Category Archives: Open Networks

Blaine not going for broadband

Posted on by
1

Anoka County has been working on an ARRA broadband stimulus grant. According to ABC Newspapers, Blaine will not be moving forward with the County to seek funding for broadband.

The article outlines many of the potential advantages Blaine would reap if they were part of the project, assuming they got money. But the City Council voted it down. There seemed to be great concerns about public funding getting into private business and/or providing an unfair advantage to one business.

Anoka County will be working with Zayo Broadband. They will be providing an open access network, which many readers will recognize means that other providers will be able to take advantage of the infrastructure. Zayo will be in more of a wholesale position.

One resident seemed to speak for many when she said…

“It’s the carrot and stick [approach],” she said. “I’m against public and private partnerships. We need to allow the private sector to provide Internet services.”

Also there seemed to be frustration with the whole NTIA/RUS broadband stimulus initiative…

[Mayor] Ryan said he was dissatisfied with the federal stimulus process but pointed out if local government entities didn’t apply, any money awards would go elsewhere.

[Councilmember] Hovland disagreed with Ryan’s view.

“I don’t see where this will stimulate the economy and create jobs,” Hovland said. “Somewhere, we have to stand up and say no.”

[Councilmember] Clark said if the county’s broadband initiative had been presented at part of a national policy initiative, he would have had a better understanding of why the city would be support it.

In the end the City Council voted unanimously against it.

St Paul moves a step ahead with plans for BTOP funding

Posted on by
Reply

Yesterday, the St Paul City Council consented to Resolution – 10-242 – Authorizing the Office of Technology and Communications to submit an ARRA NTIA Broadband Technology Opportunities Program grant request. (GS 3099816-Ward 7).

So what does that mean? According to the Pioneer Press, the plan (for St Paul and Ramsey County) will “link the governments in a truly high-speed Internet network and, proponents say, lay a base infrastructure that eventually could lead to the same top-quality service to businesses and residents, as well as needed support for growing 4G wireless networks.”

I don’t want to say the first step – as I know many hours of work has gone into getting the application this far – but this is a step towards requesting ARRA broadband stimulus funds and loans to build the infrastructure. It also cements a relationship with two local businesses, UniTek Global Services and Minnesota Fiber Exchange. They would build and manage the network.

According to Minnesota Fiber Exchange…

Our goal is to provide carrier neutral-dark fiber-open access networks to carriers and ISPs to allow them to expand their business base in the community. Especially in an area such as St. Paul and Ramsey County where currently there is a dearth of fiber assets for lease; we believe that this will be an exciting way for providers to increase customer reach. Our goal is to provide a competitively priced dark fiber service that will allow ISPs to grow business. The new network will replace the existing network in St Paul, which is a free network provided by Comcast.

Why are they doing this?

Again according to the Pioneer Press…

Hoping to save taxpayers money in the long run and boost the region’s march into the digital age, a host of officials from throughout Ramsey County are pushing a $30 million plan to build a new network of fiber-optic communication cable.

Open Wireless Network?

Posted on by
Reply

The St Cloud Times featured a story on NewCore, a company that has a plan to help stretch broadband into more remote areas. Rather than try to rephrase and potential misrepresent something I’m going to borrow heavily from the St Cloud story:

NewCore invested $5 million in infrastructure so rural telephone companies, local entrepreneurs and others can offer wireless through NewCore’s equipment. The infrastructure is actually computer equipment that — once connected to a cell phone tower or radio transmitter owned by one of its customers — allows people to use the Internet and make cell phone calls.

But it doesn’t connect directly with wireless users. Rather, companies and entrepreneurs buy the ability to use NewCore’s infrastructure so they can offer Internet and cell phone service to consumers.

NewCore is taking something usually found through large companies and making it available to any provider. Often the equipment is too expensive for small or rural companies to buy, Kangas said. And wireless Internet and cell phone coverage through larger companies can be spotty in rural areas, he said, because bigger businesses often focus on the nation’s top 50 markets.

So far NewCore has signed five deals with customers. Three are with Central Minnesota companies — Albany Mutual Telephone Association, Benton Cooperative Telephone Co. and Palmer Wireless. The other two are companies people will recognize, Kangas said, but NewCore can’t name them until finalizing contract details.

It sounds like an open source wireless network to me. What’s nice is this is the kind of innovation that broadband technology can spur. The company plans to have 3-40 employees in the next year and the average salary is $50,000 to $90,000. So it’s a win-win story. People create good jobs providing broadband to remote areas.

I don’t know what speed we’re talking about here – but it seems to me that for unserved areas wireless broadband is a great deal and for underserved areas, wireless broadband might be just the competition the incumbents need to bump up their own service.

More on the Minnesota Broadband Stimulus Applications

Posted on by
Reply

The list/database of NTIA applications for broadband stimulus funding came out late last week. Minnesotans submitted 28 applications in the hopper. Chris Mitchell at the Institute for Local Self Reliance took a look at the applications in terms of who best deserves the money to bring last mile connectivity to rural Minnesota. Chris, who would lean heavily towards community-based networks, put Lake County, Cook County, and City of Windom. He also favorably mentions the applying cooperatives and Jaguar Communication, which uses an open network. Chris has done a good job analyzing and distilling the infrastructure applications in Minnesota – so I thought I’d look at the broader picture.

There are 31 applications that are either submitted from Minnesota or plan to cover at least a part of Minnesota. (Applications received from outside Minnesota are listed below – where it says click for more info.)

How much?
Total grant funds requested: $306,655,771
Total loans requested: $107,641,221
Total when combined: $414,269,992

Who is submitting?
Applications from businesses: 18
Applications from government entities (counties, cities, schools): 5
Applications from cooperatives: 2
Applications from nonprofits: 2
Applications from private/public partnerships: 2
Applications from tribal entities: 2

What type of technology will they use?
Fiber: 13
Wireless: 6
DSL: 3
Not specified (in the summary provided): 3
Adoption focused: 5

Where are they?
Twin Cities: 4
Not specified: 1
ND: 2
WI (and partial MN): 1
The rest are in rural Minnesota. I was going to look for counties represented but too many summaries were too broad. When or if I can get more details I look into it.

Anyone going for more than one?
Donny Smith: 4
Hastad Telephone: 4
TDS: 2
John Schultz: 3
City of Minneapolis: 2 Continue reading →

Fiber in Lake County

Posted on by
2

Lake County Minnesota has engaged Tim Nulty and Gary Fields for a fiber to the Home project in Lake County. The project would include fiber for each home and business throughout Lake County.

Tim Nulty and Gary Fields will provide the study, design, build, and operation of the network. Lake County will own the asset but will not operate the network.

You can learn more about the project from a recent article in the Lake County News Chronicle; they covered a recent Lake County Board meeting. (Or you can learn a little bit about Tim and Gary’s history with the Iron Range’s former FiberNet project.)

Rural Internet and Broadband Policy Group

Posted on by
Reply

Thanks to Amalia Anderson for sharing the Rural Internet and Broadband Policy Group’s Rural Broadband Principles and Policy Recommendations with me.

So the story is a bunch of smart people, who clearly understand the issues in rural America got together to talk about the implications of broadband in rural areas.

They came up with two straightforward goals:

The Rural Internet and Broadband Policy Group has two goals: 1) to articulate national broadband policies that provide opportunities for rural communities to participate fully in the nation’s democracy, economy, culture, and society, and 2) to spark national collaboration among rural broadband advocates.

And then they backed it up with principles and policy recommendations, “based on four main needs of rural communities: 1) accurate data on service availability and adoption, 2) locally‐owned infrastructure, 3) assistance in technology adoption, and 4) uniform and transparent federal policies.”

Here’s the refreshing thing – the big answer isn’t more money. Instead many of the recommendations revolve around sharing info and resources that already exist, or would not monumental to create such as accurate mapping, upping minimum speed defined as broadband, creating a database of transportation projects to allow broadband providers to recognize opportunities for open conduit. They are pro open access networks, pro net neutrality and pro transparency.

The report is only six pages and is well worth the time – it definitely cuts to the chase.

Ultra High-Speed Broadband Task Force February 20, 2009

Posted on by
5

Here are my notes from yesterday’s Broadband Task Force meeting. I had to leave early – but this morning I saw that they now have video archives of the last few meetings available online. So, I was able to catch up a little – it’s very difficult at times to hear the conversation on the recording. In fairness, it can be hard in person too.

One quick aside, I had to leave to present at the Minnesota Council of Nonprofits, New Times – New Technology conference. While there I met a woman from the Minnesota Commission Serving Deaf & Hard of Hearing People. She was curious about BB Task Force and how they would be considering the needs of her constituents. As she pointed out remote classes by video is great – but without subtitles or sign interpreters, they close the door to some students. I don’t know if this is an issue for the Task Force; I don’t know that it isn’t. I know it’s an issue worth addressing.

OK back to the meeting…

Continue reading →

Minnesota Broadband Task Force Special Meeting

Posted on by
3

It was tougher to take notes at today’s meeting than it has been at previous Task Force meetings – especially when they discussed the shovel-ready projects because there was a lot of back and forth dialog and I’m a blogger not a stenographer. I’m going to include all of my notes – but I wanted to add a couple of notes.

First – I didn’t take great notes on the Broadband Mapping presentation because it was remarkably similar to the sneak preview I wrote about on Thursday. I just added notes and questions that were new.

Second – I just read an article in the Minneapolis Star Tribune (Broadband task force drops plan to get stimulus funds). I think the tone of the article is misleading. I don’t think the Task Force dropped the list of projects so much as they decided that realistically they couldn’t be the ones to decide which projects should be funded – and if they handed over a list of projects that the powers that be would assume that the Task Force had made some qualitative decisions to create the list.

They couldn’t decide which projects should be funded because (1) they don’t know the rules for funding yet because Congress is still creating rules and (2) they don’t have the time to delve into these projects and create a recommendation for the future of broadband in Minnesota, which is their primary goal. So instead of providing a list, it sounded to me at if the Task Force decided to provide benchmarks or guidelines for Legislators to decide which projects to fund after they gather their own list of potential projects.

Third, the Star Tribune article did pick up on the tension in the room between potentially opposing views on how and where to increase broadband in Minnesota. I think we saw a touch of this last month – I think we’re going to see a lot more as the group moves forward to make recommendations on how and where to increase broadband in Minnesota.

On with the meeting notes… Continue reading →

February Blandin eNews

Posted on by
Reply

Blandin Get Broadband CommunitiesHere’s the news from our latest newsletter. It’s mostly a compilation of Minnesota-related stories from the blog in the last month – but sometimes it’s nice to have it compiled.

Broadband News from around Minnesota

Carver County
The Carver County board approved a fiber optic project linking the county’s cities, schools and libraries, and ultimately businesses and homeowners. http://tinyurl.com/d4lxs2

Duluth
Verizon Wireless launched its high-speed wireless broadband Internet service in northern Minnesota. http://tinyurl.com/apt83p

Grand Rapids
Bill Coleman and Ann Treacy on behalf of the Blandin Foundation have been working with nonprofit executive directors in Grand Rapids to assess shared technology needs and collaborate on solutions. They are also working specifically with arts organizations in Grand Rapids to create a community arts blog, which should be unveiled later this month.

Kandiyohi
The Willmar Economic Development Commission is extending their Blandin-sponsored Get Broadband grant by offering a second ground of grants and more classes to local business working on their web sites. http://tinyurl.com/borafd

Minneapolis
Forbes names Minneapolis number 7 of their top 30 Most Wired Cities. http://tinyurl.com/btfsqn

Monticello
The NATOA (National Association of Telecommunications Officers and Advisors) recently filed an Amicus brief in support of the City of Monticello and their quest for FTTH. http://tinyurl.com/d3r46f

North St Paul
On February 24, North St Paul will hold a special election on an $18.5 million bond to build a fiber-optic network to provide high-speed Internet, telephone and cable services. http://tinyurl.com/c5cure

Olmsted County
Olmsted County supports 140 telecommuters. http://tinyurl.com/d43ehh

St Cloud
A St Cloud man has come up with a better wireless solution based on light, not radio waves. http://tinyurl.com/dbmwrr

Windom
The Windom Schools have benefitted greatly from broadband technology enhanced by funding from the Blandin Foundation’s Light Speed program. http://tinyurl.com/dak23k

(Many stories are gathered from local online newspaper. Unfortunately each newspaper has a different policy in regards to archive news and therefore we cannot guarantee access to all articles cited.)

Coleman’s Corner

As a big Bruce Springsteen fan, last night’s Super Bowl halftime show was a bonus for me. I am now watching the clock so I can go online and purchase tickets for his upcoming St. Paul show. I have seen Springsteen shows many times over the years and through the usual three hour shows, Bruce orchestrates the band and the crowd through a well choreographed outpouring of energy and emotion. Watching him play a 12 minute set was fun, but a bit unreal. When his set was over, I wondered how many attendees would have voted to skip the second half just to have the E Street Band keep playing. Luckily for the NFL, the game turned into a thriller.

In a pre-game interview, Bob Costas asked Bruce why, after all these years of being asked, the band agreed to play at the Super Bowl. Springsteen laughed and said “’Cause I have a record to promote!” The title song of the album is “Working on a Dream.”

Communities pursuing a better future through broadband might well adopt “Working on a Dream” as their theme song. The opening lyrics, “Out here the nights are long, the days are lonely” and later, “I am working on a dream, though sometimes it feels so far away” and finally “My hands are rough from working on a dream” capture the challenge of community transformation whether pursuing a fiber to the home network or stimulating technology adoption by hesitant or budget stretched community organizations. As with many Springsteen songs that speak to challenge, “Working on a Dream” has a hopeful conclusion that is the outcome of hard work and perseverance. So keep up the good work and the benefits of technology transformation will emerge!

Featured Article – Minnesota broadband mapping unveiled

This is a big week for Minnesota broadband for two reasons. First, Connected Nation will be unveiling a preview of their maps this week. Second, the Ultra High-Speed Broadband Task Force is holding a special meeting to look at the mapping and shovel-ready broadband projects around the state.

Over the past few months, Connected Nation (http://tinyurl.com/d92x93) has been working with broadband providers across the state to create a map of broadband availability and speed. They primarily use the information supplied by the providers to create the maps.

To double check the speeds supplied by providers, Connected Nation has created a speed test and they are asking everyone in Minnesota to test and record their speeds by visiting the site.

Unfortunately, one of our local ISPs (ipHouse) found a hiccup in the Speed Test (http://tinyurl.com/c6cs37).  Apparently the test is skewed for any connections other than DSL or cable, it’s limited to 10mpbs connection and the tests are run out of Texas. Connected Nation has been criticized for their strong relationship to providers in the past (http://tinyurl.com/dkqhh7). The speed tests are a way to balance provider-supplied data so I look forward to hearing how this can be rectified and/or how this affects the results.

Also I’m anxious to see the maps. I suspect we’ll see holes up North and I wonder if we’ll see patchy areas closer to the Twin Cities. I’m curious to see how areas where the large businesses can pay top dollar for broadband but homes and small businesses cannot get access are represented on the map.

Even in their preliminary state, I suspect these maps will be put to work immediately to gauge which areas in Minnesota might be most in need of shovel-ready projects. The Ultra High-Speed Broadband Task Force will be discussing shovel-ready projects and the mapping on February 6, 2009.

There are three ways to add your two cents to the mapping project and the economic stimulus proposals:

  1. Visit the Connected Minnesota site to test and record the speed of your connection. (http://www.connectmn.org/)
  2. Submit a shovel-ready project idea to the Ultra High-Speed Broadband Task Force. (http://www.ultra-high-speed-mn.org/)
  3. Come to view the meeting on February 6, 2009 (http://tinyurl.com/d953zk)

The broadband maps will also be unveiled to Senate on February 5 at 3:00 (http://tinyurl.com/blftea) and the House at 8:30 am on February 6 (http://tinyurl.com/d2kevk).

House Stimulus Package and Broadband

Posted on by
3

I’ve put it off long enough – I have to tackle the House Stimulus package in regards to broadband. The super quick take (borrowed from PC World) – “A U.S. House of Representatives committee has recommended the U.S. government give out US$6 billion in grants for wireless and broadband roll-out in a $825 billion economic stimulus package to be considered in Congress.” There are also some pockets where broadband could fit in – such as $20 billion for health IT programs.

So some of the big questions have been – what are the details and is it enough (or too much)? I guess the biggest question is – how can we get some of that? The best answer I have for local folks is to contact the Ultra High-Speed Task Force – not because I think they will be making decisions but because they are the ones in Minnesota asking for ideas right now.

So what are the details?

Here are details I’ve garnered from different places:

  • The overall focus is projects that will have an immediate economic impact, with a goal of using at least 50% of the funding for projects that can be initiated in 120 days.
  • The broadband infrastructure funding is for “open-access” networks.
  • The USDA’s Rural Utilities Service (RUS) would get $2.825 in rural Broadband
    Infrastructure Recovery Funding. They are looking for under-served areas, they are looking for repeat customers (folks who have worked with the RUS before), and they want a quick start date.
  • NTIA would get $2.825 billion for the Wireless and Broadband Deployment Grant Programs to subsidize the development of broadband and wireless services in un-served and underserved areas. About half to go to voice service and broadband (mobile broadband I think); half would go to fixed wireless. They want to have at last one project per state, need matching funds and again call for open access networks.
  • NTIA will get $350 million for broadband mapping.

So is it enough?

I know this part gets longer than I intended – but think of it as the Cliff Notes version of what the scuttlebutt is. Continue reading →

Energy, Utilities, Technology and Communications Committee Notes from Jan 13, 2009

Posted on by
1

Earlier this week the Energy, Utilities, Technology and Communications Committee met to talk about how to take advantage of President Elect Obama’s stimulus package.

I wasn’t able to attend on January 13 – but I was able to watch and take notes today. You can watch it online too or you can read my notes… Continue reading →

Broadband + rural = stimulus?

Posted on by
2

Earlier this week President Elect Obama spoke about his stimulus package. He promised that this wouldn’t be just another public works program. He wants federal money to invest in infrastructure such as roads, bridges and broadband in rural areas. The goal is to expand “broadband lines across America, so that a small business in a rural town can connect and compete with their counterparts anywhere in the world.”

So it’s great that he mentioned rural and broadband. I’ve posted articles  on the number of jobs that will be created by a large scale broadband deployment project and the economic impact of broadband in a rural area. We love to see that. Well, it seems like we ought to love it – but some people have had some thought-provoking perspectives.

The Daily Yonder point out that broadband is all rural areas have seen or heard from Obama up to this point. Families cannot live on broadband alone. They are afraid that other rural needs are being forgotten. The example they give is the White House Task Force on Working Families. It includes the Secretaries of Labor, Health and Human Services, Education, Commerce, as well as folks from the president’s economic team. But the Secretary of Agriculture was not included in the original announcement.

The good news is that there are members of Congress who are aware of this discrepancy and they are speaking up. As Daily Yonder notes, “Democratic Majority Whip Jim Clyburn (of South Carolina) leads several House Democrats who ‘are pushing for language in the economic stimulus package that will ensure that rural communities and more impoverished areas receive their fair share of development funds,’ according to Congress Daily.”

It will be telling to see how Obama is able to fit that perspective into his plan. I think/hope that there is room for such collaboration and expansion of his plan.

Art Brodsky at Public Knowledge has other concerns. The title of his post is a top off, Stimulus Package Shouldn’t Reward Bad Broadband Behavior. His concern is that we’re pouring more money into a solution that didn’t work the first time around. (I paraphrase hugely.) As with the Daily Yonder, he’s got a point. I’ve read several articles where Qwest has promoted Obama’s plan – including a local article in the West Central Tribune. (OK, promote is a little strong for the article – but I love to use MN examples.)

Brodsky points out that if underserved areas are going to be served then the local incumbents need to “clean up their acts, or they have to make way for others.” He also says the consumers need to benefit too – which sounds a lot like feedback on the big bank bailouts of late. (I have to add my own note to say that some incumbents are great.)

He suggested getting the FCC to open up competition by allowing for other companies to have access to the lines of telecom and cable companies through wholesale or line sharing. Also support for consumers and companies, like Lifeline or universal service, should be reconfigured to encourage broadband.

He offers a grant process too – but says we should open it up to anyone in underserved areas, including municipalities. Incumbents could qualify under conditions that could range from line sharing and wholesaling to build-out and data speed requirements with obligations to report publicly on deployment progress and location.

Finally he suggests that early adopter consumers get tax breaks too for upping their broadband orders. I love that. So we consumers get a bump and providers get a bump in demand.

Open Networks with Geoff Daily & Christopher Mitchell

Posted on by
Reply

Recently Geoff Daily of App-Rising and Christopher Mitchell of Institute for Local Self Reliance spoke on Geoff’s blog via VidChat about Open Networks.

The conversation starts with why this is important, what Open Networks are and goes into some of the more detailed issues. They do a good job of describing what an Open Network might mean for a resident, a community and provider perspective.

As they point out, the change in Administration indicates that there may be a greater interest in Open Networks on a national level so it makes sense to learn more about what they are, the advantages and the risks.

I think it would be helpful to anyone who was pretty new to the idea of Open Networks – regardless of their background knowledge of telecommunications.

Minnesota Ultra High Speed Task Force December Meeting

Posted on by
3

Big crowd at the Task Force meeting today. Loads of people joining via phone. I have not seen so many suits since I quit working at law libraries.

I have included my notes, such as they are. Please forgive any typos. Thanks to the Task Force for sharing the PPT presentations.

I usually try not to give too much of my opinion, but… I think it was great for so many providers to come in to talk. But I think it might have been more helpful to give each 90 seconds to speak and then let the board ask questions. I think that would have helped get beyond the party lines for each business and into more heated issues.

Here are the notes… Continue reading →

Riding on infrastructure that someone else builds… (TISP Notes)

Posted on by
2

I was a little late for the TISP meeting on Private Providers & Public Partners. So I’m just going to jump in where I walked in.

Here are the speakers:

Notes:
Gary Evans – HBC should/will pick up the mandate to help rural communities with connectivity. They have worked with municipalities. They helped others learn from their lessons. Technology is the difference between viability and failure.

Jaguar provides services that rural communities lack. They want to help rural areas to be competitive. Businesses looking to relocate are asked about connectivity first. The technology available today has made things different. (They mentioned Calix’s equipment.)

tispLayers of service (thanks to Mike O’Connor summary of the 7 layer OSI model you might be able to see Mike’s drawing of the layers from the picture at the right. Thanks to Bill Colman for the pic!)

  1.  you Application (high margin work, not much capital investment)
  2. Internet
  3. Physical (low margin work; big capital required)

Question: It’s expensive to be an ISP. How can we get the capital to hook up with the physical layer?

HBC: For small companies the issue of infrastructure is all about money. So in the ISP world partnership is the way to go and move ahead. In some ways we start with the money and that’s not the best way. VISION  is way more important. We’re most effective when we have a vision – what and why do we want to do?

St Charles is a good example. In 2001 they wanted to be #1 bedroom community to Rochester and needed state of the art telecom to do that. HBC could borrow money less expensively that St Charles. HBC built the network and the City began to market. There were 2 housing developments – now there are 8. It’s a great demo site.

Jaguar: There’s a lot of truth in the layers – but it’s not that simple since we do make money in the physical layer. The physical layer does have less revenue and if that doesn’t change not much more is going to be built.

Google has been clever about this. One issue is Net Neutrality. A user needs to be able to access to things on the net. But you can’t charge the providers for repeat traffic to their content.

Question: Do you think a natural monopoly will emerge? In 100 years, will there be more than one pipe into your home?

Yes. But, we need to transition from today’s situation.

Question: Can we deliver services effectively over open access networks?

There a distinction between a shared network and an open network built by someone else. And for the most part they didn’t talk about a shared network tonight.

ISPs generally provide services over a connection that they don’t manage. (So they are in effect a model for the open access model.) The ISPs are happy to ride on a network and they will provide a higher level of service. It’s easier to do with some physical providers than others because some physical providers are easier to work with. ILECs have more difficulty with the idea of an open network.

It all comes down to the details of how you work with the owners of that network. From the providers perspective service is essential – that may or may not be the case for the physical  provider. On top of the service provider (ISP) level is the applications.

One question is how far into the physical level do you let an ISP go? One option migh tbe to a provider own the whole stack to provide triple play. That happens but not to the root level – maybe up to (or down to) Layer 3. The network is more efficient is you leave providers out of Layer 2. (Beyond Layer 2 gets pretty expensive.)

Fixed costs is a based cost to getting into a house; consumers don’t like it – but it’s what it costs, However that’s on the physical layer. At the application layer that isn’t such an issue. On top of infrastructure you have licensing costs, potential upgrades (say in servers of routers) and other.

Question: Utopia offered that model and it didn’t work. What could they have done better?

Provider with infrastructure in place won’t be into the open access model. Providers aren’t anxious to take a chance to compete with so many people on top of the incumbent. So that’s where the customer with the vision can make a difference. Exclusivity is better desired.

Question: How can a city mitigate risks?

iProvo is a model of what not to do.

It’s all about communication. Why am I building this? What do I want to accomplish? Who can help me do this? For HBC there isn’t a cookie cutter approach. So you have to look at it on a case-by-case issue. Some stopper issues have arisen. (Folks want control of customer service. And there are few providers out there that trust other providers.)

Jaguar has built trust with ISP who use their physical structure through tariffs, even on products that generally don’t require tariffs. That way there’s a 3-way contract with the state and everyone knows what the price is – works especially well when there are multiple providers.

Question: Is capital availability the only reason to run on someone else’s network?

Yes it is an issue – but it’s all about goals. It comes down to how you distribute cost.

Question: How do you get capital?

RUS loans and investment of profits. They are ugly to fill out – but clearly worth it. The regulatory issues get tough to wade through.

The cities can make it easy or hard, expensive or cheap to have a provider build out. Potentially there are fees, licenses…

People don’t understand what the real cost per home is. Jaguar is spending $1 billion for a current project. A per house cost of $1000 was thrown out – and not disputed.

Question: Can the Task Force make it easier fpr providers?

They are looking at other state reports. Hawaii just suggested that they align the regs, local, county, statewide…

Question: What about the Obama effect?

The talk is right – but we won’t know until we know.
Obama just talked about looking for shovel-ready projects. It would be nice to be that State.

Question: How does Jaguar make decisions on where to go next?

To start, they picked an area. But since then they have started talking to cities about their requirements to share. Most cities don’t’ want to run a network.

What’s the perfect municipality/partner?

  • Have a goal
  • Capital
  • Political capital
  • Good anchor tenants

Perfect woudl be the perfect help from Obama:

  • Regulation improvements
  • Follow through

CWA just published a list of items for the Obama of things that would help

Recipe for Success:

  • Vision
  • ISP
  • Cooperative Network Owners
  • Capable network operators
  • Capital
  • Successful negotiation
  • Exclusivity?
  • Good design
  • Community buy-in
  • Anchor tenants
  • Regulatory support
  • Follow through