual names—and reputation.
...
written by ragin_cajun , November 21, 2010 - 04:04 am
"Even some that I'd like to talk over." -- Great, then talk away.

"But...not with people hide who they really are." -- That's fine, too, then. Go elsewhere and talk with whom you will.

"Cox shills " -- For YOU to call anyone a Cox shill is hysterical--the pot calling the kettle black to be sure. It's OK for you to be an LUS shill, but a Cox shill is somehow contemptible? Why? What's the difference?

P.S. "Real names" and "reputations" don't lend credence to your position. In reasoned discourse, your position is credible only because of the way you present it, the facts you use to support it, and the eloquence with which you express it. These anonymous commenters have made EXCELLENT points, which you yourself admit, and they deserve your respect.

But, you have none to give. You have only a weak attempt at an insult for those who see things differently from you. That's GREAT for your reputation, dude. I bet you're proud to have your REAL name on that comment, huh?
...
written by Terry Huval , November 21, 2010 - 11:30 pm
Just to clear up any confusion, LUS Fiber cannot be subsidized - and is not being subsidized. LUS Fiber can receive loans from LUS, with interest, but LUS has not had to lend any cash to the LUS Fiber system.

Concerning On Demand content, we have recently populated our On Demand offerings into the thousands, with thousands of free content - and TV On Demand content, so there is much less difference between our On Demand content and Cox's.

The 2005 election returns had to be canvassed by both the LPUA and the Council, so all city voters had representation on that issue.

Our system is already providing 2 Gbps connections to at least one customer and 1 Gbps connections to multiple locations. Long term Broadband/Internet speeds are the ultimate reasons why we proposed the system, as more and more video and phone technology converge to a broadband connection.

We are 21 months into serving customers and just completed our street-by-street deployment of the fiber along all public streets in Lafayette. That places us in a position to focus on accelerating services to new customers.

As always, if you have any questions you can contact me at This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it or 291-5804.

Terry
...
written by John St. Julien , November 22, 2010 - 02:32 pm
This string of comments is a pretty good example of why it's wiser to talk with people who are willing to use their real names and put their personal reputation on the line to support the things they say. Folks like "ragin_cajun" feel free to "rage" against people who ask that others take the same risk they do and to, for instance, call people shills who merely raise the _possibility_ that some of the anonymous commenters _might_ be agents of LUS' competitors. For the record: a shill, if you look it up, is someone who pretends to have a disinterested opinion but is actually an agent of one of the parties in a dispute. I use my real name and my record of support for LUS Fiber and the fiber referendum is very public. Thus I cannot be a shill in the usual sense if everyone knows my partisanship and I do not (by hiding my name) attempt to hide who I am. If you'll read through the comments you'll find that those who use their names are pretty circumscript in tone and careful to restrict their comments to that which they feel they know and understand well.

I am happy to converse with real people. I may (in this string) disagree with Andy Hebert or Tim Supple and agree with Terry Huval and David Clark but I know that I can have a honest and ongoing conversation with those that are willing to put themselves out there. —Not so with those who do not.
...
written by ragin_cajun , November 22, 2010 - 03:02 pm
" I may (in this string) disagree with " ... Fine, then. Talk to them, don't talk to me. I will do the same for you going forward. I will not comment on your remarks to them, and I'd appreciate it if you would not comment on my remarks any further.

That sounds like a perfectly agreeable arrangement, I actually prefer it. I accept.
...
written by John St. Julien , November 22, 2010 - 04:56 pm
To the (mostly silent) readers:

I suggest that you draw a lesson from the exchanges in this comment series. Think about your own, real, life. Imagine what you would think if someone blustered up to you and tried to "suggest" that you make a deal not to talk to them, swaggered to the other side of the watching crowd and declared that he'd agreed to the deal. If you are like me you'd think someone was trying to bully you.

And you'd want to know his name...precisely so that you'd remember what sort of person he was if anyone were to ask.

There's a real difference between those who are willing to risk their real-life reputation and those who swagger about talk boards anonymously. This is one example.
...
written by NORTHSIDIAN SHOTGUN , November 23, 2010 - 03:35 am
JOHN ST. JULIAN, YOU DISAGREE WITH ANDY HEBERT AND YOU AGREE WITH TERRY HUVAL " ENUFF SAID ! You are a lackey of the NTH. DEGREE, a Royal Knight of the INNER CIRCLE OF Hunched Over LCG slanted cult, one more thing your opinionated slanted view of commentors is just that,"YOUR OPINIONATED SLANTED VIEW, and truthfully your opinions reflect your bias brownie stance of a PRO-LCG promoter, so please take a number and stand at the back of the line, until your number is called, "NEXT PLEASE !
...
written by andymhebert , November 23, 2010 - 01:55 pm
“written by Terry Huval , November 21, 2010
“Just to clear up any confusion… The 2005 election returns had to be canvassed by both the LPUA and the Council, so all city voters had representation on that issue. Terry”

So explain why those of us represented by the LPUA, the legal governing authority of LUS by Charter, “had” to have our election canvassed again by another governing authority?
Why two separate Resolutions calling for an LUS bond election?
Why two canvasses?
Was there two called elections?
Was there two ballots?

How did the LPUA canvass an election for voters they DID NOT represent?

And explain how those of us NOT represented by the LPUA “had” to have our election canvassed by the City/Parish Council ONLY?

“…they had to be canvassed by both…”
Is that because of the Charter’s intentional gerrymandering of the Representative Districts to dilute and eliminate a true equal City Representation?

“…so all city voters had representation….”
So why are some of the City voters represented by both LPUA and C/P, and others not?
Shouldn’t all City voters have equal representation in each separate governing authority?

Thank you for pointing out that “…all city voters had representation…” it appears some get less than others.

Thanks for pointing out that those of us NOT REPRESENTED by the LPUA need to have our votes canvassed by the non-governing LUS authority, the C/P Council.

Just to clear up any confusion:
A publicly owned utility’s public service commission is their governing authority, i.e. LPUA by Charter.
Please explain who are the public service commissioners for those City customers who’s elected Council Members are legally denied by the Charter from representing them on the LPUA?

...
written by ragin_cajun , November 23, 2010 - 06:29 pm
Andy and Terry--

"had to be canvassed"

Can we have a little civics lesson for those of us not so well versed in local election processes? What does "canvas" mean, and who did the canvassing for the LUS Fiber election?

"Canvassing" I've heard of is usually a partisan "get out the vote" operation done by political parties. City, or Parish government did this? Or is canvassing in this instance a little bit different?

And what is this "two canvasses" and "two resolutions calling for a bond election"? That happened? If so, why? What are the implications that Andy is hinting at, but not actually saying?

And the Fiber election--what exactly was it? Was it voter approval to HAVE LUS Fiber, or was LUS Fiber a done deal and the election only a matter of how/if to fund the deal?
...
written by Terry Huval , November 23, 2010 - 11:46 pm
The phrase "canvassing the returns", in this case, is one that was used by the attorneys in the acceptance/recognition of the official vote tally for the election to issue the bonds which were essential for the project to proceed. Whether or not a voter representative was part of the LPUA or not, the approval by both the LPUA and the Council insured that all voters in the city were represented in canvassing of the returns, as this referendum was voted on only by city of Lafayette voters.

Terry
...
written by jmbo , November 24, 2010 - 01:36 am
The success of LUS fiber is of extensive benefit to the local community. I would assume that the writers of negative comments are Cox employees, lobbyists, family and friends;
also political oponents of the administration who want rhe administration to fail, no matter what the administration undertakes; wouldn't it be wise to set aside political differences and work to the sucess for our city.

I have no problem with the argument against gov't involvment in private business; at one time I did feel differently - now the banks, insurance companies, auto companies and oil companies are not allowed to fail and are subsidized by the taxpayers; this is an expansion of the many legislative benefits they previously acquired from the enormous funds spent lobbying.
...
written by andymhebert , November 28, 2010 - 02:01 pm
“written by Terry Huval , November 23, 2010
The phrase "canvassing the returns", in this case, is one that was used by the attorneys in the acceptance/recognition of the official vote tally for the election to issue the bonds which were essential for the project to proceed. Whether or not a voter representative was part of the LPUA or not, the approval by both the LPUA and the Council insured that all voters in the city were represented in canvassing of the returns, as this referendum was voted on only by city of Lafayette voters.”

“…Ottinger said. There are a number of necessary steps that must be taken for an election on a proposition." (Source: The Advertiser, August 12, 2010)

FYI
“Canvass. The act of examining and COUNTING THE RETURNS OF VOTES cast at a public election TO DETERMINE AUTHENTICITY.” (Source: Black’s Law Dictionary)

RS 18:1292
“§1292. Canvass of returns
On the date and at the hour and place specified in the notice of election, THE GOVERNING AUTHORITY ORDERING THE ELECTION, in public session, shall examine and canvass the returns and DECLARE THE RESULT OF THE ELECTION.” (Source: State Law)

“Section 4-07. Utilities Department.
THE GOVERNING AUTHORITY of the utilities department SHALL BE the Lafayette Public Utilities Authority (LPUA).” (Source: C/P Home Rule Charter)

“Whether or not a voter representative was part of the LPUA or not…”

Based on the above information, I believe it makes a huge legal difference how City voters are represented, who “orders” a City election, how City votes are “canvassed” (counted) and who “declares the results of a” City “election”.

...
written by Brock J. Mason , December 02, 2010 - 01:04 am
I really hope that LUSFiber gets to apartments very soon. Cox service ( and their customer service) is absolutely horrible. Cox is well known to over-sell their Internet nodes causing horrible data rates. Because my apartment does not have LUS, I am forced to use Cox. Like an idiot, I purchased their 25 MBPs package thinking that high traffic would perhaps limit me to 16 MBPs at most. On a wired connection during peak times (4pm to 12am) I only get 1.5MBPs. This is mid-range speeds for their lowest tier of service. My numerous chats and conversations with their online and telephone service staff always end up with them either blaming me or giving me the run around. They want me to pay for a tech to come out. There is nothing wrong with my connection or network, its the fact that their infrastructure that services my complex is oversold and overloaded during peak hours. In the US, when you don't get what you pay for, you are entitled to get your money back. I am wondering how I can go about getting my money back for service that is not satisfactory? They place the "speeds may vary" clause, but when my top speed is lower than the lowest service, they are committing fraud.

Basically Cox sucks a male reproductive organ and I hope that LUSFiber gets to apartments soon. All these anonymous posters who are supporting Cox are either morons or Cox plants, since only those two would not want a far superior service and to keep Lafayette money in Lafayette.
...
written by Lafayette's Libertarian Banker , December 30, 2010 - 05:38 am
Unfortunately only Tim and a few others get it. Gov't should only exist to do the few services that the private sector cannot (coin $, pave roads, Military etc.) not to provide fiber. I am 100% in favor of fiber and technology but this is best done via private enterprise. Gov't only fails or does less efficient when it tries to do what private enterprise can do. Look at the Post office, Amtrak etc. Stick to the few things and let private folks create wealth. Gov't destroys wealth. Please read Atlas Shrugged (Rand) and Wealth of Nations (Smith).


You must be logged in to post a comment. Log in using your Facebook account or register if you do not have an account yet.

busy 
LA LA Land
Advertisement

Read the Flipping Paper!

Click Here for the Entire Print Version of
IND Monthly
Most Read
Advertisement
Advertisement
in case you missed it