Mass Broadband Iniative

8/17/2019 Mass Broadband Iniative

1/15

Last Mile Program UpdateMay 10, 2016

1


2/15

• We have conducted and concluded an intensive program review in

collaboration with the MBI.• The MBI is shifting to a more flexible, responsive program framework

which prioritizes affordable and sustainable solutions and embraces arange of technology and operating options.

• The new course marks a change for MBI which up to now has been

constrained by irreconcilable expectations for speed, coverage,affordability, and a one-size fits all solution.

• We are prepared to move forward quickly and to partner with townsto discuss options and plans.

Goals:1. A strong collaborative partnership between the Administration, the

MBI, providers, and towns.

2. Rapid development and implementation of sustainable, reliable

broadband expansion projects 2

Program Update


3/15

We have announced two new Advisors for the Last Mile program:

Peter Larkin: Special Advisor to the Secretary• Will advise the Administration on the go-forward plan for community

engagement and project implementation

• Will be Secretary Ash’s designee to Chair the MBI Board of Directors• MBI’s advocate for success, and will help ensure community interests are

heard and properly vetted

Bill Ennen: Last Mile Implementation Liaison• Working alongside the MBI staff to help troubleshoot and expedite to get the

best possible outcome in the shortest possible time

• Provides a consultative role to town leaders and MBI staff with regard toverifying each town’s path forward

• Will be based in Western Mass3

Advisors


4/15

We are moving ahead with a fresh look.• Our shared goal is reliable, sustainable, affordable broadband

access for residents.

• We understand that there is no one-size-fits-all model for all towns.

• We will support projects that provide access to minimum speedrequirements, demonstrate viable funding and financing plans, andachieve operating sustainability.

• We are willing to support a range of technology, collaboration, and

operating choices.• The MBI, Special Advisor, and Implementation Liaison will engage

directly with Towns locally to propose and develop solutions.

• We want progress as quickly as possible.

4

Pathway Forward


5/15

There is no one-size-fits-all solution.However, there are several different projectmodels and technology options that may work:

5

Several Viable Models

Models:• Expansion by Private

Provider • Extension of Existing

Cable Infrastructure• Multi-Municipal

Network• Independent

Municipal Network• Pilot Projects

Funding andFinancing:

• MBI/State GrantFunding

• Private PartnerInvestment

• Municipal Investment:

• USDA Loan Program• State House Notes• Qualified Bond

Program• Potential Federal

Funding (FCC CAF II)

TechnologyOptions:

• Fiber • Wireless• Cable• Hybrid Systems


6/15

To receive state investment support, projects will need tomeet some minimum baseline requirements.

6

Baseline Requirements

Minimum ProjectRequirements:

• Project’s technology must provideaccess to broadband speeds asdefined by the FCC (25/3)

• Project must be capable ofdemonstrating long-term operatingsustainability without ongoing statesubsidy

• Project must be affordable

• Project should seek a minimum goal of96% residential coverage in its servicearea

• Endorsed by MBI professional staff • Financing Endorsed by DLS (as

needed)• Approved by MBI board

Technology andOperations:

• Preference for network operationsto be managed by experiencedprofessional partners whenpossible

• Many technology choices: fiber,wireless, cable, and/or hybridsolutions

• Preference for utilization ofMassBroadband 123 network whenappropriate


7/15

7

Communities by Residential Broadband Provider


8/15

We are reaching out to providers about

potential expansion:

8

Engaging with Providers

Company Comcast Verizon Charter Frontier FairpointMid

HudsonX5 Crocker

HilltownWireless

HolyokeG&E

WestfieldG&E

HQ Philadelphia,PANew York,

NYStamford,

CTNorwalk,

CTCharlotte,

NCCatskill,

NYSeattle,

WASpringfield,

MAAshfield,

MAHolyoke,

MAWestfield,

MA

CEOBrian

RobertsLowell

McAdamTom

RutledgeDaniel

McCarthyPaulSunu

JamesReynolds

GregForrest

MatthewCrocker

ChristopherGray

JamesLavelle,

GM

DanHoward,

GM

CY 2015Revenue

$75 billion$131

billion$10

billion$5.5

billion$900

million$25

million$70

million$66 million

Number ofEmployees

153,000 177,000 25,000 19,000 2,700 50 50Less than

30

SubscriptionsServed

27million

145million

6.7million

3.4 million 750,000 40,000


9/15


10/15

Using these models and available information, the MBI

will develop and start posting individual readiness statusreports for each town.

Example Readiness Elements Include:

10

Project Readiness

Town Preferences and Actions

• Establish a Local ProjectModel Preference

• Take Local Actions: Bond Authorization and DebtExclusion (if necessary)

• Establish MLP(if necessary)

• Establish Inter-Municipal Agreements (if necessary)

Financing and Funding

• Review MBI Cost andSustainability Analyses

• Understand and ConfirmTotal Project Costs

• Examine and PursueFunding Options

• Confirm and Review

Financing Options withFinancial Advisor and BondCounsel

• Develop Financing Plan withFinancial Advisor and BondCounsel

• Local Borrowing PlanEndorsed by either DLS orUSDA

Project Details

• Review and SelectTechnology Options

• Review and Select RegionalCollaboration Options

• Review and SelectOperator/ISP

• Develop and Confirm a

Sustainable Business Plan


11/15

We are prepared to engage directly witheach town individually or as collaboratives tosupport and review projects.

11

How We Work Together

ReviewMaterials

Town

Decision-Making

Project Approval

andFunding

MBI/

StateReview

MBI TracksStatus via

ReadinessReport

Meetingsand Support

Project Models

Funding and

Financing

Technology &Operations

Project

Submissionto MBI

Process will be iterative and collaborative, butalso time-bound with deadlines!


12/15

Appendix

12


13/15

13

List of Program Towns

Town CountyMONTGOMERY HAMPDENMOUNT WASHINGTON BERKSHIRENEW ASHFORD BERKSHIRENEW BRAINTREE WORCESTERNEW MARLBOROUGH BERKSHIRENEW SALEM FRANKLINNORTHFIELD FRANKLINOTIS BERKSHIREPELHAM HAMPSHIRE

PERU BERKSHIREPETERSHAM WORCESTERPLAINFIELD HAMPSHIREPRINCETON WORCESTERROWE FRANKLINROYALSTON WORCESTERSANDISFIELD BERKSHIRESAVOY BERKSHIRE

SHELBURNE FRANKLINSHUTESBURY FRANKLINTOLLAND HAMPDENTYRINGHAM BERKSHIREWARWICK FRANKLINWASHINGTON BERKSHIREWENDELL FRANKLINWEST STOCKBRIDGE BERKSHIREWINDSOR BERKSHIREWORTHINGTON HAMPSHIRE

Town County

ALFORD BERKSHIRE ASHFIELD FRANKLINBECKET BERKSHIREBLANDFORD HAMPDENBUCKLAND FRANKLINCHARLEMONT FRANKLINCHESTER HAMPDENCHESTERFIELD HAMPSHIRECOLRAIN FRANKLIN

CONWAY FRANKLINCUMMINGTON HAMPSHIREEGREMONT BERKSHIREFLORIDA BERKSHIREGOSHEN HAMPSHIREHANCOCK BERKSHIREHARDWICK WORCESTERHAWLEY FRANKLIN

HEATH FRANKLINHINSDALE BERKSHIREHUNTINGTON HAMPSHIRELANESBOROUGH BERKSHIRELEVERETT FRANKLINLEYDEN FRANKLINMIDDLEFIELD HAMPSHIREMONROE FRANKLINMONTAGUE FRANKLINMONTEREY BERKSHIRE


14/15

14

Model Examples

Town A:Expansion by

Private Provider •Ownership: Theprivate party wouldown the network

•Operations: Theprivate party wouldoperate the network

•Financing: Likely acombination of stateand private fundingwith a possibility forCAF II funding

•Technology: Fiber,Coax, or Wirelessdepending onprovider

•OperatingConsiderations:Sustainabilityconcerns would beminimized

•Challenges:Effectively incentingthe private sector toinvest with modestpublic investment

Town B: Extensionof Existi ng Cable

Infrastructure•Ownership:Incumbent cableprovider

•Operations:Incumbent cableprovider underexisting franchiseagreement

•Financing: Likely acombination of stateand private fundingwith a possibility forCAF II funding

•Technology: Likelythe same as existingtechnology providerdeploys in that town

•Operating

Considerations:Minimal

•Challenges:Effectively incentingthe private sector toinvest with modestpublic investment

Town C: Multi-Municipal Network

•Ownership: Municipal

•Operations:Outsourced andbased on consortiummodel

•Financing:Combination ofstate/MBI funds andmunicipal borrowing;unlikely availability forCAF II funds

•Technology: Fiber,wireless, or hybrid

•OperatingConsiderations:Emphasis onattaining broadbandspeeds withmaximum coverageat affordable priceswhile focusing onlong termsustainability

•Challenges:Fostering a flexiblestructure that willallow a town to exitwith its assets

Town D:Independent

Municipal Network•Ownership:Municipality

•Operations:Outsourced

•Financing:Combination ofstate/MBI funds andmunicipal borrowing;unlikely availability forCAF II funds

•Technology: f iber orwireless

•OperatingConsiderations:emphasis onattaining broadbandspeeds withmaximum coverageat affordable priceswhile focusing onlong termsustainability

•Challenges: Achieving asustainable network

Town E: PilotProjects

•Ownership: Variable,but likely the applyingmunicipality

•Operations: Variable,but preferablyoutsourced

•Financing: Variabledepending on project

•Technology:Dependent on pilotprogram (wireless,fiber, hybrid, etc.)

•OperatingConsiderations:Ensuring that the pilotmodel will foster longterm sustainability

•Challenges:

Balancing the need toinvest in newprograms with adesire to beresponsible stewards


15/15

15

Town Profile Example

Documents

Mass Broadband Iniative