Demand Opportunities for Broadband Deployment in Del Norte, Humboldt, Mendocino and Trinity Counties

Tina NeratNERATECH

CENIC Conference3/10/09

2

RCC Project Participants

• California Emerging Technology Fund• Humboldt Area Foundation• Humboldt State University• All 3 organizations have seats on the Governor’s

Broadband Task Force• Other funders: RREDC, McLean Foundation,

Headwaters Fund, Humboldt/Trinity CDBG

http://redwoodcoastconnect.humboldt.edu

3

What is the project?

• First CETF project• Market Study – 4 county demand aggregation

– Markets in rural regions• Population locations/density, remoteness, terrain

– Broadband service areas– Closing gaps in service

• We need to understand… – Demand (understanding adoption and usage) – Supply (current infrastructure)– Policy (planning, ordinances, barriers)

4

Lessons to Share:Mapping

Quality of broadband coverage map data1.GIS maps2.Provider engineering drawings3.Public information4.WISP maps on web sites5.Purchased data - TeleAtlas6.AAA maps with highlighter marking7.Linemen & cable guys sharing info8.WISP lat/long/tower height (GIS modeling)9.“Local knowledge” marked up on GPS topo software

maps10.Paranoia about sharing information11.Local dial-up providers know the “lay of the land”

5

GISdata

6

Neighborhood Mapping& Advocacy

7

Mendocino Coast Broadband Alliance Parcel Map

8

State of Infrastructure

Rumors of infrastructure issues confirmed:• At capacity on some backhaul routes• Deteriorating copper in some areas• “It survived the ’64 flood”• Single provider for backhaul = high cost• Lack of route diversity

– Widespread regional outages due to storms, backhoes, fires

• Last mile issues can’t be considered without discussion of backhaul issues

9

Community Access to Broadband

Community Access to Broadband

14

43 17

27

high

medium

low

none/underserved

101 CommunitiesScale of high/medium/low/none based on: number of providers, upload/download speeds, symmetricity, wireline, and backhaul

10

Broadband Demand

Demand for Broadband

15%13%

24%

48%

Critical

Very Important

Somewhat Important

Other

Random phone survey resultsMore than 90% of residents have home computer

11

Community Ranking Sheet

Humboldt CountyEstimated

Residences Demand Rank Supply Rank Backhaul Needed

Estimated Annual Residential Revenues

Hoopa 1882 High Low Yes 247,907

Willow Creek 961 High Low Yes 126,679

Whitethorn 440 High Low Yes 57,925

Miranda 354 High Low Yes 46,587

Alderpoint 165 High Low Yes 36,339

Blocksburg 88 High Low Yes 11,556

Fieldbrook Unknown High Low Yes unknown

Orleans 270 High None Yes 66,554

Weott 141 High None Yes 38,210

Myers Flat 133 High None Yes 29,193

Briceland 81 High None yes 17,806

Bridgeville 394 Medium None Yes 90.088

Kneeland 217 Low Low No 28,635

Shelter Cove Unknown Low Low Yes Unknown

12

Surprises

• Amazing small provider coverage (DSL, cable)• Large providers don’t know who their

competition is in rural markets• Wireless ISP activity in the past 18 months

– 101Netlink in Humboldt– No WISPs in Del Norte (yet)

• Openness of conversations with some providers• Backhaul issues (cost, lack of capacity/vendor

choice) are huge barriers to rural broadband

13

• Large population centers have reasonably high quality broadband access

• 60% of communities unserved/underserved • Business needs often indistinguishable from

residential needs (small businesses)• Telecom companies and wireless ISPs’ may

well be anchor tenants• Public sector is generally well-connected• Lack of middle mile is single greatest barrier

to last mile deployment • Subsidization of middle mile will be required

Key Findings

14

15

16

17

• Last mile broadband deployment is impossible without the middle mile.

Proposed Middle Mile Architecture

Route (all have redundancy potential)

No. of Towns Passe

d

Under-served

Un-served

CountiesNo. of Miles

Estimated Cost

Eureka to Redding

12 6 6Humboldt,

Trinity, Shasta

150 $15-20m

Crescent City to Eureka

6 2 2Del Norte, Humboldt

85 $4-7m

Eureka to Red Bluff

8 4 4Humboldt,

Trinity, Tehama

140 $10-20m

Ft Bragg to Ukiah

2 1 0 Mendocino 60 $4-6m

Hwy 3 from Hwy 36 to Callahan

6 6 0Trinity,

Siskiyou100 $6-12m

Gualala/Sea Ranch to Hwy 101

4 2 2Mendocino, Sonoma

80 $4-7m

Willow Creek to Somes Bar

3 1 2Humboldt, Siskiyou

48 $3-6m

Crescent City to OR border & Medford

2 2 0Del Norte,

Oregon110 $4-7m

18

Klamath-Orick ScenarioCapital and Revenue

• Total Demand Revenues– Residential $139,392– Business $ 4,347– Public $ 60,000

• Estimated Capital– Backhaul $5,071,000– Local Loop 166,511

• Discounted Cash Flow– w/o public $ 799,486– w/public

$1,105,537• Est. Subsidy $4-5 million

19

Key State Policy Considerations

• Anchor Tenants– Create new public/private partnerships

utilizing public assets to support new infrastructure

– Opening of closed networks for extending broadband into the hard-to-serve communities

– Allow government offices in hard-to-serve communities participate in aggregation of demand

20

• Capital Funding– Expand funding available to WISPs and other

small local entrepreneurial enterprises – Include Community Services Districts

providing broadband access to CASF funds– Provide grant funding to support community

efforts to create business plans for broadband – Support research and development of new

technologies that hold promise for rural areas

Key State Policy Considerations

21

• Infrastructure Build Out– Create an “open trench” policy whereby state

funded infrastructure projects at a minimum encourage burying of conduit or fiber whenever a ditch is open

– Fund a pilot project to determine the viability of micro-trenching as an alternative to laying fiber in public right of way (Caltrans)

– Create publicly owned infrastructure that can be leased by private operators willing to serve hard to serve communities

Key State Policy Considerations

22

Resources

http://redwoodcoastconnect.humboldt.edu

tina@neratech.net

Thank You CENIC…….

for your support of rural broadband