economics

Brigham City Develops Alternative Method to Finance Publicly Owned FTTH

The good folks at Broadband Properties Magazine recently ran an article I wrote about Brigham City's use of a new financing model for FTTH networks. You can read it there in the nice layout and formatting, or here:

The UTOPIA project, an ambitious fiber-to-the-home network developed by a consortium of 16 Utah cities, has encountered difficulties that delayed its original buildout schedule. However, it is now building out fiber in Brigham City, one of the original cities in the consortium. Brigham City found a local solution to UTOPIA’s slow deployment schedule and created a model to speed buildout in willing communities.

Brigham City, a city of 18,000 in northern Utah, decided to form a voluntary assessment area – sometimes called a special assessment area – to finance the network buildout that will pass all homes and connect residents looking to subscribe. As with all wired networks, upfront costs are steep and typically require a heavy debt load. Brigham City’s unique approach may catch the interest of deployers unwilling or unable to shoulder that debt.

For several months, a group of canvassers organized by UTOPIA went door to door in Brigham City to talk to residents about UTOPIA and ask if they were interested in subscribing to the network. Supporters organized some 30 block parties and invited UTOPIA to attend with a mobile home to demonstrate the superiority of full fiber optic networks. Residents who wanted service were requested to ask the city to create a voluntary assessment area. Creating this special district would allow participants to finance their connections themselves.

Residents who wanted to subscribe could either pay the connection cost up front or agree to pay up to $25 per month (the exact amount would depend on how many joined the program) over the course of 20 years. This amount does not include the cost of services; rather, it is the cost of connecting to the network and having the option of subscribing to UTOPIA-based services (see sidebar for current services). Those uninterested are not levied.

In other UTOPIA cities, when residents subscribe to services on the UTOPIA network the connection costs are included in the service fees. Those connection costs will be deducted for Brigham City residents who have paid the full cost of their connections, meaning that the assessment cost will be balanced by ongoing savings on services.

Perhaps the biggest long-term benefit of this approach is having a built-in take rate. UTOPIA knows it will have almost 30 percent of the Brigham City community from the day it starts offering services – and that those subscribers are sufficiently interested in the services to place a levy on themselves. Having bought in, they are unlikely to switch away if incumbent providers engage in predatory pricing. Furthermore, if they do decide to switch, UTOPIA has not lost the cost of the connection.

Before UTOPIA began building its fiber network in Brigham City, many residents already had access to last-generation broadband services delivered over copper networks. Both Comcast and Qwest offer some broadband in the city, although not everyone has access. In some neighborhoods, Qwest offers “up to” 7 Mbps and Comcast offers “up to” 20 Mbps. As is common with DSL and cable providers, these connections are asymmetrical, offering slow upstream speeds. UTOPIA, by contrast, offers 100 Mbps symmetrical service.

Qwest sent some of its Salt Lake City lawyers to the city council meeting that created the assessment area. The lawyers complained they did not know enough about what the city was doing and noted that Qwest planned to upgrade its infrastructure in Salt Lake City and might invest in some areas of Brigham City in 2010. Qwest also claimed that, if Brigham City supported the network, it was essentially telling private industry it was creating a public monopoly – a stunning statement, as UTOPIA encourages private-sector companies, including Qwest, to offer services on its network.

Brigham City does have a local, independent provider, Brigham.net, that offers dial-up and DSL services. To provide DSL services, Brigham.net leases and resells Qwest circuits. Incumbent telcos such as Qwest have long fought federal regulations that required them to open their networks to competition, and they have largely won. The number of competitive Internet service providers in the United States has fallen precipitously. Once UTOPIA is operating in Brigham City, Brigham.net will be on the same level ground with other service providers, rather than having to pay Qwest exorbitant prices that leave it unable to compete on pricing. (See city council minutes [pdf])

The City put up $300,000 to connect municipal buildings and facilities – a one-time cost that will result in thousands of dollars in savings in operating costs per month while also generating new operational efficiencies from increased network capacity.

Some 400 households paid $3,000 up front for a connection, while 1,200 other households opted for the 20-year assessment (Brigham City has some 5,600 households in total). Residents opting for 20-year assessments will pay $22.50 per month for 20 years ($5,400 over the full term) for their connections. The city creates a lien on each of their properties as security against a $3.66 million tax-exempt bond at 5.5 percent interest. Monthly payments from the 1,200 households will repay the bond.

Those who choose not to take services from UTOPIA will not be assessed, but will still benefit from the network; they are likely to pay lower rates for their triple-play services due to the competition offered by UTOPIA.

The City Council allocated an additional $371,000 to ensure that the network would be able to accommodate residents and businesses who later choose to join. The city believes that if only 207 subscribers join in the future, it will recover this investment.

UTOPIA has long been dogged by a group called the Utah Taxpayers Association (UTA). UTA, working with Comcast and Qwest, has pushed laws through the state government to hinder UTOPIA and regularly attacks it in the press. Prior to Brigham City’s decision to enact the voluntary assessment area, UTA mailed out postcards to residents criticizing the plan. The city quickly responded to each of the points on the postcard, and those who came to the city council meeting to establish the assessment area (other than the Qwest lawyers) were overwhelmingly in favor of the proposal.

However, the UTA’s opposition reveals dangers for other municipalities contemplating this path. (For more thoughts on this, see FreeUTOPIA blog.) UTA’s postcards threatened that people would lose their homes if they did not pay the assessments they agreed to. Due to these scare tactics and the anxieties of a few people who did not realize they were agreeing to liens on their properties because they did not read the contracts they signed, UTA was able to manufacture a controversy. Groups like UTA can stoke the fears invoked by words such as “assessment” and “lien” despite the fact that unpaid assessments rarely lead to foreclosure – in the case of Brigham City, city officials note they have “never exercised its option to foreclose” under liens for street infrastructure projects.

Though this assessment model solves the financing problem, the costs and difficulty of canvassing neighborhoods are fairly significant. Additionally, the citizens of Brigham City were already committed to UTOPIA, having supported the sales tax pledge, and had waited many years for their connection. Thus, they were likely more receptive to the idea than other communities may be. Still, other communities may find they can finance portions of a fiber-to-the-home network with similar assessments rather than attempting to finance the entire network by borrowing against the liens.

This approach is not for everyone, but it may be appropriate for communities in the right circumstances – other communities in the UTOPIA footprint are already investigating it to finish their build out.

The Commons

Elinor Ostrom's Nobel Prize Award was a significant victory for those of us who have recognized not only a difference between the public good and private good, but really for those of us who have recognized the great variety of approaches on how to promote the public good.

First, the background - Elinor Ostrom has won a Nobel Prize in economics for her work demonstrating ways that public commons may be successfully managed to the benefit of all. "The Commons" is a term for a resource that is collectively owned by everyone.

Some had argued that the only way to prevent a few from despoiling the commons was by enforcing private property rights - but Ostrom's work demonstrated that different communities around the world have successfully maintained the commons without resorting to auctioning it off.

Perhaps most importantly from our perspective, she clarified in an NPR podcast that there is no single solution to managing the commons. In many cases, a government should avoid preemption when local people are able to work out the management on their own. In other areas, government may have a stronger role to play.

This is the same philosophy that we have embraced on the issue of broadband - we are not advocates solely for municipal ownership. We advocate accountability - the network must put community first and be responsive to those changing needs.

The Case for Municipal Broadband

Publication Date: 
May 2, 2005
Author(s): 
Carl Kandutsch
Publication Title: 
Broadband Properties

One the goals of this site is to catalog reports, articles, and all things related to publicly owned broadband. A number of older articles about muni broadband still resonate today -- As part of its May 2005 issue, Broadband Properties offered a pro and con view of municipal networks. Carl Kandutsch, a former FCC attorney, wrote "The Case for Municipal Broadband." Other articles from that issues are also available here.

The piece generally focuses on matters of economics and law, but in an accessible manner. The threat of private, monopolistic service providers -- particularly in rural areas -- is indeed a significant motivation and reason to embrace public ownership.

He also delves into debunking specific arguments against municipal ownership and argues that publicly owned networks are at a disadvantage relative private companies:

The municipal balance sheet must then be compared with that of private firms existing actually or potentially in the relevant market, taking into account the often huge tax breaks granted to private sector communication firms, the economies of scale conferred on incumbents from ownership of pre-existing infrastructure and nationwide or international service areas, the freedom to contract with any other entity on any terms within the limits of the law and so on.

And

Moreover, whereas private firms are permitted to operate behind closed doors, municipal utilities must comply with numerous open-records requirements, and must secure public approval for all significant decisions. The level of public scrutiny under which a municipal utility operates ensures that significant operational inefficiencies will be short-lived, and that utility officials are politically accountable for their decisions.

CNET's Real Deal Video - On Broadband Networks

Wherein I answer some questions to clear up common misconceptions about the broadband and cable networks upon which we depend...

Lafayette and Incumbent Responses to New Networks

For another real-world example of how companies respond to public entry into the telecom market (as opposed to theoretical arguments about crowding out investment), let's look back down to Lafayette and how cable incumbent Cox responded:

“Cox froze the cable rates in Lafayette, and they didn’t freeze the rates in other areas,” said Terry Huval, director of LUS, a municipally owned utility company which fought major incumbent opposition before building an FTTH network in Lafayette and starting to offer service earlier this year. “We figured our citizens saved over $3 million in cable rates even before we could offer them service.”

I have yet to see a cable company leave a market or reduce investment following the introduction of a public competitor. The opposite tends to happen - they increase investment and often drop prices or leave them lower than in surrounding, non-competitive areas. Often, the rates are not really advertised but if you call from the competitive area, they will offer a better deal:

Trae Russell, communications manager for EATEL, the local telephone franchise in Ascension, La., and some surrounding communities, had seen the same thing happen in his area, when EATEL started offering FTTH-based services in 2006. In fact, EATEL went so far as to take out an ad in the Lafayette newspaper, alerting cable customers there to the discounts that Ascension customers were getting and forecasting similar lower rates in Lafayette once the LUS network was in the works.

“It was an incredibly bold move on our part,” Russell said. “Cox came in with an incredibly aggressive promotion for TV service with every bell and whistle you could imagine. We couldn’t figure out how they could even make money on it. So we took out an ad in the Lafayette newspaper that basically said, ‘Hey Lafayette, look at the great prices you are going to get from Cox.’ Cox was not amused.”

This is also a lesson for those who want to build a public network. Don't expect to win just because you have a better service and you offer lower prices from what was available before a competing network is built. The incumbent has often already paid off its network. Additionally, incumbents are often larger companies that pay less for their television contracts, so they can lower prices farther than one might expect initially. If you are offering a better service at comparable prices, you better be clear on the distinction and not obsess over a price war. Witness another passage from that article:

“The bandwidth advantage hasn’t played to our advantage as we hoped it would,” Russell said. “Pricing has been our issue. Cox is cherry-picking our business customers. We have to work hard to maintain relationships, make sure our sales guys are stopping in on the small business customers and asking them what they need. One way we fight [pricing competition] is with contracts – we are able to give customers substantial discounts for [longer-term] contracts.”

But if you do the hard work, you may see the kind of satisfaction among users that Lafeyette is seeing. Also, @kedinger noted his previous Cox speeds and his Lafayette Fiber speeds.

Charter to Cleveland, TN: You Are Not Sufficiently Profitable

Not too far away from Chattanooga, Tennessee, (home to the largest muni fiber network in the U.S.) lies Cleveland (Tennessee). Five prominent residents asked why they cannot get broadband:

The homeowners have discussed the problem with Charter Communications Director of Government Relations Nick Pavlis three times.

Pavlis said in a telephone interview it would cost the cable company $130,000 to run an underground cable 2 1/2 miles and “it’s just not a reasonable payback.”

He said the company spends $500 per house as a general rule, which gives them a 36-48 month return on investment.

Yet Charter has no problem lobbying the states to prohibit publicly owned networks. Tennessee probably has more fiber-to-the-home initiatives than any other state - perhaps it is time Cleveland looked into their own or cajoling a nearby network into expanding.

100 Mbps to everyone for $350 billion

We finally have a realistic estimate of the cost of bringing 100Mbps to every home in America... and Light Reading labeled the cost "jaw-dropping."

Want to provide 100-Mbit/s broadband service to every U.S. household? No problem: Just be ready to write a $350 billion check.

Federal Communications Commission (FCC) officials shared that jaw-dropping figure today during an update on their National Broadband Plan for bringing affordable, high-speed Internet access to all Americans. The Commission is schedule to present the plan to Congress in 141 days, on Feb. 17.

Don't get me wrong, I agree that $350 billion is a lot of money. On the other hand, we spent nearly $300 billion on surface transportation over 4 years from 2005-2009. $350 billion buys a fiber-optic network that will last considerably longer. Additionally, such a network will generate considerably more revenue than a highway. In fact, these networks will pay for themselves in most areas if they can access to low-interest loans.

Consider the comments of Deputy Administrator Zufolo (of the Rural Utilities Service) from my recent panel at NATOA:

Zufolo explained the RUS decision to use its $2.5 billion in funds primarily to subsidize loans and not provide grants, as the agency's best opportunity to make the more efficient use of the federal money and have maximum impact. Because the default rate on RUS loans is less than 1% and the subsidy rate is also low, only about 7%, it costs the government only $72,000 to loan $1 million for rural network development, she said.

Let's say that RUS decides to embark on getting 100 Mbps to everyone in a rural area - some of the projects will be riskier than the standard portfolio, so let's assume it costs the federal government $100,000 to loan $1 million (makes it easier math too). In order to spur the $350 billion investment for these networks, the government would have to put up $35 billion.

But it would probably be more than that because some areas - Montana, Alaska, Wyoming, and other beautiful places will need partial grants on the upfront costs because even a loan at 0% interest may not be serviceable due to the challenges of spreading high fixed costs across so few people.

If the U.S. were to commit to this, it would not do it in one year. Industry would have to scale up significantly - it would take a number of years to produce all the of materials needed to build a network on this scale, as well as training all the additional people who would be needed to enter the workforce in this sector. So we are talking about what - $7-12 billion a year to build the single most important infrastructure of the coming decades? This is a jaw-dropping figure in that we have not yet done it. No wonder other countries are leaping ahead of us.

Remember though, this cost would build one network. We need to abandon the idea of each competitor building a distinct network with which to compete and to embrace a publicly owned open access network that enables many service providers to compete. The publicly owned network will deal with the largest costs of building the infrastructure - just as the public sector does in most aspects of our lives (roads, sewer projects, bridges, rail, canals, and significant portions of the electrical infrastructure 80-100 years ago).

Update: I wanted to echo the calls of the Knight Center for Digital Excellence in calls for a much bolder vision than we have seen thus far:

Imagine if we had made the mistake of building ordinary roads when, in the 1950s, true progress required an interstate highway system. We are at a similar juncture, which is why the time calls for the high ambition of gigabit speeds.

Image used under Creative Commons License from Briar Press.

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.”

FTTH: Making That Business Model Work

A one hour slideshow discussing the economics of FTTH - unfortunately it seems to have rudimentary controls that do not allow fast fowarding or rewinding, so pay attention! You can also read the bullet points to get a sense of whether you will be interested or not.

The Story of Windom, Minnesota

Publication Date: 
May 2, 2005
Author(s): 
John Gumpel, Primal Solutions
Publication Title: 
Broadband Properties

Windom, a small community of only 5,000 people in southwestern Minnesota, upgraded its city-owned cable network to a fiber-to-the-home system. They issued $9.4 million in revenue bonds (of which $800,000 were just for the first two years of interest, when no revenue is generated from the system being built) to pass 2,000 homes and 300 businesses.

Syndicate content