The good folks at Broadband Properties Magazine recently ran an article I wrote about Brigham City's use of a new financing model for FTTH networks. You can read it there in the nice layout and formatting, or here: The UTOPIA project, an ambitious fiber-to-the-home network developed by a consortium of 16 Utah cities, has encountered difficulties that delayed its original buildout schedule. However, it is now building out fiber in Brigham City, one of the original cities in the consortium. Brigham City found a local solution to UTOPIA’s slow deployment schedule and created a model to speed buildout in willing communities. Brigham City, a city of 18,000 in northern Utah, decided to form a voluntary assessment area – sometimes called a special assessment area – to finance the network buildout that will pass all homes and connect residents looking to subscribe. As with all wired networks, upfront costs are steep and typically require a heavy debt load. Brigham City’s unique approach may catch the interest of deployers unwilling or unable to shoulder that debt. For several months, a group of canvassers organized by UTOPIA went door to door in Brigham City to talk to residents about UTOPIA and ask if they were interested in subscribing to the network. Supporters organized some 30 block parties and invited UTOPIA to attend with a mobile home to demonstrate the superiority of full fiber optic networks. Residents who wanted service were requested to ask the city to create a voluntary assessment area. Creating this special district would allow participants to finance their connections themselves. Residents who wanted to subscribe could either pay the connection cost up front or agree to pay up to $25 per month (the exact amount would depend on how many joined the program) over the course of 20 years. This amount does not include the cost of services; rather, it is the cost of connecting to the network and having the option of subscribing to UTOPIA-based services (see sidebar for current services). Those uninterested are not levied. In other UTOPIA cities, when residents subscribe to services on the UTOPIA network the connection costs are included in the service fees.

The good folks at Broadband Properties Magazine recently ran an article I wrote about Brigham City's use of a new financing model for FTTH networks. You can read it there in the nice layout and formatting, or here: The UTOPIA project, an ambitious fiber-to-the-home network developed by a consortium of 16 Utah cities, has encountered difficulties that delayed its original buildout schedule. However, it is now building out fiber in Brigham City, one of the original cities in the consortium. Brigham City found a local solution to UTOPIA’s slow deployment schedule and created a model to speed buildout in willing communities. Brigham City, a city of 18,000 in northern Utah, decided to form a voluntary assessment area – sometimes called a special assessment area – to finance the network buildout that will pass all homes and connect residents looking to subscribe. As with all wired networks, upfront costs are steep and typically require a heavy debt load. Brigham City’s unique approach may catch the interest of deployers unwilling or unable to shoulder that debt. For several months, a group of canvassers organized by UTOPIA went door to door in Brigham City to talk to residents about UTOPIA and ask if they were interested in subscribing to the network. Supporters organized some 30 block parties and invited UTOPIA to attend with a mobile home to demonstrate the superiority of full fiber optic networks. Residents who wanted service were requested to ask the city to create a voluntary assessment area. Creating this special district would allow participants to finance their connections themselves. Residents who wanted to subscribe could either pay the connection cost up front or agree to pay up to $25 per month (the exact amount would depend on how many joined the program) over the course of 20 years. This amount does not include the cost of services; rather, it is the cost of connecting to the network and having the option of subscribing to UTOPIA-based services (see sidebar for current services). Those uninterested are not levied. In other UTOPIA cities, when residents subscribe to services on the UTOPIA network the connection costs are included in the service fees.

The good folks at Broadband Properties Magazine recently ran an article I wrote about Brigham City's use of a new financing model for FTTH networks. You can read it there in the nice layout and formatting, or here: The UTOPIA project, an ambitious fiber-to-the-home network developed by a consortium of 16 Utah cities, has encountered difficulties that delayed its original buildout schedule. However, it is now building out fiber in Brigham City, one of the original cities in the consortium. Brigham City found a local solution to UTOPIA’s slow deployment schedule and created a model to speed buildout in willing communities. Brigham City, a city of 18,000 in northern Utah, decided to form a voluntary assessment area – sometimes called a special assessment area – to finance the network buildout that will pass all homes and connect residents looking to subscribe. As with all wired networks, upfront costs are steep and typically require a heavy debt load. Brigham City’s unique approach may catch the interest of deployers unwilling or unable to shoulder that debt. For several months, a group of canvassers organized by UTOPIA went door to door in Brigham City to talk to residents about UTOPIA and ask if they were interested in subscribing to the network. Supporters organized some 30 block parties and invited UTOPIA to attend with a mobile home to demonstrate the superiority of full fiber optic networks. Residents who wanted service were requested to ask the city to create a voluntary assessment area. Creating this special district would allow participants to finance their connections themselves. Residents who wanted to subscribe could either pay the connection cost up front or agree to pay up to $25 per month (the exact amount would depend on how many joined the program) over the course of 20 years. This amount does not include the cost of services; rather, it is the cost of connecting to the network and having the option of subscribing to UTOPIA-based services (see sidebar for current services). Those uninterested are not levied. In other UTOPIA cities, when residents subscribe to services on the UTOPIA network the connection costs are included in the service fees.

The good folks at Broadband Properties Magazine recently ran an article I wrote about Brigham City's use of a new financing model for FTTH networks. You can read it there in the nice layout and formatting, or here: The UTOPIA project, an ambitious fiber-to-the-home network developed by a consortium of 16 Utah cities, has encountered difficulties that delayed its original buildout schedule. However, it is now building out fiber in Brigham City, one of the original cities in the consortium. Brigham City found a local solution to UTOPIA’s slow deployment schedule and created a model to speed buildout in willing communities. Brigham City, a city of 18,000 in northern Utah, decided to form a voluntary assessment area – sometimes called a special assessment area – to finance the network buildout that will pass all homes and connect residents looking to subscribe. As with all wired networks, upfront costs are steep and typically require a heavy debt load. Brigham City’s unique approach may catch the interest of deployers unwilling or unable to shoulder that debt. For several months, a group of canvassers organized by UTOPIA went door to door in Brigham City to talk to residents about UTOPIA and ask if they were interested in subscribing to the network. Supporters organized some 30 block parties and invited UTOPIA to attend with a mobile home to demonstrate the superiority of full fiber optic networks. Residents who wanted service were requested to ask the city to create a voluntary assessment area. Creating this special district would allow participants to finance their connections themselves. Residents who wanted to subscribe could either pay the connection cost up front or agree to pay up to $25 per month (the exact amount would depend on how many joined the program) over the course of 20 years. This amount does not include the cost of services; rather, it is the cost of connecting to the network and having the option of subscribing to UTOPIA-based services (see sidebar for current services). Those uninterested are not levied. In other UTOPIA cities, when residents subscribe to services on the UTOPIA network the connection costs are included in the service fees.

Last summer, I predicted the NTIA's rules for the broadband stimulus would disadvantage the public sector and tilt the playing field toward the private sector. I was right. Consider a recent story about the first round of the stimulus:

With time and resources scarce and applications to review from nearly 2,200 entities, favoring vendors was less complicated because they wrote savvier proposals and required less follow-up, in Winogradoff's view.

Private companies were able to submit savvier proposals and generally swamp the system with far more proposals, slowing the entire process because the federal agencies did not expect the volume. NTIA claimed they wanted to make the funds more widely available and instead shut out much of the public sector. NTIA, along with most federal agencies, simply does not understand that a "level playing field" between private companies and the public sector is simply not possible. The public sector has different interests - maximizing social benefits whereas the private sector is interested in generating profits. Public and private entities are different creatures, operating in different regulatory environments, with divergent motivations. You can no more create an objectively level playing field between the two than one could in designing a contest between basketball and soccer teams. The rules are simply going to favor one or the other. The question becomes, who should the rules favor? When it comes to infrastructure and tax dollars, the rules should favor those who put the public interest first. This was the lesson of the Rural Electrification Administration, which was horrified at the idea of lavishing grants on profitable companies in the hopes they would temporarily invest in rural areas. Instead, they offered loans to cooperatives and extended electricity to farms across the country during the worst Depression in our history. What have we learned from that? Nothing. We contort our policies while offering more and more money to companies that time and time again show they have no interest in serving rural America. This is ludicrous - not only have we already built a wire out to almost every home in America, we still have the polls!

Last summer, I predicted the NTIA's rules for the broadband stimulus would disadvantage the public sector and tilt the playing field toward the private sector. I was right. Consider a recent story about the first round of the stimulus:

With time and resources scarce and applications to review from nearly 2,200 entities, favoring vendors was less complicated because they wrote savvier proposals and required less follow-up, in Winogradoff's view.

Private companies were able to submit savvier proposals and generally swamp the system with far more proposals, slowing the entire process because the federal agencies did not expect the volume. NTIA claimed they wanted to make the funds more widely available and instead shut out much of the public sector. NTIA, along with most federal agencies, simply does not understand that a "level playing field" between private companies and the public sector is simply not possible. The public sector has different interests - maximizing social benefits whereas the private sector is interested in generating profits. Public and private entities are different creatures, operating in different regulatory environments, with divergent motivations. You can no more create an objectively level playing field between the two than one could in designing a contest between basketball and soccer teams. The rules are simply going to favor one or the other. The question becomes, who should the rules favor? When it comes to infrastructure and tax dollars, the rules should favor those who put the public interest first. This was the lesson of the Rural Electrification Administration, which was horrified at the idea of lavishing grants on profitable companies in the hopes they would temporarily invest in rural areas. Instead, they offered loans to cooperatives and extended electricity to farms across the country during the worst Depression in our history. What have we learned from that? Nothing. We contort our policies while offering more and more money to companies that time and time again show they have no interest in serving rural America. This is ludicrous - not only have we already built a wire out to almost every home in America, we still have the polls!

Last summer, I predicted the NTIA's rules for the broadband stimulus would disadvantage the public sector and tilt the playing field toward the private sector. I was right. Consider a recent story about the first round of the stimulus:

With time and resources scarce and applications to review from nearly 2,200 entities, favoring vendors was less complicated because they wrote savvier proposals and required less follow-up, in Winogradoff's view.

Private companies were able to submit savvier proposals and generally swamp the system with far more proposals, slowing the entire process because the federal agencies did not expect the volume. NTIA claimed they wanted to make the funds more widely available and instead shut out much of the public sector. NTIA, along with most federal agencies, simply does not understand that a "level playing field" between private companies and the public sector is simply not possible. The public sector has different interests - maximizing social benefits whereas the private sector is interested in generating profits. Public and private entities are different creatures, operating in different regulatory environments, with divergent motivations. You can no more create an objectively level playing field between the two than one could in designing a contest between basketball and soccer teams. The rules are simply going to favor one or the other. The question becomes, who should the rules favor? When it comes to infrastructure and tax dollars, the rules should favor those who put the public interest first. This was the lesson of the Rural Electrification Administration, which was horrified at the idea of lavishing grants on profitable companies in the hopes they would temporarily invest in rural areas. Instead, they offered loans to cooperatives and extended electricity to farms across the country during the worst Depression in our history. What have we learned from that? Nothing. We contort our policies while offering more and more money to companies that time and time again show they have no interest in serving rural America. This is ludicrous - not only have we already built a wire out to almost every home in America, we still have the polls!

Last summer, I predicted the NTIA's rules for the broadband stimulus would disadvantage the public sector and tilt the playing field toward the private sector. I was right. Consider a recent story about the first round of the stimulus:

With time and resources scarce and applications to review from nearly 2,200 entities, favoring vendors was less complicated because they wrote savvier proposals and required less follow-up, in Winogradoff's view.

Private companies were able to submit savvier proposals and generally swamp the system with far more proposals, slowing the entire process because the federal agencies did not expect the volume. NTIA claimed they wanted to make the funds more widely available and instead shut out much of the public sector. NTIA, along with most federal agencies, simply does not understand that a "level playing field" between private companies and the public sector is simply not possible. The public sector has different interests - maximizing social benefits whereas the private sector is interested in generating profits. Public and private entities are different creatures, operating in different regulatory environments, with divergent motivations. You can no more create an objectively level playing field between the two than one could in designing a contest between basketball and soccer teams. The rules are simply going to favor one or the other. The question becomes, who should the rules favor? When it comes to infrastructure and tax dollars, the rules should favor those who put the public interest first. This was the lesson of the Rural Electrification Administration, which was horrified at the idea of lavishing grants on profitable companies in the hopes they would temporarily invest in rural areas. Instead, they offered loans to cooperatives and extended electricity to farms across the country during the worst Depression in our history. What have we learned from that? Nothing. We contort our policies while offering more and more money to companies that time and time again show they have no interest in serving rural America. This is ludicrous - not only have we already built a wire out to almost every home in America, we still have the polls!

Finally, a broadband stimulus project that we can get excited about. RUS has announced a grant to expand the publicly owned WindomNet in southwestern Minnesota. Windom was originally built to bring broadband to a small community that Qwest didn't think ready for DSL. They built their own fiber-to-the-home network.

In rural Minnesota, the Southwest Minnesota Broadband Group (SWMBG) has been selected to receive an almost $6.4 million loan and a $6.4 million grant to extend fiber to the Jackson, Lakefield, Windom, Round Lake, Bingham Lake, Brewster, Wilder, Heron Lake, and Okabena communities. This funding, along with an $88,000 private investment, will provide high-speed Internet, voice, and cable television to the participating communities. This will improve the quality of life by increasing the availability of health, education, and public safety services across the region.

Now that network will expand to nearby communities, a move that will strengthen it financially as it can spread the fixed costs of such a network across a wider population base. And these communities will have actually have a choice in providers soon -- rather than relying on absentee incumbents that care only about increasing their profits. They will be beginning expansion work quite quickly according to this brief article.

Finally, a broadband stimulus project that we can get excited about. RUS has announced a grant to expand the publicly owned WindomNet in southwestern Minnesota. Windom was originally built to bring broadband to a small community that Qwest didn't think ready for DSL. They built their own fiber-to-the-home network.

In rural Minnesota, the Southwest Minnesota Broadband Group (SWMBG) has been selected to receive an almost $6.4 million loan and a $6.4 million grant to extend fiber to the Jackson, Lakefield, Windom, Round Lake, Bingham Lake, Brewster, Wilder, Heron Lake, and Okabena communities. This funding, along with an $88,000 private investment, will provide high-speed Internet, voice, and cable television to the participating communities. This will improve the quality of life by increasing the availability of health, education, and public safety services across the region.

Now that network will expand to nearby communities, a move that will strengthen it financially as it can spread the fixed costs of such a network across a wider population base. And these communities will have actually have a choice in providers soon -- rather than relying on absentee incumbents that care only about increasing their profits. They will be beginning expansion work quite quickly according to this brief article.