broadband boot camp 2016 am sessions

BROADBAND BOOT CAMP: TUESDAY, DECEMBER 6, 2016

BROADBAND STRATEGIES FOR WISCONSIN COMMUNITIES

DECEMBER, 2016UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN EXTENSION

THEMES

1. Where we are in the development of broadband (high-speed) Internet.2. Strategies and business models for enabling broadband development.3. Best practices for maximizing the potential for private sector investment in your

community.

INTERNET TECHNOLOGY SPEED DEVELOPMENT

Dial-up

Wireline Technology

50 kbps

100 kbps

500 kbps

1 Mbps

5 Mbps

10 Mbps

50 Mbps

100 Mbps

200 Mbps

500 Mbps

700 MHzBroadband

EDGE

3G

4G

TV “White Spaces”Unlicensed TV Frequencies

1 Gbps

DSL

Cable Modem (through DOCSIS 3.0)

Fiber-to-the-Premises

Wireless Technology

Technology not widely deployed or standardized

Technology at a mature state of deployment

Technology at conceptual or developmental stage

Max Bitrate

Data Speed Capacity B-PON, G-PON, 10G-PON

NG-PON2, WDM-PON

DOCSIS 3.1

10+ Gbps

DOWNLOAD TIMES FOR TECHNOLOGIES

FRAMEWORK FOR OPTIONS

Balance risk, benefit, controlMunicipal broadbandIncumbent upgradePartnerships

Model 1: Private risk & investment Model 2: Public risk & private execution Model 3: Shared risk, investment

MUNICIPAL MODEL

Maximum risk, reward, control Established strategies Electric utility confers huge benefits Key case studies

Wilson, NC Lafayette, LA Chattanooga, TN Longmont, CO

High risk, limited replicability

INCUMBENT UPGRADE

Largely catalyzed by prospect of competition (100% overlap with Google Fiber builds) This dynamic on the wane?

Easy upgrade path for cable companies—can deliver solid speed and good competition for FTTP

Telco upgrade path more challenging, requires significant investment

MODEL 1: PRIVATE RISK, PUBLIC FACILITATION

City facilitates private investment Leading private entity is Google Fiber Strong interest by smaller companies

Reduced risk, no control, potential benefit Facilitation can expand to tax benefits, other economic development incentives

Metronet in Indiana

MODEL 1 STRATEGY: GROW YOUR ASSETS• Lease public assets such as fiber,

conduit, and real estate• Lease middle-mile fiber• Lease fiber in hard-to-reach areas• Increase existing fiber capacity if

insufficient fiber exists• Facilitate underground

construction• Develop a “dig-once” policy• Maintain future-proof conduit

specifications• Enable all parties to take advantage of

“dig-once”• Place conduit banks in congested areas

• Facilitate aerial construction through access to utility poles• Facilitate make-ready

process to streamline pole access

• Eliminate the need for make-ready

• Facilitate in-building access for wireline infrastructure• Ensure availability of

conduit from street to building

• Ensure installation of in-building pathways and cabling

MODEL 1 STRATEGY: MAKE DATA AVAILABLE

• Make data available wherever possible• Make GIS data sets available

• Document and publish data regarding available conduit, fiber, and other assets

• Document your fiber assets• Document your conduit assets

MODEL 1 STRATEGY: MAXIMIZE PROCESS

Process Efficiency• Build broadband into planning and staffing of all relevant

agencies• Streamline and publicize procedures and timeframes for

permitting and inspections• Allow network operators to contract pre-approved third-party

inspectors to speed processes and reduce local burdens

MODEL 1 CASE STUDY: NCNGN RALEIGH/DURHAM REGION

Offer of existing city fiber Attention to processes Regional collaboration RFP led to agreements with AT&T Google also building in some of these communities

MODEL 1 CASE STUDY: MESA, AZ

Concern about impact of fiber construction on ROW, city costs Long-term strategy to build assets Focus on four target economic development areas Apple silicon manufacturing lab

MODEL 1 CASE STUDY: HOLLY SPRINGS, NC Town built robust rings for

internal services Engineered to enable FTTP in

future Highly efficient processes,

alignment Fiber lease agreement with Ting

internet Ting will lease public fiber for

backbone Ting will build to homes &

businesses

MODEL 1 CASE STUDY: HOWARD COUNTY, MD; ARLINGTON COUNTY, VA; PLEASANT PRAIRIE, WI

Deploy fiber strategically, with focus on key economic development targets Connect to Internet peering point (could be local meet point) Locality to build & own, lease to private partners on open access basis Pricing designed to attract ISPs and non-traditional users such as building owners.



Model 1: Private risk & investmentModel 2: Public risk & private execution Model 3: Shared risk, investment

MODEL 2: PUBLIC RISK WITH PRIVATE EXECUTION Variation on traditional municipal ownership

High risk Emerging innovation makes use of the traditional P3 structure used in

Europe and increasingly in US Leverages private sector strengths

First time applied to broadband in US—untested in US Guaranteed revenue stream to private partner

Financial risk Political risk

MODEL 2 CASE STUDY: UTOPIA

Macquarie Capital team Midst of complex process with range of Utopia member communities Turn-key private financing, deployment, operations, and revenue-sharing Guaranteed public funding in the form of a utility fee to all residents

In some communities, will not be a politically viable model (this has been true with some in Utah) In others, can be strong model for buildout

MODEL 2 CASE STUDY: LAKE OSWEGO, OR

Symmetrical Networks team City Council recently approved negotiation of contract for P3 Private financing and deployment Public service provision (in this case) through potential partnership with local ISP Key to financing is effective public guarantee of the debt

Financial projections suggest low risk, but the risk falls nonetheless to the City

MODEL 2 CASE STUDY: FRONTIER IN CT

Frontier has made preliminary proposals to a range of CT localities Very promising development

Private financing and deployment 15 year financial commitment by Town

Minimum level of service to all addresses, with opportunity to buy advanced services

Key will be detail regarding enforceable commitments Build out of fiber

Note: upfront risk is minimized but no potential financial upside



Model 1: Private risk & investment Model 2: Public risk & private executionModel 3: Shared risk, investment

MODEL 3: SHARED RISK

Opportunity for innovationPlays to strengths of both partiesFrom the standpoint of a locality, risk shared but

100% of network benefit realizedPublic benefit does not show up on financial statementsPrivate partner gets financial benefit

MODEL 3 CASE STUDY: GARRETT COUNTY, MD Underserved rural

areas Fiber construction

strategy for key anchors

Public/private wireless to key target areas

Public risk contained

MODEL 3 CASE STUDY: URBANA/CHAMPAIGN, IL Private access to cities’ fiber in return for binding commitments, meeting community goals:1. Fiber at gigabit speeds2. Open access – ongoing commitment to wholesale service3. No cherry-picking

• Right of first refusal in event of sale recently exercised to secure successor partner of communities’ choice

MODEL 3 CASE STUDY: WESTMINSTER, MD

City will own fiber only; lease to partner to operate on open-access basis

Ting Internet selected as partner

Ting shares financing risk; city shares market risk

MODEL 3 CASE STUDY: HUNTSVILLE, AL

City developed plan for gigabit networking and partnership Announcement February 22 that Google Fiber will lease fiber to be deployed by Huntsville

Utilities We believe that Google Fiber is open to new partnerships of this sort But--the economics for a public utility may not be replicable for a city without an electric

utility

A FEW CAUTIONS

Be skeptical of rosy projections Be sure that risk as well as opportunity are shared Be aware of dependencies and control Avoid silicon snake oil:

Technology snake oil: technologies whose capabilities are overstated Business snake oil: unrealistic business plans that ask for no risk (or

pretends there is no risk) Unrealistic revenue assumptions

FACTORS AFFECTING BROADBAND DEVELOPMENT

Internet service provider activity

Availability of

infrastructure

Consumer demand / adoption

Regulations

Return on investme

nt

Existing infrastructu

rePublic

financing

Consumer confidence

Affordability

Consumer savvy

FRAMEWORK FOR CHANGE

1. Increase urgency

2. Build guiding teams

3. Get the vision right

4. Communicate the vision

5. Enable action

6. Create short-term wins

7. Don’t let up

8. Make it stick

SESSION CONTEXT

Review a 7 Element Framework for Negotiation

Apply it to a real life storyGive you a chance to interact with others and

test your ideas

FIRST REFLECTION

With whom am I negotiating?

A 7 ELEMENT FRAMEWORK FOR NEGOTIATION

ACTION

Commitment Best Alternative

ISSUE CONTENTInterests Options Criteria

PEOPLERelationship Communication

or

NEGOTIATION: WE DO IT ALL THE TIME


ACTION




or

SECOND REFLECTION : ON ADOPTION

I/we would like (specific audience) to be able to (do what) .

I/we would like (group of people) to contribute (action) to this effort.


ACTION




or

THIRD REFLECTION : ON INTERESTS

I/we want (action) because (hopes / fears / potentials) .



Therefore: I think I want to negotiate with (another party) .



Therefore: I think I want to negotiate with (another party) .

The other party wants (action) because (their hopes / fears / potentials) .

FULL GROUP REFLECTION

What will you take away from this activity?

BROADBAND BOOT CAMP

Larry Quamme - Village of FerryvilleJerod Hoel - CenturyLink

PROJECT SCOPE

Project provided the following: Placed six(6) miles of fiber cable from the Seneca Central office to the Ferryville Remote. Purchase of equipment to replace manufactured discontinued equipment in the Ferryville Remote. Removed the Permanent Exhaust status and can provide speeds up to 50mg.

THE START

Meeting of the Minds January 2014 met with Ferryville residents to discuss slow speeds. After meeting discussed issues with our executive leadership. Decided to move forward with

request for WI Broadband grant. Proposal was submitted for 2014 construction cycle.

THE DISAPPOINTMENT

July of 2014 original proposal was rejected Proposal was reviewed and it was felt that we (CenturyLink) should resubmit with some

corrections.

THE HAPPY ENDING

Second proposal was submitted August of 2014 with corrections: Increased CenturyLink match. Created a stronger partnership with Village of Ferryville. Received funds from Grant County Economic Development Board.

Proposal received approval in September of 2014.

PROJECT CONSTRUCTION

Project was started in late August of 2015 Issues Encountered

Right-of-way issues Completed end of November 2015

WIN/WIN FOR EVERYONEQ&A

GRANTS AWARDED TO CHOICETEL

2014 – ChoiceTEL and City of Eagle River Highway 17 project

2014 – ChoiceTEL and City of Eagle River Highway G project

2016 – ChoiceTEL and the Town of Land O’ Lakes – Phase I

2017 – ChoiceTEL and the Town of Land O’ Lake – Phase II

CHOICETEL AND THE TOWN OF LAND O’ LAKES – PHASE I

CONNECTING UP

CONTACT INFORMATIONChoiceTEL

[email protected]

Town of Land O’ [email protected]

http://www.choicetel.net/

mailto:[email protected]

http://www.townoflandolakes.com/


IRON COUNTY BROADBAND EXPANSIONBroadband Committee Representatives from Iron County Wisconsin and Gogebic County Michigan Representation from Economic Development, Elected Officials, Gogebic Community

College, UW Extension, Interested Citizens Project Partnerships: Iron County Board Iron County Resource Development Association, Inc. Gogebicrange.net Towns of Oma, Mercer and Sherman Public Service Commission Department of Natural Resources Projects: Fixed wireless on three towers in northern Iron County completed in 2016. Fixed wireless on four towers including two DNR fire towers to be completed in 2017 More information: www.ironcountywi.com select the broadband expansion icon [email protected] www.gogebicrange.net

http://www.ironcountywi.com/


http://www.gogebicrange.net/

broadband boot camp 2016 am sessions

Education