Broadband Communities

OCT 2017

BROADBAND COMMUNITIES is the leading source of information on digital and broadband technologies for buildings and communities. Our editorial aims to accelerate the deployment of Fiber-To-The-Home and Fiber-To-The-Premises.

Issue link: https://bbcmag.epubxp.com/i/889628

Contents of this Issue

Navigation

Page 62 of 84

56 | BROADBAND COMMUNITIES | www.broadbandcommunities.com | OCTOBER 2017 COMMUNITY BROADBAND providers. is process, though, can be costly in terms of time and resources and may lead to delays in completing the feasibility process. See the sidebar for more information about RFI best practices. 5. Determining a Model and Network Design A community should apply all the data gathered in this process to actively explore different models and potential network designs. For example, if a market demand survey finds that an FTTP network is not viable, then a different network model and design will be necessary. Fundamental questions must be answered about network ownership, management and operation. All these questions must be explored in the feasibility process before cost analysis, business planning and financing evaluation can take place. 6. Conducting a Cost Analysis and Business Plan A thorough cost analysis will provide critical information regarding network capital expenditure estimates, financial forecasts, pro formas and more. However, a municipality should develop a comprehensive business plan only after it selects a model. Developing multiple business plans during the planning phase is far too costly, and if a community is going to work with a private partner, any business plan should be conducted with the partner to ensure accuracy. Communities, with good intentions, often commission business plans in the early stages of their feasibility studies – and the plans, lacking the details available later in the process, inevitably end up sitting on a shelf. Although a community should not undertake a network deployment without a comprehensive business plan, it can create a high-level cost analysis without many later-stage details in place. 7. Evaluating Financing and Funding Availability Money! Money! Money! Finding a partner willing to completely fund a new network is very unusual. It is also uncommon for a community to obtain federal or other grant funds (unless the community is an internet service provider, plans to become one or partners with one) to finance a network build. us, a community should know how much, if any, funding (bonds, general funds and so forth) it can contribute to a network build. is will help determine a model as well – particularly if the answer is "little to nothing." ough sometimes uncomfortable, the funding question must be tackled head-on. Keep in mind that broadband planning is a collaborative, dynamic process with multiple phases. Communities should not enter into the planning phase with a predetermined conclusion but rather with an openness to creative partnerships, solutions and models. Community leaders should maintain realistic expectations and avoid the temptation to spend money on Band-Aid solutions. Network solutions – and the feasibility studies that guide them – should be tailored to the unique needs, priorities and values of each community. Conducting a feasibility process that asks the right questions of the right parties will direct a community down the right path – and provide the right solution. v Lori Sherwood is director of broadband development for Vantage Point Solutions, a broadband and telecommunications engineering and consulting company based in Mitchell, South Dakota. Contact Lori at Lori.Sherwood@vantagepnt.com. TO RFI, OR NOT TO RFI? PROS AND CONS Recently, many communities have issued RFIs seeking proposals from providers that may be interested in establishing public-private partnerships (PPPs). Though the RFI process can assist in drawing out interested parties, it can also create substantial delays that can stall or derail a project. For example, RFIs that are overly broad and open-ended make it difficult for vendors to know how to accurately respond. On the other hand, RFIs that are too narrow or demand too much may be difficult for vendors to satisfy. As a result, vendors are likely to submit proposals that are completely different from one another, making them difficult to compare and evaluate. There have been many instances in which, based on information learned through a lengthy evaluation and interview process, a community has had to cancel an original RFI and start over by reissuing a new RFI with a revised scope. In addition, putting together a proper bid for a PPP takes a considerable amount of time and effort on the part of a vendor. Vendors understand that an RFI process does not necessarily lead to an RFP or a contract. If an RFI is perceived solely as an information-gathering exercise, a vendor may not want to invest in developing a serious proposal. In this case, an otherwise interested provider may be deterred from submitting a proposal. One thing to keep in mind is that PPPs are very difficult to establish, particularly for smaller communities. In many cases, a PPP will not be a viable option for a community, particularly if there are multiple existing incumbents or if the financial projections do not enable the provider to profit and generate a return on the investment. Before investing the time and money in an RFI process, consider holding informal meetings with potentially interested local and national providers. Gather as much information as you can before starting the RFI process. And remember – the key word is "partner." A community that pursues a PPP needs to enter the RFI process willing to be a partner.

Articles in this issue

Links on this page

Archives of this issue

view archives of Broadband Communities - OCT 2017