The following stories have been tagged massachusetts ← Back to All Tags

New Video Series on Better Broadband in Cambridge, Massachusetts

Cambridge, Massachusetts has established a Broadband Task Force and is looking for ways to better its local connectivity. In order to educate the public about the advantages of broadband, the local community CCTV channel will televise presentations and sit-downs between local leaders who can describe how it will impact Cambridge.

The first episode of Cambridge Broadband Matters recently aired and is now available to view. It runs approximately 30 minutes long and features Georgiana Chevry of Cambridge Community Learning Center, Susan Flannery of Cambridge Public Library, and Jay Leslie of the Cambridge Housing Authority.  

One of the topics they address in this episode is the connection between broadband and adult education and workforce development. The issue is critical in Cambridge and many communities as we transition to an information based economy.

 

Holyoke Success Spurs Interest in Mass Muni Networks - Community Broadband Bits Episode 162

A few weeks back, we noted an excellent new report on Holyoke Municipal Light Plant in Massachusetts published by the Berkman Center for Internet and Society. This week, we discuss the report and lessons learned from it with David Talbot, Fellow at the Berkman Center.

David gives us some of the key takeaways from the report and we discuss what other municipal light plants are doing, including how Holyoke Gas & Electric is using the state owned middle mile network to partner with other municipalities like Greenfield and Leverett.

Finally, David offers some insight into how the municipal light plants that have not yet engaged in expanding Internet access think about the challenges of doing so. You can listen to (or read the transcript of) episode 65, where we interviewed Tim Haas of Holyoke Gas & Electric.

Read the transcript from this episode here.

We want your feedback and suggestions for the show - please e-mail us or leave a comment below.

This show is 20 minutes long and can be played below on this page or via iTunes or via the tool of your choice using this feed.

Listen to other episodes here or view all episodes in our index. You can can download this Mp3 file directly from here.

Thanks to bkfm-b-side for the music, licensed using Creative Commons. The song is "Raise Your Hands."

Holyoke Case Study from Berkman Center Explores Massachusetts Muni Fiber

A few weeks ago, Harvard’s Berkman Center for Internet and Society released a report that documents the achievements of Holyoke Gas & Electric (HG&E) Telecom, a municipal electric utility that now provides fiber-optic broadband Internet to local businesses in several western Massachusetts towns. The utility’s move into fiber-optics has led to municipal savings for the City of Holyoke, as well as increased high-speed access in neighboring cities, and driven economic development. We interviewed Holyoke's Senior Network Engineer, Tim Haas, in a previous episode of the Community Broadband Bits podcast.

Because the state of Massachusetts has no barriers that prevent the creation of municipal Internet networks, HG&E has been able to compete on a level playing field with incumbent ISPs Comcast and Charter. HG&E is among 12 MLPs (Municipal Light Plants) out of 41 in the state to offer fiber Internet services. Researchers at the Berkman Center believe that MLPs could play a large role in expanding Internet access and business opportunities throughout the state as electricity revenues experience diminishing returns and data needs grow. For example, HG&E’s fiber connection was a factor in the Massachusetts Green High Performance Computing Center’s decision to open a $90 million data center in Holyoke. 

HG&E is a somewhat unique municipal network in that it offers services not only in Holyoke, but also in nearby Chicopee. It also assists Leverett and Greenfield with their own networks. In Chicopee, the utility provided fiber access in a collaboration with 35 local businesses. In Leverett, it is managing the municipal network, with services provided by a local private company. As for Greenfield, HG&E now serves as the ISP for City Hall and the city’s police station, both of which will function as Internet access nodes as the town looks to create a fiber and wireless network that extends into homes and businesses. 

Unlike in North Carolina and Tennessee, where public interest groups had to petition the FCC to strike down a law preventing cities from extending fiber into neighboring municipalities, in Massachusetts cross-municipal collaboration can happen at the drop of a hat. The authors of the report write: 

These deals provide modest revenue streams and also illustrate how a MLP telecom division can extend its offerings far beyond the usual geographic boundaries of electricity service.

Though HG&E currently only offers municipal fiber optic services to business and community anchor institutions, the next step for other MLPs is the provisioning of fiber-to-the-home (FTTH) services. The report highlights Westfield’s plans to use its public utility to roll out an FTTH offering: 

The offering will include optional phone service, but no TV bundle. WGE [Westfield Gas and Electric Department] had rejected the idea of residential service several times over the past 10 years because it would have meant providing TV content. Now, however, on-demand video services are becoming popular. 

The Berkman Center report, which runs 21 pages, illustrates both the shifting demands for broadband access, as well as a collaborative method for addressing these needs. The hope is that reports of this nature can contribute to an ever-increasing wealth of knowledge with regards to the variety of municipal approaches in play for expanding high-speed, reliable Internet access.

Cambridge Broadband Advocate at the Summit: "We Are the Perfect Testbed"

In April, Chris spoke at the Broadband Communities Summit in Austin. If you were not able to attend, Saul Tannenbaum's Readfold.com article gives you a taste of what it was like. Tannenbaum is a member of the Cambridge Broadband Task Force, recently set up by the city's City Manager to investigate the possibility of municipal broadband connectivity.

Tannenbaum describes his experience there and some of the typical discussions he encounters while investigating a muni network. What role should the local or state government play in bettering connectivity? What is preventing the U.S. from excelling at ubiquitous access for all income levels? Why a municipal network? For Tannenbaum, and other residents of Cambridge, those questions are especially significant because the town is historically a place of technological innovation. Gigabit connectivity may be the gold standard, but in a place like Cambridge, it is the minimum:

Cambridge has companies and institutions for whom high capacity, high speed networks are mission critical. MIT, Harvard, the Broad Institute, Google, Microsoft, Biogen-Idec, Novartis, and many others who are not yet household names, move large amounts as part of daily work. With partners like those, Cambridge can become a true testbed for the network of the future. Cambridge, where the Internet was invented, can be where the next Internet is developed.

We encourage you to read the entire article, which also offers up some great resources, but Tannenbaum made the case for his home town:

[Cambridge] pairs a legacy of being on the frontiers of social justice with an economic sector whose future health requires a free and open Internet. It is a rarity in Cambridge politics to find the interests of our innovation community and our social justice community to be so closely aligned.

WiredWest Grows: Roster of Towns Up to 22

Momentum is growing in WiredWest territory and each town that votes takes on a fresh enthusiasm. New Salem is one of the latest communities to overwhelmingly support joining the municipal broadband cooperative. The Recorder reported that all but one of the 189 registered New Salem voters chose to authorize borrowing $1.5 million to move forward with the initiative. There are now 22 towns that have joined.

According to Moderator Calvin Layton, a typical town meeting draws 60 to 70 voters, far less than this one did. Apparently, investing in better connectivity is a hot button issue in places like New Salem, where Internet access is slow, scant, and expensive.

Poor connectivity has impacted local commerce and even driven some residents with home-based businesses away from New Salem. For Travis Miller, a role playing game designer, and his wife Samantha Scott, an IT professional, the town’s slow Internet speeds were holding them back so they moved away. In a letter to the New Salem Broadband Committee, Miller wrote:

A lack of broadband Internet service was one of the elements in our decision to move. A substantial online presence has become a basic requirement for successful table top game designers. Many of the platforms used to interact with fans and clients require broadband service. Our lack limits my income and makes further penetration into the market difficult if not impossible.

Adam Frost — owner of an online toy store, The Wooden Wagon — also found New Salem’s slow Internet speeds to be a limiting factor for his business. He said:

Though The Wooden Wagon is a specialty business, our needs are not unique: pretty much any business owner or person hoping to telecommute has the same requirements. Businesses outside the region with whom we work expect us to be at the same level technologically as they: they will not make concessions just because our Internet service is outdated. We must keep up, or be left behind.

Communities in western Massachusetts are each taking up authorization needed to cover their share of the connectivity project. All but one of 23 towns voting thus far have exhibited strong support. In Montgomery - that one town that did not support the proposal - the measure lost by only two votes, reported the Berkshire Eagle. Chesterfield and Goshen approved funding earlier this month, both to big crowds of voters. Leyden approved their participation at a meeting in May with a 90-33 vote.

Of the 45 towns eligible to participate and obtain state funding, 33 Select Boards have committed to presenting bond authorization measures before their voters. Monica Webb, Chair of WiredWest's Board of Directors told the Eagle in June:

"Ultimately, the overwhelming votes so far are a resounding affirmation that the citizens, businesses and institutions of Western Mass. towns underserved by broadband are ready, willing and eager to move forward with the WiredWest regional fiber network."

We spoke with Webb in May in episode #149 of the Community Broadband Bits podcast.

Local residents who were tired of dial-up and satellite established the cooperative as a way to band together and turn up the volume on their collective voice. Each community has representation on the executive board and will receive a share of state funding designated for the project.

At the meeting in New Salem, the town's Broadband Committee Chair MaryEllen Kennedy told told the audience:

“Our goal is to make this broadband available to every house, not just the places that are easy to wire, another reason we thought a government co-op was the way to go."

The next step in New Salem and in other Massachusetts communities where voters have approved borrowing is to hold a special town election to approve an exemption to Massachusetts' Proposition 2 1/2 tax levy limit.

Holyoke: A Massachusetts Municipal Light Plant Seizes Internet Access Business Opportunities

Publication Date: 
July 8, 2015
Author(s): 
David Talbot
Author(s): 
Waide Warner
Author(s): 
Carolyn Anderson
Author(s): 
Kira Hessekiel
Author(s): 
Daniel Dennis Jones

Fifteen years ago, Holyoke Gas & Electric  (HG&E) began its incremental fiber deployment to meet the need for better connectivity in the community. Since then, they have invested savings created by initial and subsequent investments. Over the years, HG&E expanded their services, becoming the ISP for several local business customers in two nearby communities. HG&E also established a regional interconnection agreement and it is now an ISP for municipal agencies in a third community 30 miles away.

The Berkman Center's most recent report, report, "Holyoke: A Massachusetts Municipal Light Plant Seizes Internet Access Business Opportunities,” documents their story.

Boston Globe Profiles Lafayette; OpenCape Inspired

In a recent Boston Globe Opinion, Dante Ramos notes that Boston has a reputation as a technology hub. When seeking options and affordability, however, Ramos recounts the successful approach of Lafayette, Louisiana:

Today, the top broadband speeds advertised to residential customers in Boston are about one-ninth of what’s available in Lafayette. A municipal network in Boston isn’t inconceivable; the fiber-optic network now connecting scores of government facilities could theoretically become the spine of a citywide system.

Ramos acknowledges the challenges Boston would face if it were to take up such a project, but he also notes that it was no small feat for Lafayette. The economic development gains have more than justified the investment:

Half a decade later, though, the benefits have come into view. A company serving an active Louisiana film industry can use the Lafayette network to transmit massive quantities of digital footage. Employees of a major jewelry manufacturer in town can get medical advice remotely without having to go in and out of a highly secure plant. And the presence of the network is shaping investment decisions in subtle ways.

Ramos shares the story of his encounter with the owner of a local Internet consulting firm who chose the company data center location because it was within the LUS Fiber service area. He also valued the network's speed, reliability, and quality customer service.

Lafayette's network has also continually drawn in new employers, including three high tech companies in the fall of 2014. Along with those approximately 1,300 well paying positions come the multiplier effect on the local economy.

Ramos' piece inspired a letter to the Globe from Art Gaylord and Dan Gallagher, Chairman of the Board of Directors and Senior Consultant respectively, from OpenCape. The two find inspiration in the story of Lafayette but lament what they see as a lack of enthusiasm in the Cape Cod region.

The 350-mile OpenCape network was developed throughout the Cape Cod region to serve community anchor institutions, municipal facilities, libraries, schools and private businesses. The project was developed by a nonprofit organization and funded with a combination of ARRA stimulus funds, state investment, and private investment.

OpenCape logo

When we last reported on OpenCape, their goal of attracting a high number of high tech jobs had not yet been realized. Gaylord and Gallagher point out the most difficult hurdle facing OpenCape and other stimulus projects: encouraging last-mile private investment:

The challenge is attracting investment to build out the so-called last-mile connections, which would enable other large data users, businesses, and ultimately residents to bring this critical resource to their doorstep.

According to a recent post on OpenCape's news blog, the organization announced that it will move more aggressively to pursue private and public capital investment to build out the network. In early May, Gaylord spoke about the next phase at the SmarterCape Summit:

“OpenCape has been and continues to be focused on fulfilling our vision of enhancing economic development and quality of life of the Cape and southeastern Massachusetts. However, it has become clear that OpenCape needs to do more to facilitate the public and private investment needed to complete the network’s vital ‘last mile’ connections.”

In their letter, Gaylord and Gallagher sum up what Lafayette has that they hope to acheive with OpenCape:

Ramos’s column captures the excitement and boundless economic opportunities brought to a small Louisiana community by a municipal-owned fiber-optic broadband network. We should be able to do better here.

Fortunately, communities in the OpenCape region already have a fiber backbone in place that many other communities lack. Last-mile connectivity is one step closer. Whether it is Lafayette, Cape Cod, or Boston, Ramos' question still applies:

When communities aren’t being served — or, as in Lafayette’s case, they want better service than they’re getting — why should they wait for Comcast Corp., Cox Communications, or other broadband giants to come to their rescue?

They shouldn't and they aren't. Ramos concludes:

If Google and other deep-pocketed companies ever build commercial fiber networks to compete with cable companies from coast to coast, they’ll spare market-oriented Internet junkies a lot of philosophical dissonance. Until that day comes, competition from local government is better than no competition at all.

Public Private Partnerships: A Reality Check

When Westminster, a community of 18,000 in rural Maryland, found itself with poor Internet access that incumbents refused to improve, it decided to join the ranks of a growing trend: public-private-partnerships between local governments and private companies to invest in next-generation Internet access. They are now working with Ting - one of a growing number of private sector firms seeking partnerships with cities – though how partnerships are structured varies significantly across communities.

In building an infrastructure intended to serve the community for decades, city leaders knew Westminster should retain ownership of the network to ensure it would remain locally accountable. Ting is leasing fiber on the network and providing Internet services to the community with plans to offer some type of video in the near future. The public-private-partnership (or “P3”) includes a temporary exclusivity arrangement for two years or when a minimum number of subscriptions are activated. Westminster will then have the ability to open up its network to other providers in an open access arrangement. 

Communities are realizing that if they want better connectivity, they need to take matters into their own hands. As local leaders wade through the complex process of planning, financing, and deploying Internet network infrastructure, P3s are becoming more common. Communities with little or no experience in managing fiber optic networks may assume that P3s are safer or easier. That may be true or not depending on the specific P3 approach; the data is only starting to come in. P3s have been relatively rare compared to the hundreds of local governments that have chosen to build their own networks in recent decades.

Partnerships will continue playing a larger role  when improving local connectivity but this area is still maturing – there are already a few examples of successful P3s though many will also recall the failed Gigabit Squared P3 approach

P3s are more established in municipal public works projects involving other areas of infrastructure. A November 2013 Governing article by Ryan Holeywell examined the pros and cons of transportation P3s. Many of the lessons apply to other areas of the economy, including efforts to improve Internet access. 

Considering Incentives

Different incentives motivate public and private entities, creating potential challenges implementing P3 projects. Maximizing public benefits is not necessarily counter to ensuring a profit for a partner, but the two goals can be in conflict. An observation from Joshua Schank of the Eno Center in the Governing article hit the mark regarding the incentive imbalance:

Urbana Champaign Logo

The problem, he says, is that the private sector comes to the negotiating table with less to lose than the government, and it is also more willing to walk away. 

Often private partners hold a significant advantage and a willingness to walk away simply because local communities have a critical need with few options. They may feel compelled to make unnecessary sacrifices to expedite the project. For example, Princeton, Massachusetts, had entered into a Memorandum of Understanding with partner Matrix Design to deploy a fiber network. Matrix would have retained control of the network for 20 years if the plan had proceeded. The P3 fell apart when the town discovered relinquishing ownership of the infrastructure jeopardized their grant eligibility.

The P3 between UC2B and iTV3 in Illinois’ Urbana-Champaign region explicitly considers current and future control of the network. UC2B received stimulus funds as part of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act to deploy fiber infrastructure. In 2014, it entered in to an agreement with the Illinois ISP to provide last-mile services over the network. As part of their agreement, UC2B will have the option to purchase any equipment and infrastructure deployed by iTV3 if the two agree to part ways in the future. This provision helps ensure a smooth transition if there is a new provider and gives UC2B the opportunity to control that transition or step back into the role of provider. In short, they have a say in the future of their network whereas other P3s may give sole discretion to the private partner over how the network is managed or who operates it in the future.

Risks in All Directions

Perhaps the greatest attraction for P3s, whether in transportation or broadband, is the desire for elected officials to avoid paying for a project or at least transfer some risk. 

“Politicians are at the point where people are crying out for enhancements to infrastructure, but they don’t want to hear any proposals for new public revenues,” says Phineas Baxandall, a senior budget policy analyst at the nonprofit U.S. PIRG. “So anything that makes it sound like the money’s coming out of thin air is a win-win.”

“It’s perceived as free money,” says [Robert] Puentes of the Brookings Institution. “That perception has to be dealt with,” largely because, Puentes and others say, the capital often comes at a cost that can exceed the expense of typical municipal borrowing.

As Robert Heinlein was fond of writing, there ain't no such thing as a free lunch. These projects require a lot of capital and the private sector will not incur risk without charging for it. A project that seems to good to be true probably is. 

Traditionally, the public sector designs and engineers a project that private sector firms then bid to complete parts of the project. (This is a needed reminder that even purely “public” projects have strong private sector involvement.) P3s come in a variety of flavors, including those in which a private partner handles all phases with little or no competitive bidding. Often that private entity contributes financially to the project as part of the agreement. This transfer of responsibility and potential transfer of risk seems attractive but:

Julie Roin, a University of Chicago law professor, also questions whether the “risk transfer” argument carries any weight. Ostensibly, for the private sector to turn a profit, a deal only makes sense if the government overestimates its risk and underestimates the project’s revenue potential. “It’s not as if any investor is going to accept risk without demanding compensation,” Roin says. “You’re just paying for the risk in a different way.”

The Congressional Budget Office, has determined that, when there is an improvement in cost or speed associated with a transportation project from a P3, the improvements are negligible [PDF of the 2012 report]. In short, some of the widely touted benefits from P3 approaches appear to be overstated or a manifestation of a preference for hiding risk rather than dealing honestly with it.

In many cases, powerful corporations lobby heavily in their own narrow interest against public projects whereas few have a strong direct interest in defending government. From the Governing article:

There’s a growing cadre of academics, activists, and state and federal auditors who question these public-private deals, but their voices aren’t always heard. At that Senate hearing, for instance, none of those dissenting views was represented on the panel. Nor did the hearing highlight what the governments’ own accountants say about P3s—namely that they are unlikely to solve the country’s infrastructure funding gap and, in some cases, may carry risks for state and local governments. “Whenever I see advocacy [for P3s], I look for real economic analysis that justifies privatization,” Cate Long, a municipal finance blogger for Reuters, recently wrote. “It’s never there.”

Congressional Budget Office

In Anoka County, Minnesota, a P3 arrangement limits the county's use of its own fibers on the network to only noncommercial uses. As a result, the County does not have the ability to fully use its own network, built largely with a broadband stimulus award, for economic development. It expected its partner to do more to encourage economic development, but the County apparently did not realize that its partner did not have expertise in that field. A company may be great at operating an advanced network but may not have any interest in the work of luring a potential future client to the county. A lesson from Anoka is that a P3 may require doing even more due diligence than building a municipal network. Read more about Anoka County's project in our 2014 report on 12 local government-led approaches in Minnesota.

Governing touched on a similar, albeit more extreme, situation in its reporting of a P3 transportation project in California:

When the government wanted to expand parts of the roadway to alleviate congestion, it was blocked by a “non-compete” clause in the 35-year contract. Following litigation, the government ultimately bought out the private partner. Just seven years after the express lanes opened, the county’s transportation authority paid $207.5 million for the $130 million project. That’s a worst-case scenario, of course. Those who study P3s say governments have learned their lesson about non-compete clauses. But “compensation” or “stabilization” clauses—in which governments owe the contractor money for taking actions that could reduce toll revenue—continue.

None of these criticisms are meant to suggest that P3s are unwarranted or inherently bad. Rather, we remain concerned that P3s are sometimes elevated as the ideal solution to all investment needs merely because the term public-private-partnership suggests that everyone is working together in harmony. Harmony isn’t easy. However, we firmly believe we will continue learning from previous efforts and improving on the P3 model. In the meantime, no one should assume that P3s are easier or less risky than a municipal network.

P3s and Opposition

Even though the FCC has begun to chip away at state barriers in Tennessee and North Carolina, these barriers persist in many states. Some of those restrictions prevent a local government from working with a private partner or at the very least, restrict the type of partnership available.

Unlike roads, community broadband projects are often the target of threatened incumbents or their lobbyist organizations. If a local community and a private firm work together, they may soften the ire of the mega corporate providers who cry foul at the prospect of a municipal broadband network. Communities working with a private sector firm may be more resistant to claims that the investment plan is somehow anti-business or anti-private-sector.

Conclusion

Some communities are too intimidated to take on the challenge of offering a service directly in competition with big providers like Comcast. They would greatly prefer to focus on the infrastructure side of the equation while a trusted partner focused on advertising and provisioning the services (which tend to evolve more rapidly).  If P3s allow local governments to achieve their goals without directly competing against a big cable company (as Westminster – Ting seems to), we will see many more of these approaches. However, that also depends on having a trusted partner working with the community.

Carl Junction
When Internet access is poor in a town of 7,500, it is not easy to get the attention of AT&T or Mediacom. It is also not easy to fund an estimated $5 million fiber project in a fiscally conservative community, even when the majority of residents need better connectivity. In Carl Junction, Missouri, local leaders are partnering with a local private ISP to offer high capacity LTE wireless Internet access for residents and businesses if enough people pre-subscribe. The town will purchase the equipment and provide locations for installation. In exchange, their partner will perform all installation and management of the network; the town will also share in revenue beyond a 10 percent take rate and will also receive free public Wi-Fi.  Carl Junction’s partnership is one of many approaches that show how these partnerships have varying levels of risk and reward.

P3s may be the best solution for some communities, but they are not a guaranteed superior approach to a project owned and operated by local governments. Some of the most celebrated networks in this country, including Wilson, Lafayette, and Chattanooga, are not structured as P3s. The Governing article ends on this reminder:

“It’s a tool that can be valuable but needs to be used very carefully and with a complete understanding,” says Bob Ward, New York’s deputy comptroller for budget and policy analysis. He notes that public-private partnerships aren’t the only way to do big projects. “We went to the moon without a P3.”

P3s will continue to evolve and improve. We truly hope to see more ISPs emerging as viable and trusted partners for cities that want to focus only on infrastructure without having to get involved in service provision. Not as a replacement for other municipal approaches but as yet another group of models that communities can evaluate for their unique situation.

Update: A June 3rd Governing article on Virginia's P3 environment caught our attention. Faced with a number of setbacks in P3 projects and the negative publicity associated with them, the state is starting to initiate more transparency on public-private partnership projects with legislation.

In the past, Virginia had enthusiastically embraced P3s, but several poor outcomes in transportation are encouraging reassessment:

“The state is obviously taking a hard look at this P3 model,” [said Jonathan Gifford, director of a George Mason University program studying P3 transportation projects]. “That’s what states are supposed to do. This is not designed to be a giveaway to private concessionaires. The only time you want to go forward with these is when they are going to add value to what the state would be able to do on its own.”

Princeton, Mass, Setback in Muni Fiber Quest

Folks in Princeton, Massachusetts have anxiously awaited better broadband for about two years as community leaders explored ways to deploy fiber in the community. According to the Telegram, the wait will be even longer than expected. The tentative deal between Princeton and Matrix Design Group for a public private partnership is over.

As we reported last December, 90 percent of voters attending a special town meeting approved a measure to borrow funds to get deployment started. Princeton planned to use $1.2 million for make-ready measures to pave the way for Matrix to install its FTTH network. The town would not have to pay any more to construct the network, but they would be sacrificing control over the infrastructure.

Apparently, it is this lack of control that soured the proposed deal. From the Telegram article:

But while the town authorized borrowing the money, the broadband light plant commissioners could not secure authorization from bond counsel to borrow the money without an operating agreement that said the town had control over the design, construction, operation, maintenance and pricing of the network.

In a Princeton press release [PDF]:

“Matrix, citing its business model, was not willing to discuss or negotiate its position of network control for a period of 20 years before turning it over to us,”[said Stan Moss, Princeton Selectman and one of the leaders of the initiative].

As part of the agreement between Princeton and Matrix, the city would have obtained control and ownership of the network after 20 years.

Another wrinkle in the plan appeared when Princeton learned that they would not qualify for grant money available from the Massachusetts Broadband Institute (MBI). The organization is handling distribution of state and federal funds to assist in local deployments. Handing over control of the network to a private party in such a fashion is against the criteria established for grant eligibility.

The Princeton Broadband Committee will petition bond counsel to move forward to approve $1.2 million so the community can continue with make-ready plans. In the mean time, Princeton will get back out there and seek another partner.

While we are sympathetic to the people in Princeton who must wait longer to get fast, affordable, reliable broadband, we are somewhat relieved they have another chance to develop a partnership with more local control. The community may have felt protected because they were not investing in the full cost of a network, but without ownership the community would be unable to ensure it had the level of service it will need.

The Latest on Wired West Rural Fiber - Community Broadband Bits Podcast 149

Our second episode of Community Broadband Bits featured an interview with Monica Webb, Chair of the Wired West Board and Spokesperson. Three years later, we are excited to have Monica on the show again to update us on their recent progress.

As we recently noted, the state has decided to contribute significantly to the capital costs of a network connecting these rural towns and the towns are currently voting on whether to move forward.

In our discussion, we discuss Wired West and what it is like to live with very poor Internet access in 2015. You can read all of our coverage of Wired West here. Keep an eye on @Wired_West on Twitter for breaking news - 2 more communities voted to move forward with overwhelming majorities last night!

Read the transcript from this episode here.

We want your feedback and suggestions for the show - please e-mail us or leave a comment below.

This show is 27 minutes long and can be played below on this page or via iTunes or via the tool of your choice using this feed.

Listen to previous episodes here. You can can download this Mp3 file directly from here.

Thanks to Persson for the music, licensed using Creative Commons. The song is "Blues walk."