misinformation

Content tagged with "misinformation"

Displaying 41 - 50 of 92

Correcting Community Fiber Fallacies: Attacks on LUS Fiber

In just the last year the Lafayette Utility System (LUS) gigabit network has attracted 1300 high-tech jobsChairman Wheeler praises the network for doing what many communities hope to do, but cannot because of state laws limiting municipal broadband networks. Critics are desperate to discredit the network, using false statements and misinformation. The Reason Foundation released a paper by Steven Titch in November, 2013, to discredit LUS Fiber. Here we offer a point-by-point rebuttal of the report. Titch makes numerous claims that he does not support with any evidence. Much of the evidence he uses in support of other claims is out of context or erroneous. And even then, his worst criticism is that the network may struggle in the future but is not currently failing. Our critical response to Reason Foundation's report (called Lessons in Municipal Broadband from Lafayette, Louisiana) should be helpful to any community considering its own municipal network investment. This document is the first in a series of critical works that we are calling the "Correcting Community Fiber Fallacies" series. The official page for Correcting Community Fiber Fallacies: LUS Fiber is here, but you can get the pdf directly if you prefer. Don't forget that you can sign up for our weekly newsletter here - so you won't miss these important stories. Community Broadband Networks is committed to helping policy makers understand the reality and challenges of community fiber. Correcting Community Fiber Fallacies (CCFF) is designed to correct myths surrounding municipal fiber, and provide the information needed to counter erroneous claims. Steven Titch's original report can be found at reason.org.

FreeUTOPIA Destroying Myths About Macquerie in Utah

Jesse Harris at FreeUTOPIA recently published a piece correcting the many fantastic errors disseminated by the Utah Taxpayers Association. The group continues to spread lies to poison a proposal from Australian company Macquarie that could reinvigorate the ailing network. We spoke with Harris and Pete Ashdown, from Xmission, about the proposal in episode #85 of the Community Broadband Bits podcast.

As can be expected, the arguments are nothing new, but the Utah Taxpayers Association still finds a way to take it to new extremes. Harris' post is worth the read because it offers truths to correct misinformation.

After correcting several points, Harris writes:

Really, their diatribe just goes on and on like that. A lot of it is basic fact-checking stuff that’s flat-out wrong, but they know those kinds of statements will rile people up and get them too angry to consider the real facts.

The best thing you can do right now is to make sure you show up at city council meetings, let your elected officials know you support the deal, and make sure you counter any of the flat-out false talking points the opposition will be trotting out time and time again. We’re really close to having this thing in the bag, and we can’t let up until the ink dries on the final agreement.

In a late-breaking story, he also says he has evidence that CenturyLink is behind this astroturf campaign. Not at surprising, but we should not sit idly by while powerful corporations try to undermine our republic.

A Look at Mediacom Propaganda in Emmetsburg, Iowa

Earlier this month, a majority of voters in Emmetsburg supported a proposal to issue bonds to build a fiber network. Nevertheless, the measure failed because Iowa requires a 60% majority when general obligation bonds fund all or part of a proposed project.

Years ago, the community voted to establish a municipal cable communications or television system. Emmetsburg leaders feel the time is right to realize the community vision. The proposed project would have used revenue bonds in addition to general obligation bonds.

We reported on Mediacoms' efforts to derail the vote with misleading lit drops across the community and we recently received new details on Mediacom's propaganda. The literature does not contain a "Vote No" statement, which may have allowed Medicom to avoid reporting it as an election expense.

Both pieces read like a talking point primer for industry executives. The letter from Senior Vice President Dan Templin, suggests that Mediacom is already operating gigabit service over fiber in Emmetsburg and that they intend to expand that service to business clients. The letter does not suggest that their gigabit service is affordable or reliable, neither of which are terms commonly used to describe Mediacom's services.

Mediacom was ranked last in a 2012 Consumer Report survey of 50,000 people. He, or rather his legal and marketing team, suggests the people of Emmetsburg and Mediacom "work together to leverage our [Mediacom's] investment." The people of Emmetsburg can begin working with Mediacom to "leverage" that investment by sending an email to a vague "info" email address. 

Responding to "Crazy Talk" Volume 4 - Community Broadband Bits Episode #72

We are back with the fourth volume of our responding to "Crazy Talk" theme on the Community Broadband Bits podcast. The source of this week's crazy talk is a public relations executive for Time Warner Cable, following an interview I did on WUNC in North Carolina. Lisa Gonzalez, myself, and our colleague John Farrell react to some of the claims made to discuss what you should know about community owned networks and broadband policy more generally. We talk about misleading statistics, lies about how local governments fund networks, and whether Time Warner Cable or local utilities pay more in taxes. Read the transcript of this episode here. We want your feedback and suggestions for the show - please e-mail us or leave a comment below. Also, feel free to suggest other guests, topics, or questions you want us to address. This show is 23 minutes long and can be played below on this page or via iTunes or via the tool of your choice using this feed. Listen to previous episodes here. You can can download this Mp3 file directly from here. Find more episodes in our podcast index. Thanks to Mudhoney for the music, licensed using Creative Commons.

As Emmetsburg Plans to Vote on Muni Network, Mediacom Misinforms

The Iowa community of 4,000 will take up Public Measure D on November 5th. Voters will decided whether to approve a $3.5 million bond issue to cover approximately half the cost to build a FTTH system. Incumbent Mediacom is distributing flyers throughout the community urging a "no" vote. Community leaders are doing their best to combat Mediacom's propaganda by educating the voters.

We reported about the community's 1998 vote to establish a municipal cable communications or television system. The city did not act on the vote at the time because the project was cost prohibitive. The estimated cost of the project is now about $3 million less than it was in the late 1990s. Emmetsburg wants to seize the opportunity by joining The Community Agency (TCA), a coalition of municipalities in the region that collectively own a hybrid fiber coaxial cable network. Emmetsburg would join with a full fiber network.

The town currently provides natural gas, water and wastewater services through its municipal utility.

In a flyer [pdf] aimed at convincing locals to vote no, Mediacom brags that "Customers in Emmetsburg get the same services as those in larger cities..." Unfortunately, Mediacom's service in larger cities is also awful and more suited to the late 1990's than the modern digital economy. Consumer Reports has rated Mediacom among the absolute worst Internet providers in the United States.

Public Question D reads:

Countering Crazy Talk, Volume 3, for Episode #62 of Community Broadband Bits Podcast

Lisa Gonzalez and I are back with another back and forth reaction to some of the crazy claims made by opponents of community owned Internet networks. This is something we started with Episode 50 and continued in Episode 55. For volume 3 of our Crazy Talk series, we address some recent claims made in opinion pieces, including the obviously-written-by-a-lobbyists op-ed in the Baltimore Sun and signed by Maryland State Senator Pugh. We talk about claims that Chattanooga has failed (in which we recommend you go back to listen to episode 59 - our conversation with Chattanooga. We dissect the claims that the US already has robust competition and that having several 4G wireless networks in any way impacts the wireline cable and DSL the vast majority of Americans are stuck with it. And finally, we talk about Provo and why it is suddenly the most cited network by those opposing community owned networks. Read the transcript here. We want your feedback and suggestions for the show - please e-mail us or leave a comment below. Also, feel free to suggest other guests, topics, or questions you want us to address. This show is 20 minutes long and can be played below on this page or subscribe via iTunes or via the tool of your choice using this feed. Listen to previous episodes here. You can can download this Mp3 file directly from here. Find more episodes in our podcast index. Thanks to Break the Bans for the music, licensed using Creative Commons.

Jim Baller Discusses Municipal Broadband History - Community Broadband Bits Episode #57

Jim Baller has been helping local governments to build community owned networks for as long as they have been building them. He is the President of and Senior Principal of the Baller Herbst Law Group in Washington, DC. Jim joins us for Episode #57 of the Community Broadband Bits podcast to discuss some of the history of community owned networks. Jim has a wealth of experience and helped in many of the most notable legal battles, including Bristol Virginia Utilities and Lafayette. We start by noting some of the motivations of municipal electric utilities and how they were originally formed starting in the late 19th century. But we spend the bulk of our time in this show focusing on legal fights in the 90's and early 2000's over whether states could preempt local authority to build networks. In our next interview with Jim, we'll pick up where we left off. If you have any specific thoughts or questions we should cover when we come back to this historical topic, leave them in the comments below or email us. You can learn more about Jim Baller on his website at Baller.com. Read the transcript from this episode here. We want your feedback and suggestions for the show - please e-mail us or leave a comment below. Also, feel free to suggest other guests, topics, or questions you want us to address. This show is 30 minutes long and can be played below on this page or subscribe via iTunes or via the tool of your choice using this feed. Search for us in iTunes and leave a positive comment! Listen to previous episodes here. You can can download this Mp3 file directly from here. Find more episodes in our podcast index. Thanks to Break the Bans for the music, licensed using Creative Commons.

Coin-Operated Hypocrisy In Action: A Case Study in Monticello

Rant Warning... Every state has at least one organization, often calling itself a think tank, that is funded by large corporations to advance their narrow interests, often at the expense of local businesses and the larger public. Many call these "coin operated" think tanks because they take whatever positions their funders want them to take. Or, a more charitable explanation is that some massive corporations are simply channeling money to those few people who honestly believe that we would all be better off if BP or Comcast or Goldman Sachs had no regulations to worry about. In Minnesota, one of these is called the "Freedom Foundation" of Minnesota. I tend to ignore them for a variety of reasons.
  1. There just isn't enough time.
  2. They are really, really ignorant. Their papers and posts are so filled with errors in basic fact, it would take a LOT of time to correct them - which brings me back to point 1. (Nonetheless, they are influential because the lobbyists of the companies that fund them distribute their propaganda throughout the capitol that they appear to actually live in.)
  3. Mentioning them can legitimize them.
So here I am, mentioning this group because I just noted a curious example of their utter lack of integrity. For a few years, the "Freedom Foundation" has worked on telecommunications issues, mostly writing nasty, slanted articles twisting the words of public officials to discredit projects. Given the problems faced by Monticello (as we have covered), they have had a field day there - even tracking down a bondholder that is losing part of his investment. The fallout from Monticello FiberNet will cost bondholders something like $19 million or about 65 percent of their investment. And the City will likely spend millions in public dollars on the network when it was originally to be paid for entirely by the revenue bonds. This is certainly disappointing. But in Monticello, FiberNet is not the only difficulty - Monticello happens to host one of Xcel Energy's nuclear power plants. Cost overruns there are taking a $320 million project and turning it into a $640 million project, which will be paid for by ratepayers across Minnesota, including myself. Yikes, right?

Responding to More "Crazy Talk" - Community Broadband Bits Podcast #55

Following up on our first "Responding to Crazy Talk" episode last month, we decided to publish a second edition this week. Again, Lisa Gonzalez and I respond to real arguments made by those who oppose community owned Internet networks. Today, we used three arguments from a debate in 2011 that included myself, Jim Baller, Jeff Eisenach, and Rob Atkinson. We chose three arguments from Rob Atkinson for this audio show but strongly recommend watching the entire debate as it examines these issues from more perspectives. We deal with the term "overbuilding" and competition more generally to discuss how these arguments are quite detrimental to the best solutions for expanding access in rural areas. The second argument is the classic one that it is simply harder to build networks in the U.S. because we are such a large, spacious country and that statistics from other countries are misleading merely because they are smaller or more dense. And the final claim is that subscribers are generally happy with what they have and do not need faster connections. Read the transcript here. Let us know if you like this format and what questions we should consider the next time we do it. We want your feedback and suggestions for the show - please e-mail us or leave a comment below. Also, feel free to suggest other guests, topics, or questions you want us to address. This show is 20 minutes long and can be played below on this page or subscribe via iTunes or via the tool of your choice using this feed. Search for us in iTunes and leave a positive comment! Listen to previous episodes here. You can can download this Mp3 file directly from here. Find more episodes in our podcast index. Thanks to Eat at Joe's for the music, licensed using Creative Commons.

Consultant Argues Never Used Financing Mechanism Also Won't Work in Palo Alto

I was troubled to see Broadband Communities publish an odd and misleading story about Palo Alto in the May-June issue [pdf]. Authored by Stephen Blum of Tellus Venture Associates, a consultant that has been hired by Palo Alto in the past, it showed a remarkable level of ignorance about community owned fiber networks and broadband more generally. The title alone, "Can FTTP Work in Palo Alto?" is just odd. Why exactly would FTTP not work in Palo Alto? It works in hundreds of other cities and towns, most of whom are less well positioned than Palo Alto for such a venture. A more honest title would have been "Consultant Argues Never Used Financing Mechanism Also Won't Work in Palo Alto." Blum made a very good case for that narrow argument but fails to lay out any convincing evidence that a variety of other models are doomed. Parts of the article can only be called cable and DSL boosterism - such as repeating the talking point that AT&T's U-Verse and Comcast already offer "high levels of service at competitive rates." Competitive to what? Neither can deliver the speeds offered by modern fiber networks and are only "competitive" if one ignores the much slower upstream speeds, higher prices, lesser reliability, problems of oversubscription, and poor customer service one gets from those providers. Reminds me of "Slick Sam" from Lafayette and the "functional equivalence" between DSL and FTTH.
Blum apparently knows better - that Palo Alto residents are "happy" with the existing services because they have not spontaneously marched down El Camino Real demanding faster speeds at lower prices. This is the wrong measure - reminiscent of the now oft-quoted Henry Ford line that if he asked people what they wanted, they would have said "faster horses." The number of specific errors in this piece are many, and have been well documented by those familiar with the history of Palo Alto's studies. I want to focus on just a few. Let's start here:
Overall, 79 percent of households would have to pay $3,000 apiece to fully fund FTTP construction costs.
YIKES! Cue the foreboding music! Palo Alto has something like 25,000 households.