Tag: "fastroads"

Posted July 20, 2012 by lgonzalez

In 2011, we brought you information about New Hampshire FastRoads, an open access project. At the time, the discussion centered around legislative events. We decided to look into the FastRoads project for an update.

The FastRoads project received partial funding from the Network New Hampshire Now (NNHN) project and its American Recovery and Reinvestment grants. Private donations and matching funds added to the $65.9 million budget to expand broadband across the state. The entire NNHN network planning includes middle- and last-mile fiber installations, along with a middle-mile microwave public safety network. The NNHN network will span ten counties, some of which are still relying on dial-up.

The FastRoads network will bring together 22 communities and 220 Community Anchor Institutions on the western side of the state. The project also includes last-mile networks in Rindge and Enfield and is expected to connect approximately 1,300 businesses and residents in those two towns, many who rely on dial-up.

In March, 2011, FastRoads began the first phase of the project when it awarded the design and project management contract to Design Nine. According to the Design Nine website, the fiber build- out will cover 25% of the entire state.

Shortly after hiring Design Nine, FastRoads released a Request for Qualifications (RFQ) for the building phase of the network. The contract went to Clemsford, Massachusetts' Waveguide last October.

Completion of the project is scheduled for June 30, 2013.

Posted May 24, 2011 by christopher

New Hampshire law makes it more difficult for communities to build broadband networks by only allowing bonds to finance broadband networks in "areas not served by an existing broadband carrier or provider." (See Title III, Chapter 33 of NH law.)

Such a requirement means that local governments could only build networks in areas with absolutely no service providers. Seeing as how most communities have at least one pocket with access to the Internet one way or another, communities are prevented from bonding for the essential infrastructure they need.

The only areas totally without a single service provider could probably only be served by a network that also serves an area where some service providers already operate, as those are the areas capable of generating enough revenue to balance rural areas with less revenue potential.

Because this law significantly retards the ability of communities to encourage economic development, we have seen previous attempts to update it (one of which we covered last year). This year, HB 389 offered a compromise to existing service providers. Nonetheless, it was also killed.

HB 389 would have allowed local governments to bond for broadband infrastructure but not allowed municipalities to provide retail services. Communities would be able to build open access networks but not allowed to offer services directly to subscribers.

Though we ardently defend the right of communities to build the networks they need using the business model they choose, this bill would have been an improvement for communities in New Hampshire.

logo-fastroads.png

One organization that certainly would have benefited from this law's passage would have been FastRoads, an open access network that has moved forward with federal broadband stimulus funding.

The network is currently being designed and will start connecting communities next year.

The...

Read more
Posted February 10, 2010 by christopher

The Design Nine blog alerted me to a bill in New Hampshire that would modify state law to allow communities to build publicly owned networks. It appears they may currently invest in a network in unserved areas -- though few places are entirely unserved. Most places have pitifully slow and overpriced DSL available to at least some residents. This bill would expand their authority to build networks.

Unfortunately, I have no sense of how likely this is to pass. The story in the Concord Monitor suggests it is seeing intense opposition from the usual sources - the private companies that want to decide alone who gets access to the Internet at what speed and at what price.

Unfortunately, the proponents of the change appear poised to limit themselves to a purely open access model - a limitation that could greatly hurt them as they build a network. Communities must be free to choose a business model that works, not have it imposed by a "compromise" at the legislature.

Requiring open access actually compromises the vitality of the network. Open access is an incredibly powerful idea - introducing real competition where people have long had no choices. But no community has yet made it work financially from the start. The early years are brutal for a network where the owner cannot provide services -- there are difficulties in aligning the incentives for those involved and generally insufficient revenue to make debt payments in the early years.

Communities must fight for the right to offer services, even if they would prefer not to. Offering services generates more revenue when it is most needed - the early years. Allowing Comcast and FairPoint to define the business models of communities is poor policy. The New Hampshire legislation - HB 1242 - is available here.

We wish communities like nDanville and the Wired Road luck as they expand to citywide networks on an entirely open access basis. However, existing experience suggests that communities should focus first on getting the numbers to work and then opening the network to greater competition down the road.

Pages

Subscribe to fastroads