california

Comcast Trying to Gouge Palo Alto, Lesson for Others

It looks like Palo Alto should move quickly on expanding its publicly owned fiber-based I-NET - as the city renegotiates the cable franchise with Comcast, the private cable company is trying to rip-off taxpayers with exorbitant prices for community anchor tenants.

California is one of several states to recently take negotiating power on cable television franchises away from communities and grant it to the state. Historically, communities negotiated a free or reduced rate for connectivity to schools, public safety buildings and other key community anchors in return for access to community Right-of-Way - an essential permission necessary to build a cable network.

However, as these agreements come up for review, the regulatory landscape is significantly different than it was when they were negotiated in the past. Federal and state decisions have limited the power of communities to gain concessions from cable companies as they continue to raise prices and post large profits.

In response, many communities have embarked on smart efforts to build their own fiber-optic networks connecting key institutions. These networks often save money while greatly increasing available bandwidth, allowing local governments to be more efficient and use cutting-edge applications. In some communities, these Institutional Networks have formed the backbone of next-generation networks that extend full fiber-to-the-home network access to businesses and citizens. Palo Alto has not yet connected all the necessary buildings with its network and still depends on Comcast for bandwidth to those areas.

Communities should beware - network ownership means power. The network owner can decide what price to charge schools - prices that must be paid with tax dollars. Communities building their own networks have slashed these prices and reduced pressure on the tax base. They don't have to worry as much when cable franchise negotiations are up again - like Palo Alto is now.

Joe Saccio, deputy director of Palo Alto's Administrative Services Department, said Comcast's proposed rates for I-Net would essentially enable the cable company to bill the communities twice for the fiber network. The network's construction was funded by cable subscribers and according to the staff report, Comcast has already largely (if not completely) recouped those costs.

"It's felt that all the ratepayers had already paid for the system that Comcast had put into the ground through their rates," Saccio said during the City Council's Oct. 19 study session with state Sen. Joe Simitian. "It's double charging the infrastructure is already paid for and they want to continue to charge the districts for it."

...

"I will say that we plan to and will charge competitive market rates that will reflect the current demand and supply of fiber networks in the Palo Alto region," Johnson [Comcast Spokesperson] said.

This is one of the key problems - there is no competitive market for telecom. Even if there was, it makes far more sense for communities to connect themselves and keep prices low rather than paying full market prices. Why rent when you can own? Companies far smaller than municipal governments build their own fiber network connecting sites because it is the economically rational decision.

Additionally, owning the network allows for better network design - improving reliability by providing more redundancy. Private companies do not always provide redundancy because of the added expense. This may be fine when delivering television service to subscribers but is intolerable when a public emergency knocks out connectivity to the police or fire station. Smart communities control their destiny by building their own network.

Photo used under Creative Commons license, courtesy of Titanas on flickr.

Tropos Comments on Publicly Owned Wireless Networks

Publication Date: 
November 6, 2009
Author(s): 
Tropos Networks

Tropos is a California-based company that sells wireless networking gear, frequently to municipalities. They filed comments with the FCC regarding the National Broadband Plan in response to the request: "Comment Sought on the Contribution of Federal, State, Tribal, and Local Government to Broadband."

We fully support their framing of the issue:

Municipalities that own and control their wireless broadband networks, operate public services more efficiently, prioritize broadband traffic for emergencies, and put unused bandwidth to use to attract new businesses, afford educational opportunities to students and in many cases, provide free broadband access to unserved or underserved residents.

Read More

How Publicly Owned Networks Start

On the Daily Yonder - offering coverage of rural issues - Craig Settles offers advice to community networks on the need to attract institution and business customers because networks rarely generate enough revenue to make debt payments by focusing solely on residential subscribers.

When communities compare the costs of different technologies, they often get too caught up in the upfront costs and ignore the ongoing costs (operating costs, or opex). He offers an example of a modest wireless network:

It’s important to understand that while it costs a lot of money to create a broadband network, over a five-to-ten-year period, it costs even more to operate that network than to build it. Say it costs $1 million to build a wireless network. During the municipal wireless heyday, it was estimated to cost 20% of buildout expense to operate the network annually – to pay for customer service, maintenance, upgrades, etc. That’s $200,000 a year.

This is a great intro article for those who may not be used to thinking about the economics or business plans networks need.

For the rest of us, it is a strong reminder of how many networks start (and a good path for those who want to create a network):

Santa Monica, California, had a legacy PBX phone system and slow connection circuits from incumbents. The city pooled money it was already paying for voice and data services, using this capital to build a fiber network and implement new communication technology.

City CIO Jory Wolf states, “By switching to fiber we realized a $500,000 savings in data circuits and $250,000 savings in voice circuits, all of which stayed in our fund. Ongoing savings enabled us to provide our police with video streaming in their vehicles. We have excess bandwidth, so we provide (a) large number of sites with free wireless access.” Wolf said that the city is also selling companies fiber lines that haven't yet been turned on. “Our network budget is self-sustaining,” he said, “and I have $2.5 million in capital.”

I remember Tim Nulty saying that Burlington Telecom started the same way. They figured out how much they were paying each month for telecom as a city. They used that number to compute how much they could spend on a monthly basis for opex and debt repayment. From there, they designed a system to meet the budget - a gigabit network connecting all the public schools and local government buildings (with the capability for further expansion if needed). They started saving money on day 1 and radically increased their productivity. From there, they decided to bring fiber to every last person in the community.

Even if incumbent carriers can offer the kinds of speeds needed by community institutions (in Burlington, they couldn't), they may charge prohibitive prices that effectively make it unavailable. Settles has a great quote from Pulaski, Tennesee that touches on this:

Dan Speer, Executive Director of the Pulaski-Giles County (TN) Economic Development Council, declares that “the World Wide Wait is over in Pulaski. There’s a printing operation here that has to send large graphic files all the time to their corporate headquarters in Los Angeles. One company with offices on the north side of community and the manufacturing plant on the south side use the network to send large data files back and forth. Broadband makes this possible.”

Muni Fiber in San Francisco Eats into Digital Divide

San Francisco has leveraged its municipally-owned fiber in a program to overcome the digital divide. Projects like this are a good early step for larger communities. First, invest in fiber to public buildings, schools, etc., to cut costs from leased lines (often, while upgrading capacity). Second, begin to leverage that fiber to increase affordable broadband availability in the community. Expand until community needs are met.

Video: 

Loma Linda: Mandated Fiber Network in the Building Code

Publication Date: 
May 2, 2005
Author(s): 
Steven S. Ross, Editor
Publication Title: 
Broadband Properties

In 2004, the Loma Linda city council passed a short, one paragraph ordinance that modified the building code. From then on, new buildings, or buildings that were significantly renovated had to meet specifications to be added to the Loma Linda community fiber network - the Connected Community Program. This is an interview with James Hettrick, who was largely responsible for it.

Services Comparison

Community broadband networks offer some the highest capacity connections at the lowest costs. Many of these communities, before building their networks, were dependent on 1.5 Mbps connections that cost hundreds of dollars, or less reliable DSL and cable networks.

These are full FTTH networks, so the advertised speeds are the experienced speeds -- unlike typical cable advertised speeds, which users pay for but rarely experience due to congestion on the shared connection.

Syndicate content