LUS Fiber is a municipally-owned provider competing in Lafayette, Louisiana

Lafayette Utility Systems’ LUS Fiber has filed a formal complaint with the Federal Communications Commission accusing the cable industry co-op of blocking the company from getting the favorable discounts and access to cable networks its competitor Cox Cable receives.

LUS Fiber Director Terry Huval said the blockade against LUS Fiber could ultimately cost the city millions and deny subscribers access to popular cable networks.  Huval accused its rival, Cox Cable, of being behind the repeated denials of membership for the Louisiana municipal cable system.

The municipal provider issued a news release stating that its complaint to the FCC originally was joined by municipal providers in Wilson, N.C., and Chattanooga, Tenn., but the National Cable Television Cooperative has since admitted those systems, while keeping LUS Fiber out.

“The NCTC opened membership to two other municipally-owned telecommunications companies that are very similar to our own Lafayette operation and in the same week refused to admit us on the same terms and conditions,” Huval said. “The only difference among the three systems is that our major cable competitor is NCTC’s largest member as well as a member of NCTC’s board of directors.”

LUS Fiber's primary competitor is Cox Cable

The NCTC is critically important to many medium and small sized cable companies who together collectively bargain access and the best possible volume discounts for hundreds of cable networks and broadcasters.  Those discounts are substantial, considering only Comcast gets larger discounts than the NCTC’s group membership.  NCTC membership also frees members from the tedious one on one negotiations cable systems would otherwise be required to conduct to obtain and maintain agreements with cable programmers.

Keeping LUS Fiber out means the municipal provider could be left charging higher prices than Cox charges for cable-TV in Lafayette.

Federal law appears to be on the side of LUS Fiber as part of the 1992 Cable Act that consumer groups fought for:

It shall be unlawful for a cable operator, a satellite cable programming vendor in which a cable operator has an attributable interest, or a satellite broadcast programming vendor to engage in unfair methods of competition or unfair or deceptive acts or practices, the purpose or effect of which is to hinder significantly or to prevent any multichannel video programming distributor from providing satellite cable programming or satellite broadcast programming to subscribers or consumers.

The NCTC operates a spartan website at nctconline.org

As someone who personally was involved in the passage of that legislation, 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.

LUS builds a compelling case:

NCTC and its dominant members have not only grown significantly in size and power, but they have become increasingly anti-competitive themselves. They are now undermining Congress’s pro-competitive intent by using denial of membership in NCTC as an anticompetitive device to insulate NCTC’s existing members from competition by new entrants.

Specifically, in 2007 and 2008, NCTC imposed a “moratorium” on new members, claiming that it needed time to review its membership policies. In late 2008, NCTC supposedly lifted the moratorium, posting new application procedures on its website. These procedures, NCTC stated, would ordinarily result in admissions within 60-120 days. LUS promptly applied for membership, furnishing all of the information that NCTC required. In reality, NCTC only lifted the moratorium for private-sector cable operators, including Cox and Charter. For LUS and other municipal cable operators, NCTC’s claim to be open to new memberships turned out to be little more than a deceptive sham.

In short, as of April 2010, despite publishing procedures suggesting that new members would be admitted within 120 days, NCTC had not admitted a single new public communications provider during the year and a half since it supposedly lifted its moratorium.

Without access to programming at competitive prices, no one would consider switching to a municipal provider that charged higher prices than the incumbent.  The NCTC’s increasingly secretive and erratic admission of new municipal members provides ample ammunition for those on the outside looking in to accuse the group of unfair practices.

Ontario County, N.Y.

Ontario County, just south and east of Rochester, N.Y., is unleashing the power of fiber optics after private providers turned their noses up at the rapidly-growing Finger Lakes region.

“We just said we need this so badly, we just did it ourselves,” says Ed Hemminger, president and CEO of Axcess Ontario, a non-profit corporation created by the county government to run the $7.5 million dollar project.  Hemminger appeared on this afternoon’s edition of CNBC’s Power Lunch.

The 180-mile fiber optic network now two-thirds complete is expected to be finished by year’s end.  Hospitals and schools are already leasing capacity on the fiber ring.

Axcess Ontario doesn’t actually provide broadband service to businesses and consumers itself.  Instead it leases capacity to all-comers, inviting them to use the fiber ring to enhance their broadband infrastructure.  The company doesn’t provide residential service, for example, but it could enhance another provider’s ability to deliver service.  Right now, the county is contemplating a wireless Internet service for consumers, if they can find a provider.  Frontier Communications could be a likely contender, considering it already provides a Wi-Fi service in downtown Rochester and in portions of suburban towns like Brighton, Pittsford, and Greece.

Hemminger

Ontario County is one of the bright spots in western and central New York’s difficult economy.  Both residential and business growth continues, despite the recession, particularly in communities like Canandaigua, Victor and Geneva.  Having a state-of-the-art fiber ring enhances the area’s ability to attract new businesses and jobs to the Finger Lakes region, often better known for tourism.  At least that is the plan.

“Honestly every company is an Internet company because they all have to use the Internet,” Hemminger claims.

Having the county build the network was the only prospect for getting it done.

“We can have a Return on Investment of 25 years, while the private sector has to recoup its costs in three to four years,” Hemminger says.

Thanks to Stop the Cap! reader Jeff for sending word.

[flv]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/CNBC Making Broadband Accessible 6-10.10.flv[/flv]

Ed Hemminger discusses the Axcess Ontario fiber ring project in Ontario County, N.Y., on today’s edition of Power Lunch on CNBC.  (2 minutes)

The West Virginia Public Service Commission has denied a request from the agency’s Consumer Advocate Division to reconsider the sale of Verizon landlines to Frontier Communications.

The CAD criticized the proposed sale, pointing to earlier failures of similar transactions in Hawaii and northern New England which harmed consumers and businesses in those areas.  The consumer advocate sought a formal independent audit of the deal and increased safeguards to protect service quality and the customers soon to be served by Frontier.

The PSC claimed the CAD didn’t supply any new evidence in its filing justifying a reconsideration of its earlier order approving the sale.  It turned the request down on Monday.

Both Verizon and Frontier had asked the commission to reject the CAD’s request.

West Liberty, Iowa is home of Liberty Communications

One of the side effects of insatiable telecom industry consolidation is that hard-working, honest, and consumer-friendly providers are swept up by corporate machinery that ends up providing Americans with the least amount of service for the highest possible price.  Remarkably, there are still some top-shelf independent providers out there that actually stand with their customers, fighting to bring better broadband service to everyone in their service areas.

A letter to the editor in the West Liberty Index caught my eye.  It chastised the Federal Communications Commission for its plans to treat rural Americans as second class broadband citizens with speed goals 25 times slower than those enjoyed by their urban cousins.  The FCC, the writer wrote, was simply not going far enough for consumers.  What was so remarkable about the letter?  It was signed by an Internet Service Provider — Jerry Melick, manager of Liberty Communications.

What would happen if the federal government decided that city roads, bridges and infrastructure should be better-constructed and more efficient than the roads in rural America? What about if the policy-makers determined that urban consumers should be able to get where they are going and get what they need faster than rural consumers? A new government plan intends to make that true of our nation’s information superhighway — the Internet. And, while it is not the highway coming into town, as rural consumers, we should still be very concerned.

[…]

The FCC’s plan will make rural Americans second class citizens in the new broadband world, because it establishes a speed goal for rural areas that is 25 times slower than for urban areas. Shouldn’t rural residents have access to the same broadband services as our larger towns and cities? Despite the construction of our state of the art Fusion network, we still face the challenge of how to bring broadband to our rural customers living outside of the communities of West Branch and West Liberty. Without a National Broadband Plan that supports further investment in rural areas, this will be difficult if not impossible to accomplish.

Melick supports broadband reform efforts at the FCC and changing the Universal Service Fund to provide assistance to companies like his, serving rural eastern Iowa, to build out its fiber to the home Fusion network to nearly every resident in its service area.  That’s a refreshing change of pace from the usual rhetoric from AT&T, Frontier, Verizon, and others.

Liberty Communications began service as the independent West Liberty Telephone Company in 1899.  It delivered telephone service for more than 100 years until January 2008, when the company announced it was going to construct its own fiber to the home network to provide television, telephone, and broadband service to its customers.  The Fusion network would expand later that year to start construction in nearby West Branch, the birthplace of Herbert Hoover, the nation’s 31st president.  By April 2009 the fiber network offered a true triple play package of services to customers in both cities. Fusion broadband customers can buy up to 20/2 Mbps service from Liberty.  For the rest of its service area, Liberty still relies on DSL service providing up to 3 Mbps, but believes fiber is the future for all of its customers.

The only question remaining is when forward-thinking policies at the FCC will be enacted to help that goal?

A pro-consumer group has released a new report that refutes claims from the telecommunications industry that broadband reform represents an investment killer and takeover of the Internet by the Obama Administration.

Free Press this week challenging 10 of the wildest claims in its report, “The Truth About the Third Way: Separating Fact from Fiction in the FCC Reclassification Debate.” Aparna Sridhar, Free Press’ Policy Counsel used publicly available evidence to effectively debunk the multi-million dollar lobbying campaign to stop broadband reform.

Unfortunately, more than a handful in Congress have accepted those discredited claims as fact.  Free Press hopes truth will prevail over the enormous money-fueled opposition effort, especially as the FCC begins proceedings next week on its proposed “Third Way” approach to broadband oversight. The agency is expected to issue a Notice of Inquiry and to seek public comment on the issues of broadband reform and reclassification.

A sampling from the report, which we encourage you to read:

Fiction #3: Placing broadband services back under the Commission’s explicit authority will stifle investment in broadband networks.

Fact: The FCC’s proposed policy merely preserves the status quo prior to the recent uncertainty created by the federal appeals court ruling. As a result, it should have little to no effect on company investment decisions.

Many industry representatives and investment analysts have dismissed the notion that the FCC’s Third Way will deter investment. Furthermore, history contradicts the claim that applying some of the rules contained in Title II of the Communications Act to broadband service providers (as the Commission has proposed) will adversely affect investment in the networks. Telecommunications industry investments soared during the period when carriers were subject to the full panoply of rules contained in Title II. Investments only began decreasing once the FCC began dismantling many of the pro-competition rules stemming from this part of the Communications Act.

As we've said at Stop the Cap! for two years now, providers' investments in upgrading and expanding their networks are declining, even as demand (and prices) for those services are increasing.

Fiction #4: Placing broadband services back under the FCC’s explicit authority will lead to job losses in the telecom sector.

Fact: The telecommunications sector accelerated its job-shedding following industry consolidation and FCC deregulation, a trend that continues unabated even as company revenues reach historic highs.

The notion that the FCC’s move to re-establish its authority over broadband networks will harm employment is also nothing more than unsupported rhetoric. The simple reality is this sector accelerated its job-shedding following industry consolidation and FCC deregulation. And this trend continued even as overall revenues in the sector continued to expand. Unfortunately, the underlying market economics and company statements suggest this trend will continue regardless of how the FCC acts on the regulatory authority question.

So much for the argument that regulation will cause job losses. As this plainly illustrates, even as profits fatten at AT&T, Qwest and Verizon, employment numbers are on a steep decline in today's deregulated marketplace.

Fiction # 7: The FCC’s Third Way proposal is an unprecedented power-grab which departs from Congress’s intent to leave the Internet unregulated.

Fact: The FCC’s proposal will bring the Commission’s approach to broadband networks in harmony with longstanding principles in communications policy. The law always has recognized a distinction between communications infrastructure (like broadband networks) and the content that travels over that infrastructure (such as websites on the Internet). In fact, it was the Powell FCC’s decision to abandon oversight over broadband networks that represented a radical and irresponsible shift — by treating basic connectivity services just like content, the Powell FCC undermined the Commission ability to make pro-competitive, pro-consumer policies in the broadband space. This FCC’s proposal would return to the first principles of communications policy that fostered innovation, competition and investment in the first place.

Fiction #8: The FCC’s proposal would amount to a “government takeover of the Internet.”

Fact: The FCC’s proposal would draw a line between basic two-way communications — which have always been regulated by the FCC — and Internet applications and websites, which would remain unregulated by the FCC. None of the parties in the debate before the FCC have suggested that the FCC impose any kind of content regulation on the Internet. Nor has anyone suggested that the government take over the physical infrastructure that forms the Internet. Rather, the FCC is proposing to apply some basic, light-touch rules of the road to the owners of broadband networks.

These rules will attempt to encourage private investment, promote competition, and foster innovation, economic growth, and job creation. Further, restoring its regulatory framework back in harmony with the law will insure the FCC has basic consumer protection authority.