No matter how much community broadband advocates prepare the community and elected officials for the expected difficulty of building a successful local project, in the midst of the deployment, times are tough.

A local paper in Lafayette claims "LUS Fiber [is] at a crossroads" but starts with an admission that these problems were forecast and expected:

Competitors will pay less for programming than you do, and in turn play hard ball by lowering rates for customers. Good luck keeping up with technological advances, expansion needs and growth costs; it's a risky proposition for a public entity used to maintaining rather than adapting. Your opportunities will be limited because you can't provide services outside the city limits. You'll be criticized for offering programming such as adult movies, and you'll be told you really should be focusing on your core business: running power, water and wastewater plants.

Terry Huval delivered that message in 2000, long before Lafayette committed to building their community fiber network -- a network that delivers some of the fastest speeds in the nation at the lowest rates and has already delivered hundreds of jobs.

Nonetheless, LUS Fiber is behind the take rate goals they had set in the business plan. The expenses are higher than forecast because Lafayette was unfairly denied entry to a coop that secures lowers rates for television contracts for members. The only discernible reason for rejecting Lafayette is that Cox joined the coop after Lafayette committed to building its network. There is little doubt that Cox was influential in denying Lafayette's application, likely increasing LUS Fiber expenses for offering cable channels by more than 20%.

This is just one of the many ways that the telecommunications market is rigged to benefit incumbents at the expense of all of us -- residents and small businesses alike. We will not have real choices in competition until government policy treats telecom like the essential infrastructure it is.

Mike Stagg, a long time supporter of the network is quoted in the article, challenging LUS Fiber to improve its marketing:

Can they do better? Probably so. Part of it is the fact that, just from a mindset standpoint, LUS is a utility and utilities generally do not compete," Stagg said. "I think that has been an issue that they have had to grapple with and can get better at. I think there was just this perception inside LUS that everybody knew about the service and how good it was. But they didn't. I just don't think they have been aggressive enough as marketers in pushing their service and highlighting the advantages. They have a great price. There are no tricks in it. It's straightforward. You can't live anywhere else in the U.S. and get this kind of bandwidth."

Marketing can be very difficult, particularly for public entities that are not used to revising their approach on a regular basis to quickly fix what goes wrong and improve upon what works. Big companies like Cox will saturate the market with advertising and promotional rates - communities have to find their own ways of responding by capitalizing both on their technical advantages as well as being the local provider with better customer service and non-gimmick pricing.

The "crossroads" article is odd because the "crossroads" is somewhat a headline fabrication, as explained by John at Lafayette Pro Fiber.

The theme of the front page story, LUS Fiber at a crossroads, is that some sort of decision needs to be made soon about whether or not to commit to the project or dump it. But nothing in the story itself warrants such a theme. There's nothing in the story that should make any reasonable reader think LUS Fiber is anywhere near failure and plenty of evidence that it is over the hump and is well on its way to success in what is hugely capital intensive business that nobody ever thought would make money in the first years. But more to the point: frankly the choice of whether or not to go forward has already been made: back on July 16th, 2005 when the citizens voted in the new public utility. The community now has the system that the citizens wanted. The discussion is no longer about "whether;" the discussion is now only about how to make sure it succeeds—and having succeeded how to make sure it is run so as to most fully benefit the community. Those are not trivial questions and I don't intend to underplay them. But pretending that there might be a choice, well, it might make a better headline but it doesn't help inform the real project at hand.

We recently evaluated the LUS evaluation and our conclusion has been that while it has not fulfilled all of its high expectations, it has greatly benefited the community already.

Sometimes we have to remember why Lafayette built this network. Once again, John reminds us:

What's disappointing is the claim that the system is rudderless, that it lacks clear goals. That's just silly. Of course it has a clear purpose and one that its leaders clearly honor:LUS Fiber is a public utility and its purpose is to put an essential service under the control of the community, to provide a first rate example of the service, and to provide it as cheaply as it is possible. That is i's fundamental purpose and I submit that there is no question but that it is meeting that standard. LUS Fiber is, for every service, cheaper than the private alternative. It is available to each and every citizen of the city; something no private provider would promise. The services are high quality—the video and phone services are at least as good as the former monopolies and the internet is unarguably not only cheaper but better.

And another recent article in Lafayette reminds us that Lafayette's build has come during a debilitating recession:

Rosenbalm [President of BVU, which operates a muni fiber network in southwest Virginia] said LUS Fiber's struggles as a new business venture were likely multiplied by the fact that the system launched during the worst economic time in recent memory. Although Lafayette did not feel the effects of the recession as strongly as other parts of the country, there was an impact that may have led to some potential customers opting not to change, or that affected price points.

"You've been through, arguably, the second-worst economic time in the history of this country," Rosenbalm said. "They came into the business at a tough time, and the early years are hard within themselves. They just have to keep pushing though, and I think their growth from here on will be far more than it has been already."

These networks are very hard to build -- especially in the first 3-4 years. While it is important to ask tough questions and ensure the project is on track to meet community expectations, it is also important to take a broad view of the network's impact. The network has lowered prices, created jobs, improved access to education, and many second, third, and fourth order effects.

LUS should take a hard look at its business processes to make sure it is sufficiently nimble to operate against an opponent unafraid of fighting dirty.

But it should also make sure that someone is telling the LUS story. Where are the charts showing community savings as a result of more competition? Who is shouting out the success stories? Who is calculating how much more money stays in Cajun Country because it goes to Lafayette Utilities rather than Cox Communications?

This isn't just LUS's responsibility -- after all, it is a community network.

Lafayette Utilities System has filed a complaint with the FCC following what seems to be a rather arbitrary decision by the National Cable Television Cooperative (NCTC) to deny Lafayette as a member. This is a crucial issue for communities that want to build fiber-optic networks, so we will dig in and offer an in-depth explanation.

It all starts with the business model. Fiber-optic networks are fantastically expensive and are expected to be financed entirely with revenues from subscribers. Though communities typically want fiber-optic networks for the broadband capacity, they find themselves having to offer cable television services also to ensure they will attract enough subscribers to make the debt payments on the network.

Unfortunately, cable television services are the most difficult and expensive part of the triple-play (broadband, telephone, cable tv). A community network has to sign deals with different content providers in order to put together its channel lineup. Even a community network with 100,000 subscribers has little power over the companies with channels like ESPN, the Disney Channel, Discovery, MTV, Food Network, and others. Thus, it will have to pay more for those channels than massive networks like Comcast that have many millions of subscribers and therefore a stronger negotiating position. LUS has noted that video programming is the "largest single on-going cost" it incurs in the network.

Enter the NCTC. By forming a cooperative, many small providers (public and private) were able to gain negotiating power over content owners and even hardware manufacturers to cut costs to members by buying in bulk. In recent years, the size of NCTC rivaled that of major national providers like Charter and Cox cable. All three parties stood to gain by bringing Cox and Charter into NCTC in 2009. The addition grew NCTC significantly -- only Comcast has more subscribers currently.

The advantages of NCTC are quite significant and worth reiterating because it is a reminder of the ways in which massive private companies have the playing field tilted in their direction. Without access to NCTC, communities have to pay more for the same content and equipment (NCTC savings may start at 15%-20%. From the complaint:

NCTC market power also enables it to obtain much bigger, better, more flexible, and less costly packages, than any individual small cable operator or any smaller buying group can obtain. Video programming distributors typically dictate terms to small cable operators on a take-it-or-leave-it basis. Aside from the price per channel, these terms often dictate the tying of related channels to the ones the operator wants, requiring mixes of standard and high-definition channels, placing channels at specified positions in the line-up, and locating channels in the most popular basic and expanded basic programming tiers. In other words, in order to get the “must-have” video programming that they need to be competitive, small cable operators must typically pay for many channels they do not want, incur substantial costs for extra equipment to support these unwanted channels, and pay fees based on the number of subscribers in the largest programming tiers, rather than in smaller tiers based on subscriber interests and preferences. NCTC has the clout to negotiate much more flexibility for its members in all of these areas.

NCTC also provides its members another advantage over non-members: they do not have to negotiate individual arrangements with 300 or more video programming distributors. Since each such arrangement involves multiple issues, the time, burden, and cost involved in individual, one-on-one negotiations is enormous. Moreover, this assumes that the programming distributors are willing to deal with small cable operators one-on-one on a timely basis. Often they are not.

Communities that are denied entrance to the NCTC have a much harder road when it comes to competing with massive entrenched incumbents. Philip Dampier of Stop the Cap! wrote about this issue, noting that NCTC has strayed from its original purpose:

As someone who personally was involved in the passage of that legislation [1992 Cable Act], the ironic part is we were fighting -for- the NCTC back then. Of course, those days the cooperative was made up of wireless cable providers, utility co-ops, municipal co-ops, and other independent cable systems that were constantly facing outright refusals for access to cable programming or discriminatory pricing. Satellite dish-owners were also regularly targeted. NCTC was a friendly group in the early 1990s but has since become dominated with larger corporate cable operators, especially Cox Cable and Charter Communications.

Recently, NCTC began discriminating against publicly owned networks, refusing to let Wilson (North Carolina), Chattanooga (Tennessee), and Lafayette join NCTC. There was no explanation for the discrimination against muni networks, so LUS is asking the FCC to force the NCTC to admit them.

The specifics may be found in the Official Complaint:

LUS alleges that the Defendants are violating Section 628 of the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. § 548, and the Commission’s implementing rules, 47 C.F.R § 76.1001 et seq., by engaging in unfair, deceptive, and anticompetitive conduct that has the purpose and effect of preventing LUS from becoming a member of NCTC and thereby obtaining the huge quantity discounts, and other benefits that NCTC negotiates for its members. These discounts and benefits total millions of dollars annually.

The TeleCompetitor coverage of this lawsuit notes NCTC has been selective in the past with membership:

This type of charge is no news to some IPTV operators, many of whom claim access to NCTC has also been denied to them. NCTC, a traditionally closed-lip organization, has never offered any official response to these claims. In my communication with them, they’ve always said they’ve never blocked any company from joining because of who they may compete with. But they do admit to a selective admission process, reviewing each applicant individually to ensure they meet NCTC ‘criteria’ before offering membership. That criteria is a ‘gray area’ to say the least. There is also a pretty significant membership fee to join – a fee that some operators claim is an additional barrier to entry.

However, NCTC has specifically noted it has concerns relating to municipalities. Despite opening itself to new members, it ignored the applications of Chattanooga, Wilson, and Lafayette for months at a time. When rejecting their applications eventually, it offered no explanation.

After NCTC was notified that Chattanooga and Wilson would be joining the LUS complaint for this anti-competitive behavior, NCTC decided to admit both Wilson and Chattanooga but not Lafayette. The only discernible difference between LUS and the others? Wilson and Chattanooga compete with Time Warner and Comcast (respectively) and neither is a member of NCTC. Lafayette competes with Cox, the single largest member of NCTC.

So long as massive scale is rewarded in broadband and cable networks, competition will be elusive. Only by ensuring small providers can join groups like NCTC can competition even have a chance. If the FCC wants to encourage competition, it will quickly require NCTC to admit LUS on fair terms.

A local editorial notes the LUS has already spurred competition locally: