Elizabethton, Tennessee, population 14,000, is the county seat of Carter County, which is home to 57,000 residents. The two, located in the extreme northeast corner of the state, now join the ranks of the growing number of rural communities exploring the publicly owned network option.

A Task Force, appointed by Carter County Mayor in January of this year, includes local leaders from local government, school districts, higher education, and the business community. They were charged with determining the need, feasibility, and level of community support for a publicly owned network.

In addition to conducting surveys in the local business and non-profit sectors, the Task Force met with potential ISPs to gauge interest and explore potential public/private partnerships. The group identified anchor institutions, researched keys to success and causes of failure in other communities, determined an estimate for the build out, and explored potential financing. The Task Force finished their final report in May. The group formerly presented it to the Carter County Commission last week and Elizabethton City Council earlier this week. The report revealed that a county/city network can be a reality and is critical to local economic development and quality of life. Like other small communities around the country, Carter County and Elizabethton recognize that their residents will be left behind if they don't take action.

Carter County Tomorrow (CCT), an economic development partnership between the County, Elizabethton, and nearby Watauga, contributed to the presentation. Jason R. Mullins, of the Elizabethton Star, covered the City Council meeting:

The CCT President [Tom Anderson] said the county could attract high-tech companies to the area to develop a data center or server farm. “We could possibly get one of those if we could get the proper infrastructure in place to get what they need, which is either  a dual feed from two different fiber companies or we could have redundancy. That is when you have a loop to make sure if something gets cut, it re-routes data in the other direction,” Anderson said.

Bonners Ferry, with around 2,500 residents in Northern Idaho, realized three years ago that fiber would only find their community if they installed it themselves.

“We are a little isolated up here…We don’t have the density that would attract this kind of thing.”

Mike Sloan, Bonners Ferry Economic Development Council Director, went on to describe the situation in a recent Bonners Ferry Herald article. Even though some BTOP and BIP federal stimulus project awards came to Idaho, none of them made it to Bonners Ferry. Nevertheless, Sloan and other community leaders knew the infrastructure would be crucial to the economic well-being of the region. The project has been in the works for the past three years. Sloan went on to tell reporter Cori Flowers:

Sloan said fiber optic isn’t just a means for easier internet surfing, it’s absolutely essential to economic progress. “Any area that doesn’t have this is at a distinct disadvantage,” Sloan said. “If we ever want to attract businesses to our area, we need this.”

In order to fund the build-out, Bonners Ferry plans to create a revenue bond, with anticipated revenue from the network designated to repay the bond. With the participation of several other area regional communities, leaders are optimistic. The network will travel along electrical lines and will end at the Canadian border.

The project, still in its planning phase, will be reviewed by the Panhandle Area Council, the City of Bonners Ferry, and municipal legal counsel before moving forward.

Tahlequah, Oklahoma, far on the eastern side of the state, recently decided to investigate the possibility of building a new network. On June 15th, the Tahlequah Public Works Authority Board approved the financing of a feasibility study on the options. According to Rob W. Anderson's Tahlequah Daily Press article:

“We budgeted $40,000 for this, and I really think it’ll probably take every bit of that, I’m guessing,” [TPWA General Manager Mark Chesney] said. “What we’re suggesting is that we go to some expert to get a proposal to tell us what a return on investment would look like, what our start-up cost would look like, how much of the market we could capture and a pretty good forecast of how long it would take to pay out on those kinds of things. That’s what a study would do.”

Chesney stated that the city wanted to know more about offering services with a fiber network, including Internet, cable, and voice. Chesney alluded to local dissatisfaction of services and the town's desire to expand economic development. The town is home to approximately 15,750 people.

We have reported on other Oklahoma communities, including Sallisaw and Ponca City, that now have publicly owned networks and provide a variety of services. Oklahoma, one of the states with a more friendly attitude toward community networks, does not have barriers in place to curtail development.

Sallisaw's DiamondNet offers triple play packages, like those mentioned in the Tahlequah meeting, for $105.95, $116.95, and 126.95. Things have worked out will in Sallisaw. Keith Skelton, assistant city director of Sallisaw, stated publicly in March that he expects the City to make a profit from the network by the end of 2012.

Farmington, New Mexico, currently has 80 miles of fiber and has decided to consider the best way to get the most out of the investment. The City uses the fiber network strictly for its Farmington Electric Utility System but sees potential in maximizing the power of the unused strands. Earlier this year, they commissioned a study from Elert & Associates to investigate the technical possibilities. Front Range Consulting reviewed the financial pros and cons.

In February, both experts provided options to the City Council. While offering triple play services is a possibility, both firms recommended leasing available fiber to existing ISPs instead. Expanding to a triple play offering would require  a $100 million investment to connect the 32,000 current Farmington Electric Utility System's customers.

Dick Treich, from Front Range Consulting, commented on the pushback to expect from Comcast and CenturyLink, if the City decided to pursue triple play retail services. From a February Farmington Daily Times article (this article is archived and available for purchase):

"They won't sit still for that," Treich said. "First they will challenge the legality of whether you can get into that option, possibly tying you down in court for a long time. They will also start the whole argument of public money being used for starting a private business. It would be a two-pronged attack."

The City Council also pondered the option of leasing fiber, which would require a $1.5 million infrastructure investment. Also from the article:

"Five companies have expressed interest," said Assistant City Manager Bob Campbell. "Assuming that those companies would each use approximately 10 miles of fiber, (they) would provide $170,000 annually leasing dark fiber."

Update:

Bob Campbell, Acting Director of the General Services Department of Farmington, emailed us this update:

The 1 gig network is slated to be an aerial build, except where existing utilities are underground, in which instances, fiber cable will also be placed underground. Leverett plans to use a $40,0000 planning grant, obtained from the Massachusetts Broadband Institute, to hire G4S Technology to design the last mile fiber-optic network to connect to MBI's stimulus-funded middle mile. The middle mile project is scheduled to be completed in June, 2013, and Leverett plans to be ready to connect soon after. The goal is to have every home connected with fiber by 2014.

Whereas most communities explicitly choose not to use tax revenue to pay for a community network, Leverett's present plan is for a slight increase in local taxes to assist in the financing. The town will borrow the amount necessary to build the network and pay it back over 20 years using a combination of tax revenue and revenues from the new broadband service. Peter d'Errico, Chair of the MBI Grant Broadband Committee observes that homeowners' net spending figures will decline once the system is in place. From the article:

A town survey concluded a municipal network could offer better Internet and phone service at far cheaper rates than private providers, he said.

"It will be a little more on their tax bill and a lot less on their Internet bill, so overall they will be pay less," d'Errico said.

Soeffker, who farms with her husband in rural Sibley County, said the dish receiver they must use works fine in good weather but balks during heavy rain and snowstorms. Meantime, her husband struggles with a lagging Internet speed of .6 megabits a second that falls short of meeting his business needs when he’s selling commodities.

According to a feasibility study by the utility, the third-party vendor approach would give the JCPB the best return on investment, balancing low risk with possible profits. The Power Board would provide the “backbone,” while the vendor, working under JCPB’s brand, would provide the “last mile” services and equipment to the commercial customers. The utility’s telecommunications division would be self-sustaining, and have absolutely no effect on electric rates.

To reach its revenue and return on investment projections, the JCPB would need to capture about 20 percent of the area’s total market for data services, about 15 percent of the market in phone services, and about 5 percent of private data services over five years, based on a market of 3,000 commercial users.

The decision on the third-party vendor approach stems from a feasibility study by Kersey Consulting, a firm that offers broadband consulting to municipalities and public utilities. The study began in July, and examined three models the JCPB could use to offer the services: having the JCPB be the retailer; leasing the extra fiber capacity to another company; or bringing in a third-party operator to provide the network access electronics, customer support, billing services, etc. Working with a third-party vendor gives the JCPB the best return on its investment, balancing low risk with possible profits, said JCPB spokesman Robert White. The Power Board would provide the “backbone,” while the vendor, working under JCPB’s brand, would provide the “last mile” services and equipment to the commercial customers.

Initially, according to the feasibility study, the Power Board would most likely make a capital investment of $1.5 million over five years, which could include installing more of a fiber backbone to reach businesses if needed.

Redwood County’s Economic Development Authority (EDA) opted to move forward with a broadband feasibility study that would determine just what the county would need to do in order to get fiber to every premises. … The study, which is being conducted by the Blandin Foundation through what is known as the Robust Broad-band Networks Feasibility Grant Program. The grant, which includes up to $40,000 for the county as it addresses the needs of every community and farm site from one end of the county to the other, requires matching funds, which are available through the county EDA.

“I think [the LMCC executive committee] realized that if a municipal fiber network is ever going to be built, the cities need a considerable amount of time spent in educating and understanding the significance of building such a system,” said a memo from Sally Koenecke, LMCC executive director. The $81 million proposal sought to provide 25,000 households in communities from the 17 member cities with Internet, phone and cable fiber optic services.

“I’m personally against spending any money on the fiber optic project,” said Orono mayor Lili McMillan. “What I want to do is send a message. I don’t feel government should be in this.”

Unfortunately I think that having interest if the price is low enough might not be enough to motivate a community through the perils of community supported fiber. But I always remember the folks in Monticello saying that each set back in winning over the residents just made them stronger in the end.