Lake County folks excited about broadband

July 10, 2009

Folks in Lake County are pretty excited with the prospect of broadband in their area. According to the Lake County News Chronicle, “The overall response was excellent,” said Chris Swanson, at a Lake County Board meeting this week. “They (Lake County residents) are very supportive of the project.”

It sounds as if the average Lake County resident pays $122 per month for Internet, TV and phone services. National Public Broadband, the folks who are implementing the broadband plan, feel they can beat that price.


Lake County Submits RUS Loan Application for Fiber Network

July 1, 2009

Thanks to Gary Fields for passing on the following update on Lake County:

Lake County Submits RUS Loan Application for Fiber Network

Lake County, a rural county in northeastern Minnesota, has submitted a $34.5 million loan application to the USDA Rural Utility Service Broadband Loan Program. The proposed fiber network will include approximately 800 miles of fiber and serve over 7,300 homes and 500 businesses. Construction is expected to begin in 2010 and services are expected to be available in 2011. The application was developed by National Public Broadband, Inc., a new non-profit organization that was launched in May to assist communities develop and operate municipal fiber networks. NPB is led by Dr. Tim Nulty the Director of ECFiber in Vermont and the former manager of Burlington Telecom. NPB will design, build and operate the county-owned open access network and also provide retail voice, video and data services.

“There are many communities that understand the importance of fiber networks to their economic development, but they generally do not have the expertise to develop and operate the networks,” says Tim Nulty, “but as an independent, non-profit organization, we can do that efficiently in partnership with the community.” Gary Fields, NPB CFO adds, “With the public financing that is now available, we can serve rural areas, not just small communities. It is a level of market penetration that incumbents have not been able to reach.”

For more information, see www.nationalpublicbroadband.org


Lake County Broadband moves forward

June 30, 2009

According to the Lake County News Chronicle, the Lake County Board passed a resolution that authorizes the chairman to sign and the county to submit a Rural Broadband Access Loan and Loan Guarantee Program Application with the Rural Utilities Service.

The County Attorney still needs to approve it, but it’s on its way! You can learn more about the project on the Lake County web site.


Broadband Policy Seminar Grand Rapids June 18, 2009

June 19, 2009

About 30-40 people came to the Blandin Broadband Policy Seminar, including journalists (some from the Twin Cities), Task Force board members, representative from Senator Klobuchar’s office, community leaders. Technologists and folks interested in relocating their new businesses.

There are people who are involved with infrastructure and there are people who are interested in making sure that underserved – get access both in terms of infrastructure and training. People have seen the impact of well used technology and they have lived the results of limited access to technology.

In an effort to get these out in time, I’m rushing this. Hopefully it won’t be too rough. But I thought some folks might want to see it before the meeting tomorrow. Read the rest of this entry »


Welcome Muninetworks!

June 13, 2009

Thanks to Christopher Mitchell for sending a head up on a new site, Muninetworks. They “feature news, reports, and case studies that illustrate how communities can ensure they have a fast broadband network. We encourage local ownership of broadband networks; when network owners come from outside the communities, they tend not to prioritize local needs.”

In it Chris is keeping us up-to-date with everything related to municipal networks. There’s a nice section on reports and a glossary – so I think it will be helpful to community leaders who find themselves interested in broadband as well as those of us with a long-standing interest.

There’s a nice article that highlights best broadband networks in the US, which also serves as a comparison between public and private networks. I don’t want to ruin the surprise for anyone – but public is looking good.


Monticello celebrates Court of Appeal decision

June 3, 2009

A decision has been made in Monticello! The Court of Appeals ruled 2-1 in favor of Monticello and upheld the district court’s conclusion that the City had authority to issue bonds.

There were two issues at hand, as quoted below from the decision:

First, Bridgewater contends that Monticello did not have the statutory authority to issue the bonds because the Fiber Project is not a ―utility or other public convenience from which a revenue is or may be derived.‖ Minn. Stat. § 475.52, subd. 1. Second, Bridgewater asserts that Monticello intends to improperly apply the bond proceeds to pay current expenses, which is explicitly prohibited by the statute. Interpretation of these statutory provisions is an issue of first impression in Minnesota.

It’s the first issue that I think it most interesting. Again I’ve pulled out the portion of the decision that I think it more interesting to readers – that’s the portion where they discussion broadband as a utility. I think this decision has the potential to have an impact beyond Monticello. Broadband as a Utility is an topics that has come up several times with the Broadband Task Force and is often shelved as a contentious topic.

The legislature has granted municipalities the express authority to own and operate telephone exchanges within their borders, as well as to operate public-cable communications systems. Minn. Stat. §§ 237.19, 238.08, subd. 3 (2008). Municipalities are not granted a similar authorization with regard to Internet service; however, the legislature has stated that it is a goal to ―encourage[e] economically efficient deployment of infrastructure for higher speed telecommunication services and greater capacity for voice, video, and data transmission.‖ Minn. Stat. § 237.011 (2008). Therefore, based on a plain and obvious interpretation of the term ―public convenience‖ and the general intent of the legislature to promote telecommunications, the district court did not err in dismissing the action for failure to state a claim.

Regardless, even if this court were to accept Bridgewater‘s reading of the statute, the Fiber Project arguably qualifies as a utility or utility-like project. A Minnesota statute generally restricting the ability of Minnesota municipalities to issue bonds for projects outside of their jurisdiction provides an exception for bonds issued to finance property for ―municipal public utilities.‖ Minn. Stat. § 471.656 (2008). That same statute defines ―municipal public utilities‖ as ―the provision by a municipality of electricity, natural gas, water, wastewater removal and treatment, telecommunications, district heating, or cable television and related services.

Regardless, even if this court were to accept Bridgewater‘s reading of the statute, the Fiber Project arguably qualifies as a utility or utility-like project. A Minnesota statute generally restricting the ability of Minnesota municipalities to issue bonds for projects outside of their jurisdiction provides an exception for bonds issued to finance property for ―municipal public utilities.‖ Minn. Stat. § 471.656 (2008). That same statute defines ―municipal public utilities‖ as ―the provision by a municipality of electricity, natural gas, water, wastewater removal and treatment, telecommunications, district heating, or cable television and related services.‖ Minn. Stat. § 471.656, subd. 3(c).

Bridgewater concedes that telephone services are utilities and that television services are a gray area, but steadfastly denies that Internet services qualify as a utility. Therefore, according to Bridgewater, the project in its entirety lacks statutory authority to be funded by revenue bonds because Monticello intends to provide Internet service. Based on the aforementioned statute, there appears to be minimal dispute that telephone and cable television are utilities. The crux of the issue is whether broadband Internet service is like a utility.

The definition of municipal public utilities appears broad enough to contemplate Internet service. Internet service could arguably be considered a utility under ―telecommunications‖ or ―related services.‖ Bridgewater argues that ―related services‖ means services related to providing cable television, such as on-demand movies.

However, cable-television companies often provide Internet services. Therefore, on-demand movies, digital video recorders, and Internet service could also be considered ―related services‖ under the statute. Furthermore, Merriam Webster dictionary defines telecommunication as ―communication at a distance (as by telephone).‖ Merriam Webster Dictionary 1207 (10th ed. 2001). Internet service seems to meet this definition. E-mail, instant messaging, and talking via web-cam are all ways to communicate at a distance utilizing Internet service. Based on the foregoing definition, the Fiber Project is arguably a utility.

Bridgewater argues that Internet service cannot be considered a utility because it does not have the ―near universal usage common to a utility.‖ This argument is flawed. As noted by Monticello, ―[i]t would be absurd to conclude that the Minnesota Legislature [would allow revenue bonds] to be used only to fund the creation of systems that provide services that already are in universal or near-universal use.‖ Rather, it seems that the reasoning behind allowing municipalities to issue these bonds is to provide utility-like services to people who otherwise would not be able to enjoy the benefits of the services offered. It is illogical to conclude that something is or is not a utility based on the number of people who have access to it.

Then they go on to discussion the definition of public, which I think is less compelling than the issues above.


A sneak peek at the Broadband Task Force recommendations

June 1, 2009

Here are two opportunities to get involved with the Minnesota Ultra High-Speed Broadband Task Force work. I love that they are so transparent and open to feedback; I hope we can rise to the occasion to tell them what we need.

This month the task force is working on setting some suggested broadband speeds for the state and they have explicitly asked for our help. I’ll paste the request/opportunity below.

The Speed Team sub-group met today and is making good progress.
However, we need help from all Task Force members to really do justice to our assignment. We’ve agreed that we need to go out to subject- matter experts (both on and off the Task Force) and get their help in updating the application-speed-requirements listed in the recent California broadband study. Here are the questions we need help on.

Please review the California Application-Speed Matrix

http://www.urbanusers.com/wiki/index.php?title=California_Application-Speed_Matrix  

1 – In your area of expertise (education, government, business, consumer-use, etc.) do you feel that these are still accurate for present-day applications?
2 – What would you project these speed-requirements will be in 2015, and what is the basis for your projection?
3 – Are there applications that are missing from this list, and if so what speeds would they require both today and in 2015?

We would like to have your answers by Friday, June 5th so that we can incorporate your work into ours.

Thanks in advance,

The Speed Team — Tom Garrison, Jack Geller, JoAnne Johnson, Mike O’Connor, Dick Sjoberg, John Stanoch and Chris Swanson

In April, the task force members were asked to write 5 paragraphs to build a draft recommendations document for the legislature. I am super excited to share these paragraphs here.

 If you read the paragraphs you’ll see that they are a work in progress. Some paragraphs are completely contrary to others – but you can get a read for where there is agreement and what the contentious issues are. (There may not be agreement in some of these areas but there were no paragraphs to contradict the view.) I think this is also a golden opportunity to chime in on what you like and what you don’t like. Remember they invite comments from the public at their monthly sessions and you can post comments on their forum or via form online.

Issues of Agreement

  • Everyone seems to value broadband and there were some nice paragraphs detailing need by sector.
  • Everyone seemed to think that building broadband demand through training and improved access to computer was a good idea.
  • Most everyone liked the idea of mapping. The broadband providers seemed to be happiest with Connected Nation’s work; some were not happy with their work; others wanted to ask CN to the maps to the next level of gauging citizen’s relationship to broadband.
  • Everyone seemed to agree that affordability was a good idea – so long as cost to providers was a factor too.
  • Everyone seemed to like te idea of an ongoing state effort to focus on broaband – often through the creation of a entity to oversee the effort.
  • It seems as if everyone was interested in secure, reliable, redundant connections with improved interconnectivity – including a focus by some for better peering within the state to improve local access.

Issues of Disagreement

  • Some people seemed to think of broadband as a necessity or utility: Jack Geller, Peg Werner, Vijay Sethi, Mike O’Connor, Barbara Gervais, while others were more interested in meeting market demand only.
  • Most supported government intervention (even municipal networks) in areas where private companies are not interested in going. Some seemed to think of this as a plan of last resort: Rick King, John Gibbs, Peg Werner
  • Others were supportive of government providing service: Chris Swanson, Vijay Sethi, Robyn West, Tom Garrison

 Interesting notes

  • Mike O’Connor stressed the importance of considering mobile broadband and mobile devices for folks who don’t have a computer
  • They allude to a few Minnesota broadband reports (pages 16-19), both historical and kind of recent. I was surpised that more reports and statistics weren’t used. Although the following folks did mention reports: Dick Sjoberg (S. Walsten, “Understanding International Broadband Comparisons“); John Gibbs (Crandall & Jackson) and actually John cited quite a few on page 23), Mike O’Connor cites reports for projected market bandwidth (page 28), Kim Ross (SETDA
  • Some folks mentioned speed – but those were all over the board. One said T1 – others seemed to start at 5mbps or higher. The speed offered seemed to coincide with whether someone thought the current market demand should set price or we should strive for world class access. (Some folks, such as Steve Crawley jumped in with a minimum speed of 100mbps – Go Steve!))
  • Jack Reis and Gopal Khanna did a nice piece on government as a broadband consumer and increased need for connected citizenry as the government provides more services online. Kim Ross did a similar write up with the education focus and MaryEllen Wells for healthcare.
  • OK clearly I have to point out that Blandin was mention on page 19 in a nice historical look back at what has been done in the state regarding broadband.

The paragraphs are long. I’ve done my best to distill them. I think there are some interesting comments on Net Neutrality, the role of a Better Business Bureau type model to service broadband customers, possibility of federal funding – but I didn’t yet see consensus on those topics so I’m only mnetioning them briefly.


Community Benefits Agreement for communitywide networks

May 23, 2009

Last week I had the opportunity to talk to Sheldon Mains about his work with the community benefits agreement in Minneapolis. Sheldon is a friend who helps nonprofits and foundation use technology wisely. In April he posted a blog on the history of the Community Benefits Agreement in the Wireless Minneapolis Project.

The quick, loose take is – a community benefits agreement (CBA) is traditionally used in real estate where developers commit to certain concessions in exchange building permission. The folks in Minneapolis were smart enough to think about a CBA when talking to US Internet about the communitywide wireless contract. (Again read Sheldon’s post for the details.)

I asked Sheldon to talk about what he had learned through the process of developing and deploying the CBA and what advice he might have for other communities looking at a communitywide (wired or wireless) network.

In Minneapolis there were some folks pushing for a municipal network while others wanted to outsource; others came up with the idea of using a CBA as a compromise.

It started with an informal roundtable of likely stakeholders: schools, libraries, community technology centers, nonprofit service organizations, community-based organizations. They talked about what they wanted and needed from a CBA.

Next the city pulled a task force together – with many of the same players. Minneapolis wanted free and low cost access. The task force recognized that cost of connectivity wasn’t the only issues. Cost of computers and training were also barriers. So a fund that would help with the broader issues was more valuable that cheaper access.

They decided that the money should go to a Foundation (the Minneapolis Foundation) who would administer grants. There were some benefits for US Internet to give money to the Foundation rather than the government and the community saw benefits with working with the Foundation.

So if you’re in a community that might be interested in pursuing a similar path, Sheldon suggests that you remain flexible. The benefits that Minneapolis chose might not be what you need. See what works for the provider and your city.

The Alliance for Metropolitan Stability has a guide called Community Benefits Agreements: Growing a Movement in Minnesota (Jan 08) on their site; they also have Recommendations for the Wireless Minneapolis Community Benefits Agreement (March 06).

I think the CBA is a clever way to think about how to get your community the best solution without reinvesting the wheel entirely.


ICF Update: public networks in use

May 15, 2009

Bill Coleman is currently at the Building the Broadband Economy 2009 Intelligent Community Forum conference in NY this week. He is sending back quick reactions and news from the conference…

It was fun to see the excitement of community leaders last night at the ICF
reception. These Top Seven communities were recognized for their efforts and their results in transforming their economies.

It has been an interesting morning as well. We heard from Fredericton New Brunswick about their communities. They have a unique approach to network provision and use. A community fiber loop serves the public sector and some large users. Free wifi serves large areas of the community. Private providers serve residents and small and medium businesses.

Their neighbor, Moncton, is also a top seven community. They have wifi on their buses!


Updates from ICF: Eindhoven & shared visions

May 14, 2009

Bill Coleman is currently at the Building the Broadband Economy 2009 Intelligent Community Forum conference in NY this week. He is sending back quick reactions and news from the conference…

Eindhoven in the Netherlands has a FTTP open access network. Speeds to the home are 100 Mb.

What are they using it for? Good question! Eindhoven has announced plans to position their region as a bandwidth intensive laboratory with an invitation to application developers to use the Eindhoven as their place to identify, create and deploy new applications. New services for residents – attraction of skilled and creative talent and new jobs. That’s intelligent!

According to all of the people on the ICF agenda, a community with a shared vision and a culture of inter-sector collaboration has tremendous advantages for competing in the global marketplaces. They can move faster, overcome more barriers and achieve more.