HomeMy WebLinkAboutICTC Agenda and Packet 2017-04-24
AGENDA
IOWA CITY TELECOMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
CITY CABLE TV OFFICE, 10 S. LINN ST., TOWER PLACE PARKING FACILITY, LEVEL 3A
APRIL 24, 2017, 5:30PM
1. Call to order
2. Approval of March 27, 2017 meeting minutes
3. Announcements of Commissioners
4. Short public announcements
5. REPORTS
Consumer Issues
Mediacom Report
Local Access Reports
City Cable TV Office Report
6. Municipal broadband feasibility
7. Adjournment
DRAFT
MINUTES
Iowa City Telecommunications Commission
March 27, 2017 – 5:30 P.M.
City of Iowa City Cable TV Office, 10 S. Linn St. - Tower Place, LEVEL 3A
Call to Order:Meeting called to order at 5:35 P.M.
Members Present:Nick Kilburg, Laura Bergus, Paul Gowder
Members Absent:Derek Johnk
Staff Present:Ty Coleman
Others Present:Gerardo Sandoval, Bond Drager
Recommendations to Council : NONE
Approval of Minutes:
Bergus moved and Kilburg seconded a motion to approve the January 23, 2017 minutes
as presented. The motion passed unanimously.
Announcements of Commissioners:
None
Short Public Announcements:
None
Consumer Issues:
Coleman noted that he had included complaints from January and February in the
meeting packet. Coleman noted that a number of the complaints reported in January
were in connection with outages that had taken place.
Kilburg noted one complaint where Lee Grassley had provided information about outage
times and found it to be useful. Coleman referred to the report of Mediacom’s outages in
2016 and asked if anyone had questions. Coleman said he noticed that for one of the
outages, the duration did not seem to match according to the dates listed for it and that he
would need to look into it further to understand the data. Coleman said he wasn’t certain
of the threshold used for the report in terms of the size of the outage, but noted he had
asked Lee Grassley for a report of the major outages that occurred in Iowa City in 2016.
Coleman noted that there was only one complaint received in February. Gowder said he
wasn’t sure what to make of the cluster of remarks about Mediacom’s market power and
the perceived monopoly. Coleman said that an outage often compels customers to
contact the City’s Cable TV Office. Coleman also said that there is a greater chance that
1
DRAFT
those who call his office to file complaints have some awareness that the City has an
agreement with the cable company, though many aren’t aware that the franchise
agreement is non-exclusive.
Coleman reiterated that the cluster of these types of complaints is likely due to the
outages.
Mediacom Report:
Coleman said he hadn’t recently touched base with Mediacom’s Lee Grassley and noted
that he hadn’t received any information from Grassley to report to the Commission.
Coleman stated that he inquired with the City’s Legal Department and the City Clerk’s
office about whether Mediacom had returned the letter of credit that is required as part of
the local franchise and learned that neither office had seen it. Coleman said he asked
Grassley to look into the matter.
Local Access Reports:
Sandoval said that he had wondered about what would happen after 2018 with regards to
the Commission, the Public Access Television (PATV) channel, and PATV’s role, stating
that he hoped for PATV to continue its services. Sandoval said PATV is thinking about
how to reinvent itself, with the possibility of providing additional media and technology
services. Sandoval noted that PATV owns the property in which it resides and said there
could be a possibility of partnering with another non-profit organization to create a bigger
center and providing other services. Sandoval said he had experience with starting a
non-profit in California called Digital NEST (Nurturing Entrepreneurs Through Science
and Technology). Sandoval said he feels this kind of service isn’t currently accessible to
the Iowa City community.
Sandoval said PATV is thinking about fundraisers and other ways to raise money to
sustain itself as a non-profit and to continue its public access mission. Sandoval said a
beer tasting event had recently taken place at Beadology to support the Iowa Dance
Week. Sandoval said the event went well and that local brewers donated their products.
Sandoval said PATV’s next fundraising event is called “I Drag for PATV,” for which
people will donate to see participants drag at the event to be held at Studio.
Sandoval reported that PATV staff had been contracted to provide production support for
a recent culinary challenge event using three cameras, switching live, and projecting
content onto a screen. Sandoval said that PATV was able to use its equipment to support
a major production event, larger in scope than other projects PATV had previously taken
on, and that the production went well.
Sandoval said that people are learning about television production and are showing up to
produce shows at PATV and that things are going well.
Gowder asked if PATV had considered working with the local entrepreneurial incubator
2
DRAFT
crowd. Sandoval said he had spoken with Mark Nolte of ICAD and the CEO and
president of ImOn and noted that they have pointed him towards other business contacts
with whom to consider connecting. Sandoval said that he would present more as
partnerships develop. Bergus commended Sandoval and PATV for being proactive and
positive.
Coleman asked who contracted with PATV for the culinary challenge production work
Sandoval had mentioned. Sandoval said it was done for the University and was part of a
conference involving an association of university chefs. Sandoval said the culinary
challenge portion of the conference featured nine chefs from nine universities and was
similar to culinary challenge programs often seen on TV.
Drager said that the Library was not worried about changes that would come with the
expiration of the City’s franchise with Mediacom in 2018. Drager said some Library
staff were not aware of the changing franchise, but said that changes have been expected.
Drager said the Library Channel had been developing its online video presence in order
to ensure that the Library can continue to get video programs to the public and that
Library administration has stated there would continue to have a purpose for video
production at the Library.
Coleman clarified that when the local franchise expires and moves to a state-issued
franchise, the access channels will continue.
City Cable TV Office Report:
Coleman said that he and two of the Commission members did not end up attending the
ImOn luncheon event referred to at a previous meeting, as recommended by Legal staff,
to avoid any perception of City representatives being influenced by the business.
Coleman said his office would be sending two of its staff to a regional conference hosted
by Wisconsin Community Media and the Alliance for Community Media - Midwest.
Coleman said that Jack Brooks and Joel Bouwers would be attending the sessions to learn
from presenters. Coleman also said that Brooks had won two Excellence Awards in the
Best of the Midwest video contest for work on the Iowa City Update and Iowa City In
Focus program series. Coleman said that these programs have become flagship programs
for the City and that Brooks had done a great job of continuing to develop and improve
the shows by trying out new ideas since joining the staff last August.
Municipal Broadband Feasibility:
Gowder asked for an update regarding a meeting with City Council. Coleman said a
meeting date would be scheduled in the coming months. Bergus said the Commission
needs to know what kind of information the Council is looking for, noting that the issue
came up as a reaction to a request for funding that appeared not to be fully informed.
Bergus said that the Council’s discussion included a desire to hear from the volunteer
members of the Telecommunications Commission before any decision would be made to
spend City money to investigate the topic. Bergus said she vaguely recalled a task force
3
DRAFT
created in the early 2000’s to look at the issue, which included Mediacom, the University
of Iowa, the City of Iowa City, SouthSlope, and presumably Coralville and North
Liberty. Bergus said she recalled that Steve Fleagle had provided input to the City on the
feasibility of a municipal broadband network. Bergus said she recalled learning that Iowa
City is different than many communities in that it has a lot of fiber in the ground owned
by many entities that is not well coordinated. Bergus recalled learning that municipal
broadband would require a citywide build-out or rental of existing facilities from entities
who may be better positioned to provide services. Bergus said a lot has likely changed
since that time.
Bergus also referred to when Google Fiber was a topic of discussion and believed that the
application process was investigated and that reasons were identified for Iowa City not
being a good fit for the program, which may have had to do with the University already
providing robust services and infrastructure. Gowder asked whether records of these
discussions were available for the Commission’s review prior to meeting with the City
Council.
Bergus asked to find out what the Council wants to know. Gowder said the Commission
should also consider what it wants the Council to know about the topic. Bergus said her
gut feeling was that at the time of the two mentioned discussions, a municipal broadband
system did not make sense for Iowa City. However, Bergus questioned what might have
changed since then that would potentially change the analysis of the proposal. Bergus
said providing the Council information an example of what the cost might look like,
using another community’s experience, would be beneficial. Gowder asked if the City
could request a basic overview of the creation of the system in Cedar Falls. Coleman
agreed that it would make sense to contact the City of Cedar Falls. Coleman also said his
office could search for Telecommunications Commission records where the topic was
discussed and any records referring to the discussions mentioned by Bergus. Bergus
recalled that the discussion involving area stakeholders consisted of a couple of meetings
and that efforts did not continue following the meetings.
Kilburg asked about the timeframe for meeting with the City Council about the issue.
Coleman said there would be sufficient time to gather information and continue the
discussion amongst the Commission before a meeting with Council would take place.
Gowder suggested that the Commission may need to hold a special work session of its
own in advance of meeting with the City Council, once commission members have had a
chance to review relevant information, in order to agree upon a coordinated set of
recommendations. Coleman recalled the document created by a law student that was
referred to in the Council’s February 7, 2017 work session and meeting packet and
suggested that the Commission review it and the Council’s discussion about it. Coleman
said he would send the related documents to the Commission. Bergus said that
commission members may wish to research the topic individually in order to educate
themselves.
4
DRAFT
Adjournment:
Kilburg moved and Bergus seconded a motion to adjourn. The motion passed
unanimously. Adjournment was at 6:10 p.m.
5
April 21, 2017
To: Iowa City Telecommunications Commission
From: Ty Coleman, Media Production Services Coordinator (MPSC)
Re: Consumer Issues Report - March 2017
1.)
Date: 03/17/17
Method of contact: Phone call
Complaint/Comment Summary:
A property owner, who is not a Mediacom customer, reported that Mediacom had installed a power supply box in a lot adjacent
to his home that he had purchased over five years ago to use as green space. The property owner wondered if they had the
right to put the above-ground equipment in that location. A Mediacom representative told the property owner that the box is in
an easement, giving the company the right to put its equipment in it for the purpose of providing services to residents.
Resolution Summary:
MPSC inquired about the location of easements on the property with the City’s Engineering Division, who reported that there
were, in fact, utility easements adjacent to both of the property owner’s lots, giving Mediacom the right to install its equipment,
whether underground or above ground. MPSC reported the information to the customer. The customer said he would be
checking with Mediacom directly to see if there was anything that could be done to change the situation. No further
communication was received by the MPSC from the property owner.
Date of Resolution: 03/17/17
2.)
Date: 03/20/17
Method of contact: Phone call
Complaint/Comment Summary:
A DirectTV customer complained that Mediacom’s channel lineup did not include Fox Sports Midwest, which features St. Louis
Cardinals baseball games.
Resolution Summary:
This resident had contacted the MPSC in August 2016 with the same comment, saying that he would switch to cable if
Mediacom offered coverage of the St. Louis Cardinals. MPSC checked again with Mediacom’s Lee Grassley to see if the
channel was or would be offered. Grassley reported that the Major League Baseball organization determines what carriers get
what team coverage, saying that Iowa City falls into the Chicago Cubs area, and that Mediacom does not have control over it.
MPSC reported the information to the resident.
Date of Resolution: 03/21/17
3.)
Date: 03/30/17
Method of contact: Emaill
Complaint/Comment Summary:
Customer in a newly-built townhome reported that the pedestal to which her cable is supposed to be connected was installed
between two driveways, on the neighboring lot, rather than her own lot. Customer said she had tried to work with Mediacom
directly, as had her builder, and the pedestal was supposed to be moved in July 2016, prior to her move-in date. Customer
was concerned because the temporary fix included a cable line being run on the lawn for some distance, becoming a hazard
for children and lawn mowers.
Resolution Summary:
MPSC investigated the issue with Mediacom’s Tim Eagen, Regional Construction Manager. Eagen reported that the project to
move the pedestal had been approved and that it would be complete by April 15, 2017. The customer reported that the
pedestal had been moved as of April 13 and she now is waiting for the cable to be buried.
Date of Resolution: 04/13/17
The Library Channel
Report prepared for the Iowa City Telecommunications Commission monthly meeting by Beth Fisher,
Program Librarian and Bond Drager, Equipment Specialist. April 2017
April 2017:
April brought an author reading from Thomas Frank, who presented a talk about his newest book,
“Listen Liberal”. Other adult programming this month includes full coverage of the Mission Creek Art +
Life + Technology speaker series, a live podcast recording of The Window featuring Dan Lerner, an
Obermann Conversation on the making of Hot Tamale Louie with John Rapson, and a special Poetry
Month Event on Memories of the Chicago Barrio and Readings in Latino Poetry.
For children, we are broadcasting several staff storytimes this month plus a program on Animal
Adoption and a special presentation from local group 100 Grannies for Earth Day.
Monthly Program Update:
This month: April 2017 Next Month: May 2016
Live Children’s Programs • 5 • 3
Live Adult Programs • 8 • 9
Programs Cablecast • 668 •
Programs videotaped by
Govt. Channel/CTS
• 2 •
PATV Report to Iowa City Telecommunications Commission April 2017
April has seen a host of interested members of our community who are almost ready to produce new
shows from yudo sports show to live musical acts. We received two awards from The Best of the
Midwest Media Festival. Award of Excellence for PATV In Your Neighborhood Jazz Fest 2016 and
Award of Achievement for Bike Library PSA.
PATV Board Meetings
PATV Board of Directors next meeting May 18th, at 6 pm.
Intro Workshop
Guidelines orientation is the first Thursday of every month, 6 pm at PATV or online @ www.patv.tv
Next Guidelines is Thursday, May. 4th at 6 PM.
Video Workshops Schedule
Studio Training – The second Tuesday of the month from 5 – 7 pm.
HD Camera – The third Thursday of the month from 6 –8 pm.
Digital Editing – The fourth Thursday of the month from 6 - 8 pm.
Current and upcoming staff supported productions
Little Lady President
Nora’s House of Dance
Education Exchange
The Joseph Dobrian Show
Hello it’s us
Time For Soup
GreenFire
The LyleStyle Show
PATV Presents: Thursday Night Live at Uptown Bills
Tom’s Guitar Show
Time for truth
Submitted by Gerardo Sandoval 4/19/17
206 Lafayette St. • Iowa City, Iowa 52240 • Phone 338-7035
Fax 338-8456 • contact@patv.tv • http://www.patv.tv
Date: April 20, 2017
To: The Iowa City Telecommunications Commission
From: Ty Coleman, Media Production Services Coordinator, City of Iowa City Cable TV Office
Re: City of Iowa City Cable TV Office report for the April 2017 meeting
Media Production Services
Provided by Joel Bouwers, Media Production Asst. and Jack Brooks, Special Projects Asst.
Recent production activities:
●Covered 4 Iowa City Foreign Relations Council lectures discussing topics such as the
country Jordan and women’s health in poor countries.
●Recorded and cablecast live the Iowa City City Council work sessions and formal
meetings of April 4 and 18.
●Recorded the Iowa City City Council’s Economic Development Committee meetings of
April 5 and 14.
●Covered a lecture by the Geneva Lecture Series titled “Exhausted from Your
Insta-Snap-Tweet-texting Life? Sociological & Theological Reflections on Technology.”
●Recorded the keynote speaker of Bur Oak Land Trust’s 34th annual “Prairie Preview” on
the topic of wild bees in Iowa.
●Covered the Community Police Review Board Annual Community Forum.
●Recorded an event held by the Imam Mahdi organization discussing Islam in the Bible.
●Shot and produced three episodes of Iowa City Update. Topics included spring hydrant
flushing, Washington Street construction, and Mercer Park Renovations.
●Created an April edition of Iowa City In Focus. Topics included the Riverfront Crossings
District, Compost at the Curb, Free Wheels, and why the streets division uses beet juice
on road salt.
●Completed two Community Highlights videos on the Polar Plunge and National
Bookmobile Day.
Upcoming productions:
●Cover 3 Iowa City Foreign Relations Council lectures discussing topics such as
contemporary immigration concerns and exploring the world of 3-D design.
●Record and cablecast live the Iowa City City Council work sessions and formal meetings
of May 2 and 16.
●Record the Iowa City Human Rights Commission’s Youth Awards Ceremony.
●Continue weekly episodes of Iowa City Update. Upcoming topics include the Farmers
Market, park construction projects and Building Business Basics workshop.
●Iowa City In Focus for May will include the following topics: an officer who has worked
50-years for the ICPD, defensive tactics training, Table to Table, and the Summer of the
Arts 2017 lineup.
●Upcoming Community Highlight videos will include the Craft Your Environment event and
STEAM Fest.
Programming and Interactive Services
Provided by Kevin Crawley, Communications Technician
Recent and upcoming projects:
We're still working on our new voice-driven InfoVision app on channel 5. Changes at Google
necessitated a series of software upgrades, and we're still waiting for Apple to come out with new
hardware. We are still working on a phone/web app that will allow users to request InfoVision
videos without phone calls. I've also made some progress on our next website -- navigation,
headers, and footers have all pretty much been worked out, so now it's mostly just a matter of
re-encoding the actual content to work within the new framework. It is my idea of a good time,
but development time can be hard to fit in with the day to day updates
Website:
In March, we had 2,054 users access 3,896 pages in 3,063 sessions. Our most popular pages
were Mediacom's channel lineup, our video page, Mediacom's cable rates, our home page, our
program schedule, the One Book Two Book program, and City Council series page.
Our streaming media provider reports 11,673 total hits, which includes 6,195 Events (player
window was loaded), 508 Sessions (media was played), and 3,767 OnDemand Hits (media was
scrubbed or index point was clicked). 1,094 podcasts were downloaded, and our HQ media was
accessed 103 times. Our live stream was accessed 633 times.
On YouTube, we had 3,467 views, accounting for 13,722 minutes of viewing time. Our
most-watched programs there were the two most recent episodes of Iowa City In Focus, the
University Heights City Council February meeting, the Iowa City Foreign Relations Council
program with Doug Jones, an Obermann Conversations program, and the Black Entrepreneurs
Roundtable discussion taped in August 2016. Our total subscribers increased by 13 to reach
145.
Programming:
We cablecast 141 programs produced in-house 903 times for 553 hours of programming, 39
locally-produced (DITV, Senior Center, Hoover Library, JC Board of Supervisors, Coralville, North
Liberty and University Heights) programs 116 times for 133 hours of programming, and 22
imported programs 71 times for 29 hours of programming. We also showed 98 PSAs 1100 times
for 22 hours of programming.
Programs Completed by the Cable TV Office in March 2017
●One Book Two Book Children's Literature Festival 2017
○Once Upon a Time
○Write Out Loud!
●Iowa City Foreign Relations Council
○Health, Wealth, and Waste: Social Entrepreneurship in Global Health and
Beyond
○The Election of 2016: Was It Hacked?
○Bushido (Samurai Spirit) in Modern Japanese Culture, Sports and Military
○Jordan: People, Culture, Challenges
●2017 Preucil School of Music Orchestra Festival
●2017 NAMIWalks Kickoff Luncheon
●Discussion of Current Events in Our School District
●Iowa City Noon Rotary: Rotarian Action Group for Clubfoot
●Iowa City City Council Formal Meeting
○March 7
○March 21
●Iowa City City Council Work Session
○March 7
○March 21
●Know Your Rights - Spousal and Partner Abuse Laws and Resources
●Economic Development Committee Meeting of 3/23/17
●City Channel 4 Weekly Highlights
○Week of March 27
○Week of April 3
●Iowa City In Focus for March 2017
○Stories included:
■An in-depth interview with new Police Chief Jody Matherly
■The City’s water purification process
■Traffic study on disproportionate contact with minorities
■Late night food truck pilot program
●Iowa City Update
○Spring Street Sweeping
○Curbside Compost Program
○Severe Weather Awareness Week
○Food Truck Pilot Program
●Community Highlights
○One Book Two Book
○Polar Plunge
●PSA
○Five-part series called Composting 101 to educate residents on the process of
the new curbside compost program
○PSA on the Iowa City/Johnson County weather alert system to educate the public
about the different weather events that cause the sirens to sound
○PSA on the Spring Art Expose
○PSA promoting the Garden as Your Classroom event
Late Handouts Distributed
P
0
To: Council
From: Rockne Cole (Date)
Re: Budget Request for Municipal Broadband Feasibility Stu F—,
Date: February 3, 2017 --'
Councilor Botchway and I would like to seek authorization for a feasibility
study for municipal broadband. We have been receiving multiple complaints about
quality and cost the level of service currently being provided, and believe now is
the time to evaluate whether municipal broadband could provide the solution that
we need. This should not be construed as a comment on any particular provider.
Some provide great service at a high cost. Others provide great service at
reasonable cost. Others provide bad service at high cost. We understand that there
is a healthy debate as to whether a municipal service is the solution, or whether we
should continue on with the current path. We do not believe that is possible to
resolve that debate without a study to evaluate the feasibility of municipal
broadband; its potential cost, and as well as its potential benefits. If the study
ultimately determines that municipal broadband as not feasible, perhaps that could
also lead to a constructive discussion about the way to improve service and cost of
providing the service in the private sector.
I am attaching a research paper by students at the University of Iowa Legal
Clinic in abridged form. The full 10 page paper is available upon request. It
contains a compelling case for municipal broadband as well as a candid discussion
about the potential drawbacks. We would both like to thank the University of Iowa
Legal Clinic, and its students Deanna Steinbach and Sebastian Rouanet for this
well researched paper. I have also attached a summary of costs and services
provided by Paul Betke, a local Iowa City resident who prepared a research paper
on this topic. I also would like to thank Mr. Betke for letting us use part of his
research paper.
Following our January Budget Session, I asked Geoff Fruin for his initial
thoughts about this, and he gave me this Reply.
No study has been completed. I believe there is sufficient private
completion building in the market that will improve service levels,
cost and ultimately customer choice. If Council wants to proceed with
a study you will need to be clear in the scope of the study you are
seeking. The council should also be cognizant of the impact that a
study might have on those companies improving their network or
planning to expand their network in the near future. I would guess
you will need $50-100k for a study and you should expect a required
city investment to build such a network in the tens of millions if not
100 million plus. I believe any study should project out how
technology is changing as I think there is a good chance this industry
will be significantly disrupted by new technology in the next decade."
We understand that this may be a subject worthy of a full separate work session,
but wanted to raise this during budget review process to ensure adequate funding
for the feasibility study if we obtain final authorization for the study.
N0
r rTI
4
r
NO
J
CD
ca
I. Overview of Broadband Technologies -`:
7r- r —1i
Before jumping into the positive aspects of municipal networks we %Wliddisss some of
the common terms used in discussing broadband intemet. Broadband is delivered iq-*ee
primary ways: DSL, Cable and Fiber. "DSL" refers to a network utilizing pre-existing copper
telephone wires to transmit data.' "Cable" refers to using the "coaxial cables" also used to
transmit cable programming. "Fiber" is the newest and most advanced method, which uses light
to transmit data, usually faster than the previous two methods.3 Many newer broadband projects
Fiber to the Premises" networks, which is fiber optic cable to that transmits the data to
individual consumers
II. Benefits
A municipal broadband network can provide many important benefits for Iowa City.
Municipal broadband networks have provided positive economic benefits to other communities
through consumer cost savings, job creation and business relocation. Municipal broadband
projects have also benefitted schools through cost savings and providing high-speed broadband
connectivity, which has the potential to improve the educational tools available to schools. Iowa
City has the potential to achieve these benefits through a municipal broadband network.
Consumer and Community Savings
The costs of broadband intemet access are often a barrier for lower-income persons.' In
2010, 36% of households without home broadband connection "pointed to expense as the major
barrier."6 When a municipality implements a successful broadband network the community
benefits, through customer and community savings.
One way for municipal broadband networks to lower consumer costs is to stimulate
market competition among intemet service providers (ISPs).s For example, municipalities can
invest in building network infrastructure in order to lower costs for alternative ISPs to enter the
market or for local governments to provide their own broadband intemet services.9 This means
that the government can take an active role in creating consumer savings by helping to create the
conditions for fair competition among broadband providers.1) In this option Iowa City would use
its capital to help build infrastructure that would make the market more accessible to a new
private provider.
Another way that municipal broadband networks have lowered consumer broadband
costs is through publically owned networks competing with private broadband providers. For
example, Lafayette, LA was able to offer prices twenty percent below that of their private
competitor by creating a fiber optic network run as a wholly public utility under a retail model."
This also drove down the cost charged by the main ?rivate provider in the area and saved the
customers of the private provider about $4 million.' The decrease in the price of municipal
broadband likely increased availability of high-speed intemet, which would have allowed lower-
income households greater access to the internet.13 An additional benefit that comes from
competitiveness in the market is that it incentivizes private companies to increase the quality of
their product. 14 This was the case in Lafayette when its private competitor, Cox, decided that this
competitive community should be the first to receive SOMbps speed from the private provider.15
The increase market competition created by the introduction of a municipal network can drive
both public and private prices for the services down and increase the availability of this vital
resource to low-income households.
Benefits to Schools
Schools benefit from municipal broadband networks in several ways. Municipal networks
have lowered intemet costs for schools in other communities. There is also evidence showing
that high-speed broadband access for schools can improve educational experiences for students.
Through a municipal network, Iowa City could improve its school system by providing better
quality intemet at faster speeds, and increasing educational outcomes all while saving money.
Municipal broadband lowers prices for individual customers in addition to lowering
intemet costs for schools. 16 Both Lafayette and Santa Monica experienced these benefits because
of their implementation of a municipal broadband network and they are not the only cities. 17
Some two additional examples are Martinsville and The City of Greenacres. 18
Santa Monica, Martinsville, and The City of Greenacres all experienced savings while
securing high-speed intemet for their schools through their implementation of municipal
networks.' Santa Monica, CA operates a public-private model whereby they operate the network
that serves their municipal buildings in conjunction with the local school district and college. 20
By providing for their own broadband needs "instead of purchasing commercial services, within
a few years of operation the three local partners were saving a combined $500,000 annually on
their telecommunication service budgets.i21 Additionally, "Martinsville, VA saves
approximately $140,000 on telephone services alone by self -provisioning services."22 Lastly, the
City of Greenacres, FL, "saves over $24,000 a year," while increasing speeds six times by
switching to their own county -owned broadband network 23
Just as a municipal network can help to lower costs and increase accessibility for low-
income individuals, municipal networks can also act to help connect low-income and
underserved schools through offering lower prices24 Increasing this access is important for a
student's education because children without access to intemet at home and at school will not
learn essential computer skills and fall behind in technological and computer literacy compared
to their more wealthy counterparts. 5
Municipal broadband networks can also help provide better educational tools for schools.
Broadband connectivity for schools has the potential to develop more interactive tools to engage
students as well as provide for more individualized learning experiences. 6 Specifically,
municipal broadband networks have given students these benefits. Cedar Falls' fiber municiP,al
network is wired to its school districts giving schools high-speed broadband intemet access.
Iowa City could increase the quality of intemet their schools receive and cease relying on private
providers to provide for their students' education. a
Economic Benefits and Growth "
tlLJ
C-) 1'
1n w
Mrn
2710
naW
Municipal broadband projects have resulted in several types of economic benefits. One
type of community benefit is the potential for added community jobs, through construction and
customer service jobs, as well as infrastructure maintenance and repair .28 The community also
benefits because the money that they are paying for their intemet service stays in the community
to pay for local jobs and is not paid to a private provider which generally has a lesser number of
local employees. 29 Iowa City could be missing out on these economic opportunities by not
exploring the option of a municipal broadband network.
Bristol, Virginia, a city of over 17,000 people, experienced many of these benefits after
creating their broadband network. Bristol began planning a fiber optic ring in 1999, and began
connecting municipal buildings such as schools in 2000 and the infrastructure to connect
businesses and homes in 2002 30 Implementing a public utility structured as a retail entity saved
their community an estimated total of $2 million on the cost of intemet and a total savings across
cable, phone, and intemet services of "just under $10 million."31 Additionally, a 2007 report
stated that at that time the Bristol Virginia Utility's (BVU) investments had created 1,220 jobs,
which BVU later updated to over 2,000 jobs in following years. 2
Additionally, in 2001, Lake County, Florida began offering private businesses access to
its municipal broadband network, which had fiber connections to hospitals, schools, and other
businesses. 33 An econometric study of Lake County's municipal broadband system found that
economic growth in Lake County doubled in relation to peer counties since offering network
access to other entities. 4 These results indicate that opening a publicly owned municipal
broadband network to private entities can spur significant economic growth in the community.
There is also evidence showing that municipal broadband networks encourage economic
development through attracting businesses to relocate to the local municipality. For example,
there is evidence that municipal "Fiber to the Home" (FTTH) systems, which means providing
broadband service directly to the home through fiber) attract new businesses. 35This attraction
occurs because these businesses believe that they can do business online more efficiently as well
as increasing the ease of employees working from home. 6 Iowa City could save money and
generate new businesses and jobs for its community through municipal broadband adoption.
Financial Obstacles
Municipal broadband projects can be expensive to create and manage, and some critics
point to specific projects to demonstrate failures in public fiscal responsibility. For example,
critics argue that Lafayette's fiber program is 30% short of its revenue projection and $160
million in debt 37 However, proponents argue that Lafayette's market entry to provide broadband
services helped keep private ISP rates stable and create cost savings for consumers .38 Moreover,
significant financial challenges exist when municipalities use the retail model and compete with
private providers. In the retail model, market penetration and competition against well-
established incumbent private providers (ISP) are significant challenges. 39
0
However, there is a wealth of resources, both private and governmental, available for
municipalities looking to start broadband projects to use in order to overcome financial hurdles.
First, the federal government has many grant programs that fund broadband'projecis that
rj
3 ®'
3
accomplish specific policy purposes ranging from increasing rural access to the internet,
increasing economic development, and improving school and library facilities. 40 Next, technical
assistance such as workshops, guides and publications are available from both the federal
government and non-governmental organizations. These resources discuss funding methods,
potential challenges and roadblocks, and general strategies for implementing a municipal
broadband system. 41 While there will always be financial risks in pursuing municipal broadband
projects, there are numerous avenues of support for municipalities looking to overcome this
hurdle.
1 See THE ART OF THE POSSIBLE: AN OVERVIEW OF PUBLIC BROADBAND OPTIONS, NEW
AMERICAN FOUNDATION 15 (2014).
2 See THE ART OF THE POSSIBLE: AN OVERVIEW OF PUBLIC BROADBAND OPTIONS, NEW
AMERICAN FOUNDATION 16 (2014).
3 See THE ART OF THE POSSIBLE: AN OVERVIEW OF PUBLIC BROADBAND OPTIONS, NEW
AMERICAN FOUNDATION 18-9 (2014).
4 See THE ART OF THE POSSIBLE: AN OVERVIEW OF PUBLIC BROADBAND OPTIONS, NEW
AMERICAN FOUNDATION 18-9 (2014).
5 See SPEED MATTERS: BENEFITS OF BROADBAND, COMMUNICATION WORKERS OF AMERICA 5, 10
2010).
See COMMUNITY-BASED BROADBAND SOLUTIONS, supra note 1, at 9.
7 See CHRISTOPHER MITCHELL, BROADBAND AT THE SPEED OF LIGHT: HOW THREE COMMUNITIES
BUILD NEXT -GENERATION NETWORKS 11 (2012).
8 See COMMUNITY-BASED BROADBAND SOLUTIONS: THE BENEFITS OF COMPETITION AND CHOICE
FOR COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND HIGHSPEED INTERNET ACCESS, THE EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF
THE PRESIDENT, 11 (2015).
9 See COMMUNITY-BASED BROADBAND SOLUTIONS, supra note 1, at 13.
10 See COMMUNITY-BASED BROADBAND SOLUTIONS: THE BENEFITS OF COMPETITION AND
CHOICE FOR COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND HIGHSPEED INTERNET ACCESS, THE EXECUTIVE
OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT, 11 (2015).
11 See CHRISTOPHER MITCHELL, BROADBAND AT THE SPEED OF LIGHT: HOW THREE
COMMUNITIES BUILD NEXT -GENERATION NETWORKS 26-7 (2012).
12 CHRISTOPHER MITCHELL, BROADBAND AT THE SPEED OF LIGHT: HOW THREE COMMUNITIES
BUILD NEXT -GENERATION NETWORKS 27 (2012).
13 SEE CHRISTOPHER MITCHELL, BROADBAND AT THE SPEED OF LIGHT: HOW THREE
COMMUNITIES BUILDNEXT-GENERATION NETWORKS 27 (2012).
14 See CHRISTOPHER MITCHELL, BROADBAND AT THE SPEED OF LIGHT: HOW THREE
COMMUNITIES BUILD NEXT -GENERATION NETWORKS 29 (2012).
15 See CHRISTOPHER MITCHELL, BROADBAND AT THE SPEED OF LIGHT: HOW THREE
COMMUNITIES BUILD NEXT -GENERATION NETWORKS 29 (2012).
16 See THE ART OF THE POSSIBLE: AN OVERVIEW OF PUBLIC BROADBAND OPTIONS, NEW
AMERICAN FOUNDATION 27 (2014).
17 See THE ART OF THE POSSIBLE: AN OVERVIEW OF PUBLIC BROADBAND OPTIONS, NEW
AMERICAN FOUNDATION 27 (2014); CHRISTOPHER MITCHELL, BROADBAND AT THE SSD OF
LIGHT: HOW THREE COMMUNITIES BUILD NEXT -GENERATION NETWORKS 26-7120121;",
C--) -C.
4
ra
18 See THE ART OF THE POSSIBLE: AN OVERVIEW OF PUBLIC BROADBAND OPTIONS, NEW
AMERICAN FOUNDATION 27 (2014).
19 See THE ART OF THE POSSIBLE: AN OVERVIEW OF PUBLIC BROADBAND OPTIONS, NEW
AMERICAN FOUNDATION 27 (2014).
20 See LAMPLAND AND MITCHELL, supra note 23, at 7-8, 15, 17.
21 THE ART OF THE POSSIBLE: AN OVERVIEW OF PUBLIC BROADBAND OPTIONS, NEW AMERICAN
FOUNDATION 27 (2014).
22 THE ART OF THE POSSIBLE: AN OVERVIEW OF PUBLIC BROADBAND OPTIONS, NEW AMERICAN
FOUNDATION 27 (2014).
23 THE ART OF THE POSSIBLE: AN OVERVIEW OF PUBLIC BROADBAND OPTIONS, NEW AMERICAN
FOUNDATION 27 (2014).
24 See SPEED MATTERS: BENEFITS OF BROADBAND, COMMUNICATION WORKERS OF AMERICA 5
2010).
25 See SPEED MATTERS: BENEFITS OF BROADBAND, COMMUNICATION WORKERS OF AMERICA 10
2010).
26 See generally CHARLES M. DAVIDSON AND MICHAEL J. SANTORELLI, THE IMPACT OF
BROADBAND ON EDUCATION, U.S. CHAMBER OF COMMERCE (2010).
27 See DORIS J. KELLEY, A STUDY OF THE ECONOMIC AND COMMUNITY BENEFITS OF CEDAR
FALLS, IOWA'S MUNICIPAL TELECOMMUNICATIONS NETWORK (2004).
28 See CHRISTOPHER MITCHELL, BROADBAND AT THE SPEED OF LIGHT: HOW THREE
COMMUNITIES BUILD NEXT -GENERATION NETWORKS 11 (2012).
29 See CHRISTOPHER MITCHELL, BROADBAND AT THE SPEED OF LIGHT: HOW THREE
COMMUNITIES BUILD NEXT -GENERATION NETWORKS 11,12 (2012).
30 See CHRISTOPHER MITCHELL, BROADBAND AT THE SPEED OF LIGHT: HOW THREE
COMMUNITIES BUILD NEXT -GENERATION NETWORKS 2, 3 (2012).
31 See CHRISTOPHER MITCHELL, BROADBAND AT THE SPEED OF LIGHT: HOW THREE
COMMUNITIES BUILD NEXT -GENERATION NETWORKS 11 (2012) (reporting savings across cable,
phone, and intemet to be almost $10 million.)
2 See CHRISTOPHER MITCHELL, BROADBAND AT THE SPEED OF LIGHT: HOW THREE
COMMUNITIES BUILD NEXT -GENERATION NETWORKS 14 (2012).
33 See GEORGE S. FORD & THOMAS M. KOUTSKY, BROADBAND AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT: A
MUNICIPAL CASE STUDY FROM FLORIDA (2005).
34 See Id. at 15.
35 See MUNICIPAL FIBER TO THE HOME DEPLOYMENTS: NEXT GENERATION BROADBAND AS A
MUNICIPAL UTILITY, FIBER TO THE HOME COUNCIL NORTH AMERICA, (2009) at 3-4.
36 See MUNICIPAL FIBER TO THE HOME DEPLOYMENTS: NEXT GENERATION BROADBAND AS A
MUNICIPAL UTILITY, FIBER TO THE HOME COUNCIL NORTH AMERICA, (2009) at 3-4.
37 STEVEN TITCH, LESSONS IN MUNICIPAL BROADBAND FROM LAFAYETTE, LOUISIANA, REASON
FOUNDATION 1-2 (2013).
38 See LEONARD G. KRUGER AND ANGELE A. GILROY, MUNICIPAL BROADBAND: BACKGROUND
AND POLICY DEBATE, CONGRESSIONAL RESEARCH SERVICE 3-4 (2015).
39 THE ART OF THE POSSIBLE: AN OVERVIEW OF PUBLIC BROADBAND OPTIONS, NEW ANWVCAN
FOUNDATION 26 (2014). E'
40 See generally BROADBANDUSA: GUIDE TO FEDERAL FUNDING OR BROADBAND PROJATS =s
2015). '
1
tom w
ryv.>
41 See generally BLAIR LEVIN AND DENISE LINN, THE NEXT GENERATION NETWORK
CONNECTIVITY HANDBOOK, GIG.0 AND THE BENTON FOUNDATION (2015); Institute for Local
Self -Reliance, hgRs:Hiisr.or content:VMs/resource-archive/?initiative=broadband;
BroadbandUSA, National Telecommunications & Information Administration,
hqp://www2.ntia.doc. eov.
0
NO
C' Peril e'
W
f
va
Nw
0
OA CUSTOMER RATING AVAILABILITY FASTEST SPEED PRICING FOR 10 MBPS
Centuryi.ink
4 94.6% 100,,x. 34.95
1 tea.
CAIIt CUSTOMER RATING AVAILABILITY FASTEST SPEED PRICING FOR IS MBPS
Mediacom 94.3% 150 34.95
rla
mops
B. PP 1e W WHY
DSI CUSTOMER RATING AVAILABILITY FASTEST SPEED PRICING FOR 10 MBPS
SHARONc. Ruce. 9.0% 10 49
810 WM&PAICAW
P:bpF 99
FIBER CUSTOMER RATING AVAILABILITY FASTEST SPEED PRICING FOR 32 MBPS
SHARON
rRl. cCO. 9.0% 10mbps 57.99 0
DSL CUSTOMER RATING AVAILABILITY FASTEST SPEED PRICING FOR 25 MBPS
windstream
6.4% 7.0.bo 69.99 0
PPI= CUSTOMER RATING AVAILABILITY FASTEST SPEED PRICING FOR 20 MBPS
E 5.7% 20 59.95 0T& bps
CP.FJNIG,1 co.
CUSTOMER RATING AVAILABILITY FASTEST SPEED PRICING FOR 3.0 MBPS
FMTC 5.7% 10 69.95 Cmoos
13
1 tea.
L
rlas.2
a
O 4
Page 22 City Council Work Session
promoting bicycling, is there sufficient bicycle parking at Terry Trueblood? Um, but if
someone should come in a car, how can we deal with it, without spending $225,000 was
where I was coming from.
Throgmorton/ Okay! So .... thanks. Why don't we move on to the next topic.
Thomas/ Could I ..... could I just say a few things more in general (both talking)
Throgmorton/ Oh, I'm sorry, you wanted.....yeah, sure! (mumbled) Didn't know you wanted
to!
Thomas/ Um ... yeah, cause I .... this is my second round of budget discussion (laughs) and, um,
you know, I .... I think fortunately it wasn't.... didn't seem quite as ..... the process wasn't
quite as intense. I think partly we .... we didn't have the strategic plan to .... to develop,
you know, simultaneously and so forth. But, you know, some of my observations in
looking at this was .... what I would call it, you know, we need to have an effort where we
look at increasing revenues and reducing expenditures any way we can.
Throgmorton/ Are you talkin' about Trueblood or are you talking about the budget....
Thomas/ I'm just talking about in our practices as it relates to the budget and to our CIP.
Throgmorton/ I'd like for us to get through the, uh, six items first and then come (both talking)
Thomas/ Oh, I thought we did!
Throgmorton/ (both talking) ....some broader question.
Thomas/ I thought we did!
Throgmorton/ No! No, we have two more items (both talking)
Thomas/ ...sorry....
Throgmorton/ ...(both talking) Yeah. So ... okay, so the fifth item is municipal broadbon...
broadband feasibility study. So .... your.....your suggestion, uh, Kingsley and Rockne, uh,
includes a .... a paragraph or so from, uh, I guess an email from Geoff.
Cole/ Uh huh.
Throgmorton/ About the .... the cost of the study, and then the likely cost of the build -out....
Cole/ Uh huh.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council work
session of February 7, 2017.
Page 23 City Council Work Session
Throgmorton/ ....and possible, uh, implications for private.... firms that might compete with the
existing provider. Uh, so those are all pretty serious concerns. So ... I ... I, whatda y'all
think about, I mean, did you have a chance to read all that?
Mims/ Yeah, I did! I have a quick question.
Botchway/ Go ahead!
Mims/ Did either of you read the, um.....if I can find it now.....
Throgmorton/ (mumbled)
Mims/ No. Um .... it was .... it was one of the documents that the law students referenced. Did
either of you read the `Broadband at the Speed of Light' article ... or book? Okay. That's
where you need to start. Okay? If you read that, because they .... they referenced it
probably 30 times in their article. So I went and looked it up and pulled it up. You get as
far as about page six, the Executive Summary. And this was the paragraph that took care
of it for me. It said .... and what this .... what this article or this book actually did is it
looked at three cities who have built -out their own municipal broadband. Okay? Um...
there's one in Vir.... one in Louisiana, and I've got `em written down here somewhere.
Anyways, it said in each of these cases, the local public power utility.... they had a public
power utility.... took the lead in creating the new network. A characteristic of nearly
every citywide, publicly owned community fiber network in America. And as I read
through more of this — there's 75 pages of it — didn't finish it all, but I read .... a good part
of it and then read all the summary part of it, it is very clear .... that.....the likelihood of
being able to do a municipal broadband without already owning a municipal electrical
utility is about zero. Because what they do is they sell revenue bonds based on the
utility's revenues to finance. They do not put the credit and good faith of the city behind
these. They have cost anywhere from $75 to over $100 million to built -out. Some of
them have gone through $2.5 million or more in legal fees before they even started,
because all the big companies, of course, are trying to sue them and stop them, etc. Um,
so when I started looking at this, and looked at the background of these three cities who
have been fairly successful in doing it, and some of the other commentary in this article,
one of the things that, um .... concerned me was in the law students article, they never
reference this part of it. They never reference the fact that the success of these three
cities, and they went in and they picked out, you know, a lot of the good things —
economic development and some of these cities have had great economic development as
a result of this. Um ... but it was almost a linchpin piece that if you don't have a public
electric utility, you virtually can't make it work. So when I look at that, I am not
willing ... to set aside $100,000 in our budget, or 50 or whatever, to hire consultants and
do research on this. If we want to look at it at all, then my recommendation is we send a
letter to our Telecama.... Telecommunications Commission and maybe set up a joint
meeting with them, um, and find out for sure what they have already done for research
over the last few years, and why they have not recommended that we look at it more
seriously and more in-depth, and then decide from there if we want to do anything more,
but based on that, I can't support putting any money into it.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City
session of February 7, 2017.
Page 24 City Council Work Session
Botchway/ So .... no and yes, and I say that because I totally agree with you and I think I .... I
understood some of the implications regardless of that article, I mean .... the article
highlighted some of the .... the funding pieces, um.....
Mims/ The students' article you mean?
Botchway/ No, that article you just referenced.
Mims/ Yeah.
Botchway/ The funding pieces that, again, weren't necessarily referenced in the article,
but .... this is a conversation I know that I've had .... Simon's not here. Oh, there he is!
Um, I know that I had it with Simon and Zach Walls, maybe about a year and a half ago,
about what this would take and look like, and then, you know, Rockne did a good job as
far as getting some of the law students involved and..... so there's.....there's a lot of
pieces. Um .... which as ... the more and more we talk about some of our .... or even my
arguments for how we're going down this, um, I would feel would be based more from a
strategic planning standpoint. Again, just kind of how we've gone through this particular
argument. However, um, also .... sorry. However, I do think, to your point, um, I think
it's important to .... however, I think it's important to highlight the need for this. I ... I
think that it has huge implications as far as what it could do, um, for our community. Not
only from an economic development standpoint, which I mentioned, but also from
an ... from an equity standpoint and what it could do ... I'll be honest with you! We could
do for the School District as they talk about one-to-one communication .... or one-to-one,
um, device ....devices and um, having a deeper understanding and what it could do for
our education overall, but .... um, I would, again, I didn't ... I would be inclined, and I
wasn't aware of, um, and ... if I was, maybe I was and I missed it, um, of this conversation
from a Telecommunication, um, Commission standpoint. I would be interested in a joint
meeting, so I'm glad you already mentioned that, to sit with them, one because I don't
necessarily think I've done that since I've been on Council, um, and I think it would be
interesting to hear from them. I have a lot of respect for some of the people that are a
part of that commission, um, to know what their thoughts are in moving forward. I will
say this this is one, Susan, kind of as you mentioned before, not necessarily (mumbled)
but another topic, that I am .... this is something that gets brought up, for me, in the
strategic planning conversation this year, or this coming year, and so it's not something
that I think I'm going to forget about it at all. Um, so I think that .... I do think that I
need ... I think there's more information that's out there that I would like to have and so
from that standpoint, I'd be willing to ... bring that back from allocating funding for it, but
I would say that I would like to meet with them..... relatively soon, I mean months
several talking in background) with the comintion ... commission relatively soon to
discuss that so we can have some information moving into the next session.
Cole/ I would (both talking)
Throgmorton/ .....makes good sense to me but (both talking)
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council work
session of February 7, 2017.
Page 25 City Council Work Session
Cole/ I would love that, and I .... and I think that, I mean, I think the issue here too is, you know,
Susan, you bring up the question of whether it's a pure municipal. I think it's ... there's a
whole range of potential options, and so I think it's .... it's an issue that's come up a lot
with constituents, um, in terms of service with .... with unknown providers. Urn ... that I
won't mention, but I think it is something that we need to evaluate. It is critical
infrastructure that we need to identify. So I'd be happy to do a joint meeting, uh, with
them to identify this going forward, and maybe we need to look at, if we do make some
progress in that meeting, planning ahead possibly to the following year, uh, whether
that's something, whether we'd wanna make that ... that happen, but I ... I'd be happy to do
that and withdraw the request so we could have that joint meeting, um, so do we have the
support on that?
Throgmorton/ Sounds like a reasonable thing to me (several talking in background) I see a lot of
nodding heads.
Cole/ Okay! Great!
Taylor/ I think that'd be great because, uh, before we got the letters today from the commission, I
was thinking, well that's a good idea to look into this, but then when ... two of `em wrote
to us and said that they've been looking into this and we appoint these folks and we
appreciate their knowledge and so I think first step would be to meet with them and see
what they have to say.
Throgmorton/ Okay! (several responding) All right. Great. All right, last item — Gilbert Street
road diet.
Mims/ My concern with this is .... I guess I would like to see us .... urn .... I'd like to see us get a
little further down the road with our other road diets and get public reaction to those
before we start rushing any others. I guess just .... I mean, we've had lots of people talk
pro and con about the Mormon Trek. We don't have it in place yet, urn .... so that would
be my preference, to .... you know, get something done and give people a little time to get
used to it and then .... if that still means we can bump this up a year or whatever, then...
then fine, but .... I ... I'm not anxious to rush too many of these right back to back before...
people've had a chance to get used to one or two of `em and .... and have some reaction to
it.
Dickens/ First Avenue hasn't been converted yet.
Botchway/ (mumbled) Oh, sorry! (several talking)
Throgmorton/ ...striping left, yeah.
Taylor/ The only thing that I think would maybe bump it up a little bit in priority is the fact that
the Riverfront Crossings' area and Gilbert Street in particular is ... is starting to form and
grow, and so I would think it might be important to start looking at the road there.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council work
session of February 7, 2017.
Summary of Iowa City Telecommunications Commission and City Cable TV
Office Staff Discussions and Efforts Regarding Municipal Broadband.
Beginning around Feb. 2012 the Commission began receiving articles and
information on municipal broadband projects in their monthly meeting packets as a
part of the “articles” section of the packet that included information on cable TV,
telecommunication policy and news, broadband, and other issues of interest to the
Commission.
Staffed continued to gather information and materials relating to the development
of municipal broadband systems and held impromptu, informal discussions with
several members of the Commission about possible strategies to promote the idea of
investigating a municipal broadband network to the City. Given the possibility of
needlessly alienating the current provider of broadband services or creating a
misperception in the community, the discussions were limited to members who
were most interested and was not brought before the Commission as a whole.
Growing out of this interest, the Commission, working through City Cable TV Office
staff, conducted a community survey to measure consumer satisfaction with
Internet service, level of knowledge, and network performance. A report was issued
in January 2014.
A document created by City Cable TV Office staff was included in the January 2014
Telecommunications Commission meeting packet and offered two main suggestions
for possible recommendations resulting from the broadband survey. The first was
an exploration of a municipal broadband system. The second was to develop a
public awareness and education effort to provide the community with information
residents could use to become better-informed consumers.
A public education program was developed and implemented by City Cable TV
Office staff by April 2014.
During this period, Cable TV Office staff continued to gather information on
municipal broadband projects around the country, including presentations from
NATOA (National Association of Telecommunications Officers and Advisors).
During this period Google was pursuing communities to partner with to build FTTH
(fiber to the home) gigabit networks and made public several documents outlining
information communities could gather that would enhance their applications. Much
of this information was about existing municipally-owned fiber and access to
conduits, public right of way, and build-out conditions. City Cable TV staff pursued
information on the existence and location of municipal fiber but was met with
disinterest from other City staff. Further effort to gather information was limited.
Links to articles and resources related to Item 6 - Municipal broadband feasibility
Facts about the Cedar Falls municipal broadband system:
https://www.cfu.net/about-cfu/truth
Municipal Broadband - Not a Walk in the Park:
https://schrier.wordpress.com/2015/01/25/municipal-broadband-not-a-walk-in-the-park/
How Cedar Falls Got Its Gigabit:
http://www.bbpmag.com/MuniPortal/EditorsChoice/0314editorschoice.php
Broadband Communities Magazine - Fiber To The Home (FTTH) Municipal Snapshots:
http://www.bbpmag.com/MuniPortal/snapshots.php
Broadband Communities Magazine - FTTH Financial Analyzers:
http://www.bbcmag.com/FTTHAnalyzer/
Value Report:
20 Years of Community
Broadband Benefits
20
YEARS
milestones
Community Broadband Milestones
October 1994 Cedar Falls citizens vote to form a
Municipal Communications Utility
July 1995 Groundbreaking for network construction
January 1996 First TV customer connected
February 1996 First business internet customer connected
May 1996 City-wide Hybrid Fiber-Coax network complete
January 1997 Cable modem internet service launch
November 2001 Digital TV launch
October 2003 High definition TV launch
August 2010 Fiber-to-the-premises upgrade kick-off
October 2012 Rural broadband expansion kick-off
May 2013 Fiber-to-the-premises upgrade complete city-wide
December 2013 Rural broadband expansion complete
October 2014 Google names Cedar Falls Iowa’s top e-commerce city
May 2016 Telephone service launch
Why Cedar Falls built a community-owned network
In the early 1990s, residents wanted competitive choice for cable TV service, and leaders
recognized high-speed internet service would soon be essential to the local economy.
The telephone and cable companies that served Cedar Falls were not willing to invest in
network upgrades. To get the services they wanted, citizens passed a broadband
referendum with more than 70% approval, and tasked CFU with building and
operating a community-owned network. During 20 years of service, CFU
broadband has delivered the benefits promised to the community.
PROMISEDELIVERED Early Deployment to Homes, Businesses & Schools
Because of the municipal network, Cedar Falls was one of the first U.S.
cities with widely available high-speed internet service.
CFU cable modem service was available city-wide four years before any
private provider began offering broadband service.
Community Benefits
ECONOMIC GROWTH Leading edge broadband availability contributed to
Cedar Falls’ exceptional job growth. The city’s Industrial and Technology Parks
are now home to more than 7,000 jobs, up from about 1,200 in 1996.
HIGH ADOPTION RATES Early availability of affordable broadband lead to high
adoption rates. In a city with about 15,500 households and 1,500 business
premises, CFU has more than 14,900 active service locations as of July, 2016.
CUSTOMER SATISFACTION Nine of ten Cedar Falls broadband households
choose service from CFU, according to research conducted by the University of
Northern Iowa.
PROMISEDELIVERED Leading Edge Infrastructure
Broadband subscriber fees are used to fund system upgrades that keep CFU’s
network reliable and ready to meet growing customer needs.
From 2010 to 2013, the entire community-wide network was upgraded to
fiber-to-the-premises (FTTP), providing higher capacity and reliability. Diverse
multi-path upstream connections were put in place to reduce outage risk.
Community Benefits
BUSINESS CLIMATE ADVANTAGE System upgrades have kept CFU’s service
ahead of the bandwidth and data transport needs of local businesses, enabling
them to innovate, compete and grow.
SAME DAY SPEED UPGRADES CFU has offered gigabit connections in every
corner of Cedar Falls since May, 2013. Today, most choose our 100 x 50 or
250 x 125 megabit per second (mbps) services. As their needs change,
subscribers can upgrade anytime to gigabit service with no waiting, no
appointment and no build out fee. Services faster than 1 gbps are readily
available as custom solutions.
SUPERIOR RELIABILITY Redundancy and diversity in our external network
means seamless service to our customers, even if an upstream provider is down.
PROMISEDELIVERED Competitive, Economical Service Rates
As a community owned, not-for-profit service, CFU sets service rates as low as
possible, but high enough to fully fund operating costs, capital expenditures
and debt service.
Community Benefits
RATE SAVINGS Twice a year we compare CFU broadband and TV service rates to
a group of 20 peer cities in Iowa. The most recent comparison shows that CFU
subscribers save more than $4 million a year on these services, compared with
the average peer-city rates.
COST BASED PRICING CFU’s rates are lower than competing providers for
similar service plans. Rather than charging as much as the market will bear to
maximize shareholder profits, CFU’s local Board of Trustees sets the lowest
responsible rates, based upon operating and capital expenditure costs.
SERVICE PLANS DRIVEN BY CUSTOMER NEEDS Rather than push customers
into higher-cost service plans, CFU offers a full menu of services from budget to
premium. Our mission is meeting the full range of customer needs.
PROMISEDELIVERED Self-Supporting Fee for Service Business Model
The Municipal Communications Utility is community-owned but not tax
supported. Citizens who don’t subscribe to CFU broadband services pay
nothing to support the Communications Utility. The money subscribers pay
for internet, TV and telephone services covers operating costs, capital
expenditures and debt repayment.
Community Benefits
NO LOCAL OR STATE TAX SUPPORT Contrary to false information you may have
seen elsewhere, there is no cost “to the public” for community broadband. The
network is supported by user fees, not taxes. By supporting business growth,
the Utility has helped bolster the community’s tax base.
NO SUBSIDY FROM THE ELECTRIC, GAS OR WATER UTILITIES Contrary to false
information published by groups that oppose municipal broadband, CFU’s
Communications Utility is not subsidized by the Electric, Gas or Water
Utilities. The other utilities do not borrow money on behalf of the
Communications Utility or guarantee or repay its bond debt.
LOCAL CONTROL OF SERVICE RATES A Board of Trustees composed of local
citizens sets rates for all of CFU’s services. They keep service rates as low as
possible, while raising enough subscriber revenue to fully fund the Utility.
PROMISEDELIVERED Prompt and Responsive Local Service
While competing service providers may take several days to connect services or
fix problems, CFU’s local crews are on call 24/7/365 to connect customers and
keep them in service.
Community Benefits
SAME DAY SERVICE Internet service can be activated at nearly any Cedar Falls
residence or business location with just a phone call on any business day.
FREE LOCAL TECH SUPPORT Customer support is provided seven days a week
by our local Help Desk associates. In the rare event of a service outage, local
crews are dispatched day or night, any day of the week.
CUSTOM BUSINESS SOLUTIONS CFU’s network engineers work directly with
local businesses to design internet access, networking and data transport
solutions.
PROMISEDELIVERED New Services to Meet Community Needs
During 20 years as a broadband provider, CFU has continuously expanded
bandwidth capacity to stay in front of community-wide demand, which has
often doubled from one year to the next.
Competing providers sometimes decline to extend service to new
developments and neglect needed plant maintenance. CFU continues
serving the entire community to put reliable, high capacity service within the
reach of every home and business.
Community Benefits
TELEPHONE LAUNCH Because of customer demand, particularly from the
business community, CFU launched phone service in May 2016.
RURAL EXPANSION In 2009, the federal government made funding available to
broadband providers for rural service expansion. CFU received a one-time grant
of $843,641 from the Department of Agriculture. This covered about 40% of
the cost of extending fiber services to previously unserved areas outside the
city limits. (Most federal broadband grants under this $7.2 billion program were
received by private, for-profit phone and cable companies.)
SYNERGY WITH THE MUNICIPAL ELECTRIC UTILITY CFU’s electric utility is able
to connect through the broadband plant to smart meters and remote switch-
ing gear that save meter reading costs and help minimize outage time.
LEARN MORE What is the cost to local taxpayers?
The Cedar Falls broadband utility is community-owned, but not tax supported.
It is operated on a fee for service basis, and fully self-sustaining through
subscriber revenue.
In a city with approximately 15,500 dwellings and 1,500 business premises, CFU
currently serves more than 14,900 dwellings and businesses with high-speed
internet, telephone and/or TV services. Subscriber revenues fund operating
and equipment costs, as well as principal and interest payments on money
borrowed to finance major capital projects. A chart of the broadband utility’s
profitability over the past 10 years is below.
How was the fiber optic upgrade financed?
From 2010 to 2013, Cedar Falls Utilities (CFU) upgraded its broadband infra-
structure throughout the city, replacing hybrid fiber coax (HFC) with fiber to
the premises (FTTP). The upgrade was funded with accumulated internal cash
flow (set aside over several years in anticipation of this project) and borrowing
that included $15.04 million of proceeds from Communications Utility Revenue
Bonds. These bonds pledge Communications Utility revenue as the sole
repayment source. The bonds are not guaranteed or backed by the city-owned
electric, gas or water utilities, or by the taxpayers. CFU is on target to repay
these bonds early, at their first call dates.
How does the broadband utility pay back its debt?
The Utility’s local Board of Trustees sets service rates as low as possible, while generating the cashflow needed
to fund operating expenses, capital expenditures and debt service. Principal and interest payments are made
from operating income. The most recent 10-year financial summary is at the end of this report.
Did the city’s electric, gas and water utilities take on debt to build
the fiber optic plant?
No. The Communications Utility used accumulated operating cashflow and issued revenue bonds to fund the
upgrade. The bonds are not backed by the city’s taxing authority or by CFU’s electric, gas or water utilities. More
information appears above under the section titled “How was the Fiber Optic Upgrade Financed?”
Why is CFU’s gigabit internet priced higher than Google’s?
CFU’s most popular business and consumer broadband plans are priced below competing local providers.
Compared with the average cost in peer communities across the state, Cedar Falls residents save more than $4
million a year on internet and TV services.
Based upon publicly available information,* Google fiber services are priced below cost and subsidized by the
company’s other business enterprises. In summer 2016 Google announced a moratorium on additional fiber
build-outs, and said it’s exploring wireless rather than fiber connections going forward.
Unlike Google, CFU’s fiber network is a self-supporting, fee for service business. To sustain leading edge
fiber services in Cedar Falls for the long term, CFU sets prices as low as possible while covering the costs of
providing service.
*As reported in the Wall Street Journal here.
Ten Year Financial Summary Cedar Falls Municipal Communications Utility
Year ended 12/31…2007 2008 2009 2010 2011
Operating Revenue $9,721,949 $10,995,281 $11,296,749 $12,198,451 $12,603,274
Operating Expenses $7,529,287 $8,617,364 $8,924,913 $9,249,195 $11,917,381
Operating Expenses $2,192,662 $2,377,917 $2,371,836 $2,949,256 $685,893
NonOperating Revenue (expense)**$48,774 $29,456 $185,912 ($187,046)($226,359)
Net Income $2,241,436 $2,407,374 $2,557,748 $2,762,210 $459,534
Year ended 12/31…2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
Operating Revenue $14,309,713 $15,725,113 $16,724,758 $17,575,519 $18,702,855
Operating Expenses $13,199,728 $14,908,652 $13,508,999 $14,165,744 $14,564,143
Net Operating Income $1,109,985 $816,461 $3,215,759 $3,409,775 $4,138,712
Non Operating Revenue (expense)**$283,472 ($122,895)$127,761 $439,079 ($55,561)
Net Income $1,393,457 $693,566 $3,343,520 $3,848,854 $4,083,151
** Non-operating revenues include contributions in aid of construction, intergovernmental payments, interest income and
miscellaneous items. Non-operating expenses are primarily interest on term debt.
* Source: Audited annual income statements for the Municipal Communications Utility of the City of Cedar Falls, IA.
2016 numbers are pre-audit and will be updated if needed when audit is complete.
10-year Financial Summary*
3/10/2017
UNDERSTANDING THE DEBATE
OVER GOVERNMENT-OWNED
BROADBAND NETWORKS:
Context, Lessons Learned, and a Way
Forward for Policy Makers
Cedar Falls Case Study
Charles M. Davidson
Director, ACLP at New York Law School
Michael J. Santorelli
Director, ACLP at New York Law School
From
JUNE 2014
New York Law School2
Cedar Falls, Iowa
The municipal broadband network in Cedar Falls,
Iowa, is one of the oldest in the country. First
deployed in the mid-1990s, this GON evolved
from a traditional cable broadband system, built
atop a hybrid fiber/coaxial infrastructure, to one
that is transitioning to all fiber-optic.
Though it has survived for several decades, the
Cedar Falls model may be difficult for other local-
ities to replicate. In its push to modernize and join
the ranks of other “gig cities,” Cedar Falls assumed
a significant amount of debt with limited evidence
that consumers wanted ultra-fast Internet con-
nections. As a result, the system has experienced
some financial volatility, which has led to a credit
downgrade. It remains to be seen whether the
benefits of this network will justify the significant
costs associated with this municipality’s ambitious
expansion plans.
Background
Cedar Falls Utilities (CFU) began to explore the feasibility of building a municipal communications net-
work in the early 1990s.1 After two years of study, the Cedar Falls City Council established a Municipal
Communications Utility and transferred authority to the CFU Board of Trustees.2 The project began in
earnest after the issue was put before voters in 1994.3 Seventy-one percent voted in favor of deploying a
GON that would be managed and controlled by the CFU Board of Trustees.4 Voters also approved a $3
million bond issuance to finance the project.5
At first, the network offered only cable service,6 but by 1997, the utility began to offer Internet service via
CyberNet, a 10 Mbps citywide Ethernet network.7 At that point, the network was composed of hybrid
fiber/coaxial (HFC).8 In 2010, CFU began to replace the coaxial portion of its network with fiber and
started to extend the fiber directly to homes and businesses.9 This upgrade eventually allowed CFU to
offer 1 Gbps speeds to customers.10
Cost and Financing
Deployment of the initial HFC network was funded by a $3 million bond issued in 1995 (it matured
in 2008).11 The upgrade to fiber and expansion of the network were slated to cost $17 million.12 In
2009, Cedar Falls began to borrow funding for these purposes by issuing a general obligation bond for
$2,320,000.13 The bond matures in 2024 and has a rising interest rate that begins at .075 percent and
increases throughout the bond’s life to 3.80 percent in the final year.14
Cedar Falls can repay this general obligation bond through any mechanism, including its taxing powers.15
In 2010, Cedar Falls assumed additional debt to further fund the project when it borrowed $13,130,000
using communications utility revenue capital loan notes,16 which carry an interest rate of three per-
cent and mature in 2024.17 This debt was secured by a first lien on revenue from the communications
Cedar Falls, Iowa
At-A-Glance
Cedar Falls
City Population: 39,993 (2012)
Year of Network Launch: Mid-1990s
Current Status: Partially Built
Number of subscribers: 17,000
Revenues: $14.3 million
Operating Expenses: $13.2 million
Note: Additional information on the Cedar Falls network
is contained in Table 1 and in Appendix I.
Understanding the Debate over Government-Owned Broadband Networks 3
utility.18 The GON also benefited from loans from the electric utility, totaling over $2 million by the end
of 2011,19 and grants from the federal government, totaling $877,433, in support of network expansion
to previously unserved areas.20 As of the end of 2012, the total annual cost of operating the GON was
$13,199,726, up from $8,924,912 in 2009.21 Maintenance and system operation cost $8,009,105 and sales,
customer service, and corporate operations totaled $2,999,629.22
The Network
CFU’s FTTH network is 95 percent complete.23 The new gigabit system was switched on in May 2013.24
This GON offers only broadband Internet access and television services, not telephone. Customers also
have access to CFU’s wireless hotspots, which are available in parts of downtown Cedar Falls.25 In terms
of specific offerings, services include a stand-alone asymmetrical 2 Mbps connection for $29.95 a month
($34.95 for rural customers), a 30 Mbps asymmetrical connection for $64.50 per month ($69.50 for rural
customers), and a 1 Gbps asymmetrical connection for $265 a month ($270 for rural customers).26 Prices
for business consumers are substantially higher (e.g., $950.00 per month for 1 Gbps in the city, $990 per
month in rural areas).27 CFU also makes available lit or dark dedicated fiber connections between cus-
tomer-owned facilities, and wholesale bandwidth for other ISPs.28
Over the last decade, the financial viability of the GON in Cedar Falls has fluctuated. The system rarely
generated revenues to cover its total costs in the years before its upgrade,29 and over the last few years,
while total operating revenues exceeded total operating expenses, operating expenses continue to grow
at a fast pace.30
Community Impact
There are a number of positive impacts that have resulted from the GON in Cedar Falls which are often
cited by CFU proponents and GON supporters.31 The utility estimates its customers pay about $200 less
each year for their Internet service than residents in neighboring “peer communities” in Iowa do.32 As
of May 2013, CFU accrued about 11,600 total subscribers,33 but without knowing the types of connec-
tions these customers purchased, it is difficult to determine whether the significant costs associated with
upgrading its network to all-fiber are delivering value to customers—and the city generally—in excess
of these reported savings. With anecdotal evidence suggesting very few customers opt for CFU’s fastest
speed tiers, it can be argued that the costs of building this GON outweigh the benefits that may stem
from it.34
Evidence that the GON spurred economic development and job creation is limited. A study from the
early 2000s found that, while the presence of the GON appeared to play some role in influencing several
firms to relocate to Cedar Falls, it was just one of many, arguably more important factors, making it diffi-
cult, if not impossible, to “verify that these developments [were] the direct result of the City’s broadband
delivery system.”35
CFU supporters and GONs advocates argue that the city’s investment in its fiber upgrade has had pos-
itive impacts on its credit rating.36 However, Moody’s recently downgraded its bond rating from A1 to
A3.37 Moody’s reasoned that CFU’s debt is becoming increasingly illiquid, the network is highly lever-
aged (due mostly to its fiber expansion), and the network lost several major customers to competitors
in recent years.38 These challenges will be difficult to overcome as incumbents begin to leverage their
nimbleness and compete more vigorously with CFU, especially on the price for higher-speed tiers.39
New York Law School4
Assessment
The huge cost and long-term debt associated with the municipal fiber system in Cedar Falls raise ques-
tions about opportunity costs and whether such substantial resources have been invested wisely. Such
uncertainty gains additional primacy when viewed in light of other priorities competing for funding at
the local level.
Recent debate over the town budget for fiscal year 2014 highlighted several of these.40 Much to the dis-
may of many residents, the local government approved a property tax increase for the coming year.41
Some of these revenues might have been used to pay for a new highway interchange,42 highlighting
another important trade-off that policy makers make when they elect to deploy a GON.43
Infrastructure Needs in Iowa
Public infrastructure throughout the state requires significant attention—nearly half of the roads in the state are
of poor or mediocre quality; more than a quarter of its bridges are structurally deficient or functionally obsolete;
and nearly $15 billion is needed to meet school, drinking water, and wastewater infrastructure needs.
Understanding the Debate over Government-Owned Broadband Networks 5
Endnotes
1 See Doris J. Kelley, A Study of the Economic and Community Benefits of Cedar Falls, Iowa’s Municipal Telecommunications Network,
2, Oct. 2. 2003, Cedar Falls Utilities, available at http://www.lus.org/uploads/AStoryofTwoCities.pdf (“Study of the Economic and
Community Benefits”).
2 Id.
3 See City of Cedar Falls, Iowa $3,000,000 General Obligation Bonds, Series 1995B, at p. 6, Electronic Municipal Market Access,
Municipal Securities Rulemaking Board (June 9, 1995), available at http://emma.msrb.org/MS111001-MS86309-MD167913.pdf (“Cedar
Falls $3,000,000 General Obligation Bonds, Series 1995B”).
4 Id.
5 Id.
6 Study of the Economic and Community Benefits at p. 2.
7 Id. at p. 3.
8 Id.
9 See John Molseed, CFU Adds Fiber Optic Links to All Customers, June 13, 2010, WCF Courier, available at http://wcfcourier.com/
news/local/article_4cccdbd5-1341-594a-bb4c-701305cd218b.html?mode=story (“CFU Adds Fiber Optic Links”).
10 See, e.g., Jon Ericson, Cedar Falls Joints Elite ‘Gigabit City’ List, May 8, 2013, WCF Courier, available at http://wcfcourier.com/
business/local/cedar-falls-joins-elite-gigabit-city-list/article_588684f4-4750-54c9-8c49-48fd5b891ba1.html.
11 Cedar Falls $3,000,000 General Obligation Bonds, Series 1995B at p. 6.
12 CFU Adds Fiber Optic Links.
13 See City of Cedar Falls, Iowa, $2,320,000 General Obligation Capital Loan Notes, Series 2009B, Electronic Municipal Market Access,
Municipal Securities Rulemaking Board (Nov. 30, 2009), available at http://emma.msrb.org/EP357783-EP282175-EP677366.pdf.
14 Id. at p. 13.
15 Id. at p. 2.
16 See Municipal Communications Utility of the City of Cedar Falls Iowa, $13,130,000 Communications Utility Revenue Capital Loan
Notes, Series 2010, Electronic Municipal Market Access, Municipal Securities Rulemaking Board (Sept 1, 2010), available at http://emma.
msrb.org/EA404810-EA316792-EA712527.pdf.
17 Id. at p. 19.
18 Id. at p. 1.
19 See Financial Statements of the Municipal Electric, Gas, Water, and Communications Utilities of the City of Cedar Falls, Iowa, For
the Year Ending Dec 31, 2011, at p. 28, Cedar Falls Utility (March 2012), available at http://auditor.iowa.gov/reports/1223-0046-C000.pdf
(“Financial Statements For the Year Ending Dec 31, 2011”).
20 See Advancing Broadband: A Foundation for Strong Rural Communities, at p. 29, Rural Utilities Service, U.S. Dept. of Agriculture
(Jan. 2011), available at http://www.rurdev.usda.gov/supportdocuments/RBB_report_whole-v4ForWeb.pdf.
21 See Financial Statements of the Municipal Communications Utility of the City of Cedar Falls, Iowa, Including Independent Auditor’s
Report, For the Years Ended Dec. 31, 2012 and 2011, at p. 3, Cedar Falls Utility (April 4, 2013), available at http://emma.msrb.org/
EP760639-EP589987-EP991542.pdf (“CFU Auditor Report, For the Years 2011 and 2012”). See also Financial Statements For the Year
Ending Dec 31, 2011 at p. 3.
22 See CFU Auditor Report, For the Years 2011 and 2012 at p. 3.
23 See CFU, Internet, http://www.cfu.net/cybernet/default.aspx.
24 See CFU Launches Gigabit Internet Service, May 28, 2013, Cedar Falls Times, available at http://www.communitynewspapergroup.
com/cedar_falls_times/news/article_09479d64-c7ca-11e2-80e2-0019bb2963f4.html (“CFU Launches Gigabit Internet Service”).
25 See CFU, Free Wi-Fi Zones, http://www.cfu.net/cybernet/wifi.aspx.
26 See CFU, Internet—Residential Services, http://www.cfu.net/cybernet/residential-service.aspx.
27 See CFU, Internet—Business Services, http://www.cfu.net/cybernet/business-service.aspx.
28 See CFU, Internet and Fiber Services, http://www.cfu.net/customer-service/commercial-services/fiber-services.aspx.
29 See, e.g., Ronald Rizzuto, Iowa Communications Systems: The Financial Track Record, Heartland Institute (Sept. 2005), available at
http://heartland.org/sites/all/modules/custom/heartland_migration/files/pdfs/17724.pdf.
30 CFU Auditor Report, For the Years 2011 and 2012 at p. 6.
31 See CFU, Community Benefits, http://www.cfu.net/about/community-benefits.aspx.
32 See CFU Residential Report Card for the Period of June 2012—May 2013, CFU, available at http://www.cfu.net/webres/File/RPT_
card.pdf.
33 CFU Launches Gigabit Internet Service.
34 See, e.g., id. (noting that these speeds will be attractive mostly to business customers in the short term). See also Steve Donohue,
Iowa City Charging $275 Monthly for 1-Gig Broadband Service, May 29, 2013, Fierce Cable, available at http://www.fiercecable.com/story/
iowa-city-charging-275-monthly-1-gig-broadband-service/2013-05-29 (noting that there is little demand for the 1 Gbps service at this
point in time).
35 See Doris Kelley, A Study of the Economic and Community Benefits of Cedar Falls, Iowa’s Municipal Telecommunications Network,
at p. 12, Iowa Association of Municipal Utilities (July 2004), available at http://www.baller.com/pdfs/cedarfalls_white_paper.pdf.
36 See, e.g., Christopher Mitchell, Cedar Falls Utility Gets High Bond Rating from Moody’s, March 19, 2013, Community Broadband Networks,
Institute for Local Self-Reliance, available at http://www.muninetworks.org/content/cedar-falls-utility-gets-high-bond-rating-moodys.
37 See Soo Yun Chung, A3 Rating Applies to Approximately $13 Million Senior-Lien Revenue Debt Outstanding, March 8, 2013,
Moody’s Investor Services, available at http://www.moodys.com/research/Moodys-downgrades-to-A3-from-A1-the-rating-on-Cedar-
-PR_268153 (“A3 Rating Applies to Approximately $13 Million Senior-Lien Revenue Debt Outstanding”).
38 Id.
39 See, e.g., Jeff Baumgartner, Mediacom Faces 1 Gig Pressure in Iowa, May 30, 2013, Multichannel News, available at http://www.
multichannel.com/distribution/mediacom-faces-1-gig-pressure-iowa/143570.
New York Law School6
40 See Tina Hinz, Cedar Falls Budget Hearing Set for Feb. 25, Feb. 18, 2013, WCF Courier, available at http://wcfcourier.com/news/
local/cedar-falls-budget-hearing-set-feb/article_7771e49b-33a6-568c-b35f-b08c11339daa.html.
41 See Tina Hinz, Cedar Falls Council Oks Budget; Tax Hike Irks Residents, Feb. 26, 2013, WCF Courier, available at http://wcf-
courier.com/news/local/govt-and-politics/cedar-falls-council-oks-budget-tax-hike-irks-residents/article_6cd83257-6fe2-5894-8cf1-ea-
caa93581ff.html.
42 Id.
43 See ASCE Infrastructure Report Card 2013, States—Iowa, http://www.infrastructurereportcard.org/a/#p/state-facts/iowa.
About New York Law School
Founded in 1891, New York Law School is the second oldest independent law school in the United States.
Drawing on its location near the centers of law, government, and finance in New York City, its faculty of
noted and prolific scholars has built the school’s curricular strength in such areas as tax law, labor and
employment law, civil and human rights law, telecommunications and information law, corporate and
commercial law, and interdisciplinary fields such as legal history and legal ethics.
The mission of NYLS is to provide an extraordinary and innovative educational experience that embod-
ies the fundamental values of the legal system and creates a bridge from scholarship and service to
leadership and practice; to offer a vibrant, diverse, and forward-thinking center of legal studies where
students develop the knowledge, skills, and professional values to serve their clients and have successful
careers advancing justice, building the economy, and serving the various needs of modern society; and,
to serve as an incubator of ideas and actions to be emulated throughout New York City, the nation, and
the world.
For more information, please contact:
New York Law School
185 West Broadway
New York, NY 10013
(212) 431-2100
www.nyls.edu
About The Advanced Communications Law & Policy Institute
The Advanced Communications Law & Policy Institute (ACLP) at New York Law School is an interdis-
ciplinary public policy program that focuses on identifying and analyzing key legal, regulatory, and pub-
lic policy issues facing stakeholders throughout the advanced communications sector. ACLP’s mission
is to promote data-driven and solution-focused dialogues amongst local, state and federal policy makers,
academe, consumers, service providers, and the financial community concerning changes to the regu-
latory regimes governing wireline, wireless, broadband, and IP platforms. Recent research has focused
on modernizing communications regulations at the federal, state, and local levels, identifying barriers to
more robust broadband adoption in key demographics and sectors, and public policy strategies to spur
innovation and investment in broadband.
For more information, please contact:
Charles M. Davidson, Director
Michael J. Santorelli, Director
185 West Broadway
New York, NY 10013
(212) 431-2163
http://www.nyls.edu/advanced-communications-law-and-policy-institute/
BROADBAND FEASIBILITY ANALYSIS UPDATEBrieana Reed-Harmel, Broadband Project ManagerJohn Honker, Magellan AdvisorsOctober 25, 2016
LEARNING OBJECTIVES1. Types of broadband services available in Loveland currently2. How Loveland is currently served3. Broadband issues reported by the communityResidential, small & medium commercial, large commercial, community anchors4. Broadband needs of community interest groupsCity, Utilities, Economic Development, Fire & Rescue, Police5. Root causes of broadband issues6. Community sentiment regarding a City-provided broadband service7. Municipal business models used to improve the broadband environment
COMMUNITY ANCHOR ORGANIZATIONSOrganization Type Broadband NeedsSchools Adequate connectivity but growth requires upgrades and more redundancyHealthcare Need more affordable optionsFire & Rescue Additional redundancy to support self-sufficiency and emergency preparednessPolice Wireless needs across City to support proactive monitoring of incidents and faster connectivity for field operationsParks & Recreation Redundancy and connectivity at outlying locations
INITIAL SURVEY RESULTSResidential Surveys: 886 households responded online – Non-adopter paper survey is being collected currentlyBusiness Surveys: 172 businesses responded – Phone campaign is being performed to solicit more business response98.8%Have internet service at home61.2%Subscribe to cable26%Subscribe to DSL23.3%Subscribe to mobile or fixed wireless97.2%Have internet service at their business60%Subscribe to cable5.6%Subscribe to fiber22.5%Subscribe to DSL26.8%Subscribe to mobile or fixed wireless0%Subscribe to fiber
RESIDENTIAL INTERNET SERVICES1. About 75% of Loveland households pay between $50 - $100 per month2. For that cost, they receive on average of 60 Meg download3. Actual downloads average around 44 MegHousehold ResponsesCost of Internet Per Month
RESIDENTIAL INTERNET SERVICES1. On a scale of 1-10, 96.1% of households ranked the importance of Internet as an 8 or higher2. 92.2% of households would definitely or very likely subscribe to a City-provided Internet service
BUSINESS INTERNET SERVICES1. 56.5% of households say needs are not currently met2. Of these, 77.8% said prices were too high, 56.1% said speeds were not fast enough3. 58.1% said current services were reliable Household Internet Satisfaction Levels
COMMON BROADBAND THEMES IN LOVELANDConsumer Perceptions Influence on Feasibility StudyCost too high for services receivedFew providers = lack of choiceLack of redundancy for business usersUncertainty: Will future needs be met?•Loveland should focus on driving value, especially for the prime small/medium business market•Third provider would introduce additional choice to City’s broadband environment•Market exists for network that provides redundancy to businesses, institutional users in key areas.•Should the City play a role in ensuring that future stakeholders’ needs are met?
INPUTS TO SELECTING THE RIGHT BROADBAND BUSINESS MODELCommunity NeedsCompetitive EnvironmentOrganization CapabilitiesOperational RequirementsFinancial & Funding CapabilitiesRisk & Reward Tolerance
CHOOSING THE RIGHT MIX OF RISK, REWARD AND CONTROL
BROADBAND BUSINESS MODELS EMPLOYED BY MUNICIPALITIES
BROADBAND BUSINESS MODELS EMPLOYED BY MUNICIPALITIES
LEARNING OBJECTIVES CONCLUSION1. Types of broadband services available in Loveland currently2. How Loveland is currently served3. Broadband issues reported by the communitya. Residential, small & medium commercial, large commercial, community anchors4. Broadband needs of community interest groupsa. City, Utilities, Economic Development, Fire & Rescue, Police5. Root causes of broadband issues6. Community sentiment regarding a City-provided broadband service7. Municipal business models used to improve the broadband environment
QUESTIONS?