http://www.publicola.net/2010/03/01/lessons-for-seattle-from-lafayette/<http
://www.publicola.net/2010/03/01/lessons-for-seattle-from-lafayette/>  (from the Baller Herbst list 3-3-10)
 
Great article about munis building fiber networks and the incumbent pushback they will inevitably encounter.  The first of any battles such as this to be documented and used as a guide for future builds or referendums can be found at www.tricitybroadband.com .  The Tri-Cities in IL and their battle to build a FTTH network garnered national attention in 2003 and 2004 because of the huge battle the incumbents waged against Fiber For Our Future (the citizen's group created to push the referendum and disseminate CORRECT information to residents about bonds, economic dev. opportunities, telemedical opportunities, etc...).  FFOF helped the cities push their referendum ideas in 2003 and put their own referendum and financing model on the ballots in 2004 - neither passing.  
 
Information and articles in USA Today, Mother Jones Magazine, The Independent (in Lafayette, LA), and many more resources can be found on the message board and in some other areas on the www.tricitybroadband.com site.
See examples of what type of tactics the incumbents will use against munis, as well as actual flyers, mailers, yard signs, push polls conducted, and a Batavia City Council speech made by a Regional Network V.P from SBC on our home page about fiber being an "unproven technology", etc....  
 
It is important to note that in Lafayette's case (their referendum came after ours) the political will was there to stand behind a FTTH offering for all residents.  Durel had his heels dug in for a battle, not to mention the fabulous citizen's group Lafayette Pro Fiber (www.lafayetteprofiber.com) that was created to push the referendum there by John St. Julien and Mike Stagg. Had there been more political will to build a network in the Tri-Cities then the referendums would've passed.  In fact, St Charles, IL (because they are a home rule community) could've built their own network without the support of voters.  The Tri-Cities also own all their own electric utilities and poles, had their own fiber networks in place, and could've used such a network (built out) for their own meter reading, not to mention several other things.  
 
Unfortunately many incumbents have also passed self-serving legislation in several states forbidding munis to build their own networks and provide services to all of their residents who want to chose such a service offering.  Such a shame that House Reps. and State Senators are barraged with zillions of lobbyists from Cable Cos. and Telecommunications giants spewing misinformation who want such legislation passed.  Many states who have passed such legislation pass other legislation requiring statewide franchising agreements to provide cable, internet and phone services instead of negotiating individual agreements with munis to provide their services in a community (in IL this legislation was pushed/sponsored/lobbied on behalf of AT&T).  Entire legislatures seem to drink the incumbent Kool-Aid and buy the arguments made by incumbents that statewide franchises will help "create
competition".   Have they in IL?  Of course not.  
 
PEG is now arguing that AT&T is not providing them with services (delivering services the way they were agreed upon) they said they would in their statewide franchise agreement in IL.  There is a shocker.  Had PEG listened to others trying to tell them that promises would not be met, or done research and seen incumbents in other states had defaulted on their promises on how services would be delivered to PEG, then perhaps they would not have given their blessing to pass such legislation in IL.  There were many who fought against such legislation who just didn't have a big enough voice to be heard over all of those lobbyists.  Once again we see how powerful lobbyists from the Telecommunications industry can be and how much they can spend on their lobbying efforts to get what they want when they want it.  
 
When will we learn that corporations do not care about anything other than their bottom lines - paying for golden parachutes, paying CEO's huge amounts of money for services, and being beholden to their shareholders?  Do you really think incumbents "care" about the individual residents in your community and are just "looking out" for your best interests?  Have we not seen enough examples of this in recent history to know better by now?
Corporations should not be allowed to tell communities what services they can and can't provide to all of their residents.  But that is exactly what they have been allowed to do in several states - including IL.  
 
Annie Collins
Fiber For Our Future