Missouri Legislature Off to Another Anti-Muni Session: Pick Up Your Phone and Call!

If you pay attention to state laws affecting municipal networks in Missouri, you are experiencing an unsettling feeling of deja vu right now. On January 7, Representative Lyndall Fraker introduced HB 2078, a bill much like last year's Senate anti-muni bill. Fraker is Chair of the House Utility Infrastructure Committee, where  the bill is now awaiting a hearing, so it has a good chance of being heard sooner rather than later. 

Your Phone Call Required! 

Time to call Members of the Committee, especially if any of them represent you, and let them know that you expect them to vote against this bill. It is anti-competitive, opposed to local authority, and prevents new investment. Bad bill! 

Preventing Partnerships to Maintain The Status Quo

This bill would not only make it extremely difficult for local communities to invest in publicly owned Internet networks, but would complicate and delay public-private partnerships. A number of communities across the country already own infrastructure and are exploring ways to partner with private providers who want to use it to serve schools, businesses, and residents. If a community wants to lower telecommunications costs or obtain better services, this legislation would have them first jump through a series of obscure, expensive, and cryptic hoops. This legislation creates barriers that serve no purpose except to erect hurdles that discourage local communities from finding better providers.

The requirements in HB 2078 and its companion bill SB 946 are clearly intended to limit competition - to maintain the existing de facto monopolies and duopolies within Missouri. As we have seen in places like Westminster, Rockport, and in Missouri's North Kansas City, partnerships are filling a gap in places where incumbents don't feel justified investing or communities are not ready for their own high-quality Internet networks. A key benefit to allowing partnerships is the establishment of competition in areas where there is only one provider who has no reason to work to please its subscribers.

According to HB 2078, before a community can even consider offering any type of service:

"...the competitive service is not being offered to fifty percent of the addresses by any combination of service providers within the boundaries of such city, town, or village."

In other words, existing de facto monopoly status in places where there is only one provider can be easily preserved by the Missouri State Legislature if this piece of legislation passes.

State Lawmakers Impose Their Will On Local Decisions

The bill also dictates specific criteria for feasibility reports, waiting periods, and fiscal impacts. HB 2078 directs the city on specific loan requirements, limits borrowing to $500,000, and dictates interest terms. Along with other restrictions, the bill shackles local governments to the point where investing in better infrastructure is not practical.

Give the Locals What They Want!

Once again, state lawmakers are stepping over the line when they should be stepping back from it. Missouri has existing barriers that discourage publicly owned networks and negatively impact rural communities overlooked by large corporate providers. Rather than perpetuate this harmful state of affairs, state lawmakers should look to the future, strike down the state's existing barriers, and give local communities full authority to decide their own connectivity future.

Shoot-Out Over the WiredWest: MBI Pulls Funding in Massachusetts Saga

Officials from WiredWest Communications Cooperative in western Massachusetts spent years working with small towns creating a collaborative plan to develop a regional fiber network. The deadline for participation was, January 9th, a little more than a month away, and even though the trail had been thorny, the path now seemed clear. Suddenly, the state revoked critical funding, sending the carefully planned and negotiated project into shambles.

WiredWest Coop Born, Reborn, Ready to Ride

More than five years ago, a group of small towns in Western Massachusetts formed a communications cooperative that evolved into the WiredWest Communications Cooperative Corporation. Their goal was similar to that of any cooperative organization: use the collective resources of the member towns to construct a much needed utility - a fiber-to-the-home network (FTTH) - that could address a persistent problem for a group rural communities - the lack of quality Internet access.

The number of participating towns in the coop has fluctuated over the years; 44 towns are currently official members. Its business plan and operating agreement have also changed as member towns come to consensus on what presents the best path for their local needs.

As the coop refined its model, the business plan, and the operating agreement, WiredWest volunteers worked to secure early subscriber commitments from residents and businesses. Each community obtained a certain threshold of commitment in order to join the coop. To date, WiredWest communities have obtained approximately 7,000 early subscribers.

Each town must establish a Municipal Light Plant (MLP), a process consistent with Massachusetts State Law. The MLP is the entity that is responsible for owning and operating a municipal fiber network. WiredWest describes itself as a cooperative of MLPs with delegates from all 44 member towns as decision makers. The coop's business model also requires a series of votes to ensure local accountability before a town can be considered a member of WiredWest:

  • 40% of townsfolk have to pledge to take the service and each submit a $49 deposit
  • Each town needs to pass a vote by 2/3rds majority to join the coop and commit to funding the venture
  • After that, each town is responsible for choosing its own best course of funding (whether municipal bonding or not). 

The WiredWest operating agreement requires each member community to commit for a period of 10 years. If member towns decide to then withdraw from the coop, the other member towns will buy them out. According to the agreement, WiredWest will use revenue from the network for operating expenses and, once earnings are at a break-even point, excess revenue will be used to pay the member towns' debt service. The network as a whole will belong to all member towns of the cooperative.

With the roster at 44 and each community seemingly satisfied with the cooperative model, business plan, and operating agreement, cooperative member towns chose January 9th as the deadline to approve the operating agreement.

A Look Back

MBI's 1,200-mile open access network, MassBroadband 123 was completed in 2014. The middle-mile network was funded with American Recovery and Reinvestment Act funding and state funding. The hope was that private providers would then build out the last-mile to subscribers which would connect to MassBroadband 123. When that plan did not come to fruition, the state agreed to supply more funding to jump start local projects in order to get residents and businesses connected.

The local communities needed the funding, but taking the money put them in the position of meeting the needs of a powerful partner - the partner that controlled the much needed funds on which the entire project depended.

In June 2014, the state legislature provided addition funding for rural connectivity in Massachusetts. The Massachusetts Broadband Institute (MBI), the state entity that owns and operates the middle mile MassBroadband123 fiber network, was chosen as steward of $40 million, a large percentage of that funding.

logo-mass-broadband-institute.png

For the past several years MBI has met with WiredWest board members, provided funds for a planning grant, and helped the group develop plans to connect the WiredWest network to MassBroadband123. In April 2015, MBI conditionally promised up to 40% of the funding for the WiredWest project; the funding would cover approximately one-third of the estimated $120 million to deploy the network. Word of the state grants helped build momentum and towns that wavered in the past decided to join the cooperative.

Throughout the talks with MBI, WiredWest representatives continued to meet with local communities to discuss the possibility of joining the coop. For towns that were committed to joining the effort, WiredWest offered advice on how to proceed. Most of the communities needed to form an MLP and all of the towns needed to take the proper steps to fund their share of the network costs. 

The 44 member towns of WiredWest intended to split 2/3 of the project’s costs, and the remaining $40 million would have been covered by state and federal grants distributed through MBI. In keeping with state law, when a municipality needs to bond to fund a project, the decision must be taken up at a series of town meetings. The process requires community involvement and takes places over the course of months in Massachusetts. Over 20 towns had already committed to municipal bonding for the funding by the end of 2015.

State Funding: Here One Day, Gone The Next

The plan appeared to be on track. A consulting firm hired by WiredWest to review the business plan reported that it was sound and financially feasible. As local officials prepared to commit to the operating agreement, MBI contacted each of the 44 communities urging them not to sign on. MBI released a statement saying WiredWest would require “fundamental revision in order to succeed as a reliable framework.”

As part of their announcement, MBI stated that it would not release the $40 million in state funds for the project.

MBI also released a more thorough report, written with the help of a consultant, detailing their concerns with the plan. MBI determined the WiredWest plan to be “overly optimistic and perhaps unachievable” in its projections for the network’s expected subscriber base and revenues versus costs. MBI stated that is was concerned with the accuracy of projected take rates due to the percentage of seasonal properties in the region.

map-wired-west-2016.pngMBI also took issue with the cooperative structure of WiredWest and the fact that individual towns would not exclusively own the infrastructure in their own communities. MBI Director Eric Nakajima told the Daily Hampshire Gazette:

Nakajima said that WiredWest’s operating agreement contradicts a “Last Mile Broadband Policy” approved by MBI’s board in July [2015]. This policy states: “Last Mile local and regional broadband networks, having been constructed entirely through investments by the (state) and local residents, either as property-taxpayers, renters, or broadband subscribers, will be owned by their respective municipalities.”

Local public ownership is certainly the ideal when it comes to FTTH networks but where a town is small, investing in its own network can be impractical. Pooling resources in a regional effort like WiredWest may be the only option for rural communities like those clustered in western Massachusetts.

Ultimately, Nakajima wrote “the current draft of WiredWest’s operating agreement is not compatible with the best interests of the Commonwealth, the towns, or their residents.” 

WiredWest immediately scheduled a meeting about the withdrawl of promised funds. A coop chairman commented on the issue of ownership, throwing in a stab at the age-old conflict of state vs. local control:

“The ownership issue has been an ongoing issue, but WiredWest is nothing but the towns,” said Steve Nelson, chairman of WiredWest’s legal committee. “The question is, do the towns own individual little pieces, or can the towns pool their money into a larger, more sustainable network? The towns are putting up almost two-thirds of the money. We shouldn’t be dictated to by a bunch of Boston bureaucrats.”

WiredWest Responds

In response to MBI, about 75 WiredWest officials and town delegates crafted a rebuttal to MBI’s critique and wrote a response to MBI’s more specific breakdown of the business plan. They corrected what they felt were several mischaracterizations of their business plan.

For one, WiredWest’s consultant previously told them their projected overall costs for the network were “conservatively estimated.” In addition, WiredWest rejected MBI’s assertion that the projected take rate for the network is unrealistic. Instead, WiredWest said they expected their take rate to be in the 75 to 85% range, similar to the take rate that the nearby Town of Leverett has reached for its municipal network. While such a rate may seem high for a municipal network that faces competition from an incumbent, where there is no competition it is not so surprising, as in Leverett. WiredWest’s projections suggest this take rate to far exceed the 47% take rate they say is necessary for the network to at least break even.

In the rebuttal, WiredWest also took exception with MBI’s suggestion the 44 member towns will transfer ownership of the network to WiredWest and effectively lose out on the network’s potential profits while still being responsible for the debt obligation for the network. From WiredWest:

“It is misleading to imply that WiredWest...is an entity separate from the towns that would operate the network on their behalf. It is a cooperative of the towns, by the towns and for the towns. WiredWest is nothing but the towns.”

WiredWest further found fault with MBI’s claim that the coop model violated the state policies and regulations making it ineligible for funding. Coop Board Members especially criticized the claim that the coop structure did made the entity ineligible for funding due to MBI's Last Mile Broadband Policy passed around the same time WiredWest was changing its structure. WiredWest representatives felt that they had been excluded from any input into the new policy and that the implementation of such policy directly undermined local control and the will of the towns.

"Git Along, Little Doggie…"

As MBI and the WiredWest communities meet to decide how to proceed, the state agency encounters skepticism, frustration, and local ire.

fiber-town.jpg

On December 16th, an MBI scheduled meeting in Greenfield to present the consultant report was filled to capacity. People in the lobby bearing "We Want Wired West" signs had to be turned away so stood outside in angry protest.

At the meeting, MBI's consultant presented a series of slides suggesting that the WiredWest financials omitted a number of necessary expenditures. Jim Drawe, a Cummington resident who developed the cooperative's financial model, took issue with the consultant's analysis and pointed out that the consultants, "don't know us and don't know our region."

Kimberly Longey, an alternate WiredWest delegate from Plainfield, recently wrote to the Daily Hampshire Gazette, describing the need for flexibility from MBI. In small communities like Plainfield, she writes, MBI's solution of a city financed and owned municipal network is not a realistic option. There are only 648 residents and the town operating budget is only $1 million. Plainfield has voted repeatedly to join WiredWest because they do not have the means, financially or otherwise, to build or manage their own network. She writes:

We have more than 25 square miles of township and more than 50 miles of road, most of it dirt...[WiredWest] is a cooperative of some of the smallest, poorest and hardest to wire towns joining with wealthier communities to band together to build a regional network able to serve them all....Towns have the right and responsibility to choose their broadband solution.

My town has chosen WiredWest.

Meetings between MBI and WiredWest are scheduled as the two entities try to move forward to bring better connectivity to the people of western Massachusetts.

WiredWest map and Fibertown image courtesy of WiredWest.

This article written with considerable contributions from Hannah Trostle and Tom Ernste.

Why Schools Need Big Bandwidth - Community Broadband Bits Episode 186

The St Vrain Valley School District, north of Denver and including the Longmont area, is transitioning from a shared gigabit network to dedicated 10 Gbps links for schools. Just what does it do with all that bandwidth? School District Chief Technology Officer Joe McBreen tells us this week in Community Broadband Bits podcast episode 186.

We talk about why the need for so much bandwidth and the incredible savings the school district has received from the municipal fiber network. Additionally, we discuss how self-provisioning would have been the second more cost-effective solution, far better than leasing lines from an existing provider.

Toward the end of our conversation, we touch on how students get access in their homes and what any business or manager needs to do to be successful, regardless of what industry he or she is in.
See our other stories about Longmont here.

The transcript from this episode is available here.

We want your feedback and suggestions for the show - please e-mail us or leave a comment below.

This show is 24 minutes long and can be played below on this page or via iTunes or via the tool of your choice using this feed.

You can can download this Mp3 file directly from here. Listen to other episodes here or view all episodes in our index.

Thanks to Arne Huseby for the music, licensed using Creative Commons. The song is "Warm Duck Shuffle."

Are You From Tennessee? Your Opinion Matters!

For the past several months, we have covered the plight of North Carolina and Tennessee. These states have passed laws that prohibit local governments from expanding beyond their municipal electric utility service area to bring better connectivity to neighboring communities. Even though nearby towns ask places like Chattanooga or Tullahoma to provide services, they are prevented from doing so.

Today we bring to you this news story from Anderson County, Tennessee. Local officials are encouraging residents to tell the state about their horrible connectivity. With a bill in the state legislature to remove the restriction and the state embroiled in a court case to challenge the FCC's decision to roll back the state barrier, local governments are using the survey to connect people with lawmakers.

In Anderson County, some local government agencies have hardcopies of the state’s survey for those without Internet access. Any Tennessee resident with Internet access can take the survey online here

"It's the slow circle of death that you see wheeling around there, and it's waiting and waiting and waiting," -- Steve Heatherly, Anderson County Chamber of Commerce Chairman

Community Broadband Media Roundup - January 25

California

Huntington Beach, Calif., considers offering broadband as a utility by Anthony Clark Carpio, GovTech

 

Colorado

Colorado should let communities decide on broadband options by Karen Sheek, David Romero and Dennis Coombs, The Denver Post

Most connected community by Steamboat Today Editorial Board

The project ushers in a new era of connectivity for local institutions and could also open up new opportunities for local Internet service providers to use the new fiber to improve and expand private broadband service.

In our opinion, there’s not anything that can have a bigger impact on our community’s future than having better broadband service.

 

Oregon

Eugene looking to expand public Internet fiber network downtown by Christian Hill, The Register-Guard

Such capacity is important for technology and other companies that use vast amounts of data to serve customers or to perform functions such as video conferencing.

Supporters say businesses connected to the existing publicly owned network are paying $99 a month for speeds up to 1 gigabit, or 125 megabytes per second, a speed that allows a user to download a high-definition movie in 36 seconds. Large Internet service providers can offer such speeds downtown but charge hundreds of dollars a month for the service, the city said.

 

Tennessee

Cleveland Utilities studying ways to expand broadband by Dave Flessner, Times Free Press and GovTech

 

bbdcowboy.png

West Virginia

WV Internet providers targeted over slow speeds by Eric Eyrem Charleston Gazette Mail

ISPs band together, fight West Virginia state-funded broadband network by Eric Eyre, GovTech

Cable companies that provide Internet service are working to kill legislation that would create a state-financed $72 million fiber-optic network across West Virginia. Suddenlink, Comcast, Shentel, Time-Warner Cable and other members of the West Virginia Cable Television Association oppose building the high-speed Internet network, saying it’s a waste of money…

 

General

How and why Chattanooga, Tenn., and other cities have embraced municipal broadband by Heather B. Hayes, State Tech Magazine

Hudson, OH is just one of an increasing number of municipalities that has chosen to launch its own broadband networks, according to Christopher Mitchell, director of community broadband networks for the Institute for Local Self-Reliance.

“Many communities have realized that if they do not invest in themselves, they will be left behind in the digital economy,” Mitchell says. “Local governments are watching as other communities that have affordable citywide, high-quality Internet access are thriving.”

Image of the Cowboy Beagle courtesy of Sid through a creative commons license.

Hanover, New Hampshire, Taps New State Law for Network

The town of Hanover, New Hampshire (pop. 11,500), is considering building its own municipal fiber-to-the-home (FTTH) network following the enactment of a new state law that makes it easier for communities to take on such projects.

Under the new state law (Chapter 240, HB486-Final Version), New Hampshire towns and cities can now establish special assessment districts to finance telecommunications infrastructure, expanding a long-standing statute. Specifically, the law now includes “communication infrastructure” as among the types of “public facilities” for which a special assessment district can be formed.

Under the expanded law, communities can finance fiber optic networks by billing individuals who reside within the district for a prorated share of the cost of installing that communication infrastructure.

Prospects for Fiber Raised

Hanover town manager Julia Griffin told our Chris Mitchell in a recent podcast of Community Broadband Bits:

“For the first time I think there is a role here for a municipal entity to help ensure that fiber is installed and that homeowners and businesses have an opportunity to connect to that network."

...

“Prior to this we've been able to create districts for water and sewer and sidewalks and street lights and even for downtown maintenance; but never for communication infrastructure. Nor has the statutes that have been on the books for years, been as expansive as this one is in terms of laying out just how we make these assessment districts work.”

Since New Hampshire Gov. Maggie Hassan signed the special assessment districts measure into law last July, Hanover has started looking into building a municipal network. It is in the process of finalizing a contract with Wide Open Networks to perform the cost analysis and system network design.

Hanover Explores Building Fiber Network 

“We will likely have a completed design by late March at the latest,” Griffin told us. “We have asked them (Wide Open Networks) to develop cost estimates, recommend options of undergrounding the fiber and develop an implementation plan.”

Griffin adds:

“Ideally, Hanover employees would do all of the ditching and conduit installation which will save us the labor costs and avoid the pole attachment fiascos that tend to dominate the New Hampshire landscape.  We would then contract with FastRoads to install the fiber and property connections.  We could, potentially, coordinate with the town to our north, Lyme, New Hampshire.”

New Hampshire FastRoads, of which Hanover is a participating community, is a collaboration of the New Hampshire Community Development Finance Authority, the Monadnock Economic Development Corp., the 34 towns of the Monadnock region, and WCNH.net, the eight towns of the Upper Valley–Lake Sunapee region. Its goal is to help ensure that the businesses, institutions, and residents of the region have the right infrastructure to support jobs and sustainable economic development, including fast, affordable, reliable telecommunications infrastructure in rural areas. Griffin told us that Hanover envisions its fiber optic network would be open access

“We're really looking for how we can do this feasibly, economically for our residents in terms of making it as affordable as possible, but also streamlining the process by doing it ourselves in our own right of way. I'm looking forward to creating a working model that we hope other New Hampshire communities are going to be able to take hold of and run with it.”

New Law Long Time Coming 

Griffin, a member of the FastRoads board, says she was among people in New Hampshire who has been pushing for a change in state law for more than the past 10 years.

“We hear from our residents how important it is that they have robust Internet access, and, yet, as a municipality we're not enabled to invest in helping to bring that infrastructure to our region.” 

The new state law is a significant change for New Hampshire communities since the local governments have been very limited in how they can use public financing to invest in Internet networks. Though New Hampshire does not have any explicit barriers against publicly owned networks, the state has not authorized local governments to bond for them, which has limited local communities’ ability ensure high quality Internet access.

Griffin noted New Hampshire has technically allowed bonding under a statute that's been on the books for years:

“But it’s so impossible to implement because the telecommunication companies essentially made sure that it's ground rules are so onerous that it's virtually impossible for any municipality to take advantage of it."

Hanover borders Vermont. Although largely a rural community, the town is also home to Dartmouth College, a regional medical center, and numerous restaurants, shopping, and theater that make it an attractive draw for visitors and tourists.

Currently, about 50 percent of Hanover residents have Comcast or Fairpoint DSL, Griffin says, noting, “Both are OK but still have their limitations in today’s  streaming world.”

Meanwhile, the remaining 50 percent of town residents have no “high speed Internet service other than satellite which is expensive and really unreliable,” Griffin notes. “Many in-town customers would like faster Internet speeds while our outlying rural residents would settle for just about anything.”

Griffin explains, “We’re a community that is very heavily dependent on the Internet.”

Full Speed (and Price List) Ahead for the Roanoke Valley Broadband Authority

After a rocky start and a long period of transition, the Roanoke Valley Broadband Authority in Virginia is preparing for the years ahead. Hoping to snag schools, hospitals, government offices, and Internet carriers with their prices, the Broadband Authority just released its proposed rate structure. 

They expect to complete construction of five major sections of the fiber network by early March. Starting in mid-April, customers will have service. The proposed rates are as follows:

  • Dark Fiber: $40-$100 per strand mile depending on whether the institution is a nonprofit
  • Transport Service (requires a 2 year term): speeds between 10 Megabits-per-second (Mbps) - 200 Gigabits-per-second (Gbps) for $350 - $4,510 
  • Dedicated Internet Service (requires a 2 year term): 10Mbps - 1Gbps for $550 - $5,687 

The full preliminary proposed rate structure [PDF] is available from the Broadband Authority’s website.

The Authority will hold a public hearing on Friday, March 18 at 8:30 a.m. on the rate structure. After the public hearing, the board may request to adopt the preliminary proposed rates. Local news has the rest:

Rural Kansas Cooperative Continues Fiber Network Expansion

In July, the Columbus Telephone Company (CTC), a cooperative in rural Cherokee County, Kansas, announced plans to expand its fiber-to-the-home network to the nearby city of Pittsburg. 

When CTC built the fiber network in 2004, it was the first 100% fiber-optic network in the state. This expansion marks the first time the coop has expanded outside Cherokee County, located in the southeast corner of the Sunflower State. 

New Branding for New Expansion

Last year, CTC announced the creation of Optic Communications, a new brand the company started to expand beyond their original footprint. The news of the expansion to Pittsburg comes after the network’s first expansion project last year. They built a fiber-optic ring that now links together Cherokee County’s three major cities: Columbus, Galena, and Baxter Springs. The coop has also acquired Parcom, LLC, the leading Verizon retailer in the region.

Subscription Details

Residential rates for stand alone Internet access from Optic Communications are $40 for 10 Megabits per second (Mbps), $50 for 20 Mbps, $65 for 50 Mbps, and $90 for 100 Mbps. All speeds are the same for both upload and download. Gigabit service is also available but rates determined on a case-by-case basis. Optic also offers customized bundles including subscription options for any combination of Internet access, phone, and cable TV service. 

Rates for the different bundled packages vary based on the number of cable TV channels the customer wants, access to DVR and HD capability, and which tier of phone service. The network also offers designated Internet access and phone rates for business customers.

A Long History of Innovation

The people in this rural community have a long legacy of telecommunications innovation. In 1905, a group of Columbus-based farmers started the CTC coop to bring telephone service to their rural homes. Throughout the 20th century, CTC provided phone service to people living within the 2.4 square mile serving area within the City of Columbus.

Now, over 100 years later, CTC continues to innovate and expand its publicly owned fiber-optic network, bringing fast, affordable, reliable connectivity to the people of rural Cherokee County and beyond.

Grassroots Springing Up In Holyoke, Massachusetts

For years, the city of Holyoke, Massachusetts, has built up a treasure trove of fiber that the municipal buildings [and some businesses] use to connect to the Internet. Now, some residents want to share in the bounty. The newly-formed Holyoke Fiber Optic Group plans to drum up grassroot support for a fiber-to-the-home (FTTH) project to bring high-speed Internet to the 40,000 residents of Holyoke. 

The group recently spoke with members of the city utility and are now on their way to the mayor's office in an effort to bring better connectivity to the city. The meeting with the mayor's office is scheduled for next Tuesday. The Holyoke Fiber Optic Group aims to form an exploratory committee of community stakeholders to dive into the possibility of a FTTH project.

Grassroots Effort

The group formed in November of 2015 and hosted its first meeting in early December. Members highlighted their frustration with the lack of access to high-speed Internet and pointed to the April 1999 Master Plan for the city. It specifically stated the need to capitalize on the fiber available.

Organizers maintain a Facebook group to discuss the issue in Holyoke and the latest developments in high-speed Internet. They call for an open access network to encourage competition and enable residents to pick their own service provider. The group now has over 200 members.

The group recently spoke with the manager of the city utility, Holyoke Gas & Electric. It maintains the fiber and provides telecommunication services to municipal buildings and other nearby towns. The city utility’s efforts to better connect communities was highlighted in a recent report from the Berkman Center (for more info check out our podcast interview with [David Talbot], a Fellow at the Berkman Center). On January 4th, the Holyoke Gas & Electric manager unexpectedly attended the group's meeting and explained how the city utility is continually considering this idea.

An Often Considered Possibility

Holyoke Gas & Electric has been contemplating the idea of a FTTH project for quite sometime. In our Community Broadband Bits podcast from 2013, Chris discussed the possibility with Senior Network Engineer Tim Haas:

"That's something that we have looked at for a long time here, Chris.  We've looked extensively at it for the past ten years, three different times -- probably every three years -- in depth.  And what the cost structure would be.  And it's one of those things where if we're going to deliver a service like that, to residences, it's -- well, we really have to deliver it to everyone.  And we've struggled with the return on investment of delivering fiber-to-the-home, and how we manage those services being delivered to the customer."

The Holyoke Fiber Optic Group, however, thinks that it’s now the right time to pursue FTTH. An organizer, Peter Palombella, explained in an email Wednesday to MassLive

“The Holyoke Fiber Optic group feels the city is ready to start exploring this issue and we hope to meet with Jim Lavelle [Holyoke Gas & Electric Manager] sometime in January to discuss forming an exploratory committee. … Not a full broadband committee with the power of a city agency, but a committee to explore the issue, in stages, with members from different stakeholder groups in the city."

Back in 2013, Senior Network Engineer Haas did say that Holyoke Gas & Electric has considered expanding to FTTH just about every three years. If the Holyoke Fiber Optic Group is right, perhaps 2016 will be the year for fiber to come to the homes of Holyoke.

#RightToConnect Twitter Town Hall Jan. 21

On January 21st, join the Media Action Grassroots Network and its partners for the #RightToConnect Twitter Townhall. The event takes place at 3 p.m. EST/12 p.m. PST. The conversation will focus on lifeline and finding ways to bring more low-income families online. MAG-Net and partners will bring together a number of those families with elected officials and advocates pursuing change.

The event will be hosted by comedian W. Kamau Bell, @wkamaubell. Guests will include:

  • FCC Commissioner Mignon Clyburn, @MClyburnFCC
  • Senator Cory Booker, @CoryBooker
  • Van Jones, DreamCorps, @VanJones68
  • Panel of Eligible and Current Lifeline Subscribers

RSVP for the event, share the announcement with your friends, and send your questions to angella@mediajustice.org. Check it out, participate, be heard.

right-to-connect.jpg