Utility Forum Shows Multiple Broadband Approaches

Having cleared out my brain of my pent up frustrations over utilities and broadband in a long post last night, I offer this less passionate overview of the very good Utility Forum at the Broadband Properties Summit 2007 in Dallas one week ago.

A series of panels convened to discuss the connection between public utilities and broadband initiatives. The Forum was sponsored by PacketFront (a pioneer in Open Access FTTH networks, mostly in Europe, but with a growing presence in North America). The Forum hosted several distinguished visitors and saw some lively discussion on the connection between broadband service and utilities.

Introduction

Introductory Briefings from PacketFront team included Doug McMurray - Director of Business Development as Forum Moderator; Tim Scott - Vice President, Marketing; and Matt Wenger - President, who offered these key points regarding utilities and broadband:
* more opportunity available when content is unbundled from distribution (reflecting PacketFront's approach to Open Access FTTH networks)
* smaller projects lead to more innovative approaches
* utilities are the best positioned to provide innovations inside a community

Doug MacMurray followed as the Forum Moderator, with a brief presentation to introduce the concept of utility broadband under the following categories:

Key Business Drivers for Utility Broadband
* Underserved or unserved communities
* High price of private provider broadband service
* Compelling need for economic development
* Desire for social improvement, especially youth retention and quality of life
* Need for utility applications, including Intelligent or Smart Grid

Utility Advantages of Broadband
* Infrastructure Management issues are similar
* Local brand awareness strong among utilities
* Utility organizations are trustworthy and stable
* Long-term investment focus
* Connections in the local community
* No legacy infrastructure to protect - open to new ideas and approaches

Utility Broadband Applications
* Automated Meter Infrastructure (AMI) and Smart Grid, including Outage Detection, Remote Connect/Disconnect, Time of Use Billing, On-Demand meter reading, Transformer loading analysis, and Demand Response/Demand Side Management
* Infrastructure to facilitate future growth
* Empower the consumer

Components of a Successful Broadband Deployment
* Projects are unique and custom - there is no One-Size-Fits-All approach or attitude
* Alignment of community goals among stakeholders
* Clear decision-making process, well-defined scope of mandate
* Ability/Willingness to exploit strengths and minimize risks
* Presence of an internal champion
* Public private partnership approach
* Definition of roles, including network owner, network operator, network builder, service provider, citizen participants, etc.

Lessons Learned from Utility Broadband Projects that Struggled
* Disconnect between technology and business plan
* Funding hurdles
* Attracting service providers or being your own network operator
* Public private partnership to minimize capital expense (Cap Ex)
* Underestimating operating expense (Op Ex)
* Importance of community partnerships and teaming

Resulting Benefits of Utility Broadband Projects
* Empowering consumer satisfaction
* Additional revenue stream
* Competition provides superior quality and lower costs
* Promote innovative services
* Improved economic development
* Utility operational efficiencies
* Foundation for future growth in the community

Lessons Learned In An FTTH Deployment

Next up was Joe King, Asst City Manager and Utility Director for the City of Danville, VA, whose presentation seemed to embody many of the points in the description laid out by Doug MacMurray in the introduction. (Be sure to check out the nDanville Case Study as well, download here.)

Joe's vision for nDanville was informed by his political philosophy, to have government play a minimum role as it promoted a private sector solution. He determined that the best approach would be to approach the project in the same manner as the city and county build streets and roads. He would pursue an Open Access Network. His project plans and guidelines included:
1. Build a Metropolitan Area Network (MAN) to serve the needs of government and the public school system
2. Generate operating revenue from providing service to schools under the federal eRate Program
3. Expand the system incrementally with a two-way meter communication system
4. Operate an Open Access network with multiple service providers
5. Provide no retail services directly

The nDanville network ultimately provided service to the city's 46,000 residents over a 44-square mile territory. The city's electric, gas, water, and wastewater utilities are able to benefit from the network. In addition, the electric utility provides services over a larger region, a 500 sq. mi. area. While AMI is under review, there is no AMI system in operation yet.

The system has a strong economic development rationale, as the local area has suffered from struggling foundation industries, tobacco and textiles, with resultant high unemployment. Education levels are not traditionally high in the area, given the reliance on blue-collar work opportunities. With the need for workforce transition, city leaders see a public-stimulated broadband network as a good solution. In addition, the state of Virginia has a large Rural/Urban Digital Divide, and Danville is a good case study, located in the rural southern portion of the state.

Project planners envisioned a need for 3-4,000 residential subscribers as a threshold to attract private service providers to the network. They made an initial investment of $2 M, which enabled 70 miles of fiber to be deployed.

Broadband: Key To A Community's Growth And Vitality

Jerry Brown from Bristol, VA, showed the audience how a utility-provided broadband infrastructure enhances economic development. (Virginia was well represented in the Forum). Bristol's project was all about economic development from the start.

In introducing Jerry, Andy Cohill, a consultant whose firm Design Nine is a pioneer in community broadband, gave some background on how his community of Blacksburg and VA Tech University came together to launch the first broadband network in the US, back in the early 1990s, ultimately labeled Blacksburg Electronic Village. Their ambitious goal was to provide broadband Internet access to everyone in the county, back before "broadband" was barely a defined term. Be sure to see the Blacksburg Case Study - click here.

Jerry Brown brought an interesting counterpoint to Danville's approach in his discussion about Bristol's network, as he is a career Economic Development professional. (See both Access Bristol, the economic development website and BVU OptiNet, the network services website.)

Jerry described a market focus, whereby the network was intended to spur economic development into a new arena of technology (they had already gone through job growth phases in industry and retail). In Bristol, the project benefited from a strong champion in the VP of Operations for BVU, the Bristol Utility. In contrast to Danville's Open Access approach, Bristol decided to proceed with a Closed FTTH Network, stressing the need for Quality of Life in the Bristol Region.

Working Lunch with Resource Panel

The Hon. Hilda Legg, former director of the federal Rural Utility Service (RUS) and current vice chair of Broadband Properties moderated this panel - her style of walking in front of the podium, microphone in hand, stimulated the discussion and made for a good interchange of ideas.

On the panel, which was quite interactive with the audience, were James Moskowitz, Fleischman and Harding, L.L.P. (a Washington DC telecom regulatory firm); Dr Jey K Jeyapalan, a civil engineer and consultant, with a specialty in pipe infrastructure; Andrew Cohill, president & CEO of Design Nine; and Jim Kelley, VP Operations, BVU OptiNet.

I was an active participant in the discussion, which had two or three themes.

One was the personal / human aspect of utility managers, who face a culture shift to adopt these broadband practices - broad adoption (pardon the pun) of utility broadband will require a paradigm shift and strong utility leadership - these panelists at the Forum are on the cutting edge, and are the exception to the rule.

Second, we had an interesting debate on whether broadband itself is a utility or a service (see my long post from yesterday).

Finally, the idea of using trenches and pipes as common ducts for multiple utilities received considerable discussion. Dr. Jepyapalan is a passionate promoter of full and efficient utilization of water/wastewater infrastructure, while Jim Kelley's practical experience in Bristol cautioned against putting broadband fiber down in water pipes, based on the human error element. It may be efficient in theory, but according to Jim, it's hard to do in practice.

Key Questions For Utility Managers

The next panel featured an in-depth look at the community of Gainesville, FL, home of 2006 National Champions, the University of Florida Gators. On the panel were Commission Member Ed Braddy and two representatives from the Gainesville Regional Utilities (GRU), Frank Latini, Technical Services Manager, and Dan Clark, Marketing Specialist for Gator.Net. They outlined a low-key strategy that has enabled the utility to bring new Internet opportunities to the citizens of Gainesville by incrementally extending the FTTH network on a project by project basis, without raising political objections or opposition from the incumbent cable and telecom broadband providers.

The website GRU.net provides more detailed information on the services offered. Commission Member Braddy described a communication strategy to compare the fiber network to "digital streets and roads," which he said has been an effective communication method. While the team holds a goal of engaging in an advanced deployment of a fiber optic loop for industrial purposes, their method is to engage in public private partnerships with MDUs and property developers, who share the costs of deployment. Their advice to any utilities, when asked how to manage perceived risk, is to "Go Slow."

So, in summary, we saw in great detail how three creative electric utilities worked within their communities to bring in compelling communication infrastructure to support economic development and enhance the standard of living for their communities, but in three distinct ways:

* Danville - planned Open Access Network with a focus on workforce devleopment
* Bristol - planned Closed Network with a focus on economic development
* Gainesville - incremental FTTH network, pay as your go, with private participation in construction costs

It was a productive session for me, and good to see this dialogue getting started.

Posted on September 19, 2007 at 10:30 AM | Comments (0)

"Service" or "Utility"? What's in a Word?

Pop Quiz today, Kids!

Put up your books, close your desks, and get out a #2 pencil.

1. Complete the following statements by filling in the blank from the choices below.

Broadband is _________________________.

a. a premium consumer service like Cable TV, cellular phone minutes, long-distance, or local telephone.
b. a fundamental commodity service like electricity, water, gas, or sewer (wastewater).

How you fill in the blank above goes a long way to how receptive you will be to the concept of characterizing broadband access service.

2. Broadband should be provided by _________________________.

a. competitive service providers as a premium service (telecom companies, cable companies, ISPs, WISPs, etc.)
b. partnerships between public and private entities as in Option a.
c. public providers, including the local electric utility or local government
d. new public utilities distinct from other utilities or public or private providers
e. all of the above

I think we all should be asking ourselves questions like this to stimulate a dialogue. We should be asking our leaders some hard questions about broadband in the 21st century in the United States, such as:

1. Is broadband a Premium Service to be delivered along with my cable TV or telephone service?
2. Should we provide more incentives to our current providers to stimulate network buildout and more competitive services?
3. Is broadband a foundational network access service, more like a public utility?
4. Has broadband indeed become a Utility Service, deserving of regulation and monopoly provisioning?
5. Can broadband be provided more effectively by my utility (or local government) than my current provider(s)?

No questions should be off the table at the start of a debate like this.

1. Why don't I have world-class broadband access (100 Mbs - 1 Gbs)?
2. Why can't I get broadband through the air wherever I am, like my cellular service?
3. If I don't have such high capacity fixed service or mobile broadband now, when will I get it? How much will it cost me? What will I be able to do with it?

And for you all, my gentle readers, with more focus and expertise in these areas, I'd ask these questions.
1. What is it about broadband that makes it such a Sacred Cow in public policy?
2. Is our current approach even adequate to meet our goals? optimal? now? in the near term? over the long term?
3. What approaches would improve on our current methods?
4. What can I do NOW to get the ball rolling and make a difference?

If you're a regular reader of this blog, you know I have a Jones for broadband and electric utilities. My focused experience in the converging sectors of public policy, electricity, telecommunications, and wired (FTTH) and wireless broadband has left me with the quite logical conclusion that an information network and an electricity network belong together, like bread and jam. There are untapped efficiencies to be had.

To get deep and philosophical and in a common frame of mind for this somewhat meandering blog, let's all pause for a moment - get comfortable, take three deep breathes, exhale, and relax - and consider this:

"Information and Electricity are the Fundamental Foundations of the Universe - Quantum Mechanics shows this to be the case."

OK, open your eyes and back to the here and now.

More relevantly, those two services are the foundations of our 21st Century Digital Economy and both depend on a highly reliable infrastructure. And infrastructure points to utility. My definition of a "utility" then:

"Any commodity service can be seen as a utility when it is most efficiently delivered to the widest segment of the market at the lowest cost over a distribution network that works best as a natural monopoly, generally a fixed distributed network with high capital costs."

Some may find this definition an inappropriate fit in fully developed urban markets where competitive private sector providers have incumbency and already provide broadband as an add-on premium service: "That was then, NOW is different - we can't just pick up where we left off 100 years ago, times have changed."

Well, I respectfully disagree, but I'm willing to fight my battles in stages. For starters, I'm willing to concede the large cities to the incumbents, and focus on the under-served markets. A strong argument can be made that broadband should be approached as a utility service at least in markets that are under-served. There is certainly plenty of precedent for this approach - see rural electricity and rural telephony.

In summary, I'm left with this current position:

I can only acknowledge at this point that achieving this new level of consciousness among decision makers in the public and private sector will be a significant paradigm shift for long-time industry types, both in electricity and in telecom. They're just not used to looking at broadband in this way and only time will tell if the level of urgency is such to drive them to look at their industries differently and make this connection. They may well never agree to this paradigm shift. But we should have the discussion nevertheless, because this is a matter of Public concern.

Rooted in deep thoughts on these issues, and wanting answers to these questions and more, I welcomed the dialogue last week at the Broadband Properties Summit 2007 in Dallas. A series of panels convened to discuss the connection between public utilities and broadband initiatives. If the forum was lightly attended (15-30 in the audience), the panels were robust with innovators and pioneers. Sponsored by PacketFront (a pioneer in Open Access FTTH networks, mostly in Europe, but with a growing presence in North America), this forum was host to several distinguished visitors and some lively discussion on the connection between broadband service and utilities, and it was a good start. I wish there had been an audience of 200 in the room, it was that good. We need many more fora like this.

While I was pleased to see this forum on the agenda, I think this topic needs to be part of a much-needed wider public dialogue on the role of broadband infrastructure in our lives and in our economy, including how the US will be best served to get this vital infrastructure, the sooner the better. Barack & Hilary, Mitt & Rudy, are you out there? Anybody?

After the jump, I'll provide some more background (and vent my spleen some more). I'll have to post separately on to the Forum Dialogue from last week, in a new blog because at this point, I'm afraid I've gotten too long winded.

In the early 20th century, access to the life-changing service of electricity (and soon thereafter, telephony) were the topics on everyone's lips. Just imagine going from kerosene lanterns to incandescent light bulbs! What a dramatic shift!

It was a big, big deal and it's really hard for us to put ourselves back in that place. But times moved slower back then, so I guess folks were both a little more excited about electricity and telephone service, and a little more patient than we are now, used to instant gratification as we are. At any rate, it certainly proved worth the wait to get electricity and the telephone. As today, larger cities were first to get electric networks, first for light, and soon thereafter, for power to run electric machines in households, businesses and factories.

Those unfortunate souls without this utility service looked on their more privileged brethren with envy and soon brought political pressure to bear. Electrification became a national debate and presidential, gubernatorial, legislative, and municipal elections were won and lost based on policy positions on these utility topics (and don't forget, multiple fortunes were also made with these new technologies and spin-off industries). And let's not forget telephony. AT&T became a blue-chip stock, after all, a foundation of Wall Street, and Bell Labs the source of unending innovation.

Back then, unlike now, we started with an agreed upon public policy of cheap affordable electric access for all thanks to strong leadership from the public and private sectors, and open public debate. We ended up with three types of electric utility monopolies mostly (along with some rare competition in dual or multi service territories), as well as state and federal regulatory regimes to ensure that the policy of universal and affordable access was carried out.

About the same time, when telephone networks began to be constructed, we had a similar approach to fair and affordable access and rates, and ended up with a national monopoly utility regulated at the state and federal level, and a Universal Service Fund to fill the gaps. It was a matter of national policy to ensure that everyone got connected, regardless of location.

When it came to electricity and telephony back then, rural areas received special, if a little belated attention from the federal government. The dramatic impact on the 20th Century US economy of these policies and strategies, and the networks they spawned, is not in dispute.

But somehow, Broadband Access at this early stage we're currently in receives different treatment than electricity and telephony did in their own youths, at least here in the US. And what's more, despite great success from national utility policies and strategies in other countries that actively encourage broadband deployment, here in the US we continue to rely on incumbents and a laissez-faire regulatory regime - yet most seem resigned to accept this as a political reality that we're not positioned to challenge or impact. Sad, but not necessarily inevitable. Where is the fire in the belly?

In the absence of a national strategy, or even a national debate, we're puzzled about how to treat broadband and what to do. Amid industry head-scratching and disputes over the definition of broadband, the best delivery technology, and the appropriate business models, we fall behind competitively. Why do we accept this fate?

I think it's not too late for change - we're just confounded by our assumptions and paradigms, which make the problem seem more complicated than it need be. We need a collective "whack upside the head," a clean slate and a fresh start. As Homer Simpson would say, "Doooohhh!"

I'm reminded of the Winston Churchill quote:

"Americans can always be counted on to do the right thing...after they have exhausted all other possibilities."

The fact is, there are buckets of money at stake on the outcome of this debate, if we ever get around to having it, and there will be as many opinions as there are technology and business options, no matter when we get the debate started. But that's no reason to not get the debate started.

So far, rational discussion tends to be sidetracked by politics, strongly held positions, and industry biases. We talk past each other at different conferences and in different publications. As a nation, we're in the middle of that quote, busy "exhausting all other possibilities" before we "do the right thing."

Despite the impact on our collective futures, we still see relatively little leadership in this debate from the federal level, and little discussion about a utility approach, at least so far. That's my main beef.

We're stymied not only by a lack of leadership, but also by a motivation for change. The issues appear too numerous and too complex. but also,when it comes to John and Mary Consumer, most have grown accustomed to their $100+ Triple Play bundles, cellular calling plans, and latest digital devices. For many, there is no sense of urgency.

Yet. I believe most consumers today are unaware of the different broadband paradigm in advanced countries, where prices for broadband are dramatically lower and service options bounteous. But what if something were to come about to change that level of awareness? For instance, what if the ExaFlood materializes, where would we be as a nation then? We need to start talking now and come up with a plan that works for all parties. And what of the current industry leadership? What of the telephone, cable and electric providers?

Incumbent telecoms and cable companies jealously guard control of the networks for themselves in our National Broadband Status Quo (and who can blame them?). If I held stock in their companies, I might even support their approach. (I'm stretching here for the sake of argument.)

Electric utility managers, on the other hand, with a sterling record of providing a miracle service, have done well by sticking to their knitting and not sticking out their necks. But the Smart Grid debate, climate change, and national energy policy are beginning to change that long-held status quo.

The bottom line on current utility and telecommunication providers: unless pushed and prodded under some new set of motivations, the lion's share of current utility, telecom, and cable leadership are unlikely to step out with a new approach to broadband service anytime soon, certainly not on someone else's time line.

I'd argue then that it's time to quit waiting on leadership from the top, and to create the necessary leadership from the bottom up. (I'm not alone - See ConnectKentucky in an upcoming blog).

Notwithstanding current leadership constraints, from where I sit, the similarities between fixed and wireless broadband infrastructure and services and the electric and telephone national experience are compelling, and they become more and more apparent as time goes on. Some combination of wireless broadband and FTTH becomes ever more likely as a standard for a vital communication service of the 21st century. But there's that little Last Mile Infrastructure headache, and the unspoken question on everyone's lips is "Who will pay for it?" Then fingers start pointing. The utility approach is how they managed this 100 years ago.

My perspective is no doubt somewhat different than most, because I'm a generalist with background in public policy, electricity, and telephony, and wireless broadband. I get a little impatient, but I have to admit I'm seeing more progress in connecting the dots between information and electricity. But it's all so sloooow...

* From 1995-2000, I worked at a pioneer telecom subsidiary of an electric utility, Central and South West (now part of American Electric Power), where we did some pioneering work in demand response and fixed wireless automated meter reading.
* I spent nine months on the GENie Project at Austin Energy in 2004-2005, evaluating the use of broadband in the nation's 10th largest municipal electric utility. Under the GENie Project (Geodesic Energy Network: information + electricity), the CIO and I explored the natural fit between electricity and information and the role a general purpose IP network could play to promote Smart Grid goals.
* I authored several white papers on the impacts of wireless broadband on utilities for Wi Fi Mesh pioneer Tropos Networks when they were my client in 2005 - see here, here, here, and here.
* I'm currently consulting with a city client - San Marcos, Texas, which is actively pursuing a metropolitan broadband network, as well as an automated meter infrastructure (AMI) network for its water and electric utilities.)

It makes good business sense for all kinds of electric utilities to take a much greater interest in broadband (municipally owned, investor owned and cooperatives), consider the impact, if only:
* they embraced community broadband in their traditional roles as regional stewards of economic development for their communities and ratepayers;
* they were to consider the advantages of broadband networks to address their Smart Grid issues and to improve their management of their critical distributed infrastructures and to prepare for disaster recovery;
* they were to take the relatively minor step of inviting private sector operators to take advantage of their considerable assets (streetlights and distribution poles for mounting, power lines, existing and new fiber, billing systems, billing envelopes, fleets of bucket trucks and linemen, etc.).

If not for any of those reasons, electric utility managers should strongly consider that the nature of broadband (information access) is arguably akin to the nature of electricity (energy access). Why not see broadband then as another utility service, that they could lend a hand to on behalf of their communities? Who has more experience at delivery of a non-differentiated commodity? How about some local community leadership from the network operators out in the sticks, among the communities that need broadband help?

I'll stop for now, and drill down on the Utility Forum tomorrow morning, I promise.

Posted on September 18, 2007 at 09:32 PM | Comments (0)

Electric Utilities and Metropolitan Broadband - a Relatively Untested Opportunity, in Critical Need of Attention

As further evidence that there is life after EarthLink (please), I point my readers to an important use of wireless broadband networks, beyond providing access to the Internet and the World Wide Web. A Metropolitan Area Network (MAN - a few blocks to a whole city) is midway in size between a Local Area Network (LAN - office, residence or coffee shop) and a Wide Area Network (WAN - cellular network). A MAN enables communication over that wide area, and one of the biggest challenges cities have is gaining access to data from across a wide area. Cities that are willing to change their business processes and move to a more automated platform can gain incredible efficiencies, but undergoing such change is no walk in the park, if you will pardon the pun.

In the Analog World, cities sent people out in the field to find out what was happening. In the Digital World, cities can use new tools to gather information remotely or make their field employees more effective and efficient. Digital advances allow cities to manage the distributed infrastructures under their purview more cheaply and far more effectively and to increase public safety - two of their primary objectives (crime and potholes).

Think about it. A city covers a wide area and city staff are responsible for maintaining a complex system of infrastructure, including some combination of the following:

Electric Power Lines and Meters
Water Pipes and Meters
Gas Pipes and Meters
Parking Meters
Traffic Lights
Video Surveillance Cameras (new)
Streets, Roads, and Bridges
Parks
Fire Department vehicles and stations
Police Department vehicles and stations

For more background on how a wireless network changes the game, see this excellent article Cities Get Smart with Wireless Sensor Networking. With a better understanding of the relationship between wireless networks, sensor networks, and distributed infrastructure comes a realization that there is far more value in a municipal wireless network than in getting out to a website or checking an email. The issue of infrastructure maintenance and disaster recovery is getting more attention now thanks to the dramatic and tragic collapse of levies in New Orleans and more recently, the I-35 bridge in Minneapolis.

Cities that own an electric utility are in a great position to take advantage of new broadband communications technologies, as are larger electric utilities. They produce significant revenue, they manage a critical distributed infrastructure, and they have a critical task to manage in the event of an outage. I offer up also a white paper I worked on with Craig Settles (Successful.com) this spring, showing how cities are putting together wireless broadband projects with automated metering infrastructure (AMI) projects. After some discussion this spring, we managed to get two sponsors lined up, Nortel (Wi Fi) and InfoIntellect (AMI vendor - web site currently under construction).

I had called Craig this Spring because my client now, my prospect then, had two RFPs out on the street, one for a wireless project, and another for an AMI project. The City of San Marcos, Texas, I'm happy to say, chose MetroNetIQ in their infinite wisdom to help them with their wireless project. They currently have two simultaneous projects underway. Besides the wireless network, over which they will run municipal applications (we expect responses to the RFP on September 27), they've hired a company called UtiliWorks to execute on a plan to bring in Automated Meter Infrastructure (AMI) for their city-owned water and electric utilities.

Note for later - the relationship between these two projects, and between MetroNetIQ and UtiliWorks, is a fascinating new area to explore as we look to fill the gap left by EarthLink - this is a new way to bring in Wireless and get it funded.

City leaders anticipate that the two projects, Wi Fi and AMI, have great potential to work together, and that, I believe, makes both of these projects unique and attractive. This spring, I was updating myself on the connection between AMI and Wi Fi when I called Craig, but really, I've been looking at this connection since early 2004. MetroNetIQ has a significant background in this area - just see these background documents I authored in 2005: Whitepaper on AMI, Whitepaper on Municipal Utilities, and Whitepaper on Outages.

When I called Craig, I was curious to find out if other cities were going down this path (besides Corpus Christi, which is perhaps the best-known AMI / Municipal Wi Fi Case Study). After all, AMR / AMI is often listed as an example by mesh equipment vendors and others as a wireless application that could benefit from a wireless network. Apparently these projects are still small in number, and while there is progress, it will be a while before we have more case studies to complement the very good information that Corpus Christi has provided.

Q. Why is this train of thought so potentially significant?
A. There are implications way beyond the Municipal Wireless Industry.

Few outside the electric industry really understand the precarious situation that our American domestic electric industry is in. While America's infrastructure crisis should get their attention, this article highlights in particular the perilous state of our nation's electricity grid: Is PG&E fiddling while the grid burns?.

BTW, I just watched a fascinating video - Enron, The Smartest Guys in the Room, which describes the California energy crisis, among other things. Fascinating, and revealing insight on what happens when power is cut off, intentionally in this case, with rolling black outs caused by Enron and others.

But back to our discussion on the Internet and Municipal Wireless. The Internet relies on the electricity grid to function. And there's the rub.

... massive power outages caused by snafus at PG&E, our local power company. This resulted in a transformer blowing up, and causing even more disruptions, especially at 365 Main, one of the large co-lo/data center facilities situated in the SOMA area of San Francisco. This resulted in massive outages at some of Web 2.0's brand name companies - Six Apart, Facebook, Technorati and Yelp - knocking their systems and web services out flat. Whatever the reasons behind the failure might be, yesterday was a rude reminder of how fragile our digital lives are.

The seemingly invincible web services (not to mention the notional wealth they signify) vanish within a blink of the eye. It was also a reminder, that all the hoopla around web services is just noise - for in the end the hardware, the plumbing, the pipes and more importantly, the power grid is the real show.

According to North American Electric Reliability Council (NERC) there has been a 50% decline in the capital expenditures by utilities over the last 15 years. The underground cables are crumbling. This report in Fresno Bee takes PG&E to task.

This is not just a problem with PG&E. Power grid across the country is aging. It is ironic because data centers/hosting business is one where US companies still dominate. The reliable data center/colo facilities have been a distinct advantage for US start-ups, especially the Web 2.0 start-ups. And yet we continue to bet our future on this creaky house of cards. That's like building a Taj Mahal on quick sand. The Internet's Weakest Link

And what's more, there are financing alternatives that arise when a critical application like AMI is tied to a Wireless Broadband network project. See also Funding Alternatives. We'll have to explore this further in another post.

Oh, and by the way, to drive this point home, this critical issue of infrastructure has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO DO WITH EARTHLINK, LARGE CITY DEPLOYMENTS, AND FREE WI FI.

Posted on August 31, 2007 at 09:52 PM | Comments (0)

Iowa: Thumbs Up for Electric Utility Providing Communications

Beginning in 1998, MPW helped fund the development costs of the City of Muscatine's communications utility. So far, the electric utility has advanced $35,327,000 to the communications system for capital improvements and acquisition of a cable television system. MPW's goal is to improve the quality of local service and provide a wider range of communications services to customers in Muscatine. In implementing its communications plan, MPW experienced greater local cable competition than was initially expected. This pressured margins and hurt bottom-line performance. These issues appear to have been resolved, and MPW anticipates improved profitability through higher prices and better service.

Financial results at the electric system for 2004 were satisfactory.

Fitch Affirms Muscatine Power's 'A-' Rating Financial reports like this make for dry reading, but there is truth both in what they say in words, and in what is written between the lines. Here we have the largest municipally owned utility in Iowa, which serves about 11,000 customers. It took a signficant risk by financing efforts to bring better communication services to its ratepayers. And their project suffered greater competition than expected. And yet, they adjusted, and now are doing ... just fine would be a good way to put it. At least, that's what we call an A- in my house.

While I am more supportive of public private partnerships, and more scalable systems that don't put all the eggs in one financial basket, I wanted to highlight this success story. Governmental entity takes responsibility and takes a risk, government entity manages through risk, government entity improves the quality of life for its citizens. And the sky did not fall in when the public sector stepped in, as opponents of Muni broadband have claimed so loudly to date. So there.

Posted on September 30, 2005 at 10:02 AM | Comments (0)

Public, Private, and the large Gray Area In Between

Anyone who exercises, or tries to (like me), knows how hard it is to get back in the swing of things after a little time off. I took the longest break from this blog yet, one solid week, and I also took a week off from regular lap swimming, based on "circumstances beyond my control." I've eased back into my exercise this morning, and now I'll do the same here. I've missed blogging this past week, and I hope that you've missed my blogs.

I had business travel last week, followed by a flurry of activity at home before the first day of school for my kids. We went to the Canyon of the Eagles Lodge for one last getaway before school starts. This lodge, built by the Lower Colorado River Authority (LCRA), was a delightful escape from civilization. Located next to the Vanishing Texas River Cruise docks on Lake Buchanan, about an hour northwest of Austin, the lodge and the cruise are two institutions focused on providing a vista onto untouched Texas wilderness and a colony of eagles who nest in these beautiful canyons in the fall. Our trip was an expedition to check it out before returning in November, and it was a delight - if you don't mind the warnings about rattlesnakes, copperheads, water moccasins, cottonmouths, scorpions, fire ants, cactus - lots of sharp teeth and other pointy objects. It is Texas wilderness as it always has been, and some of us really like that. It's also a great example of the type of benefits a public institution can bring to a community when it focuses on the customer and can play well with others.

After spending time with Public Power experts last week talking about Municipal-Owned Utilities (MOUs) and telecommunications, I couldn't miss the connection of spending time in a lodge sponsored by a Public Power electric utility. That part was coincidence, so hang with me while I connect the dots.

Saturday afternoon, I read on an historical marker at Rattlesnake Point that Lake Buchanan dam was created to bring electricity to the Texas Hill Country via hydroelectric power, but the company went bankrupt before finishing. The government created LCRA in part to finish that dam, but also to carry forward a vision of rural electrification. LCRA went on to build a series of dams that not only brought affordable public power, but also flood control and water resources for a region, and some of the nicest lakes, all within an hour's drive of Austin. LCRA now markets its electricity to a number of MOUs, and on the side, promotes tourism with lodges and campsites like Canyon of the Eagles (managed by a private hotel services provider). LCRA also has a signficant amount of fiber that it uses to manage its system.

So let's hear it for positive unintended consequences. In their wisdom 70 years ago, the Texas government set up a unique quasi-public entity that has grown and filled gaps to provide ever more benefits for the public. No doubt, they didn't envision a lodge like Canyon of the Eagles, but hey, it works. When an entity, be they public or private, keeps their customers and their core mission squarely in front of them, the results are almost always a pleasure to behold.

I also encountered such customer focus when I spent time last week with Hometown Connections, a for-profit subsidiary of the non-profit American Public Power Association (APPA). Started in 1998, Hometown provides marketing services to vendors who seek to sell to MOUs (members of APPA), and serves a valuable role of advisor and counselor to MOUs on ways that they can better serve their communities, including bringing in new broadband opportunities.

It was an eye-opening visit, and I came away very impressed, not only with the job that Hometown is doing, but also with the enthusiasm, professionalism, innovation, and spirit of cooperation that these public power professionals showed through their work with Hometown and their member utilities, and the obvious pleasure they take in serving MOUs as customers. And they are excited about the potential of MOUs helping to bring broadband to their communities by way of metropolitan wireless mesh networks.

Left on their own, public power utilities will manage OK, but working together, they begin to thrive. Hold on for some acronyms here, a hazard of the industry. MOUs get deals on public power and other professional services through Joint Action Agencies like American Municipal Power of Ohio (AMP Ohio) and MEAG Power (Georgia). State Associations also provide noteworthy member services, for instance, the Florida Municipal Electric Association (FMEA), which is working to help utilites better manage future hurricanes, and the Indiana Municipal Electric Association (IMEA), which provides valuable information to its member utilities.

These organizations work together to improve the lot of their members and the communities they serve. Keep an eye on this space and look for some significant action over the coming months as they discover municpal wireless networks and bring broadband to their communities, not unlike the way that LCRA brought power to the Texas Hill Country 70 years ago. And what unthought of benefits will we be talking about 50 years from now? I hope I'm around to see.

Posted on August 16, 2005 at 10:48 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Indiana: Town Interested in Broadband

Columbia City eyes offering broadband Getting broadband is contagious, as this local article suggests. When neighboring Auburn put in a broadband system to meet the needs of a major employer, it raised eyebrows and interest at neighboring Columbia City. Like a virus, in a positive vein, municipal broadband has the potential to spread throughout the nation.

This is a new category, to organize articles by state. This series of local profiles organized by state provides you one more way to find a project, RFP, or activity that is in your backyard.

Posted on August 06, 2005 at 09:55 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Minnesota: Go Moorhead Broadband

Go Moorhead is the brainchild of Moorhead Public Service, which services Moorhead, Minnesota, just across the river from Fargo, North Dakota. This small municipally-owned utility provides us all with an example of the possibilities when a community works together to meet its own needs.

Communications Director Jennifer Walz presented the details of their project at the American Public Power Association Annual Meeting in Anaheim last week (6/19-22). Jennifer, who also does improv comedy on the side, held the crowd's attention as she walked through the details of how affordable and manageable a community network can be.

Jennifer described a series of events that must be all too familiar to small communities around the US. Faced with the inability to get traditional providers to provide Moorhead with high speed internet access, the town leaders investigated installing a fiber system in Moorhead, but could not make the business case provide a reasonable rate of return, so they abandoned their plans.

But taking yet another look at the issue in the past year, they discovered that wireless broadband now provided the speed and coverage they needed at an affordable cost.

How did they make the business case work? On the revenue side, they worked with city government and the Univ of Minnesota at Moorhead, establishing two anchor tenants who would cover enough of their costs to make a solid business case to bring broadband access to their citizens.

On the expense side, they not only used affordable wireless technology by Tropos Networks, but also worked the project through their locally-owned electric utility, where they could take advantage of the utility's fiber optic ring that circles the city for connecting to the Internet (also known as backhaul), and its poles and street lights for mounting the network's wireless equipment.

Jennifer spent considerable time discussing the interaction with the community that they feel is essential to the long-term success of their project, because they need the community's citizens to embrace this new service and subscribe in order to meet their conservative financial projections. I wrote about this in the recent article about setting up a community blog.

If you need broadband for your town and already have your own municipal electric utility, you would be well advised to look further into this case study as an example of how to proceed. And, Jennifer will probably provide you with a few good laughs while you're at it!

Posted on June 25, 2005 at 04:52 AM | TrackBack

Municipal Debate Issues

Municipal Networks Take Broadband to the People June 2004. If a little dated, this article is fairly balanced and comprehensive in its look at municipal broadband networks, highlighting two business models: municipally-owned networks and networks created through a utility owned by the municipality.

Intel's Paul Butcher's Address to NYC Commission Paul Butcher, Marketing Manager for State and Local Government for Intel, has been a fixture at municipal wireless events almost as long as I can remember. Intel's support for this budding industry has been significant. This statement has great perspective on the potential of municipal networks to help cities operate better. Paul's comments are poignant and worth the read.

Posted on June 12, 2005 at 09:12 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Municipal Utilities Provide Broadband also

Municipal utilities are getting into the broadband business - especially the smaller ones. In fact, as detailed on the American Public Power Association (APPA) website, most of its 1000 some odd electric utilties (95%) are smaller, with less than 30,000 ratepayers. Early deployments were mostly fiber, as wireless was not yet economic in large scale deployments. Among municipal electric utilities, wireless technologies are now starting to gain a following.

For good historical perspective, I recommend Community Broadband Networks, published by Al Bonnyman from mid-Feb 2003 until mid-June 2004. It had a decent perspective on municipal utilities that built fiber networks, but then Al temporarily signed off the air, as it were, in a June 2004 blog, never to return. Methinks he had to go make some money. Still I find it an interesting source to undersstand the utility telecommunications perspective. I recommend you browse some of the articles in the Community Broadband Networks - Archives to get some perspective.

Posted on May 25, 2005 at 04:17 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack