The Observation Deck

Mike:

What do you mean by proposal?

Have you seen the details of the AT&T proposal Council is considering?

If so, can you tell me what in the proposal that is commensurate with the Cox I-Net services for the public institutions such as the library and schools?

That's my particular institutional concern.

Doug:

Counting roughly through smoke signals, I believe the city is three years into fifteen year agreement with Cox. I would ask Ms. Cox will verify this.

Kenneth Warren

Remember folks, Cox is also a business and they're not complete altruists either. For example, Cox provides substandard service in places like Lakewood where no current competition exists.

In NOVA (Norther Virginia) and other places where they're competing with Verizon's FIOS (similar to what AT&T is proposing with Lightspeed) Cox offers internet speeds double to triple what we get here for the same price. Their cable package prices are cheaper and more robust.

Since there is no competition in place like Lakewood, I doubt we'll ever see these things. The AT&T deal, if negotiated correctly, could finally force Cox to upgrade their service. Competition is a good thing, monopolistic franchise agreements are not.

Maybe Cox Communications could come and defend or explain why they only improve their service in the areas where they have competition? I've really been turned off by their "if you let someone else in we're gonna stop being nice to Lakewood" threat. Yeah, that's great community support.

To be honest, I think it's only fair to allow AT&T to offer video. Cox has been able to offer phone for a long time now (well new in Lakewood even though they've had it elsewhere for years now) and they didn't need permission. To me it's just another large corporation crying about having to play on an even field.

Bryan

Let's be fair on no competition.

Full disclosure on all of this.

AT&T and COX both support The Lakewood Observer.

My phone service is AT&T

My TV service is:
Home - COX, Direct TV
Work - Dish TV

Adelphia is also in Lakewood.

Direct, Dish, COX, and AT&T offer Internet.

What is really the meat of this matter and why COX mentions FAIR playing field is that when COX signed their franchise agreement, they were asked to pay to the city hefty franchise fees, they also provide what will be close to nearly 1/2 million in free service to Library, Schools, City Hall. All they are asking is that AT&T should carry the same burden.

To my knowledge COX has never said no to AT&T being in the city, just they should have to pay the same amounts. If you have followed the story in the Observer you would see that AT&T claims, as a telephone provider they are exempt from franchise fees, and the same burden as COX.

Speaking with members of the School Board and the Library I know the bill for hooking the new schools up will be huge.

My single biggest question is: Will ANY agreement with AT&T make the contract with COX null and void? I am no lawyer, but it would seem to read that way.

Again the Lakewood Observer has commercial interests with both.


FWIW

Jim O'Bryan wrote:Bryan

Let's be fair on no competition.

In the interest of fairness, let's discuss some of these points in a realistic way .

My phone service is AT&T

My TV service is:
Home - COX, Direct TV
Work - Dish TV

Adelphia is also in Lakewood.

Direct, Dish, COX, and AT&T offer Internet.

Adelphia is available but only on the gold coast in some buildings. However competition implies choice. I can't choose adelphia and those buidlings with adelphia can't choose cox. Adelphia therefore is not a real competitor.

As for internet service, Direct, Dish, etc don't provide true highspeed. They actually piggyback usually off of AT&T's DSL service. DSL is slower technology. Cox has the ability to provide speeds at 15mbps down. Why don't they? Because DSL can't get there so there's no incentive. In NOVA where Verizon can provide 30mbps down, they do. Funny that huh?

Lightspeed would provide much faster internet service, I bet you'd see Cox react pretty quickly to that. Why don't they do it now? There's no competition forcing them to do so.

Also satelite isn't available to many renters in Lakewood for a variety of reasons so I wouldn't consider that a large scale competitor either.

Only AT&T's Lightspeed, which would be available to everyone in Lakewood, would truly be a competitor to Cox on a product for product scale. Just because a company does business with a small segment of the population doesn't make it a true competitor. It's like saying Mac OS X is a true competitor with Windows, and I'm a Mac user.

What is really the meat of this matter and why COX mentions FAIR playing field is that when COX signed their franchise agreement, they were asked to pay to the city hefty franchise fees, they also provide what will be close to nearly 1/2 million in free service to Library, Schools, City Hall. All they are asking is that AT&T should carry the same burden.

I'm not necessarily saying AT&T should have the same burden or that both at least should be equal. What I am saying is that portraying Cox as the benevolent, community-oriented savior who is being abused is not accurate. Cox is a money machine, just like AT&T. Cox only does what they've done where because they're required to by their Franchise Agreement.

However if Congress ends up passing the law to get rid of local Franchise Agreements (which is a real possibility) then do you think either way Cox is going to keep shelling money out to their local communities?

I'm not necessarily saying AT&T's agreement should be a accepted as-is. Heck I don't think I really like it. What I am saying though is that all those jumping to Cox's defense need to take a good look at the real Cox, not the one they want to portray.

Bryan Schwegler wrote:I'm not necessarily saying AT&T's agreement should be a accepted as-is. Heck I don't think I really like it. What I am saying though is that all those jumping to Cox's defense need to take a good look at the real Cox, not the one they want to portray.

Bryan

My DSL provider is Earthlink, through COVAD to AT&T. I am an Earthlink VAR. Will probably stay that way as Earthlink has been very good to me and my businesses.

Your if any connections with to COX or AT&T?

I do not see anyone jumping to COX's defense, except COX. And even that was not a huge jump to any defense, just stating what they have stated before.

I look forward to Denis Dunn jumping into this discussion to state AT&T's position, plan, project...

Likewise I invite someone from planning, finance, building, the mayor's office to jump in with some factoids to help the residents.

Ryan Patrick Demro usually can be counted on to speak to the residents. Ryan? Any others?

My only interest is the bottom line for the library, the school, and the city. Because they will reflect on the residents. Let's be honest neither company is going to pull out of one of the most lucrative markets east of the Mississippi.

I do believe that officers from both companies have made it clear that there will be NO PRICE WAR.

Denis Dunn called me this morning in response to my e-mail concerning Lakewood Public Library’s interest in the I-Net and ramifications from decision-making about the AT&T proposal.

He made several re-assuring points that indicate to me the interests of public institutions with respect to the I-Net are being considered and, to some extent, protected in the negotiations with AT&T.

First, he made the point that the build-out of the I-Net fiber loop by Cox, costing roughly $450,000, is being paid over time through franchise fee deducts/offsets. This means that the City of Lakewood holds a substantial position, something like $150K if my recollection of his comments is correct, already in the asset.

Therefore I have to trust that the side negotiating for the City understands the value of the I-Net, its investment in the asset and the stakes of the institutions involved.

In response to my inquiry about a scenario in which Cox files suit over level playing field issues and possibly disrupting or pulling the plug on any of its responsibilities for the I-Net, he mentioned that should Cox file suit against the City AT&T will be obligated to pay for the defense directed by the City.

It would be out of character for Cox do such thing to the institutions of the city, it would seem to me.

He reminded me that Walter & Haverfield, the firm that negotiated the Cox agreement, is negotiating for the City.

While laws, politics and technologies are changing the conditions of markets and the terms of agreements with municipalities, always raising questions of fairness, justice and muscle, I have to trust that Walter & Haverfield and the City Hall legal team are attentive to among other complex matters the level playing field issue Cox has raised and that they are reasonably and sensibly negotiating a position that makes sense for the City across the multiple interest platforms in play, past, present and future.

Finally, as much I am attempting to encourage open source and informed civic discourse with participation by elected officials over matters of importance to the city, I also realize legal requirements might well preclude their jumping into the mosh pit mode deliberations particularly at times of decision-making and deliberations. That’s what open meetings at City Hall are all about and why there is opportunity for citizen input and inquiry throughout the hearing process.

Obviously, each company holds an interpretive frame and citizen spin strategy.

So watch me spin, Ms. Cox, and let me know if Mr. Dunn has made me dizzy.

Kenneth Warren

Ken,

Thank you for a good post on this subject. Attorney Todd Hunt
has represented the City in cable negotiations for ten years. He drafted the current Cox contract. No one knows the city's/schools cable arrangements better than he does.

Tom George

Mr. Mayor:

Thank you for stepping in with added assurance. Knowing your respect for Lakewood traditions and the value of aligned and connected public institutions along with your good working relations with City Schools, I was reasonably certain due consideration would be given those broadly stated interests and particularly to the I-Net Fiber Loop asset that City Hall's Cox franchise fees have helped to build, benefiting the library, schools, city services and other institutions.

Thank you again for keeping us in the communication loop and letting us know you are working with Todd Hunt, a professional with deep knowledge of Lakewood's institutional terrain and values.

Kenneth Warren

Jim O'Bryan wrote:My DSL provider is Earthlink, through COVAD to AT&T. I am an Earthlink VAR. Will probably stay that way as Earthlink has been very good to me and my businesses.

Your if any connections with to COX or AT&T?

The only connection I have is that I have Cox cable and Internet service and despite my seeming defense of them on here, I hateThe New AT&T (old SBC) with a passion as a company.

I just have an issue with monopolies and for all intents and purposes right now Cox is a monopoly for a majority of Lakewood residents.

I do not see anyone jumping to COX's defense, except COX. And even that was not a huge jump to any defense, just stating what they have stated before.

I'm just trying to point out Cox is far from the do-good, altruistic company some would want us to believe. They're out to make money and deliver the least amount of service for the most money just like most other companies out there.

My only interest is the bottom line for the library, the school, and the city. Because they will reflect on the residents.

On this we absolutely agree. It's my biggest issue with the contract negotiations with AT&T. It seems though from Ken's post that this might be taken care of.

I do believe that officers from both companies have made it clear that there will be NO PRICE WAR.

While they might say this, actions speak louder than words. The same was said when Verizon brought FIOS into NOVA. However since then there has not only been a price war but a service war as well with the consumers benefiting.

Competition is important and the more of it we can have, the better.

Mayor

Thanks for jumping in if Todd Hunt did the work I just got done reading over from 1998 than we are in good hands. Also it would seem that Walter & Haverfield LLP, are the leaders in fair trade and cable TV. Their website was a fascinating read.


Bryan

I think we are all in agreement as long as we loose nothing, and gain much all is cool. I was just pointing out that the days of TV monopolies are long gone with Dish, Cable, Net.

Ken

Are the libraries part of the ongoing discussions? One of the Walter & Haverfield LLP documents mentions that the schools and library should have someone in on all meetings?

.

Jim:

I am not exactly sure of the meetings you are referencing from this report for which the library should be represented. I don't believe City Hall contract negotiations are what the report had in mind.

That said, I have not been invited or involved in any formal discussions about the AT&T proposal with Walter & Haverford or the City's legal team.

There are the open Council Meetings of course where the invitation is standing.

There is the LO Deck where my position on the library's interests have been expressed for all to see in an open source civic platform, along with my communication with Denis Dunn.

I did communicate with Jim Marras, my most technically knowledgable I-Net Fiber Loop contact in Lakewood City Schools to gather a sense of his involvement in the process. Walter and Haverford have been in communication with him about I-Net Fiber Loop applications and plans.

Back in the late 90s I did serve on a cable advisory committee that worked with the Walter & Haverford team. Considerable time was spent with Jim Marras on I-Net and related institutional issues.

From my perspective, the Lakewood City Schools are a far larger stakeholder in the I-Net Fiber Loop than the library.

Again, I have to trust that their interests and values are being given due consideration in the process.

Kenneth Warren

Kenneth Warren wrote:Jim:

I am not exactly sure of the meetings you are referencing from this report for which the library should be represented. I don't believe City Hall contract negotiations are what the report had in mind...

From my perspective, the Lakewood City Schools are a far larger stakeholder in the I-Net Fiber Loop than the library.

Again, I have to trust that their interests and values are being given due consideration in the process.

Kenneth Warren

Ken

In a report out of Haverfield in 1998 came a list of items that should be rule of thumb when looking into these matters,

One of them was:
Convene A Committee or Task Force - Should consist of 5-7 members with legal council and includes members of schools, library, city council, and the rest representing public interests.

Maybe they have come up with a fairer way to do this and their own thought process of 1998 no longer applies.


.

Jim:

When we began talking about good neighbors, intellectual production, open source experimentation and the visionary alignment that developed into the Lakewood Observer, you learned from your initial drill-down into who I am and my institutional and personal interests. I am a public librarian committed to my job and the interests of Lakewood Public Library. I am autodidact in matters of geography, psychology, political economy, and urban studies, with a preference for blowing hard through language and content streams, often searching for enlightening and engaging kernels, which subjected to proper critical pressure by homies, might become through the Lakewood Observer experiment an ever-enlivening Lakewood source code that can “delight and instructâ€Â

Ken


A little knowledge is indeed a very dangerous thing. Especially when it is injected into the middle or end of a discussion.

I am not so worried about AT&T. They have been able to defend the fact that they are not a cable TV company in other cities. So it would be moot about the committee, though maybe the concept of broadening what committees are used for might be a thing to look at as the lines have blurred so much in 10 years. A telephone company that offers CABLE as opposed to a cable company that offers TELEPHONES, see to be a line so blurry it is hard to see at times.

My only point through this discussion is not in anyway against AT&T, but what me might loose in the COX contract. While legally we have to look at how the rulings have fallen for AT&T I have not seen or heard how COX Communication's renegotiation have fared.

I think we can all agree that Denis Dunn has always been a great advocate, friend and resident of the City of Lakewood.

The Observation Deck is nothing more than the bar where we talk. As with most bar talk, facts, and timing seem to lag behind at different rates.

"This I hope will be the age of experiments in government, and that their basis will be founded in principles of honesty, not of mere force."

Thomas Jefferson


.

First let me apologize for posting without a name. I was under the impression as a registered user my name would post. Thanks for understanding the error. Here's the post again (with my name)...

I would like to respond and give some perspective from Cox Communications. It is encouraging to see Lakewood residents taking an active role in educating themselves on the issues before City Council votes on the proposed AT&T Video Competition Agreement.

This is not about blocking competition. As I am sure Lakewood residents know, Cox is a pioneer of local competition. Cox urges Lakewood residents to encourage City Council to make sure AT&T can only enter the video arena on a “fair and level playing field.â€Â