Broadband Feasibility Study - Global...

Broadband Feasibility Study

A Study of the Town’s broadband infrastructure

with recommendations for the future

Prepared by James W. Sewall Company for the Town of Fort Fair!eld, Maine

18 April 2016

Broadband Feasibility Study

A study of the Town’s broadband infrastructure

with recommendations for the future

Town of Fort Fairfield, Maine

Table of Contents

1.0 Executive Summary ............................................................................................................. 1-1

2.0 Internet Access and Broadband Definition ............................................................... 2-1

3.0 Internet Access Technology Overview ........................................................................ 3-1

3.1 DSL .............................................................................................................................................. 3-1

3.2 Cable Modem .......................................................................................................................... 3-3

3.3 Fixed Wireless ........................................................................................................................ 3-4

3.4 4G/LTE Advanced Broadband ........................................................................................ 3-4

3.5 Satellite ...................................................................................................................................... 3-5

3.6 Fiber to the Premise (FTTP) ............................................................................................ 3-6

4.0 Existing Broadband Asset Inventory & Capabilities Assessment .................... 4-1

4.1 FairPoint Communications ............................................................................................... 4-1

4.2 Time Warner Cable .............................................................................................................. 4-4

4.3 Aroostook Technologies .................................................................................................... 4-5

4.4 Pioneer Broadband .............................................................................................................. 4-5

4.5 AiroComm ................................................................................................................................ 4-5

5.0 Connect America Fund—Phase II—FairPoint Investment ................................. 5-1

6.0 Consumer Survey ................................................................................................................. 6-1

7.0 Gap Analysis ........................................................................................................................... 7-1

8.0 Network Design Options to Close Identified Gaps .................................................. 8-1

8.1 Leverage Fairpoint CAF-II Investment ........................................................................ 8-1

8.2 Leverage Time Warner Cable Infrastructure ........................................................... 8-8

8.3 Develop Infrastructure to Support Multiple Wireless Providers ................. 8-11

TABLE OF CONTENTS

ii

8.4 Deploy Municipal Fiber-to-the-Premise Open Access Nework ..................... 8-13

9.0 Cost Summary of Network Options .............................................................................. 9-1

10.0 Potential Operating Models ...........................................................................................10-1

10.1 Public Private Partnership - Subsidy for Service Providers ........................... 10-1

10.2 Municipally Owned - Open Access Dark Fiber Network .................................. 10-2

10.3 Public Private Partnership – Jointly Owned Dark Fiber Network ............... 10-2

11.0 Conclusions & Recommendations ...............................................................................11-1

Appendix A – Consumer Survey Details

Appendix B – Maps

List of Tables

Table 1 — FairPoint DSL Cost Analysis .......................................................................................................... 8-1

Table 2 — TWC Expansion Cost Analysis .................................................................................................. 8-10

Table 3 — FTTP Summary Cost Analysis ................................................................................................... 8-14

Table 4 — Universal Broadband Coverage Network Options Cost Summary .............................. 9-1

List of Figures

Figure 1 — FairPoint twisted pair copper feeder/distribution network ....................................... 4-2

Figure 2 — FairPoint fiber & copper network ............................................................................................ 4-3

Figure 3 — Time Warner Cable hybrid fiber/coaxial network ........................................................... 4-4

Figure 4 — Fort Fairfield utility poles ............................................................................................................ 4-6

Figure 5 — Connect America Fund – Phase II (CAF-II) accepted high cost areas ....................... 5-2

Figure 6 — CAF-II minimum 10Mbps/1Mbps 9,000 foot loops w/all RTs fiber fed ................ 8-2

Figure 7 — CAF-II minimum 10Mbps/1Mbps 9,000 foot loops w/hybrid fiber/VDSL fed RTs

................................................................................................................................................................................ 8-3

Figure 8 — CAF-II minimum 10Mbps/1Mbps 12,000 foot loops w/all RTs fiber fed .............. 8-4

Figure 9 — CAF-II min. 10Mbps/1Mbps 12,000 foot loops w/hybrid fiber/VDSL fed RTs ... 8-5

Figure 10 — FCC Broadband Standard 25Mbps/3Mbps minimum 7,000 foot loops w/all RTs

fiber fed .............................................................................................................................................................. 8-6

Figure 11 — FCC Broadband Standard 25Mbps/3Mbps minimum 7,000 foot loops w/hybrid

fiber/VDSL fed RTs ........................................................................................................................................ 8-7

Figure 12 — Time Warner Cable potential expansion ............................................................................ 8-9

Figure 13 — Wireless tower infrastructure ............................................................................................. 8-12

Figure 14 — Fiber-to-the-Home overbuild ............................................................................................... 8-13

TABLE OF CONTENTS

ii

8.4 Deploy Municipal Fiber-to-the-Premise Open Access Nework ..................... 8-13

9.0 Cost Summary of Network Options .............................................................................. 9-1

10.0 Potential Operating Models ...........................................................................................10-1

10.1 Public Private Partnership - Subsidy for Service Providers ........................... 10-1

10.2 Municipally Owned - Open Access Dark Fiber Network .................................. 10-2

10.3 Public Private Partnership – Jointly Owned Dark Fiber Network ............... 10-2

11.0 Conclusions & Recommendations ...............................................................................11-1

Appendix A – Consumer Survey Details

Appendix B – Maps

List of Tables

Table 1 — FairPoint DSL Cost Analysis .......................................................................................................... 8-1

Table 2 — TWC Expansion Cost Analysis .................................................................................................. 8-10

Table 3 — FTTP Summary Cost Analysis ................................................................................................... 8-14

Table 4 — Universal Broadband Coverage Network Options Cost Summary .............................. 9-1

List of Figures

Figure 1 — FairPoint twisted pair copper feeder/distribution network ....................................... 4-2

Figure 2 — FairPoint fiber & copper network ............................................................................................ 4-3

Figure 3 — Time Warner Cable hybrid fiber/coaxial network ........................................................... 4-4

Figure 4 — Fort Fairfield utility poles ............................................................................................................ 4-6

Figure 5 — Connect America Fund – Phase II (CAF-II) accepted high cost areas ....................... 5-2

Figure 6 — CAF-II minimum 10Mbps/1Mbps 9,000 foot loops w/all RTs fiber fed ................ 8-2

Figure 7 — CAF-II minimum 10Mbps/1Mbps 9,000 foot loops w/hybrid fiber/VDSL fed RTs

................................................................................................................................................................................ 8-3

Figure 8 — CAF-II minimum 10Mbps/1Mbps 12,000 foot loops w/all RTs fiber fed .............. 8-4

Figure 9 — CAF-II min. 10Mbps/1Mbps 12,000 foot loops w/hybrid fiber/VDSL fed RTs ... 8-5

Figure 10 — FCC Broadband Standard 25Mbps/3Mbps minimum 7,000 foot loops w/all RTs

fiber fed .............................................................................................................................................................. 8-6

Figure 11 — FCC Broadband Standard 25Mbps/3Mbps minimum 7,000 foot loops w/hybrid

fiber/VDSL fed RTs ........................................................................................................................................ 8-7

Figure 12 — Time Warner Cable potential expansion ............................................................................ 8-9

Figure 13 — Wireless tower infrastructure ............................................................................................. 8-12

Figure 14 — Fiber-to-the-Home overbuild ............................................................................................... 8-13

Acknowledgments and Disclaimer

All cost information contained in this report are estimates based upon high level

desk-top engineering designs, our estimates of construction costs for the various

existing providers, and our knowledge of costs for similar types of projects. In order

to develop precise costs, a detailed engineering analysis will need to be performed

and actual construction costs determined.

1-1

1.0 Executive Summary

James W. Sewall Company and the Town of Fort Fairfield have partnered to study

the infrastructure gaps and understand the level of effort required to bring the

power of the Internet to all unserved and underserved areas of the Town.

The intent of this report is not about analyzing Internet usage trends, how much

bandwidth will be required in the future, or why the Internet is important to the

community of Fort Fairfield. As a society, we already understand that the Internet is

pervasive and integrated into all facets of everyday life, and that we all must have

unrestricted access to the Internet in order to participate in the increasingly global

economy, especially in the areas of healthcare, education, entertainment, financial

services, consumer goods and services, and global commerce. Rather, this report

presents a foundational understanding of the different Internet access technologies,

the existing broadband infrastructure supporting the community, and the gaps that

exist in coverage and/or service capacity. With this baseline in hand, we review and

present options to leverage and extend the existing infrastructure, which will

provide ubiquitous availability and sufficient capability to benefit the current

residents, businesses and future generations in an economical and sustainable

manner.

The results of the survey of the community indicate a significant dissatisfaction with

the current broadband services offered within the community. The highest number

of satisfied customers responding is served by Time Warner Cable while the least

satisfied are those served by satellite or some of the wireless solutions. Though

there is a faction supporting the community taking an active role in contributing to

enhancement of services, the majority of those surveyed did not respond to this

question, and only 25% of those asked answered in the affirmative. This suggests

more may need to be done to determine how much overall support a community

based solution will have.

The study examined the benefits and costs of leveraging the existing and planned

FairPoint DSL-based infrastructure, the potential to expand the Time Warner Cable

infrastructure, and the opportunity presented by wireless broadband providers and

contrasted these options with the costs to deploy a completely new and ubiquitous

Fiber-to-the-Premise network. We also recognize the solution for Fort Fairfield may

not be any one of these individual solutions by itself, but may involve a portion of

Town of Fort Fairfield, Maine EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

1-2

each, creating a hybrid infrastructure that takes advantage of potential partners and

funding wherever it may exist.

Given the extent of existing service coverage and the plans already underway to

increase the level of service within the current systems, it does not appear

economically feasible for the community to consider overbuilding this

infrastructure with another competing network. An approach with the potential to

increase the overall capacity and capability might be to assist one or several of the

operators in extending coverage through short term subsidies that would offset

construction costs. With this foundational understanding, we believe the Town will

be well positioned to begin collaboration and partnership with existing Internet

service providers and potential new entrants. We recommend negotiations with all

of the providers to develop one or more Public Private Partnerships to solve the

Internet access challenge facing the Town.

2-1

2.0 Internet Access and Broadband Definition

The terms “Internet access” and “broadband” are often used interchangeably. There

is frequently confusion between the two, especially as the definitions evolve with

technology changes.

Internet access connects individual computer terminals, computers, mobile

devices, and computer networks to the Internet, enabling users to access Internet

services, such as email, applications and information delivered via the World Wide

Web. Internet service providers (ISPs) offer Internet access through various

technologies that offer a wide range of data signaling rates (speeds).

Consumer use of the Internet first became popular through dial-up Internet access

in the 1990s. By the first decade of the 21st century, many consumers in developed

nations used faster, broadband Internet access technologies.

Broadband is a generic term representing any wide-bandwidth data transmission

method with the ability to transport multiple signals and traffic types

simultaneously. This data can be transmitted using coaxial cable, optical fiber, radio

or twisted pair copper. In the context of Internet access, broadband is used much

more loosely to mean any high-speed Internet access that is always on and faster

than traditional dial-up access. Different governing authorities have developed

inconsistent definitions of what constitutes broadband service based on access

speed.

In January 2015, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) voted to define

broadband as at least 25 Mbps (mega bits per second) download and 3 Mbps

upload. Their definition affects policy decisions and the FCC's annual assessment of

whether broadband is being deployed to all Americans quickly enough.

Town of Fort Fairfield, Maine INTERNET ACCESS AND BROADBAND DEFINITION

2-2

In Maine, the ConnectME Authority Board1 currently defines effective broadband

network capacity as 10 Mbps download and 10 Mbps upload. Areas of Maine that

have maximum available broadband speeds of at least 10 Mbps/10 Mbps are

considered served. Areas with available broadband speeds that are lower than 1.5

Mbps download are considered unserved. Areas where the maximum available

service is between 1.5Mbps and 10Mbps download are considered by the Authority

as underserved.

Finally, for those rural and high-cost areas served by FairPoint where FairPoint has

accepted subsidies through the Connect America Fund, the FCC has adopted a

minimum speed standard of 10 Mbps downstream and 1 Mbps upstream (10/1

Mbps).

Fort Fairfield may elect to pursue access options based on one of these established

standards or define its own standard depending upon the serving technology

architecture it wishes to pursue, the costs for deployment and funding strategies.

1 In recognition of the critical importance of modern technology for education, health care, and business success in Maine, the Legislature created the ConnectME Authority (Authority) in 2006 as an independent State agency, to develop and implement broadband strategy for Maine. The Authority is governed by a Board which is comprised of members appointed by the Governor or specifically identified and designated by statute.

3-1

3.0 Internet Access Technology Overview

In this section, we present an overview of different Internet access technology,

including digital subscriber line, cable modem, fixed wireless, 4G/LTE Advanced,

satellite, and Fiber to the Premise.

3.1 DSL

Digital subscriber line (DSL) is a technology used by traditional telephone system

operators such as FairPoint Communications to deliver advanced services (high-

speed data and potentially video) over twisted pair copper telephone wires. This

technology typically has lower data carrying capacity than the hybrid fiber coaxial

network deployed by cable system operators like Time Warner Cable (TWC). Data

speeds can be range-limited by the length of the copper cable serving the premise,

the wire gauge of the copper conductors and the condition of the copper.

The most commonly installed DSL technology for Internet access is asymmetric

digital subscriber line (ADSL). DSL service can be delivered simultaneously with

wired telephone service on the same telephone line. This is possible because DSL

uses higher frequency bands for data transmission than are required for the voice

service transmission. On the customer premises, a DSL filter on each non-DSL outlet

blocks any high-frequency interference to enable simultaneous use of the voice and

DSL services.

The bit rate of consumer DSL services can range from 256Kbps to over 100 Mbps in

the direction to the customer (downstream), depending on the DSL technology, line

conditions, and the length of the copper loop. In ADSL, the data throughput in the

upstream direction (the direction from the consumer to the service provider) is

lower, hence the designation of asymmetric service.

At the central office, a digital subscriber line access multiplexer (DSLAM) terminates

the DSL circuits and aggregates them, where they are handed off to other

networking transport equipment. The DSLAM terminates all connections and

recovers the original digital information. For locations beyond the maximum

distance from the central office for the particular type of DSL technology deployed

(7,000 – 12,000 feet), DSLAM’s can be deployed in the field in outside plant cabinets

and connected to the central office by fiber optic cables. A shorter distance from the

Town of Fort Fairfield, Maine INTERNET ACCESS TECHNOLOGY OVERVIEW

3-2

premise to the DSLAM results in greater bandwidth (speed and/or capacity) for the

connected users.

The customer end of the connection consists of a terminal adaptor or "DSL modem".

This converts data between the digital signals used by computers and the voltage

signal of a suitable frequency range which is then applied to the phone line.

There are additional formats of DSL technologies that can enhance the capacity of

the network. ADSL2+ extends the capability of basic ADSL by doubling the number

of downstream channels, increasing the frequency from 1.1 Mhz to 2.2 Mhz. The

data rates can be as high as 24Mbps downstream and up to 1.4Mbps upstream,

depending on the distance from the DSLAM to the customer's premises. Like the

previous standards, ADSL2+ will degrade from its peak bit rate after a certain

distance.

ADSL2+ allows port bonding, where multiple ports are physically provisioned to the

end user and the total bandwidth is equal to the sum of all provisioned ports. When

two lines capable of 24 Mbps are bonded, the end result is a connection capable of

48 Mbps download and twice the original upload speed.

Very-high-bit-rate digital subscriber line 2 (VDSL2) permits the transmission of

asymmetric and symmetric aggregate data rates up to 200 Mbps downstream and

upstream on twisted pairs using a bandwidth up to 30Mhz. It deteriorates quickly

from a theoretical maximum of 250 Mbps at the source to 100 Mbps at 1,600 feet

and 50 Mbps at 3,300 feet, but degrades at a much slower rate from there. Starting

from one mile, its performance is similar to ADSL2+. Bonding may be used to

combine multiple wire pairs to increase available capacity, or extend the copper

network's reach.


3-3

3.2 CABLE MODEM

Cable modem Internet access is provided over a hybrid fiber-coaxial (HFC)

broadband network. It has been employed globally by cable television operators

since the early 1990s, and is the network architecture utilized by Time Warner

Cable to provide service within Maine. In a HFC cable system, the television

channels are sent from the cable system's distribution facility, the headend, to local

communities through optical fiber trunk lines. The fiber-optic trunk lines provide

adequate bandwidth to allow future expansion for bandwidth-intensive services. At

the local community, an optical node translates the signal from a light beam to an

electrical signal, and sends it over coaxial cable lines for distribution to subscriber

residences.

The coaxial portion of the network connects 25–2,000 homes in a tree-and-branch

configuration off of the node. RF amplifiers are used at intervals to overcome cable

attenuation and passive losses of the electrical signals caused by splitting or

"tapping" the coaxial cable.

The HFC broadband network is typically operated bi-directionally, meaning that

signals are carried in both directions on the same network from the headend/hub

office to the home, and from the home to the headend/hub office. The forward-path

or downstream signals carry information such as video content, voice and data. The


3-4

return-path or upstream signals carry information such as video control signals to

order a movie or Internet data to send an email. The forward-path and the return-

path are carried over the same coaxial cable in both directions between the optical

node and the home.

Data over Cable Service Interface Specification (DOCSIS) is an international

telecommunications standard that permits the addition of high-bandwidth data

transfer to an existing cable TV (CATV) system. DOCSIS 3.0 has been deployed by

most cable providers including Time Warner Cable to provide Internet access over

their existing HFC infrastructure.

A new DOCSIS standard, version 3.1, has been developed and is being deployed by

some cable operators. It is capable of supporting Internet speeds of up to 10 Gbps

but most providers will likely start by offering 1 Gbps service.

3.3 FIXED WIRELESS

Fixed wireless broadband is the operation of wireless devices or systems used to

connect two fixed locations (e.g., building to building or tower to building) with a

radio or other wireless link. Fixed wireless data (FWD) links are often a cost-

effective alternative to leasing fiber or installing cables between the buildings. The

point-to-point signal transmissions occur through the air over a terrestrial

microwave platform. The advantages of fixed wireless include the ability to connect

with users in remote areas without the need for laying new cables and the capacity

for broad bandwidth that is not impeded by fiber or cable capacities. Fixed wireless

services typically use a directional radio antenna on each end of the signal. These

antennas are generally larger than those seen in Wi-Fi setups and are designed for

outdoor use. They are typically designed to be used in the unlicensed Industrial,

Scientific, and Medical (ISM) radio frequency bands (900 MHz, 1.8GHz, 2.4 GHz and

5 GHz). However, in many commercial installations licensed frequencies may be

used to ensure quality of service (QoS) or to provide higher connection speeds.

To receive this type of Internet connection, consumers mount a small dish to the

roof of their home or office and point it to the transmitter. Line-of-sight is usually

necessary for Wireless Internet Service Providers (WISPs) operating in the 2.4 and 5

GHz bands. The 900 MHz band offers better non-line-of-sight (NLOS) performance.

Providers of unlicensed fixed wireless broadband services, such as Aroostook

Technologies and Pioneer Broadband, typically provide equipment to customers

and install a small antenna or dish somewhere on the roof. This equipment is

usually deployed and maintained by the company providing that service. Fixed

wireless services have become popular in many rural areas where cable, DSL or

other home Internet services are not available.

3.4 4G/LTE ADVANCED BROADBAND

4G/LTE Advanced is the latest wireless technology that is being deployed by cellular

telephone providers such as AT&T, Verizon Wireless, US Cellular, Sprint and T-


3-5

Mobile for traditional mobile phone and data services. It is also the technology

deployed by Redzone Wireless for their wireless broadband Internet service. The

latest standard incorporates two new technologies - Carrier Aggregation, and

Multiple Input Multiple Output (MIMO), in order to provide speeds in excess of 100

Mbps, and eventually up to 1 Gbps and beyond. While standard data connections use

one antenna and one signal at any given time, 4G LTE Advanced uses multiple

signals and multiples antennas.

Mobile LTE wireless service uses MIMO technology to combine multiple antennas

on both the transmitter and the receiver. A 2×2 MIMO configuration has two

antennas on the transmitter and two on the receiver, but the technology is not

limited to 2x2. More antennas could theoretically operate at faster speeds as the

data streams can travel more efficiently. The signal is then combined with ‘carrier

aggregation’, which allows a device to receive multiple different 4G signals at once.

The received signals don’t have to be on the same frequency; you could receive an

1800MHz and an 800MHz signal at the same time which is not possible with

standard 4G. Up to five different 20MHz signals can be combined to create a data

pipe of up to 100MHz of bandwidth.

LTE wireless is a rapidly evolving technology and the next generation (5G) is

already being field tested. The term “5G” is the fifth generation of wireless systems

and expected to provide significant increases in bandwidth.

3.5 SATELLITE

Satellite Internet is available to virtually the entire lower 48 states, with some

coverage in Alaska, Hawaii and Puerto Rico. The satellites are positioned more than

22,000 miles above the equator. These satellites are geostationary, which means

they are always above a specific point on the earth as it rotates. The first Internet

satellites successfully brought the Internet to a larger audience, but the rates were

incredibly slow. Modern satellites use more advanced technology to transmit

information which provides faster Internet access, but still much slower than

landline-based Internet and terrestrial wireless Internet services.

When a consumer subscribes to satellite Internet, the company installs household

equipment, which consists of an antenna dish and a modem. The antenna is located

outside of the house and is generally two or three feet in diameter. The antenna

must have an unobstructed view of the sky, called the line-of-sight, in order to

communicate with the satellite. The antenna is connected to a modem, which

connects to a computer with an Ethernet cable.

To manage bandwidth quality for all users, each plan comes with a cap on the data

you can transmit or consume per month. The amount of data allotted depends on

the subscriber’s plan. Plans typically range from 5GB to 25GB of data transmission

per month with daily use limits prescribed. If you exceed the allotted data amount,

Internet speeds will be throttled until the next month. However, some companies


3-6

allow subscribers to pay for more data capacity once the threshold is met, resetting

normal operation levels.

3.6 FIBER TO THE PREMISE (FTTP)

Fiber to the Premise (FTTP) is a network utilizing fiber optic cables directly to the

home or business and is capable of offering virtually unlimited symmetrical

bandwidth. Most FTTP networks can offer 1 Gbps of bandwidth in both download

and upload directions, with some providers offering 2 Gbps and even 10 Gbps

service capacity.

As an option to consider for Fort Fairfield this is the most expensive network to

deploy and though it is considered to be future-proof, meaning that other new

technologies will not be able to provide faster service, without a significant source

to offset construction costs the number of potential customers would make the cost

recovery untenable. This type of technology can be deployed economically in

densely populated areas but is difficult to deploy universally in rural areas without a

public subsidy. Though entities like ConnectME provide grants to close gaps in

unserved areas, they would not be a likely source for enough funding to offset

enough of the construction of a system providing ubiquitous fiber network that

were built by the town.

4-1

4.0 Existing Broadband Asset Inventory & Capabilities Assessment

Work on the study began by establishing the extent and capacity of coverage already

deployed within the community. This information is required to properly assess the

technical options and cost comparisons for Fort Fairfield’s broadband solution.

4.1 FAIRPOINT COMMUNICATIONS

FairPoint offers residential and commercial broadband utilizing DSL technology via

their ubiquitous twisted pair copper network, which is currently limited to

customer locations within approximately 18,000 feet from their central office at 5

Fort Hill Street in downtown Fort Fairfield. Customer locations closer than 7,000

feet from their central office can receive service up to 25 Mbps download/3 Mbps

upload.

Town of Fort Fairfield, Maine EXISTING BROADBAND ASSET INVENTORY & CAPABILITIES ASSESSMENT

4-2

Figure 1 — FairPoint twisted pair copper feeder/distribution network


4-3

FairPoint also offers commercial broadband services via their fiber network from

the southern border to the northern border of Fort Fairfield along oute 1A, to the

Canadian border crossing and between downtown and short distances along Forest

Avenue, North Caribou Road and Center Limestone Road. Commercial broadband

services are available up to 10Gbps on their fiber optic network.

Figure 2 — FairPoint fiber & copper network


4-4

FairPoint recently agreed to accept Connect America Fund – Phase II (CAF-II)

funding from the FCC to deploy broadband services to many of their currently high

cost unserved areas of Fort Fairfield at a minimum 10 Mbps/1 Mbps speeds with a

commitment to deploy those services over the next 6 years. (See Section 5.0 for a

more detailed discussion of the CAF-II program).

4.2 TIME WARNER CABLE

Time Warner Cable (TWC) offers broadband service to locations adjacent to their

hybrid fiber/coax network along approximately 28 miles of roadway in the most

densely populated areas of Fort Fairfield and along South Caribou Road to the

border of the City of Caribou.

Figure 3 — Time Warner Cable hybrid fiber/coaxial network


4-5

TWC delivers broadband service using the DOCSIS 3.0 standard with speeds up to

50 Mbps/5 Mbps. For commercial customers, TWC is able to offer up to 10 Gbps

through their Business Class service. Many of TWC’s larger systems in other areas of

the country have been upgraded to provide speeds up to 300 Mbps/50 Mbps as the

systems have been upgraded to 100% digital. It is believed that TWC will be offering

a similar service capability throughout their properties in Maine in the near future,

although TWC has not announced when that capability will be available.

4.3 AROOSTOOK TECHNOLOGIES

Aroostook Technologies, Inc. (ATI) offers a wireless Internet service from four

different tower sites located in Fort Fairfield, Parkhurst, Mars Hill and Limestone.

ATI’s fixed wireless service is supported by a 2 Gbps connection from their office to

the Internet and connects to their towers via wireless backhaul with speeds capable

of reaching 300 Mbps utilizing the 5 Ghz frequency. Equipment is deployed at

customer locations using one of three different frequencies – 5 Ghz, 2.4 Ghz and 900

Mhz. On installations with a clear line-of-sight, ATI is realizing average speeds of 20-

30 Mbps at the customer location on 5 Ghz and 2.4 Ghz frequencies. As newer

equipment is deployed, speeds of 70-80 Mbps will be available. Upgrades to the

latest technology solution that will make this possible are underway.

On indirect line-of-sight installations using 900 Mhz technology, ATI is realizing

average speeds of 5-15 Mbs and with the new equipment advises that speeds of 10-

30 Mbps will soon be available. In order to provide more ubiquitous service, ATI will

need to deploy more towers and/or “MicroPops” to enable line-of-sight

connectivity.

4.4 PIONEER BROADBAND

Pioneer Broadband has a limited wireless offering in Fort Fairfield using older fixed

wireless technology. They acknowledge the service is not as robust or reliable as

they would like and are focusing future efforts on FTTP buildouts to replace this

system. They have pursued government grants for various FTTP buildouts in Fort

Fairfield, but to date have not been successful in receiving the grant assistance to

make those projects feasible. Pioneer is currently in the process of designing a FTTP

build out in the southwest portion of Fort Fairfield and will be seeking an

implementation grant to offset part of the construction cost from the ConnectME

Authority this spring.

4.5 AIROCOMM

Another wireless broadband company, AiroComm, has tentative plans to offer

service in the near future. They intend to utilize a tower on the north side of town

and another on the south side which will wirelessly connect to a network of smaller

transmitters located on utility poles throughout Fort Fairfield. The tower in the


4-6

north will connect to fiber in Caribou. The tower in the South will connect to fiber in

Presque Isle. Both towers will also have a backhaul between them creating a

redundant ring topology.

With this infrastructure, AiroComm plans to provide Internet and digital telephone

service to business and residential customers primarily in areas where true high

speed Internet is not yet available. AiroComm provides service via new wireless

technology that can deliver speeds up to 50 Mbps up/down. AiroComm plans to

deliver speeds up to 150 Mbps synchronous for business and speeds up to 1 Gbps

on demand for larger businesses.

Figure 4 — Fort Fairfield utility poles

5.0 Connect America Fund—Phase II—FairPoint Investment

On August 18, 2015, FairPoint announced it had accepted $13.3 million in annual

support from the Federal Communications Commission's (FCC) Phase II of the

Connect America Fund (CAF-II) for the state of Maine. By accepting these funds, the

Company is committing to construct and operate network infrastructure offering

broadband service speeds of at least 10 Mbps download and 1 Mbps upload to

approximately 35,500 additional Maine households, extending their existing

network to new rural locations in Maine. The support program and the FairPoint

commitment will be executed over six years beginning in 2016.

The FCC developed CAF-II as a part of its mandate to shift federal support focus

from voice service in high cost service areas to broadband build out and operation

in high cost service areas. It is important to note that these funds are for build out

and “operation” in high cost areas. This means, not all of the funds are intended to

necessarily be used for deploying the equipment and fiber necessary to provide the

10 Mbps/1 Mbps service. Rather, it is intended that some portion of those funds

would be devoted to operating the network in the high cost areas being deployed.

CAF-II will accelerate the FCC's mandate by explicitly supporting the development

and operation of broadband in high cost service areas. Qualifying locations eligible

for service as a part of the six-year build have been predetermined by the FCC.

The CAF-II funding available for Fort Fairfield is intended to provide service to 399

currently unserved locations. FairPoint is receiving over $13,000,000 per year for

the state of Maine, with approximately $3,490,000 of that amount targeted for

Aroostook County each year. Approximately $200,000 of that amount is targeted for

high cost areas within Fort Fairfield for a total of approximately $1,200,000 over the

course of the 6 year program.

Town of Fort Fairfield, Maine CONNECT AMERICA FUND—PHASE II—FAIRPOINT INVESTMENT 5-2

Figure 5 — Connect America Fund – Phase II (CAF-II) accepted high cost areas


We understand that FairPoint intends to deploy ADSL2+ technology to provide the

service by installing remote terminals within these currently unserved geographic

areas. The network will connect back to their central office with either fiber or a

combination of fiber and bonded VDSL copper connections. Connection speeds are

expected to be a minimum of 10 Mbps down and 1 Mbps up for customer locations

the furthest away from these remote terminals. Locations closer to the remote

terminals will realize speed in excess of 10 Mbps/1 Mbps with potential speeds of

up to 48 Mbps (see the general discussion of DSL technology in section 3.1).

It is important to understand that FairPoint is not required to spend the entire CAF-

II subsidy for network enhancement in the Town of Fort Fairfield to meet the

service commitment criteria. Rather, they simply need to meet the service

commitment regardless of how much or how little they spend on deployment.

Monies not needed for construction or other system upgrades can be applied to

operation and maintenance costs or to other indirect items. That said, they do have

performance commitments they must demonstrate to the FCC.

As part of the CAF-II program, FairPoint will need to demonstrate they are meeting

the following performance requirements.

• A minimum usage allowance of 100 Gbps per month at or above the usage

level for 80 percent of all of its broadband subscribers, including those

subscribers that live outside of CAF-II funded areas.

• Maximum 100 milliseconds latency. To show that FairPoint is meeting this

standard, they will need to certify that 95 percent or more of peak period

measurements (also referred to as observations) of network round trip

latency are at or below 100 milliseconds. FairPoint will have two options to

satisfy this requirement.

o Option #1 – Measurements will be taken during peak period

(defined as weeknights between 7:00 PM and 11:00 PM local time)

between customer premises and the closest designated Internet core

peering interconnection point (often referred to as an Internet

Exchange Point – IXP). The measurements must be conducted over a

minimum of two consecutive weeks during peak hours for at least 50

randomly-selected customer locations within the census blocks for

the state of Maine, using existing network management systems,

ping tests, or other commonly available network measurement tools.


o Option #2 – For providers participating in the FCC’s Measuring

Broadband America program (MBA)2, they may use the results from

that testing to support certification that they meet the latency

requirements. To use MBA results, FairPoint will need to deploy at

least 50 white boxes to customers within the CAF-II funded areas

within Maine. Because white boxes take measurements on a

continuous basis, FairPoint would prove compliance with the latency

limit by certifying that 95 percent or more of the measurements

taken during peak periods for a period of two weeks were at or

below 100 ms.

2 The FCC's Measuring Broadband America program is built on principles of openness and transparency. The FCC has made available to stakeholders and the general public the open source software used on both its fixed and mobile applications, the data collected, and detailed information regarding the FCC's technical methodology for analyzing the collected data. The measurement methodology for the Measuring Broadband America program has been developed in collaboration with SamKnows, the FCC's contractor supporting the Measuring Broadband America program, who perform similar projects for other countries around the world. Over the course of the multi-year program the FCC has released the comprehensive measurement methodology used to collect the data and produce reports, and in addition to the various data sets, the actual software source code that was used for the testing has been made available for academic and other researchers for non-commercial purposes by SamKnows. The goal of SamKnows is to help create a standard methodology for measuring Internet performance globally, and in pursuit of this goal, SamKnows is now making the source code of the actual tests available as open source under a GNU General Public License.

6.0 Consumer Survey

In collaboration with the Town of Fort Fairfield staff, the team conducted a survey to

solicit input from the residents and businesses to better understand their

perceptions of existing Internet services and to gauge their interest in developing

new options. Two hundred four (204) respondents contributed information that

helped the team evaluate the level of need and interest in subscribing to enhanced

Internet capabilities. The responses also gave insight to patterns of use, typical

spending thresholds, and types of applications consumed via the Internet.

Data was collected using two primary methods: an online survey hosted by Survey

Monkey and implemented by Sewall, and a phone survey conducted by Virtual

Managed Solutions (VMS) of Caribou, Maine. Twenty questions were included in the

survey. The results are summarized below.

Subscription

Of the 204 survey respondents, 90% said that they do subscribe to Internet service.

Of the 10% who do not subscribe to Internet service:

• Eight people reported that they do not have a computer;

• Five residents do not need or want Internet service;

• Five residents reported that they feel they do not have sufficient service at

their location in order to invest in the service;

• Two people reported that they cannot afford the Internet service in their

area; and

• Two people reported that Internet is not available at their location.

The wired and wireless Internet providers that were noted from the survey results

were: Aroostook Technologies, FairPoint Communications, Pioneer Wireless, Time

Warner Cable. The mobile and satellite providers noted were: U.S. Cellular, Verizon

Wireless, and DishNetwork. Forty-seven percent (47%) of consumers were satisfied

to very satisfied with their current service, while 53% were somewhat to not

satisfied with their service. Forty-two percent (42%) of consumers indicated they

would consider changing Internet providers, and 39% are very interested in

switching to a new Internet provider.

Town of Fort Fairfield, Maine CONSUMER SURVEY 6-2

Consumer Spending

Almost half of residents reported that they pay between $26 and $50 a month for

Internet service and the majority of remaining respondents pay more than $50 per

month. These monthly service costs were predominantly for Internet service only

and did not include costs for other “packaged” services, such as phone and cable TV.

When asked if they were willing to pay more for Internet every month, respondents

were fairly divided between three responses: yes, no, and not sure.

Respondents did support the municipal government funding or subsidizing the

enhancement of Internet service, but were not in support of building or placing

multiple new wireless towers in the Town of Fort Fairfield.

Device and Application Use

The number of devices in the resident’s home which connect to the Internet was

polled. This number includes, but is not limited to, devices such as computers, iPads,

smartphones connected to home Wi-Fi, tablets, Kindles, iPods, TiVO, Xbox,

Playstation.

• 80% of homes have more than one device that connects to the Internet.

• 18% of residential users have more than 10 separate devices accessing the

Internet at a single residence.

Residents were asked to rate how important high speed Internet is to members of

their household. Over half of respondents indicated that high speed Internet was

very important and integrated into their daily lives. Only 7% reported that the

Internet was unnecessary or somewhat unnecessary to them.


Internet application was calculated based on a question formatted with

prepopulated general Internet use responses. The four most popular uses of the

Internet are as follows, in descending order: email, online research, social media (i.e.

Facebook, Twitter, etc.), and online shopping.

A quarter of the respondents indicated that they have a home based business, and

an additional 32% indicated that members of their household telecommute.

The high Internet use and consumption by respondents is reflected in response to

the question “what kind of impact do Internet problems have on your home or

business?” Ninety percent of respondents reported moderate to total disruption in

their households when Internet connection is interrupted. When asked to rate

features of Internet service by their level of importance, reliability was found to be

most important, followed by customer service, price, and speed.


General Satisfaction

This chart provides insight into the level of satisfaction with the current access

solutions. The majority of respondents have enough dissatisfaction with their

current service to at least consider changing providers.


The complete survey and summary of the responses to the twenty questions are

included in Appendix A.

A key finding is that consumers have a relatively high subscription rate within this

community. There is also a significant dissatisfaction among a high percentage and

support for a community based initiative to increase the reliability and capacity of

the services being delivered. However, a wireless solution option that includes the

deployment of new towers is not supported by a large percentage of the community.

7.0 Gap Analysis

As the profile of operators in section 4.0 illustrates, the Town of Fort Fairfield is

served by a number of providers utilizing various technologies. Many areas have

few options beyond satellite service and lower speed fixed wireless. No provider

offers a ubiquitous service throughout the Town with speeds sufficient to meet

current or future bandwidth requirements.

Time Warner Cable (TWC) service is limited to the most densely populated areas

with speeds up to 50 Mbps/5 Mbps and has no plans to expand beyond their current

footprint. TWC is obligated by the terms of the franchise agreement with the Town

to expand their network in areas where there are 20 homes or greater per mile

adjacent to their current network. Due to the rural nature of the Town and the

limited growth currently foreseen, expansion of the network will not occur in the

near term without some form of subsidy.

FairPoint will be deploying a minimum 10 Mbps/1 Mbps service as part of their

CAF-II commitment to most of the unserved areas However, the community

perceives these speeds as insufficient for many users in the near term and even

more inadequate for the bandwidth demands anticipated in the future.

Fixed wireless broadband providers are exploring options to expand service and

increase speeds. It remains to be seen if they can justify sufficient investment to

provide ubiquitous service given the abundance of hilly terrain and forested areas

inhibiting line-of-sight solutions without some form of subsidy.

As in most rural communities, the poor return on investment for serving customers

spaced at a density of less than 10 units per mile limits the investment that

operators are willing to make under the current business models.

Town of Fort Fairfield, Maine GAP ANALYSIS 7-2

Section 8 – Network Design Options, provides a high level discussion of the options

available to close the service gaps discussed above, and meet the following goals of

the Town:

• Universal availability of high-speed broadband in all areas of the Town.

• Broadband speeds sufficient to:

o Retain existing residents and businesses;

o Attract new residents and businesses; and

o Reverse out-migration and encourage those who have left to return.

• Stimulate economic growth and increase the tax base.

• Improve the reliability of broadband service available to the Town.

• Stimulate a competitive broadband environment with multiple providers

and competitive pricing.

• Assure that any broadband infrastructure investment by the Town is

scalable and capable of being improved for future broadband needs.

8.0 Network Design Options to Close Identified Gaps

This section will suggest options to address the Town’s broadband needs and goals,

including capabilities and high level cost estimates. Each potential option has

strengths and potential weaknesses. There is enough in process relative to current

plans and funding sources within the existing provider community, we believe the

town will be served best at this time to investigate fully the costs and benefits of

partnering with any or all of the providers. This section has been developed to

provide high level insight into those opportunities and may serve to address a

criteria checklist for engagement that has not yet been fully developed.

8.1 LEVERAGE FAIRPOINT CAF-II INVESTMENT

FairPoint is committed to providing 10 Mbps/1 Mbps service to 399 locations

within the FCC defined high cost areas of the Town (see Figure 5) under the terms of

a subsidy from the FCC CAF-II fund of $1.2M over a six year period. There may be an

opportunity to leverage that investment with additional dollars to increase the

minimum speeds to the FCC’s broadband standard of 25 Mbps/3 Mbps.

In order to identify the incremental cost to increase the level of service, we first

designed and determined the costs for four different solutions that may be deployed

by FairPoint to meet a minimum 10 Mbps/1 Mbps service. Table 1 itemizes the costs

for the various scenarios.

Table 1 — FairPoint DSL Cost Analysis

Town of Fort Fairfield, Maine NETWORK DESIGN OPTIONS TO CLOSE IDENTIFIED GAPS 8-2

The first solution (total cost = $1,906,104) assumes deployment of (26) remote

terminals (RTs) with fiber backhaul to the FairPoint central office with copper loops

and customer drops of no more than 9,000 feet in length and using the ADSL2+

standard discussed in section 3.1.

Figure 6 — CAF-II minimum 10Mbps/1Mbps 9,000 foot loops w/all RTs fiber fed


The estimated material and labor cost for this solution above and beyond the

amount accepted by FairPoint from CAF-II is $166,946. Utilizing fiber as the

backhaul medium allows FairPoint to configure virtually unlimited bandwidth to the

Internet with no contention for bandwidth by the customers connected to each RT.

A second solution assumes deployment of the same (26) RTs, but instead of

deploying fiber as the backhaul medium for all of the RTs; FairPoint could deploy a

bonded VDSL solution, aggregating bandwidth across as many as eight (8) VDSL

circuits to create a symmetrical 100 Mbps backhaul connection to the nearest fiber-

fed RT or the FairPoint central office.

Figure 7 — CAF-II minimum 10Mbps/1Mbps 9,000 foot loops w/hybrid

fiber/VDSL fed RTs


The bonded VDSL backhaul solution is not as reliable as 100% fiber, and may make

it more difficult to provide speeds higher than 10 Mbps/1 Mbps for those customers

located closer to the RT than the maximum 9,000 feet. Nonetheless, this solution

should be considered because it is much less costly. FairPoint is only required to

meet a minimum 10 Mbps/1 Mbps standard, and bonded VDSL backhaul would

represent an estimated capital expense of $811,832, or $406,762 less than the CAF-

II funds accepted by FairPoint.

The third solution is similar to the first solution with the following differences:

a) 24 RTs in place of 26 RTs;

b) increases the loop length to 12,000 feet; and

c) utilizes a bonded ADSL2+ to ensure a minimum 10 Mbps/1 Mbps

performance.

The incremental material and labor cost for this solution above and beyond the

amount accepted by FairPoint from CAF-II is $13,936.

Figure 8 — CAF-II minimum 10Mbps/1Mbps 12,000 foot loops w/all RTs fiber

fed


The fourth solution, like the second solution described above, assumes deployment

of the same (26) RTs, but instead of deploying fiber as the backhaul medium for all

of the RTs, FairPoint could deploy a bonded VDSL backhaul solution. This would

represent an estimated capital expense of $713,520, or $505,074 less than the CAF

II funds accepted by FairPoint.

Figure 9 — CAF-II min. 10Mbps/1Mbps 12,000 foot loops w/hybrid fiber/VDSL

fed RTs


If FairPoint can accomplish the required minimum 10 Mbps/1 Mbps service and

spend less than the amount funded by CAF-II, they are free to invest the balance

elsewhere. As such, we believe FairPoint will seriously consider the fourth solution,

which would result in the greatest capital savings.

Finally, we designed two more solutions to estimate the cost to deploy a minimum

25 Mbps/3 Mbps service. Both require reducing the loop length to 7,000 feet and

increasing the quantity of RTs to 36. The fifth solution with all 36 RTs fiber fed,

would require an additional $687,510 above the amount of CAF-II funds accepted by

FairPoint.

Figure 10 — FCC Broadband Standard 25Mbps/3Mbps minimum 7,000 foot

loops w/all RTs fiber fed


The sixth solution with 36 RTs fed by hybrid fiber/VDSL would require only an

additional $30,150 above the amount of CAF-II funds accepted by FairPoint.

Figure 11 — FCC Broadband Standard 25Mbps/3Mbps minimum 7,000 foot

loops w/hybrid fiber/VDSL fed RTs


For the purposes of this study, the most important number to understand is the cost

to provide the best service option (25 Mbps/3 Mbps minimum) with all RTs fiber

fed (the fifth solution), minus the lowest cost to meet the minimum 10 Mbps/1

Mbps CAF-II service level. The difference is $1,192,5843, which represents the

potential additional subsidy amount FairPoint might seek to deliver the minimum

25 Mbps/3 Mbps service.

This option is also the most scalable of the DSL solutions since it includes the

deployment of the greatest amount of fiber that can be leveraged in the future to

increase minimum broadband speeds above 25 Mbps/3 Mbps.

8.2 LEVERAGE TIME WARNER CABLE INFRASTRUCTURE

We believe expansion of the Time Warner Cable (TWC) system to all currently

unserved areas is a potential solution with benefits to the community above and

beyond what can be provided by FairPoint. Those benefits would be greater

bandwidth speeds (currently offering up to 50 Mbps/5 Mbps for residential

services) and a cable TV package not currently offered by FairPoint. In addition,

TWC is in the process of upgrading all of their current cable systems to 100% digital,

which will enable much faster Internet speeds as discussed in section 3.2 above4.

The expanded cable solution will require the construction of approximately 85 miles

of network to reach all corners of Fort Fairfield. Given that there is little difference

in the cost of deploying fiber versus deploying hybrid fiber/coax, TWC could

potentially deploy a 100% fiber expansion, also known as a Fiber-to-the-Premise

(FTTP) network.

3 All cost data included in this study is based upon high level desk top estimates. A detailed engineering analysis in collaboration with FairPoint will need to be performed to validate these high level estimates. 4 http://stopthecap.com/2016/01/28/time-warner-cable-maxx-upgrades-coming-this-year-in-the-northeastmidwest/


Figure 12 — Time Warner Cable potential expansion


The franchise agreement between TWC and the Town of Fort Fairfield requires TWC

to expand their network to those areas with an average density of (20) homes per

mile as measured from the nearest point of usable trunk and capable of a standard

aerial installation. The franchise agreement also notes that service to homes not

meeting that density requirement shall be provided on a time and material basis.

TWC has expressed a willingness to discuss expansion of their network in an

arrangement whereby the costs would be shared between the Town and TWC based

on a ratio of the actual average homes per mile and the (20) homes per mile

standard contained in the franchise agreement. Preliminary analysis indicates

approximately 910 unserved premises outside of the current TWC footprint, which

results in 9.4 average premises per mile. This translates into a 47%/53% ratio,

where the Town would be responsible for 53% of the cost. In this scenario, we

estimate the total construction cost as $2,133,000 for all unserved road mileage. The

Town’s portion of this cost would be $1,133,068.5

Table 2 — TWC Expansion Cost Analysis

5 The actual quantity of existing premises per mile and the cost of construction would require a more thorough detailed analysis than the scope of this study allowed.


An additional benefit to this solution would be the potential to increase the annual

franchise fee the Town receives from TWC. In 2015, this fee amounted to $22,212.

We estimate this would increase to approximately $41,263 if TWC enjoyed 100%

coverage, or an increase of $19,051 per year. At the same time, since this fee is

assessed only on cable TV revenue and the trend is for video to be consumed over

the Internet instead of via cable TV packages, franchise fees are anticipated to

decline over the long term.

8.3 DEVELOP INFRASTRUCTURE TO SUPPORT MULTIPLE WIRELESS PROVIDERS

While wireless broadband has been deployed with mixed results to date, the

technology continues to improve and there are a host of competitors continuing to

invest in furthering the technology and deploying infrastructure on a national and

statewide basis. Aroostook Technologies has announced plans to upgrade their

infrastructure in Fort Fairfield. AiroComm has expressed interest in deploying

network assets as well. Redzone Wireless has announced plans to cover 95% of the

state of Maine. Although Fort Fairfield is not currently in Redzone’s expansion plans,

the company has expressed a willingness to discuss subsidies or revenue guarantees

to include Fort Fairfield. Verizon, AT&T and US Cellular provide limited service

capability and are improving their service over time.

A significant barrier to ubiquitous wireless coverage is the lack of sufficient wireless

towers and fiber backhaul from those towers. If the capital cost to deploy additional

towers and fiber backhaul were subsidized, we believe a robust competitive

environment could be created within the Town. The quantity of towers and the cost

of deployment, along with the amount and cost of fiber backhaul can only be

determined by performing a wireless propagation analysis and design, which is

outside the scope of this study. Nonetheless, the concept of subsidized towers is an

alternative that could be explored.


Figure 13 — Wireless tower infrastructure


8.4 DEPLOY MUNICIPAL FIBER-TO-THE-PREMISE OPEN ACCESS NEWORK

The final option we explore is a ubiquitous Fiber-to-the-Premise (FTTP) network to

every home and business within the Town to compete with the existing phone, cable

and wireless providers, and owned by the Town of Fort Fairfield. This would be a

“dark fiber” network, or an “open access” network, that would be available for lease

on an individual premise basis to any Internet provider seeking to provide service.

The fiber would be “dark”, meaning that no optical electronics would be included

and the service provider would be responsible for providing the optical electronics

required for each customer premise.

Figure 14 — Fiber-to-the-Home overbuild


The benefits of this type of network are:

• Maximum potential for competing service providers.

• FairPoint and TWC could theoretically utilize the network.

• Potentially unlimited symmetrical bandwidth.

• No municipally owned electronics to become obsolete or requiring repair.

The challenge to provide this type of network includes:

• Most expensive solution to construct.

• Annual operating expenses exceeding the amount of potential revenue,

requiring ongoing public subsidy, unless market share exceeds 80-90%.

Our high level estimate for the cost to construct a FTTP network along 113 miles of

roadway, including utility pole make ready expenses, materials, construction labor,

taxes, engineering, project management and project contingency, is approximately

$5,500,000. Our conservative estimate for annual operating expenses, including

annual pole rental, insurance, maintenance and administration, with no debt

service, is approximately $300,000 per year. Our revenue estimate, based upon a

50% take rate and per premise fiber lease of $15.00 per month from the Internet

service providers, generates an annual revenue amount of approximately $177,000.

An ongoing annual subsidy of $123,000 would be required to reach breakeven on

the operation.

Table 3 — FTTP Summary Cost Analysis

Factors negatively impacting the cost of this solution include:

• Sparsely populated rural nature of Fort Fairfield in comparison to more

densely populated urban areas that can economically support multiple

providers.

• Existing competitors who are able to provide sufficient bandwidth service to

much of the population of Fort Fairfield, which impacts the take rate of any

potential offering.

• The high cost of utility pole make-ready fees and annual license fees in

relation to the low average premises per mile.

9.0 Cost Summary of Network Options

Below is a cost summary table of network options for universal broadband

coverage.

Table 4 — Universal Broadband Coverage Network Options Cost Summary

10.0 Potential Operating Models

Below, we examine potential operating models with an eye toward sustainability

and limiting day-to-day municipal operating responsibility and risk. Each of these

models recognizes the fact that it is uneconomical for any provider to invest 100%

of the capital required to deploy a ubiquitous solution and realize a reasonable

return on that investment, given the rural nature of the Town.

10.1 PUBLIC PRIVATE PARTNERSHIP - SUBSIDY FOR SERVICE PROVIDERS

As illustrated in section 9.0 above, providing a one-time capital subsidy to one or

more service providers will require the least amount of capital investment for the

Town and eliminate any requirement for the Town to be responsible for day-to-day

operations. The amount of subsidy should anticipate a capital contribution from the

providers as well, with the Town subsidy amount limited to an amount required for

the provider to realize a reasonable rate of return on their investment.

In return for the subsidy, the providers should be held to certain performance

standards, reliability metrics and pricing equal to or better than what is provided to

the service providers customers in other parts of the state of Maine. Annual

reporting and methodologies for these performance metrics could be based upon

requirements similar to what the FCC has implemented for the CAF-II program as

discussed in section 5.0 above. It is important to recognize that service providers

cannot be expected to develop individual town performance metrics that differ from

town to town, which would be an unrealistic burden on the providers and would

limit the provider’s interest in participating in such an arrangement.

At the same time, there should be a recognition and understanding that service

providers will likely not be interested in a scenario whereby the Town retains an

ownership percentage in the network being deployed. Shared ownership will be

viewed negatively especially by those providers and their shareholders who are

regional or national in scope, such as FairPoint or TWC. As such, any type of subsidy

in this scenario should be viewed as a one-time grant with little recourse or

expectation that the Town will be able to influence future enhancements to the

network or services provided by the service provider.

Town of Fort Fairfield, Maine POTENTIAL OPERATING MODELS 10-2

In spite of these concerns, we believe that providing subsidies to service providers

is the most viable solution given the limited funds available from the Town or from

other state and federal broadband grant programs.

10.2 MUNICIPALLY OWNED - OPEN ACCESS DARK FIBER NETWORK

An open access dark fiber network, as discussed in section 8.4 above, would be a

completely new fiber network serving all locations throughout the Town. Any

number of service providers would be provided non-discriminatory access to the

network on an equal basis at a uniform wholesale cost to lease fibers from a central

location to any premise. The service providers would be responsible for deploying

optical electronics at a centralized point of presence and at the customer location.

Internet providers would compete for customers based upon retail price, service

capability, reliability and customer service.

The Town would own the network in this scenario, but the Town would contract

with one or more entities to maintain and administer the physical fibers leased to

the competitive providers. The cost of engineering, project management, materials

and installation would be born solely by the Town, as well as any operating

expenses in excess of the wholesale revenue received from leasing of the fiber.

As discussed previously, this is the most expensive solution, provides the potential

for the greatest amount of competition and carries the most risk from a

sustainability perspective. For these reasons, we do not recommend this solution

unless the Town is unable to reach an agreement to subsidize an existing or new

provider to meet the goals of the community.

10.3 PUBLIC PRIVATE PARTNERSHIP – JOINTLY OWNED DARK FIBER NETWORK

Like the municipally owned dark fiber network discussed above, a new or existing

provider may be interested in partnering with the Town to construct a completely

new fiber network under a joint ownership arrangement. As mentioned previously,

we do not believe FairPoint or TWC would be interested in this arrangement, but

there may be other smaller providers who operate FTTP networks in other parts of

the state of Maine who would be interested in such an arrangement.

The advantage of this scenario would be the ability of such a provider to perform

engineering, project management and construction with their own resources at a

much lower cost than what would be available under the municipally owned model

discussed above. The amount of investment on the part of the Town would be

limited to the amount required to insure a reasonable rate of return for the service

provider partner. Maintenance, insurance and operating costs would be borne by

the service provider partner, as well as deployment and ownership of any optical

electronics, and any profits could potentially be shared with the Town, depending

upon the negotiated arrangement.

Town of Fort Fairfield, Maine POTENTIAL OPERATING MODELS 10-3

Most potential service provider partners under this arrangement would likely

expect exclusive use of the network for an extended period of time before opening

the network for use by competing providers. The cost to the Town under this

arrangement should be significantly less that the estimated $5,500,000 for a 100%

municipally owned network as discussed in section 8.4 above, but the actual amount

cannot be estimated without the benefit of a detailed engineering analysis and

negotiation with the potential partner(s).

11.0 Conclusions & Recommendations

While many municipalities across the United States have built their own broadband

networks that provide ubiquitous coverage and increased bandwidth, it is especially

difficult to attract the required capital and operate a sustainable network in the

presence of other existing competitors. Given the evident challenge to the

community that would exist in developing another competing network, we believe it

is important to explore all options in leveraging the investments of existing

providers, and those providers who are exploring expansion into Fort Fairfield.

Our recommendation is for the Town to invite each of the existing and potential

future providers to enter into individual discussions with the Town in an effort to

clearly understand the goals and motivations of each party, and the willingness to

collaborate on expanding broadband service and capabilities. Through these

discussions, the Town should be able to validate the provider costs and the

conditions upon which a collaborative partnership can be pursed.

We also recognize the potential value of working with multiple providers who may

be interested in serving a portion of the Town, or limited areas that may be a natural

extension of their assets in an adjacent geography, in place of a completely

ubiquitous solution. Finally, any discussions should acknowledge that funding

subsidies or revenues may not be available or sufficient to implement a universal

solution in a single project. As such, any solution may need to be implemented in

phases as funding becomes available.

All residents of the Town of Fort Fairfield should have access to the Internet at

speeds sufficient to meet their current and future needs, with pricing comparable to

that enjoyed by consumers in the more densely populated areas of the state. The

results of the survey conducted of both users and non-users of the current networks

indicate that there is an unmet need and a level of dissatisfaction by current

customers, indicating that the purchasers perceive a gap in the value recognized for

the current offerings. Working with providers to correlate this need with their

network enhancements and future planned offerings seems the best opportunity to

close these gaps without creating a significant long term financial impact on the

community. This study forms a solid foundation to continue the effort to meet that

need.

Appendix A – Consumer Survey

Details

Fort Fairfield Broadband Feasibility Study

The Town of Fort Fairfield is conducting an Internet Feasibility Study. This study will help guide our community as we seek to improve Internet access, speed and reliability in Fort Fairfield.

The following survey will help us evaluate our current Internet service. Hearing from every resident ensures your voice is heard and your opinions are recorded so we can better tell our community’s story and work to improve our economic climate through increased Internet speed and connectivity.

Your responses will be kept confidential, but the information provided will be used to help efforts to improve our community’s Internet access. Your participation is voluntary and you are not committed to sign‐up with any service provider that might offer service in the future.

Thank you again for your time and participation!

1. What company currently provides your Internet service? (If none please skip to Question #2)

FairPoint

Time Warner Cable

Pioneer Wireless

Aroostook Technologies

Cellular service via smartphone or mobile hot‐spot

Satellite (HughesNet, Dish)

Other (please specify)

1

2. If you are not currently an Internet Subscriber, please tell us why?

Service is not available at my location

Service is available but it is not sufficient (slow connection)

Do not have a computer

Cannot afford the service (too expensive)

Do not need or not interested


3. What is your satisfaction level with your current Internet provider?

Not satisfied

Somewhat satisfied

Satisfied

Very satisfied

4. What is your interest level / willingness to change your Internet service provider?

Not interested / not willing

Would consider changing

Very interested / willing

5. Are you willing to pay more for faster Internet service?

Yes

No

Not sure

6. Would you support your municipal government funding or subsidizing improved Internet service?

Yes

No

Not sure

2

7. Would you support placement of multiple new wireless towers to support improved wireless Internet in your town?

Yes

No

Not sure

8. How do you use the Internet at home? (check all that apply)

Email

Online research

Homework

Online classes

Video calling (Skype, Facetime, etc.)

Staying in touch with friends and relatives (social media)

Cloud based backup of data, music and/or photos

Games

Shopping

Home based business


9. How many devices that connect to the Internet do you have in your home, such as computers, iPads, tablets, Kindles, iPods, TiVO, Xbox, Playstation, etc.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10+

3

10. On a scale from 1 to 5, how important is high speed Internet to members of your household? (1 means “It’s unnecessary” and 5 means “We couldn’t live without it.”)

1

2

3

4

5

11. Do you or any members of your household have a home‐based business?

Yes

No

Not sure

12. Do you or any members of your household telecommute (work at home through the use of technology)?

Yes

No

Not sure

13. What is the best estimate of the cost of your Internet service?

Less than $25 per month

$26 to $50 per month



More than $100 per month

14. Does that cost include other services besides your Internet service such as cable TV, telephone, etc.?

Yes

No

Not sure

4

15. What kind of impact do Internet problems, including poor reliability and slow speed, have on your home or business experience?

No disruption

Minimal disruption

Moderate disruption

Severe disruption

Total disruption

1 2 3 4 5

Price

Reliability

Speed

Customer Service

16. Please rate your current Internet service level of importance on a scale of 1 to 5, with 1 being not important to 5 being very important.

17. Please tell us more about your Internet usage and any impacts, positive or negative, your Internet service has caused.

Thank you for your participation!

Please click Done to submit your responses to this survey and to automatically be redirected to the ConnectMEAuthority website. This website will allow you to perform a simple and free speed test to determine the actual

speed of your Internet connection.

Your results will be entered into our database and reported to our Broadband Feasibility Study team to assist theTown of Fort Fairfield in its study.

5

Consumer Survey Results and Commentary

When reviewing the results from the survey, there are three key items that affect the confidence we

have in the answers provided as being representative of the study’s population. One is the overall

number of surveys that were completed for the population. In this project, our sample of 204

completed surveys is significantly large by industry standards for a community of 1700+ households.

The next factor is the weighting of answers. In other words, a question where the majority of

respondents answer in one direction has a higher confidence level than a question with answers

that result in a 50/50 split.

The final significant item is the confidence factor we desire in the data. A confidence factor of +/- 1

requires a dramatically higher sample size than the sample required to achieve a confidence of +/- 4.

For example, if our confidence interval is 4, and 47% of those surveyed gave a particular answer, we

can say that if you sample the entire population, we expect the result for that answer to fall

between 43% and 51% for the total group.

Given this study’s overall sample size and general characteristics for the responses, at a 95%

confidence level, our general confidence in these results has a margin of +/- 6 percentage points.

There is some variation based on how each question was answered specifically. Where appropriate,

these are pointed out in the following summary.

Our confidence interval for this question is +/-4, indicating that a majority of the community

subscribes to Internet services.

90%

10%

1. Survey respondents Internet subscription rates

Has Internet: 183

No Internet: 21

This question represents only those respondents who do not have Internet. In this case, our

population sample is a subset of the respondents, or 21 out of 204. Although informative for the

potential barriers to adoption, our confidence is not high in this statistical group representing the

final weighting of the barriers to adoption. However, this does not mean the data and what it

represents is meaningless. What we can infer from this information is that:

1. There is a minority that may never find a reason to subscribe;

2. There are those who do not have the option to subscribe; and

3. There are some who are not able to subscribe for financial reasons.

This last group represents a potential opportunity to inform that they may be able to obtain

assistance through current programs designed to subsidize the cost of service for those who qualify.

The community has a large number of providers providing service. This is an advantage many Maine

communities do not experience.

5%

38%

24%

24%

9%

2. Reasons for not currently subscribing to

Internet:

Cannot Afford: 1

Do not have a computer: 8

Do not need/want: 5

Service not sufficient: 5

Not available at location: 2

18%

4%

21%

9%9%

39%

3. What company currently provides your Internet service?

Aroostook Technologies: 31

Cellular/Mobile Service: 7

FairPoint: 37

Pioneer Wireless: 15

Satellite: 15

Time Warner Cable: 68

These results indicate with reasonable confidence that there is generally an even split between

those satisfied with service and those dissatisfied.

A majority of subscribers will consider changing options, while a significant group seems ready to

change service.

21%

32%

31%

16%

4. Satisfaction level with your current Internet provider?

Not Satisfied: 35

Somewhat Satisfied: 55

Satisfied: 52

Very Satisfied: 28

19%

42%

39%

5. Interest level to change your Internet service provider?

Not interested/Not willing: 33

Would consider changing: 73

Very Interested/Willing: 69

The cost/value proposition is an area that will need to be factored into any enhancement strategy in

order to manage high take rates.

This item was not answered by a significant number of the total respondents. Therefore we are less

confident in the weighting of this question.

37%

35%

28%

6. Are you willing to pay more for faster Internet service?

No: 65

Yes: 61

Not Sure:

48

10%

71%

19%

7. Would you support

municipal government funding or subsidizing improved

Internet service?

No: 7

Yes: 48

Not Sure: 13

We can say with high confidence that a solution which requires more towers to be constructed is

unlikely to be popular within the community.

These results are very comparable to other studies that have asked a similar question.

83%

6%

11%

8. Would you support placement of multiple new

wireless towers in your town?

No: 162

Yes: 11

Not Sure: 22

156

140131 130

68 65

45 41 38 36

22

4 4

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

Em

ail

On

line

Re

sea

rch

Soci

al M

ed

ia

Sho

pp

ing

Ga

min

g

Vid

eo

Ca

llin

g

Clo

ud

-ba

sed

Ba

cku

p o

f…

Ho

me

Ba

sed

Bu

sin

ess

Ho

me

wo

rk

On

line

Cla

sse

s

Stre

am

ing

Vid

eo

Ba

nki

ng

Wo

rkin

g

Re

mo

te

9. How do you use the Internet at home?

In Fort Fairfield, 3/4 of the community believes that having access to the Internet is important to

them.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10+

Responses 27 21 25 23 19 19 9 7 5 17

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

10. How many devices that connect to the Internet

do you have in your home?

4% 3%

13%

26%

54%

11. How important is high speed Internet

to members of your household?

Unnecessary: 6

Somewhat Unnecessary: 6

Undecided/Neutral: 23

Important: 46

Very Necessary: 93

The segment of rural America doing business from or working from home is growing.

75%

25%

12. Do you or any members of your household

have a home‐based business?

No: 128

Yes: 43

65%

32%

3%

13. Do you or any members of your

household telecommute?

No: 44

Yes: 22

Not Sure: 2

Items that impact consumer cost for service include provider, subscription package, and bundling of

services.

Less than $25 $26-50 $51-75 $75-100More than

$100

Responses 8 83 37 20 22

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

14. What is the best estimate of the cost of your Internet service?

74%

26%

15. Does that cost include other services

besides your Internet service?

No: 125

Yes: 45

36%

35%

5%

19%

5%

16. What kind of impact do Internet problems

have on your home or business experience?

Minimal Disruption: 63

Moderate Disruption: 61

No Disruption: 8

Severe Disruption: 34

Total Disruption: 9

Not

Important

Somewhat

ImportantUndecided Important

Very

Important

Responses 4 5 30 50 83

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

17. Please rate your current Internet service level of

importance: Price

Not

Important

Somewhat


Very

Important

Responses 0 4 14 43 110

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

18. Please rate your current Internet service level of importance:

Reliability

Not

Important

Somewhat


Very

Important

Responses 3 10 26 54 78

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90


Speed

Questions 17 through 20 represent those factors that are important to consumers when considering

their options for Internet service providers.

This last table is a correlation of questions 3 and 5. By cross referencing the answers, we get a sense

of the level of satisfaction related to technologies being offered and the providers delivering them.

Not

Important

Somewhat


Very

Important

Responses 2 8 18 41 102

0

20

40

60

80

100

120


Customer Service

Aroostook

Technolog

ies

Cellular/M

obile

Service

FairPointPioneer

WirelessSatellite

Time

Warner

Cable

Not interested / not willing 7 1 4 0 0 21

Very interested / willing 9 4 16 10 12 16

Would consider changing 15 2 17 5 3 31

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

3x5. What is your interest level / willingness to change

your Internet service by provider?

Appendix B – Maps

NEW BRUNSWICK, CANADA

Caribou

Presque Isle

Limestone

Easton

FairPoint Twisted Pair Copper Feeder/Distribution Network

LegendFairPoint Copper CableRoadsFort Fairfield Town BoundaryTown BoundaryCanada

´


Caribou

Presque Isle

Limestone

Easton

LegendFairPoint Fiber CableFairPoint Copper CableRoadsFort Fairfield Town BoundaryTown BoundaryCanada

FairPoint Fiber & Copper Network´


Caribou

Presque Isle

Limestone

Easton

LegendTWC Hybrid Fiber/CoaxRoadsFort Fairfield Town BoundaryTown BoundaryCanada

Time Warner Cable Hybrid Fiber & Coaxial Network´


Caribou

Presque Isle

Limestone

Easton

LegendUtility PolesRoadsFort Fairfield Town BoundaryTown BoundaryCanada

Fort Fairfield Utility Poles´

¬«31

¬«17

¬«18

¬«12

¬«15

¬«9

¬«16

¬«3

¬«6

¬«11

¬«7

¬«4

¬«10

¬«3

¬«3

¬«1

¬«3

¬«7

¬«8

¬«7

¬«6

¬«6

¬«7

¬«7

¬«5

¬«2 ¬«2

¬«8

¬«11

¬«7

¬«3

¬«3

¬«1

¬«4

¬«9

¬«2

¬«4

¬«2

¬«4

¬«2

¬«2

¬«1

¬«1

¬«7

¬«2

¬«12

¬«4

¬«10

¬«1

¬«2

¬«5

¬«3

¬«2

¬«3

¬«1

¬«2

¬«1

¬«1

¬«2

¬«5

¬«3

¬«2

¬«4

¬«2

¬«3

¬«5

¬«16

¬«1

¬«1

¬«2

¬«4

¬«1

¬«1

¬«1


Caribou

Presque Isle

Limestone

Easton

LegendFairPoint Fiber CableFairPoint Copper CableRoadsFunded Locations per Census BlockCAF II AreasFort Fairfield Town BoundaryTown BoundaryCanada

Connect American Fund - Phase II (CAF-II)Accepted High Cost Areas ´

3

!.!.

!.!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.NEW BRUNSWICK, CANADA

Caribou

Presque Isle

Limestone

Easton

Legend!. RT 9,000'

New FiberFairPoint Fiber CableFairPoint Copper CableRoadsCAF II AreasFort Fairfield Town BoundaryTown BoundaryCanada

CAF II Minimum 10Mbps/1Mbps 9,000' Loops with All RTs Fiber Fed ´

!.!.

!.!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.


Caribou

Presque Isle

Limestone

Easton

Legend!. RT 9,000'


CAF II Minimum 10Mbps/1Mbps 9,000' Loops with Hybrid Fiber/VDSL fed RTs ´

!.!.!.

!.!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.!.!. !.


Caribou

Presque Isle

Limestone

Easton

Legend!. RT 12,000'


CAF II Minimum 10Mbps/1Mbps 12,000' Loops with All RTs Fiber Fed ´

!.!.!.

!.!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.!.!. !.


Caribou

Presque Isle

Limestone

Easton

Legend!. RT 12,000'


CAF II Minimum 10Mbps/1Mbps 12,000' Loops with Hybrid Fiber/VDSL fed RTs ´

!.

!.

!.!.

!.!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!. !.

!.

!.!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.!.

!.


Caribou

Presque Isle

Limestone

Easton

Legend!. RT 7,000'


FCC Broadband Standard, 25Mbps/3Mbps Minimum 7,000' Loops with All RTs Fiber Fed ´

!.

!.

!.!.

!.!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!. !.

!.

!.!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.!.

!.


Caribou

Presque Isle

Limestone

Easton

Legend!. RT 7,000'


FCC Broadband Standard, 25Mbps/3Mbps Minimum 7,000' Loops with Hybrid Fiber/VDSL fed RTs ´


Caribou

Presque Isle

Limestone

Easton

LegendTWC Hybrid Fiber/CoaxTWC ExpansionRoadsFort Fairfield Town BoundaryTown BoundaryCanada

Time Warner CablePotential Expansion ´

"/

"/

"/

"/

"/

"/

"/

"/

"/

"/

"/

"/

"/

"/

"/

"/"/"/

"/

"/

"/

"/

"/

"/

"/"/

"/"/

"/

"/"/

"/ "/

"/

"/"/"/

"/

"/

"/"/

"/"/

"/"/

"/

"/

"/

"/

#0

#0

#0

#0#0

#0

#0

#0

#0

#0

#0

#0

#0

#0

#0

#0

#0

#0

#0

#0 #0

#0

#0

#0

#0

#0

#0

#0

#0

#0

#0

#0

#0

#0

#0

#0

#0

#0

#0

#0

#0

#0

#0

#0

#0

#0

#0

#0

#0

#0#0

#0

#0

#0

#0

#0

#0

#0

#0

#0

#0

#0

#0#0#0

#0

#0

#0

#0

#0

#0

#0

#0

#0

#0

#0

#0

#0

#0

#0

#0

#0

#0

#0

#0

#0

#0

#0

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.


Caribou

Presque Isle

Easton

Limestone

Mapleton

Chapman

Washburn

Mars Hill

Woodland

Legend!. Aroostook Technologies Tower#0 Pioneer Broadband Tower"/ Other Area Towers

RoadsFort Fairfield Town BoundaryTown BoundaryCanada

Wireless Tower Infrastructure´


Caribou

Presque Isle

Limestone

Easton

LegendFiber-to-the-Home OverbuildRoadsCAF II AreasFort Fairfield Town BoundaryTown BoundaryCanada

Fiber-to-the-Home Overbuild´

Date post:	22-Jul-2020
Category:	Documents
Upload:	others
View:	0 times
Download:	0 times

Broadband Feasibility Study - Global...

Documents