Sabin Minnesota gets DOCSIS 3.0

July 9, 2009

Thanks to Tim Finnerty for passing on the latest on DOCSIS 3.0 in Minnesota.

According to their press release, “Midcontinent Communications has launched wideband Internet to the West Fargo and Sioux Falls service regions. The deployment of DOCSIS 3.0 (Data Over Cable Service Interface Specification) or D3 technology represents a landmark shift in Internet speeds to both residential and business consumers.”

Midcontinent’s MidcoNet™ Ultimate speeds will allow up to 50 MB downloads and 5 MB uploads and customers at all service levels (residential and business) will see a speed increase. Apparently Sabin, Minnesota already received the new service. Moorhead should receive service over the summer.

Leave a Comment » | MN, Rural, Vendors | Permalink
Posted by Ann Treacy

Hayfield Broadband moves forward

June 30, 2009

According to the Rochester Post-Bulletin, Jaguar Communications, a competitive local exchange carrier based in Owatonna, will soon be offering FTTH in Hayfield, Minnesota.

It’s interesting to compare Hayfield’s path with a community such as Lake County. In Lake County, there is a community push. In Hayfield, Jaguar has taken the lead. I want to include a couple of paragraphs from the Post-Bulletin story, I think they’ve done a great job of describing the trials and tribulations a commercial provider may have to overcome before getting permission:

The final installation of the network is surprisingly easy; the planning to get to this point took years.

A new utility company must obtain permission from many state and federal agencies as well as each county, township and municipality in its territory.

In appearances at Claremont city council meetings, Hayfield city council meetings and Dodge County planning and zoning meetings, representatives from Jaguar have estimated they have dealt with more than 100 agencies or entities to get to this point.

I’m not advocating a community versus commercial approach or vice versa – I think the answer will be different for each community – but it sure seems that with both approaches the road could be smoother.

Hearing Jaguar’s story reminds me of the many conversations with the Ultra High-Speed Broadband Task Force on the role of government. It’s a challenging conversation for the Task Force – but clearly even if you can’t define it – government does play a role in broadband deployment.

Leave a Comment » | FTTH, MN, Policy, Rural, Vendors | Permalink
Posted by Ann Treacy

Latest good news for Monticello

June 21, 2009

Monticello got their last needed piece of good news. Here’s the word from their web site:

On Tuesday, June 16th, the Minnesota Supreme Court denied Bridgewater Telephone Company’s (TDS’s) petition for further review of its challenge to the FiberNet Monticello project. The City received a favorable ruling from Wright County District Court last fall and two weeks ago the Court of Appeals also ruled in favor of the City of Monticello. The effect of the ruling is that the City should now be able to access the revenues from bonds which were issued last year to finance the construction of the FiberNet system. Those revenues were placed in escrow when Bridgewater/TDS commenced its legal challenge to the City’s project and remained there so long as the litigation was pending.

The revenues are more than $25 million. As the Monticello Times reported – it’s over.

I heard Jeff O’Neill (from Monticello) speak about the ordeal recently. Specifically he talked about people asking if Monticello would still be pursuing fiber, since TDS is well on the way to providing the service too. He said yes – that it was the competition that got the incumbents going and he felt that only competition would keep the focus on world class service. I thought it was an interesting and telling statement.

Leave a Comment » | FTTH, MN, Policy, Rural, Vendors, Wireless | Permalink
Posted by Ann Treacy

FTTH Council – Telecom Service Provider’s Workshop

June 4, 2009
FTTH Council

FTTH Council

Today I’m at the FTTH Council meeting in Minneapolis. It’s been interesting. I don’t always sit in a room full of providers. The questions are different; the focus is different. The stimulus funding has been THE topic. Many people reminded attendees that this is a jobs program first and foremost! One person joked that the stimulus funding now takes 90 percent of his time – and that’s before the RFP is even out. Others have talked about how the stimulus funding in many ways has put a stop to any projects that had been in the works as everyone reworks plans to (hopefully) qualify for stimulus funding.

I have taken notes. I think they will be most interesting to anyone who might be looking at deploying FTTH in their community or anyone interested in applying for stimulus funding.

I walked in at the intro… Read the rest of this entry »

1 Comment | Conferences, FTTH, Funding, MN, Policy, Rural, Vendors | Permalink
Posted by Ann Treacy

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.

1 Comment | Blandin Foundation, Community Networks, Digital Divide, MN, Policy, Research, Rural, Vendors | Permalink
Posted by Ann Treacy

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.

Leave a Comment » | Building Broadband Tools, Community Networks, Digital Divide, MN, Vendors, Wireless | Permalink
Posted by Ann Treacy

State of Broadband providers

May 19, 2009

Telecompetitor ran an interesting article last week on the new rural super carriers. Telecompetitor contends that the big guys aren’t interested in rural markets. Recent news that Frontier is buying Verizons lines (mostly rural) for $5.3 billion would help back up Telecompetitor’s assertion. The super providers they list include CenturyTel, Embarq, Windstream, FairPoint, Frontier, TDS, and maybe Qwest.

Cor Wilson sent me a great article last week (25 Year Analysis of Key Financial Indictors for the Bell Companies) and I’m trying to use it to decide what I think about the top guys shifting their role away from rural and the buildup of these super rural providers.

The report is pretty damning; it indicates that the big 3 providers (AT&T, Verizon & Qwest) saw a revenue increase of 220% from 1984 to 2008. Here’s what they said about broadband:

Broadband
• By 2010, virtually ALL of the US households, accounting for 117 million homes, should have been rewired with a fiber-based service. Today, there is virtually no broadband service in the US that meets the standards of 45mbps in both directions set in 1991.
• America is 15th in broadband because AT&T and Verizon failed to deploy and pocketed an estimated $300 billion dollars by 2009 and counting.
• Combined, Verizon and AT&T’s FiOS or U-Verse had approximately 3 million upgraded TV homes as of 2008. These networks do not match the previous commitments as they are not open to competition, not ubiquitous, and do deliver 45mbps in both directions.
• Harm to the Economy. According to Bell-funded reports, $500 billion annually would be added to the GNP of the US if broadband was fully deployed. Thus, America lost $6.5 trillion dollars because of a lack of high-speed broadband.

Quick aside: Here’s a bit about what I could find on the authors (New Networks Institute) form their own web site: “Since 1992, in the public’s interest, [Bruce] Kushnick and his associates have helped to establish class action suits, filed complaints with the FCC, and various public service commissions, requested investigations by the IRS, and has help to create of the Broadband Bill of Rights, a proposed piece of legislation.)

Back to the rural super providers, I think the report indicates that a larger list of super rural provider would be better than 3 national providers; except that I don’t know that a larger list of medium sized providers is going to buy us more competition- because they cover different areas. I think some of the super providers are good and are invested in the communities they serve. I think some are invested in getting their own piece of that 220% increase in profit. I don’t think that’s unique to the telecommunications industry.

I suspect that the rural super providers will be lining up for federal stimulus dollars. It seemed early on as if the big guys were going to leave that money alone because of the potential of strings attached. Maybe the NTIA and RUS will be wise about those strings and I hope they read the 25 Year Analysis. It seems to me that if you get federal money to play that you play by federal rules. The 25 Year report doesn’t just indicate, is accuses the big providers of not doing that.

Another recent article outlines the risk of certain strings: How “Buy American” Could Ruin Broadband Stimulus Plans. It’s tough but there’s got to be a smart way to balance a goal of stimulating the American economy with American capitalism/profitability and more, better broadband. I’m afraid that in the of those three, broadband speeds are going to suffer.

Leave a Comment » | Policy, Research, Rural, Vendors | Permalink
Posted by Ann Treacy

Docsis 3.0 deployment in Minnesota

May 14, 2009

Thanks to Tim Finnerty for sending me a few article on Docsis 3.0 deployment. Docsis 3.0 permits the addition of high-speed data transfer to an existing Cable TV (CATV) system.

According to a report by Heavy Reading indicates that some deployment has slowed down with the economy – but the following are moving forward with plans.

Comcast has been most prominent in their plans to upgrade to Docsis 3.0; they plan to serve all customers by mid2010.

Mediacom has been testing it in employee homes – apparently supporting speeds of 100-Mbit/s. It doesn’t sounds as if they are planning to offer those speeds to customers – but 50 Mbit/s or 60 Mbit/s does sounds like the right market. The article in Cable Digital News doesn’t specify which communities will get the Docsis bump but in Minnesota, Mediacom serves Cloquet, Proctor, Eveleth, Hibbing, Franklin, Gaylord, Grand Rapids, Prior Lake, St Peter, Worthington, Two Harbors, Silver Bay, and Hoyt Lakes.
Knology offers Docsis 3.0 to 20 percent of their customers now. They are hoping to bump up to 70 percent by the end of the year and reach all customers by the end of 2010. Knology serves the following Minnesota communities (as PrairieWave) Adrian, Currie, Ellsworth, Edgerton, Jasper, Lake Wilson, Luverne, Marshall, Pipestone, Slayton, Tracy, and Worthington.

Leave a Comment » | MN, Vendors | Permalink
Posted by Ann Treacy

Qwest customers get AT&T hotspots for free

May 9, 2009

Qwest made a deal with AT&T and scored free access to AT&T’s hotspots for Qwest’s home customers. According to TwinCities.com, “Qwest said its studies showed one in five Twin Cities residents reported using Wi-Fi most often when outside the home, and 87 percent said they accessed Wi-Fi most often in a coffee shop, restaurant, bookstore or library. Free Wi-Fi is not uncommon in those locales, but it is not universal.”

I use public wifi nearly daily – but I rarely pay for it. In fact in the last year, I know that I paid $5 for daylong access on the U of M Morris campus last fall and in an airport last summer. Maybe the next iteration of this offer could include mobile broadband access – that I could use!

Leave a Comment » | MN, Vendors, Wireless | Permalink
Posted by Ann Treacy

Benton Foundation highlights Broadband Best Practices

May 9, 2009

Yesterday the Benton Foundation had a web conference – Setting a High Standard for Broadband Stimulus Funding: Urban and Rural Examples of the “Best in Breed”. I was thrilled to see that three (out of nine) of the experts they featured were Minnesota-based or from Minnesota.

I caught about an hour of the session. I haven’t been able to find an archive posted (yet). The good news is that I caught the folks with Minnesota connections. I thought I’d post my notes for folks who missed the session. You can also track the event archive on Twitter (just search for #bband_best).

Here are my notes. I’ve attributed names where and when I could.

I walked in when Tim Nulty was talking about how they brought fiber to rural Vermont. He mentioned 4 Principles of their template for success:
• Universal service – everyone gets access! And the law of averages makes that feasible
• Open access
• Financially self-sufficient
• Future-proof

Next was Gary Evans of Hiawatha Broadband – a hometown hero. He spoke about LUMINET, a great network in Winona, education based but recognized the need to include residents in network if they wanted to succeed. Gary talked about the steady growth of broadband access through HBC and the impact of access on those towns. Gary also talked about his shovel-ready project for stimulus funding – specifically bringing FTTH to more towns.

Next Donny Smith from Jaguar Communications – another hometown hero. They also serve rural areas (formerly Local Link). They serve 10,000 customers and have been profitable every year since they opened. They are private corporation.

Questions:

Art Brodsky – Pew says there isn’t demand in rural areas. What do you (rural folks) say?

Gary – It’s a myth. HBC is getting good penetration rates despite the fact that we are not the lowest cost option. In Wabasha MN – 60 percent of the population was signed up for service before we put a shovel in the ground. Rural American is hungry for broadband – and hungry for the creativity and vitality that broadband brings.

Tim – Each town had a referendum to join the project – the worst count we got was 73 percent saying we want it. We always got more than 50 percent (or better) pre-sign up rates when we tried it. Vermont Public TV did a program that found a guy who lives in a trailer fixing small engines. He needs the Internet to research engines to fix them. It’s about community survival. People move because they can’t get access: kids can’t do homework, elderly can’t get healthcare…

Donny – How do they use it? Pricing crops, education. When they survey prospective areas they get a 50 percent or better prospective take rate; the actual take rates are always better.

In San Francisco they need broadband to support the digital media industry. Without fiber, that industry gets moved overseas.

Geoff Daily – Will stimulus funding go to rural areas?

There’s an eco-system of small, startup companies that surround big (IT) companies. Collaboration would be easier with broadband. It would also save on fossil fuels. If companies could be

Market Failure – there is market failure and therefore rural areas need it.

Drew Clark – Many of you have done surveys for the RUS. Is the info that’s out there going to help evaluate stimulus need?

We have the experience to help make decisions (especially with wireless).

Tim – Sometimes these maps are used to postpone action. A map of 200K access is not that helpful. In Vermont we had towns that were officially served – but ask people if they are served and they say no. The maps help get the incumbents off the hook. Access to info is good – but not if it distracts from promoting activity.

Gary – I agree. The bigger issue is that DSL & cable are not broadband for tomorrow. Let’s not make the mistake of under-defining broadband.

Jim Baller – In North Carolina we won another battle today. Is this an issue of public versus private?

Tim? – I don’t think so. At the table today we have public, semi-nonprofit, and one private. We are members of the same team. I think it has to do with how things are provided. It has to do with the regulatory and community environment.

Michael (New America Foundation?) – The ARRA wants to bring broadband to community anchors (libraries, schools, hospitals) how would that have an impact on your work?

Gary – It’s the reason HBC started. It’s the reason we are applying for funding. Resources need to be shared.

Bill (from Seattle) – All Seattle anchors are connected. We need the residents connected.

Tim? – What if back in the day we only put phones in the anchors? Wouldn’t be very useful.

Donny – The problem with only focusing on those is that they become single-purpose networks and that’s not always helpful to the communities.

Question – If they’re open does that make a difference?

Not really. It only brings pockets of broadband.

David Chaffee? – What criteria does NTIA and RUS feel should weigh most heavily?

Universal service, Open access, Financially self-sufficient, Future-proof

Partnerships

What is broadband? Future-proof

PANEL TWO

Mark Ansbury – from One Community. They have worked well with public-private providers in Northern Ohio. He spoke about the success in his communities one the broadband was there. You need to think about sustainability and local ownership. 90 percent of famers can’t live on farming alone – they need healthcare, they need more income. New jobs can come online. Fiber is key to everything – even if you also need wireless. Keys for success:
• Collaboration & strong leadership
• Broadband community support & involvement
• Impactful community apps
• Public interest anchors
• Last mile options and carrier relationships

Geoff Daily – hometown hero (transplanted) for App-Rising. Fiber activist introducing Rural Fiber Alliance, focusing on making a policy impact for promoting fiber. Rural Fiber Alliance promotes fast-track loans for fiber projects to get shovel-ready projects going sooner rather than later.

Kate Williams – librarian from Champaign Urbana. They use community informatics to gauge success for technology/information literacy skills.

OK that’s it – sorry I had to go to a previously scheduled meeting.

Leave a Comment » | FTTH, MN, Policy, Rural, Vendors, Wireless | Permalink
Posted by Ann Treacy

« Previous Entries