Andrew Afflerbach, PhD, P.E.
CEO & CTO

I’ve been working from home now for two weeks. So have my wife and children, my CTC colleagues, and most of our clients. We can probably work (and distance learn) for months this way, but many Americans don’t have this option because the remote, rural areas in which they live have no broadband infrastructure at all.

Last week, I wrote about how to deploy Wi-Fi to multi-dwelling buildings and to ad hoc emergency sites like surge hospital locations, triage centers, and even parking lots where mass testing or treatment may occur.

Today, I want to consider one of the greatest broadband deficits we face as a nation. In the most remote, rural areas of the country, large numbers of residents suffer under slow DSL service—or no internet service at all.

Residents of these areas—which include tribal lands and other remote rural communities—may feel the effects of social distancing the most acutely. They cannot telework and their children can’t participate in online classes. They cannot do even the simple online functions that are so basic for most of us, like sending or receiving email. And for those who are alone, isolated, or self-quarantining, lack of internet means they are cut off from the world.

Our state, local, and tribal governments can help. So can private entities that want to do their part to support the least-connected among us.

A fast way to bring service to some of the most remote places in the country is to set up satellite connectivity to a location in the area, or on a vehicle, that can then provide connectivity to the area around the satellite receiver. Both approaches can be deployed very quickly; the equipment is readily available, and the satellite companies have approved installers in all areas of the country.

The advantage of a vehicle-based approach is that it can be deployed fast,  moved to deliver service where it is most needed, and located to maximize signal propagation.

Either way, a government or private entity can quickly get basic connectivity to families who have none – enhancing education, commerce, education, and public health. This strategy allows service to be delivered to remote areas in a matter of hours or days.

To do this, a satellite antenna would be linked to a Wi-Fi hotspot. The hotspot would almost certainly not be capable of broadband speeds because it would depend on satellite backhaul and would be further slowed by the distribution to many users. The hotspot might be able to provide 20 to 30 Mbps in total, and that capacity would be shared by all simultaneous users.

But even with a slow, 1 Mbps connection, a student can access schoolwork and a parent can work remotely—at least to a limited extent. Such a connection would be far superior to having no connection at all.

To make the installation as effective as possible, users might need some technical support to connect to the network. Appropriate policies could be put in place to limit use of games or other less-critical applications.

This is a tested method for delivering internet access to remote areas as quickly and effectively as possible; in fact, it’s used in some of the most remote areas of Latin America to get connectivity to otherwise unreachable villages and communities. Unfortunately, the current crisis requires ad hoc interim strategies like this in the United States as well. Hopefully, strong stimulus efforts and other mid- to long-term investments will bring real, robust broadband internet to those remote American communities.

Please don’t hesitate to let us know if we can help you think through this and related strategies.

Andrew Afflerbach, PhD, P.E.
CEO & CTO

The COVID-19 pandemic requires fast, creative tools to provision critically-needed broadband in dramatically different contexts. Earlier this week, we wrote about how to deploy Wi-Fi to multi-dwelling buildings such as public housing, to get urgently-needed connectivity to households that don’t have it. In coming posts, we’ll talk about how to get connectivity to single-family neighborhoods and to the most remote, rural areas of the country where there is no existing broadband infrastructure.

Today, I’ll describe a way for your community to meet another critical need – service to ad hoc emergency sites like surge hospital locations, triage centers, and even parking lots where mass testing or treatment may occur. And there will be a need for service to other ad hoc locations, like temporary housing sites for emergency and health care workers or national guard personnel. All of these will require broadband, fast, both for public needs and to support first responders and health care workers.

There are ways to rapidly provision this kind of service, fast, using fiber and high-speed wireless installations. Indeed, this kind of connectivity can be deployed within hours or days using mmWave equipment used to extend bandwidth from nearby locations that are connected over fiber.

Your community can deliver an emergency state-of-the-art solution, quickly, like this: The first step is a building that is connected over your city- or county-owned fiber and that is within a couple of miles of the emergency location that needs service. Ideally, you will have line of sight from the building to the emergency location. A temporary mast and antenna mounted on the building rooftop can deliver a high bandwidth mmWave signal to a receiver at the emergency site.

That receiver can be mounted at the site or in a mobile command vehicle owned by your jurisdiction.

Wi-Fi access points installed at the site can then distribute the bandwidth and deliver services to medical workers, responders, and patients.

If the location has robust infrastructure – in, say, a mall or office building — it is likely that the facility’s existing Wi-Fi network could be linked in.

More ad hoc locations—such as, for example, parking lot-based testing sites or tent encampments outside hospitals—will need special new connectivity, such as multiple Wi-Fi networks to manage different levels of security and access.

If city- or county-owned infrastructure is in reasonable proximity, leveraging those networks may help meet specific security and privacy standards, especially if health information is being shared, and public networks can be configured to have that level of robustness and security.

Sadly, this is not the first time such emergency communications have been necessary. In an earlier crisis, this kind of connectivity was established by the IT department of Arlington County, VA within hours after the plane hit the Pentagon on Sept, 11, 2001 and became the first communications to the Pentagon that day; the county used a receiver on a mobile command vehicle with a wireless link back to a county office building.

Please don’t hesitate to let us know if we can help you plan strategies for your specific situation.

Andrew Afflerbach, PhD, P.E.
CEO & CTO

Over the past several days we have heard from numerous communites seeking guidance for delivering broadband to unconnected households as fast as possible to meet urgent,  critical needs for remote work and education.

Free community-provided Wi-Fi can be a lifeline during the pandemic. Many people cannot afford commercial broadband services. Others use services with data caps and other limitations. And some who do not currently use broadband may not be comfortable using connectivity or have difficulty self-installing and configuring a device.

Mobile network Wi-Fi hotspot devices can be loaned to people who don’t have connectivity. But this approach has the disadvantage of requiring a separate device that incurs substantial ongoing service fees (whether paid by the community or the user), needs to be separately powered and managed, and may be lost. At best, this represents a short-term, interim option.

Given that the current crisis doesn’t seem like it will be short-term, a more robust alternative is to set up a Wi-Fi network for multi-dwelling buildings such as public housing developments. This approach needs to be customized for each building but would include the same key elements.

1: Ensure there is adequate backhaul to the building. A range of technologies can perform this task. If the building has municipal- or county-owned fiber, this is simply a matter of configuring sufficient capacity. If fiber is absent but reaches a nearby building, and you have line of sight to that building, mmWave, 2.4 GHz, 5 GHz, or other wireless technology can enable backhaul using a mast-mounted or building-mounted antenna.  (If you don’t have line of sight, 900 MHz equipment can serve the same function.) Failing these options, seek commercial service—preferably over fiber.

2: Install Wi-Fi hotspots. These should be installed in hallways, mounted on ceilings or walls (ideally in false ceilings or crawl spaces), with as much density as possible.  The ideal outcome is that no more than 25 feet or one wall separates user from the access point and there are no more than eight users simultaneously using each access point. You will want to interconnect each access point using a single Cat 5/6/7 cable to a power-over-ethernet switch with a 1000 Mbps port. A good practice in a high-rise is to have a switch on each floor and connect each floor’s switch to a building switch located in the basement or on the rooftop that connects to the backhaul service. Where appropriate, consider wireless mesh technologies so as to reduce the amount of cabling.

3: Connect users to the network. You want members of the public to easily connect to the network. Generally, this is a simple matter. Most people own some form of Wi-Fi enabled device, even if they can’t afford ongoing carrier service. Students may have received devices from their schools. What remains is to provide instructions for connecting:  usually just an SSID and a password. For others who are using city-, county-, or school-provided equipment, ideally this equipment is preconfigured with the needed applications (including remote management) and browser links and instruction screens in the appropriate language. You may also need to lock down equipment to protect against inadvertent or deliberate tampering with the operating system or other components that could compromise the network.

4: Set up user support. Your residents may need a moderate level of technical support. In ideal circumstances, a handful of people at a building or development who have basic technological skills can assist clients or neighbors if they get stuck—using text-messaging or voice calls if needed to enforce social distancing. Additionally, municipal or county staff—or volunteers from local schools or technology companies—could also assist from call centers.

5: Set policies to lessen the risk of network congestion. Gaming and interactive video use considerable bandwidth that may slow your network and limit use for critical needs during this crisis. If a locality wants to control use of its devices or its network (for example, to avoid slowdowns and bottlenecks in the building networks), it may consider blocking or limiting some content or applications on those devices, or within its network. This can be done in the network configuration or the device configuration. (Some applications used for teleworking, such as Zoom, should be whitelisted.)

Please don’t hesitate to let us know if we can help you think through these strategies. 

CTC congratulates New York City on the release of its visionary Internet Master Plan, which outlines the City’s approach to seizing “a once-in-a-generation opportunity to dramatically reshape [the City’s] role in enabling affordable, reliable broadband service for all.” We are proud to have been part of the team that undertook research and analysis to support the City’s development of this singular vision for broadband.

The City’s plan embraces expansive goals for broadband equity. It builds on five fundamental principles (equity, performance, affordability, privacy, and choice) and encompasses innovative strategic approaches—such as maximizing the use of the City’s rooftops, light poles, and other infrastructure.

Read the full report here or the executive summary here.

The USDA recently announced the availability of $550 million in funding for a second round of its ReConnect loan and grant program—designed to enable last-mile broadband infrastructure deployment in rural areas. This funding, appropriated by Congress, follows on last year’s $600 million Round 1 appropriation.

Applicants should anticipate stiff competition for funding simply due to the large number of applications that will likely be submitted. (Round 1 saw $1.4 billion in funding requests, far beyond the $600 million allocated.)[i]

If you are considering applying for Round 2 funding, time is of the essence. The 46-day application window opens January 31, 2020, and closes March 16, 2020. The following is our high-level analysis and strategic guidance for public sector applicants, including counties, cities, towns, states, and public utilities.

Prepare a Competitive Application

The USDA will be looking for applicants that have developed key partnerships and prepared business and technical models. A successful application will need an assessment of existing service, engineering plans, a cost estimate, and a long-term business plan that demonstrates financial viability five years from the start of the project.

Much like last year in Round 1, we expect experienced public ISPs, as well as collaborative public-private efforts, to be well positioned to compete for the new round of funding. As you map out your plans, the following are some of the steps we believe are critical to preparing a competitive ReConnect application:

1. Develop a grant strategy.Your goal is to maximize your application’s scoring given USDA’s stated criteria.[ii] Every element of your application should speak to those criteria. Start by developing a comprehensive strategy that aligns your approach (with respect to technology, partnerships, business plan, and service levels) with what USDA is seeking to fund. Note that the scoring criteria for Round 2 have changed slightly from Round 1 to include Opportunity Zones and expand the number of farms included in proposed projects. (Farms must be mapped using the application portal tool and are now worth one point for every 10 farms, up to 20 points; applicants will need 200 farms to garner all 20 points.) In addition, small changes to the scoring and evaluation of existing services in PFSAs will have an impact on how applications are scored—and thus should be reflected in your grant strategy. (See below for more details.)
2. Consider applying for State funds, if available, to complement your grant strategy. Several states have announced grant programs that are meant to complement the needs of potential ReConnect applicants. If your state has such a program, you could potentially leverage that funding as the match for a ReConnect-funded project (e.g., a 25 percent match is required for a 100 percent grant ReConnect application). For this scenario to work, the state grant program must allow its funds to be leveraged as part of the cash match for ReConnect.
3. Gather the many types of information and support materials required.You’ll need a range of data and numbers—such as population statistics—to establish eligibility under the program rules and to provide content for the grant narrative. You’ll also need supporting materials, ranging from letters from your governor to documents that demonstrate the support of the local government, prospective customers, and the business community. Our recommendation here is to go over and above; additional letters (such as from your congressional delegation, the Chamber of Commerce, and so on) can only help to demonstrate the breadth of support in the community for your initiative.
4. Define and refine your PFSA. Define the PFSA with a count of the number of rural premises to be connected, including homes, farms, schools, libraries, healthcare facilities, and businesses (which are important because they confer additional points in the application). Then, document the engineering methodology used to demonstrate that the PFSA lacks service and is therefore eligible for funding. You’ll also need to verify that no Connect America Fund II award census blocks are included in the PFSA and that your project area is not located in what is known as a Protected Broadband Borrower Service Area (i.e., the service area of a borrower that has an RUS broadband loan).
5. Develop and review your project’s engineering plans and cost estimates.The critical engineering task after you have defined the PFSA is to develop a conceptual design for your network—including project plan, buildout timeline, design, and diagram—and cost estimates for materials and construction. The cost estimates will become a critical input to your business plan and pro forma financials and will need to be certified by a licensed Professional Engineer under the ReConnect application rules.
6. Develop a financial pro forma and business plan.The pro forma should be prepared in the format provided by USDA (which is available only on the application portal) and should include subscriber projections and descriptions of planned services and pricing. To support the pro forma revenue projections, you’ll need very compelling data, ideally in the form of statistically valid market research, as well as empirical data about your or your partner’s historical success in achieving comparable market share. Projections should contain five years’ forecasted financial data. This is possibly the most critical item in the application, given USDA’s interest in funding projects it considers sustainable and low-risk.
7. Develop a market narrative, including discussion and data regarding service in the region. You’ll need to demonstrate that your services will be better and no more expensive than other services offered nearby—and present a narrative discussion of why the proposed services will be both marketable and affordable.
8. Collect the appropriate forms from businesses to demonstrate market interest and maximize points for that application item.[iii] This is something that can be done through one-on-one conversations or by mailing the forms (with a cover letter and a stamped return envelope) to all the farms and businesses in the PFSA.
9. Set up accounts and then navigate Sam.gov and the USDA portal site, to be ready to input the grant application into the online grants system. (You may already have accounts in place, but we recommend that you check to be sure the accounts are current and that someone on your team is comfortable navigating the portals.) The USDA application portal requires additional effort and may require some users to go to a USDA office in person for verification.
10. Commission the required legal opinionand reviews.
11. Finally, write compelling grant and budget narratives.These and other narrative elements of the application are an opportunity to truly make your case for funding.

Develop a Grant Strategy That Reflects the Round 2 Scoring and Evaluation Criteria

For applicants who participated in Round 1, it is important to note there are a few small changes to the rules for Round 2 (in addition to the change in points for farms) that you should take into account as you put your grant strategy together:

1. Opportunity Zones get 5 points. If your PFSA includes even a part of an Opportunity Zone, your overall score will benefit. (The IRS offers a primer on Opportunity Zones here.) If you include an Opportunity Zone, discuss how economic development fits into the overall goals of your proposed project as part of the scoring criterion review/narrative.
2. 90 percent unserved PFSAs are now allowed. For the 100 percent grant program, the USDA loosened the requirements for existing service as compared to Round 1 applications. Instead of requiring that 100 percent of the PFSA have no service, the new rule allows a PFSA to be to 90 percent unserved. This is an important change that should positively affect your strategy . Our advice: do your due diligence and document the actual services available to the greatest extent possible.
3. Revisions to PFSA’s may be allowed after application submission. Revisions to PFSAs after an application is submitted “may” be requested by the USDA review team should they determine service is in place in parts of a PFSA and that a revision is feasible.
4. Challenges to protected borrower area status may be viable. If you find a protected borrower area is infringing on your PFSA, you can challenge the protected status as part of your application. However, challenges create significant extra risk for a potential funding application, should USDA decide the challenge has no merit. Under the program rules, a challenge can be made “if the applicant believes that at least 75% of the households in the part of the proposed funded service area in which they are seeking ReConnect funds are not receiving broadband service at the level for which an original RUS Broadband loan was made.” In order for the challenge to be viable, the RUS loan will need to have been “rescinded, defaulted on, or the terms and conditions of the original loan must not have been met.”
5. Round 1 application costs can be eligible for reimbursement in a successful Round 2 application. If an applicant worked on a Round 1 application that was not submitted or not successful, but manages to make a successful Round 2 application, those preparation expenses from Round 1 are eligible (up to 5 percent of the award) for reimbursement. Remember to include them in your narrative and budget.
6. Audited financial statements are still required, and you may have to provide two years’ statements. Applicants must include an “unqualified, comparative, audited financial statement for the previous year from the date the application is submitted.” However, “if an application is submitted in the first quarter of the calendar year and most recent year end audit has not been completed, the applicant can submit the two previous unqualified audits that have been completed.” Since this application is due within the first quarter of the year, applicants should plan on submitting the most recently completed two years of unqualified, comparative, audited financial statements. Note that any adverse opinions submitted will disqualify the application.

Finally, we recommend you take the time to get in touch with your USDA regional representative. Go the extra mile to be in touch with the USDA about your project. Attend at least one of what is likely to be several ReConnect Workshops to be scheduled over the next few months.

Please don’t hesitate to contact us if you have questions. CTC’s funding strategies and grant-writing team are ready to assist you with your ReConnect application planning.

[i] “ReConnect Program Background – First Round of Funding,” https://www.usda.gov/reconnect/program-overview

[ii] “Evaluation Criteria,” ReConnect Loan and Grant Program, USDA, https://www.usda.gov/reconnect/evaluation-criteria

[iii] “Broadband Pre-subscription Form for Farms and Other Businesses,” ReConnect Loan and Grant Program, USDA, https://www.rd.usda.gov/files/FarmorBusiness_Pre-subscription_Form_Final.pdf

CTC congratulates public officials in Grant and Wheeler counties, and the Oregon Telephone Company (OTC), on winning a $6 million federal grant to expand high-speed connectivity to hundreds of new customers in this frontier region of eastern Oregon. This grant was one of the funding announcements made December 3 in the first round of the USDA’s ReConnect Pilot Program investments.

The counties sit in one of the most isolated regions of the continental United States. One of the area’s school districts—the Long Creek School District—is the size of Rhode Island and includes five mountain passes. Teacher Denise Porter says most of her students lack internet access at home; not even sluggish DSL service can reach them.

That’s about to change.

CTC was proud to have helped develop the public-private approach and grant strategies, and prepare the necessary grant application materials, on behalf of the City of John Day, Oregon. (The City served as the lead agent for the intergovernmental Grant County Digital Network Coalition, which is partnering with OTC to expand service in the two counties.)

“This is a turning point in our community. We have forged a partnership that we think will bring prosperity throughout the region,” said Nicholas Green, the John Day city manager, on a conference call. “We’re going to switch from talking about what we don’t have—to what we are going to do with it.”

OTC will use the grant to deploy 89 miles of fiber to serve the region. The new infrastructure will provide network speeds ranging from 30 Mbps to 1 Gbps. Currently, many parts of this area lack service faster than 1.5 Mbps—meaning that students and their families lack broadband; businesses have been unable to get adequate service; and aging microwave links have failed to provide adequate connections for public safety communications in an area where forest fires are a constant threat.

The first new fiber route will connect the towns of Long Creek, Monument, and Spray—all to the northwest of John Day. The second route will start at the northern edge of the town of Seneca and continue to Canyon City, just south of John Day. Overall, this expanded fiber optic network will extend broadband availability across a 242-square-mile area that includes 418 households, 22 businesses, 22 farms, three schools, and two fire stations.

As USDA Rural Development State Director John Huffman pointed out in a statement: “Internet access is no longer an amenity. It is an essential component of daily life and is as important to rural communities as gaining access to electricity was a century ago. Small, remote communities, however, face unique challenges in connecting homes, farms and businesses to this vital resource.”

Round 2 of the USDA ReConnect program is expected to be announced soon. For general guidance on preparing an application, take a look at the guidance our Funding Strategies Team put together for Round 1 and stay tuned for updates as soon as information about Round 2 is announced.

The Benton Foundation today published CTC Chief Technology Officer Andrew Afflerbach’s analysis of the Department of Justice’s proposed T-Mobile/Sprint/DISH strategy. In his evaluation of DOJ’s approach—which is intended to address the loss of a mobile communications competitor that will result from the proposed T-Mobile/Sprint merger—Dr. Afflerbach found that the solution raises as many technical questions as it answers.

Read the full analysis here.

Andrew Afflerbach, PhD, P.E.
Chief Technology Officer

Understanding broadband performance involves understanding a range of factors in addition to speed. Consumers usually compare the performance of data connections by considering network speed (measured in bits per second) but this measurement can be deceptive because it is incomplete.

For example, a 150 Mbps cable modem connection may cost a residential consumer $90 per month, while a business-grade Metro Ethernet service that delivers 100 Mbps Internet capacity can exceed $800 per month – yet the internet delivered through the Metro Ethernet service provides better value for many types of applications. Why would a service with two-thirds the speed cost 10 times as much as the “faster” alternative?

The answer is that all bits (and megabits and gigabits) are not created equal. Factors such as latency, availability, and oversubscription rate affect the connection’s overall performance. In the example above, the 100 Mbps Metro Ethernet service’s total set of performance attributes provides a more robust and secure connection than a 150 Mbps cable modem.

These are some of the performance factors a consumer – or a government or policymaker – should consider in evaluating a connection:

• Symmetry: Cable modem and DSL services are typically asymmetrical, meaning that their upload (from user to network) and download (from network to user) speeds are different. The download speed is generally greater than the upload speed by a factor of 10 or more. Metro Ethernet services, on the other hand, are typically symmetrical, meaning that upload and download speeds are the same. For businesses that transfer large data or video files, asymmetrical services often present bottlenecks to both internal users and external customers. A user on a typical cable modem service can download a 5 gigabyte (GB) file in less than 10 minutes but uploading the same file would take more than 90 minutes – which would not be acceptable to a business creating and distributing large files.

• Oversubscription to the internet: Internet users don’t all access the internet at the same time, or with the same requirements. For that reason, ISPs provide only a portion of their networks’ total potential demand. For example, an ISP that has 1,000 subscribers with 10 Mbps service might contract for an aggregate 100 Mbps connection rather than the maximum 10,000 Mbps connection that would be necessary in the unlikely event all users were online at the same time and using the full capacity of their connections. The ratio of a network’s maximum potential demand to its contracted rates is known as its oversubscription ratio. In this example, the oversubscription ratio is 100:1. Cable modem and DSL providers often have a 100:1 or greater oversubscription ratio for residential users and a 50:1 ratio for business users. These high oversubscription ratios may not always be evident to users, but at times of high use, oversubscription can bring a consumer connection to a crawl – just like traffic on the weekend versus traffic during a weekday rush hour. In contrast, with a Metro Ethernet service that includes internet access, the internet oversubscription ratio is often 10:1 or less.

• Availability of the data transport rate: Metro Ethernet providers specify a committed information rate (CIR), which is the guaranteed transport speed of the circuit connecting user locations. The network will be designed to sustain at least that rate for all users guaranteed that rate. By contrast, cable modem and DSL services are often “burstable,” meaning that users may at times experience the advertised data rates, but that the average speed will vary greatly based on how congested the distribution network is at that time. Performance parameters on a burstable service are rarely publicized or realized. Often a network operator cannot change this parameter without changing the network’s physical connections. During periods of heavy network use, burstable subscribers experience the same traffic discrepancies drivers on the road during rush hour do. (Availability is often confused with oversubscription to the internet, but they are different. Oversubscription applies to the network’s connection to the internet, and availability applies to the “uptime” of the connection or transport between user locations or from the access point to the internet. A service is available as long as it operates as promised. However, as mentioned, it may still be oversubscribed – in which case it is operating but may be operating well below the peak advertised speed).

• Maximum usage: A network service may have a maximum data usage (in bytes) or “data caps” for a given period. For example, many wireless service data plans specify the number of gigabytes that users can transmit during the month. The ISP may actually slow down a user’s connection speed as the usage limit is neared.

• Latency: Latency is the term that describes the delay between the instant a message is sent and the instant it is received. Latency can occur in multiple parts of the network—first in the ISP’s own network and then also on the internet, if the message traverses the internet to reach its destination. Latency for consumer-grade services (such as those on cable modem and DSL) is determined on a “best-effort” basis rather than at a guaranteed level. For Metro Ethernet and other higher-end transport services, latency is often a specified quality-of-service feature for which users pay extra. High latency can be a significant challenge for running certain applications. For example, satellite-based internet has extremely high latency because of propagation delays — the time it takes for a signal to reach the satellite. These delays prevent effective use of interactive services such as phone calls or video-conferencing.

• Connection Type: This attribute describes how a connection is made with other locations. For example, on a cable modem or DSL service, all connections to other locations are made through the internet with internet addressing schemes. This may require a user to set up a virtual private network (VPN) for secure communications among user locations. Establishing a VPN on the network imposes cost and requires expertise and software; it also has an impact on performance. In contrast, higher-end data services, such as Metro Ethernet, enable a user to send traffic over the provider’s network in virtual networks without connecting to the internet, set up direct point-to-point connections, and limit which locations may connect with one another.

• Security: Although security is primarily a function of encryption and other techniques applied by users or application providers, traffic over a private network is inherently more secure than traffic on a network that establishes connectivity over the internet. A user that is connecting multiple sites using standard, consumer-grade cable modem or DSL transmits packets over the internet. With a higher-end service such as Metro Ethernet connecting user sites, the transport would remain on a separate network and never traverse the public internet – offering greater security. In addition, higher-end services often have encryption options at the transport layer.

• Port Rate: This is the maximum speed that is physically possible at the physical demarcation point, at the customer premises, of the service provider’s network.  For cable modem services, this is usually defined by the network’s DOCSIS version. However, not all connections with the same port rate are equal. A number of items determine the actual connection speed at a customer location, including any throttling or network control within the service provider network, oversubscription of the service provider network, and the condition of the last-mile physical infrastructure (for DSL, the condition and length of the copper; for cable modem, the condition and length of the coaxial cable and drop cable from the pole to the premises; for wireless, the lack of interference and obstructions and distance to the service provider access point).

In brief, don’t let speed be your sole measure of broadband performance. Like so much about the internet service industry, the reality is far more complex and nuanced than one simple metric.

All of us at CTC congratulate our friends at SiFi Networks, Ting Internet, and Gigabit Now on their announcement of an open-access fiber-to-the-premises network deployment in Fullerton, California.

The agreement announced earlier this month includes a citywide fiber network to be constructed by SiFi Networks; retail broadband services to be provided by Ting Internet and GigabitNow; and private capital to be provided by the Smart City Infrastructure Fund (managed by Whitehelm Capital).

With construction set to begin in May—and services potentially available by the end of the year—Ting and GigabitNow have both announced that they will offer symmetrical gigabit services over SiFi’s network in Fullerton for $79 per month.

This creative open access project represents a bold test of how to create competition over robust fiber networks. Kudos to SiFi for its perseverance in promoting this exciting new model—we look forward to seeing the results.

Joanne Hovis

As the City Council and Utility Board of Tacoma, Wash., draw closer to approving an innovative broadband public-private partnership (P3), Mayor Victoria Woodards has noted that the proposed agreement will not just create potential financial benefits, but will achieve key City policy goals—including equity, low-income affordability, net neutrality, and competition.

In an article published this week by the Benton Foundation, Mayor Woodards wrote that “as broadband internet becomes a more critical foundational element of our economy and a vital tool for democratic engagement, our efforts must extend to ensuring it is deployed in a way that supports our efforts.” She went on to say that the P3 for operations of the City’s Click! network will “use our infrastructure investment in Click! as leverage to incent a private partner to advance our goals, while creating an opportunity for this partner to build a robust cable and internet business in Tacoma.”

You can read Mayor Woodard’s article here.