community broadband networks

We have been watching Johnson City, Tennessee, examine its options to improve broadband options in their community using extra capacity from fiber-optic investments for smart-grid implementation. Johnson City has been looking for a partner that would offer services to local businesses and perhaps residents.

We were concerned about that approach as a private-sector partner may be interested only in finding the most lucrative high-margin customers rather than seeking ways to serve the whole community.

We are now relieved to learn that Johnson City and BVU Authority have made an initial agreement and are working toward a final contract. BVU Authority originated in and continues to be based out of nearby Bristol, Virginia.

We have long covered BVU Authority and just recently published a case study about them.

BVU Authority should be an excellent match as they provide excellent business services (they are tremendous pioneers in this regard) and have a focus on serving the community as a whole. BVU Authority's investments in southwestern Virginia have led to strong job growth and we expect them to have similar success in northeastern Tennessee.

Two years ago, we first wrote about the Johnson City Power Board considering using its fiber-optic network to encourage economic development and create more broadband competition. Last year, we again saw them examining their options, with a recognition that DSL and cable are not enough for economic development when Chattanooga and Bristol are so close by, as well as other publicly owned FTTH networks.

The JCPB has decided to move forward with a public-private partnership approach that will focus first on serving commercial clients and may later expand to offering residential services.

The decision on the third-party vendor approach stems from a feasibility study by Kersey Consulting, a firm that offers broadband consulting to municipalities and public utilities. The study began in July, and examined three models the JCPB could use to offer the services: having the JCPB be the retailer; leasing the extra fiber capacity to another company; or bringing in a third-party operator to provide the network access electronics, customer support, billing services, etc.

Working with a third-party vendor gives the JCPB the best return on its investment, balancing low risk with possible profits, said JCPB spokesman Robert White. The Power Board would provide the “backbone,” while the vendor, working under JCPB’s brand, would provide the “last mile” services and equipment to the commercial customers.

This approach could be somewhat similiar to the Opelika, Alabama, partnership with Knology, except Knology is clearly going after both residential and commercial customers right away.

The article uses these numbers, but they don't seem to make a lot of sense to me on first glance:

Initially, according to the feasibility study, the Power Board would most likely make a capital investment of $1.5 million over five years, which could include installing more of a fiber backbone to reach businesses if needed. On the flip side, revenues from the extra service could reach $1.3 million over 10 years, depending on the agreement with the third-party vendor.

To reach its revenue and return on investment projections, the JCPB would need to capture about 20 percent of the area’s total market for data services, about 15 percent of the market in phone services, and about 5 percent of private data services over five years, based on a market of 3,000 commercial users.

I have to assume the revenue over 10 years would be more than the capital investment needed to get the project going.

Of course, CenturyLink is pretending that JCPB has no chance of competing against an entity as large as it, but CenturyLink's size may well be one of its biggest problems. It is a giant bureaucracy that provides crummy service at inflated rates. Bristol Virginia Utilities has been crushing it in the small business market because they offer local, reliable services and have the freedom to work with local businesses.

If Johnson City really commits to this, CenturyLink's poor DSL will pose little threat. But Johnson City should take care to listen to the experiences of those around them who went down this path. There are many good lessons for the communities that are willing to listen.

On August 19, 2010, I was one of hundreds of people telling the Federal Communications Commission to do its job and regulate in the public interest. My comments focused on the benefits of publicly owned broadband networks and the need for the FCC to ensure states cannot preempt local governments from building networks.

My comments:

I’ll start with the obvious.

Private companies are self-interested. They act on behalf of their shareholders and they have a responsibility to put profits ahead of the public interest.

A recent post from the Economist magazine’s technology blog picks up from there:

WHY, exactly, does America have regulators? … Regulators, in theory, are more expert than politicians, and less passionate. …They are imperfect; but that we have any regulators at all is a testament … to the idea that companies left to their own devices don't always act in the best interests of the market.

They go on to say

If companies always agreed with regulators' rules, there would be no need for regulators. The very point of a regulator is to do things that companies don't like, out of concern for the welfare of the market or the consumer.

When we talk about broadband, there is a definite gap between what is best for communities and what is best for private companies. Next generation networks are expensive investments that take many years to break even.

With that preface, I challenge the FCC to start regulating in the public interest.

The FCC does not need a consensus from big companies on network neutrality. It needs to respect the consensus of Americans that do not want our access to the Internet to look like our access to cable television.

But while Network Neutrality is necessary, it is not sufficient. The entire issue of Network Neutrality arises out of the failed de-regulation approach of the past decade. Such policies have allowed a few private companies to dominate broadband access, giving communities neither a true choice in providers nor any ability to influence the networks on which they depend.

The FCC must ensure all communities have the authority to build the networks they need.

Outside of DC, community networks are not a partisan issue. Last week, Opelika, Alabama, voted by a 62% margin to build one. The City Council President noted: “As a council we have never been more unified on a single matter than we have been on this.”

One of the most conservative cities in America - Lafayette Louisiana now operates the best broadband network in the US as measured by value. For less than $30/month, anyone can get a 10Mbps symmetrical connection - I have to pay more than 3 times as much in Saint Paul for a similar upload speed.

Lafayette is not alone. The single fastest widely available broadband tier in this country is offered by Chattanooga- at 150Mbps symmetrical, few even come close to it.

Long before Verizon's FiOS network, Bristol, Virginia built a fiber-to-the-home network for its rural community, which attracted new investment and hundreds of high-paying jobs.

Here in MN, Monticello is unique, being the only community in the country with two citywide fiber-to-the-home networks competing head to head. The incumbent phone company previously maintained DSL was sufficient for their needs.

But when Monticello moved ahead with their superior network, the incumbent used a lawsuit to delay the community network while it invested in faster services. Monticello won the lawsuit, but lost a year. Nonetheless, Monticello now has the best broadband deals in the Midwest.

In Utah, the UTOPIA network offers more than 10 service providers to every subscriber. This is a real choice between service providers offering some of the fastest speeds in the country at affordable prices. Yet they have struggled financially -- in part due to constant attacks from massive incumbent companies and crippling laws passed by a state Legislature seemingly controlled by cable and telco lobbyists.

Eighteen states have barriers to discourage community networks, including Minnesota. Cook County, our most rural county, has long depended on a sole fiber line from Qwest for all connectivity. They begged for a redundant connection over many years to no avail.

This past January, a single accident left them without telecom services for 12 hours. No business could process credit cards. 9-11 did not work. US border security had to use Canadian communications. ATMs ceased to function. Police officers could not run plates.

The previous November, a majority of their citizens had actually approved building a community fiber network to create middle mile redundancy and last mile services. They even agreed to a small tax on themselves to help fund it. But MN law requires a super-majority of 65% for a community to build this kind of network. This is 5% more than the impossible 60% threshold in the US Senate.

Such a restrictive law is great for incumbent companies who are protected from competition. Offering a single fiber line to Cook is a profitable decision for Qwest's shareholders. It is a disastrous decision for the community.

This is why the FCC must stand up for all of us. States must not be allowed to cripple communities, forcing them to watch history pass them by.

We demand both Network Neutrality and the right to build our own networks when we choose. The FCC has authority on these issues and must start to use it.

You can view the entire event here.