Friday, February 29, 2008
Just in case you've ever wondered how other communities promote FTTH; this ad from a Hong Kong provider of 100 megs of symmetrical bandwidth:
(Tip o' the hat to Amsterdam's Dirk van der Woude for the link)
Thursday, February 28, 2008
It's a very Joey Durel speech. There's a touch of humor, some testiness, some pride, a bit of anger, and a dash of drama. You heard it during the fiber fight and you can remind yourself how hopeful that sounded back in the day by listening to this latest installment.
And it's worth the listen. Tidbits to whet your appetite:
He emphasized the purpose of keeping our children home...a central, perhaps the central theme, of the fiber fight.
About Lafayette's network:
We're going to have something—and I think this is a strong statement—we're going to have, that you are probably not going to have in Washington for 20-25 years from now.... And I think that is a sin for America... And when I say that, and I'm not just stressing the fiber optics....We are going to be able to provide our citzens, peer to peer, customer to customer, a 100 megabits for free.Later he corrected himself to say that you'd have to buy some level of service...but that your insystem, "intranet" bandwidth would be that fast and wouldn't cost extra. That wowed the committee and they asked about it later.
About the digital divide:
People on our system will be able surf the internet from their television's with a wireless keypad and a wireless mouse.That is the really new news from this session. I know what folks have been talking about and I am not positive what this refers to but I suspect that what Durel is referring to is a settop box arrangement where you can surf and work email from the same box that decodes your cable signal. I like the idea—if it is done right and it would be easy to get very wrong. ....More when I know more.
On Congress acting to protect municipal broadband— With tongue firmly in cheek Durel said:
I hope 49 states outlaw doing what we are doing....What I would tell those states is: "Please send your technology companies to Lafayette and we'll welcome them with open arms and a gumbo."The point he was making was that he really hoped was that the Congress would pass the law they were discussing at the hearing and give other communities the right to follow Lafayette's lead.
Wednesday, February 27, 2008
But the primary interest of those of us in Lafayette, and the reason our Mayor showed up on capital hill, lies in the second part, Title II: Community Broadband Empowerment. That portion would prevent any state forbidding municipal networks—something that lobbyists have successfully promoted in a number of states...and something that they tried to do in Lousisiana where only Governor Blanco's clear signal that she'd veto anything that both sides couldn't agree to lead to a compromise that allowed Lafayette to proceed, though with significant unfair restrictions on its ability to compete. The gist:
No State or local government statute, regulation, or other legal requirement may prohibit, or have the effect of prohibiting, any public provider from providing advanced communications capability or service to any person or to any public or private entity.Now that leaves significant wiggle room for endless litigation. (Lafayette knows well the danger of laws being used to simply delay a local project. We lost years going down that path.) Louisiana's (Un)Fair Competition Act significantly cripples the fiscal operation of any municipality in the state that wants to offer its citizens a cheaper, more competitive deal—large swaths of the law incongruously force the state regulators to raise (not lower, raise) the price they offer their citizen/customers based on expenses that municipalities do not have. (NO portion of the law sets an upper limit on prices....this is "regulation in the public interest" where the public's interest is scarcely served. Clearly no one thinks the citizen-owners will overcharge themselves. So all that is left is to protect is...the enormous corporations??? AT&T don't need to be protected from Lafayette, quite the opposite is true.) Sadly, Lafayette may prove that such laws, as unfair as they are, do not "prohibit, or have the effect of prohibiting" an exceptionally determined municipality. It would be unfair to the nation as a whole if Lafayette's unusual energy and determination had the effect of barring communities across the nation from safely following its lead.
A good federal law would not leave such large loopholes--states ought also to be prohibited from enacting laws that would make local communities labor under regulatory disadvantages that do not apply equally to their large, corporate competitors.
I didn't hear about the session until it was already underway but thanks to the miracles of the internet was able to tune in to session then. I missed Joey's initial remarks but captured most of the discussion that followed. That went as you might expect: Representatives reperesented the interests of their state (or corporation). The representative from California was worried that strong California consumer guarantees not be diluted--while the speaker from the industry clearly hoped it would be. The senator from AT&T's San Antonio hometown insisted that "government" had some unfair advantage—completely ignoring how crazy was the idea that Lafayette's little power/sewer/water utility could ever operate at anything other than a huge competitive disadvantage to the immense monolithic power of AT&T.
Joey acquitted himself well; insisting that we were doing for ourselves what corporations refused to do for us and had done so with the uniform support of local business and local bipartisan political endorsement. Not to mention an overwhelming vote of the people. That seemed hard for the opponents to respond to—as well it might. The contrast between someone whose first interest was his community and someone who was trying promote corporate interests instead was, I am sure, uncomfortable for the representatives who are hoping to prevent the passage of such a law.
Some fun sound bites:
Durel was talking about taking the fight all the way to the state supreme court. He commented:
"those were probably the best marketing dollar we could had ever spent. It was great publicity for us."Now thats a bit of bravado. It might even be kinda true.
Several times Joey was challenged with some industry rhetoric—mostly about promises that the incumbents made or didn't make. Several times he answered:
"Smoke and mirrors."That's the Joey we know and remember from the fiber fight. There was little such bluntness in the rest of the discussion.
Some of the questioners seemed to be suspicious of the very idea that the community might offer a product for less money than the amount they were paying to buy their service from private providers. Durel was ready for that one. He said that he'd tell them what he told his own community:
"You'll still be able to have less quality for more money."And the room erupted into laughter.
NOTE: My thanks to the alert reader who pointed me to this event!
Update 10:20 PM: The archive for this meeting is already up. I'm happy since I missed the first of the live meeting. You can get the written version of Durel's remarks and stream or download an audio of the meeting. That's pretty impressive transparency...and a pretty nifty use of the internet to make government accessible. Durel's set-piece talk starts at 28 minutes. He deviates significantly--very significantly, it is almost a completely different speech from the written remarks and the spoken version is much more interesting, emphasizing keeping our children home, development, that we'll have peer to peer 100 megs for "free," and about the digital divide: "People on our system will be able surf the internet from their television, with a wireless keypad and a wireless mouse."
With tongue firmly in cheek Durel also said: "I hope 49 states outlaw doing what we are doing. Please send your technology companies to Lafayette and we'll welcome them with open arms and a gumbo."
Wednesday, February 20, 2008
We've been following Clarksville here at LPF (coverage) because the Clarksville project is very similar to our own but is somewhat ahead of our schedule. The stories about Clarksville are like a little peek into our own future.
It will be awhile before Lafayette gets our version of the feel-good story about the first fiber customer that citizens in Clarksville recently found in their Gannett newspaper, the Leaf:
Indeed, that is fast—and that is the lowest, indeed, the only, speed that CDE offers. Zachary will be getting a symmetrical 10 megs. That level of service costs only $34.95. Ahwoogah! Actually Zachary's mother is shelling out no more than $30 dollars extra for her son's 10 megs since she's also buying cable. If she's getting phone service as well (and why not?) only $20 dollars on top of the first two services buys her son some of the fastest symmetrical bandwidth available in this country. —And you'd never heard of Clarksville, had you?
This week the new network went live, as the first public residential customer was connected and immediately able to utilize the utility's cable television and Internet offerings...
"You can't understand the concept of what this means to my son," Berardo said. "He is so advanced beyond my time."
Berardo signed her 15-year-old son Zachary out of school early Wednesday so he could be around while their home became firmly wired into the 21st century.
"He wanted to be in the whole thick of things," Berardo said.
Zachary does not claim to be an avid video gamer, but was nonetheless wide eyed talking about the prospects of a new Internet connection of 10 megabits per second.
"That's fast," Zachary said, with a grin that bordered on mischievous
In comparison: 7 megs from Cox is $41.95 in Lafayette so Zach is getting 10 megs for about 20% less than I get 7. (Is that %20 a familiar number?) 20% less cost for 30% more service? That sounds pretty good all by itself. BUT: the upload speed in Lafayette is only 512 k— only 5% of the speed young Zachary is getting!
When LUS launches here I expect a 10 mbps symmetrical tier to be their lowest offering. It's gonna be fun.
Most video subscribers will see a bump of between 2-3 dollars according to the article. The basic cable package (channels 2-20 in analog) which has had channels and services removed recently, will not experience the same increase. Internet subscribers will also be hit with an increase in the 3 dollar range. That makes for around a 6 dollar jump for those folks who buy both services from the cable company.
Cox claims this is the first price increase in 19 months and claims it is made necessary by channel costs. That makes surface sense of a kind but isn't easy to reconcile with the fact that the number of bandwidth-eating HD programming channels included in the new packages is slated to increase. —Channel costs increase independent of pricing if you provide more channels and use more of your resources in doing so.
There is some unexplained confusion between the information presented in the article and what is offered on Cox's website. For instance, the basic tier is described as being channels 2-20 but the Cox website for acadiana describes that level of service as covering channels 2-23 plus access to 3 more digital channels if you pay an extra hardware fee. Are 3 more analog channels being silently eliminated, effectively but invisibly raising the package price? It sure looks that way.
Subscribers to internet services will get a bump with their price increase, though the Advertiser's write-up is also confusingly written on this topic (though it may simply be following a misleading press release). Consider:
Cox is also boosting the speed of four tiers of its Internet service, allowing customers to connect and upload content more than twice as fast in some cases. Cox's Value tier, it's second least expensive at $26.95 per month, will now offer 1.5 megs per second, a 486 percent increase in speed, for $3 more per month,There are only 4 speed tiers and the "value" tier (about which some detail is given in the Advertiser) is now $26.95 with download speeds of 1.5 mbps and 256 kbps upload. I don't see how "now" offering "1.5 megs" can mean a 486% increase in either the upload or download numbers. My guess is that the upload speed, which at 256 mbps is pretty pitiful, is being raised substantially. But that is only a guess. If that is all that changes most subscribers won't feel that is worth a 10% bump.
A new expansion is pointed to that might actually be worthwhile:
HD Free Zone OnDemand will go up, allowing subscribers to watch popular basic cable programs whenever they want.If "basic cable" refers to the basic cable tier, as its context in this article might indicate, then that would be real news as it would indicate that local stations and AOC were going to archive their news and other locally produced shows and allow Cox to rebroadcast them on demand. That would be a great thing for Acadiana and worth applauding Cox for showing some real vision. However, if "basic cable programs" just refers to "regular, widely available on lower video tiers cable shows" then this isn't very interesting and is just a continuation of what is happening without any special price rise. I have to suspect the latter but can wish for the former.....
In any case, this price bump will surely make it easier for LUS to keep its promises to offer a lower-priced alternative to Cox and AT&T. Prices for Cox are, in the end, driven by national factors and intra-company competition which don't take into account local competition like LUS. The only way to compete on price with LUS will be to make the local Baton Rouge-Acadiana network the corporation's least profitable division. Nobody, least of all local Cox officials, will want to let that happen.
Sunday, February 17, 2008
The Times Picayune story quotes the company's director of muni wireless indicating that if a free wireless tier exists it means that not enough people will buy the service to make it viable.
But that's not what his vice-president said not long ago. The blunt explanation then was that "cheap wifi is too slow." In fact the mesh network technology that promised to make the networks cheap has the side effect of making it slow. And slow, in communications tech is undesirable.
The knock that I heard on the New Orleans network is that it was slow and spotty--at any price. Cheap WiFi was too slow.
Earthlink's decision to divest itself of its muni division means it will not be investing any more cash in remedying the defects in its design that it readily admits. Any new purchaser that comes in may get the network for cheap--but will have to retool it extensively and expensively to make it a viable solution for the people of the city. My guess is that it won't happen. Instead, the network will slowly fray, go down bit by bit, and one day, as we saw happen in Baton Rouge, the final parts of a once-proud alternative network will be unceremoniously turned off and the people of the city told that the equipment that is still functioning is not worth salvaging.
That will be a sad ending to a network that was a bright spot in the city's early recovery. Initially it was cobbled together immediately after Katrina out of a system intended to transmit video surveillance for city police by clever city techs. It was New Orleans' most useful communications network during the initial chaos and its resilience added to the aura surrounding muni WiFi. Tech-oriented volunteers quickly beefed it up into a community-wide system using donated equipment while Bell-South and Cox slowly tried to get their systems back up. An inspiring story, bu the story from there was predictable: Bell South and Cox objected to the competition as soon as they had anything back up at all. New Orleans couldn't get the support to change a Louisiana law initially aimed at Lafayette which forced it to provide speeds so slow as to be unusable. The city was forced to hand it over to Earthlink so that the network could offer something like usable speeds and now Earthlink is folding. The slow decline of a hopeful sign has been sad and depressing. I suspect the end is near. I hope I am wrong.
Saturday, February 16, 2008
A letter in today's Advertiser rasises, again, the question of whether the French-language channel should have been moved off of Cox's basic cable lineup.
And the answer of course is "no"—it should not have. In a city where the census says 13% of the population speaks French in the home it should be. Communities that call themselves Cajun, Creole, and French all speak a unique local version of the language and ought to be served.
We lost easy access to that channel when Cox decided it would be more profitable for them if Acadiana was made more like Baton Rouge. So they combined the two areas and aligned Lafayette's channel offerings with Baton Rouge's.
Unwise. And it is an issue that will not go away.
My guess is that this is not a mistake that french-speaking cajun fiddling Terry Huval will make. There is no reason why TV9 can't be on channel 9.....except that Baton Rouge has a channel 9 on broadcast. But that won't bother a local cable company.
Sunday, February 10, 2008
At left is the page. The blue banner is explanatory—they want folks to know that they'll be seeing "visible signs of progress" because the "crews will be working hard to bring you a fiber-fast, fiber-fantastic network." (Whew!) "And with it , lighting-fast internet speeds an miles of expanded bandwidth. Plus crystal-clear cable TV and telephone service" Now that's somewhat florid language but not inaccurate—we hope. You can get a larger picture by clicking on the one at left.
The pic below is a scan out of the ad... if you click it to get the big picture you should be able to read the ad text yourself. And for local fiberistas it is a lot of fun to read...and reassuring to see list of all the things we've been promised make it into advertising. It's one thing to tell the loyalists what they want to hear and quite another to put into print advertising.
And the advertising is still more conservative than the talk...the promise in print is that the triple play will average 20% less than Cox (and AT&T if it every gets around to offering its cable package.)
The body copy opens with a bit of bragging: Fiber to the Home and Business Technology is the most advanced means to provide what is typically referred to as a 'triple play' of communications services—cable TV, phone, and high speed internet—directly to homes and buisneesses. There are no FTTH systems serving entire commuities in Louisiana and very few in the U.S.
Other bullet points:
- will serve apartments (Happily for competitors like LUS the FCC is trying to outlaw exclusive apartment contracts—the cable companies are, of course, suing)
- local programming and stations
- advanced phone options
- Video on Demand
- DVRs--Digital Video Recorders
- Channel guides
The Shreveport Times, also a Gannett paper, picked up The Advertiser's story on the Lafayette's launch of the fiber project and associated Phase 1 news...it's nice to know that the folks in Shreveport have a sense of what's going on down here south of I-10.
Saturday, February 09, 2008
The latest in this "we-are-competeing-vigorously-but-not-on prices" noncompetition competition between the colliding telco and cableco monopolies in the broadband arena was AT&T's decision to raise prices on its broadband DSL customers...except in former BellSouth areas where its prices were previously higher.
That wasn't what "competition" between the cablecos and the telecos was supposed to bring. You may recall that when AT&T was trying to transfer local municipal property rights to the state level so it could get around the locals' insistence that AT&T serve all of a community with their new services in return for using the community's land they claimed that relieving them of that obligation would yield cheaper prices for the favored few that actually got "competition." Even that half-a-loaf is NOT the way it is working out...and both the cablecos and the telecos like it that way. Two competitors are simply not enough to establish a competitive market and reality is taking its toll on that tale. A few are even noticing that we've been taken:
The announced price hike didn't sit well with some observers.AT&T still has to pay off the enormous costs of trying to absorb BellSouth, among others, a consolidation that our regulators allowed because it was also supposed to lower prices.
Routers, modems and other equipment used to deliver bandwidth are dropping in cost as rapidly as bandwidth demands are rising, said Dave Burstein, who operates DSLprime.com, an industry newsletter. "Total cost to the company for the bandwidth it delivers is about $1 a month per customer," Burstein said. "AT&T is raising its rates because it can. It has the market power to do so. Increased costs aren't the reason."
The only real price competition we here in Lafayette can expect to see will come from LUS. BellSouth and Cox exist to serve the interests of their stockholders and that means that we should pay as high a price as the company can extract from us. The industry is learning right now that they don't have to compete on prices to maintain their margins--and so they won't. Anything less would be irresponsible. LUS also exists to serve its owners...but their (our) intersts are best served by low prices for high levels of service. Both types of owners will, inevitably, get a company pricing policy based on their interests. But only LUS will actually be motivated to compete on price. (Six month specials like those you'll see from Cox in both today's Advocate and Advocate don't count—that's marketing, not pricing.)
2009, after the launch of Phase 1, will be an interesting and, I'll bet, a satisfying year for Lafayette consumers of broadband.
Friday, February 08, 2008
If you want to run down the list here are the links: Advertiser, Advocate, KLFY, KATC. There is a lot of overlap.
If you have time for only one you should spend it on the Advocate's coverage (and that's not because yours truly is briefly qouted.) The article spends less time on describing the boundaries—which is better dealt with via a map anyway—and more on the why of the build schedule and immediate plans for other elements of the startup like the storefront and headend construction. There's also a brief bit about expansion:
Several reporters talked to Durel about this issue and he was pretty expansive...I'd stay tuned. Lots of people in the parish want this and it's only now sinking in that this is a city build.
There are no plans to extend LUS service outside the city limits — as LUS is owned by city residents — but that doesn’t mean LUS Fiber service couldn’t one day extend into the parish or the smaller municipalities, Durel said.
Outside areas could annex into the city, or they could raise the revenue necessary to provide the infrastructure LUS would need to provide service, Durel said.
The Advertiser's full article adds some man-on-the-streeet remarks from residents that are pretty typical, I think. But more interesting is the discussion in the comments section of yesterday's brief online blurb following the press conference. As much as the omnipresent reflexively resentful naysayers irritate me I have to say that I was proud of the level of understanding of a pretty technical issue that the pro-fiber crowd showed in forum often noted for its ugliness, and uninformed "opinionating." I don't think you'd see that level of technical and economic sophistication in many places—or here before the fiber fight. Politics can be educative. It was also interesting to note the folks from outside the area that are following this issue closely enough to find the story before it is actually published in the paper. Nevada and Germany are on the list....and surely many more who are also watching attentively.
This should make it fairly simple to tell whether your home is in or out of the first stage of the buildout scheduled to be completed by January of 08.
The light orange "blotch" on the map below is taken from one of LUS' maps of phase one and overlaid onto a standard google map of Lafayette. It's transparent so that as you zoom into the map you'll be able to read your address through the light tint. Clicking on the map lets you dive into it. Just click in your area of town and dive in till you can see your neighborhood street names appearing. If you get a little off target click and drag in google window and pull the map around so the part you want to see is visible. You can also jump to the "larger map" and use the standard google interface to look around for your home or business.
View Larger Map
A reader complained in the comments to my earlier post that the map on the LUS Fiber site was hard to use. I had to agree....and tinkered this up in Google maps to accommodate him. Enjoy!
Thursday, February 07, 2008
There was a subtle but significant shift in the way that LUS talked about pricing. It sounds to me as though LUS is getting more confident. Originally LUS made a single promise, repeatedly: that they'd give 20% of the price of a bundle of services. No absolute pricing (it would depend on what their opponents were charging at the time) and no indication that they'd undercut individual services. That makes a lot of sense really—different services have different profit margins and allowing your competitors Cox or AT&T to dictate, however indirectly, your pricing just isn't wise. I'm sure they wouldn't make any promises now...but what has changed is they way they are talking when they are not being hyper-careful. Now they are talking as if that they will undercut "services" by 20% and offer an $85 dollar bundle. Just from listening, its pretty apparent that they are assuming that that will able to do both of those things. That's good news for Lafayette consumers--especially since the "services" that LUS offers for those cheaper prices will be much more robust than the competitions at the "same" level....our internet, for instance will probably start at about 10 megs (where the competition will be at 1 or less for their cheapest tier) and will include that 100 megs of intranet bandwidth between LUS subscribers and businesses located on-network. More, much more, for less.
Service Outside of the City of Lafayette
This was a theme in the discussions with individual press members after the formal presentation. Frustratingly, I didn't get to listen to all of them...I got interviewed a bit myself, an odd thing from my point of view...and when you're talking you don't get to listen. A lesson I should have learned as a teacher. :-) But from what I caught ( and you should check your TV and newspapers) Durel was willing to discuss the possibility in a forthright manner. The city of Lafayette, it was emphasized, gets it first and that will be finished before the system moves on to surrounding areas. The citizens of the city, after all, went to war to get the network and are making the investment; they deserve to get what they've worked for. But if other locales want to talk about building out their own infrastructure or take on bonded indebtedness to have LUS build it....well that is something that LUS and LCG, are willing even happy, to consider. A lot of questions arise almost immediately. Governance issues follow closely on the heals of investments and LUS is pretty much the last vestige of a true city-of-Lafayette. Similarly, building code issues jump up to the forefront pretty quickly when you start talking about expansion into areas not governed by city codes. But the message was clear. LUS is open for business and willing to consider expansion bids just as soon as it gets some time to give it proper attention.
The Intranet, Peer-to-Peer Bandwidth, and 100 Megs of Internal Speed
Durel's introductory remarks focused on the intranet and the potential for all that enourmous peer-to-peer bandwidth to change things in Lafayette. Durel mostly focused on the potential for development and smart growth issues. He's right there. But this is the feature that the nerds I know are most excited about and the non-geeky understand the least. Businesses that are focused on network applications or that use communications heavily will gravitate to Lafayette, just as Durel notes — and the NuConn call center and Blue Bayou productions are just the start.
Tech types have a romantic vision of businesses that start in garages. Apple is the mythic example. It's hard to get a start like that now. In most places. But in Lafayette every garage will have easy, cheap, access to that 100 meg intranet. Someone will put a couple of servers in their garage and try out that video conferencing/videophone/whiteboard/distributed computing idea they had. Most will fail to even be noticed and the boyfriend will get to rib her about the four thousand that went down the drain till the end of time. But maybe her cousin will succeed with some other big bandwidth baby of a startup they fired up in extra bedroom.
In Lafayette, as in few other places, it will be possible to dream on shoestring.
But, as exciting as all that is, the intranet will build more than just business. Part of my background is in sociology and we were taught there that communities are, most basically, defined by their boundaries...not just rivers and roads but also the ability of doctors and lawyers to "speak the same language." We form communities with those with whom we find communication easiest and most productive. A 100 or 200 meg intranet will make communication inside Lafayette much easier than communicate with those on the outside. And we will, at least potentially, be able to use entirely different modes of communication with our neighbors than with those outside the community. The internet has tended to remove barriers. The intranet reinstates them and offers the potential to build up a networked community that makes our physical community stronger. Mike has pointed to some of this in his musings on an asynchronous Lafayette. Similarly I've at times talked about the potential of a Lafayette Commons and building up AOC.
To realize the benefits of the intranet to build community in Lafayette will require a different kind of effort than the ones that encourage business. There you mostly provide the tools and try to make sure that you make things easier and cheaper for folks who want to try new things. But building up communities requires something more than staying out of the way. It requires that people make an effort to participate in things they've never done before. And it requires that the pastors, the CEO's, the council members, and assorted leaders and activists collaborate to build a social infrastructure that encourages participation. A good start on this would be for the council to set up an advisory board of some sort, similar to the LINK group and others, that would study and proactively pursue the possibilities for our community.
Lots going on....stay tuned.
Someone in that map will be the first person served with a projected date of January 2009 for the official launch of the network.
Take a good look at that map (click for a larger version or jump to the interactive map on the LUS website)—that's an awfully large chunk of the city encompassing almost all of the traditional core neighborhoods. Just at-a-glance I'd say that it covers around half the population. Maybe more. It's a very aggressive first stage.
Here's the 4 part buildout map:
The system will be complete by 2011 with those in Phase 4 the last customers brought online in the city.
"How'd they decide that?" those of you in Phases 3 and 4 may be asking. LUS says that there were a number of factors, among them:
- Huval said: "...how can we get to the most customers at the cheapest cost." meaning densely populated regions where the utility anticipates a high take rate
- They also said they wanted a good mix of residential and businesses but preferring a higher than average percentage of residential. The rationale there is that businesses are slower to move to new services and they want a quick uptake. (Of course it also has to factor that the residents are the owners...and when the owners want service they tend to get preferential treatment.)
- Terry Huval also said that areas with aerial service (service on poles) were preferred in the initial build because it is cheaper to run services in those areas. LUS should get more bang for its buck out of those investments.
Three other things of interest: 1) pricing was briefly discussed and, contrary to the impression that the speakers gave, there was a bit more info on pricing. 2) There are already rumbles about service outside of Lafayette. Diplomatically handled by the administration....but not dismissed. 3) Durel is very big the intranet and the potential for all that enourmous peer-to-peer bandwidth to change the equasion in Lafayette. He's right about that. But more on those points in a follow-up post.
(And YES: I AM in Phase 1! On the southern edge of the northern area. YESSS! :-) )
Wednesday, February 06, 2008
The media alert (PDF) that announced the event proudly proclaims:
LUS Fiber (www.lusfiber.com) will deliver state-of-the-art fiber optics to every home and business in the city, including phone, Internet and cable TV services. The system deploys more than 870 miles of fiber optics in a passive optical network using both analog and IP digital video (TV), high-speed Internet and phone that services more than 57,000 homes and businesses within the city of Lafayette.OK...I'm eager to see the map now. When I get my hands on one I'll share it here. As I've said before, I'm anticipating a larger rather than smaller footprint for the first-stage buildout. That's what the budget numbers and the dates of their allocations leads me to believe. I'm thinking this will be result in good news for a large percentage of our population.
Tune in Thursday.
And until then...enter your construction sightings on "The Map."
Sunday, February 03, 2008
Every once in an while I put up something that is more for chewing on in the context of Lafayette and Fiber than it is on those topics directly. Sunday Thoughts. Food for Thought. Those are the usual tags long-time readers will have noticed. Today the pointer is to a new bit from Kevin Kelly; an intellectual hero of sorts for me.
Kevin Kelly has changed his mind about Wikipedia. It works. Most folks that "knew anything" knew it wouldn't work. Kelly knew it wouldn't work. And knew why. He, and they, were wrong. I think a lot of folks have made that admission. But few are as rigorously self-critical as Kelly. He tries to understand which of the assumptions that he brought to the table mislead him—and asks what other judgments of his might be based on those now-disproven assumptions.
His conclusion about Wikipedia:
How wrong I was. The success of the Wikipedia keeps surpassing my expectations. Despite the flaws of human nature, it keeps getting better. Both the weakness and virtues of individuals are transformed into common wealth, with a minimum of rules and elites. It turns out that with the right tools it is easier to restore damage text (the revert function on Wikipedia) than to create damage text (vandalism) in the first place, and so the good enough article prospers and continues. With the right tools, it turns out the collaborative community can outpace the same number of ambitious individuals competing.This makes Kelly—who calls himself an individualist with a deeper sense of what that means than most—rethink his individualism and ask if there is a new and desirable sort of community emerging:
The Wikipedia has changed my mind, a fairly steady individualist, and lead me toward this new social sphere. I am now much more interested in both the new power of the collective, and the new obligations stemming from individuals toward the collective. In addition to expanding civil rights, I want to expand civil duties. I am convinced that the full impact of the Wikipedia is still subterranean, and that its mind-changing power is working subconsciously on the global millennial generation, providing them with an existence proof of a beneficial hive mind, and an appreciation for believing in the impossible.
That's what it's done for me.
Read carefully this post points to the way that Wikipedia's basic structure, its architecture, its rules, its algorithmic frame, encourage real, competent, participation and discourage and make inconsequential sabotage and ignorance. You just don't need a controlling hierarchy if you get the architecture right. It turns out that the "undo" command might be a critical social invention, or at least that's the way I read it. Maybe that('s why we should prefer a digital world. Wanna know what "undo" has to do with it? Read the article. It's well worth it.)
That's really interesting. And maybe it's something that is not only interesting globally but locally—here in Lafayette. We here in this little place will have the monster bandwidth of our generous intranet connection (100 megs or more to all!—locally) and the absurdly cheap storage that comes with our era. What can we do with big storage and unthrottled bandwidth—more what can we do that is worth doing? We on LPF, and the Lafayette Digital Divide Committee, have floated the idea of a Lafayette Commons—a deliberately vague notion about a site that would aggregate information and provide on-network resources to our community. Now our community doesn't need an encyclopedia...it needs something more focused on local needs, local events, and local, timely knowledge. We need to know what's going on down the block, who is hot in the local bar scene, what the real skivvy is on the district four councilman's connections, how to get funding for a new pocket park...and a lot of other things that I can't but you can imagine. The knowledge and understanding is out there. It is only getting the architecture of making it accessible right that stands in the way of our turning an amazingly fast and cheap local infrastructure into a something really valuable.
And it might be that Wikipedia—and a new generation that thinks Wikipedia is normal—is worth learning from. Kelly remarks:
When you grow up knowing rather than admitting that such a thing as the Wikipedia works; when it is obvious to you that open source software is better; when you are certain that sharing your photos and other data yields more than safeguarding them — then these assumptions will become a platform for a yet more radical embrace of the commonwealth.What sort of common wealth could we create? If we can just get the architecture right.