December 1, 2009 10:13 AM
ATTN NTIA/RUS: Wiring Community Anchors May Be A Mistake
There's been a lot of buzz around the benefits and relative viability of wiring all community anchor institutions (schools, libraries, hospitals, etc.) with fiber as the way to get the best bang for the broadband buck. But recent conversations with my fiber-deploying friends have led me to worry that doing this could be a big mistake.
Before going any further let me say that I 100% support the notion that we need to get all of our community anchors wired with fiber. As I've argued before, these buildings have need for the capacity and performance of fiber today. Too many are stuck with networks that are inadequate and too expensive.
But with any broadband policy it's dangerous to assume that an idea is universally good as the devil's always in the details.
A cornerstone of the argument in favor of focusing on community fiber is that once these networks are built they can then be used to extend broadband all the way to homes and businesses. In reality, this isn't necessarily the case.
If we were to just go and build fiber networks to meet the needs of community anchor institutions then it's actually more likely that these networks won't be useful for future deployment. The reasons for this are manifold.
There might not be enough capacity designed into the network, either in dark fiber or spare conduit. There won't necessarily be an easy to way to physically access this capacity even if it's there. The network likely won't be engineered in the optimal way in terms of its layout to facilitate universal broadband as community anchors aren't evenly distributed, especially in rural areas. And even if the network is designed the right way, there needs to be a fair system with clear rules for how deployers can get equal access to these networks.
We need to realize that we've been making these mistakes for years. For example, government's been subsidizing rural healthcare networks that though they may serve the needs of hospitals aren't doing anything to help support universal broadband buildouts.
We also have to understand what's at stake as it goes beyond these networks just not being helpful. In fact, if we focus too narrowly on community fiber we could actually hurt our attempts to achieve the goal of universal broadband.
The reason is simple: if you build a network to serve community anchors, then those institutions won't be available to serve as anchor customers for a community-wide deployment. Without those community anchors as customers, the economics of deployment, especially in rural areas, becomes much harder and may actually make robust, sustainable broadband impossible in some areas.
So we could spend $10-20 billion to wire the country's community anchors with fiber and end up hurting rather than helping the future of universal broadband.
This all being said, that doesn't mean we shouldn't do this. Instead the point of this post is to shine a light on these issues so that if we do do this that we make sure we do it right.
We can't afford to take the easy route on this issue. We need to be taking a holistic approach to how we spend taxpayer dollars so that we can truly maximize the bang we get for each broadband buck.
Because otherwise what should be a terrific way to push our country's broadband agenda forward could turn into a huge mistake that may even do more harm than good.
Comments (5)
Your arguments have merit only if the anchor entities don't understand how to plan networks open to multiple providers. This isn't a trivial undertaking, but it is do-able.
A city and county in Minnesota plan to seek stimulus funds to fund most of the cost of a wide area fiber backbone network, including empty conduit. The city/county would own one conduit including fiber for their internal use. But the addtional empty conduit(s) would be managed by a commercial company which would sell/lease conduit access to multiple service providers. Any of the providers could then "branch out" from the backbone to provide services in local neighborhoods.
In this way, the city and county acquire the connectivity they need for their purposes, and support an open access alternative for residents and businesses.
Posted by Wendy Chretien on December 1, 2009 4:06 PM
Geoff...Your post suggests to me that NTIA/RUS might consider technical and operational standards/requirements for CAI-centric fiber projects. And that they evaluate these proposals in terms of how well they are positioned and intended to be part of a cost-effective, sustainable and future-ready network that also serves other end-users in the area, including businesses and homes.
Sections of the second-round RFI talk about prioritizing "Comprehensive Community" projects and projects that are integrated with regional economic development planning. Perhaps these two priorities could be reflected in technical and business-model priorities for CAI-focused projects, so they avoid the risks you cite and achieve these broader goals suggested by these two sections of the RFI.
My own preference would be to see projects funded that connect CAIs AND other end users and have an integrated technology and business plan to do so. But having some "extensibility-related" requirements for CAI-only projects might at least reduce the risks of them backfiring in terms of achieving full-community connectivity.
Posted by Mitch Shapiro on December 1, 2009 4:20 PM
Geoff:
You have seen the light! I wish more would also. Your following paragraph says what I've been preaching for several years now. (Have you been reading my materials?)
"The reason is simple: if you build a network to serve community anchors, then those institutions won't be available to serve as anchor customers for a community-wide deployment. Without those community anchors as customers, the economics of deployment, especially in rural areas, becomes much harder and may actually make robust, sustainable broadband impossible in some areas."
The prevailing wisdom that building services to rural institutions magically creates new opportunities for rural Broadband for the rest of the users is simply not true for many areas and stimulating competition is also not always good. This is particularly the case for more rural areas where the outlying unserved users have no hope of getting any quality connection without some subsidy. The best way to subsidize that development is to do it in direct cooperation with development to the larger anchor institutions, businesses, research facilities, and even the currently served communities--one network, one service with limited revenue dilution. The obvious benefit to the institutions and the currently served users is better connectivity to constituents, students, employees, and to those rural facilities that would otherwise have no hope of service. This is in fact the key to future economic development in rural areas.
If you look at the round one applications, the fallacy is repeated time and time again. In one case, there's even the statement that 80% of the cost of rural services is in backbone connectivity so building to the anchor institutions and offering capacity to the ISPs will solve the problem. That may be true in a few locations, but in most rural areas, particularly with challenging terrain, it is absolutely wrong. The cost is in the last-mile network and continuing support and operations.
Perhaps someone can nudge the NTIA and RUS on this one before we end up with $7.2B spent and little further development for our rural residents and small businesses.
Posted by Chuck Scott on December 2, 2009 11:34 AM
The problem with Wendy's approach in comment #1 is that it suggests private providers could tackle 1 or 2 neighborhoods. This isn't how it works - the large cost of building a network remains in the distribution, not the backhaul. To pay for it, you have to offer the triple play. To offer the triple-play, you have to get a cable franchise and offer it to whole city (which is good - otherwise we would have good networks for the rich and crap Wi-Fi for the poor at best).
Having some points around town to get open access, even if affordable, solves a small problem, not the large problem of improving access.
Further, for an entity to design a good, cost effective network to offer services to a whole city (or county), leaping onto the backbone of a network designed to serve the public building needs may not be all that helpful.
Wendy is right in that how you do it is important. To do it right, you need to have a sense of the real economics and laws behind building networks.
Posted by christopher mitchell on December 4, 2009 12:44 PM
Geoff, You hit the nail on the head. Thank you for saying this unpopular point outloud.
We have been working on this issue for 15 years. The only way for many rural communities to build a sustainable network business plan is for everyone to be pulling on the same oar.
No one can argue against the value of the regional healthcare, education, and library networks. We all benefit when they get access to big pipes. However, resting our hopes for a comprehensive solution on their shoulders is a doomed proposition. Those networks are run by consortia who's first priority is the needs of their members. They don't, and rightfully can't put the broader interests of the community ahead of their organizational goals. We can cite example after example of local collaboration efforts that have stalled out because the policies and procedures surrounding the use of a specific single-purpose network do not allow a broader set of applications.
These networks perform a very important and valuable function. We just hope the policy makers understand that if the funding focuses on their needs without taking their limitations into consideration, it will further delay the connections out to end users in many rural communities.
Posted by Danna MacKenzie on December 4, 2009 2:12 PM