nonprofit

ECFiber Launches Pilot Project

The East Central Vermont Fiber Network is launching a pilot project to start connecting rural customers with a FTTH network. EC Fiber has long labored to find funding -- it was one of many projects to see funding avenues disappear with the economic collapse following the fall of Lehman Brothers. The Feds also failed to fund them (instead opting to fund middle mile after middle mile of projects that were less offensive to powerful incumbent companies.

But they have returned to the private markets and feel sufficiently confident about financing options to build this pilot project.

The pilot project will provide a solid foundation for the capital lease used to build out the rest of the network, providing 100% coverage in 23 towns in East Central Vermont. While the intent of the project is to prove that the larger project is viable, according to Nulty, “it will be able to stand on its own if we don’t raise another dime of capital.”

The project is expected to cost some $80 million in total to cover the 23 participating towns. ECFiber has already obtained the necessary permissions from the State to offer video and telecommunications services. The Pilot Project targets the town of Bethel, where the central hub for the entire network is located.

ECFiber is one of many groups that are using a nonprofit ownership model to build the network. The towns work together to create a nonprofit that will finance, own, and operate the network to ensure community needs are put before profits -- now and in the future.

Update: The pilot project will only offer broadband and phone services due to the high fixed cost of trying to offer video services for such a small population.

In Massachusetts, Wired West Builds Momentum

The end of June brought an end to an initial phase of the Wired West campaign for real broadband in rural Massachusetts. When we previously looked in on the Wired West efforts, they had 39 towns supporting the idea.

By June 26th, that number had grown to 47.

The local paper outlined the overwhelming support and next steps.

Once the non-profit has been formed, financing options would have to be identified, and preliminary design and cost estimate work would start.

None of the cost of the project would be borne by the towns, Webb said.

Ongoing maintenance cost and debt service payments would come from money paid to the agency by the service providers, added Andrew Michael Cohill, president of Design Nine, a consultancy hired to help WiredWest through the next phase of development.

A previous article discussed a cost estimate of the network and how much money residents send outside their community for service.

Monica Webb, a spokesperson for WiredWest, said that a consultant who met last year with representatives from Mount Washington and 10 other towns in southern Berkshire County estimated the cost of building a fiber-optic network for that region at $27 million.

But, Webb said, the consultant calculated that the roughly 12,000 households in the region were already paying an average of $125 a month for Internet and other telecommunication services – an amount that adds up to $18 million a year that people “are putting in an envelope and sending outside of your region.”

The most recent announcement relating to the project discusses how a recent federal broadband stimulus grant to the Massachusetts Broadband Institute will aid the Wired West network.

This will enable a robustmiddle-mile network to be built by the Massachusetts Broadband Institute (MBI) in Western and North-Central Massachusetts that will serve 123 communities. This wholesale network will bring MBI’s high-capacity fiber to the center of every town and connect Western Massachusetts community anchor institutions – town halls, fire stations and libraries – to the network. Even more importantly, it will provide the link to Wired West’s proposed last-mile network, enabling Wired West to extend fiber-optic connectivity to all of our homes, businesses and institutions in Western Massachusetts that desperately want service.

Local Network Cookbook

Publication Date: 
June 2, 2009
Author(s): 
Wally Bowen

A Recipe for Starting a Local Broadband Wireless Network via Federal Stimulus Funding

Wally Bowen has created a "cookbook" with step-by-step instructions for creating a community wireless network. This is a solid introduction to wireless networks.

Federal broadband stimulus funding is a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity for local nonprofit organizations -- especially community media centers -- to become Internet service providers (ISP) and begin developing new revenue streams. It's also an historic opportunity for advocates of Internet Freedom. Creating community-based broadband networks would be a huge step toward creating the critical "third pipe" alternative to the cable/telco duopoly. The proliferation of these community-based networks would generate market pressure to force the major carriers to restore “net neutrality” protections for broadband users.

In short, this broadband stimulus opportunity opens the door to the possibility of a new “Jeffersonian Internet” comprised of a “network-of-grassroots-networks” where civil liberties and quality journalism are valued over Wall Street business models.

"Local Network Cookbook: A Recipe for Launching a Local Broadband Wireless Network" is aimed at helping nonprofit organizations -- especially those already using digital technologies -- move quickly to plan and submit a broadband stimulus funding proposal for one of the three application windows.

Ontario County Open Access Middle Mile Network In the News

Stop the Cap! has the authored the most recent of several articles examining a unique middle mile broadband approach in the Finger Lakes region of New York. Their title summarizes the motivation: Ontario County, NY: We Need Fiber So Badly, We Just Did It Ourselves. That story includes a video clip of a recent CNBC Power Lunch 2 minute piece about the Axcess Ontario initiative (complete with the factual error that "no provider offers 100Mbps;" in fact, several community broadband networks offer 100Mbps and Chattanooga has moved beyond with a 150Mbps offering).

Ontario County has a population of some 100,000. To stay relevant in the modern era, they determined the County had to do something to improve broadband availability, so they created a nonprofit called Axcess Ontario, an initiative sufficiently impressive for the County's CIO to receive an award - State Public Sector CIO of the Year.

In creating Axcess Ontario (originally named Finger Lakes Regional Telecommunications Development Corp), the County wanted to be locally self-reliant and did not seek funding from the federal government:

Unlike numerous similar attempts in other parts of the country, Ontario County funded its network without dollars from the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. Those who created Axcess Ontario were insistent the project shouldn't rely on the availability of outside funding, according to Edward Hemminger, CIO of Ontario County.

The network's startup costs were $7.5 million, which the municipality generated through the Ontario County Office of Economic Development/Industrial Development Agency. The organization is a quasi-government agency created by the state to generate economic activity. Businesses pay the agency for various services, the revenue from which pays for initiatives like Axcess Ontario.

In order to mollify the private sector, the county created Axcess Ontario as a nonprofit with the majority of board seats held by private companies. The network is open access, encouraging private providers to extend it to the last mile and allowing community anchor institutions like hospitals to choose what service provider they want to use.

By May 2010, the network claimed credit for bringing five companies into the area. This story describes one service provider on the network, OneStream.

Historically, these middle mile initiatives have not been successful at solving the last mile problem because even those Axcess Ontario will guarantee affordable backhaul (an ongoing, operating expense), the initial capital costs of building a last-mile network are too extreme for the private sector.

They have applied be a Google Gibabit community, hoping their middle mile investment will catch the Goog's eye.

“Our community had the vision, knowledge and the foresight to invest in a fiber infrastructure that is critical to American innovation and economic growth,” Hemminger said. “The fiber ring ensures our community will never be left behind in the global economy, and this week we can see with the Google Experiment that Ontario County may, in fact, have an opportunity to lead the way.”

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.

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