Broadband Communities

JAN-FEB 2019

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:

Contents of this Issue


Page 42 of 76

RURAL BROADBAND 3 6 | B R O A D B A N D C O M M U N I T I E S | w w w. b r o a d b a n d c o m m u n i t i e s . c o m | J A N U A R Y / F E B R U A R Y 2 0 1 9 Buy Local (Including Broadband) Providing broadband locally – with help from electric utilities – can be a good way to anchor rural economies. By Eric Ogle / Magellan Advisors M any rural communities, even if they have broadband, have too few broadband options. Rural communities just large enough to have two service providers yet too small to attract a third provider, let alone more, represent the middle ground of rural broadband that is often overlooked by both private and public investment. Most communities of any density have incumbent telephone companies that offer DSL, which is borderline broadband. If a community is fortunate, it has a second wireline provider, the incumbent television company, which offers cable service and speeds that commonly meet the definition of broadband. e cable company, as the only true broadband option in town, is often characterized by high cost and poor customer responsiveness, which reflect this lack of competition. Subscribers in these small, rural communities pay more for service that is inferior to broadband services available to larger communities. Because communities like these are served by one or more providers that exceed many federal broadband benchmarks, they are disqualified from most federal grant programs. Similarly, corporate decision-makers plan service growth in cities that offer more favorable returns on investment. Why would AT&T invest $20 million to upgrade a small, rural community to fiber to sell a gigabit service for $80 per month if it can continue selling 10 Mbps DSL for $70 per month using local infrastructure that was built and paid for decades ago? Local startup providers are motivated to make things better for their hometowns, but they often hesitate to risk competing with corporate providers. When a provider such as AT&T or Comcast wants to improve service to any area, it can and will. It is no coincidence that, when a community announces plans to offer its own broadband services, the incumbent may suddenly find a way to improve services after years of resistance. is is not a new phenomenon. In his 1930 State of the Union address, President Herbert Hoover said, "Competition is not only the basis of protection to the consumer but is the incentive to progress." Nearly 90 years later, his statement rings true regarding rural broadband, where lack of competition has effectually removed the incentive for service improvement. Indeed, the plight of broadband in many small, rural communities today boils down to a lack of competition. Incumbent providers have become complacent, offering minimal services at premium prices and serving customers over aging, oversubscribed infrastructure that they have no incentive to improve. A LOCAL PATH at leaves communities to figure out their own paths. Broadband advocates for years have stressed the importance of forming partnerships to bring together stakeholders in an attempt to find common ground and move forward with a plan. Each community is different, and there is no one cookie-cutter approach to make things happen instantly. Understanding who

Articles in this issue

Links on this page

Archives of this issue

view archives of Broadband Communities - JAN-FEB 2019