CCG Consulting

The Virginia House of Delegates recently took up the issue of regulating the fees and the time it takes to get a permit to cross railroad tracks with fiber or other wire infrastructure. We rarely hear about the problems encountered when trying to cross railroad tracks, bridges, interstate highway underpasses, or parklands. Each of these situations can add both time and cost to a fiber construction project. There are lot more miles of railroads than a lot of people assume. In a rural area, the first challenge is often finding out who owns a given set of tracks.

In my mind, infrastructure is an asset with a long useful life. If you assume that fiber is good for 40 years, the weighted average useful life of the a network is 53 years. If you assume the average life of fiber is 60 years, the useful life climbs to 65 years. Aerial fiber networks have a lower economic life without conduit, but the range of expected life is still between 37 years and 53 years. Other broadband technologies have a much shorter economic life.

Several people have asked me recently if cellular companies will be pursuing Broadband Equity, Access, and Deployment (BEAD) grants. Until recently, cellular companies didn’t have a product that would have qualified for broadband grants. BEAD and other grants are awarded to internet service providers (ISP) that serve homes and businesses, not cell phones.

I fully expect high-quality wireless internet service providers (WISPs) to be able to compete against fiber networks. While the industry lately seems to be fixated on broadband speeds, there are customers that value other aspects an internet service provider (ISP), such as trust and reliability. I think WISPs (and every other ISP) will have a hard time competing against a cooperative that builds fiber, particularly one that sets low prices like $50 or $60 for a gigabit.

One of the most interesting aspects of the upcoming Broadband Equity, Access, and Deployment (BEAD) grants is that the Infrastructure Ivestment and Jobs Acy requires states to solicit feedback from the public. I can’t recall that ever happening with any grants in the past—normally the rules are handed down from on-high, and that’s that. States have to solicit feedback on two grant programs. First will be each state’s share of the $42.5 billion of BEAD broadband infrastructure grants. Second is the state’s portion of $1.44 billion in digital equity grants.

One of the broadband products that quietly emerged during the pandemic is a suite of products that enable corporate broadband to safely be used at home. IT directors of large companies were aghast when a large percentage of staff were sent home to work and instantly wanted full access to the same systems and functionality that they used in the office. One of the key linchpins of corporate data security has always been to limit access to corporate networks from outside the physical confines of the office.

Why don't local governments view an internet service provider (ISP) that is going to build a fiber network in the same way that they view other economic development opportunities? Local governments roll out the red carpet for a business that is considering building a factory that will bring jobs, and sometimes offer a cash incentive to coax a new employer to build in the community. These kinds of incentives come from the traditional economic development playbook: new jobs bring prosperity. To be fair, local governments sometimes make concessions to an ISP that is going to build fiber – but

Internet usage has continued to grow, and at the end of 2022, there were 5.54 billion Internet users, meaning that 69% of people worldwide have Internet access. Here are some facts:

I am often asked by cities about the option of building a municipal fixed wireless broadband network. My response has been that it’s possible but that the resulting network is probably not going to satisfy the performance goals most cities have in mind. There are several limitations of fixed wireless technology in an urban that must be considered: