Broadband Breakfast

[Commentary] In the battle to deploy broadband, cooperatives (co-ops) can be a decisive force to cover the rural flanks in states with aggressive broadband adoption goals such as California, New York, and Minnesota. In the more rural states, or ones without stated commitments to broadband, co-ops may have to carry the lion’s share of responsibility if their rural communities are to have a hope for broadband.

Co-ops ultimately exist to meet members’ needs, and currently there’s a burning need for broadband within communities across the nation. There are two ways for co-ops to address the need for better, faster community-owned broadband networks: the problem-solving approach and the creation-orientation approach. Both can work. But the latter might give you more return on your investment.

[Craig Settles is an industry analyst and broadband strategist based in Oakland (CA).]

As communities across the country consider ways to build Gigabit Networks, a range of public- and private-financing models are now being considered in geographies as diverse as the Wasatch Front in Utah, rural Mississippi; and College Station, Texas.

Three separate financial models were explored in early April at the Broadband Communities Summit in Austin, during a panel on “Public-Private Partnerships for Economic Development.”

The first model, in Utah, involves a private company -- Macquarie Capital -- entering into partnership with the public sector to complete a fiber build worth more than $300 million.

In Mississippi, network builder C Spire Fiber put out a “reverse Request for Proposals” in an effort to incent Mississippi communities to invest in fiber.

In the third example, in College Station, Texas, a technology entrepreneur and city council member discussed his efforts to bring Gigabit Networks to the hometown of Texas A&M University.

Members of the Rural Telecommunications Congress released a comprehensive report on the state of the 50 State Broadband Initiative entities.

The report assembles data about the programs of the governmental and non-profit entities that have been engaged in broadband mapping and planning over the past five years. Among the questions that the report seeks to address, for each of the 50 states, are the following:

1. [Is there an] ongoing State BB Leadership Org or Council to Coordinate with Rural BB Champions and Providers ?
2. Is the State BB Map Identifying deficit areas per identified standard available for use by the public and Policy makers?
3. Are State and Regional BB Plans created and being widely used?
4. Is there a Separate State BB PPO for Financing, Bonding & Grants in Deficit areas?
5. Are there State Funding Programs for Matching [dollars] and for Financing grants/loans to Political subs & Providers?
6. Is Formal Coordination taking place with State PUC to reduce Regulatory barriers for providers?
7. Is there adequate Collaboration W/ Rural political sub-divisions on ROW issues and for Aggregation of Demand for Providers?
8. Is there Formal State Collaboration with Health & Education Institutions (USF LEA’s) to optimize Federal Communications Commission subsidies?
9. Are there Sustainable Infrastructure Programs directed at Unserved and Underserved through a State USF fee?
10. Is there frequent Legislative Collaboration for BB Policy Initiatives and Program Leadership Funding?

Senator Edward Markey and Rep Joe Barton hosted a Twitter Q&A April 9, 2014 on children’s online privacy.

Using the hashtag #AskKidsPriv, the lawmakers will answer questions on Twitter about how parents can protect their children online, what tools are available to prevent online tracking of children, and their legislation The Do Not Track Kids Act.

The Do Not Track Kids Act, co-sponsored by Senator Mark Kirk (R-IL) in the Senate and Rep. Bobby Rush (D-IL) in the House, amends the historic Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act of 1998 (COPPA), will extend, enhance and update the provisions relating to the collection, use and disclosure of children’s personal information and establishes new protections for personal information of children and teens.

It makes sense for communities and local government to build fiber networks to manage their communications need, said Joanne Hovis, President of CTC Communications.

Using a simple analysis of the costs to deploy T-1 communications networks versus fiber networks, Hovis showed how Montgomery County schools paid $3,600 per megabit per second (Mbps) annually to receive service at 1.54 Mbps.

These costs were lowered to $1,800 per Mbps through eRate funds. But, when calculating the costs of building a fiber network in the county, schools were able to receive 100 Mbps service at a cost of $70 per Mbps, she said.

“Think about these kinds of strategies as you think about your fiber strategy,” Hovis said, at a session on “building the economic case for fiber broadband.”

[Editor's note: Joanne Hovis is also a member of the benton Foundation Board of Directors]