March 6, 2006
Sale of AFN appears unlikely
Three councilors issue memo advocating a split of cable, internet for city residents
By Vickie Aldous
Ashland Daily Tidings
A majority of Ashland City Councilors do not consider the sale of the Ashland Fiber Network a viable option. And at least three of the six councilors favor keeping AFN and its Internet service, while allowing private businesses to provide cable television and emerging technologies over the city's AFN infrastructure.
That option is called the “open carrier” model because it opens up the use of AFN's infrastructure to outside businesses.
Councilors David Chapman, Russ Silbiger and Cate Hartzell, along with Ashland Internet and software company owner Alan Oppenheimer, have been working out details of the open carrier model.
“We are convinced that this direction is sound and are confident that it is the best direction to take on behalf of our residents,” the three councilors and Oppenheimer said in a memo to fellow councilors.
The council will discuss whether to pursue the open carrier model, a sale of AFN or spinning it off as a nonprofit organization during a meeting that begins at 7 p.m. on Tuesday in the Ashland Civic Center Council Chambers, 1175 E. Main St.
Chapman said this weekend that he is unlikely to vote for selling AFN.
“It would take a very strong suitor with a lot of money to change my mind that it would be worth selling to someone,” he said.
Adopting the open carrier model has many advantages, according to the three councilors and Oppenheimer. The city would get out of the tumultuous cable television business, which faces rising costs for the right to broadcast channels and requires major capital investments, the memo states.
But the city has made money on the Internet side and would continue providing that service, according to the memo.
Most households would pay a monthly amount to the city and, in return, receive base-level Internet access along with network and government television channels.
Low-income residents could be exempt from the fee, under the proposal.
The basic idea is that, “Everyone pays something; everyone gets something,” according to the memo.
Users who want higher levels of Internet service could pay more to Internet Service Providers. Those who wanted more television channels could pay more to business providers as well.
Silbiger said households might pay as little as $10 per month for the basic Internet and television service or as much as $20. That upper amount would help pay off AFN's $15.5 million debt, he said.
Private businesses could provide telephone service and other emerging services over AFN's infrastructure, according to Chapman.
Meanwhile, Councilor Kate Jackson worked on the subcommittee that examined spinning off AFN as a nonprofit. She said this weekend that she needs to study the open carrier model in depth before Tuesday's council meeting, but she is becoming more and more convinced that selling AFN is not a viable option, at least in the short term.
The city could help set up a new nonprofit organization with a board of directors appointed by the mayor with council confirmation.
The nonprofit Jefferson Public Radio Foundation also has offered to take over AFN, giving councilors another option to consider.
Mayor John Morrison, who votes only to break ties when the six city councilors deadlock, and Councilor Alex Amarotico could not be immediately reached for comment.
Councilor Jack Hardesty said this weekend that he doesn't care what happens to AFN, but he doesn't want the city to run up any more debt with the service.
Staff writer Vickie Aldous can be reached at 479-8199 or vlaldous@yahoo.com.