Regarding the city’s municipal broadband network, the La. Supreme...

sought permission to file the supplemental brief that responded to “diverse and extensive questioning from the court” about the merits of the city’s network, and application of state anti-subsidy laws to the city’s project. The city said its brief “further illustrates what is at stake, in the name of progress and fair competition.” The court was hearing a case brought by city resident Elizabeth Naquin, who alleged that the $125 million bond issue for the broadband project would be cross- subsidized by LUS electric services. The city said there would be no unlawful cross-subsidies. It said if the telecom venture can’t make payments on the telecom bonds during early stages of the project, it could cover the payments through market-rate loans from LUS that are subject to state PSC audits. But Naquin’s attorneys said state antisubsidy laws prohibit the city telecom venture from borrowing money from LUS or any other lender to cover payments on bonds or loans. The city’s supplemental brief said Naquin’s interpretation of the Local Govt. Fair Competition Act would hold the city’s venture to a far tougher financing standard than would apply to private enterprise. It said the state legislature sought to establish a level playing field between private and govt. telecom enterprises -- not keep municipalities out of telecom though unreasonable financing requirements.