1 / 22

Tina Nerat NERATECH CENIC Conference 3/10/09

Demand Opportunities for Broadband Deployment in Del Norte, Humboldt, Mendocino and Trinity Counties. Tina Nerat NERATECH CENIC Conference 3/10/09. RCC Project Participants. California Emerging Technology Fund Humboldt Area Foundation Humboldt State University

sadie
Télécharger la présentation

Tina Nerat NERATECH CENIC Conference 3/10/09

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Demand Opportunities for Broadband Deployment in Del Norte, Humboldt, Mendocino and Trinity Counties Tina Nerat NERATECH CENIC Conference 3/10/09

  2. RCC Project Participants • California Emerging Technology Fund • Humboldt Area Foundation • Humboldt State University • All 3 organizations have seats on the Governor’s Broadband Task Force • Other funders: RREDC, McLean Foundation, Headwaters Fund, Humboldt/Trinity CDBG http://redwoodcoastconnect.humboldt.edu

  3. What is the project? • First CETF project • Market Study – 4 county demand aggregation • Markets in rural regions • Population locations/density, remoteness, terrain • Broadband service areas • Closing gaps in service • We need to understand… • Demand (understanding adoption and usage) • Supply (current infrastructure) • Policy (planning, ordinances, barriers)

  4. Lessons to Share:Mapping Quality of broadband coverage map data • GIS maps • Provider engineering drawings • Public information • WISP maps on web sites • Purchased data - TeleAtlas • AAA maps with highlighter marking • Linemen & cable guys sharing info • WISP lat/long/tower height (GIS modeling) • “Local knowledge” marked up on GPS topo software maps • Paranoia about sharing information • Local dial-up providers know the “lay of the land”

  5. GISdata

  6. Neighborhood Mapping& Advocacy

  7. Mendocino Coast Broadband Alliance Parcel Map

  8. State of Infrastructure Rumors of infrastructure issues confirmed: • At capacity on some backhaul routes • Deteriorating copper in some areas • “It survived the ’64 flood” • Single provider for backhaul = high cost • Lack of route diversity • Widespread regional outages due to storms, backhoes, fires • Last mile issues can’t be considered without discussion of backhaul issues

  9. Community Access to Broadband

  10. Broadband Demand

  11. Community Ranking Sheet

  12. Surprises • Amazing small provider coverage (DSL, cable) • Large providers don’t know who their competition is in rural markets • Wireless ISP activity in the past 18 months • 101Netlink in Humboldt • No WISPs in Del Norte (yet) • Openness of conversations with some providers • Backhaul issues (cost, lack of capacity/vendor choice) are huge barriers to rural broadband

  13. Key Findings • Large population centers have reasonably high quality broadband access • 60% of communities unserved/underserved • Business needs often indistinguishable from residential needs (small businesses) • Telecom companies and wireless ISPs’ may well be anchor tenants • Public sector is generally well-connected • Lack of middle mile is single greatest barrier to last mile deployment • Subsidization of middle mile will be required

  14. Last mile broadband deployment is impossible without the middle mile. Proposed Middle Mile Architecture

  15. Klamath-Orick ScenarioCapital and Revenue • Total Demand Revenues • Residential $139,392 • Business $ 4,347 • Public $ 60,000 • Estimated Capital • Backhaul $5,071,000 • Local Loop 166,511 • Discounted Cash Flow • w/o public $ 799,486 • w/public $1,105,537 • Est. Subsidy $4-5 million

  16. Key State Policy Considerations • Anchor Tenants • Create new public/private partnerships utilizing public assets to support new infrastructure • Opening of closed networks for extending broadband into the hard-to-serve communities • Allow government offices in hard-to-serve communities participate in aggregation of demand

  17. Key State Policy Considerations • Capital Funding • Expand funding available to WISPs and other small local entrepreneurial enterprises • Include Community Services Districts providing broadband access to CASF funds • Provide grant funding to support community efforts to create business plans for broadband • Support research and development of new technologies that hold promise for rural areas

  18. Key State Policy Considerations • Infrastructure Build Out • Create an “open trench” policy whereby state funded infrastructure projects at a minimum encourage burying of conduit or fiber whenever a ditch is open • Fund a pilot project to determine the viability of micro-trenching as an alternative to laying fiber in public right of way (Caltrans) • Create publicly owned infrastructure that can be leased by private operators willing to serve hard to serve communities

  19. Resources http://redwoodcoastconnect.humboldt.edu tina@neratech.net Thank You CENIC……. for your support of rural broadband

More Related