Reedsburg Utilites, the owner and operator of a muni FTTH network north of Madison, Wisconsin, is finally moving forward on a project to connect rural areas of Sauk County. Last year, Reedsburg received a broadband stimulus award to expand its network but hit a series of stumbling blocks that called the project into question.

The first problem is a common one when taking federal money -- Davis-Bacon wage rules. The bids from contractors were higher than expected because the appropriate wages according to the law are sometimes based on flawed data. In this case, contractors based the wages on highway construction rates, which increased the costs of the project by 50%. In other cases, we've heard of Davis-Bacon setting rates in rural areas based on urban wages, making projects harder to finance.

Reedsburg apparently found a work-around (after first seeking a waiver from the provision):

Instead of accepting the bids, the utility decided to bid out rental contracts worth about $4 million to various companies, because the utility would not have to pay federal rates for temporary labor.

Then the prices for fiber-optic cable and duct rapidly increased due to the increase in demand from stimulus projects and the Japan earthquake. Finally, they were stuck waiting for final approval from RUS.

Now they are moving forward with the $9.5 million project ($5.2 million grant, the rest in revenue bonds), which is good given the apparent demand they are seeing for the service:

Douglas [Reedsburg Utilities Marketing and Media Specialist] said the utility has seen a very high rate of interest in the new service.

"I would say nine out of the 10 people I've talked to are on board, out of everyone we've met with so far," Douglas said.

The Building Community Capacity through Broadband project from the Extension Service of the University of Wisconsin has released a new video about remote education opportunities that require broadband.  We covered their previous video here.

In it, we learn that some of these remote learning programs are closed to people using dial-up.  I wonder how many years it will be until those with basic DSL are similarly shut off due to their hobbled capacity.

Video: 

As AT&T tries to buy out its competition via the T-Mobile merger, it has sent out its allies and minions to push the company line in communities around the country. Here are two events in Minnesota and Wisconsin you should be aware of.

On Monday, October 3rd, the Humphrey School of Public Affairs at the University of Minnesota is going to host a debate between Amalia Deloney (MAG-Net Coordinator and friend of MuniNetworks.org) and Former Congressman Rick Boucher on the subject of AT&T's attempt to buy T-Mobile (which just happens to be the low cost provider in the wireless space).

A few short years ago, one would have expected Rick Boucher to champion opposition to this anti-competitive merger, but alas, the good citizens of his district rewarded his many years of hard work in Congress by voting for his opponent in the last election. As one often expects to see in DC, Rick took a new job and now works for a law firm with AT&T as a client.

Suddenly Rick Boucher is the Honorary Chairman of the "Internet Innovation Alliance," a group that has a name that sounds like he should head it. But the IIA is little more than a puppet for AT&T and like interests. They use it as part of their astroturf campaigns to further AT&T's agenda -- ensuring that most Americans are stuck using a network designed for AT&T's interests rather than the public interest.

We wish Amalia the best in the debate. This is a far better program than the last time AT&T came to the U's Public Policy school, which featured a blatantly one-sided program attacking inter-carrier compensation rules that have been essential for supporting rural network investment.

If you want to attend, you should RSVP to the Center for Science and Technology Public Policy. It will be at 2:00 in the Wilkins Room. Unfortunately, I have a prior appointment and cannot attend.

But the fun doesn't stop in Minnesota - it continues to Wisconsin on Oct 12 when The Internet Innovation Alliance joins a panel at an event by WisBusiness in Madison. Once again, the panel is greatly tilted in favor of a few self-interested industry voices that will undoubtedly explain how what is good for a few giant corporations is best for America.

One hopes for a future where we can have real debates about these important issues without playing the "who is puppeteer" game. AT&T has a legitimate point of view and should be free to advocate for it -- but should do so openly.

I wrote the following synopsis of AT&T's attack on schools and libraries in Wisconsin for SaveTheInternet.com.  We are still waiting for the Governor to sign the bill, something that may take another week or longer apparently.

WiscNet is an Internet services co-op that provides Internet access to the vast majority of schools and libraries in Wisconsin, as well as a number of local governments. Because it’s a co-op, it can deliver lower-cost broadband to public entities than they could negotiate on their own. The arrangement between WiscNet schools and governments saves Wisconsin taxpayers millions of dollars each year and offers services that private companies like AT&T won’t provide.

Despite WiscNet’s proven utility throughout the state, AT&T and its incumbent allies (a group called Access Wisconsin) attempted to murder WiscNet in the back alleys of Madison, Wisconsin’s capital. But following a dramatic outpouring of public support for the network, lawmakers compromised and merely placed it on death row.

AT&T dumps millions into Wisconsin politics for a reason — to enact its agenda. When it furtively inserted a few provisions into a budget bill in the 11th hour a few weeks ago, legislators went merrily along without asking any questions.

These provisions would have effectively shut WiscNet down, and they would have required the University of Wisconsin, a premier research institution globally, to withdraw from Internet2 and other research networks. They also would have forced the University of Wisconsin Extension to return federal broadband stimulus grants that had already been used to break ground on projects to improve connections in rural areas with inadequate connections. Returning those grants would have cost $27.7 million over 5 years to the involved communities and killed almost 500 jobs.

Why did AT&T do this? Access Wisconsin claimed stimulus-funded networks are "unfair" competition. Yet, it had applied for and received federal broadband stimulus grants the year before! Unfortunately for Access Wisconsin, that award had to be returned because it hadn't read the rules that would require making the funded infrastructure open access. Whoops.

Fortunately, a broad coalition supporting WiscNet responded to these threats by flooding elected officials with phone calls, letters, and site visits (a lesson to those who would provoke librarians). The legislators soon came to a compromise, but a few days later, AT&T (with its unparalleled lobbying clout in Wisconsin) undid the compromise before it could pass. A lesson to all those who work for the public interest: It is not over until signed by the executive.

WiscNet and allies again rallied and pulled WiscNet back from the hangman's noose. But the legislature couldn't let AT&T go home empty-handed, so they gave WiscNet two years to convince the legislature to let it live. And while today's stimulus funds were saved, UW cannot accept future grants to improve Internet access without approval from Madison.  The bill now sits on Governor Walker’s desk awaiting signature.

This fight in Wisconsin was just one of many in state houses across the nation this year. The Time Warner Cable anti-municipal broadband bill in North Carolina was the most prominent example, but South Carolina and Arkansas also had incumbents pushing to limit public broadband — the only real threat of competition those networks face. Positive legislation in Tennessee, Washington, and New Hampshire was killed by powerful incumbents including Comcast, AT&T, and others. These companies are increasingly bold about limiting community networks that put community needs first.