Fibrant Launch Pains - Behind the Scenes

On the heals of our recent post discussing false incumbent claims about Salisbury's Fibrant community fiber network, I wanted to put up another piece looking at some of the problems that have delayed the network launch. The Salisbury Post's "Fibrant launch delayed" article (by Emily Ford) offers a good recap. We have yet to work with a community that has not experienced similar bumps in the road as Salisbury. Unexpected problems are guaranteed and schedules will almost certainly be pushed back, it is a fact of life in building an important and complicated network. The City was originally hoping to launch the network by end of summer but that was pushed back to October. But that date has also been moved back due to the complexities of offering television channels (as we have also noted, most communities would prefer to avoid this entirely but the reality of broadband networks offer necessitates it).

About 420 channels are up and running well, Clark said, but some beta testers have had problems with Fibrant’s digital video recorders working properly. One hundred fifteen Salisbury residents are testing Fibrant’s Internet, cable TV and phone services, which will compete with providers like Time Warner Cable and AT&T.

The network will launch by connecting a few hundred on a waiting list, a good strategy as it works out more inevitable bugs. By first connecting those with the most tolerance for issues that arise in the early days of a new network, they can avoid getting a bad name from those who may have less tolerance for such growing pains. I strongly recommend reading the full article to learn what difficulties Salisbury encountered in building its network -- Emily Ford explains it well and I don't want to copy so many paragraphs into this story. But there is an issue beyond Fibrant's capability to fix or speed up: incumbents are delaying the full network launch by refusing to do necessary "make ready" on poles in the right-of-way. On a number of the utility poles, Fibrant cannot place their fiber until existing carriers move their wires (a common occurrence). So the incumbents draw out the process to delay competition - an ironic approach from companies that claim cities are likely to abuse their authority over the right-of-way to the detriment of private company competitors. Now, a word for those planning community networks. Pay careful attention to the problems Salisbury had. Choosing good vendors that can work together efficiently is very important. There are aspects of community networks are not replicable from community to community, but vendors very much are. In our experience, community networks are quite willing to share their experiences - this is an important resource for new networks to tap. Many community networks have used a select group of vendors. Not all vendors are equal, and these networks must be built carefully for proper reliability and longevity. The costs of going with a poor vendor may be significant - in terms of higher operating costs or even the costs of ripping out a system to entirely replace it. Making smart decisions upfront are the best decision and that may be helped with a reputable consultant and/or network architect (check references!). I bring this up, not to suggest Fibrant chose poorly, but because as community networks gain traction, one would expect more vendors to enter the market and exaggerate their capabilities. Similarly, consultants without much experience will undoubtedly be looking for clients. Check with other community networks to get a sense of what worked for them and what did not (while also realizing that the technical solution for them may not be optimal for you).