Municipal broadband

Municipal broadband deployments are broadband Internet access services provided either fully or partially by local governments.^[1] Common connection technologies include unlicensed wireless (Wi-Fi, wireless mesh networks), licensed wireless (such as WiMAX), and fiber-optic. Although many cities previously deployed Wi-Fi based solutions, municipal fiber-to-the-home networks are becoming more prominent because of increased demand for modern audio and video applications, which are increasing bandwidth requirements by 40% per annum.^[2]

On 23 April 2014, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) is reported to be considering a new rule that will permit Internet service providers to offer content providers a faster track to send content, thus reversing their earlier net neutrality position.^[3][4] A possible response to net neutrality concerns may be municipal broadband, according to Professor Susan Crawford, a legal and technology expert at Harvard Law School.^[1] On 12 March 2015, the FCC released the specific details of the net neutrality rules.^[5][6][7] On 13 April 2015, the FCC published the final rule on its new "Net Neutrality" regulations.^[8][9]

Operation

Most municipal broadband networks avoid sometimes unreliable hub and spoke distribution models and use mesh networking instead.^[10] This method involves relaying radio signals throughout the whole city via a series of access points or radio transmitters, each of which is connected to at least two other transmitters. Mesh networks provide reliable user connections and are also faster to build and less expensive to run than the hub and spoke configurations. Internet connections can also be secured through the addition of a wireless router to an existing wired connection – a convenient method for Internet access provision in small centralized areas. Although wireless routers are generally reliable, their occasional failure means no Internet availability in that centralized area. This is why companies now use mesh networking in preference to hub and spoke configurations.

Three basic models for the operation and funding of Wi-Fi networks have emerged:

• Networks designed solely for use by municipal services (fire, police, planners, engineers, libraries, etc.). Municipal funds are used to establish and run the network;
• Quasi-public networks for use by both municipal services and private users owned by the municipality but operated for profit by private companies ("private hot spots"). Such networks are funded by specially earmarked tax revenues then operated and maintained on a chargeable basis by private service providers;
• Private service providers using public property and rights of way for a fee. These allow for in-kind provision of private access to public rights of way to build-out and maintain private networks with a 'lease payment' or percentage of profits paid to the municipality.

In Stockholm, the city owned Stokab provides network infrastructure through dark fiber to several hundred service providers who provide various alternative services to end users.^[11] Reggefiber in the Netherlands performs a similar role. The Utah Telecommunication Open Infrastructure Agency provides service at one network layer higher through a fiber network. This system's capacity is wholesaled to fifteen service providers who in turn provide retail services to the market. A final model is the provision of all layers of service, such as in Chaska, Minnesota, where the city has built and operates a Wi-Fi Internet network that provides email and web hosting applications. These different models involve different public-private partnership arrangements, and varying levels of opportunity for private sector competition.

In the U.S. a few states have banned municipal broadband, others have restricted it, and some have regulated it following business plans and studies. In 2007, three bills concerning the issue were pending before the U.S. Congress. One would have affirmed municipal broadband, one would have restricted it, and one would have prohibited it. The Community Broadband Act of 2007, created "to promote competition, to preserve the ability of local governments to provide broadband capability and services, and for other purposes", never became law.^[12][13]

Incumbent telecommunications and cable companies wishing to maintain their dominance in the market have complained that government competition is unfair. Other network operators have viewed it as an opportunity to expand their market. The Free Press, the Media Access Project, and the ACLU have all come out in favor of municipal broadband.

The reconstruction of New Orleans, after Hurricane Katrina caused an interruption of commercial Internet services in 2005, helped provide an impetus to expand a metro-scale wireless broadband network with an intent to deliver free public internet service alongside communications for government and emergency services. BellSouth, which merged with AT&T in 2007, vigorously opposed the expansion^[14] and threatened the city with legal action if the free New Orleans municipal WiFi network continued to be operated by the city. It did bring suit against Lafayette, 100 miles west, over similar public Internet connection services.^[15] Subsequently, the New Orleans network was sold to a third-party company.

Advantages

Municipal broadband offers a number of advantages to consumers and to the economy. Such networks often provide high speed Internet access more cheaply than other current broadband service providers, if not for free. Different cities adopt different models according to their needs. In the case of St. Cloud, Florida's, a municipal broadband network offers free access to everyone as does Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.^[16] Municipal broadband not only provide high speed Internet access for free it also lowers prices, creates competition, and boosts economic development. These advantages help keep prices down and networks functioning efficiently. Municipal broadband companies are faced with a constantly changing and highly competitive market with many operators. This keeps prices down and makes broadband affordable in rural and low-income communities. In a 2004 White House report, the President called for "universal, affordable access for broadband technology by the year 2007" and "plenty of technology choices when it comes to purchasing broadband".^[17]

Worker productivity can also increase as a result of municipal broadband by giving city officials such as police officers and firefighters remote access to information. Intelligent transport systems rely on fiber-optic infrastructure to network and manage thousands of traffic signals in large metropolitan areas every day. Building inspectors can issue reports and access networked data while conducting inspections. Public buildings in remote areas can be connected through Wi-Fi without the expense of fiber or private telecommunications contracts. Police officers can access security cameras, blueprints, criminal records and other necessary information. Networks can allow officers to show witnesses mug shots or "virtual lineups" at the scene of a crime, instead of at a police station. The Department of Homeland Security provides funding for cities that use municipal networks for these applications.^[18]

Not only does municipal broadband help public servants with their jobs, it also helps close the digital divide. Such services help bridge the gap by providing people with public access to the Internet. This allows low income families, travelers, and city officials to access important information without budgetary considerations in mind. The importance of free Internet access is based on information availability, for example students with no home based access are able to log on to the Internet using municipal broadband. Commentators hope that municipal broadband networks will make cities more attractive to businesses, especially high-tech and research companies, which are dependent on communication. Communication also enables small and home-based businesses to participate in international and regional commerce. Municipal broadband also allows companies to recruit new employees who can telecommute without physically relocating.^[19]

In 2000, the Federal Communications Commission endorsed municipal broadband as a "best practice" for bringing broadband to under served communities.^[20] The FCC also addressed the question of whether a municipality was an "entity" under the Telecommunications Act which mandates that "No State or local statute or regulation, or other State or local legal requirement, may prohibit or have the effect of prohibiting the ability of any entity to provide any interstate or intrastate telecommunications service." 47 USC 253(a). The legal question revolved around whether a state could prevent a municipality, as its subordinate government body, from entering the telecommunication market. In the case of Missouri Municipal League v. Nixon,^[21] the U.S. Supreme Court concluded that a municipality was not an entity under the Telecommunications Act and that a state could determine what authority its own subordinate jurisdictions had.

Governments have the advantage of being able to take a long term view and write off investments in municipal broadband over longer time periods. Private companies on the other hand, especially publicly traded ones, have to show profitability in a very short period. This indicates that governments are the best entities to create a broadband network—as infrastructure—then allow private companies to run it and deliver services such as IPTV, telephony and Internet access. In this way, governments are able to create a competitive environment where the network owner does not determine which services consumers can receive. "Structurally separation" or "functional separation" are terms often used to describe broadband as infrastructure that is open to all service providers. Governments may also be driven by their desire to lay down critical broadband infrastructure that serves a larger constituency made up of individuals, small businesses, schools, government entities and service providers. Building open-access local broadband networks can help with the infrastructure of a town and provide benefits to the townspeople that compensate for the costs involved. Having a publicly owned infrastructure provides a positive outcome in economic development as it attracts more locally owned businesses who can rely on high speed Internet connections to help their businesses. Such networks also deliver ubiquitous coverage in areas where private companies cannot own and operate public broadband networks. Enhanced services are included whereby townspeople can benefit from a greater diversity of value-added products. Security is a further issue with the need for a reliable integrated high-speed communications infrastructure at both a national, and a local level necessary for hospitals, schools, businesses etc. to provide a quick and large-scale responses to emergencies.

Controversy

There have been several high profile controversies because of legal restrictions on city broadband establishment and expensive lobbying efforts by incumbent ISPs to maintain and extend those restrictions. Recent examples can be found in Longmont, Colorado; San Antonio, Texas; and Seattle, Washington.^[22][23][24] Statewide restrictions on municipal broadband, written with heavy lobbyist influence, have been passed in several states, including the 2012 ALEC bills introduced in South Carolina, Georgia, and Minnesota.^[25]

Legally and politically, the issues surrounding broadband are numerous, but a multitude of technical issues are yet to be overcome, such as how citywide wireless Internet can avoid interfering with transmissions by other Internet and network providers. There are also four important economic aspects to be considered with respect to municipal broadband:

1. Which providers are currently providing service in a particular area or region?
2. What will be the effect on current providers economically, socially, and individually?
3. Will the installation be funded by local, state, or national government?
4. Who will be responsible for on-going maintenance?

Of these four areas, the funding question is the most controversial, and contingent upon the belief that national government should fund broadband. There are concerns over complete convergence and control of the Internet being placed in government hands under projects ultimately funded by the taxpayer, and a number of varying interests pushing both ways on the issue.

Successful implementation in Bristol, VA

In 2003, in the relatively isolated city of Bristol, Virginia, Bristol Virginia Utilities (BVU), created a nonprofit offshoot called "Optinet", a municipal broadband Internet service that covers Bristol as well as the Southwest portion of the state of Virginia. Serving around 9,500 customers,^[26] BVU is recognized as the "first municipal utility in the United States to deploy an all-fiber network offering the triple play of video, voice and data services".^[26] On October 29, 2009, BVU received USD 3.5 million in grant funding from the Virginia Tobacco Indemnification and Community Revitalization Commission.^[27] With these funds BVU will build "an additional 49 miles of its OptiNet fiber-optic backbone from Abingdon up I-81 to Virginia Route 16 from Marion into Grayson County".^[27] This will also allow for BVU to make a second connection with Mid Atlantic Broadband, increasing communication between different businesses in Northern Virginia. The Virginia Tobacco Community funded this project because it provided their business with more connections in crucial areas of the southwest and southern part of Virginia.

The U.S. Department of Commerce also funded BVU. On July 3, 2010, it was reported that they gave USD 22.7 million in stimulus funds to Southwest Virginia to create a "388-mile optic backbone through an eight-county region".^[28] This project will service over 120 institutions, such as schools, hospitals, government buildings, and many more besides.^[28] This new municipals broadband service will also be within a two-mile distance of over 500 different businesses.^[28] This project also created 295 new jobs.^[28] BVU Optinet continues operate a strong municipal broadband Internet service for Bristol and many other counties in Virginia.

Finance

In an effort to support U.S. federal government agencies attempting to deploy broadband services more widely, in a 2009 report the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation detailed cost estimates of providing "fiber optic connectivity to anchor institutions" in the United States. The institutions considered in the report were public schools, public libraries, hospitals and community colleges, with an estimated total cost of USD 5–10 billion.^[29]

On February 17, 2009, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act became law in an effort to build the economy, assist in job creation and retention, and improve U.S. infrastructure. It allocated $4.7 billion to establish a Broadband Technology Opportunities Program as part of the National Telecommunications and Information Agency State Broadband Data and Development Grant Program. A portion of funding awards were allocated to extend and develop broadband services to reach rural and "underserved areas" as well as to improve broadband access for public safety agencies.^[30][31]

According to the Muni Wireless website,^[32] In February 2010, the NTIA (National Telecommunications and Information Administration) awarded a $126.3 million grant to the Executive Office of the State of West Virginia to improve the state's broadband structure.^[33] That grant was part of the federal government's overall broadband stimulus to certain areas of the United States. With 2,400 miles of fiber, it is planned to improve the area's broadband connectivity and increase its overall speed in places like schools, government offices, public libraries, etc.

United States policy

See Internet in the United States#Implementing a National Broadband Policy

Current status of municipal wireless networks

See: Cities with Municipal Wireless Networks

See also

• Switched mesh
• Wireless community network
• Municipal wireless network

References

Further reading

• Wi-Fi in Inner Toronto, 2006
• The Broadband Gap: Why Is Theirs Faster? – New York Times, March 10, 2009
• "Chattanooga's Gig: how one city's super-fast internet is driving a tech boom", The Guardian (UK), August 30, 2014 
• "Why a Tennessee town has the fastest internet", BBC News, September 2, 2014 

External links

• March 2009 List of cities with WiFi projects (MuniWireless)
• CNET Map of Municipal Broadband networks in the United States
• Cybertelecom: Municipal Broadband
• Panel discussion with Google about their project for San Francisco
• MuniWireless.com: the portal for the latest news and information about municipal wireless broadband projects around the world with a comprehensive summary of projects, market research reports, and conferences; set up by Esme Vos in 2003, updated list of U.S. cities and counties with wireless networks
• W2i.com: a comprehensive best practices sharing portal that address all aspects of municipal wireless deployments including a searchable database of municipal deployments worldwide, videos, audios, expert zones addressing various aspects of deploying municipal wireless networks, expert blogs, daily headlines
• Wi-Fi in Inner Toronto
• CBC Newsl Earthlink shutting down Philadelphia Wi-Fi
• Vint Cerf Supports Municipal Broadband Networks
• Strategy Analytics: US Ranks 20th in Global Broadband Household Penetration
• Municipal Broadband Roadblocks A comprehensive list of the laws and regulations limiting different US states from implementing Municipal Broadband.