county

Content tagged with "county"

Related Topics
Displaying 781 - 790 of 978

Community Network Map

Want to go full-screen? 

Use the filters to show different municipal networks. These filters are additive, so selecting more will display only the subsets of municipal networks with all of those characteristics. Hover over the "i" tooltip to learn more about the different filters below. Click on any community to learn more.

Communities invest in telecommunications networks for a variety of reasons - economic development, improving access to education and health care, price stabilization, etc. They range from massive networks offering multi-gigabit service to hundreds of thousands of households to small towns connecting a few local businesses. In the map above, networks that serve more than one community are connected by a web - there is no particular significance to the center point in the web, other than to serve as a common connection point.

This map tracks a variety of ways in which local governments have invested in wired telecommunications networks as well as state laws that discourage such approaches.

Our map includes 400 municipal networks serving more than 700 communities. More than 200 of those communities are served by a publicly owned network which blankets the entire city with fiber infrastructure (see last updated date in the map above).

We continue to expand this map with other forms of publicly owned networks, including Indigenously owned networks and telephone and electric cooperatives. Get updates by signing up for our one-email-per-week list announcing new stories and resources.

Media Contact: Sean Gonsalves, [email protected] Questions? See the FAQ.

Community Network Map

Want to go full-screen? 

Use the filters to show different municipal networks. These filters are additive, so selecting more will display only the subsets of municipal networks with all of those characteristics. Hover over the "i" tooltip to learn more about the different filters below. Click on any community to learn more.

Communities invest in telecommunications networks for a variety of reasons - economic development, improving access to education and health care, price stabilization, etc. They range from massive networks offering multi-gigabit service to hundreds of thousands of households to small towns connecting a few local businesses. In the map above, networks that serve more than one community are connected by a web - there is no particular significance to the center point in the web, other than to serve as a common connection point.

This map tracks a variety of ways in which local governments have invested in wired telecommunications networks as well as state laws that discourage such approaches.

Our map includes 400 municipal networks serving more than 700 communities. More than 200 of those communities are served by a publicly owned network which blankets the entire city with fiber infrastructure (see last updated date in the map above).

We continue to expand this map with other forms of publicly owned networks, including Indigenously owned networks and telephone and electric cooperatives. Get updates by signing up for our one-email-per-week list announcing new stories and resources.

Media Contact: Sean Gonsalves, [email protected] Questions? See the FAQ.

Community Network Map

Want to go full-screen? 

Use the filters to show different municipal networks. These filters are additive, so selecting more will display only the subsets of municipal networks with all of those characteristics. Hover over the "i" tooltip to learn more about the different filters below. Click on any community to learn more.

Communities invest in telecommunications networks for a variety of reasons - economic development, improving access to education and health care, price stabilization, etc. They range from massive networks offering multi-gigabit service to hundreds of thousands of households to small towns connecting a few local businesses. In the map above, networks that serve more than one community are connected by a web - there is no particular significance to the center point in the web, other than to serve as a common connection point.

This map tracks a variety of ways in which local governments have invested in wired telecommunications networks as well as state laws that discourage such approaches.

Our map includes 400 municipal networks serving more than 700 communities. More than 200 of those communities are served by a publicly owned network which blankets the entire city with fiber infrastructure (see last updated date in the map above).

We continue to expand this map with other forms of publicly owned networks, including Indigenously owned networks and telephone and electric cooperatives. Get updates by signing up for our one-email-per-week list announcing new stories and resources.

Media Contact: Sean Gonsalves, [email protected] Questions? See the FAQ.

Community Network Map

Want to go full-screen? 

Use the filters to show different municipal networks. These filters are additive, so selecting more will display only the subsets of municipal networks with all of those characteristics. Hover over the "i" tooltip to learn more about the different filters below. Click on any community to learn more.

Communities invest in telecommunications networks for a variety of reasons - economic development, improving access to education and health care, price stabilization, etc. They range from massive networks offering multi-gigabit service to hundreds of thousands of households to small towns connecting a few local businesses. In the map above, networks that serve more than one community are connected by a web - there is no particular significance to the center point in the web, other than to serve as a common connection point.

This map tracks a variety of ways in which local governments have invested in wired telecommunications networks as well as state laws that discourage such approaches.

Our map includes 400 municipal networks serving more than 700 communities. More than 200 of those communities are served by a publicly owned network which blankets the entire city with fiber infrastructure (see last updated date in the map above).

We continue to expand this map with other forms of publicly owned networks, including Indigenously owned networks and telephone and electric cooperatives. Get updates by signing up for our one-email-per-week list announcing new stories and resources.

Media Contact: Sean Gonsalves, [email protected] Questions? See the FAQ.

Community Network Map

Want to go full-screen? 

Use the filters to show different municipal networks. These filters are additive, so selecting more will display only the subsets of municipal networks with all of those characteristics. Hover over the "i" tooltip to learn more about the different filters below. Click on any community to learn more.

Communities invest in telecommunications networks for a variety of reasons - economic development, improving access to education and health care, price stabilization, etc. They range from massive networks offering multi-gigabit service to hundreds of thousands of households to small towns connecting a few local businesses. In the map above, networks that serve more than one community are connected by a web - there is no particular significance to the center point in the web, other than to serve as a common connection point.

This map tracks a variety of ways in which local governments have invested in wired telecommunications networks as well as state laws that discourage such approaches.

Our map includes 400 municipal networks serving more than 700 communities. More than 200 of those communities are served by a publicly owned network which blankets the entire city with fiber infrastructure (see last updated date in the map above).

We continue to expand this map with other forms of publicly owned networks, including Indigenously owned networks and telephone and electric cooperatives. Get updates by signing up for our one-email-per-week list announcing new stories and resources.

Media Contact: Sean Gonsalves, [email protected] Questions? See the FAQ.

Community Network Map

Want to go full-screen? 

Use the filters to show different municipal networks. These filters are additive, so selecting more will display only the subsets of municipal networks with all of those characteristics. Hover over the "i" tooltip to learn more about the different filters below. Click on any community to learn more.

Communities invest in telecommunications networks for a variety of reasons - economic development, improving access to education and health care, price stabilization, etc. They range from massive networks offering multi-gigabit service to hundreds of thousands of households to small towns connecting a few local businesses. In the map above, networks that serve more than one community are connected by a web - there is no particular significance to the center point in the web, other than to serve as a common connection point.

This map tracks a variety of ways in which local governments have invested in wired telecommunications networks as well as state laws that discourage such approaches.

Our map includes 400 municipal networks serving more than 700 communities. More than 200 of those communities are served by a publicly owned network which blankets the entire city with fiber infrastructure (see last updated date in the map above).

We continue to expand this map with other forms of publicly owned networks, including Indigenously owned networks and telephone and electric cooperatives. Get updates by signing up for our one-email-per-week list announcing new stories and resources.

Media Contact: Sean Gonsalves, [email protected] Questions? See the FAQ.

Answers for Questions in Sibley's Fiber-to-the-Farm Potential Network

As decision time approaches, the discussions in Sibley County (and Fairfax in Renville) are winding down. The county and local governments have to decide whether to commit to the Joint Powers Board. Mark Erickson, the coordinator of the project currently, recently responded to a good set of questions about the project and gave me permission to reprint them here. Questions from a Sibley County Commissioner:
  1. Regarding parity of costs to build the fiber network into the townships (rural area) compared to cities.  It’s nearly twice as expensive to build out the rural areas and some cities feel they are subsidizing cost of putting fiber in country.
  2. How was the initial money spent for the feasibility study?  No one has seen the breakdown as to what that money went for.  We would like to see an itemized list of how the county's contribution and the Blandin dollars were spent.  How much of that money is left?
  3. There are concerns about how the budget of $150,000 was arrived at for the next phase.  Who established the budget and how was it decided how much money to spend for the different categories?  We haven't seen any details of this either, only general categories.
  4. Who is making the decisions on how money is spent and for what?
  5. Some people feel decisions are being made without elected officials - boards or council members - being part of the decision making process.

Response from Mark Erickson: Parity of costs between City/County Last summer when the county requested the rural area be included in the feasibility study, the issue of parity came up because of the higher cost of construction in the rural area. The topic was discussed at all of the public meetings and the following are the reasons for blending the construction costs:
  1. This is a one time 100-year investment in the entire county (and Fairfax and Renville County) and since the city folks rely on the rural folks and visa versa it is viewed as an opportunity for everyone to invest in one another. The fiber network will benefit city and rural businesses, schools, city and county government, townships, ag producers, senior citizens, etc.

Answers for Questions in Sibley's Fiber-to-the-Farm Potential Network

As decision time approaches, the discussions in Sibley County (and Fairfax in Renville) are winding down. The county and local governments have to decide whether to commit to the Joint Powers Board. Mark Erickson, the coordinator of the project currently, recently responded to a good set of questions about the project and gave me permission to reprint them here. Questions from a Sibley County Commissioner:
  1. Regarding parity of costs to build the fiber network into the townships (rural area) compared to cities.  It’s nearly twice as expensive to build out the rural areas and some cities feel they are subsidizing cost of putting fiber in country.
  2. How was the initial money spent for the feasibility study?  No one has seen the breakdown as to what that money went for.  We would like to see an itemized list of how the county's contribution and the Blandin dollars were spent.  How much of that money is left?
  3. There are concerns about how the budget of $150,000 was arrived at for the next phase.  Who established the budget and how was it decided how much money to spend for the different categories?  We haven't seen any details of this either, only general categories.
  4. Who is making the decisions on how money is spent and for what?
  5. Some people feel decisions are being made without elected officials - boards or council members - being part of the decision making process.

Response from Mark Erickson: Parity of costs between City/County Last summer when the county requested the rural area be included in the feasibility study, the issue of parity came up because of the higher cost of construction in the rural area. The topic was discussed at all of the public meetings and the following are the reasons for blending the construction costs:
  1. This is a one time 100-year investment in the entire county (and Fairfax and Renville County) and since the city folks rely on the rural folks and visa versa it is viewed as an opportunity for everyone to invest in one another. The fiber network will benefit city and rural businesses, schools, city and county government, townships, ag producers, senior citizens, etc.

Answers for Questions in Sibley's Fiber-to-the-Farm Potential Network

As decision time approaches, the discussions in Sibley County (and Fairfax in Renville) are winding down. The county and local governments have to decide whether to commit to the Joint Powers Board. Mark Erickson, the coordinator of the project currently, recently responded to a good set of questions about the project and gave me permission to reprint them here. Questions from a Sibley County Commissioner:
  1. Regarding parity of costs to build the fiber network into the townships (rural area) compared to cities.  It’s nearly twice as expensive to build out the rural areas and some cities feel they are subsidizing cost of putting fiber in country.
  2. How was the initial money spent for the feasibility study?  No one has seen the breakdown as to what that money went for.  We would like to see an itemized list of how the county's contribution and the Blandin dollars were spent.  How much of that money is left?
  3. There are concerns about how the budget of $150,000 was arrived at for the next phase.  Who established the budget and how was it decided how much money to spend for the different categories?  We haven't seen any details of this either, only general categories.
  4. Who is making the decisions on how money is spent and for what?
  5. Some people feel decisions are being made without elected officials - boards or council members - being part of the decision making process.

Response from Mark Erickson: Parity of costs between City/County Last summer when the county requested the rural area be included in the feasibility study, the issue of parity came up because of the higher cost of construction in the rural area. The topic was discussed at all of the public meetings and the following are the reasons for blending the construction costs:
  1. This is a one time 100-year investment in the entire county (and Fairfax and Renville County) and since the city folks rely on the rural folks and visa versa it is viewed as an opportunity for everyone to invest in one another. The fiber network will benefit city and rural businesses, schools, city and county government, townships, ag producers, senior citizens, etc.

Answers for Questions in Sibley's Fiber-to-the-Farm Potential Network

As decision time approaches, the discussions in Sibley County (and Fairfax in Renville) are winding down. The county and local governments have to decide whether to commit to the Joint Powers Board. Mark Erickson, the coordinator of the project currently, recently responded to a good set of questions about the project and gave me permission to reprint them here. Questions from a Sibley County Commissioner:
  1. Regarding parity of costs to build the fiber network into the townships (rural area) compared to cities.  It’s nearly twice as expensive to build out the rural areas and some cities feel they are subsidizing cost of putting fiber in country.
  2. How was the initial money spent for the feasibility study?  No one has seen the breakdown as to what that money went for.  We would like to see an itemized list of how the county's contribution and the Blandin dollars were spent.  How much of that money is left?
  3. There are concerns about how the budget of $150,000 was arrived at for the next phase.  Who established the budget and how was it decided how much money to spend for the different categories?  We haven't seen any details of this either, only general categories.
  4. Who is making the decisions on how money is spent and for what?
  5. Some people feel decisions are being made without elected officials - boards or council members - being part of the decision making process.

Response from Mark Erickson: Parity of costs between City/County Last summer when the county requested the rural area be included in the feasibility study, the issue of parity came up because of the higher cost of construction in the rural area. The topic was discussed at all of the public meetings and the following are the reasons for blending the construction costs:
  1. This is a one time 100-year investment in the entire county (and Fairfax and Renville County) and since the city folks rely on the rural folks and visa versa it is viewed as an opportunity for everyone to invest in one another. The fiber network will benefit city and rural businesses, schools, city and county government, townships, ag producers, senior citizens, etc.