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/565727
54 | BROADBAND COMMUNITIES | www.broadbandcommunities.com | AUGUST/SEPTEMBER 2015 COMMUNITY BROADBAND Mutual consultation. Google and Kansas City left the question of initial build sites open to continuing negotiation; Google retained the right to base future build locations on purely economic calculations. As a matter of practice, Google agrees to build out in the entire city, but the actual construction obligation kicks in only when a certain percentage of a "fberhood" signs up for service. Google sets the boundaries of the fberhood and the minimum percentage at its sole discretion. Tis approach can be viewed as a win-win in that the city has a voice in negotiating initial build locations and the ISP retains control over expansion locations thereafter. However, if the city falls short of getting agreement on its planned network sites during initial negotiations, turning over control of expansion planning to the ISP can end up resulting in a buildout to fewer areas than the city may have wished. Need-based quotas. Raleigh agreed upfront to let AT&T; base its build locations purely on cost-recovery calculations in return for a quota of additional locations that the city could choose based on need. Te city may not reach all its need-based sites initially, but it can ensure that the network eventually expands to cover some of its highest-priority areas. Competitive response. So long as the new network reaches a critical mass of the city, it is likely to drive a competitive response. For example, the deployment of fber by the incumbent telco or a new entrant with signifcant resources, such as Google, will likely compel responses by a cable provider. Because a cable upgrade will be done system by system, rather than neighborhood by neighborhood, facilitating an upgrade or a new entrant can result in a geographically broader upgrade through third-party providers not involved in the initial agreement. Further, as pricing is generally consistent throughout an entire jurisdiction, the competitive response will likely mean that all residents receive the benefts of price competition even if the new network does not extend to every area. HOW TO BUILD Network construction methods are largely standardized, so the primary decision is whether to build above or below ground (or whether to use a combination of both approaches). Making this determination can involve considerable cost calculations and complex policy issues, such as pole attachment rights and equipment placement. Aboveground vs. underground construction. Aboveground network construction tends to be less expensive from a labor and equipment cost perspective, so it is most commonly used. Aboveground construction also minimizes the digging up of roadways and the consequent impact on trafc. Te main beneft of underground construction is weatherproofng the network – protecting it from wind and ice, which topple utility lines and poles. It is in the city's interest to assess these costs and risks while planning and negotiating a network construction partnership. Pole attachment access and costs. Labor and equipment costs are not the only costs to consider – pole attachment costs can potentially dominate the calculation. For municipalities that lack a public utility or other means for easily accessing poles, the costs of negotiating and accessing privately owned poles can quickly make aboveground construction more costly than running fber underground. Tis was the situation with Champaign-Urbana, which decided to build completely underground to avoid pole attachment costs and headaches. Te FCC's recent order on the classifcation of broadband addressed this issue in part. Te commission held that ISPs should be entitled to fair access to poles and conduits under Section 224 of the federal communications law. Te long-term value of that decision depends, in part, on how court challenges and potential congressional legislation play out. Another way of addressing this issue is by having a single pole administrator. Connecticut recently implemented a single administrator through state legislation. Google addressed the issue in its frst project by initially going to Kansas City, Kan., which had a municipal electric company, and then leveraging the public reaction to strike a deal with private pole providers in Kansas City, Mo., which did not want HOW TO BUILD: KEY CONSIDERATIONS FOR COMMUNITIES • If there is no municipal pole ownership, do the private pole owners support the project? • How many diferent parties must the city negotiate with to gain access to the pole space needed for this project? Does the city have a history of negotiating with them? A city has some leverage to ensure that a private partner doesn't cherry-pick – but the buildout may be less complete, and slower, than the city would like.