community broadband networks

Leverett, Massachusetts' broadband initiative has moved to the next phase in bringing fiber to residents. The town selectboard recently decided on a bidder to build the community owned network. G4S designed the network and also works with the Massachusetts Broadband Institute (MBI) as it brings a middle mile fiber network to towns across the western half of the state [PDF of service area].

An article in The Recorder alerted us to the development. Readers will recall that Leverett townspeople voted to ok a modest property tax increase as a way to help finance the ftth build out. From the article:

Indeed, after years of trying to convince private business to develop and offer high-speed telecommunication service in rural western Massachusetts, Leverett’s first-of-its kind network is being built with the help of a $40 million state bond, $47 million in federal stimulus funding and the town’s willingness to borrow to build infrastructure to attract service.

D’Errico said the cost of the project should be lower than $300 a year per median $278,000 property owner over 20 years.

...

...D’Errico said the $300 annual tax addition for the median value property is likely far lower than what residents are paying for their telephone, satellite dishes and cable service connections, and that having the town own the infrastructure likely means that the service contracts should also be a fraction of what they would cost otherwise.

Before construction can start, utility poles will need to be made ready for placement of the fiber optic cable. While this stage of the prep work is expected to take up to six months, hanging the cable would only take about three months.

Leverett is inspiring other Massachusetts communities, who also want to own the infrastructure that will allow them to connect to MBI's network, MassBroadband 123.

In fact, Montague selectmen on Monday said they support a move by residents of their town’s Chestnut Hill section — which is contiguous to North Leverett — as they seek to connect with Leverett’s network. The North Leverett Firehouse, the connection point for Leverett’s fiber network to plug into MBI’s fiber network, would be the source of the connection into the system the roughly 50 Montague households seek to build.

As more local communities see how Leverett and similar communities overcome obstacles to achieve connectivity, we are confident that municipal networks will be options they consider.

An editorial in the Recorder points out how local leadership has played an instrumental role in the plan to expand connectivity in town and encourage other communities across the state:

However, it’s not only state government that has a role here. Leverett would not be poised to complete access without town officials seeing the role the town must play and an acceptance on the part of a solid majority of residents willing to see taxpayer money go toward this project.

Perhaps as the Massachusetts Broadband Initiative continues its work to provide access elsewhere, other towns will see that they, too, need to be part of the financial solution in wiring their community. Part of any persuasion, we think should start with what the governor said in October 2007. “Today’s global economy requires that every corner of our commonwealth be wired for the 21st century ... The digital divide that persists in too many Massachusetts communities has gone on for long enough.”

Thanks to the citizens of Leverett, we are closer to finally bridging that divide.

We will bring more on Leverett as the project progresses.

Vermont's East Central Fiber-Optic Network (ECFiber) has finished its second round of financing. We noted that the network had exceeded its financing goals at the beginning of this year by raising over $1 million and subsequently began connecting rural homes with its next-generation network. (See all of our ECFiber coverage here.)

The network is now connecting 120 households, a bit below its goal of 164 for the end of the calendar year... but it also had to deal with an unexpected hurricane (Irene) that seriously disrupted the entire state and kept fiber-splicers running ragged.

ECFiber has just completed its second round of financing. While the first round was dominated by a few major investors, the second round had a broader base -- a sign that many in the community have embraced the approach. From the ECFiber press release:

ECFiber is using an innovative funding method to extend its network, supported by local citizens who lend funds that enable build-out to local neighborhoods within and across member towns. Citizens who invest as little as $2500 allow ECFiber to reach all households along designated routes. ECFiber determines where it will build by choosing routes that reach the greatest number of unserved businesses and households, which are then connected to ECFiber’s state-of-the-art fiber-optic service.

These people are literally investing in themselves. ECFiber is an InterLocal Contract with a Governing Board composed of a representiative from each member town (of which there are 23). Investors are purchasing tax exempt 15 year promissory notes that effectively earn 6% interest (due to the one year holiday from interest and principal).

They have raised $340,000 in this round of financing, which will allow the network to pass 60-65% of Barnard's 950 residents. Spokesman Bob Merrill said the network again surpassed its expectations of investor interest and noted that several neighborhoods came on board after one or two interested residents rallied neighbors to invest so they could finally have high-speed connections to the Internet.

The network remains committed to connecting every person in the 23-town area but absent outside financing, it will take another 10 years.

EC Fiber is offering telephone services and Internet access. Though the network does pass some areas where people already have service, ECFiber remains focused on the unserved areas. People in unserved areas presently have to deal with dial-up (over neglected phone lines owned by FairPoint) or satellite connections.

The November-December newsletter offers more details about the network, including the extended battery options that ECFiber offers that will extend the time phones will work in the event of an extended power outage. (FTTH networks do not supply their own power, as do copper telephone lines.)

ECFiber's services and pricing sheet is available here. The prices are higher than those typically found in metro areas, which reflects the higher cost (but not unmanagebly so) of building network in these areas of extremely low density.

We have long maintained the obvious, that the technical problems (e.g. latency) inherent in a satellite connection to the Internet should disqualify it from being called "broadband." Satellite connections do not allow users to take full advantage of modern Internet applications, which is a common sense definition of the term broadband.

We are very fortunate that Stephen Cobb has taken the time to fully explain the realities behind satellite connections in Satellite Internet Connection for Rural Broadband: Is it a viable alternative to wired and wireless connectivity for America's rural communities? The answer is no.

Download the 2 MB version or the print quality 3.3 MB version (both are PDFs).

RuMBA is the Rural Mobile & Broadband Alliance that was inspired by Louisa Handem, who does Rural America Radio. RuMBA published this white paper.

I am going to excerpt a few great pieces of detail from the paper, but I cannot emphasize enough that this is a great reference with which to respond to anyone who suggests satellite should be "good enough" for rural communities.

First of all, it isn't broadband (unless one uses the absurd definition occasionally pushed by big companies like AT&T that broadband is simply an always-on connection faster than dial-up).

At the federal government site broadband.gov, run by the FCC, you can see Satellite listed as a type of broadband, despite the fact that the two main providers of such service avoid using the word "broadband" when they are pitching their service. So why include satellite alongside DSL, cable, wireless, and fiber? The answer may lie in pro-satellite lobbying. The logic for such lobbying is simple: If it can be said that satellite is a broadband option for rural communities, as listed by the FCC, then terrestrial telcos can argue there is no compelling need to provide those communities with alternatives. 

Satellite is not a "broadband option" because it does not offer broadband in any meaningful way. Even if it did, it is absurdly expensive for what it does offer:

The HughesNet ProPlus satellite Internet service plan costs $80 per month and comes with a usage cap of 425 megabytes per day. The headline performance of this plan is a download speed of 1.6 Mbps (megabits per second or 1,600 Kbps) and an upload speed of 200 Kbps, however, there is no guarantee that users will ever experience these speeds. Indeed, based on customer reports and field testing by the author, such speeds are seldom experienced in practice.

The result is something I have said previously and Stephen Cobb reiterated -- no one uses satellite access to the Internet when they have another option (DSL, cable, etc.).

The high latency of satellites is magnified for encrypted connection due to the extra "handshakes" needed to create that connection securely between the endpoints. It makes VPN and online banking tedious when possible at all.

In practical terms this means a typical Internet activity like logging into a bank account can take five or six times longer via SIC than with a typical cable, DSL, or wireless connection. This is because the process of securing an Internet connection for banking requires multiple rounds of question and response to create an encrypted link. Although the total amount of data sent and received during this “secure handshake” is quite small, the multiple round trips into space slow the process down by a factor that can be 5X or more. This same factor can also impact the performance of Internet-based workfrom-home technology like Virtual Private Networking (VPN) and popular applications like Google Apps and SalesForce that operate as Software as a Service or SaaS.

If you are familiar with the tendency in cable networks for individual throughput to slow down in periods of high demand (typically between 4 and 9PM), that problem is magnified in satellites. The cable co can split the node to diminish those problems but satellite providers have to launch a new satellite.

And finally, as a reminder to why real broadband is essential in rural areas, consider this anecdote:

An example of the degree to which these changes penetrate and impact rural life can be found, perhaps surprisingly, in the business of automotive repair. Many vital functions in today's cars and trucks are controlled by computer chips. Reliably fixing today's cars and trucks requires frequent access to a vast database of diagnostic codes. This is not feasible via dial-up modem. Database suppliers offer either broadband access (instant updates) or a DVD subscription (slower and more expensive updates). At least one supplier is considering going to broadband-only access. In other words, the days of auto repair shops in broadband dead zones may be numbered.