partnerships

Tagged Stories

Franklin County, Private Partnerships, and Wireless Broadband

Wed, August 10, 2011 | Posted by christopher

Craig Settles has been pumping out some in-depth interviews with community networks on his new Gigabit Nation audio show. This show discusses a wireless network built using a public-private partnership in Franklin County, Virginia.

The approach is outlined in this case study [pdf] and excerpted here:

Franklin County formed a partnership with a local wireless Internet service provider (WISP) to expand the County's local government wide-area network and provide broadband options for the citizens. The project leveraged County structures such as towers and water tanks for WISP transmitters and receivers. We were in the process of upgrading the public safety radio system at the same time, so the two efforts worked together to identify possible new tower locations that would improve radio coverage and meet broadband demand.

The partnership provided the WISP with a fast-path to business growth through additional funding and access to existing infrastructure. The County provided space on towers, tanks and poles in exchange for Internet service at County offices. This arrangement lowered deployment costs for the WISP, expediting business growth.

The partnership expanded the WISP customer base in Franklin County from 98 customers in early 2005 to approximately 1000 in early 2008. In addition, 15 fire and rescue stations were added to the County’s wide-area-network (WAN) in addition to five other County offices. There are many advantages to moving remote offices onto the WAN, including reduced costs and improved communications and data sharing across County Administration. The wireless mesh network supports data and voice and the WISP is currently segmenting the County's voice traffic on their network to ensure quality of service (QoS).

A case study from Motorola [pdf] notes that Franklin County has received awards for its approach:

At the 10th annual Commonwealth of Virginia Innovative Technology Symposium in 2008, Governor Timothy M. Kaine awarded Franklin County with one of the Technology Awards for Excellence for the County’s innovative approach to the use of technology in improving government services and efficiency. Receiving the award on behalf of Franklin County, Terry said, “This award demonstrates Franklin County’s leadership in the state in addressing the challenges facing local governments with innovative solutions.”

With an eye to the future, Franklin County is now working with the Appalachia Colleges Community Economic Development Partnership (ACCEDP) to further expand the service through a community outreach to bring high speed Internet to underserved, high demand areas.

Listen to internet radio with cjspeaks on Blog Talk Radio
Add New Comment

AT&T Tells Wisconsin "All Your Tax Dollar Are Belong to Us"

Tue, June 07, 2011 | Posted by christopher

For the rest of the summer, Wisconsin could be the new battleground in the ongoing effort for big companies like AT&T and Time Warner Cable to secure their de facto monopoly positions.

In North Carolina, Time Warner Cable passed a bill effectively preventing communities from building next-generation networks offering services far superior to what TWC offered. Now AT&T and its allies in Wisconsin are trying to stop local governments, universities, libraries, and schools from using a buying coop -- called WiscNet -- to procure better connections than AT&T will provide, at lower prices than AT&T would charge. Why compete when you can outlaw the competition?

WiscNet is essentially a buying coop -- a public/private partnership connecting, among others, University of Wisconsin schools, local governments, libraries, and local public schools. As Barry Orton, Professor of Telecommunications at UW-Madison reminded me, buying coops are "great for buyers, not so great for the sellers."

In this case, sellers like AT&T want to kill the coop so local governments, schools, and libraries, are forced to buy the connections they need from AT&T or other incumbents. This will mean more tax dollars going to AT&T rather than educating students, connecting police stations, and generally allowing public sector institutions to function. From the Wisconsin State Journal:

The motion prohibits the UW System from taking part in WiscNet, the network provider for 450 organizations, including K-12 schools, libraries, cities and county governments.

No one has any doubts that AT&T and its allies are squarely behind this measure.

To be clear, this has nothing to do with last-mile connections. WiscNet is not providing connections to residents. This is a question of whether local governments can use a network they build and operate collaboratively with other public institutions like UW or whether they have to take whatever AT&T is selling (many small towns only have a single incumbent offering these dedicated access connections).

Last year, we wrote about Republican opposition to a broadband stimulus project that is expanding WiscNet to four local communities. On Friday night, that effort was rekindled when some language was inserted into the budget bill.

badger.png

Some of the language:

Telecommunication Services: Prohibit the Board of Regents, the UW System, any UW institution, or the UW Extension, directly or indirectly, from doing any of the following: (a) receiving funds from any award from the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) under the U.S. Department of Commerce for the Building Community Capacity through Broadband (BCCB) project; (b) disbursing, spending, loaning, granting, or in any other way distributing or committing to distribute any funds received with respect to, budgeted to, or allocated for the BCCB project; and (c) participating in the planning, organization, funding, implementation or operation of the BCCB project.

This section means that Wisconsin, having already returned $23 million in broadband stimulus awards, would return tens of millions more dollars that should be spent on improving broadband access to schools, libraries, police stations, hospitals, etc.

The University of Wisconsin Extension Service received two awards from the stimulus -- one to increase digital inclusion and another to expand infrastructure to community anchor institutions that are currently unserved or underserved. In order to receive this award, they had to document that the services needed for schools, libraries, and hospitals (for instance) is not currently available. And they did.

These institutions need robust connections, but all across the country, incumbent providers want to offer DSL, cable, and perhaps T.1 lines at inflated prices because they are the only option. They have very little incentive to invest in fiber-optics and lease dark fiber or even provide 100Mbps circuits.

But the language goes further...

Prohibit the Board of Regents, the UW System, any UW institution, or the UW Extension from becoming or remaining a member, shareholder, or partner in or with any company, corporation, non-profit association, joint venture, cooperative, partnership, consortium, or any other individual or entity that offers, resells, or provides telecommunications services or information technology services to members of the general public, or to any private entity, or to any public entity other than the Board, the UW System, any UW institution, or the UW Extension.

This is fascinating. The ideology could not be more clear: public universities exist to funnel money to AT&T. If car mechanics were as effective as AT&T in lobbying, police departments would be prohibited from repairing their own cars. If Starbucks were as effective as AT&T lobbying, public institutions would be prohibited from owning or using instant-coffee makers. Got others? Submit in the comments!

More seriously, this provision could cut make it impossible for the University of Wisconsin, a tremendous University, to participate on Internet2, NLR, and other essential networks for research institutions. There is no logic to this, just an ideology opposed to anything publicly owned and the massive lobbying clout of AT&T.

We need to spread the word in Wisconsin: public institutions exist to serve the public, not funnel money to AT&T. Killing WiscNet means more tax dollars going to AT&T rather than educating students, putting police on the streets, or enhancing health care.

We will follow up in the near future to get beyond AT&T's talking points and clarify some confusion.

In the meantime, you can learn more from WiscNet. The language above is in the budget bill. It has to go through the Legislature, a process that will likely last until August or later. This could be dealt with as soon as Tuesday, June 14. Nonetheless, organizing to defend WiscNet must start immediately (and already has). Public institutions have tight enough budgets without being forced to increase telecom expenditures just to make AT&T happy.

Update: Ugh, I mangled the reference in the title. It should have been "All Your Tax Dollar Are Belong to Us." Apologies.

Add New Comment

Telcos as Retail Providers on Muni FTTH Networks

Fri, January 21, 2011 | Posted by Mitch Shapiro
Publication Date: 
January 1, 2008
Author(s): 
Mitch Shapiro
Publication Title: 
FTTH Prism

In late 2007 I wrote an essay [pdf] for FTTH Prism arguing that it makes increasing sense for municipalities and incumbent local exchange carriers (ILECs) to cooperate in bringing open-access fiber-to-the-home (FTTH) service to America’s small towns and rural areas.

As readers of this web site well know, such a cooperative model stands in sharp contrast to the typical reality faced by poorly-served communities wanting to connect their businesses and households to a community-owned fiber network. In virtually all such cases, the ILEC, though refusing to deploy its own FTTH network--or even provide high-speed DSL service to the entire community—will fight tooth and nail to stop construction of a community-owned fiber network.

In my essay I acknowledged that ILECs had yet to show any signs of shifting from their “kill all muni-nets” attitude to one that views open-access municipal FTTH networks as a means to better compete with cable without taking on the substantial capital investment associated with a FTTH upgrade. But I added that:

“it remains to be seen whether these [anti-muni-net] attitudes will withstand the mounting competitive pressures facing ILECs in the large number of markets in which they are not planning to deploy fiber-rich, video-capable networks. In these markets, the combination of cable VoIP and triple-play bundles, wireless replacement, and low-cost web-based services will increasingly turn what were once “high-margin” copper customers into either low-margin copper customers, or negative-margin non-customers.”

Among the trends I cited as pushing ILECs to reconsider their staunch resistance to muni-nets was the fact that, in markets where they don’t deploy their own FTTH networks, they will fall farther and farther behind in terms of broadband speeds, especially as cable operators ramp up their deployment of next-generation DOCSIS 3.0 technology.

In the face of this increasingly threatening competitive trend, I suggested that ILECs seriously consider leveraging their existing customer base and expertise to become retail providers on state-of-the-art muni FTTH networks, which can deliver much faster (and more symmetrical) speeds and better service quality than cable—even after the latter deploys DOCSIS 3.0.

Three years later, as expected, cable’s DOCSIS 3.0 upgrade is well underway, expanding the already significant cable-DSL speed gap into a chasm that, over time, will turn DSL into the equivalent of dial-up Internet service--an option no longer considered by anyone serious about using the Internet’s full capabilities (assuming they have another option).

In a recent paper entitled “The Looming Cable Monopoly,” law professor and open-Internet advocate Susan Crawford summed up the competitive implications of this trend:

Where Verizon FiOS service exists, there will be competition with cable Internet access service providers for high-speed Internet access at speeds that are necessary to carry out real-time video conferencing or watch high-definition video. Where FiOS is not installed, there will not be any competition, and consumers will have just one provider to choose from: their local cable monopoly. Most Americans—perhaps as many as 85% of us—will fall into this latter category.

So, in this majority of U.S. markets, ILECs face a choice. They can milk their heavily-depreciated copper plant by nickel-and-diming telephone customers with never ending rate increases and fees, while ceding the broadband market to “the looming cable monopoly.”

Or, ILECs can join community leaders and stakeholders at the negotiating table as responsible and forward-looking corporate citizens. As I argued in my essay, I believe this path can lead to win-win arrangements that bring the benefits of advanced FTTH networks to communities and to ILECs, and provide cable’s “closed” DOCSIS 3.0 networks with healthy competition in the form of “open-access” networks that deliver a choice of “fiber-grade” retail services offered by ILECs and other service providers.

With all the money being spent on broadband mapping and developing a National Broadband Plan, and all the money at stake in potential USF revisions, I’d suggest that the Federal government invest a little of that money to study how this open-access muni-fiber option might work most effectively for all involved. And I’d suggest my 2007 essay as one starting point for discussion.

As part of a broader revisiting of telecom regulation, such study should consider potential regulatory changes and/or incentives that could help motivate ILECs to “see the light” about the value of muni-fiber…to understand that municipal FTTH networks are not only in the public interest, but can also be in the long-term interests of ILEC shareholders.

Unless ILEC managements change their attitudes toward municipal FTTH (perhaps with some help from regulators), it seems increasingly likely that both underserved communities and ILEC shareholders will suffer at the hands of cable’s broadband monopoly--which, in the wake of the recently-announced Comcast-NBCU deal, looms ever larger.

But if ILEC managements, local leaders, and state and federal officials step up to the plate with creative long-term vision (including removing state-level anti-muni restrictions), the U.S. can promote healthy broadband competition in the areas that need it most, while regaining its global technology leadership and revitalizing its communities and economy.

A win-win opportunity is a terrible thing to waste, especially when so much is at stake.

Read more »
Add New Comment

Medina County Bonds for Network in Partnership with OneCommunity

Fri, January 07, 2011 | Posted by christopher

The Port Authority of Medina County, Ohio, has successfully bonded $14.4 million to take advantage of a broadband stimulus award to build a fiber-optic network connecting community anchor institutions and businesses with better broadband.

Bethany Dentler, executive director of the Medina County Economic Development Corporation, said Dec. 17 that a bond consultant had just completed sale of the bonds at an average interest rate of 5.96 percent. Cash from the bond sale was expected to be in the hands of the Medina County Port Authority by the end of the year and a fiber lighting ceremony to kickoff the construction phase of the project is planned for March or April.

Dentler said the port authority, which will own the network, plans to pay off the bonds over the next 20 years with fees charged to customers of the fiber network.

The nonprofit organization OneCommunity will build and presumably operate the network, which will be owned by the County. Being located in close enough proximity to work with OneCommunity appears to be a terrific advantage for communities who make investments in broadband infrastructure.

The $1.4 million in stimulus funds aiding this project were a part of the larger award given to OneCommunity as part of their efforts to better wire 20 counties in Ohio.

Add New Comment

Axcess Ontario Officially Complete

Mon, January 03, 2011 | Posted by christopher

Ontario County was working on a publicly owned solution to Middle Mile long before the broadband stimulus approach made it popular. And now, before most of the stimulus money has been disbursed, they have completed an expanded version of their initial plan.

To date, Axcess Ontario has signed master agreements with eight telecom and broadband companies, including Verizon Wireless and national broadband provider tw telecom. Axcess Ontario is in continual discussions with other service providers, and is working aggressively on its next goal of luring a fiber-to-the-home (FTTH) service provider to Ontario County.

With the fiber ring complete, businesses and municipalities now have access to faster and less expensive broadband, as well as bandwidth equal to global broadband leaders. Businesses can gain access to the ring simply by contacting any of the eight service providers that work with Axcess Ontario.

Residents do not yet have access to faster and less expensive broadband, but they will once a FTTH service provider is secured. Axcess Ontario has been working to lure a FTTH provider for more than a year, including submitting an application on behalf of Ontario County, NY, to Google's "Fiber for Communities" ultrafast broadband project earlier this year. More than 1,100 communities nationwide responded to that project, and Google just announced last week that it was postponing its selection of winning communities to early 2011.

We will be interested to see if they can lure a FTTH provider -- though middle mile can lower the operating costs of providing such a service, the capital costs are not significantly changed. And with the robust middle mile already connecting community anchor institutions, a new FTTH provider cannot count on those high-revenue customers. We have seen this previously in Alberta, Canada.

Axcess Ontario is an example of a good public-private partnership - as noted in Telecompetitor:

Axcess Ontario credits much of its $2 million cost savings to a lease agreement with Ontario Telephone Co., an incumbent local carrier.

This is contrasting with bad public-private partnerships -- where the public bears the costs and risks but the private sector receives the lion-share of benefits.

Link: 
Stop the Cap: Ontario County, N.Y. Fiber Provider Wants Every Resident to Have Fiber-to-the-Home Service
Add New Comment

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.

Link: 
OneCommunity: An Important Model for America’s Broadband Revival
Add New Comment