Broadband Boot Camp 2016 AM Sessions

BROADBAND BOOT CAMP: TUESDAY, DECEMBER 6, 2016

BROADBAND STRATEGIES FOR WISCONSIN
COMMUNITIES
DECEMBER, 2016
UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN EXTENSION

THEMES
1. Where we are in the development of broadband (high-speed) Internet.
2. Strategies and business models for enabling broadband development.
3. Best practices for maximizing the potential for private sector investment in your community.

INTERNET TECHNOLOGY SPEED
DEVELOPMENT
Dial
-up
Wireline
Technology
50
kbps
100
kbps
500
kbps
1
Mbps
5
Mbps
10
Mbps
50
Mbps
100
Mbps
200
Mbps
500
Mbps
700 MHz
Broadband
EDGE
3G
4G
TV “White Spaces”
Unlicensed TV
Frequencies
1 Gbps
DSL
Cable Modem
(through DOCSIS 3.0)
Fiber-to-the-Premises
Wireless
Technology
Technology not widely
deployed or standardized
Technology at a mature state of
deployment
Technology at conceptual or
developmental stage
Max Bitrate
Data Speed
Capacity B-PON, G-PON, 10G-PON
NG-PON2, WDM-PON
DOCSIS 3.1
10+ Gbps

DOWNLOAD TIMES FOR TECHNOLOGIES

FRAMEWORK FOR OPTIONS
Balance risk, benefit, control
 Municipal broadband
 Incumbent upgrade
 Partnerships
 Model 1: Private risk & investment
 Model 2: Public risk & private execution
 Model 3: Shared risk, investment

MUNICIPAL MODEL
 Maximum risk, reward, control
 Established strategies
 Electric utility confers huge benefits
 Key case studies
 Wilson, NC
 Lafayette, LA
 Chattanooga, TN
 Longmont, CO
 High risk, limited replicability

INCUMBENT UPGRADE
 Largely catalyzed by prospect of competition (100% overlap with Google Fiber builds)
 This dynamic on the wane?
 Easy upgrade path for cable companies—can deliver solid speed and good competition for FTTP
 Telco upgrade path more challenging, requires significant investment

MODEL 1: PRIVATE RISK, PUBLIC FACILITATION
 City facilitates private investment
 Leading private entity is Google Fiber
 Strong interest by smaller companies
 Reduced risk, no control, potential benefit
 Facilitation can expand to tax benefits, other economic development incentives
 Metronet in Indiana

MODEL 1 STRATEGY: GROW YOUR ASSETS
• Lease public assets such as fiber,
conduit, and real estate
• Lease middle-mile fiber
• Lease fiber in hard-to-reach areas
• Increase existing fiber capacity if
insufficient fiber exists
• Facilitate underground construction
• Develop a “dig-once” policy
• Maintain future-proof conduit
specifications
• Enable all parties to take advantage of
“dig-once”
• Place conduit banks in congested areas
• Facilitate aerial construction
through access to utility poles
• Facilitate make-ready
process to streamline pole
access
• Eliminate the need for make-
ready
• Facilitate in-building access for
wireline infrastructure
• Ensure availability of conduit
from street to building
• Ensure installation of in-
building pathways and
cabling

MODEL 1 STRATEGY: MAKE DATA AVAILABLE
• Make data available wherever possible
• Make GIS data sets available
• Document and publish data regarding available conduit, fiber,
and other assets
• Document your fiber assets
• Document your conduit assets

MODEL 1 STRATEGY: MAXIMIZE PROCESS
Process Efficiency
• Build broadband into planning and staffing of all relevant
agencies
• Streamline and publicize procedures and timeframes for
permitting and inspections
• Allow network operators to contract pre-approved third-
party inspectors to speed processes and reduce local
burdens

MODEL 1 CASE STUDY: NCNGN RALEIGH/DURHAM REGION
 Offer of existing city fiber
 Attention to processes
 Regional collaboration
 RFP led to agreements with AT&T
 Google also building in some of these communities

MODEL 1 CASE STUDY: MESA, AZ
 Concern about impact of fiber construction on ROW, city costs
 Long-term strategy to build assets
 Focus on four target economic development areas
 Apple silicon manufacturing lab

MODEL 1 CASE STUDY: HOLLY SPRINGS, NC
 Town built robust rings for internal
services
 Engineered to enable FTTP in
future
 Highly efficient processes,
alignment
 Fiber lease agreement with Ting
internet
 Ting will lease public fiber for
backbone
 Ting will build to homes &
businesses

MODEL 1 CASE STUDY: HOWARD COUNTY, MD;
ARLINGTON COUNTY, VA; PLEASANT PRAIRIE, WI
 Deploy fiber strategically, with focus on key economic development targets
 Connect to Internet peering point (could be local meet point)
 Locality to build & own, lease to private partners on open access basis
 Pricing designed to attract ISPs and non-traditional users such as building owners.

MODEL 2: PUBLIC RISK WITH PRIVATE
EXECUTION
 Variation on traditional municipal ownership
 High risk
 Emerging innovation makes use of the traditional P3 structure used in Europe
and increasingly in US
 Leverages private sector strengths
 First time applied to broadband in US—untested in US
 Guaranteed revenue stream to private partner
 Financial risk
 Political risk

MODEL 2 CASE STUDY: UTOPIA
 Macquarie Capital team
 Midst of complex process with range of Utopia member communities
 Turn-key private financing, deployment, operations, and revenue-sharing
 Guaranteed public funding in the form of a utility fee to all residents
 In some communities, will not be a politically viable model (this has been true with some in Utah)
 In others, can be strong model for buildout

MODEL 2 CASE STUDY: LAKE OSWEGO, OR
 Symmetrical Networks team
 City Council recently approved negotiation of contract for P3
 Private financing and deployment
 Public service provision (in this case) through potential partnership with local ISP
 Key to financing is effective public guarantee of the debt
Financial projections suggest low risk, but the risk falls nonetheless to the City

MODEL 2 CASE STUDY: FRONTIER IN CT
 Frontier has made preliminary proposals to a range of CT localities
 Very promising development
 Private financing and deployment
 15 year financial commitment by Town
 Minimum level of service to all addresses, with opportunity to buy advanced
services
 Key will be detail regarding enforceable commitments
 Build out of fiber
 Note: upfront risk is minimized but no potential financial upside

MODEL 3: SHARED RISK
 Opportunity for innovation
 Plays to strengths of both parties
 From the standpoint of a locality, risk shared but 100%
of network benefit realized
 Public benefit does not show up on financial statements
 Private partner gets financial benefit

MODEL 3 CASE STUDY: GARRETT COUNTY, MD
 Underserved rural
areas
 Fiber construction
strategy for key
anchors
 Public/private
wireless to key target
areas
 Public risk contained

MODEL 3 CASE STUDY: URBANA/CHAMPAIGN, IL
 Private access to cities’ fiber in return for binding commitments, meeting community goals:
1. Fiber at gigabit speeds
2. Open access – ongoing commitment to wholesale service
3. No cherry-picking
• Right of first refusal in event of sale recently exercised
to secure successor partner of communities’ choice

MODEL 3 CASE STUDY: WESTMINSTER, MD
 City will own fiber only; lease to
partner to operate on open-
access basis
 Ting Internet selected as partner
 Ting shares financing risk; city
shares market risk

MODEL 3 CASE STUDY: HUNTSVILLE, AL
 City developed plan for gigabit networking and partnership
 Announcement February 22 that Google Fiber will lease fiber to be deployed by Huntsville Utilities
 We believe that Google Fiber is open to new partnerships of this sort
 But--the economics for a public utility may not be replicable for a city without an electric utility

A FEW CAUTIONS
 Be skeptical of rosy projections
 Be sure that risk as well as opportunity are shared
 Be aware of dependencies and control
 Avoid silicon snake oil:
 Technology snake oil: technologies whose capabilities are overstated
 Business snake oil: unrealistic business plans that ask for no risk (or pretends
there is no risk)
 Unrealistic revenue assumptions

FACTORS AFFECTING BROADBAND DEVELOPMENT
Internet
service
provider
activity
Availability of
infrastructure
Consumer
demand /
adoption
Regulation
s
Return on
investment
Existing
infrastructure
Public
financing
Consumer
confidenc
e
Affordability
Consumer
savvy

FRAMEWORK FOR CHANGE
1. Increase urgency
2. Build guiding teams
3. Get the vision right
4. Communicate the vision
5. Enable action
6. Create short-term wins
7. Don’t let up
8. Make it stick

SESSION CONTEXT
 Review a 7 Element Framework for Negotiation
 Apply it to a real life story
 Give you a chance to interact with others and test
your ideas

FIRST REFLECTION
With whom am I negotiating?

A 7 ELEMENT FRAMEWORK FOR NEGOTIATION
ACTION
Commitment Best Alternative
ISSUE CONTENT
Interests Options Criteria
PEOPLE
Relationship Communication
or

NEGOTIATION: WE DO IT ALL THE TIME

SECOND REFLECTION : ON ADOPTION
I/we would like (specific audience) to be
able to (do what) .
I/we would like (group of people) to
contribute (action) to this effort.

THIRD REFLECTION : ON INTERESTS
I/we want (action) because (hopes /
fears / potentials) .

Therefore: I think I want to negotiate
with (another party) .

Therefore: I think I want to negotiate
with (another party) .
The other party wants (action) because
(their hopes / fears / potentials) .

FULL GROUP REFLECTION
What will you take away from this
activity?

BROADBAND BOOT CAMP
Larry Quamme - Village of Ferryville
Jerod Hoel - CenturyLink

PROJECT SCOPE
 Project provided the following:
 Placed six(6) miles of fiber cable from the Seneca Central office to the Ferryville Remote.
 Purchase of equipment to replace manufactured discontinued equipment in the Ferryville Remote.
 Removed the Permanent Exhaust status and can provide speeds up to 50mg.

THE START
 Meeting of the Minds
 January 2014 met with Ferryville residents to discuss slow speeds.
 After meeting discussed issues with our executive leadership. Decided to move forward with request for WI
Broadband grant.
 Proposal was submitted for 2014 construction cycle.

THE DISAPPOINTMENT
 July of 2014 original proposal was rejected
 Proposal was reviewed and it was felt that we (CenturyLink) should resubmit with some corrections.

THE HAPPY ENDING
 Second proposal was submitted August of 2014 with corrections:
 Increased CenturyLink match.
 Created a stronger partnership with Village of Ferryville.
 Received funds from Grant County Economic Development Board.
 Proposal received approval in September of 2014.

PROJECT CONSTRUCTION
 Project was started in late August of 2015
 Issues Encountered
 Right-of-way issues
 Completed end of November 2015

GRANTS AWARDED TO CHOICETEL
 2014 – ChoiceTEL and City of Eagle River Highway 17
project
 2014 – ChoiceTEL and City of Eagle River Highway G
project
 2016 – ChoiceTEL and the Town of Land O’ Lakes –
Phase I

CHOICETEL AND THE TOWN OF LAND O’ LAKES –
PHASE I

CONTACT INFORMATION
ChoiceTEL
www.ChoiceTEL.net
info@choicetel.net
Town of Land O’ Lakes
www.townoflandolakes.com
town.landolakes@gmail.com

IRON COUNTY BROADBAND EXPANSION
Broadband Committee
 Representatives from Iron County Wisconsin and Gogebic County Michigan
 Representation from Economic Development, Elected Officials, Gogebic Community
College, UW Extension, Interested Citizens
Project Partnerships:
 Iron County Board
 Iron County Resource Development Association, Inc.
 Gogebicrange.net
 Towns of Oma, Mercer and Sherman
 Public Service Commission
 Department of Natural Resources
Projects:
 Fixed wireless on three towers in northern Iron County completed in 2016.
 Fixed wireless on four towers including two DNR fire towers to be completed in 2017
More information:
 www.ironcountywi.com select the broadband expansion icon
 Kelly@ironcountywi.com
 www.gogebicrange.net

Broadband Boot Camp 2016 AM Sessions

Broadband Boot Camp 2016 AM Sessions

More Related Content

What's hot

Similar to Broadband Boot Camp 2016 AM Sessions

More from WI Broadband

Recently uploaded

Broadband Boot Camp 2016 AM Sessions

Editor's Notes