The results of a broadband feasibility study are in for two northern Colorado towns weighing whether to establish municipally run high-speed Internet service. Though the overall recommendations are exploratory, they include hooking up the city’s main resources to fiber and adopting broadband friendly policies, with the possibility of expansion to Fiber-to-the-Premise (FTTP) services down the line. 

Weighing the Options

Consultants offered a series of recommendations, all of which involve setting up legislation that incentivizes investment and reduces installation costs, such as a dig once policy, and connecting city infrastructure to fiber. The study suggested three types of actions with varying degrees of involvement from the local government:

1. The city could attempt to persuade incumbent providers to invest in faster, more reliable Internet services.


2. Enter into some sort of public-private partnership in which the cities and the private ISP partner/s co-invest in creating a fiber gig service. 


3. Build a municipally run FTTP network.


With any of the options, NEO reps stressed the goal of getting everyone in the town to a gig, what NEO CEO Diane Kruse described as the “gold standard” of capacity.  

The consultants affirmed that an FTTP setup would be financially feasible under the right circumstances (found on page 68 of the report) that include a threshold 30 percent take rate for Greeley and 35 percent for Windsor within three years, and at least $5 per customer utility fees. The utility fee model of funding deployment entails customers paying a monthly surcharge to go towards maintenance and construction of the network. With this model, when a higher number of subscribers connect, the fee usually decreases.

In Greeley, to get things like traffic lights, smart meters, and municipal buildings hooked in with fiber, the cost would top off at around $3.7 million, provided  they utilize the nearly 18 miles of existing fiber. If the community chooses to deploy the entire network from scratch, NEO Connect estimates the project would run approximately $8 million. In Windsor, the costs would be approximately $260,000 and $1.7 million, respectively. With a 30 percent expected take rate,...

As you make summer plans, remember that Mountain Connect should be on your schedule. The event will be in Vail, Colorado, and this year the theme is “Moving Beyond Risk to Compete in the New Economy.” Mountain Connect will be held at the Hotel Talisa June 11th - 14th.

You can still register online.

The West's Premier Broadband Development Conference

The agenda for this year’s event is coming together and organizers plan to continue to focus on six main topics:

• Intelligent Infrastructure
• Economic Development
• Healthcare
• Education
• Policy Impacting Broadband
• Broadband 101 Education for Elected Officials

Remember to revisit the agenda as it develops.

Christopher will moderate one of the Keynote Panels, “Exploring Benefits of Progressive Action - The Communities,” which is scheduled for June 14th at 10 a.m. Here’s the description of the topic:

This follow-on panel will explore communities which have benefitted from the progressive action of their respective states, their lessons learned and what you need to do to move your community and state forward.

In addition to Christopher, expect to see some other familiar faces, including David Young from Lincoln, Nebraska, Danna Mackenzie from the Minnesota Broadband Office, and Deb Socia from Next Century Cities. 

"FOOOORRRREEE!"

To get outside enjoying the beautiful Vail scenery and to contribute to helping young scholars, participate in the Dale Hatfield Golf Tournament Open while you’re at Mountain Connect. The even happens on Monday, June 11th and proceeds support the Dale Hatfield Scholars Program at Silicon Flatirons Center for Law, Technology, and Entrepreneurship at the University of Colorado. Get details about the Open and...

We’re a little off kilter these days when it comes to state legislation. Typically, we spend our efforts helping local communities stave off bills to steal, limit, or hamstring local telecommunications authority. This year it’s different so Christopher and Lisa sat down to have a brief chat about some of the notable state actions that have been taken up at state Capitols.

We decided to cover a few proposals that we feel degrade the progress some states have made, bills that include positive and negative provisions, and legislation that we think will do nothing but good. Our analysis covers the map from the states in New England to states in the Northwest. 

In addition to small changes that we think will have big impact - like the definition of “broadband” - we discuss the way tones are shifting. In a few places, like Colorado, state leaders are fed up with inaction or obstruction from the big ISPs that use the law to solidify their monopoly power rather than bring high-quality connectivity to citizens. Other states, like New Hampshire and Washington, recognize that local communities have the ability to improve their situation and are taking measured steps to reduce barriers to broadband deployment.

While they still maintain significant power in many places, national corporate ISPs may slowly be losing their grip over state legislators. We talk about that, too.

For more on these and other bills, check out our recent stories on state and federal legislation.

This show is 24 minutes long and can be played on this page or via iTunes or the tool of your choice using this feed.

Read the transcript for this show here.

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

In Colorado last week, communities held spring elections if they needed to choose elected officials or ask voters to make decisions on local matters. In six rural communities, voters decided to join the almost 120 municipalities and counties around the state that have already voted to opt out of Colorado’s restrictive state law SB 152. Meanwhile, the General Assembly tried to help bring broadband to the state's most rural areas.

A Resounding Yes

In all six towns, the decision to reclaim local telecommunications authority far outpaced the number of voters who voted “no.” In keeping with similar measures we’ve followed during previous elections on this same question, voters want the opportunity to use their own infrastructure to improve connectivity either directly to the public or with a private sector partner. Most communities that put this issue to the voters don’t have a solid plan in place at the time it’s on the ballot, but they understand that opting out of the 2005 law is a necessary step, should they decide in the future to move ahead with a muni or public-private partnership.

The measure always passes and voters usually approve the opt out provision by a wide margin, as was the case on April 3rd. Here’s the tally:

Firestone : Yes 1568 - No 347

Frisco : Yes 634 - No 69

Lake City : Yes 222 - No 18

Limon : Yes 347 - No 92

Lyons : Yes 526 - No 139

Severence : Yes 621 - No 118

Colorado has been abuzz with activity in recent years as local communities reclaim their right to decide how they handle connectivity improvements. The developments have run into resistance from Comcast and other big national ISPs that feel their monopoly threatened. Last fall, Comcast spent close to a million dollars in a failed attempt to defeat a measure in Fort Collins as the city amended its charter to allow it to invest in a municipal network. Before it could take that step, however, the city held a referendum in the fall of 2015 to opt out of SB 152.

In addition to Fort Collins, several other communities that have opted out in recent years are moving forward....