Policies, partnerships and common goals attract broadband investment to communities
07 June 2010 20:17
| RUS, casf, community broadband, broadband investment, public policy, private capital, operating cost, capital cost, public private partnership, california advanced services fund, revenue
Capital expense, operating expense and revenue are the basic parameters of a business plan. With broadband-specific incentives that improve those metrics – even marginally – local governments and economic development agencies can attract private broadband investment into underserved areas.
Public policies can be tailored to significantly reduce construction costs. Uniform, broadband-friendly right of way and permit procedures eliminate a huge source of uncertainty for business planners. The more certain they are of their estimates, the more likely they are to invest.
In the long run, it might not seem like much,
but even a little guaranteed anchor revenue
can make a huge upfront differenceOffering public facilities, for example vertical assets or space for nodes, on a co-investment basis and pre-installing empty conduit whenever roads are built or trenches are opened will also lower the hurdle for network builds. Of course, standard economic development tools such as sales tax concessions, community development funds and local seed capital work for broadband too.
Reducing the capital cost in a given locality improves its competitive position versus other regions by broadening the pool of potential service providers and increasing their return on investment. It also makes it easier for projects to qualify for assistance from the likes of the California Advanced Services Fund and the federal Rural Utilities Service.
Reducing capital costs isn't always the answer, though. There are tradeoffs between capital and operating expenses. For example, it's cheaper to hang fiber on poles than bury it, but the ongoing costs are higher. Capitalizing leases for node locations and vertical assets reduce operating expenses while raising capital costs.
Another way to reduce operating costs is for local agencies to partner with service providers on items like bulk Internet access and maintenance. One big wholesale bandwidth purchase will usually be cheaper than two medium size contracts. Local agencies might be able to set up agreements for joint pole maintenance or trenching. There's a long list of possibilities worth discussing with prospective broadband system operators.
Documenting demand and leveraging public sector IT and telecoms budgets will brighten revenue prospects. The cost of an investment-grade demand study ranges into the low six figures for a local or regional-scale project. A service provider will spend that money on localities it already finds attractive, leaving local organizations to fund research for the area they represent.
A local agency can be an anchor tenant for a new broadband system, particularly when it can suggest ways of configuring a network so that key points are included. The agency should be able to reduce its own operating costs, while at the same time providing an early, guaranteed revenue stream to the service provider.
Given the tradeoffs between operating and capital expenses, the fixed cost of running a broadband system can be relatively low. The greatest value of an upfront contract to a system operator is its reliability, not necessarily the dollar amount involved.
It's surprising how even small incentives – such as slightly lower costs, upfront contracts or small loans – can grab the attention of potential broadband operators and tip the balance in favor of a given locality. Sometimes, it's just a matter of everyone speaking the same language.
Public policies can be tailored to significantly reduce construction costs. Uniform, broadband-friendly right of way and permit procedures eliminate a huge source of uncertainty for business planners. The more certain they are of their estimates, the more likely they are to invest.
In the long run, it might not seem like much,
but even a little guaranteed anchor revenue
can make a huge upfront differenceOffering public facilities, for example vertical assets or space for nodes, on a co-investment basis and pre-installing empty conduit whenever roads are built or trenches are opened will also lower the hurdle for network builds. Of course, standard economic development tools such as sales tax concessions, community development funds and local seed capital work for broadband too.
Reducing the capital cost in a given locality improves its competitive position versus other regions by broadening the pool of potential service providers and increasing their return on investment. It also makes it easier for projects to qualify for assistance from the likes of the California Advanced Services Fund and the federal Rural Utilities Service.
Reducing capital costs isn't always the answer, though. There are tradeoffs between capital and operating expenses. For example, it's cheaper to hang fiber on poles than bury it, but the ongoing costs are higher. Capitalizing leases for node locations and vertical assets reduce operating expenses while raising capital costs.
Another way to reduce operating costs is for local agencies to partner with service providers on items like bulk Internet access and maintenance. One big wholesale bandwidth purchase will usually be cheaper than two medium size contracts. Local agencies might be able to set up agreements for joint pole maintenance or trenching. There's a long list of possibilities worth discussing with prospective broadband system operators.
Documenting demand and leveraging public sector IT and telecoms budgets will brighten revenue prospects. The cost of an investment-grade demand study ranges into the low six figures for a local or regional-scale project. A service provider will spend that money on localities it already finds attractive, leaving local organizations to fund research for the area they represent.
A local agency can be an anchor tenant for a new broadband system, particularly when it can suggest ways of configuring a network so that key points are included. The agency should be able to reduce its own operating costs, while at the same time providing an early, guaranteed revenue stream to the service provider.
Given the tradeoffs between operating and capital expenses, the fixed cost of running a broadband system can be relatively low. The greatest value of an upfront contract to a system operator is its reliability, not necessarily the dollar amount involved.
It's surprising how even small incentives – such as slightly lower costs, upfront contracts or small loans – can grab the attention of potential broadband operators and tip the balance in favor of a given locality. Sometimes, it's just a matter of everyone speaking the same language.
Comments
Getting back to business with broadband investment
06 June 2010 14:08
| RUS, casf, community broadband, demand, broadband investment, public policy, microeconomic, private capital, california advanced services fund, need, rural utilities service, NTIA
The federal stimulus program overshadowed private sector funding for new broadband infrastructure for more than a year. The National Telecommunications and Information Administration and, to a somewhat lesser extent, the Rural Utilities Service (RUS) threatened to wash out broadband venture opportunities with billions of dollars of grants and loans. Some projects will absorb federal money instead of private risk capital. Most won't and the surviving opportunities will become evident over the next few months.
Price points, service benchmarks and likelihood
to buy are key data for revenue projectionsLocal agencies and economic development organizations still have the job of attracting that investment. Instead of telling tales of dire need, they'll be back to the business of encouraging business by documenting unmet demand and offering the right incentives to tip decisions in their direction. I'll have more to say about sweetening the pot later. The first job is to refocus on demand.
Need and demand are two very different things. Need is a general concept, and leans heavily on qualitative judgments. It's a useful basis for public policy discussions, and marketers can use it to target services and products. Raw need, though, is not very helpful in making a core business case.
Demand is a precisely defined, quantitative, microeconomic metric. It's usually the one big missing piece when service providers, and their investors, are evaluating a network build outside of their existing footprint.
Demographics, geography and existing infrastructure are important too, but the first two are freely available and most people who are active in the broadband investment space have a good enough idea of what's already out there. The state broadband mapping projects funded by the federal stimulus program are likely to be game changers, and that makes it even better.
A good demand study, with estimates of take rates over a range of services and price points, leads to supportable revenue projections. When it comes to attracting an investor, a statistically valid and methodologically sound revenue projection is gold. It's a lot easier to persuade someone to invest in a project that promises revenue. Investors aren't interested in much else.
Going forward, public broadband funding will follow private capital. The two big remaining pots of public money belong to state universal service programs such as the California Advanced Services Fund and RUS, both of which require substantial private sector co-investment, sustainable business plans that are well documented and, where RUS is concerned, the ability to take on considerable debt.
Need motivates local governments and organizations to compete for private broadband investment. They'll win when they can put demand on the table.
Price points, service benchmarks and likelihood
to buy are key data for revenue projectionsLocal agencies and economic development organizations still have the job of attracting that investment. Instead of telling tales of dire need, they'll be back to the business of encouraging business by documenting unmet demand and offering the right incentives to tip decisions in their direction. I'll have more to say about sweetening the pot later. The first job is to refocus on demand.
Need and demand are two very different things. Need is a general concept, and leans heavily on qualitative judgments. It's a useful basis for public policy discussions, and marketers can use it to target services and products. Raw need, though, is not very helpful in making a core business case.
Demand is a precisely defined, quantitative, microeconomic metric. It's usually the one big missing piece when service providers, and their investors, are evaluating a network build outside of their existing footprint.
Demographics, geography and existing infrastructure are important too, but the first two are freely available and most people who are active in the broadband investment space have a good enough idea of what's already out there. The state broadband mapping projects funded by the federal stimulus program are likely to be game changers, and that makes it even better.
A good demand study, with estimates of take rates over a range of services and price points, leads to supportable revenue projections. When it comes to attracting an investor, a statistically valid and methodologically sound revenue projection is gold. It's a lot easier to persuade someone to invest in a project that promises revenue. Investors aren't interested in much else.
Going forward, public broadband funding will follow private capital. The two big remaining pots of public money belong to state universal service programs such as the California Advanced Services Fund and RUS, both of which require substantial private sector co-investment, sustainable business plans that are well documented and, where RUS is concerned, the ability to take on considerable debt.
Need motivates local governments and organizations to compete for private broadband investment. They'll win when they can put demand on the table.
Building community broadband: three things that work without stimulus grants
15 May 2010 21:48
| BTOP, casf, CSU Chico, ARRA, BIP, california emerging technology fund, SEDCorp, sierra economic development corporation, CPUC, CSU Humbolt, cetf, rural broadband, broadband stimulus
The California Emerging Technology Fund (CETF) has funded several regional broadband consortia in northern and central California. At its third annual Rural Connections workshop in Redding this week, representatives from six groups presented the results of their work over the past couple of years. Two, covering California's Gold Country and Redwood Coast, stood out as having made genuine progress toward bringing Silicon Valley-grade Internet service to areas that are otherwise off the broadband map.
Gold Country Connect provides prospective investors
with broadband planning toolsBrent Smith, CEO of Sierra Economic Development Corporation, and Connie Stewart from Humboldt State University had success stories to tell. Three key lessons stood out:
1. Seek out motivated investors, including competitive local exchange carriers and independent Internet service providers, and find ways to improve their business cases and nudge them towards your goals. Don't waste everyone's time trying to bribe or bully them into accepting your plans or implementing your programs. A patchwork of operating networks beats a pristine concept with no takers, every time.
2. Do your homework and make sure it's A-grade. Simple, quantitative market research that identifies market gaps and charts statistically valid demand at defined price points is pure gold to private sector investments analysts. A centralized broadband mapping project with service provider buy-in, like that run by Chico State University, puts the cards face up on the table and lets everyone get down to business without posturing and poor mouthing.
3. Subsidies help, but don't necessarily need to be large. A guaranteed loan, a little local capital, even a tax break can tip the balance for a potential private sector broadband investor. When bigger subsidies are needed, the lion's share of the risk can still fall on private investors. The California Advanced Services Fund will do a 40% match against private capital in underserved areas, and that's been enough for hundreds of kilometers of fiber.
Unified community support is important, and creates a level of comfort that the project can be implemented. Leadership is needed to gain rights of way, permits and variances, and overcome bureaucratic inertia. Business analysts are more impressed by political muscle and professional, statistically valid research than they are by crayon drawings from a third grade class.
Real progress in other CETF-sponsored consortia has been hampered by a focus on community feel-good exercises and unworldly research. Evidently, Chico State's mapping expertise is not matched by its economics department: someone there seems to think you can do a demand aggregation study without asking tiresome questions about price elasticity. The good thing about this kind of conference is that public sector decision makers get to see what works and what doesn't, and can respond appropriately.
The last item on the conference agenda was the decision to come back for a fourth year. Expect to see a longer list of success stories.
Gold Country Connect provides prospective investors
with broadband planning toolsBrent Smith, CEO of Sierra Economic Development Corporation, and Connie Stewart from Humboldt State University had success stories to tell. Three key lessons stood out:
1. Seek out motivated investors, including competitive local exchange carriers and independent Internet service providers, and find ways to improve their business cases and nudge them towards your goals. Don't waste everyone's time trying to bribe or bully them into accepting your plans or implementing your programs. A patchwork of operating networks beats a pristine concept with no takers, every time.
2. Do your homework and make sure it's A-grade. Simple, quantitative market research that identifies market gaps and charts statistically valid demand at defined price points is pure gold to private sector investments analysts. A centralized broadband mapping project with service provider buy-in, like that run by Chico State University, puts the cards face up on the table and lets everyone get down to business without posturing and poor mouthing.
3. Subsidies help, but don't necessarily need to be large. A guaranteed loan, a little local capital, even a tax break can tip the balance for a potential private sector broadband investor. When bigger subsidies are needed, the lion's share of the risk can still fall on private investors. The California Advanced Services Fund will do a 40% match against private capital in underserved areas, and that's been enough for hundreds of kilometers of fiber.
Unified community support is important, and creates a level of comfort that the project can be implemented. Leadership is needed to gain rights of way, permits and variances, and overcome bureaucratic inertia. Business analysts are more impressed by political muscle and professional, statistically valid research than they are by crayon drawings from a third grade class.
Real progress in other CETF-sponsored consortia has been hampered by a focus on community feel-good exercises and unworldly research. Evidently, Chico State's mapping expertise is not matched by its economics department: someone there seems to think you can do a demand aggregation study without asking tiresome questions about price elasticity. The good thing about this kind of conference is that public sector decision makers get to see what works and what doesn't, and can respond appropriately.
The last item on the conference agenda was the decision to come back for a fourth year. Expect to see a longer list of success stories.
The stimulus was fun while it lasted, now back to work
14 May 2010 19:55
| BTOP, RUS, casf, california public utilities commission, ccbc, Jonathan Adelstein, NTIA, ARRA, BIP, california emerging technology fund, cetf, rural broadband, broadband stimulus
It's time to look past the stimulus program, and re-adjust community broadband planning assumptions. The National Telecommunications and Information Administration's (NTIA) Broadband Technology Opportunities Program (BTOP) and the Rural Utilities Service's (RUS) Broadband Initiatives Program (BIP) encouraged local groups to roll themselves up into regional alliances and propose magnificent projects that would meet any conceivable need and serve every user imaginable.
It made sense, because that's where the money was. NTIA and RUS made some dreams real in the first round last year, and are on track to fulfill a few more fantasies in the second round. But even though BTOP is reopening for what amounts to a stunted, public-safety focused third round, the good times are over and we have to return to the old normal.
It's a world where the free money is mostly gone. Once the BTOP money is spent, NTIA goes back to being a small agency running small programs. In rural areas, RUS and state programs, like the California Advanced Services Fund (CASF), will provide grants and loans to organizations with a qualifying track record and, in some cases, enough cash to fund half or more of proposed projects themselves.
Adelstein and RUS general
field representative Harry Hutson showed
CETF conference attendees in Redding
how the first round BIP money went
down the spoutRUS won't fund projects that compete with their existing loan portfolio, however. Speaking to the California Emerging Technologies Fund's third annual Rural Connections workshop in Redding this week, RUS administrator Jonathan Adelstein made it clear that the agency will give priority to organizations that it already funds, and won't subsidize competing projects.
CASF expects it will continue to fund new broadband projects in California, but only in areas where AT&T, Verizon and the cable companies fail to upgrade infrastructure. A few arguable urban pockets aside, it's the remote rural regions that have a shot.
Elsewhere, community broadband advocates will have to go back to the basics. Tried and true economic development strategies, like public-private partnerships, tax breaks and other incentives, and old fashioned salesmanship, will be effective. But only where public agencies and community advocates can present a focused and well documented business case and be flexible enough to accept that private capital comes with its own priorities.
The old normal is a world where subscriber metrics, return on investment and anchor tenants trump grand visions, sad stories and political grease. Painstaking determination and hard work count again, though. That's a world worth calling home.
It made sense, because that's where the money was. NTIA and RUS made some dreams real in the first round last year, and are on track to fulfill a few more fantasies in the second round. But even though BTOP is reopening for what amounts to a stunted, public-safety focused third round, the good times are over and we have to return to the old normal.
It's a world where the free money is mostly gone. Once the BTOP money is spent, NTIA goes back to being a small agency running small programs. In rural areas, RUS and state programs, like the California Advanced Services Fund (CASF), will provide grants and loans to organizations with a qualifying track record and, in some cases, enough cash to fund half or more of proposed projects themselves.
Adelstein and RUS general
field representative Harry Hutson showed
CETF conference attendees in Redding
how the first round BIP money went
down the spoutRUS won't fund projects that compete with their existing loan portfolio, however. Speaking to the California Emerging Technologies Fund's third annual Rural Connections workshop in Redding this week, RUS administrator Jonathan Adelstein made it clear that the agency will give priority to organizations that it already funds, and won't subsidize competing projects.
CASF expects it will continue to fund new broadband projects in California, but only in areas where AT&T, Verizon and the cable companies fail to upgrade infrastructure. A few arguable urban pockets aside, it's the remote rural regions that have a shot.
Elsewhere, community broadband advocates will have to go back to the basics. Tried and true economic development strategies, like public-private partnerships, tax breaks and other incentives, and old fashioned salesmanship, will be effective. But only where public agencies and community advocates can present a focused and well documented business case and be flexible enough to accept that private capital comes with its own priorities.
The old normal is a world where subscriber metrics, return on investment and anchor tenants trump grand visions, sad stories and political grease. Painstaking determination and hard work count again, though. That's a world worth calling home.
Comments (1)
Follow the money, from the first to the second round of broadband stimulus grants
18 January 2010 19:15
| ARRA, RUS, california emerging technology fund, BTOP, BIP, casf, california public utilities commission, ccbc, rural broadband, broadband stimulus, NTIA
More than a thousand first round hopefuls are still staring into the black hole that swallowed their applications. The second round notifications of funding availability (NOFAs) issued by the Rural Utilities Service (RUS) and National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) for the broadband stimulus program do not explicitly address the status of first round applications.
The stimulus bill gave RUS $2.5 billion and NTIA $4.7 billion for broadband project funding. In the first round, RUS said it would give out up to $2.4 billion. Now its saying it'll give out a total $2.2 billion in the second round. The target budget is:
That leaves $300 million, which presumably goes to first round grants and, presumably, overhead. So far, RUS has only announced $54 million in first round grants. It still has first round applications in the due diligence stage of review, so any applicant that's made it that far has a plausible hope of winning funding. The lion's share of RUS's money is shifting to the second round, so if you haven't heard back about first round review yet, I suggest you start thinking about round two.
Unless you also put in a joint bid to NTIA. Including broadband mapping grants, NTIA allocated nearly $2 billion to first round projects. It's allocating a total of $2.6 billion for the second round:
The two NTIA rounds match up pretty closely with the targeted totals. There's $150 million unaccounted for, but that's a believable overhead number for a federal operation.
The inference is that the two rounds will be processed, considered and funded separately. As it lays out now, if you have a first round NTIA application that's disappeared into the process, it's possible that you might yet advance to the due diligence stage. But that possibility diminishes as time goes on, particularly if NTIA sticks to its end-of-February target for closing out the first round and its 30-day due diligence period.
The second round workshops start next week, and more information should be available by then. My advice to first round applicants who haven't heard from NTIA yet is to spend this week beginning to form the community alliances that it advocates so enthusiastically. It won't be wasted effort, even if you slide into the first round under the wire.
The stimulus bill gave RUS $2.5 billion and NTIA $4.7 billion for broadband project funding. In the first round, RUS said it would give out up to $2.4 billion. Now its saying it'll give out a total $2.2 billion in the second round. The target budget is:
| Category | Second Round |
| Last mile projects | $1.7 billion |
| Middle mile projects | $300 million |
| Satellite projects | $100 million |
| Libraries, tech assist | $5 million |
| Reserve | $95 million |
| Total | $2.2 billion |
That leaves $300 million, which presumably goes to first round grants and, presumably, overhead. So far, RUS has only announced $54 million in first round grants. It still has first round applications in the due diligence stage of review, so any applicant that's made it that far has a plausible hope of winning funding. The lion's share of RUS's money is shifting to the second round, so if you haven't heard back about first round review yet, I suggest you start thinking about round two.
Unless you also put in a joint bid to NTIA. Including broadband mapping grants, NTIA allocated nearly $2 billion to first round projects. It's allocating a total of $2.6 billion for the second round:
| Category | Total Targeted | First Round | Second Round |
| Infrastructure | $3.55 billion | $1.2 billion | $2.35 billion |
| Public computer centers | $200 million | $50 million | $150 million |
| Sustainable adoption | $250 million | $150 million | $100 million |
| Mapping | $350 million | $350 million | -0- |
| Reserve | $200 million | $200 million | -0- |
| Total | $4.55 billion | $1.95 billion | $2.6 billion |
The two NTIA rounds match up pretty closely with the targeted totals. There's $150 million unaccounted for, but that's a believable overhead number for a federal operation.
The inference is that the two rounds will be processed, considered and funded separately. As it lays out now, if you have a first round NTIA application that's disappeared into the process, it's possible that you might yet advance to the due diligence stage. But that possibility diminishes as time goes on, particularly if NTIA sticks to its end-of-February target for closing out the first round and its 30-day due diligence period.
The second round workshops start next week, and more information should be available by then. My advice to first round applicants who haven't heard from NTIA yet is to spend this week beginning to form the community alliances that it advocates so enthusiastically. It won't be wasted effort, even if you slide into the first round under the wire.
Broadband stimulus grant update: first round still under review, second round likely to slip a bit
07 January 2010 13:16
| ARRA, RUS, california emerging technology fund, BTOP, BIP, casf, california public utilities commission, ccbc, rural broadband, CES, broadband stimulus, NTIA
Anna Gomez, deputy assistant secretary for communications and information at NTIA (National Telecommunications and Information Administration), spoke at today's Tech Policy Summit at the Consumer Electronics Show in Las Vegas.
Secretary Gomez speaks to reporters
at 2010 Consumer Electronics ShowShe repeated previous agency comments about wanting to "get it done fast, get it done right and with the greatest effect possible."
She described the Broadband Technology Opportunities Program (BTOP) as "unprecedented" at the NTIA.
Lessons learned in a difficult first round would be applied in the second round. Among those lessons is a better understanding of what sort of projects should take priority for BTOP funding.
Her comments regarding the program's time line were:
She did say "our goal is to make sure people know their status in time to file in the second round." Asked whether first round applicants could be in the position of having to simultaneously prepare a second round application and follow up on a first round application, she said "hopefully not."
Connecting the dots, here's my take:
She said that they want to ensure that key community members - meaning anchor institutions and government agencies - can access middle mile projects directly and that private companies can make use of it to create last mile services that reach consumers and businesses.
The emphasis in the second round will clearly be on middle mile projects. Gomez spotlighted the grant made to such a project in Georgia last month as an excellent example of what they'll be looking for in the second round. The objective of the Broadband Match program is to ensure that public/private groups "can put together the most comprehensive application possible."
Secretary Gomez speaks to reporters
at 2010 Consumer Electronics ShowShe repeated previous agency comments about wanting to "get it done fast, get it done right and with the greatest effect possible."
She described the Broadband Technology Opportunities Program (BTOP) as "unprecedented" at the NTIA.
Lessons learned in a difficult first round would be applied in the second round. Among those lessons is a better understanding of what sort of projects should take priority for BTOP funding.
Her comments regarding the program's time line were:
- The notice of funding availability (NOFA) for the second round will be released in a "few weeks". She wouldn't say if that means the previous target of mid-January would slip, although she left room for thinking it will.
- The first round grants will be completed "on a rolling basis over the next two months."
- All grants will be made by Congress' mandated deadline of 30 September 2010.
- In separate comments, Karen Jackson from the Commonwealth of Virginia's Technology Office, confirmed that there will be at least a 60 day window for second round applications, rather than the original 45 day deadline in the first round.
She did say "our goal is to make sure people know their status in time to file in the second round." Asked whether first round applicants could be in the position of having to simultaneously prepare a second round application and follow up on a first round application, she said "hopefully not."
Connecting the dots, here's my take:
- The second round NOFA will be released around the end of January, maybe even as late as the first or second week of February.
- If a first round application hasn't advanced to the second stage of review by the end of the month, it won't.
- The second round NOFA will be more specific about program goals, be structured to encourage cooperation amongst applicants, and favor projects that include significant, shared middle mile infrastructure, with or without last mile facilities.
- NTIA has a much better understanding now of how to run the program and what its goals should be. Don't be surprised if the first round falls significantly short of its $4 billion target, with unspent funds redirected to specific program goals in the second round.
She said that they want to ensure that key community members - meaning anchor institutions and government agencies - can access middle mile projects directly and that private companies can make use of it to create last mile services that reach consumers and businesses.
The emphasis in the second round will clearly be on middle mile projects. Gomez spotlighted the grant made to such a project in Georgia last month as an excellent example of what they'll be looking for in the second round. The objective of the Broadband Match program is to ensure that public/private groups "can put together the most comprehensive application possible."
CPUC Approves $5 Million for central California coast broadband project
23 November 2009 11:29
| ARRA, RUS, BTOP, BIP, casf, california public utilities commission, CPUC, ccbc, broadband stimulus, NTIA
The California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) unanimously approved a $4,975,009 grant from the California Advanced Services Fund (CASF) to the Central Coast Broadband Consortium (CCBC) on Friday, 20 November 2009. The grant pays for 10% of the approximately $50 million fiber optic trunk line network planned for Santa Cruz, Monterey and San Benito counties on California's central coast.
CCBC system map
CCBC's CASF and associated federal stimulus grant applications are managed by Tellus Venture Associates, which also does the financial planning and budgeting for the project. In August, the CCBC submitted a proposal for a $40 million grant to the National Telecommunications and Information Administration's (NTIA) Broadband Technology Opportunities Program (BTOP) and the Rural Utility Service's (RUS) Broadband Initiatives Program. The remaining $5 million has already been committed by consortium members.
CPUC's approval follows endorsements by California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger and congressman Sam Farr, who represents the three county region. NTIA and RUS are reviewing the grant proposal, with a decision expected next month.
The project would create a 428 mile fiber optic backbone linking unserved and underserved areas to better served communities, and connecting the entire region to Tier 1 Internet facilities in Silicon Valley. Using a loop architecture, any point on the network would have two independent paths to any other point, and to the Internet.
Current plans are for the system to be operated by a cooperative, which will offer access on a wholesale basis to last-mile Internet service providers and major institutional customers.
CCBC system map
CCBC's CASF and associated federal stimulus grant applications are managed by Tellus Venture Associates, which also does the financial planning and budgeting for the project. In August, the CCBC submitted a proposal for a $40 million grant to the National Telecommunications and Information Administration's (NTIA) Broadband Technology Opportunities Program (BTOP) and the Rural Utility Service's (RUS) Broadband Initiatives Program. The remaining $5 million has already been committed by consortium members.
CPUC's approval follows endorsements by California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger and congressman Sam Farr, who represents the three county region. NTIA and RUS are reviewing the grant proposal, with a decision expected next month.
The project would create a 428 mile fiber optic backbone linking unserved and underserved areas to better served communities, and connecting the entire region to Tier 1 Internet facilities in Silicon Valley. Using a loop architecture, any point on the network would have two independent paths to any other point, and to the Internet.
Current plans are for the system to be operated by a cooperative, which will offer access on a wholesale basis to last-mile Internet service providers and major institutional customers.
Comments (2)
Two big endorsements for major Central Coast broadband project
California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger and California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) staff have signed off on a 428 mile fiber optic trunk project for Santa Cruz, Monterey and San Benito counties on California's Central Coast. These approvals make it more likely that the project will receive federal stimulus money through the National Telecommunications and Information Administration's (NTIA) Broadband Technology Opportunities Program (BTOP).
The Central Coast Broadband Consortium (CCBC) applied for grants to the CPUC's California Advanced Services Fund and BTOP in August. In round numbers, CCBC asked for $40 million from NTIA and $5 million from the CPUC, with the remaining $5 million coming from local agencies and organizations.
BTOP grants only fund 80% of proposed projects. A special law passed by the California legislature in August allows the CPUC to contribute 10%, if proposals also meet state funding requirements for unserved and underserved areas. CPUC staff reviewed the CCBC proposal, determining that it is a qualified and viable project and recommending that the commission approve it at its next meeting on 20 November 2009. Matching funds for other California broadband stimulus projects will also be considered then.
NTIA sent all 176 California requests to the governor's office for review. The governor endorsed 64, of which 30 were for broadband infrastructure projects (the remainder were public computer center and "sustainable broadband adoption" proposals). The next step is for NTIA to determine if the CCBC application meets its initial screening criteria and is eligible to move to the second, more intensive due diligence stage of review. That decision is expected within the next couple of weeks.
Tellus Venture Associates did the financial planning for the CCBC project, creating plans and budgets for the construction and operational phases, preparing the required financial documents for NTIA and the CPUC and developing sources for matching requirements and other funding needs. Tellus Venture Associates also managed the application process for the CCBC, identified and documented eligible service areas and, along with the City of Watsonville, Blue Pacific Computer, the Monterey County Business Council and other CCBC members, did the necessary economic and demographic analysis to support the application.
California State University, Monterey Bay was the lead agency for the application, filing it on behalf of the CCBC. CSUMB's Wireless Education and Technology Center is the host organization for the CCBC, playing the central role in creating, organizing and shepherding this community based initiative.
The Central Coast Broadband Consortium (CCBC) applied for grants to the CPUC's California Advanced Services Fund and BTOP in August. In round numbers, CCBC asked for $40 million from NTIA and $5 million from the CPUC, with the remaining $5 million coming from local agencies and organizations.
BTOP grants only fund 80% of proposed projects. A special law passed by the California legislature in August allows the CPUC to contribute 10%, if proposals also meet state funding requirements for unserved and underserved areas. CPUC staff reviewed the CCBC proposal, determining that it is a qualified and viable project and recommending that the commission approve it at its next meeting on 20 November 2009. Matching funds for other California broadband stimulus projects will also be considered then.
NTIA sent all 176 California requests to the governor's office for review. The governor endorsed 64, of which 30 were for broadband infrastructure projects (the remainder were public computer center and "sustainable broadband adoption" proposals). The next step is for NTIA to determine if the CCBC application meets its initial screening criteria and is eligible to move to the second, more intensive due diligence stage of review. That decision is expected within the next couple of weeks.
Tellus Venture Associates did the financial planning for the CCBC project, creating plans and budgets for the construction and operational phases, preparing the required financial documents for NTIA and the CPUC and developing sources for matching requirements and other funding needs. Tellus Venture Associates also managed the application process for the CCBC, identified and documented eligible service areas and, along with the City of Watsonville, Blue Pacific Computer, the Monterey County Business Council and other CCBC members, did the necessary economic and demographic analysis to support the application.
California State University, Monterey Bay was the lead agency for the application, filing it on behalf of the CCBC. CSUMB's Wireless Education and Technology Center is the host organization for the CCBC, playing the central role in creating, organizing and shepherding this community based initiative.