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

Transcript: Community Broadband Bits Episode 223

This is episode 223 of the Community Broadband Bits podcast. Eleven communities in Northern Utah are now served by a regional open access fiber-optic network, UTOPIA. Perry City's Mayor Karen Cronin and UTOPIA's Executive Director Roger Timmerman join the show. Listen to this episode here.

Karen Cronin: We don't have the money that some of the lobbyists are getting from big companies, but we have a voice and I think that our legislatures will listen to local voices if they have the courage to step forward.

Lisa Gonzalez: This is episode 223 of the Community Broadband Bits podcast from the Institute for Local Self-Reliance. I'm Lisa Gonzalez. The Utah Telecommunications Open Infrastructure Agency, also known as UTOPIA, began serving north-central Utah in 2004. The regional open access fiber-optic network has had its share of challenges since launch, but has slogged through them to now bring healthy competition to residents and businesses in 11 communities. Joining Chris this week are the mayor of one of the UTOPIA cities, Karen Cronin from Perry. Roger Timmerman, executive director of UTOPIA, is also part of the conversation. Our guests share stories about how competition has benefited local businesses and residents. They also describe infrastructure sign-up choices they have as property owners in a UTOPIA community and what it's like to have more than one or two ISPs at your feet. Now here are Chris, Mayor Cronin from Perry, and Roger Timmerman, executive director of UTOPIA.

Christopher Mitchell: Welcome to another episode of the Community Broadband Bits podcast. I'm Chris Mitchell. Today I'm speaking with two wonderful guests from the state of Utah. Roger Timmerman is the executive director of UTOPIA, the Utah Telecommunications Open Infrastructure Agency. Welcome to the show.

Roger Timmerman: Thank you. Thanks for having me on.

Christopher Mitchell: Perry City mayor, Karen Cronin. Welcome to the show.

Karen Cronin: Thank you. I'm delighted to be part of the conversation.

Christopher Mitchell: I'm excited to talk more about what's happening in Utah today. You've all been trailblazers in open access approaches. Roger, I think you were only of the early trailblazers who's now back with UTOPIA. Today we'll talk about the results, particularly in one of the UTOPIA communities, Perry City. Let's start there. Mayor Cronin, can you please tell me about your community and the internet access you have there?

Karen Cronin: Yeah. Let's start with what the community is like. Perry City is a small city, about 5,000 residents. It's located about 50 miles north of Salt Lake City. Six months ago we had very limited options for internet. We had some of the neighborhoods who didn't have any option except for dial up. At my house, we were on a satellite system where I was getting 5Mb speed. Fast-forward a few months and we were able to connect into the direct line with UTOPIA, the direct fiber line, and I now have upwards of 250Mb of speed, as does the whole city. The city was built out in less than four months. We've gone from a dial-up system to the cutting edge of what's available.

Christopher Mitchell: Well, that's remarkable. I'm sure that there are many people listening who would just love to have that kind of capacity available. Roger, can you help fill in some of the gaps for people who might be unfamiliar with UTOPIA? What is it?

Roger Timmerman: UTOPIA, we're a group of 11 cities. Perry City is one of those cities. These are cities that felt like they were not being served by the incumbents. Just wasn't enough options. They felt the negative impact of businesses leaving their communities in some case and just not offering the type of connectivity that they felt was needed to develop businesses and residences. They got together, they created UTOPIA and UTOPIA's an interlocal governmental agency, which is made up of these cities, and they built a massive backbone to connect these cities together and can collectively bond for the construction and operations of this network. The reason they did it that way was if you think of a city the size of Perry City, it's a great city, but it's not very large. The ability to put into place the fiber of the home system and operate that, get providers in there, it would be very difficult for just one small city to do. Collectively, the cities could get an economy and scale together to attract service providers, to get an efficiency of operations that would make this work. UTOPIA's had a difficult path. Initially, it started up and ran into some funding obstacles. The cities have since decided, let's fix some of these things and move forward. It was about five or six years ago, we took down a new model and took down additional debt and with that we've been very successful so for the last six or seven years UTOPIA has actually been able to build networks where the revenues from the builds of those networks are covering all of the debt service for the cost of building those networks and so we are in a great state now where we are now covering all of our operational expenses and all of the incremental debt we've taken justifies and sustains the growth of the system. Well, Perry City is one of these cities that's benefited from that in the sense that it hasn't really cost Perry City any additional money other than their original membership in the system and the collective funding of the cities but we've been able to build out that entire city and we're building out very rapidly in other cities in parallel. The nice thing about Perry is the whole city is covered. They can all get the same gigabit service. We install gigabits to homes and businesses typically. Larger businesses will get 10 Gig. Some very large connections we support are 100 Gig. In a city like Perry, it's very rural, but they can attract enormous investment from a data center or a large business or an industrial partner or something because we can deliver 100 gigabit anywhere in that city and actually offer that in a redundant way because of this redundant backbone put in collectively by these cities.

Karen Cronin: In Perry City we have a great number of home businesses. The demographics of Perry City, although it's small, it has the highest education rate for its' members and a lot of those people work from home. Having this option has brought even more people into the city and we have people calling and telling me that they have now had their bosses ask them if they can work from home because their home connection is faster than their at work connections and they get more done.

Christopher Mitchell: That's remarkable. I always like to hear that. I have to say that one of the things I love about UTOPIA and Roger, I'm sure you can't pick favorites but I can, I love that UTOPIA gives small providers like Xmission an opportunity to have many more customers. Xmission has been a guest on this show before, I think they have wonderful privacy policies, very bull-ish. I like seeing cities that have small, historic ISPs like Brighamnet also being able to expand and get more customers and thrive. I think that's an important role from my point of view, that UTOPIA really allows local businesses to be very competitive with the big companies with Comcast and CenturyLink that I happen to have here, where I'm recording this and I know you have out there, that don't always meet local needs in a way a local provider can.

Roger Timmerman: I agree. That's a major part of why we do it the way we do it. Open Access is not easy and it's taken quite bit a of time for UTOPIA to have a good, stable, competitive environment of providers and today we have 10 companies that compete residentially and about 25 that compete on the business side of things. Perry by itself even if they had fibers at home they may not naturally attract competition on that system but because of the scale of UTOPIA it's big enough to attract this level of competition and enable lots of these local providers and also some bigger providers to all kind of compete under a fair fiber infrastructure put in place by some of the cities.

Karen Cronin: That point is so important because it creates such a win-win for the residents by having an open network system. It creates the competition and it requires the service to be great and the price to be competitive if they are going to stay on the system and be competitive but it also allows like you said local businesses to be able to play at the same arena that some of the big businesses do and have a fair shake so it is a win-win all the way around.

Christopher Mitchell: Mayor Cronin, do you know of any personal anecdotes of people who have talked about how they are amazed that Perry City has this incredible connectivity available to them and it's enabled them to succeed in ways they might not otherwise have been able to.

Karen Cronin: I can tell you about a business that produces things from the home and then sells them out. They were telling me that before their Internet power didn't allow them to have the mass marketing they wanted and be as responsive and have the service level that would sustain their business. Since they've been able to connect to UTOPIA and have the ability to shop around for what suited their business best as far as a provider, they've been able to see their Internet sales increase dramatically.

Christopher Mitchell: Roger, I'm curious. If I'm a resident or a business in Perry, getting connected to you is just a little more different to what most people are used to. Can you walk me through my options as a homeowner on how I'd possible connect to Utopia?

Roger Timmerman: If you live in an area where UTOPIA is available, you can go to our website, put in your address, and it will pull up and show you, here are the services available to you from 10 different companies. It's a shopping cart of services. So, what happens is you sign up for the infrastructure from UTOPIA and we present the retail offerings from our partnered service providers so you kind of sign two agreements. You're getting infrastructure from the city and UTOPIA collectively and then Internet or phone or video or whatever those services you want bundled from the service provider. So you, two pieces and then how you pay for your fiber connection, a lot of our customers will say, "well, I'll just lease that monthly for 30 bucks and there's a 2 year term so it looks a lot like what you'd get from other options". We have some people who take a different option and that's where they essentially own their fiber connection. They pay up front a larger amount, $2,750 is actually the amount and then they never pay for it again. They own their fiber and then it just becomes, a very low bill because then they're only paying $35 to their service provider and it'll never go up after that. If you're leasing the connection from us, it starts at about $65 a month for 250 Megabit connection. I say that as an example of what we have right now but we don't control those prices. The beauty of it is that it is competitive and those retail providers are free to change their prices whenever they want to be competitive. We struggle because we try to publish the pricing and then they change it. It's a struggle but it's also the beauty of competition is that they're constantly coming up with different promotions and lowering and raising and adding options and they have the freedom to do that and that's one of the beauties of open access.

Christopher Mitchell: One of the things as an outside observer that's impossible to miss is you have, in your region, a nonprofit organization that I suspect largely gets contributions from CenturyLink and Comcast that paints a picture that people in Utah are very frustrated and angry that UTOPIA wasn't able to pay its way in the way it was expected. Now, Mayor Cronin, I'm just curious. Do you get a sense from your citizens, are they glad UTOPIA exists or would they prefer that they didn't have these options and they didn't have to hear these claims that the network is not good?

Karen Cronin: I will be honest with you. As Roger has mentioned, it's had a tough start and it was a new idea, a very forward thinking idea and for the first few years we were paying into UTOPIA collectively as one of the original 11 member cities and we were getting 0 service and that was hard. We still get a lot of comments from residents but about 3 years ago we as the 11 cities came together and said we need to make this system work and we talked through several options and like Roger said we got to the point where we were able to start funding build out and things. Once we had the build out and once we took it to our residents which was last February and told them where we had come, I have heard nothing but positive, nothing but positive since February when we rolled it out. We had a town hall meeting, we told them where we had come and the obstacles we had overcome and at that point we were able to roll it out that it was totally optional. If people wanted it, great. If they didn't there wouldn't be any extra assessments to them. Once they saw the competitive advantage it gave them because of the number of people on the network and having the fiber direct to their home it has been phenomenal excitement in the city.

Christopher Mitchell: I'm not too surprised to hear that. I've seen that in other places as well. This is an infrastructure that's going to last a long time. I look back, a number of the airports that cities built many decades ago, they took a long time to break even but people were generally glad to have them available. One of the things people often realize is you were among the first to be doing this. The lessons you learned really helped a lot of other communities to be successful in terms of structuring their programs and learning lessons about how to move forward. So, I think, in some ways, the mistakes you made were a bit of a public service in terms of teaching others a lesson. One of the other things I want to talk about as we are running out of time with the time we have left, some of the problems you faced weren't your fault. The state made it hard on you. Roger, I'm wondering if you can tell us a little about the ways of which the state, I think, acting on behalf of the big companies that you're competing with, actually put its thumb on the scale to make your life more difficult.

Roger Timmerman: Yeah, one of the things was, the prohibition on us offering services directly. We like the idea of open access but it would be possible to provide some of the services directly while still allowing competition on the network. It was a big curveball at the UTOPIA cities to get legislation that showed up from a legislator that wasn't even in the cities involving UTOPIA that put all these restrictions on what cities could do and all this additional process and red tape that they'd have to go through to get the product in place. The legislation, what has been used as an example, since then, of how to go buy some legislation. It wasn't even in the conversation in Utah among citizens and legislators, it was brought in and given to legislators to push in behalf of a private interest.

Christopher Mitchell: Brendan Greeley wrote a great article in Business Week many years ago and it's titled, "Psst... Wanna Buy a Law?" If people Google that, I have no doubt they'll find it. It's exactly how you describe it and it's worth reading, but please continue.

Roger Timmerman: That was the initial obstacle. Open Access, we like it, it does provide a scalability issue. There's less dollars coming to UTOPIA to cover our investments. It's a good model, it's a more difficult model. The biggest problem UTOPIA has had has been financials. It's been a problem for us. Since that time, it seem like every year or two years another piece of legislation shows up trying to further restrict what we can do and it's a fight. We don't have a budget like the private companies do to go and lobby and push for influence at a legislation level. It's really an interesting contrast because among residents, populations in our cities, and businesses even, UTOPIA is extremely popular and the incumbents are some of the most hated companies in America. Along legislators, the incumbents are really popular, you can imagine why that is because of, whether it's campaign contributions or influence among different groups.

Christopher Mitchell: Weekly golf trips?

Roger Timmerman: It's night and day between the citizens and legislators and what their interactions are with the incumbents.

Christopher Mitchell: Mayor Cronin?

Karen Cronin: I remember a couple years ago when there was a piece of legislation that was going to pass that was going to greatly affect the way we could promote the UTOPIA's, the 11 cities and the 11 cities banded together and went to talk to the legislature. It was because of that, the local involvement that the legislators listened and gave us a bit more time and didn't pass that legislation. I can't emphasize enough how important it is -- if people want local control then the local elected officials need to be involved and make things happen. We don't have the money that some of the lobbyists are getting from big companies, but we have a voice and I think our legislators will listen to local voices if they have the courage to step forward.

Christopher Mitchell: I think that's a really good point. It's not enough to just be right, you have to make sure you're raising your voice up as local elected officials and just citizens to say this is our point of view. Because, as we discussed, the legislators, they hear from the big companies every day. They need to hear from multiple constituents every day on these issues as well in order to even just think they're similar in terms of important, in terms of policy preferences. I think we're about out of time but I'd love to give you another chance to say anything else you'd like to say as we finish up our discussion. Let me start with you Roger.

Roger Timmerman: It's an exciting time in the space of municipal fiber. What we've seen in our own area is that the demand for this service is higher than it's ever been. We started this thing back in 2002 and back then people were still trying to figure out what Fiber was and what the benefits were and there was a major population that didn't use it. Now it's a given. Everyone wants Internet connectivity and they don't just want it, they want good speeds and good service. Over time it's been legitimized and we've seen that in the form of increased demands and then we see, where's the rest of the industry, where's the incumbents and other options and it seems that they're actually falling further behind. We go back ten years and these guys weren't the most hated companies in America. Things have gotten worse for them, not better. Rather than upgrade and compete, we see an increased and deliberate effort to stop municipal progress building Fiber projects, and so it's good in the sense that the success and demand for municipal fibers have increased but there's an increased threat because there's a lot of work being done to preserve incumbent interests. It's great, we're seeing successes here. Our financials are better, we're in a position that we're actually growing faster than we have in our whole history. Things are good. We have other cities looking to partner with us in other ways and that wasn't a conversation we weren't able to have because of the past difficulties. I think you'll see UTOPIA continue to grow and be successful and I think you'll see efforts like UTOPIA across the country and have success.

Christopher Mitchell: Parting thoughts from Mayor Cronin?

Karen Cronin: I think in the world we live in today we are seeing the rate of technological advances is at warp speed. In order to be competitive and stay at the forefront, we need to allow the free enterprise system to work and not put legislation in place that may limit that free enterprise system. I would put Perry out there as one of the success stories. A small rural community of 5,000 and yet now we have the capability through the UTOPIA network and the open market to be able to have 100 Gigabit connections and redundancy and multiple providers and that puts us on the map to be able to support some of the biggest companies that are looking at trying to locate in the West. It's a great thing and we've benefitted enormously.

Christopher Mitchell: Thank you both for taking time to come on and share your experiences and the message of hope coming out of Northern Utah.

Karen Cronin: Thank you for allowing us to talk to you Chris.

Roger Timmerman: Thank you Chris.

Lisa Gonzalez: That was Mayor Cronin from Perry and Roger Timmerman, executive director of UTOPIA talking with Chris about the Utah Telecommunications Open Infrastructure Agency. Check out their website at to learn more. We also have a number of stories about UTOPIA on Remember, we have transcripts for this and other Community Broadband Bits podcasts available at Email us with your ideas for the show. Send a note to Follow Chris on Twitter, his handle is @CommunityNets. Follow's stories on Twitter, the handle is @MuniNetworks. Subscribe to this podcast and all the podcasts in the ILSR Podcast Family on iTunes, Stitcher, or wherever else you get your Podcasts. Never miss out on our original research by also subscribing to our monthly newsletter at Thank you to the group Mojo Monkeys for their song “Bodacious” licensed through Creative Commons. Thanks for listening to Episode 223 of the Community Broadband Bits Podcast.

Update on Utah's Open Access UTOPIA - Community Broadband Bits Podcast 223

In the north central region of Utah, eleven communities are now served by a regional open access fiber-optic network operated by the Utah Telecommunications Open Infrastructure Agency or UTOPIA. UTOPIA’s Executive Director, Roger Timmerman, and Mayor Karen Cronin from member community, Perry City, take time to speak with us for Community Broadband Bits episode 223.

One of the great advantages UTOPIA has brought the region is the element of competition. Rather than facing a choice of only one or two Internet Service Providers like most of us, people in UTOPIA cities sign up for a connection to the network and then choose from multiple providers who offer a range of services via the infrastructure. Competing for business brings better products, better prices, and better customer service.

Since launching in 2004, UTOPIA has faced financial uncertainties created by onerous state laws that force a wholesale model on publicly owned networks. Regardless, Mayor Cronin has seen the network improve connectivity in her community, which has improved the local economy and the quality of life. After working with the network since the early days, Roger sees that UTOPIA’s situation is on the upswing but has witnessed firsthand how those harmful state laws limiting local authority can put a smart investment like UTOPIA in harm’s way.

Read the transcript of the show here.

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

This show is 25 minutes long and can be played below on this page or via iTunes or via the tool of your choice using this feed.

You can download this mp3 file directly from here. Listen to other episodes here or view all episodes in our index.

Thanks to mojo monkeys for the music, licensed using Creative Commons. The song is "Bodacious."

Our "Open Access Networks" Resources Page Now Available

When communities decide to proceed with publicly owned infrastructure, they often aim for open access models. Open access allows more than one service provider to offer services via the same infrastructure. The desire is to increase competition, which will lower prices, improve services, and encourage innovation.

It seems straight forward, but open access can be more complex than one might expect. In addition to varying models, there are special challenges and financing considerations that communities need to consider.

In order to centralize our information on open access, we’ve created the new Open Access Networks resource page. We’ve gathered together some of our best reference material, including links to previous stories, articles from other resources, relevant Community Broadband Bits podcast episodes, case studies, helpful illustrations, and more.

We cover: 

  • Open Access Arrangements
  • Financing Open Access Networks
  • Challenges for Open Access Networks
  • U.S. Open Access Networks
  • Planned Open Access Networks

Check it out and share the link. Bookmark it!

Congrats to FreeUTOPIA for Victory In Utah

Jesse Harris over at FreeUTOPIA is noting an important shift in the discussions and controversies that surround Utah’s UTOPIA open access network. For starters, as the network is increasingly showing signs of financial success, he’s noticing that critics of the network have gone silent. Meanwhile, more and more people in the region seem to be interested in getting connected to the network. 

After almost a decade spent covering the UTOPIA open source network, Harris declared victory for UTOPIA and for local authority over broadband access in Utah.

We’ll let Jesse take it from here:

UTOPIA is probably in the best shape it has ever been in. They have or will soon hit operational break even, where all operating expenses are now covered by revenues. Between remaining UIA money and the RUS settlement, they have operating capital they can use to expand the network. In fact, expansion is now underway in Perry, Layton, Midvale, and West Valley City. All of the expansion is being done to demand and the cost is landing squarely on subscribers.

Even the public attitude is different. I don’t see baseless fact-free editorials against it with any notable frequency. Even the Utah Taxpayers Association has gone uncharacteristically silent. Orem elected pro-UTOPIA candidates. Murray has been actively working on ways to maximize the network in their city. Payson reportedly even shows up to board meetings with regularity now. From many sources, I hear less “how do we get rid of it” and more “how do I get it in my house”. The importance of competitive, fairly priced, and high performance broadband has entered the mass consciousness in a way that I haven’t seen it before. Most importantly, highly visible failures by incumbents to deliver the kind of broadband nirvana they’ve been promising for decades has made the public highly cynical to their claims.

There is still work to do. UTOPIA has a lot of network to build to serve every address in member cities. There are a lot of areas badly neglected by incumbents that don’t have any kind of viable competition. Google is great for those that have it but creates a lot of have nots and replaces one duopolist with another. The companies who are doing interesting competitive things can’t really do it at scale. Despite these challenges, one thing is certain.

We won the war.

Yes, I’m declaring victory. It’s taken nearly 10 years of running this blog, but the hearts and minds part of the game is more-or-less over. It’s all mop-up operations from here, scattered battles that I think we’ll have little trouble seeing through to victory.

In Jesse’s decade of diligently tracking all things UTOPIA, he’s covered good news (see here and here), setbacks, the network’s tumultuous history, and he’s been a voice of reason in the face of misinformation efforts.

We’d like to salute Jesse for 10 years of effective advocacy for UTOPIA and for the municipal broadband movement as a whole. Thanks Jesse!

Op-ed: Spanish Fork Proves Utah Law is Counter-Productive

The Salt Lake Tribune published this op-ed championing local investment in Internet infrastructure on December 11, 2015.


Op-ed: Spanish Fork’s success shows municipal Internet networks work

By Christopher Mitchell

For nearly 10 years, large telephone and cable companies have claimed municipal Internet networks are so risky that local government authority should be restricted. But after 15 years of experience, we can only conclude that the cure is worse than the disease.

Utah has three municipal networks, where local governments invested in Internet infrastructure to provide choices in a monopolistic environment. But only two of those networks are regularly discussed and used as examples of why local governments shouldn't be in this business: iProvo and UTOPIA, which were not able to meet their financial targets.

The network missing from the conversation is Spanish Fork Community Network, which has just finished paying off its debt and has generated millions of dollars in surplus revenue for the community. The network is now upgrading from community cable to community gigabit fiber optics.

Of the over 450 municipal networks tracked by the Institute for Local Self-Reliance, Spanish Fork's experience is above average. The vast majority of municipal networks deliver benefits well in excess of costs and do not require subsidies to operate.

It may come as a surprise, but iProvo and Spanish Fork are nearly twins, separated at birth and raised in dramatically different environments. Both were conceived at the same time — the same consultant did the feasibility study for each. But Spanish Fork, being smaller and more nimble, was able to move forward before Utah's Legislature weighed in to restrict local decision-making.

Comcast and the predecessor to CenturyLink crafted the legislation, which was revealed in a brilliant 2011 BusinessWeek article aptly entitled "Pssst … Wanna Buy a Law?" by Brendan Greeley and Alison Fitzgerald.

Since then, any new Utah municipal network has been subject to numerous requirements unlike anything private providers face, including a de facto requirement to use a wholesale-only arrangement.

Provo wanted to use the same business model as Spanish Fork, which we now know was tremendously successful. Whereas Spanish Fork could directly offer services to local businesses and residents, Provo was required to wholesale to other companies that delivered services.

Google has since taken over Provo's network and may soon be building in Salt Lake City, ensuring some competition for Comcast and CenturyLink in the short term at least. Whether they remain for the long term or not is their decision to make, independent of what is best for the community. Where the network is available, the services and prices will be determined from California, not Utah.

This powerlessness to ensure universal high quality access to the most important utility of the 21st century is a legacy of Utah law, which discourages locally-rooted networks. Utah should embrace the leadership from FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler, who has pushed a pro-competition agenda to bring a real choice in high speed Internet access to local businesses and residents.

Ensuring universal high-speed Internet access requires all hands on deck, not only the private companies. We are seeing new local approaches out of smart communities like Ammon, Idaho, where an incremental approach to the wholesale-only model is very promising.

But that model shouldn't be imposed on communities by the state. Especially when those state laws are written by the very industry voices that seek to limit competition. The record is clear — laws revoking local authority to create Internet choice have increased the risk to taxpayers, limited investment in better networks and have only benefited cable and telephone companies monopolies headquartered outside the state.

Christopher Mitchell is the director of Community Broadband Networks at the Institute for Local Self-Reliance in Minneapolis (

Who Has Citywide Gigabit Internet Access for $100 or Less?

As Westminster begins serving customers with its new FTTH network and partner Ting, we were curious how many communities are there where a residential subscriber can obtain affordable gigabit access? We estimate the number of networks, large or small, where a majority of residents in a community can obtain gigabit service for $100 or less to be 12. Westminster will be there in a few years.

Update: Russellville, Kentucky; Salisbury, North Carolina; and Wilson, North Carolina, also offer a gigabit, bringing the total number of citywide gigabit networks to 16. On September 1, we added another network that we previously overlooked - CSpire in Quitman and Flora, Mississippi (and soon others).

Municipal citywide, sub $100 gigabit providers:

  • Leverett, Massachusetts
  • North Kansas City, Missouri
  • Chattanooga, Tennessee
  • Tullahoma, Tennessee
  • Sandy, Oregon
  • UTOPIA Cities, Utah
  • Russellville, Kentucky
  • Salisbury, North Carolina (Fibrant)
  • Wilson, North Carolina (Greenlight)


  • Paul Bunyan Communications, Minnesota
  • Farmer's Telecom, Alabama
  • Co-Mo Connect, Missouri

Private Companies:

  • Google - Kansas City, Provo
  • CSpire - Quitman and Flora, Mississippi
  • MetroNet - Crawfordsville, Indiana (formerly a muni)
  • Burlington, Vermont - (currently privately owned, formerly a muni with future in limbo)

We included municipal networks, cooperatives, and privately owned companies. When considering networks that cover multiple jurisdictions in a single area, we counted it as one (thus Google counts as 1 in KC, Chattanooga is 1 in TN). And we were looking for gigabit networks - not just gigabit download. While we prefer to see symmetrical connections, we accepted 500 Mbps up for our threshold.

We could not identify any cities served by AT&T, CenturyLink, Verizon, Comcast, Cox, or any other similar company where the majority of the community has access to a gig. Those providers tend to cherry pick and even then, their prices are over $100 typically. For example, CenturyLink advertises a gig at $80 but then requires other services and hidden fees that make the monthly bill closer to $150.

We found affordable residential gigabit service from networks in urban, suburban, or rural communities from 12 networks (some of which cover multiple communities). Trying to determine how much of the community has access to a service is challenging, so please contact us with any corrections. In a few years, munis like Longmont and private companies like Ting will join the list. 

While the number of providers are few, many of them do serve multiple communities. The coops, including Farmers Telecommunications Cooperative in Alabama and Missouri's Co-Mo Cooperative, provide the service to a long list of smaller communities within their service areas. There is also the open access network UTOPIA, with at least 7 providers that offer gigabit FTTH below our price point in nine communities currently served by the network (to various degrees, some cities have little coverage whereas others are almost entirely built out). 

Prices range from $0 to $99.95 per month with the highest concentration at $70 or higher. In North Kansas City, residents pay $300 for installation and receive gigabit Internet access for $0 per month for the next 10 years. This incredible offer is available due to the presence of LiNKCity, a network deployed by the city and now managed and operated by a private partner. 

AT&T has launched its $70 GigaPower in parts of 12 different metro areas, although the price requires users to submit to a special web based advertising program. Even when these big firms finally invest in high capacity connections, they find new ways to exploit their subscribers - a reminder that who deploys a technology can be as important as what that technology is.

Now that the gig barrier has been blasted away (primarily by municipal networks and smaller ISPs) we expect to see more networks and providers offering affordable gig service to residents. 

Gigabit Cat photo courtesy of Michael Himbeault and shared through a Creative Commons license.

Gigabit Networks and Utah: March 24th Luncheon and Webcast

On Friday, April 24th, make plans to attend the Utah and Broadband Breakfast Club Luncheon Event. If you can't make it in person, attend the webcast. The topic: Gigabit Networks in Utah.

From the announcement:

In announcing in late March that Google Fiber will expand to Salt Lake City (its eighth metropolitan area nationwide), the broadband world turned its envying eyes on Utah. With Google Fiber in Provo and now Salt Lake -- and with Gigabit Networks available in the 11 cities served by the Utah Telecommunications Open Infrastructure Agency, or UTOPIA -- Utah is poised to be the first state where a substantial portion of its residents have access to the fastest-possible broadband internet services.

What does Google's investments say about the economic health and technology-savvy nature of Utah? What do cities and citizens get from Google Fiber that they haven't gotten from traditional telecom companies? And, for cities and states seeking to get a Gig, what are the best options to build and enhance Gigabit Networks?

A panel of experts will discuss what Google and Gig networks mean to Utah and its citizens. The webcast is free and the event is $25 for Nonmembers of the Utah Breakfast Club or $15 for Members. Lunch will be served at the Utah State Capitol at 11:30 a.m. MT and the panel discussion will and webcast will start at 2 p.m. ET/Noon MT.

As a bonus, you may now obtain a free three-month trial membership to the Utah Breakfast Club.

Panelists will be:

  • Devin Baer, Head of Fiber Business, Salt Lake, Google
  • Paul Cutler, Mayor, City of Centerville, Utah
  • Justin Jones, Vice President, Public Policy and Communications, Salt Lake Chamber
  • David Shaw, Shareholder, Kirton McConkie; Chair, Government and Utilities Practice Group
  • Moderated by Drew Clark, Of Counsel, Kirton McConkie; Founder, Utah Breakfast Club

Register online for the webcast or buy tickets for the live event.

Community Broadband Media Roundup - February 1

The mayors of 38 US cities came out this week to let the FCC know they want the authority to build high speed Internet networks. Jon Gold with Network World covered the story and reminded readers of the more heavy-handed tactics of our Comcast and TWC. 

Three U.S. senators introduced a Community Broadband Act this week. Mario Trujillo with The Hill reported that the bill would forbid state and local governments from “creating a ‘statute, regulation, or other legal requirement’ that bars communities from creating their own municipal broadband network.”

Kate Cox with the Consumerist broke it down:

“In other words, the Community Broadband Act makes it legal for a town to start a network and illegal for the state to stop them, but doesn’t provide any assistance for towns who want to build networks. It simply gives them the opportunity to pursue their own funding. To that end, the bill specifically encourages public-private partnerships.”

Henry Grabar with Salon wrote about the ideological debate that is “taking the country by storm.” 

Broadband Definition

Jon Brodkin with Ars Technica wrote about the FCC decision to raise the definition of broadband speed: “Tons of AT&T and Verizon customers will no longer have ‘broadband’ tomorrow.” This after the FCC upped the definition of broadband from 4 Mbps to 25 Mbps download speed. 

Under the proposed definition of 25Mbps down and 3Mbps up (which is opposed by Internet providers), 19.4 percent of US households would be in areas without any wired broadband providers. 55.3 percent would have just one provider of “broadband,” with the rest being able to choose from two or more. Rural areas are far less likely to have fast Internet service than urban ones.

In another article about the decision, Brodkin explains why the cable industry is opposed to the changes.

Alina Selykukh with Reuters covered the increase as well.  The new definition should force upgrades to fiber to the home, but it could also have a real impact for lower-income families. 

“The FCC could also press Comcast to commit to faster speeds in its Internet Essentials program, a discounted Internet service for low-income families, if they decide to use it as part of the merger review, analysts said.”


Muni Editorials

This week several prominent newspaper editorial boards have come out in favor of community broadband. 

The Boston Globe’s board wrote that Congress should let cities provide their own Internet

“A better approach would be for Congress to settle the issue itself, by preventing states from interfering with cities and towns that want to start their own Internet services. On Jan. 22, Democratic Senators Cory Booker of New Jersey, Claire McCaskill of Missouri, and Ed Markey of Massachusetts filed a bill that would invalidate the state laws, and prohibit states from enacting new ones. This effort will almost certainly face stiff resistance from Congressional Republicans. But this shouldn’t be a partisan issue, and it isn’t one on the local level. Red states like Georgia, Kentucky, Iowa, Oklahoma, and Utah all have successful municipal Internet programs. Politicians tempted by campaign contributions from the telecommunications lobby, or skeptical of any proposal backed by President Obama, should remember that consumer protection is an issue that voters of all stripes support.”

The LA Times also weighed in: 

"Just as advances in microchip speed and hard drive capacity have led to more powerful software programs, faster broadband networks lead to more data-intensive applications and services. But the shortage of broadband competitors and the high cost of building networks in the United States have slowed the spread of the kind of ultra-high-speed services such as the ones found in much of Asia and northern Europe… Regardless, the decision about whether a local agency should get into the broadband business should be left to the people who bear the risk — local officials and the people who elect them." 

The Iowa State Daily praised Republican Governor Branstad’s “Connect Every Acre” proposal: 

“Bringing Internet access to all Iowans or Americans will only increase the number of educational and economic opportunities in our state. Cedar Falls is already a powerhouse in Iowan and national E-commerce, so expanding similar capabilities across the state will strengthen Iowa’s standing on the national economic stage."

More residents and op-ed writers have chosen to write about community broadband as well. Andrew Kocis wrote in the Eastern Echo that he wants to see faster speeds, more competition and better service.

Ansel Herz continues to bite at the heels of Seattle’s decision-makers.

“Seattle is a bustling, high-tech metropolis with a highly regarded public utility company. We're the fastest growing large city in the country, according to census data, and the city expects that over the next 10 years, 75 percent of the city's new residents will move here for jobs in the tech sector. So why, when it comes to the internet, are we so far behind cities like Cedar Falls and Chattanooga—or closer to home, for that matter, towns like Mount Vernon or Sandy, Oregon?”

David Amor wrote to keep his paper, the Galesburg Register-Mail, in check after a recent article only told half of the story about broadband in his Illinois community. 

The South Coast Today out of Massachusetts is introducing a series devoted to helping residents learn more about municipal networks:

The first question is "Why would Middleboro want to become an ISP (Internet Service Provider?".  The simple answer is:  To provide quality high speed Internet at the lowest possible price and to protect our citizens from the blood thirsty piranhas that they currently have to contend with.  A municipal ISP would have the effect of keeping the other providers honest.  Competition would force everybody to offer the best possible rates instead of what we have today - Internet superhighway men and corporate grifters who are charging as much as they can get away with after luring you in with temporarily low rates.


Community Broadband City Update

Paul Bunyan Communications in Bemidji, MN connected its first “gigazone” customer this week. Zach Kayser with the Forum News Service reported on the technological revolution that is happening in rural northern Minnesota. Once completed, the GigaZone will be one of the largest gigabit networks in the United States.

Bryan Lund with the Rochester Post Bulletin is reporting about his city taking steps toward community broadband. Rochester, MN city council member Mike Wojcik says he’s been bombarded with letters from residents disgusted with their Charter service, and that’s sparking them to look into other options. 

"Broadband is key for information for a lot of people, particularly younger generations, and going forward, it becomes more and more critical… Ultimately, if the city of Rochester, if the citizens of Rochester, are not willing to invest in broadband themselves, nobody else is going to invest in it for us. There are more than 30 cities around the country now that have jumped in and are positively cash-flowing broadband for their citizens. Typically, they have better service, better speeds and better pricing than Rochester gets."

Barbara Rodriguez with the Associated Press reported on Gov. Branstad’s broadband legislation. In the Quad City Times, Barb Ickes wrote that the Iowa city’s leaders have a responsibility to understand how broadband service can benefit their constituents. 

Allison Oligschlaeger with the Deseret News reports that the mayor of Murray, Utah has a plan to increase UTOPIA customers.

In Albany, New York, Chelsea Diana with Biz Journals wrote about how Albany businesses have fallen behind for competitive speeds. She found that 70 percent of upstate New Yorkers cannot get access to broadband at 100 Mbps, which many European cities enjoy. 

Richie Davis with GazetteNet in Massachusetts wrote about Leverett’s community broadband success, which was featured in the White House’s broadband report.

“President Obama’s call Tuesday for Internet expansion to “help folks build the fastest networks, so that the next generation of digital innovators and entrepreneurs have the platform to keep reshaping our world,” had a special ring for people in this town.

Obama’s State of the Union shout-out to the 21st-century businesses’ need for “the fastest Internet,” and his visit to Cedar Falls, Iowa, last week to spotlight that city’s municipal gigabit-per-second broadband service, came as little surprise to Leverett Broadband Committee members, who are gearing up for 1-gigabit-per-second LeverettNet service — 100 times faster than the national average — to be turned on this spring for residents.”

Boulder, CO residents will soon be reaping the benefits from their recent Internet ballot initiative. Erica Meltzer with the Daily Camera writes that the city will launch free public wi-fi in downtown areas this Spring. 

And in Loveland, CO, Saja Hindi with the Reporter Herald reports on elected officials there are discussing how municipal broadband could improve the town’s economy. 

“[City councilor John] Fogle said it's not just large cities taking advantage of this idea but smaller ones as well because it's about being a catalyst for business and for education... A business developer at the retreat affirmed Fogle's comment, stating there's a possibility of a company looking to locate the manufacture of helicopters in Loveland at the airport next year and because the headquarters are in Switzerland, having a fiber optic line would be very beneficial.”

An Update on Utah's UTOPIA Open Access Network

For the facts on all things UTOPIA, we turn to Jesse Harris at In his latest post, he provides an excellent bullet list of the key factors in Macquarie's Milestone 2 proposal. An excerpt From his post:

  • The final cost per address is estimated at $22.60 per month. Macquarie estimates that re-working the deal to account for five cities bowing out trimmed the cost by $8.57 per month.
  • The revenue split is much more generous than I expected, allowing the cities to keep 75% of wholesale revenue after the first $2M per year. It’s expected to completely cover the debt service by 2021 with just a 24% take rate for premium services.
  • The basic level service has also been improved. Instead of 3M/3M service being included at no extra cost, it’s been bumped to 5M/5M. This matches Google Fiber speeds on the free tier. The data cap stays put at 20GB per month.
  • Almost all of the network revenues are being driven by Veracity, XMission, and SumoFiber. Other ISPs are very small by comparison.
  • The majority of currently connected users are in opt-out cities. This only reinforced that the votes there were “we got ours” selfishness.

Jesse has also managed to obtain a draft copy of the Milestone Two Report and has it posted for your review at his blog.

Recently, the network settled a long running dispute with the Rural Utility Service (RUS), reported the Standard Examiner. UTOPIA was awarded a $10 million settlement in a lawsuit filed in September 2011.

A November Salt Lake Tribune article reported that the RUS encouraged UTOPIA to seek federal loans in 2004 but took 19 months to approve the first payment, generating unanticipated expenses. Later, the agency withdrew promised funding with no formal reason. 

Community Broadband Media Roundup - December 12, 2014

This week in Community Broadband networks... partnerships, cooperatives, and going-it-alone. For a background in muni networks, check out this recent article from FiscalNote. The article highlights Kansas and Utah's fight for improving beyond the minimum speeds. 

Speaking of minimum, the FCC announced its new "rock bottom" for regulated broadband speeds. Ars Technica's Jon Brodkin reports that despite AT&T, Verizon, and the National Cable and Telecom Association's protests, ISPs that use government subsidies to build rural broadband networks must provide speeds of at least 10 Mbps for downloads.

Rural Americans should not be left behind those who live in big cities, the FCC announcement today said. "According to recent data, 99 percent of Americans living in urban areas have access to fixed broadband speeds of 10/1, which can accommodate more modern applications and uses. Moreover, the vast majority of urban households are able to subscribe to even faster service," the FCC said.

The FCC plans to offer nearly $1.8 billion a year to carriers willing to expand service to 5 million rural Americans. 

This is a step in the right direction, but we are alarmed to see a download:upload ratio of 10:1. People in rural areas need to upload as well as download - our comments to the FCC strongly recommended raising the upstream threshold as well and we are very disappointed to see that remain a pathetic 1 Mbps.

And, from TechDirt's own "who can you trust if you can't trust the phone company department," Karl Bode found that a study by the AT&T-funded Progressive Policy Institute concluded that if Title II regulations were passed, the nation would be "awash in $15 billion in various new Federal and State taxes and fees. Bode writes that the study cherry-picked and conflated data:

The reality the broadband industry doesn't want to acknowledge is that very little changes for it under Title II if carriers aren't engaged in bad behavior. The broadband industry is fighting Title II solely to protect potential revenues generated from abusing uncompetitive markets. That this self-serving behavior is being dressed up as concern about the size of your broadband bill is the industry's best comedic work to date.

Cities Pursuing Community Broadband

Nancy Scola reported on the growing collective of "Next Century Cities." 

[The group's] early expansion is a signal of what seems to be a shift in the way Americans are thinking about high-speed Internet access: the idea that cities will the battlegrounds for the playing out of the broadband debates. One effect of these cities working so closely with Google as it rolls out its fiber network in places like Kansas City and Austin is a realization that mayors can take broadband into their own hands -- whether that's through a municipal solution like Chattanooga's gigabit network or through partnering with traditional Internet service providers such as Comcast or Time Warner Cable.

Other partnerships are also moving muni networks forward

At the same time as the Next Century Cities announcement, the Department of Agriculture announced $190.5 million in grants and loans for rural broadband and telecommunications infrastructure.

"Modern telecommunications and broadband access is now as essential to the businesses and residents of rural America as electricity was in the 1930s," said Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack, in a USDA statement. The funding will go towards providing, “broadband in areas that lack it, help rural-serving public television stations begin using digital broadcasts and support other telecommunications infrastructure improvements."

Jason Meyers with LightReading explains why utility companies (like EPB in Chattanooga) are positioned so well to be home to gigabit networks.  

Several communities are considering local options for networks. Some are just in the earliest study phases: Medina County and Athens in Ohio and Walla Walla, Washington are among them. RS Fiber in Minnesota has approved its updated business plan and financial strategy, meaning it can move forward with its cooperative network, and several communities in Northeastern Oklahoma are pursuing a cooperative plan as well.

It looks like the push for local options in Colorado is having an affect on other communities. Aspen and Pitkin County have submitted requests for proposals-- perhaps inspired by Longmont, Boulder, and the rest of the communities we reported on after the November referenda.  

Meantime, Bruce Kushnick with the Huffington Post reported this week that communities all over the country have been paying for fiber infrastructure upgrades, but have seen almost none of the investment. 

Starting in 1991, the phone companies went state-to-state to get changes in state laws, known as "alternative regulations" to charge customers for the replacement of the copper wires that were part of the state-based utility, like Verizon New Jersey, with a fiber optic wire capable of 45 Mbps in both directions, the standard speed for broadband in 1992.

And though it varied by state, this fiber optic wiring was to be done everywhere -- urban, rural, and suburban, rich and poor communities and cities, and even the schools were to be wired in some states. All customers were paying for the upgrades of this future fiber optic broadband utility so they all deserved to be upgraded.

Check it out and see if your community is on the list. And if you think this isn't the first time you've heard about this Big Ripoff, you're right-- We interviewed him on Community Broadband Bits Episode 28

Net Neutrality

This week, New Jersey's Cory Booker and Maine's Angus King defended net neutrality on CNN. 

The Internet is one of the most powerful tools on the planet. Across the globe, millions of people connect every minute of every day to harness its wealth of information, exchange ideas in an open platform and foster the type of innovation and entrepreneurship that spurs economic growth.

And today, it's never been more at risk in the United States.

Washington Post's Brian Fung reported that there are hints that the telecom industry is preparing for a new Title II reclassification. Verizon's CFO Francis Shammo said, in a nutshell, that the company would do just fine if the FCC imposed the stricter regulations. 

"I mean to be real clear, I mean this does not influence the way we invest. I mean we're going to continue to invest in our networks and our platforms, both in Wireless and Wireline FiOS and where we need to. So nothing will influence that. I mean if you think about it, look, I mean we were born out of a highly regulated company, so we know how this operates.

Despite this very clear statement, we expect to see still more claims from groups like the AT&T puppet Progressive Policy Institute that Title II would somehow cause major carriers to invest even less in networks across the United States. Though, if the market were half as competitive as they claim, any firm that invested less would be in big trouble! How do we know when they are lying? Well, are their lips moving?