News -> INDReporter THU, NOV 10 12:06PM by Leslie Turk

$80 million federal broadband grant is history

In what may go down as one of the worst bungles of the Jindal administration, the state has apparently lost for good an $80 million grant that would have helped extend broadband access to poor, underserved rural areas of Louisiana. Newspapers across the state reported Thursday that despite outcry from the Louisiana Public Service Commission, the Commerce Department said Wednesday that the decision to pull the funds from the state is final.

While the Jindal administration insists it did nothing to sabotage the grant application as a favor to private telecom interests, it has acknowledged that it opposed the project on the basis that it puts government in competition with private businesses.

Education Commissioner Jim Purcell, who accompanied Commissioner of Administration Paul Rainwater to a heated PSC meeting Wednesday, blamed the Legislature and a contractor hired by the Board of Regents (which applied for the grants) for the delays, The Times-Picayune reported:

“In my opinion, the biggest issue was ... the inability of the design contractor to meet deadlines,” [Purcell] said.

But Philip Meyers, executive vice president of the consulting company -- GEC, headquartered in Baton Rouge -- said that it was on target to get the job done in time, and that its termination during the summer had nothing to do with missing any deadline.

"I think there were other forces at work," he said. ...

[PSC Commissioner] Campbell said the only way to save the grant now was for Jindal to fly to Washington and meet with President Barack Obama "eyeball to eyeball" with "his hat in his hand" and Sens. Mary Landrieu, D-La., and David Vitter, R-La., in tow.

Read the T-P story here and The Advocate story here.



Comments (19)add
...
written by Just a Taxpayer , November 10, 2011 - 05:49 pm
Congratulations Cox, y'all did it again with the help of Louisiana's greatest friend our very own Governor Bobby Jindal, who, of course, always has the best interests of all the citizens of our fair state.

Go, Bobby, go!
...
written by James Melancon , November 10, 2011 - 06:24 pm
Broadband access to the poor? Is it necessary to provide everything to everybody? What is next? Free haircuts?

The Federal financial mess is the result of such nonsense. No wonder we are going broke.
...
written by Bob Elam , November 10, 2011 - 07:20 pm
Is it really necessary to point out the difference between hair cuts and systems of communication? When the market fails to provide needed services there is no other recourse than to collectively provide that service for the common good.
...
written by Layne St.Julien , November 10, 2011 - 07:36 pm
No broadband for those North Louisiana folks, but they shouldn't be offended, because after all Jindal did get them a chicken plant and all the fine employment opportunities that go along with it. With so many fryers to process, why would they waste time fretting about whether their libraries, schools and medical institutions have access to the world wide web?
...
written by the original northsidian , November 10, 2011 - 08:30 pm
Jindal probably sees the failing LUS Fiber
as an example of Gum't competition with private
enterprise. I don't agree with Jindal most of the the time but, on this issue I do.
...
written by scottman , November 10, 2011 - 09:30 pm
Providing 21st century technical progress to all of America's citizens is the only way to have a chance of staying competitive in the world economy. I know it is hard for a political party who has waged a brutal , archaic war against science to accept this but if the Republican party does not crawl out of the cave it is living in we as a nation are in serious trouble.
...
written by holeinthedonut8 , November 11, 2011 - 12:01 am
This is like telling the interstate people they should skip Opelousas and head toward Lafayette. Just plan Opelousas level stupid
...
written by Hugh Robertson , November 11, 2011 - 02:24 am
Providing broadband is like providing a road. Private businesses use the roads everyday. The difference here is that Cox cable is trying to hold onto a market that would open up to other content providers. I'm surprised that you all don't see that. The broadband access is highly desirable for all kinds of business activities, but rural communities can't afford to install it themselves. I'm surprised that new content providers have not appeared in Lafayette as yet, or is everyone so lacking in imagination that they just don't see how to utilize this valuable asset. Schools, hospitals, county governments, etc are all in need of high speed access. Sorry to hear Bobby Jindal is such a shrill for one company.
...
written by Roger , November 11, 2011 - 12:37 pm
Once upon a time, electricity did not run from sea to shining sea... govt programs, and some brilliantly formed co ops, ran elec poles & wires and the United States became a becon of progress. Same principal with broadband. Except that Louisiana has a governor bought & paid for by big corporations, like Cox. Louisiana's education system isnt int the crapper enough, the governor says no to 80 million... FACE IT PEOPLE, JINDAL DOESN'T CARE ABOUT YOUR KIDS IN THE LEAST. He couldn't care less if the poor or indigent receive an education. In fact, better your kids don't do better... it leaves more uneducated for his friend to hire on the cheap. I didn't vote for that monkey the first time. I figured if he didn't do anything for Louisiana during Katrina, when he was up Bush's butt, he sure wouldn't do anything to improve the state as governor... and he hasn't.
...
written by the original northsidian , November 11, 2011 - 01:56 pm
The gum't should also open an oil company?
That's what they do other countries, then the
price of gas would be lower, right? You can't have it both ways! I am against gum't competing in private enterprise
on my nickle (taxed). We will see how much you love
LUS after fiber fails and we will be on the bailout hook! My God man, they don't even know where the fiber is buried.



...
written by James Melancon , November 11, 2011 - 02:27 pm
Bob Elam "When the market fails to provide needed services there is no other recourse than to collectively provide that service for the common good."
---------------------------

The market did not fail. The market responded and there was not enough demand support the investment.

...
written by Layne St.Julien , November 11, 2011 - 04:59 pm
If for-profit companies don't want to build into sparsely-settled areas, fine, but they have no legitimate ground to object if the government does it, and our elected officials shouldn't even acknowledge such objections. Broadband is essential for modern educational and medical institutions, etc. to function. Jindal et al conspired with corporations to prevent citizens from getting it. Louisianians pay federal taxes and were in a position to get back some of that money as a grant to improve the quality of life in our state. After this fiasco, that money's going to someone else. How can anyone consider this an instance of responsible governance?
...
written by ragin_cajun , November 11, 2011 - 05:36 pm
Layne --

"they have no legitimate ground to object if the government does it"

A centuries old recognition that there must be limits of the role of government is legitimate ground, wouldn't you say? 2,500 years of Western thought and evolution in human society, of trial and error, of getting it wrong and learning from the mistakes of the past, are very legitimate ground to object to government involvement in private industry.

There are very valid economic arguments for limited government. There are ultimately basic human rights at stake.

Also, you are all patently incorrect that for-profit companies are not providing high-speed Internet to these rural areas. It may not be 40 Mbps, government-funded fiber to every house in every sparsely populated home in every corner of the State. But there are wireless Internet providers, both big and small, that serve these areas and will be put out of business if they are forced to compete with low rates from government subsidized competitors.

That's probably what most of you want to see.

This is an incomplete listing of wireless providers in Louisiana...
http://www.wispdirectory.com/index.php?option=com_mtree&task=listcats&cat_id=20

Also, there already IS a government funded optical network spanning the state of Louisiana. We don't need a second one. Jindal's right aboutt this.

...
written by Layne St.Julien , November 11, 2011 - 06:29 pm
Assuring that citizens have access to quality education and medical care is quite legitimately the concern of government, and broadband access is an essential component of that, especially in remote areas. Private companies weren't willing to provide it, but they did want those areas reserved for their use in case they should change their minds. Jindal ignored the needs of the people and agreed to hold it for them. Money changed hands. Shills were employed. The second-poorest state in the nation walked away from an $80 million federal grant. This was NOT about protecting "basic human rights."
...
written by James Melancon , November 11, 2011 - 06:58 pm
Layne St.Julien "education and medical care is quite legitimately the concern of government, and broadband access"
----------------

That logic is why Greece and Italy are falling apart. It is the reason Cuba is stuck in the limbo of perpetual misery. It results in a country like Zimbabwe going from exporters of food to importers. Ironically, we must look to China as example of what free markets can do.
...
written by ragin_cajun , November 11, 2011 - 07:05 pm
"Private companies weren't willing to provide it"

They do. There are private companies providing "broadband" Internet access just about everywhere in the state. You just don't know who they are.

"Money changed hands. Shills were employed. " Prove it, then prosecute. That would be illegal, wouldn't it?

"Jindal ignored the needs of the people and agreed to hold it for them." Explain that. We're not talking about oil leases here. Anybody can provide Internet access anywhere they find it profitable to do so. Jindal isn't handing out exclusive licenses to operate in rural areas. What the hell are you talking about?!

"Assuring that citizens have access to quality education and medical care is quite legitimately the concern of government" No. It's not. You and your ilk might like to think so, but it's not what governments were instituted among men to do.

Now, if you want to institute a command economy, abolish private property, and turn all citizens into wards of the State, then you might have a point. But, in a free country, people secure their basic needs themselves, and government stays out of the way.
...
written by the original northsidian , November 11, 2011 - 09:52 pm
Layne:that is one of the reasons ya boys at LPSB wanted a tax increase. They build em, but don't take cayre of em. But the private schools do. Because they know they can't keep getting a tuition increase every year. Read ragin_cajun post again &again if you don't understand!

...
written by ragin be quiet , November 13, 2011 - 10:45 pm
Ragin. You cannot see past your bias. Truly appalling but you are like the majority that vote. Applying your silly malformed principles to this issue does not work. Corporations look for a high speed access as a reason to join. There is a history of Cox, Bell/AT&T, etc lobbying to block progress in this state for decades to keep their monopoly afloat. Schools without cheap access will continue to be forced to spend $1000+ a month for a 1.5MBps T1 line. So your silly logic (if you can call the silly bile you spew day in and out logic) fails. This would have reduced the cost to the state in the long run. This is an incentive package to private business to build cheaper communication mechanisms.
...
written by ragin_cajun , November 14, 2011 - 02:45 pm
"There is a history of Cox, Bell/AT&T, etc lobbying to block progress in this state for decades to keep their monopoly afloat." Yes, there is.

"This is an incentive package to private business to build cheaper communication mechanisms." Yes, it is.

So you say private businesses have been blocking progress, and that's why we should have used federal tax dollars to incent some private businesses to build A SECOND public network in this state, to compete against other smaller businesses in rural areas.

I can see how your logic is less silly than mine....
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
Most Read
Advertisement
Advertisement
in case you missed it