Editorial: Transparency for Fibrant

When Salisbury City Council last week took up the issue of what to charge the public for broadband, it was not the first time members had seen the proposed rates. They had met, two at a time, with city staff to go over the figures in advance. That way, they could avoid violating the state law that requires any gathering of a quorum — three or more members — to be public.

The council walks a fine line on such matters. As the city moves forward with its public fiber-to-the-home network, Fibrant, it may not be able to find that fine line as easily. Likely, the city will feel considerable tension between its public responsibilities and competition with private industry — tension that may test adherence to the public records law. Fibrant has to be transparent.

The city of Wilson, which operates a similar network called Greenlight, found that out the hard way.

Last year Wilson applied for $19.58 million in federal stimulus dollars to build out its cable, Internet and telephone service. The city manager soon received a letter from the N.C. Cable Telecommunications Association. As reported in The Wilson Times, members of the cable group wanted to see the city’s Broadband Technologies Opportunity Program application so they could weigh in during a public comment period. Among the interested members was Time Warner, which also operates in the Wilson market. The group questioned the validity of Greenlight’s application, since that particular grant program was supposed to extend services to unserved and underserved areas.

Wilson officials resisted sharing the document, seeking protection under a critical-infrastructure law intended to keep information away from terrorists or criminals who might attack or sabotage public works.

The city of Wilson lost in court when Judge Toby Fitch ruled the application was a public document. Appeals and contempt charges ensued as the city held on to the records, but the association ultimately prevailed. As the result of a settlement reached in late August, the cable group got not only the application — which the feds turned down, by the way — but also a $25,000 city check to help cover legal expenses.

This is one of the big challenges a municipal system faces. It has to play by different rules than private enterprise does. While Time Warner can plan expansions in private, Fibrant and the city have to be open to public scrutiny, and competitors are part of the public.

Salisbury officials have been bold to tackle a project like Fibrant. They and many others believe the network’s speed and capabilities will be a plus for the city and its residents. But the network will not be able to operate like its competitors, behind closed doors. Salisbury has held Wilson up as an example of how a municipal system can succeed. It must also recognize Wilson’s hard-learned lesson in how such a system can stumble when it tries to avoid transparency.