Streaming History; Will we be Smarter?

Ok fellas, it's happening....Video is joining text in laying down an accessible version of history's first draft. The NYTimes reports that C-Span is in the process of finishing uploading its entire video record going back to 1987—and all that it has archived going back to 1979.

Now before you yawn and switch channels: this is a big deal. Really.

You want "transparency" in government? All transparency really calls for is having a good enough record to hold the people in charge accountable for the mistakes they make. CSPAN making this archive available in a freely searchable internet archive that allows anyone to stream the full record is an enormous step forward in transparency.

And a lot of the usual suspects like the idea:

Having free online access to the more than 160,000 hours of C-Span footage is “like being able to Google political history using the ‘I Feel Lucky’ button every time,” said Rachel Maddow, the liberal MSNBC host.

Ed Morrissey, a senior correspondent for the conservative blog Hot Air (hotair.com), said, “The geek in me wants to find an excuse to start digging.”

They've got a point; this means that everything, everything done on the floor of the House or the Senate and most of the major committee meetings going back a full generation are going to be available for free on the web in a form that allows us all to witness history directly. And it's going to mean that a lot of people, fairly and unfairly, are going to be held accountable for past actions.

Remember the old saying that "Hindsight is 20-20?" You're about to get a great view of a huge undigested glop of history that before now was either concealed by "the mists of time" or visible only through the lens of other people's interpretation. That doesn't mean, of course, that you will be able to understand everything you see, after all, we don't understand everything we see in the present when we are immersed in the context. History needs interpretation. In some ways History is interpretation. We are going to need to get a lot more sophisticated about understanding history if we are going to get full benefit...but this is one way; and a very important way that the web is making us more knowledgeable.

It will be up to us to make sure it is making us smarter.

"LUS sacks Cox with Saints vs. Cowboys game"

From the Independent blog:

"If you’re paying $39.95 a month for LUS’ 83-channel expanded basic cable service, breathe a sigh of relief. You’ll watch the undefeated Saints take on the Dallas Cowboys (8-5) on Channel 38 Saturday night at 7:20 p.m. But if you’re one of Cox Communications’ approximately 100,000 Acadiana customers who subscribes to expanded basic, 72 channels for $52.99 per month, it’s going to cost you more."

Couldn't have said it better myself. —You can sign up with the local guys or you can pay more for less and still not get what you want from Cox. It's a choice that ought to be easy. What do you think Lafayette?

The Saints Mania that has taken hold here (and across south Lousiana) has made people more than a little crazy and I've got email this week asking whether LUS will have the game. I had a hard time understanding what folks were anxious about since it is on expanded basic, and expanded basic is pretty much the default level for most folks. Now that I see that Cox is only carrying it on a more expensive tier I have to suspect that the truly fanatic were hearing about that and worried that the same would be true of LUS...there was a big blow-up in the Baton Rouge media earlier this week and apparently Cox worked hard at getting it set up there even though BR wouldn't normally be allowed to see it. I'm sure they'd like to have been able to do the same in Lafayette—if only to avoid the unfavorable contrast with LUS Fiber.

It's not really just about this game and single, immensely popular show...it is more about the contrasting corporate policies that Cox and LUS Fiber pursue. Cox has, time and again, moved "must have" weather, French language, TV guide, and sports channels off the basic tiers and pushed them up into the upper, more costly, tiers in unpopular if financially understandable, moves. After all they are in it to make money for their owners. LUS Fiber, on the other hand, really doesn't have nearly the same pressure to "upsell" its customers since those customers are its owners. Keeping your owners happy means entirely different things to a large corporation and small town utility.

And that's the real lesson of this story.

Set Top Box Follies: Cox and LUS

The executive summary: Cox is acting like Cox.

The short version: LUS has asked for an exemption from an FCC rule mandating the use of cable cards in set top boxes. Cox, joined by the Consumer Electronics Association, objects.

The essence: Cox would like to throw a kink, into, to again delay if possible (or to impose additional costs on LUS if it is not) Lafayette's FTTH project by using the FCC to force LUS to deploy technology that doesn't exist. It seems, I suppose, like an clever way to try and use the feds to cause trouble for a competitor. The bitter irony is that the technology doesn't exist largely because Cox and its cable brethren have refused to obey the law and develop the technology to comply with what Congress mandated 14 years ago.

If none of those short versions satisfies you're going to have to settle in for a long, history-laden tale replete with bureaucratic battles, crippled 3rd party set top boxes, a long, successful rear-guard action by incumbents determined to keep consumers from controlling the boxes attached to their cable network and dueling technologies favored by self-interested players in a three-sided match-up. It's one of those stories that nakedly reveals "the way things really work" in a way that doesn't say much good about any of the major players.

Ok, first there is the cast of characters:

• FCC: the federal communications commissions playing the part of the pitiful big guy all the tougher kids enjoy messing with.
• The Telephone Companies: playing the confident old-timer with generations of home field advantage; the telcos have traditionally dominated the FCC game, but breaking into the video big time with IPTV-based set top boxes instead of the older cable tech requires all their lawyer's talents.
• The Cable Companies: playing the fiesty tough kid from the sticks the cablecos have fought a successful delaying action against federal regulations that try to impose teleco-like requirements that would allow mere consumers to attach their own devices to the tough kids' network—and rob those tough guys of their traditional set top box charges.
  
• The Consumer Electronics Association has wandered in from left field wanting to make sure that the big consumer electronics companies have a big single, unified market for set top boxes that keeps them from having to develop separate toys to control satellite, cable, and telco video set top boxes.
  

oh and:

• LUS, the lonely little new kid on the block in the supporting role of the outsider whose seemingly innocuous question sets off a major battle. (This is the character whose fate is so unimportant to the plot that it's never resolved...and only the friends and family of the actor notice.)
  

The background story, the setup for the latest battle:
Gather round kiddies, this story goes back to that dim time before the internet, 40 years ago, a time when things were different...Back then the FCC actually had the power and the will to break up huge monopolies like AT&T (really, it was broken up before the modern FCC midwifed in its rebirth). This all starts with the almost mythological Carterphone: a device that was to morph into the analog sound-based "modulate/demodulate" device that in turn became the digital modem of recent history. That's right sprouts: without the Carterphone there would be no internet for anyone today. And we almost didn't get the Carterphone. I won't tell the long version of the story (but it's a goodun.) What interests us today is that the FCC told the telcos that they had to let any device connect to the telephone network as long as it didn't damage the network. Ma Bell (what we used to call AT&T) howled. But the FCC stood its ground and soon all manner of phones that hung on the wall or had push buttons, or were wireless, or were pink replaced the phone company's black table-top rotary-dial ringer that had produced such a nice steady stream of income for Ma Bell. Though nobody knew it then the internet and VOIP and all manner of things that were to humble the once-invincible phone company flowed from that single brave decision to tell the phone company that it was only the owner of the network and had no right to tell legitimate users how they used the connection they bought.

—No, nobody knew back then but the story is oft-retold now... and the fiesty cable guys who'd once been little local municipal video providers but had coelesced into monopolies fully capable of taking on the telcos—and the sadly diminished FCC knew the implications of the Carterphone decision. And they had no intention of losing control of their network to consumers the way that the old AT&T had. Back in 1996, at the dawn of the internet era when the country was flush with enthusiasm for the new communications network, Congress passed a new telecom act which among other things, tried to reproduce the success of Carterphone by requiring that cable companies open their lines as well and specifically that they allow

"other converter boxes, interactive communications equipment, and other equipment used by consumers to access multichannel video programming and other services offered over multichannel video programming systems, from manufacturers, retailers, and other vendors not affiliated with any multichannel video programming distributor."

In other words, Carterphone for cable. Congress passed the task of enforcement off to the FCC confident that they had done their part to insure a brighter future and turned to confusing other issues. Alas, the FCC of 1996 was not the FCC of their grandfathers and, long story short: this never really happened. The cable companies successfully argued that they had to retain control of "security" and the FCC responded by requiring that the necessary proprietary security be separated from the rest of the box and located in a device that could be used in either the cable company's or a third party company's box. The cable card. Delay followed delay. The FCC's enforcement was pitiful indeed. So pitiful that it tolerated delays that meant that the first generation of cable cards was outdated by the time it was available and cable has still approve a card that is able to give third party producers access to their networks. This dithering about had damaging consequences: it left the producers of products that were clearly superior (in that people were really willing to pay for them); products that had usable interfaces and pioneered Digital Video Recording either bankrupt (Replay) or barely hanging on (TiVo).

Fourteen years later the FCC rule still stands and nobody is expected to actually follow it. Everybody has garnered an exception of one sort or another. All the players have their own version renewed occasionally on ever-varying grounds. The only constant is that the networks have never had to let their customers attach the equivalent of shiny new pink digital phones to their networks.

The consequence is that the much-anticipated digital convergence still hasn't happened. You can't surf the internet on your TV (well, there is an exception we'll get to), you can't do video telephony using your TV as a monitor, setting up recordings over the net or from your smart phone remains an uber-geek activity....and on. We could have used a cable version of the Carterphone. Instead what we got was a slightly faster version of the same access that the telephone companies had been forced to accept over their lines designed for voice. Faster internet, not access to a whole new communications network designed for video and much larger capacities.

The satellite companies never really had to comply with the law—the cable companies successful defense meant that satellite never really had to come up to bat since big brother cable proved capable of fending off the very idea. So satellite got an exception until cable could figure it all out...and cable wasn't about to. As workable cable cards finally neared market acceptance cable whirled around and managed to get the day put off a bit longer by instituting a new non-hardware based software standard which would be oh-so-much better. They got an extension of their exception to work on that. When the telephone companies finally started to get into the provision of video over their networks it was built on the back of the new internet (the one that their lose in Carterphone days helped create), implemented a version of IPTV—and taking a leaf from the well-worn book of cable have claimed that their special technology wasn't compatible with the old cable-card technology either. And (you see where this is going?) they got their version of an exception.

Who does that leave who does have to comply?

Surely you remember the lonely new kid on the block who asked the uncomfortable question? LUS? Apparently the argument is going to be that LUS should be the only guy in the neighborhood that has to follow the rules. This argument comes from none other than Cox Communications whose own exemption to the rule is still in place. Cox doesn't argue that the technology exists to allow LUS to follow the rule. (And it doesn't) Cox just argues that LUS should comply with a rule that it has never, ever, over 14 years done anything but fight itself. Citizens of Lafayette will be amused to learn that they are arguing that they only want to provide a "level playing field." Again. Like the state's (un)Fair Competition Act, you can be sure that when Cox says it wants a level playing field what they really mean is that they want the government to impose limits on Lafayette that it has never had to abide by itself. What is fair about asking your small local competition to abide by rules you yourself have successfully evaded? Of course this isn't about fairness. It's about advantage. In a halfway sane world the FCC would laugh in the face of an effective monopolist like Cox that tried to impose rules on a brand new competitor coming in from the outside any of the major sectors to provide the very high-speed, fiber-to-the-home, low priced competition that the FCC has been sniveling about wanting for the entire 14 years it has failed to enforce the law....but we don't live in a halfway sane regulatory environment.

To pile on the insult the latest is that the Consumer Electronics Association (CEA) has weighed in. Understandably frustrated after all these years, all the companies that want to make the magical media devices that record all and control all in your living room have demanded that the FCC quit making exceptions and enforce its rules....on a small municipal provider that is actually providing an innovative, powerful, cheap alternative that the FCC says it wants and that is the model of everything the CEA should hope happens to US broadband. Just for the sake of completeness I should note that each of the three-telco, cable, and CEA--have their own candidates for a new technology to enable video network openness. Each of them would dearly love to control that technology and no one can doubt that the one they'd come up with would 1) advantage them, 2) disadvantage their competitors, and 3) enrich the owners of the tech. Nobody's hands are clean.

LUS, of course, doesn't have the wherewithal to develop a new technology itself. The set top box family deployed in Lafayette is apparently the only one that is usable with both the Alcatel equipment the community is using and with IPTV. The fact that the network is all IPTV (translation into analog for analog tier users takes place on the wall of the house) opens up vast new areas for innovation. The 100 meg intranet "campus" is a good example of what a really innovative community-oriented network can do. Neither Cox nor any other cable provider is providing free unthrottled in-network bandwidth to its users. Even more on point: LUS offers our community an internet connection through the IPTV set top box. That the box is natively IP is crucial to that very desireable feature. Subscribers that don't even own a computer are able to surf the net. That's something that IP enables...and something, again, that I don't see that Cox or any of the other guys who have set top boxes have done. Really opening up the set top box is something that Congress was right about. There is huge room for innovation. The FCC's failure to enforce, and Congress' failure to provide adequate oversight to see that the nation's laws are enforced have cost the country dearly.

LUS points out that every other IPTV-using network has already received this waiver and that all they are asking for is the same waiver that Verizon and other established IPTV providers have already secured. To ask new entrants who are actually competing and using the new technology to offer a cheaper, faster, more innovative system is to bear a burden the established corporations do would be stunningly counter-productive.

Let's hope the FCC can find the courage that the FCC forty years ago had, do the right thing here and refuse to reward the bullying of a large corporation who has evaded the very rule that they hope to impose on a cheaper, local, competitor. A competitor who, incidentally, is actually demonstrating the value of innovation on the set top box that the rule is designed to achieve.

LUS Fiber HYPE

It'd be funny if it weren't so overburdened with irony.

Those of us who still get a daily newspaper will have been amused by Cox's latest attempt to "me-too" ("fiber is nothing new" cough, cough) the LUS network's offerings. As my wife was going through our morning ritual of removing the 3/4 of the paper that is glossy ad inserts and sections we never open out slipped an 8 1/2 x 11 Cox flyer with the screaming bold headline "LUS Fiber HYPE." The irony, of course, is that the hype and FUD is entirely being performed by Cox. Have you seen any LUS advertising "hyping" —or even promoting— LUS Fiber in the major media yet? I haven't. And I watch. Now no doubt the day will come when LUS will hype its network. When it is offering the service to a large enough base that it makes sense to advertise in the paper or other local media. But that day has yet to arrive. My guess is that this flier is the best evidence available that LUS' "controlled roll-out" is beginning to significantly cut into Cox's base of subscriptions; painfully enough to buy an insert which will be distributed almost solely to people who can't—Yet—buy LUS services. Now the motivation may be to just try and insert the headline into the "LUS fiber HYPE" into the community unconscious. If so that shows a pretty profound misunderstanding of this community. Cox has played the game of playing fast and loose with truth with Lafayette before and it's proved embarasssing. Who can forget the disastrous story of the "local blogger T. J. Crawdad" or the infamous "push polls? Even more than embarrassing...folks got to saying tha "you can't trust anything they say." This flier is in that (ig)noble tradition.

The thing Cox forgets is that to be truly effective attack advertising has to be true. And it has to be about something that people care about. Otherwise you just end up looking desperate. Cox is hyping its "digital TV," claiming to have more digital channels than LUS...and is using that hype to sell what's on the backside of the flyer: it's lowest triple play tier. For 89.99. For 12 Months.

"It's a day late and a dollar short" as the old saying goes. You're supposed to assume that the claim on the front supports the offering on the back. That you'll get more with Cox's cheapest "digital TV" offering.

But you won't.

Take a gander at the slideshow below; it's from Terry Huvals presentation at the recent (and fantastic) F2C conference. The relevant slides are numbers 31, 32, and 33 which detail the "expanded basic," "digital basic," and "digital basic plus" tiers for both companies.

What Cox wants you to buy, on the basis of their claims on the front of the sheet, is the product on the back of the sheet, that 89.99 (for 12 months) sale offering. If you go to Cox's "Greater Louisiana" website & drill down you'll get to a page that shows you get their "expanded basic" cable tier with that deal. So surf on over to slide 31 on the display below....

Terry Huval

View more presentations from f2c

You'll see that in truth LUS offers more channels in their lowest tier combo deal than Cox. If that strikes you as strange soldier on to slide 32. There you'll notice that LUS offers more channels in the middle tier too..only at slide 33 the highest tier do you find Cox offering more channels that LUS. So the (hyped) claims on the front, while not entirely untrue at every level, do not support the product they are selling on the back. A little bait and switch, that.

And LUS' low tier combo deal is cheaper too: Cox's "Good" comes in at 89.99 (intro price) vs LUS' "VIP - $84.85" (allathetime price).

(And, while we're at it you also get 30 megs up and down with LUS but only 10 megs down and 786 k up... with video shifting to the web and more and more people doing their telephony through 3rd party VOIP that's going to be more and more significant. I already do a healthy amount of my TV viewing over my shiny new computer-TV hookup.)

My Ordering LUS Fiber Service

When my blue fiber announcement came in the mail I immediately rang up the new LUS call center to sign up and lay claim to an installation date. A comfortingly local accent answered the phone, was overwhelmingly solicitous and had clearly been trained to explain what he was doing and why in patient detail. I'm the sort that likes understanding every little bit so I enjoyed the experience. YMMV. :-)

The order didn't go overwhelmingly smoothly. They've just started up the ordering process, and clearly have in place an elaborate computer database setup to methodically walk through the necesarily complex details involved complex services—getting you registered, address, identity validation, phone numbers, porting, 911 service, email address, passwords, confirming question (like mother's maiden name), multiple channel packages, and other seemingly endless bits and pieces. I managed to find oddnesses in the software. (My street name has a St. before it & a St. after & my name has a St. before...that software can be confused by such I know from long, unhappy experience with university databases--my guess is that the software designer didn't live in South Louisiana...)

I didn't buy a simple bundled package, but broke it up into high end internet, a middling channel package, and a minimal landline phone order. The folks on the other line handled all that quite easily and when you order you should know that you can unbundle almost anything...including buying phone services a la carte. Just ask. One thing I forgot to ask about in my eagerness was static IP addresses--a beta tester told me that he's got one and that it is supposed to cost $5.00 a month. If you want such just ask. My experience was that the folks on the other end of the line either actually know all the details or when they are uncertain just ask...a good norm in a service center.

At the end of the afternoon after a couple of callbacks all was done, and I was and remain an exceedingly happy man. (Who now has to take that Cat 6 out of his trunk and actually finish rewiring the house.)

For those who've asked for the nitty-gritty details...remember you did ask...here is the long version:

The Process:

1. You get a nifty sheet folded to make it into a two page (4 page front and back) promotional brochure. The brochure comes folded in half to make a mailer the size of a large postcard. It's sealed with tape and tucked inside you'll find two informational sheets with all the prices and the most current channel lineup.
2. You eagerly tear it open
3. Get with your significant other/s and decide on what you want
4. Call the number on the flyer (99-Fiber)
   
5. Transverse the phone tree to get to hold of one of those new LUS service reps. Punch 1 and then 1 again... I got a very nice guy with a distinctly local accent who was both methodical and very solicitous.
6. They go through a process to verify that you really are in the area that is currently open for service. This verification apparently is separated from the sign-up process so they ask for a few things a second time later on. (But my guy told me he was going to be asking again and apologized in anticipation. I was in no mood to worry about such.)
7. Once you are confirmed as a potential location they want to know who you are. You get to verify your identity, in my case by SSN, and get an identity in their system. I provided a password and the answer to a standard security question.
8. Then you get to give your address and billing address. That should be easy. But in my case having a "St." in front of the street name caused problems. We eventually hit on a series of letters that the database acknowledged existed. (Saint needs to be spelled out.)
   
9. Part of confirming your address is that you need to have one that the 911 system acknowledges. So the address needs to go in and be accepted in that database. We wrestled with that a bit too...as it turns out that field doesn't like the other "St." —the one that denotes "Street." (That one needs to be left off entirely.) Coming out of that series of retries we got a "unexpected error" error. —Another of those ever so informative computer messages. He couldn't get unhung and asked to call back.
10. He got unhung and called back. We managed to duplicate the error. Great for bug tracking. Frustrating to my service guy. He let me go again.
11. My callback was from a nice, brisk, and apologetic woman who apparently was the supervisor. Anyone who has hung on technical support lines for hours recognizes that I'd had a level upgrade... She muscled past the buggy screens and finalized my setup.
12. At that point I "just" had to specify my order. That was complex. Even the most minimal land line has to go through a lot to port a number and set up all the required 911 details. I asked a lot of questions (being who I am) about service details on the internet side, got the fancy 50 meg symmetric package, and a digital DVR box with one premium channel...That involved a lot of talk.
13. She set me up on the spot for an inside install and let me know that the outside installer would be coming but would ring us up first.
14. She apologized for everything one more time, checked my particulars and let me go. Done!
    

It's a lot to get hooked up with, validation details, all those services, myriad supporting details, and to setting up two appointments all at one blow. Especially since I was so eager. But my experience with folks on the other end were that they were methodical with and unfailingly helpful toward even for an over-eager beaver like myself.

I eagerly await.

"BREAKING NEWS: LUS Fiber launches"

The Advertiser is up with a brief breaking news story, a pdf of the description sheet, and—most interesting—the channel lineup.

Basic Tier ($17.00)

2 Channel Guide
3 Acadiana Open Channel 1
4 Acadiana Open Channel 2
5 KATC / ABC
6 KADN / FOX
7 KPLC / NBC
8 QVC
9 EWTN
10 The Weather Channel
11 KLFY/ CBS
12 KLPB/ PBS
13 KLAF/ MYNetwork
14 CSPAN
15 KLWB/ CW
16 WAFB/ CBS
17 WBRZ/ ABC
18 Louisiana Connection Network (KLFT)
19 LPB+
20 KAJN/ FAM


Expanded Basic Tier ($39.95)

2 Channel Guide
3 Acadiana Open Channel 1
4 Acadiana Open Channel 2
5 KATC/ ABC
6 KADN/ FOX
7 KPLC/ NBC
8 QVC
9 EWTN
10 The Weather Channel
11 KLFY/ CBS
12 KLPB/ PBS
13 KLAF/ MYNetwork
14 CSPAN
15 KLWB/ CW
16 WAFB/ CBS
17 WBRZ/ ABC
18 Louisiana Connection Network (KLFT)
19 LPB+
20 KAJN/ FAM
25 Home Shopping Network
26 TNT
27 TBS
28 Noggin
29 USA
30 FX Network
31 Fox Sports Southwest
32 ESPN
33 ESPNews
34 ESPN Classic
35 ESPNU
36 ESPN2
37 Cox Sports
38 NFL Channel
39 Golf Channel
40 Disney
41 Toon Disney
42 ABC Family
43 Nickelodeon
44 TV Land
45 SciFi
46 Black Entertainment Television (BET)
47 MSNBC
48 CNBC
49 CNN
50 Headline News
51 ABC News Now
52 Fox News
53 Hallmark Channel
54 Shop NBC
55 A&E
56 The History Channel
57 Animal Planet
58 Discovery
59 TLC (The Learning Channel)
60 Travel Channel
61 Comedy Central
62 Biography Channel
63 Lifetime Movie (LMN)
64 Lifetime
65 SoapNet
66 Oxygen
67 E! Entertainment
68 Bravo
69 America Movie Classics (AMC)
70 Turner Classic Movies
71 TV 5 Monde
72 Style
73 Fine Living
74 Food Network
75 HGTV
76 Versus
77 DIY
78 Spike TV
79 G4
80 Tru-TV
81 TV One
82 MTV
83 VH1
84 Great American Country
85 Country Music Television
86 History Channel International
87 MTV2
88 Univision

Digital Basic Tier ($51.44)

1 Video On Demand
2 Channel Guide
3 Acadiana Open Channels 1
4 Acadiana Open Channels 2
5 KATC/ ABC
6 KADN/ FOX
7 KPLC/ NBC
8 QVC
9 EWTN
10 The Weather Channel
11 KLFY/ CBS
12 KLPB/ PBS
13 KLAF/ MYNetwork
14 CSPAN
15 KLWB/ CW
16 WAFB/ CBS
17 WBRZ/ ABC
18 Louisiana Connection Network (KLFT)
19 LPB+
20 KAJN/ FAM
25 Home Shopping Network
26 TNT
27 TBS
28 Noggin
29 USA
30 FX Network
31 Fox Sports Southwest
32 ESPN
33 ESPNews
34 ESPN Classic
35 ESPNU
36 ESPN2
37 Cox Sports
38 NFL Channel
39 Golf Channel
40 Disney
41 Toon Disney
42 ABC Family
43 Nickelodeon
44 TV Land
45 SciFi
46 Black Entertainment Television (BET)
47 MSNBC
48 CNBC
49 CNN
50 Headline News
51 ABC News Now
52 Fox News
53 Hallmark Channel
54 Shop NBC
55 A&E
56 The History Channel
57 Animal Planet
58 Discovery
59 TLC (The Learning Channel)
60 Travel Channel
61 Comedy Central
62 Biography Channel
63 Lifetime Movie (LMN)
64 Lifetime
65 SoapNet
66 Oxygen
67 E! Entertainment
68 Bravo
69 America Movie Classics (AMC)
70 Turner Classic Movies
71 TV 5 Monde
72 Style
73 Fine Living
74 Food Network
75 HGTV
76 Versus
77 DIY
78 Spike TV
79 G4
80 Tru-TV
81 TV One
82 MTV
83 VH1
84 Great American Country
85 Country Music Television
86 History Channel International
87 MTV2
88 Univision
201 KATC/ABC HD
202 KPLC/NBC HD
203 KLFY/CBS HD
204 KADN/FOX HD
205 LPB/PBS HD
500 DMX - Symphonic
501 DMX - Lite Classical
502 DMX - New Age
503 DMX - Tranquility
504 DMX - Smooth Jazz
505 DMX - Jazz
506 DMX - Gospel
507 DMX - Contemporary Christian
508 DMX - Modern Country
509 DMX - Traditional Country
510 DMX - Hit Country
511 DMX - Roadhouse
512 DMX - Golden Oldies
513 DMX - 70's Hits
514 DMX - 80"s Hits
515 DMX - Flashback New Wave
516 DMX - 90's Hits
517 DMX - Adult Contemporary
518 DMX - Soft Hits
519 DMX - Coffeehouse Rock
520 DMX - Adult Alternative
521 DMX - Hottest Hits
522 DMX - Classic Rock
523 DMX - Alternative
524 DMX - Album Rock
525 DMX - Dance
526 DMX - Subterranean
527 DMX - Urban Beat
528 DMX - Edited Rap
529 DMX - Hot Jamz
530 DMX - Urban Adult Contemporary
531 DMX - Classic R&B
532 DMX - Blues
533 DMX - Reggae
534 DMX - Childrens
535 DMX - Holidays & Happenings
536 DMX - Hurbano
537 DMX - Salsa
538 DMX - Rock en Espanol
539 DMX - Latin Contemporary

Digital Plus Tier ($63.31)

1 Video On Demand
2 Channel Guide
3 Acadiana Open Channel 1
4 Acadiana Open Channel 2
5 KATC/ ABC
6 KADN/ FOX
7 KPLC/ NBC
8 QVC
9 EWTN
10 The Weather Channel
11 KLFY/ CBS
12 KLPB/ PBS
13 KLAF/ MYNetwork
14 CSPAN
15 KLWB/ CW
16 WAFB/ CBS
17 WBRZ/ ABC
18 Louisiana Connection Network (KLFT)
19 LPB+
20 KAJN/ FAM
25 Home Shopping Network
26 TNT
27 TBS
28 Noggin
29 USA
30 FX Network
31 Fox Sports Southwest
32 ESPN
33 ESPNews
34 ESPN Classic
35 ESPNU
36 ESPN2
37 Cox Sports
38 NFL Channel
39 Golf Channel
40 Disney
41 Toon Disney
42 ABC Family
43 Nickelodeon
44 TV Land
45 SciFi
46 Black Entertainment Television (BET)
47 MSNBC
48 CNBC
49 CNN
50 Headline News
51 ABC News Now
52 Fox News
53 Hallmark Channel
54 Shop NBC
55 A&E
56 The History Channel
57 Animal Planet
58 Discovery
59 TLC (The Learning Channel)
60 Travel Channel
61 Comedy Central
62 Biography Channel
63 Lifetime Movie (LMN)
64 Lifetime
65 SoapNet
66 Oxygen
67 E! Entertainment
68 Bravo
69 America Movie Classics (AMC)
70 Turner Classic Movies
71 TV 5 Monde
72 Style
73 Fine Living
74 Food Network
75 HGTV
76 Versus
77 DIY
78 Spike TV
79 G4
80 Tru-TV
81 TV One
82 MTV
83 VH1
84 Great American Country
85 Country Music Television
86 History Channel International
87 MTV2
88 Univision
100 TBN
102 Hallmark Movie Channel
103 Independent Film Channel
104 Game Show Network (GSN)
105 Cartoon Network
106 Sprout PBS Kids
107 The N
108 Nicktoons Network
109 Boomerang
110 CNN International
111 Discovery Kids
112 LPB Create
114 Nick 2
115 Jewelry TV
116 Discovery Health
117 Family Net
118 Lifetime Real Women
119 Inspiration
120 Inspirational Life
121 Gospel Music Channel
123 Fit TV
125 Women's Entertainment
126 Fox College Sports - Atlantic
127 Fox College Sports - Central
128 Fox College Sports - Pacific
130 Fuel
131 Speed Channel
132 The Outdoor Channel
133 Fox Soccer Channel
134 The Tennis Channel
135 TVG
136 Fox Business
137 Bloomberg
138 Fox Reality
139 National Geographic
140 The Africa Channel
141 BBC America
142 BBC World News
143 Military History Channel
144 The Science Channel
145 The Military Channel
146 Planet Green
147 Investigation Discovery
148 Crime & Investigation
149 Chiller
150 Sleuth
151 Logo
152 CSPAN-2
153 MTV Hits
154 MTV Jams
155 MTV TR3S
156 FUSE
157 MTVU
158 VH1 Classic
159 VH1 Soul
160 CMT Pure Country
161 BET on Jazz
201 KATC/ABC HD
202 KPLC/NBC HD
203 KLFY/CBS HD
204 KADN/FOX HD
205 LPB/PBS HD
206 ESPN HD
207 ESPN-2 HD
209 Showtime HD
211 The Movie Channel HD
212 STARZ! HD
213 Encore HD
214 CNN HD
215 Animal Planet HD
216 Disney HD
217 ABC Family HD
218 Planet Green HD
219 Discovery HD
220 Discovery HD Theatre
221 The Science Channel HD
222 TLC (The Learning Channel) HD
223 TNT HD
224 TBS HD
225 USA HD
226 Lifetime Movie (LMN) HD
227 SciFi HD
228 QVC HD
229 Lifetime HD
230 HGTV HD
231 Food Network HD
232 MHD
233 A&E HD
234 History Channel HD
235 Outdoor Channel HD
236 NFL Channel HD
238 BIO HD
500 DMX - Symphonic
501 DMX - Lite Classical
502 DMX - New Age
503 DMX - Tranquility
504 DMX - Smooth Jazz
505 DMX - Jazz
506 DMX - Gospel
507 DMX - Contemporary Christian
508 DMX - Modern Country
509 DMX - Traditional Country
510 DMX - Hit Country
511 DMX - Roadhouse
512 DMX - Golden Oldies
513 DMX - 70's Hits
514 DMX - 80"s Hits
515 DMX - Flashback New Wave
516 DMX - 90's Hits
517 DMX - Adult Contemporary
518 DMX - Soft Hits
519 DMX - Coffeehouse Rock
520 DMX - Adult Alternative
521 DMX - Hottest Hits
522 DMX - Classic Rock
523 DMX - Alternative
524 DMX - Album Rock
525 DMX - Dance
526 DMX - Subterranean
527 DMX - Urban Beat
528 DMX - Edited Rap
529 DMX - Hot Jamz
530 DMX - Urban Adult Contemporary
531 DMX - Classic R&B
532 DMX - Blues
533 DMX - Reggae
534 DMX - Childrens
535 DMX - Holidays & Happenings
536 DMX - Hurbano
537 DMX - Salsa
538 DMX - Rock en Espanol
539 DMX - Latin Contemporary


Digital Hispanic Tier ($5.00)

180 Telemundo (Mundo)
182 Mun2
183 SiTV (coming soon)
184 Discovery En Espanol
185 Discovery La Familia
186 CNNe
187 ESPN Deportes
189 The History Channel in Espanol

HBO Premium Movie Suite ($12.80)

301 HBO east
302 HBO west
303 HBO Plus east
304 HBO Plus west
305 HBO Comedy east
306 HBO Family east
307 HBO Latino
308 HBO Signature east
309 HBO Zone east

Cinemax Premium Movie Suite ($6.08)

310 Cinemax east
311 Cinemax west
312 MOREMax east
314 OuterMax east
315 Action Max east
316 Thriller Max east

Showtime Premium Movie Suite ($8.47)

317 Showtime east
318 Showtime west
319 Showtime Too east
320 Showtime Beyond east
321 Showtime Extreme east
322 Showtime Showcase east
323 Showtime Family east
324 Showtime Women east
325 Flix
326 The Movie Channel east
327 TMC Xtra east

Starz!/Encore Premium Movie Suite ($7.43)

328 Starz!
329 Starz! Cinema
330 Starz! Kids & Family
331 Starz! Comedy
332 Starz/ Edge
333 Starz! In Black
334 Encore
335 Encore Action
336 Encore Drama
337 Encore Love
338 Encore Mystery
339 Encore Westerns
340 EncoreWAM

"LUS Fiber delays start" (Updated)

LUS has missed its deadline to serve the first customers in January of this year. They point to uncompleted contracts for cable channels as the reason for the delay—contracts LUS has signed but the folks that control the channel packages have not returned. All the recent coverage has hinted at such a delay: Huval has said for at least a month or six weeks that the only thing standing in the way of a launch was those contracts.

-----------
As to the story and the situation: Arrrgh. Let's start with the headline.

"LUS Fiber delays start"? Start? Really? How 'bout "LUS Fiber delay starts"? *(See update below) See what a difference the accurate placement of a single letter can make? I've complained endlessly and without effect about the tendency to sensationalize in the Advertiser so I won't belabor the point today. Just note that it's not a new frustration. I'll also take the opportunity to renew the plaint that the Adverstiser not ignore what has really delayed this project for years: the unremitting opposition of the incumbent providers: AT&T and Cox. As story about "delays" that carefully doesn't mention the source of years of delay is simply suspect reporting.

Ok, glad to get that off my chest. Still, there's a bit more complaining to do. :-)

The story does report on a real question that does need to be covered. The only thing worse than sensationalism would be to not cover it at all: LUS has missed its self-imposed deadline to serve the first customers by January of this year. And it let that date pass without making a public announcement in advance of the event. That's just not good public relations—or marketing. Better, much better, would be to hold a press conference lay it all out explicitly and to put it in the context of a huge project the people have been patiently waiting for — and a minor delay in comparison to the other painful delays that have occured as a consequence of outside interference. Get ahead of this sort of thing is the advice I would have given. My honest hope is that LUS intended announce this at last Tuesday's Council meeting—but if so I think they were mistaken to have honored the council's request to put it off. Granted the Council was right about their agenda and that did turn out to be an ungoodly long meeting. But LUS and the administration would have been smart to have asked for 5 minutes of the council's indulgence for a quick update that covered the change in plans if they could not stomach a full press conference. I strongly suspect that we will hear about it tonight's council meeting...I do expect that LUS will send out those promised blue announcement cards as soon as possible; possibly even this week. But the PR mistake will linger.
---------------

Beyond my frustrated complaint about the way the Adverstiser and LUS have handled this affair there is likely a really interesting story to tell. Or several. Which contracts with national providers have not completed signing? (We know the ones with local stations are done—including one that ended up in an FCC complaint.) What factors are playing into the decision to not launch with an incomplete linup? What is the source of the dispute? Was there another way to handle these contracts? Any one of these would make a useful story.

The question of which providers have neglected to return signed contracts might be interesting because we know that some packages are actually owned by incumbent cable providers who might well think it useful to embarass a standard bearer for municipal broadband. For instance, Time-Warner includes among its subdiaries major cable provider Time-Warner Cable as well as a huge set of cable channel packages including HBO, Turner Broadcasting (TMC), WB, CNN, and the Cartoon network. Comcast owns Cox owns the Travel channel. It's not a big stretch to think the cable companies might find this an easy tactic to use: Comcast, for instance, is famous for using its control of various sporting channels and contracts to its advantage in larger contract negotiations.

Why not just launch without the last few channels? You could always give a price break/rebate on the portion of the final package that customers don't get. The factors that are in play in deciding to delay the launch, and bear the cost of bad publicity, must include the so-called "Fair Competion" Act that the incumbents initially wrote and the legislature finally passed. The purpose of the act was far from "fair competition," instead it consists of a series of restrictions that apply only to the publicly-owned competition. (Only LUS in our state.) One of the elements in that law starts a time clock with dire consequences for LUS if it doesn't make a paper profit by a particular date. So any slow start imposes penalties by law...LUS needs to start off fast, and could easily conclude that not having the channel lineup complete would lead people to take a "wait and see" stance—not something they can afford to encourage.

If there are contracts outstanding one has to think that there have been disputes over carriage terms. LUS has apparently not just accepted anything that they are offered and have tried to hold out for good terms. The most obvious reason to hold out might well be simple cost: there is some push and pull on cost and providers naturally want to get as much as possible for their product and could well think that LUS doesn't have as much to bargin with as the monster companies like Cox or Comcast. But there may well be more subtle and even more disturbing possibilities. We here in Lafayette think its a great thing to get a 100 meg intranet and set-top boxes with even limited internet capacity. But content providers in this country are well known for their at-times irrational response to the rapidly growing dominance of the internet and all digital media. They've been noticeably antsy about IPTV (Internet Protocal TV as opposed to RF-based cable) and I've heard that the mention of opening the settop boxes through which "their" media flows to the evil internet for digital divide reasons causes them some irrational spasms. Trying to step in and dictate local policy as to who does and does not get internet access under the guise of protecting their interests would be all too in-character for an industry everyone has learned to disdain. (Video owners would be wise to learn from the painful experience of the music industry.—Standing in front of the engine of change and trying to slow it down only gets you run over.)

Finally, LUS initially intended to join a coop to get its programming and probably could do so in the future. But at the moment they became set on trying to write their own contracts that window was closed by an odd set of events that temporarily closed the coop to new membership. I'd heard that they'd actually managed to secure some improved deals on the contracts they were able to close early on...but that may not have proven a consistent consequence. They may eventually decide to backout and take advantage of the coop offerings in some cases—contracts that might be cheaper or have fewer use restrictions. This is a murky area, but like I said, an interesting one to follow-up on.


Laigniappe: There's also a story on the line cuts that have followed digging up a big chunk of the city. While any breaks in service, and especially gas breaks, are disturbing they are also inevitable as the utility digs up a huge chunk of the city.

Update 12:42 am 2/4: My wife suggests another interpretation of the headline "LUS Fiber delays start" that points out that "delays start" is ambiguous it could mean that the delays are beginning (what I took umbrage at) or that the startup is delayed (a fair depiction). The first she primly informs reads delay as a noun and starts as a verb while the latter reads delays as a verb and starts as a noun. She's the grammarian. My best guess is that the misinterpretation is mine and the headline poorly written but not mean-spirited. Mea culpa. (She now leans over and insists I say that she brought in the paper and supplied the initial interpretation. True enough...but I wrote it up without noticing anything else. Partners. :-) )

Network Testing & Testers

A second story fiber story on today's front page is "LUS testing network as date of launch nears." The focus is on the system's beta testers—folks who are getting to test out the currently available setup and services. I'm sure that's both fascinating and frustrating and hope that someone will tell the tale of their trials and tribulations after the system launches. LUS is getting valuable information about both the technical end of the service and about how people get tangled up in the new offerings. I'm not sure which would be more valuable.

"These citizens agreed to help us test our systems knowing we would frequently interrupt their services to add and adjust the features needed on our system before we can begin commercial operations," Huval said...

"We're getting positive responses, and some suggestions," he said. "It's also training for us so we can learn how customers will ask questions and what information they need."

There's also the proviso, repeated often of late, that the main holdup at this point is contracts to fill out the channel lineup. That's been an issue for a while now. In the background is a complex set of issues about two different coops for securing channel contracts, the temporary closing of one of those coops to new members and LUS decision to forge on by cutting its own, separate deal with suppliers. In many cases, evidently, that's lead to good deals but its a slow and painful process—and one that leads to a mesh of differing constraints on what they can and can't do that may lead to difficulties downstream.