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

Municipal Networks and Economic Development

Economic Development and Community Networks

When a community invests in a municipal broadband network, it often does so because it hopes to reap economic benefits from the network. Much has been written about the positive relationship between municipal Internet networks and economic development, including a White House report published in January 2015. Municipal networks create jobs by serving existing businesses and attracting new businesses to local communities, increase productivity by allowing individuals to telecommute and work from home, support advanced healthcare and security systems, strengthen local housing markets, and represent long term social investments in the form of better-connected schools and libraries. They also create millions of dollars in savings that can be reinvested into local communities. 

When municipalities choose to deploy fiber networks, they introduce Internet services into the community that are not only significantly faster than Digital Subscriber Lines (DSL) and cable, but more reliable. With fiber connections, businesses and individuals are far less likely to experience temporary blackouts that can harm their ability to provide services to customers. And because these networks are locally-owned and operated, business owners do not have to spend hours on the phone with an absentee Internet Service Provider like AT&T in the (albeit unlikely) event of a problem. 

Community Broadband Networks and the Institute for Local Self-Reliance have catalogued numerous examples of economic development achievements that have occurred as a result of cities and counties deploying a municipal broadband network. Below, you can find a wide range of articles, studies, blog posts, and other resources that speak to the economic successes enabled by municipal networks, organized by topic:

* Job Creation

* Attraction of New Businesses

* Expansion of Existing Businesses

* Home-based Productivity 

* Healthcare, Education, and Research

* High Tech Industries and Entrepreneurship

* Savings 

* Property Values 

* General Resources

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.”

Community Broadband Media Roundup - May 15

Community Broadband Stories, by State:

California

A Disconnected Valley: SCV's high-speed technology crawls by Jana Adkins, Signal Santa Clarita Valley

Why Santa Monica Built its Own Internet Service: It all comes down to how well you connect, and when you do - word travels quickly by Jana Adkins, Signal Santa Clarita Valley

Massachussetts

Hyper-fast Internet coming to parts of Westfield, but it's not from a company you'd guess by Dan Glaun, MassLive.com

Minnesota

How the Legislature is cheating Greater Minnesota on broadband by Brian Lambert, MinnPost

North Carolina

North Carolina sues FCC over Wilson community broadband decision by Rick Smith, WRAL TechWire

"Rural areas in North Carolina already suffer from some of the slowest speeds in the nation because the big telecom giants see no financial reason to connect them," the Institute said. "The FCC ruling will help communities that will never be covered by these corporations to finally have Internet access beyond dial-up service."

NC Attorney General appeals FCC municipal broadband ruling, Associated Press

Washington

Seattle City Council hears case for public Internet by Josh Green, KING-TV

Municipal broadband in Seattle? New group lobbies city for public Internet by Taylor Soper, GeekWire

“The big electric companies had formed into giant monopolies, not unlike the monopolies we deal with today with Internet,” [Christopher] Mitchell said. “They repeatedly claimed that local government could not operate a municipal electric grid and said it would end up in failure and disaster. As you know in Seattle, that’s not true. We’ve seen local government take technology of the day and craft it so everyone benefits from it.”

Broadband access: An essential part of modern lives by Deanne Ly, Seattle Times

It is truly unfortunate that those in lower-class areas such as South Park do not get the same high-quality Internet as those in South Lake Union because they cannot afford the exuberant prices of monopolies like Comcast or Century Link.

Lower-class neighborhoods would benefit greatly from this program and it is imperative that we give equal opportunities to all. It is time for monopolies to stop controlling the lives of many.

Gigabit Cities

How Digital Equity Is a Driving Force for Some Gigabit Cities by Michael Grass, Route Fifty

“We cannot create gated digital communities,” the mayor noted. In fact, Chattanooga is known for its municipally-operated 1-gigabit high-speed fiber-optic network, which connects every home and business over 600 square miles in and around the city. “We want to use our gig network to break down barriers,” Berke said.

Gigabit Cities: I've Seen the Future by Ray Le Maistre, Light Reading

6 Steps Towards a Gigabit City by Mari Silbey, Light Reading

Gigabit Cities Live Hits Atlanta by Alan Breznick, Light Reading

Other Community Broadband News

ALEC-Based Restrictions on City-Run Internet at Risk After FCC Ruling by Allan Holmes, The Center for Public Integrity

Obama's Broadband Legacy by John M. Eger, Huffington Post

It is in the city and region that Obama sees hope for the nation's future, and it's broadband that he sees as a vital first step toward a whole new economy based not on manufacturing or even service provision but on knowledge or, more precisely, creativity and innovation. Now, for the first time in years, the door is open for cities everywhere to take the lead in building a broadband infrastructure that can be one of the fastest, cheapest Internet services imaginable.

Dakota County Expanding Fiber Network

Minnesota's Dakota County community leaders are planning to expand their existing fiber optic network, reports Blandin on Broadband's Ann Treacy. She attended a recent County Commissioner's meeting in which commissioners approved $1.2 million to add another 500,000 feet to the network.

Dakota County plans to perform some upgrades in addition to the expansion. They hope to collaborate with municipal and state government as well as a local school district. In addition to connecting more public facilities, a key benefit of this expansion will be to improve traffic signals along several busy corridors. 

Dakota County is taking advantage of transportation projects and its dig once policy to install conduit and fiber. This project will also add redundancy and capacity to the existing network and create potential connections to an industrial park. By sharing the cost of the expansion and the maintenance, each participating entity will see many benefits at a fraction of the cost from leasing from an incumbent provider.

The Dakota County Broadband Initiative recently began a campaign to approach local community leaders in order to offer info on the potential benefits of further leasing fiber to private businesses. Nearby Scott County, which offers connectivity to a number of businesses, has successfully used their fiber for economic development.

The SunThisWeek reported on a March Burnsville City Council meeting where Consultant Craig Ebeling spoke on behalf of the Initiative:

Private-sector telecom providers don’t have the capital to extend fiber widely, he said, echoing findings in the Design Nine study. Meanwhile, Scott County “smacked us in the face” with its fiber advantage, he said. It’s no time for a “hide your head” approach, [Council Member Dan] Kealey said.

“Shame on us for not being long-sighted enough to figure that out before,” he said.

The County has also realized that the network could be used to improve residential access. An Star Tribune article in March reported that only 64 percent of Dakota County homes have access to fixed broadband. As a response:

County officials are meeting with staff from local cities to come up with what they jokingly call “the mother of all joint powers agreements” that would guide growth of the fiber-optic network across the county.

“We’re not getting any help from the federal government. We’re not getting any help from the state government. So we have to do it ourselves,” [Deputy County Manager Matt] Smith said.

To learn more about Dakota County's publicly owned network and some of its benefits, read our 2014 report All Hands On Deck: Minnesota Local Government Models for Expanding Fiber Internet Access.

Paul Bunyan Communications Spreading Fiber Across Northern MN

The northern half of Minnesota, despite its rural character, is rapidly improving in high quality Internet access. Paul Bunyan Communications, the cooperative serving much of the Bemijdi area, began work on its GigaZone network last fall and the network is snaking its way across the region. According to an April 20th press release from the cooperative, GigaZone is now available to 500 more locations from the rural areas near Lake George to Itasca State Park. This brings the number of customers with access to GigaZone to 5,000.

Rates for symmetrical Internet access range from $44.95 per month for 20 Mbps to $74.95 per month for 50 Mbps. Higher speeds are available, including gigabit Internet access, but the cooperative asks potential customers to call for pricing.

We first reported on Paul Bunyan Telephone Communications in 2009. The cooperative began expanding its existing fiber network in 2007 but gigabit connectivity did not become available to members until earlier this year. Upgrades began in Bemidji and will continue to include the cooperatives entire 5,000 square mile service area. As new lines are installed, older lines will also be upgraded to fiber to transform the entire network. 

The cooperative began offering Internet access in 1996 as Paul Bunyan Telephone. Three years later, Paul Bunyan began infrastructure upgrades that allowed it to offer phone, high-speed Internet access, and digital television. The network expanded incrementally and continued to implement technological improvements. In 2005, the cooperative expanded with fiber technology for the first time. In 2010, Paul Bunyan Telephone changed its name to Paul Bunyan Communications.

At an event to announce GigaZone last fall, leadership from the region's economic development commission noted the new unleashed potential:

Greater Bemidji Director Dave Hengel compared Paul Bunyan to pioneering software giant Apple.  

“In many, many ways, Paul Bunyan Communications has become the Apple of greater Bemidji and the region, he said. “They are always on the leading edge.”

The GigaZone network will help attract businesses and workers to the area, Hengel added.

“In fact, I happen to believe that after today, our greatest competitive advantage in the greater Bemidji region will be our broadband network, thanks in very large part to the work of Paul Bunyan,” he said.

Northern Minnesotans in Lake County and Cook County are also in the midst of FTTH projects. You can read more about those projects in our 2014 report All Hands On Deck: Minnesota Local Government Models for Expanding Fiber Internet Access.

Community Broadband Media Roundup - April 12

Community Broadband News Around the Nation:

Colorado

Community and candidates react to Grand Junction election results by Lindsey Pallares, KJCT-TV

“It’s an indication that people really want to see us have better fiber in this city so we'll step back as a city council and see what are next steps to go forward,” says Mayor Phyllis Norris.

Connecticut

Connectict is taking steps to become the nation's first gigabit state. You can also check out our Community Broadband Bits episode 118 for more on how they're doing it.

At Least One State has a (Fiber) Backbone by Susan Crawford, Backchannel

Who’s on track to get citizens high-speed Internet? Hint: it’s the only state with the word “connect” in its name.

How Connecticut set itself up to be the first gigabit state by Colin Neagle, Network World

Georgia

PTC to get into fiber-optic broadband business? by Ben Nelms, The Citizen

Maine

New group forms to support faster Internet in Maine by Darren Fishell, BDN Staff

Dickstein said the group has been organizing for several months in advance of the legislative session that includes about 35 bills dealing with broadband expansion in the state. Learn More: mainebroadbandcoalition.org

Massachusetts

On the Grid: last-mile LeverettNet Connections being made to households by Paul Franz, The Recorder 

The lighting of LeverettNet marks the first “last-mile” network to connect to the Massachusetts Broadband Institute “middle-mile.” The fiber-optic network design provides upload and download speeds of 1 gigabit per second.

Shutesbury, Wendell first Wired West towns to reach subscription threshold for high-speed Internet by Mary Serreze, The Republican 

A Decade Later, Mass. Broadband Coverage Gaps Persist by Karl Bode, DSL Reports

It’s time for western Mass. to get up to broadband speed by B.J. Roche, The Recorder

Webb’s commute is a common ritual — people regularly drive to a library or town hall parking lot for a high-speed Internet connection. At night, you sometimes can see us sitting in the passenger seat side of our cars, uploading a work project or downloading a software update, faces lit by the glow of a warm laptop. It’s not just a question of which movie to stream on Friday night, but whether there’s enough satellite bandwidth left this month to watch it.

Minnesota

‘Rural agenda’ without broadband is rural sham by Aaron Brown, Minnesota Brown

This last year has seen a small but encouraging spurt of state investment into rural broadband on the Iron Range, but it was just the starting bell, not the final buzzer on what needs to happen

... I understand that Republicans don’t trust government. That does not excuse action to eliminate efforts to expand broadband without new ideas to replace them. I wrote earlier today about the perils awaiting places like the Iron Range without broadband and economic diversification. The same is true throughout rural Minnesota. As was true 100 years ago, we need leadership and respect, not promises and exploitation.

US Internet's fiber spreads across south Minneapolis by Adam Belz, Star Tribune

“There are good reasons Comcast should be more afraid of USI,” [Chris] Mitchell said. “Comcast competes with CenturyLink around the country. The cable companies have a history of duopoly — of a soft competition rather than hard competition because they recognize that a rough and tumble competition between the two would hurt each more than each is likely to gain.” 

The cable war is coming to St. Paul by Peter Callaghan, MinnPost

CenturyLink aims to bring more competition to Twin Cities cable-TV market by Shannon Prather, Star Tribune

FCC fines CenturyLink $16M over multistate 911 outage by Riham Feshir, MPR News

New Jersey

Village-wide wifi getting close look by Charles A. Peterson, Newark Advocate

"From the standpoint of a community that basically is a knowledge-based community, it would be nice if we had a little faster Internet service available," Wilken said. "When a community earns its bread through knowledge, it's kind of nice to have that kind of high-speed stuff."

Oregon

Google who? Oregon cities want their own fiber networks by Mike Rogoway, The Oregonian/OregonLive

"We realized we're too small for Google to come to us," said SandyNet general manager Joe Knapp.

Budget plans called for signing up a third of the city initially, growing to 50 percent over several years. But Knapp said well over 50 percent of the homes in the city have already come aboard.

Oregon cities look to bypass Google Fiber by building own 1 Gbps networks by Sean Buckley

"They may be a benign company but they would still be a monopoly," said Lake Oswego city manager Scott Lazenby in an article in The Oregonian. "And monopolies charge what they can."

Vermont

Broadband bills take a number in house commerce by Erin Mansfield, VTDigger

“We’re just a huge, underserved region, but we have a lot of kids who can’t do their homework,” said CJ Stumpf of East Randolph. Stumpf said a child in her town was issued an iPad at school and used it as a paperweight at home because he had no Internet access.

Washington

CenturyLink Apologizes for Misleading Customer About Its Gigabit Internet Service by Ansel Herz , the Stranger

Google Fiber

Google Fiber Is More Important Than You May Think by Jamal Carnette, Motley Fool

Google is forcing big broadband providers to boost speeds by Timothy B. Lee, Vox

Other Broadband News

CLIC Sets Muni Broadband Protection Event: Wheeler to Speak at Broadband Communities Conference by John Eggerton, MultiCHannel 

US broadband providers wake up to the need for speed by David Crow, Financial Times New York

Minnesota House Proposal to Kill Broadband is the Wrong Move for Economic Development

Representative Pat Garofalo’s (R-53B) proposal to cut funding for broadband grants is the wrong move for Minnesota. The Institute for Local Self-Reliance (ILSR) is absolutely opposed to any suggestion Minnesota should have two-tiered Internet access - a fast standard in urban areas and slower, less reliable access in Greater Minnesota.

Wireless technology and satellite Internet are not sufficient for homes and businesses in the modern economy. They certainly won’t lead to the kind of job creation or retention that Greater Minnesota needs. Modern jobs require modern connections.

ILSR has long fought the notion, often advanced by the cable monopoly lobbyists in Saint Paul, that wireless is good enough for people that don't live in the metro. Nearly 100 years ago, the United States wisely pursued policies to electrify farms and the boosts to the economy were staggering. Given the significant budget surplus, now is the not the time for the Legislature to turn its back on Greater Minnesota.

“It’s outrageous to us that a lawmaker who is supposedly in favor of needed job creation for our communities would turn around and slash the very thing that could support it,” says Christopher Mitchell, director of the Community Broadband Networks Initiative at the Institute for Local Self-Reliance (ILSR). “Rural Minnesotans should not be constantly moved to the back of the line for 21st century connectivity. We can’t wait any longer for the kinds of investments that will carry our schools and businesses across the digital divide.”

In Windom, Minnesota, for instance, the community has seen strong job growth, including at the Toro Manufacturing plant, because it could get better Internet access from the small city's utility than it could get at Twin City locations. Those jobs would not exist if local employers relied only on wireless or satellite technologies.

More information:

ILSR published All Hands on Deck: Minnesota Local Government Models for Expanding Fiber Internet Access, a detailed report on how local communities across the state can improve Internet access for government, businesses, and residents. One of our policy recommendations from studying these 12 communities in depth was expanded, rather than reduced, state support for these efforts.

Community Broadband Media Roundup - March 20

FCC Outlines Plan To Crush Awful State Protectionist Broadband Laws: from the it's-about-time dept by Karl Bode, Tech Dirt

While net neutrality rules are designed to protect consumers from a lack of last-mile competition, the agency's moves on municipal broadband are intended to actually strike at the issue of limited competition at the root. As we've noted a few times, ISPs (with ALEC's help) have passed laws in twenty states preventing those towns and cities from deciding their own infrastructure needs for themselves. 

It's pure, unabashed protectionism: the bills do little more than protect regional duopolies from change while hamstringing local communities desperate for better service. Usually the laws are passed under the auspices of protecting taxpayers from themselves, ignoring that the bills' sole purpose is to protect duopoly revenues. 

TV and Internet Service Providers Deliver the Worst Customer Experience: Fifth Annual Temkin Experience Ratings Evaluates 293 Companies Across 20 Industries

The poster child for poor customer experience in these industries - Comcast - was not only the lowest-scoring TV service and Internet service provider, but it was also one of the lowest-scoring companies in the entire Ratings. It ranked 289th overall out of 293 companies for its Internet service and ranked 291st overall for its TV service.

Of the 17 companies that received "very poor" ratings (below 50%) across the 193 companies, five of them were from these two industries: Comcast for TV (43%), Comcast for Internet (45%), Time Warner Cable for Internet (47%), Charter Communications for TV (48%), and Time Warner Cable for TV (48%).

"Internet and TV service providers are awful to consumers. The lack of competition continues to fuel this bad experience epidemic," states Bruce Temkin, managing partner of Temkin Group.

 

California

Broadband coming to Orleans by Jessie Faulkner, Times Standard

The Karuk and Yurok Tribes have been collaborating to bring the speeded-up service to the Klamath River communities of Orleans, Weitchpec, Wautec, Johnsons as well as Orick. A $6.6 million California Public Utilities Commission grant, awarded in October 2013, is financing the project. The tribes provide matching funds.

Colorado

Fort Collins eyes starting broadband Internet service by Nick Coltrain, The Coloradoan

If the city of Fort Collins made a sound while examining the possibility at offering its own Internet service, it'd be the chirps and whirrs of a 56K modem — Almost connected but with no guarantee of success. 

Minnesota

Businesses would be able to tie into countywide broadband by John Gessner, Sun This Week

Scott County has a high-speed, fiber optic network available for businesses and Internet service providers to tap into.

Neighboring Dakota County doesn’t. One result? Up to 10 companies that were wooed by Dakota County communities instead chose Scott County for its access to limitless bandwidth, according to Craig Ebeling.

Fiber Optic Project Moves Forward: KDUZ

Ten city councils and a standing room only crowd packed the United Farmers Cooperative Berdan Center on Monday for a public hearing and adoption of a tax abatement resolution to fund a loan to the Renville-Sibley County Fiber Joint Powers Agency for the RS Fiber Cooperative.

Maine

Broadband companies showing interest in Sanford by Ellen W. Todd, Sanford News

The City of Sanford, in collaboration with the SREGC, intends to finance and own a fiber-optic network connecting 80 community institutions and private enterprises — businesses, the hospital, municipal facilities, the mill complex, industrial parks, schools — in Sanford-Springvale.

Last year, the SREGC commissioned a study on the feasibility of bringing broadband (fiber-optic) communications access to the city. The company that did the study — Tilson Technology Management company of Portland — concluded that broadband access has the potential to add “between $47 and $192 million to the Sanford-Springvale region’s economic output over the next ten years.” 

Montana

Lawmakers consider issuing bonds for broadband expansion by Alison Noon, The News Tribune

New Hampshire

Editorial: Fast internet could be a boon for Concord

Creating a truly high-speed, affordable municipal internet network could be a pipe dream – or it could be a pipeline to a more vibrant Concord with a booming economy and a growing population of young entrepreneurs and knowledge workers.

New York

County touts pros of Municipal Broadband System WKBW-7

Erie County's Broadband Committee released a new report Wednesday touting the pros of building a Municipal Broadband System.

Erie County Legislator calls for faster internet by Mark Belcher, News 4 Digital Producer

“A municipal broadband network could be our generation’s great infrastructure project, like the Erie Canal or the Hoover Dam,” Burke said.

Cayuga County's high-speed Internet needs, state broadband initiatives discussed at Wednesday Morning Roundtable by Robert Harding, Auburn Citizen

According to Batman, what started out as a few towns became a larger collaboration to find a high-speed Internet service provider for the area. He said the group contacted these companies with a few ideas, including a public-private partnership. 

Unfortunately, there wasn't a lot of interest in such a venture.

"It simply is not a viable alternative," Batman said. "It simply is too expensive to serve me and my neighbors without financial incentives and support."

North Carolina

Community broadband debate centered in a North Carolina town by Renne Schoof, McClatchy Washington Bureau

“You don’t realize how fortunate you are to live in an urban setting in my district until you go into a remote area and have no access to broadband or to cellular telephone,” he said.

Tennessee

Rural Tennessee counties need broadband and internet service too by Dave Shepard, Columbia Daily Herald

The battle is typical of the Big Guys (telecommunications companies) verses the Little Guys (Municipal Electric Providers). My rural district which is comprised of 3 rural counties, Dickson, Hickman, and Maury, need expanded broadband service to make us competitive for industrial and business recruitment. We need expansion of broadband service into unserved areas to help our students do homework assignments and our residents to connect to a high speed internet service for business and pleasure. This service is already available to our state’s residents in densely populated areas all over the state of Tennessee.

My rural counties and constituents need broadband and internet service too, and I plan to vote to help them get it.

BTES adopts resolution to support legislation of municipal broadband by Tammy Childress, Bristol Herald Courier

The Bristol Tennessee Essential Services board adopted a resolution Wednesday to support legislation for municipal broadband.

City County approved a similar resolution earlier this month.

Dakota County Considering Expanding to Open Access for Businesses, Residents

In a recent meeting of the Dakota County Administration, Finance and Policy Committee, Dakota County's Network Collaboration Engineer David Asp provided an update to Commissioners on the status of their broadband plan. Dakota has saved millions of dollars with their network through collaborative efforts, innovative dig-once approaches, and specially deveoped software.

As part of its long term strategy, the county is now considering ways to offer connectivity to local businesses and residents via open access infrastructure. Blandin on Broadband's Ann Treacy attended the February 3rd meeting and, thanks to Asp, posted the PPT from his presentation.


We spoke with David Asp in Episode #117 of the Community Broadband Bits podcast. In 2011, Dakota County was named one of the Intelligent Community Forum's 21 Smart Communities. 

We learned while developing our case study on Dakota County that their efforts to coordinate excavation, including specialized software they developed themselves, has reduced the cost of installing fiber by more than 90 percent. We estimated the County has saved over $10 million in fiber and conduit deployment costs.

For more on this network, download a copy of our case study that includes the stories of Dakota County and eleven other Minnesota communities: All Hands on Deck: Minnesota Local Government Models for Expanding Fiber internet Access.

Thank you, Ann, for attending the meeting and sharing your videos:

Video: 
See video
See video

Rochester Pursues Business Case Study for Muni Network in Minnesota

The Rochester City Council recently voted unanimously to move forward with a study on the possibilities of publicly owned broadband in this southeastern city. Rochester will then decide whether to move forward with bids to form a public-private partnership for a network, or pursue another path.

After receiving dozens of calls from his constituents, City Councilman Michael Wojcik is asking his colleagues to consider a municipal network. Rochester’s area holds a population of about 110,000, and is home to the world-famous Mayo Clinic

According to the Rochester Post-Bulletin, Charter Communications operates its cable TV and Internet services under a franchise agreement with the city. That agreement is up for a renewal on March 31.

Wojcik said his constituents have been angered over issues such as digital box fees, but most of the complaints are about broadband service, which Wojcik said is essential. He said Charter's recent price increase for stand-alone broadband from $55 to $60 per month makes the service unobtainable for a percentage of area families with children in school.

"Broadband is key for information for a lot of people, particularly younger generations, and going forward, it becomes more and more critical," he said.

In 2010 Wojcik asked the council to investigate options for publicly owned infrastructure, but the measure did not advance. Wojcik says he hopes that citizen outrage with poor Charter service and contract negotiations will encourage city council members to take action.

The Council invited Chris to offer expert opinion. KIMT TV covered the decision and spoke with him after the meeting: 

“I think it’s a necessary step for the Rochester City government to get involved, because over ten years of experience suggests that the private sector alone is not going to solve this problem, that if Rochester needs higher quality internet access it may have to do it itself.”

Here is vide of KIMT TV's coverage: