Municipal Networks

Arkansas ranks 50th in connectivity and has an average speed of 29.1 megabits per second (Mbps). The average speed for the United States is 42.7 Mbps. But that could soon change. Until recently, the AR legislature preempted local governments from establishing municipal broadband services, leaving AR communities at the mercy of private companies focused on profit. Now, AR is looking to build the infrastructure it needs now for all of its communities, urban and rural.

Legislative changes are helping electric cooperatives continue to expand high-quality Internet access in rural parts of America. At least three state governments have bills in the works that empower cooperatives to provide high-speed Internet service in their service territories. Gov Brian Kemp (R-GA) recently signed into law SB 2 and SB 17, which clarify that both electric and telephone cooperatives are able to provide broadband service. Gov Larry Hogan (R-MD) has just approved SB 634 which similarly underscores how electric cooperatives can use their easements to provide broadband.

As anticipation grows for 5G technology to be rolled out in big cities, nearly 15 million people in rural pockets across the country are still waiting for reliable high-speed internet. In the southeast, some states like Alabama are desperate to get their rural areas up to speed.

About ten years ago, we first reported on Johnson City (TN). At that time, the community was in the process of installing fiber to improve reliability for their public electric utility. The Johnson City Power Board (JCPB) discussed the possibility of offering broadband via the new infrastructure, but they weren’t quite ready to move forward. Now JCPB has renamed itself BrightRidge and has not only started connecting local subscribers with fiber optic connectivity, but is offering 10 gig symmetrical service.

In many states, elected officials are listening to constituents and experts who tell them that they need fast, affordable, reliable connectivity to keep their communities from dwindling. States that refuse funding to public entities, however, block out some of the best opportunities to connect people and businesses in rural areas. In places such as Michigan, Tennessee, and Virginia, states need to trust their own people to develop necessary broadband networks.

The tussle over "network neutrality" started 20 years ago in Portland (OR). Today, Portland and its region are poised to be Ground Zero for resolving the real issues behind public concern over “net neutrality”—the stagnant, uncompetitive, hopelessly outclassed state of internet access in America. Portland is taking seriously the idea of a publicly overseen dark-fiber network over which private providers could compete to offer cheap, ubiquitous internet access.

The lion’s share of discussion around the digital divide has centered around access, but the prices rural consumers are paying for the services available to them are worth paying attention to as well. According to our research, roughly 146 million rural Americans do not have access to a low-priced plan for wired broadband internet. That’s nearly 45 percent of the US population. We define “low-priced” as a broadband plan with a monthly cost less than or equal to the 20th percentile of all plan prices, or around $60 per month.

Residents in Falmouth (MA), like residents in many communities in Massachusetts, have begun to look toward fiber as a means to ensure faster and more reliable Internet service. Falmouth would be the first Cape Cod town to build a municipally owned fiber-optic network. Similar projects in towns across MA are underway or completed. Westfield Gas & Electric’s Whip City Fiber division is in the process of connecting 20 small rural towns to a fiber-optic network in Western MA. The fiber is already live in Alford and Otis.

One of the first decisions a community needs to make in bringing broadband to residents is what sort of network to operate. Should the network be closed, with one Internet service provider providing service to residents; open and lit, providing the basic infrastructure for potentially competing ISPs; or open with dark fiber leased to competing ISPs? All three models have their proponents and detractors. In my experience and opinion, no one model is ideal for every community. Each option impacts how a community will build and operate a network, and each has advantages and disadvantages.

The disadvantages inherent to rural towns – geography, low population density and lack of fiber density – compound one another to make sourcing middle-mile transport unusually difficult for rural municipalities. In addition, incumbents that might provide backhaul generally aren’t thrilled with the prospect of losing market share. They may view municipal network initiatives as competitive threats and resist working with municipalities on sourcing middle-mile transport and/or lobby to fight them in their quest to modernize.