Join us on Thursday, July 29th, 2010 from 1:00 - 2:30 pm EDT for the next Broadband US TV episode: Community Broadband – A Blessing or Curse?. Christopher Mitchell is on the panel of experts that will discuss community networks. Click thru to register for the webcast.

ohio

OneCommunity: A Bit of Background

KMOX, a station from St. Louis, recently asked what Ohio's OneCommunity did correctly in building a regional broadband network. The article is interesting for some background on OneCommunity, but the discussion of what St. Louis attempted is somewhat lacking (and the reporters appear to have little expertise in broadband).

OneCommunity is a successful nonprofit approach to expanding broadband access by working with various entities - sharing the resources of public entities as well as private carriers to the benefit of everyone. However, its results are somewhat less predictable than the admittedly more top-down approach of a local government-run initiative that can ensure everyone in a community gets a certain kind of connection. On the other hand, OneCommunity is more insulated from the fluctuations of everyday politics that can hurt or slow projects operated by a local government, depending on the structure (remember, structure is defined by rules ... and rules matter).

My impression is also that OneCommunity has been tremendously successful in securing broadband for middle mile and large institutional needs, but its approach at solving the last-mile problem has been hit-or-miss depending on the community. By lowering the cost of backhaul, the private sector may be more interested in building those last-mile connections, but residents do not get the full benefits of service from a provider that puts community needs above profits.

OneCommunity started in Cleveland with the idea of collecting spare or unused broadband capacity (often using assets after the dotcom bust) and putting it to use.

Along with a variety of other key community anchors, the network connects some 65 hospitals in all.

"We're allowing point of care treatment through remote specialists that actually allow, not only a triage of patients in the emergency room, but actually direct treatment and diagnosis on site in real time from a third-party specialist located in another institution."

OneCommunity's network is sufficiently large that these hospitals can connect directly to each other rather than each connecting to the larger Internet to send information amongst themselves. Just as in Lafayette, where all in-network connections occur at 100Mbps, OneCommunity can offer faster connections at lower rates to the hospitals for traffic that does not leave the OneCommunity domain (because the costs of sending information across other networks is larger than keeping all traffic on a network you own).

The cost savings are huge, on the order of 85% according to the article. And as OneCommunity grows, it can offer these deals to more institutions (large institutional customers typically want to exchange more data locally rather than from YouTube, for instance).

Core customers -- universities, hospitals and government institutions -- are paying OneCommunity $4.4 million this year in fees for their broadband service. Those fees sustain the existing system, while government grants and private money helps pay for new construction and expansion of the network.

The article also cites a variety of economic development wins for the region as a direct result of the network.

OneCommunity's success comes from the buy-in of major players in the community and a focus on putting community needs first.

"Our board is currently composed of 14 members, and they cut across all parts of life," Berry [Chief Operating Officer] said, "Our board has a high degree of oversight in the activities that we perform. We're open. We're transparent . Most of our contracts are, of course, in public domain. And I think the biggest thing is when you say you're going to do something, you deliver on it."

With key decision makers from the community shaping the mission of OneCommunity, the group has connected hundreds of schools, colleges, libraries, hospitals, government offices to the network.

Perhaps the most intriguing question about OneCommunity is why its success has not been duplicated elsewhere. The best answer I can identify is that OneCommunity started with a unique blend of powerful community-focused interests and grew - the proverbial snowball gathering steam as it rolls down the mountain.

Those who want to duplicate this approach elsewhere may struggle to get enough groups together to create the critical mass necessary for success. However, as public entities wise up and begin building their own networks rather than leasing from private companies, nonprofits like this may not need as many carriers and private-sector entities to participate (who may not see anything it the effort for their bottom line if the group is not aggregating enough potential customers).

OneCommunity: An Important Model for America’s Broadband Revival

Publication Date: 
November 11, 2009
Author(s): 
Jim Baller - Baller Herbst Law Group
Author(s): 
Sean Stokes - Baller Herbst Law Group
Author(s): 
Casey Lide - Baller Herbst Law Group

The Baller Herbst Law Group filed an extensive report with the FCC detailing important information about OneCommunity - a fascinating nonprofit organization connecting many communities with fiber and wireless connectivity in Ohio. OneCommunity works with a variety of public and private sector partners to expand access to last mile and middle mile connectivity. Because they fall within our broad definition of putting public needs first, I wanted to highlight this report.

OneCommunity’s roots go back to 2001. At the time, Case Western Reserve University (Case) had a robust fiber-optic communications system and considerable networking expertise, but the rest of Cleveland lacked advanced communications capability. Case’s president, Edward Hundert, and its chief information officer, Lev Gonick, believed that broadband connections to the Internet promised to be a major factor in the local economy’s long-term health; that broadband could transform Northern Ohio from a manufacturing-based to an information-based economy; and that Case could play a profoundly beneficial role in enhancing Cleveland’s broadband future. As a result, Hundert and Gonick reached out to several of Cleveland’s leading government, educational, cultural, philanthropic, and other non-profit organizations and persuaded them to join Case in founding a new entity called “OneCleveland” that would provide gigabit connectivity to participating organizations and pave the way for widespread and free wireless service.

OneCleveland expanded far outside the City and changed its name to OneCommunity. It has already tallied an impressive list of achievements:

In the Northern Ohio region, OneCommunity facilitated public and private arrangements for the deployment of a gigabit-capacity fiber-optic community network, soon spanning 22 counties and now serving over 200 subscriber entities and 1,500 schools, hospitals, clinics, government, and public safety locations. Over one million citizens are affected by the organizations that OneCommunity serves through the network.

The network is open and carrier neutral, but so much more. Read the paper -- and appendixes -- for more information.

PS : I should note that I disagree with the conclusion:

OneCommunity is not attached to any particular ownership model for broadband infrastructure, believing that the more important questions are whether the broadband infrastructure is available and whether it is being used most effectively. As long as broadband infrastructure is available on reasonable terms and conditions, broadband infrastructure is an asset to every community in the region, regardless of who owns it...

I think the hedge words, "as long as," are key here. So long as private companies do not pursue their narrow self-interest, perhaps ownership matters less -- but that is hardly a basis for infrastructure policy. We do not see for-profit companies achieving the same success as OneCommunity because they have little incentive to do so. Being nonprofit is the key to success; it binds together the interests of private and public sector entities. The problem with ignoring ownership is that in the short term, private network owners may make this infrastructure available on reasonable terms and conditions - but they can change their mind at any time. Or they can sell it to another private company with different aims and no history in the community.

In short, ownership matters. With the nonprofit OneCommunity, a variety of ownership models has combined to improve broadband access but the nonprofit is essential to that process.

Dover, Ohio, Contemplates Publicly Owned Network

Dover, a city of over 12,000 in Eastern Ohio south of Canton, has been considering a publicly owned fiber to the home network for years to complement its water and electric muni utilities. The City Council is mulling the latest proposal, one that shows a lower cost to build (probably due to a combination of technology lowering prices and lower price for labor in a recession).

The summary indicated that total funding costs have decreased from $11,615,791 in December 2008 to $10,663,410 in December 2009. Shaw estimates that operating income would make the system financially feasible after the third year and could enable the city to pay off its debt in 15 years vs. 16 years as had been predicted two years ago.

A press release from Uptown Services, a broadband consulting company provided some history:

They originally hired Uptown in 2004 to complete a broadband feasibility study. The results of that study were promising, but the City chose to wait for the economics to improve as the technology matured and costs came down over time. Uptown completed a refresh of the original study in 2008. The case had improved, but the City wanted to fine tune the cost estimates through the completion of an actual system design prior to making any final decisions on a City wide deployment. Uptown was selected in 2009 through an RFP process from a slate of qualified proposals to complete this design.

Judging from the local site explaining the networks, they really understand the power of publicly owned broadband. The FAQ include this gem:

Remember this critical point: The incumbents look for a profit and answer to their shareholders, while the City of Dover looks for the betterment of the community and answers to its citizens.

They city has Verizon and Comcast as incumbents respectively. I suspect Dover is one the thousands of communities Verizon is trying to dump on Frontier Communications rather than invest in smaller communities. The stumbling block currently appears to be deciding how to finance the proposed network.

Short Shots

Some shorter news items from this weeks' news:

I generally find news items from Jim Baller's e-mail digest, an invaluable resource.

Syndicate content