13
CAF II Case Study Two Exchanges in East Central Minnesota What is the impact?

CAF II Case Study

Embed Size (px)

Citation preview

Page 1: CAF II Case Study

CAF II Case Study

Two Exchanges in East Central Minnesota

What is the impact?

Page 2: CAF II Case Study

Findings

• Both CenturyLink and Frontier are using CAF II dollars to deploy Fiber to the Node technology in support of distance-sensitive DSL services

• Even after CAF II investment, the vast majority of the property within these two exchanges lies more than 3,000 feet from a fiber-fed DSL node, thus limiting the bandwidth available to customers to something less than the 2022 state broadband goal of 25 Mb/3 Mb.

• It is unlikely that any customers in the rural portions of these exchanges will be able to receive broadband services that meet the 2026 Minnesota broadband goal of 100 Mb/20 Mb without additional provider investment.

Page 3: CAF II Case Study

Bro

adb

and

in East

Cen

tral MN

Page 4: CAF II Case Study

CAF II Funding In MN & Requirements

• Speed: Service providers must offer broadband at speeds of at least 10 megabits per second (Mbps) downstream and 1 Mbps upstream.

• Latency (the time it takes for a data packet to travel back and forth over a broadband network): Service providers' network latency cannot be higher than 100 milliseconds round trip.

• Usage Allowance: Currently, the carrier must offer at least one plan with a minimum usage allowance of at least 150 gigabytes (GB) per month, or in certain circumstances, a plan with 100 GB of usage.

• Pricing: Service providers must offer service at rates reasonably comparable to rates in urban areas.

• NOTE: CAF II Funding equals amount distributed to date via B2B Grant Fund

Company Households Funds

CenturyLink 114,739 $54,035,149

Consolidated Communications

4,266 $2,516,502

Frontier Communications 46,910 $27,551,367

Windstream Communications

4,440 $1,519,856

Total 170,355 $85,622,874

Page 5: CAF II Case Study

DSL Speed over Distance

• DSL speeds decline rapidly over a relatively short distance

• Up to 80 Mb at the fiber-fed cabinet

• Approximately 25 Mb/3 Mb at 1 km or 3,280 feet

• Approximately 10 Mb/1 Mb at 3 km or 10,000 feet

• Vectoring to increase capacity effective within 3,000 feet

• G.Fast, an emerging technology, is forecast for urban areas to connect fiber to MDU

• Pair bonding can also be used to double speeds if copper pairs are available

• Carrying capacity of copper pairs is highly dependent on line quality

Page 6: CAF II Case Study

Frontier DSL Speed – Distance

Chart

Questions:Are extra copper pairs

available?

What is the quality of the copper lines?

Page 7: CAF II Case Study

Study AreasLindstrom via Frontier

Braham via Century Link

Page 8: CAF II Case Study

FRONTIER’S LINDSTROM EXCHANGE

Red circles = 3,000 foot radius = 25 Mb/3 Mb and higher

Blue circles = 9,000 foot radius = between 25 Mb/3 Mb to 10 Mb/1 Mb

Page 9: CAF II Case Study

FRONTIER’S LINDSTROM EXCHANGE

Those within the circles, about 10% of land area, may meet the 2022 state goal of 25 Mb/3Mb; no one would meet the 100 Mb/20 Mb2026 state goal.

Page 10: CAF II Case Study

CENTURYLINK’S BRAHAM EXCHANGE

Red circles = 3,000 foot radius = 25 Mb/3 Mb and higher

Blue circles = 9,000 foot radius = between 25 Mb/3 Mb to 10 Mb/1 Mb

Page 11: CAF II Case Study

CENTURYLINK’S BRAHAM EXCHANGE3,000 foot radius circles occupy less than 10 percent of the land area

Page 12: CAF II Case Study

Findings

• Both CenturyLink and Frontier are using CAF II dollars to deploy Fiber to the Node technology in support of distance-sensitive DSL services

• Even after CAF II investment, the vast majority of the property within these two exchanges lies more than 3,000 feet from a fiber-fed DSL node, thus limiting the bandwidth available to customers to something less than the 2022 state broadband goal of 25 Mb/3 Mb.

• It is unlikely that any customers in the rural portions of these exchanges will be able to receive broadband services that meet the 2026 Minnesota broadband goal of 100 Mb/20 Mb without additional provider investment.

Page 13: CAF II Case Study