This is the transcript for Episode 280 of the Community Broadband Bits podcast. Christa Wagner Vinson, Deborah Watts, and Alan Fitzpatrick join Christopher Mitchell at the Atlanta airport to discuss the work of NC Hearts Gigabit and how they're organizing for local choice and better connectivity. Listen to this episode here.
Deborah Watts: And you know we need we need to get regulations in legislation that prevents local choice out of the way these people on the tractors the ones in the production rooms the ones in the businesses that can go to their representatives and say You all need to do something about this because I'm having difficulty running my business. I can't be competitive.
Lisa Gonzalez: You're listening to episode 280 of the Community Broadband Bits podcast from the Institute for Local Self-Reliance. I'm Lisa Gonzalez. Christopher recently attended the broadband community's economic development conference where he was able to connect with this week's guests from North Carolina Christa Wagner Vinson, Deborah Watts, and Alan Fitzpatrick from the group and NC Hearts Gigabit joined Chris to talk about local choice and better connectivity in North Carolina and how they're using technology to bring people together. Catharine Rice from the Coalition for Local Internet Choice was also there in this conversation. You'll learn how and see how it's gigabit began. Who's involved. What they've accomplished their goals and you'll also hear some tips on the best way to get the word out and get organized. You can learn more about the group. Check out the collection of resources and even join up at their website and see hearts gigabit dot com. Here's Christopher with Christa Wagner Vinson, Deborah Watts, Alan Fitzpatrick, and Catharine Rice.
Christopher Mitchell: Welcome to another edition of the Community Broadband Bits podcasts. I'm Chris Mitchell with the Institute for Local Self-Reliance in Atlanta sitting on the runway of the Atlanta airport at the Broadband Communities Conference talking to you now with three folks from an organization called NC Hearts Gigabit I'm going to start by introducing Christa Wagner Vinson, the economic development consultant of the group. Welcome to the show.
NC Hearts Gigabit is a grassroots group recently launched in North Carolina that aims to dramatically improve Internet access and utilization across the state. We caught up with Economic Development Consultant Christa Wagner Vinson, CEO of Open Broadband Alan Fitzpatrick, and Partner of Broadband Catalysts Deborah Watts to discuss what they are doing.
We discuss their goals and vision for a more connected North Carolina as well as their organizing methods. Given my experiences dining in that state, I'm not surprised that they have often organized around meals - good stuff!
NC Hearts Gigabit offers an important model for people who feel left out of the modern political system. It is an opportunity to get out from behind the desk, engage others, and build a coalition to seize control of the future for a community or even larger region. And have a tasty lunch.
Wilson has made their community-owned Greenlight fiber network central to their economic development plan, a move that may forge a new approach for other communities with similar assets.
Revitalization Efforts
In 2008, when Wilson’s Greenlight community network first launched, the Federal Communications Commission ranked North Carolina last in the nation in percentage of households subscribing to at least a "basic broadband" service. Today Wilson offers free Wi-Fi downtown, schools and libraries are outfitted with high-quality connectivity, and a majority of households subscribe to the broadband service.
Home to over 50,000 residents, Wilson has had a diverse history of industries popping up and dissipating over the years. After deploying their Greenlight Community Broadband, they’ve leveraged new businesses and an entrepreneurial spirit that shows no sign of relenting.
Wilson is initially focusing development downtown. The local daily paper The Wilson Daily Times decided to refurbish an old building and move downtown. The city raised money to renovate an old theater into a cultural center, and an electrical components manufacturing company, Peak Demand, has invested $2.6 million to renovate an old tobacco processing plant.
A Shift From the Old
Wilson involves all community stakeholders to make this revitalization a success. They have worked closely with Barton College, a liberal arts university, and the local nursing school. The community is consciously trying to buy locally and many people meet to discuss how best to promote this.
Wilson’s economic development model has evolved alongside their broadband network and they credit much of their success to Greenlight's benefits. In years past, many towns looked to bolster their economy by attracting companies that offered a windfall of manufacturing jobs— an industrial-era dream. But Wilson is no longer fretting over the decline of large-scale manufacturing companies that once haunted rural America. Instead, they’ve embraced the evolution towards technology companies and entrepreneurial business.
If you live in western North Carolina and struggle with the lack of quality Internet access, the Southwestern Commission — a council of local governments for the region’s seven westernmost counties — in cooperation with the MountainWest Partneship are urging residents to take this survey. Counties in the council include Haywood, Swain, Jackson, Macon, Graham, Cherokee, and Clay.
The goal is to quantify the demand for Internet regionally, focusing on individual counties as opposed to census blocks, in order to better determine accessibility issues. It’s an important process to show Internet providers that there is demand, debunking ISPs claim that rural demand for high-speed Internet doesn't justify the investment. Better data can also establish a foundation for future funding opportunities.
Sarah Thompson, the executive director of the council explained,
It’s really in my opinion one of the most important parts of the process. You’re basically showing [internet service providers] that there is demand, it’s showing even when there is service it’s subpar. In order to move forward with projects, we have to have that data to back up the need. To show that there are opportunities.
FCC’s Inaccurate Data Collection
Through the FCC’s form 477 data collection efforts, the Commission attempted to carry out these crucial first steps in showing aggregate demand and problematic broadband service. The data was compiled into the easily accessible National Broadband Map.
Data is collected from ISPs and it provides information to the FCC based on which census blocks ISPs serve. The problem is that this data exaggerates where coverage is available in rural areas where census blocks can be very large. Areas that may appear on the FCCs maps to be served or to be served with better connectivity are often in reality not served or served with Internet access much slower than FCC mapping indicates. Because state and federal entities typically award grants and loans to communities with the greatest need first, incorrect mapping eliminates rural communities from funding opportunities when they need it the most.
The future of high-quality Internet access in Pinetops, North Carolina, is precarious. Nearby Wilson’s municipal fiber network, Greenlight, provides gigabit connectivity for now, but a series of federal level decisions could change the situation at any moment. Now the story of these two communities and their fight for local telecommunications authority has come to life in the film Do Not Pass Go. Local communities can schedule a screening of the documentary. Watch the trailer below.
A Story Worth Telling
Cullen Hoback’s film tells the story that made national news and that we’ve shared as events unfolded.
Wilson, North Carolina’s municipal Fiber-to-the-Home (FTTH) network has benefitted residents, businesses, and institutions in Wilson since 2008. Neighboring rural towns, including Pinetops, had asked Wilson to expand in order to obtain better Internet access but state law precluded Wilson from serving beyond county borders.
When Chattanooga decided to challenge Tennessee’s law that had a similar effect, Wilson joined the motion to the FCC in 2015. The Commission struck down both laws and Wilson took the opportunity to expand service to Pinetops, the small mountain town of about 1,400 people. Pinetops businesses and residents immediately felt the improvement with FTTH. They experienced economic development opportunities and municipal facilities functioned more efficiently.
A recent proposal being considered by the FCC that has raised the loudest outcry has been the status of mobile broadband in rural areas. Now that Verizon is discontinuing rural subscriber accounts, the FCC will be able to see those concerns come to life.
Dear John...
The company has decided to cut service to scores of customers in 13 states because those subscribers have used so many roaming charges, Verizon says it isn’t profitable for the company. Service will end for affected subscribers after October 17th.
Verizon claims customers who use data while roaming via other providers’ networks create roaming costs that are higher than what the customers pay for services. In rural communities, often mobile wireless is the best (albeit poor) or only option for Internet access, so subscribers use their phones to go online.
Subscribers are from rural areas in Alaska, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Kentucky, Maine, Michigan, Missouri, Montana, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Utah, and Wisconsin.
In a letter sent to customers scheduled to be cut off, Verizon offered no option, such as paying more for more data or switching to a higher cost plan. Many of the people affected were enrolled in unlimited data plans:
“During a recent review of customer accounts, we discovered you are using a significant amount of data while roaming off the Verizon Wireless network. While we appreciate you choosing Verizon, after October 17th, 2017, we will no longer offer service for the numbers listed above since your primary place of use is outside the Verizon service area.”
Affecting Customers And Local Carriers
Apparently, Verizon’s LTE in Rural America (LRA) program, which creates partnerships with 21 other carriers, is the culprit. The agreements it has with the other carriers through the program allows Verizon subscribers to use those networks when they use roaming data, but Verizon must pay the carriers’ fees. Verizon has confirmed that they will disconnect 8,500 rural customers who already have little options for connectivity.
For the past year, six municipalities along with local colleges and universities have collaborated to lay the groundwork for fiber optic infrastructure in the greater Asheville area. The group, West Next Generation Network (WestNGN), is now ready to find a partner to begin hammering out details in order to realize the concept. They’ve released the WestNGN Broadband Request for Negation (RFN) and responses are due September 21st.
The plan closely resembles the North Carolina Next Generation Network (NCNGN) in the Research Triangle area of Raleigh, Durham, and Chapel Hill. WestNGN will include the communities of Asheville, Biltmore Forest, Fletcher, Hendersonville, Laurel Park, and Waynesville - all of which belong to the Land of Sky Regional Council. The Council has helped with administration and in drafting the RFN aimed at improving local connectivity and boosting regional economic development.
Strategic Alliance Partnership
WestNGN’s RFN states that they want to establish a Strategic Alliance Partnership with a single ISP or a group of ISPs that possess an interest in both providing service and in deployment. WestNGN puts negotiation of ownership of assets and use of those assets at the top of the list for discussion points, signaling that rhey aren't set on a fixed approach. Similarly, they hope to negotiate matters such as management, operation, and maintenance of local networks; ways to speed up deployment and reduce costs; and ways to better serve low-income residents.
Goals For The Network
WestNGN plans to bring gigabit connectivity to residents, businesses, and community anchor institutions in the region. They specifically state their priority for this level of capacity, but note that their future partner will have time to gradually implement it, if necessary. They also stress the need for symmetrical service speeds. Several employers in the region have determined that upload speeds - from their offices and for their employees at home - are increasingly desirable. The consortium has recognized that home-based businesses in the region are also multiplying every year.
Cooperatives around the country have built on their long legacy of delivering essential infrastructure by starting to deliver next-generation Internet services. Here, we cover the basics of cooperatives in rural areas and then discuss the details of electric and telephone cooperatives that have already branched out into Internet service. Finally, we highlight the first fiber optic cooperative provider, and discuss how other communities have better Internet service through building their own networks.
Cooperatives are part of the fabric of rural America. The member owners control the cooperative: each person receiving service is a member of the cooperative and can directly vote in elections for the Board of Directors or even become a member of the Board.
Starting in the 1930s, the U.S. Department of Agriculture supported communities as they created more than 900 electric cooperatives across the country. In the 1950s, the federal government again supported communities building telephone networks, crisscrossing the country with telephone cooperatives to connect rural communities.
Each technology brought new markets, revitalized economies, and revolutionized industries. Cooperatives have a long history of building and maintaining essential infrastructure and providing excellent service in rural communities. Now they have the chance to do that again by building next-generation networks for Internet service.
Rural Public Policies
Rural areas face a number of challenges that urban and suburban communities do not. Low population density coupled with rough terrain can make building infrastructure challenging. Added to these factors, rural communities may not have access to the same financial resources as larger towns and cities do.
Image
Cooperatives, however, have made infrastructure projects work in rural communities for nearly a century. They have access to funding from their membership base, local banks, and often the federal government. Some state governments have expanded their broadband grant and loan programs to include electric cooperatives. Other states have clarified laws and policies to recognize that electric cooperatives can build fiber networks for Internet service using their current infrastructure. A few states have even removed legislative hurdles that stymied investments by electric cooperatives. Technically, the 1996 Telecommunications Act, Section 253, prohibits states from stopping any co-op from offering Internet service, but co-ops in many states are loathe to challenge state law in court.
North Carolina
In 2019, the state removed restrictions that prevented electric cooperatives from using USDA funding for non-electrical purposes, such as broadband networks. Our 2016 report, North Carolina Connectivity: the Good, the Bad, and the Ugly, highlighted how this roadblock kept the state’s electric co-ops from providing service to many rural communities.
Tennessee
During the 2017 legislative session, this state has clarified the language in its laws to allow electric cooperatives to build networks for Internet service.
Indiana
Cooperatives already have access to utility poles, easements, and Rights-of-Way in the communities that they serve. Indiana, however, needed to clarify that electric co-ops can use this access to provide Internet service, so it passed the FIBRE Act. Other states, including Georgia, Maryland, and Texas, have since followed suit.
Minnesota & Colorado
Minnesota and Colorado have made funding easier to access for cooperatives interested in providing Internet service. Both states have designed grant programs that promote local solutions to connectivity problems. In Minnesota, cooperatives provide most of the Fiber-to-the-Home Internet service thanks in no small part to that grant program.
Overbuild Or Underbuild?
In Community Broadband Bits Podcast Episode 91, Christopher Mitchell and Lisa Gonzalez discusses strategies for building Internet infrastructure in rural are. What do communities need to thrive?
More than 900 rural electric cooperatives provide electricity to about 12 percent of the U.S. population. Their service area, however, covers more than half of the total land, nearly 2 million square miles. About 90 rural electric co-ops have embarked on fiber optic projects to increase Internet access for their members.
Several of these electric cooperatives started by building fiber optic lines to substations and large demand centers to increase the reliability of the electric system through better monitoring. This could then form the backbone of a network for Internet service to businesses and residents.
Articles and Interviews
We have written many articles and collected several reports detailing how electric cooperatives have tried to increase Internet access in their communities. These stories show the many different ways electric cooperatives have structured partnerships and programs for their members.
Image
Several electric cooperatives provide Internet service themselves. Some started pilot projects, while others built out to their entire service area. The Fiber-to-the-Home project by Valley Electric Association boosted the local economy in Pahrump, Nevada. The co-op has already added 31 new jobs because of the fiber service.
Others partner with an existing telephone cooperative or telephone company. Ouachita Electric in Arkansas is one of the many cooperatives to have done this. By combining their resources and expertise, this partnership is able to extend electric and Internet service throughout much of southern Arkansas.
Many electric cooperatives work together, such as Sho-Me Power in Missouri and LS Networks in Oregon. These cooperatives have provided connectivity for local ISPs and businesses, and now are looking to connect residents.
In episode 229 of the Community Broadband Bits podcast, Jon Chambers, the former head of the FCC Office of Strategic Planning and Policy Analysis, describes how electric cooperatives have the potential to bring Internet access to unserved rural America.
Mel Coleman, president of NRECA and CEO of North Arkansas Electric Cooperative, joined the podcast in episode 243 to discuss how the electric co-op had improved Internet access for its members and what other cooperatives are doing.
This is a list of the rural electric cooperatives that have programs and projects to increase connectivity in their service areas. They do not all provide Fiber-to-the-Home. Some only offer fiber connections to businesses or provide wireless last mile connections while others focus on dark fiber and fiber transport services for other Internet Service Providers. (Total: 109) (Last updated: 12/2019)
Electric Cooperative
State
Project
Central Alabama Electric Cooperative
Alabama
FTTH (announced)
Joe Wheeler Electric Membership Corporation
Alabama
FTTH (announced)
North Alabama Electric Cooperative
Alabama
FTTH
Tombigbee Electric Cooperative (freedom FIBER)
Alabama
FTTH
Wiregrass Electric Cooperative
Alabama
Fiber backbone (under construction) — collaboration with cable company to connect members
Arkansas Valley Electric Cooperative (WAVE Rural Connect)
Arkansas
FTTH
Craighead Electric Cooperative Corporation (Empower)
Arkansas
FTTH
North Arkansas Electric Cooperative (NEXT)
Arkansas
FTTH
Ouachita Electric Cooperative (ARIS)
Arkansas
FTTH — collaboration with telephone company
Ozarks Electric Cooperative (OzarksGo)
Arkansas
FTTH
South Central Arkansas Electric Cooperative (South Central Connect)
Arkansas
FTTH
Anza Electric Cooperative (ConnectAnza)
California
FTTH
Plumas-Sierra Rural Electric Cooperative (Plumas-Sierra Telecommunications)
California
FTTH & wireless with fiber backbone
San Luis Valley Rural Electric Cooperative (Ciello)
Colorado
FTTH
Delta-Montrose Electric Association (Elevate Fiber)
Colorado
FTTH
Southeast Colorado Power Association (SECOM)
Colorado
FTTH
Yampa Valley Electric Association (Luminate Broadband)
Colorado
FTTH
Blue Ridge Mountain EMC
Georgia & North Carolina
FTTH
Habersham Electric Membership Corporation (Trailwave; North Georgia Network Cooperative)
Georgia
FTTH; FTTB and Schools
Jefferson Energy Cooperative
Georgia
FTTB — collaboration with Pineland Telephone Cooperative
Illinois Electric Cooperative
Illinois
FTTH
Jo-Carrol Energy (Sand Prairie)
Illinois
FTTH & wireless with fiber backbone
Jackson County Rural Electric Membership Corporation (Jackson Connect)
Indiana
FTTH
Johnson County Rural Electric Membership Corporation
Indiana
FTTH — collaboration with NineStar Connect
NineStar Connect (merger between Central Indiana Power and Hancock Telecom)
Indiana
FTTH
Orange County Rural Electric Membership Corporation
Indiana
FTTH
South Central Indiana Rural Electric Membership Corporation
Indiana
FTTH
Tipmont Rural Electric Membership Corporation (Wintek)
Indiana
FTTH
Allamakee-Clayton Electric Cooperative (AC Skyways)
Iowa
Wireless with fiber backbone
Maquoketa Valley Rural Electric Cooperative (MVLink)
Iowa
FTTH
Bulter Electric Cooperative (Velocity)
Kansas
FTTH
Warren Rural Electric Cooperative Corporation
Kentucky
FTTH pilot projects (announced) — collaborations with North Central Telephone Company and Franklin Electric Power Board
Great Lakes Energy (Truestream)
Michigan
FTTH
Midwest Energy Cooperative (Midwest Energy and Communications)
Michigan
FTTH
Tri-County Electric Cooperative (HomeWorks Connect)
Michigan
FTTH
Arrowhead Electric Cooperative (True North Broadband)
Minnesota
FTTH
Meeker Cooperative Light and Power Association (Vibrant Broadband)
Minnesota
Wireless with fiber backbone — collaboration with Mabel Cooperative Telephone Company and Spring Grove Communications
MiEnergy Electric Cooperative
Minnesota
FTTH & wireless with fiber backbone
Mille Lacs Energy Cooperative (XStream Internet)
Minnesota
FTTH — collaboration with telephone cooperative CTC
Roseau Electric Cooperative
Minnesota
FTTH (announced) — collaboration with local telephone company
Alcorn County Electric Power Association (ACE Fiber)
Mississippi
FTTH (announced)
Coast Electric Power Association (CoastConnect)
Mississippi
FTTH (announced)
Delta Electric Power Association
Mississippi
FTTH
Monroe County Electric Power Association (M-Pulse Fiber)
Mississippi
FTTH (announced)
Natchez Trace Electric Power Association (NT Spark)
Mississippi
FTTH
Northcentral Mississippi Electric Power Association (Northcentral Connect)
Mississippi
FTTH
Northeast Mississippi Electric Power Association (North East Fiber, LLC/NE SPARC)
Mississippi
FTTH
Pearl River Valley Electric Power Association (PearlComm Fiber)
Mississippi
FTTH (Announced)
Prentiss County Electric Power Association
Mississippi
FTTH (announced)
Singing River Electric Power Association (Singing River Connect)
Mississippi
FTTH (pilot)
Southern Pine Electric Power Association
Mississippi
FTTH
Tallahatchie Valley Electric Power Association (TVI-Fiber)
Mississippi
FTTH (announced)
Tippah Electric Power Association
Mississippi
FTTH (announced)
Tishomingo County Electric Power Association
Mississippi
FTTH
Tombigbee Electric Power Association
Mississippi
FTTH (announced)
Barry Electric Cooperative (goBEC)
Missouri
FTTH
Callaway Electric (Callabyte Technology)
Missouri
FTTH — collaboration with Kingdom Telephone Cooperative
Co-Mo Electric Cooperative (Co-Mo Connect)
Missouri
FTTH
Grundy Electric Cooperative (Mid-States Services)
Missouri
FTTH
Pemiscot Dunklin Electric Cooperative (Pemiscot Dunklin Fiber)
Missouri
FTTH
Ralls County Electric Cooperative (Ralls Technologies)
Missouri
FTTH
SEMO Electric Cooperative (GoSEMO Fiber)
Missouri
FTTH
United Electric Cooperative (United Fiber)
Missouri
FTTH
Crawford Electric Cooperative / Sho-Me Power Electric Cooperative (Sho-Me Technologies)
Missouri
FTTB & Transport Services
Gascoasage Electric Cooperative / Sho-Me Power Electric Cooperative (Sho-Me Technologies)
Missouri
FTTB & Transport Services
Howell-Oregon Electric Cooperative / Sho-Me Power Electric Cooperative (Sho-Me Technologies)
Missouri
FTTB & Transport Services
Intercounty Electric Cooperative Association / Sho-Me Power Electric Cooperative (Sho-Me Technologies)
Missouri
FTTB & Transport Services
Laclede Electric Cooperative / Sho-Me Power Electric Cooperative (Sho-Me Technologies)
Missouri
FTTB & Transport Services
Se-Ma-No Electric Cooperative / Sho-Me Power Electric Cooperative (Sho-Me Technologies)
Missouri
FTTB & Transport Services
Southwest Electric Cooperative / Sho-Me Power Electric Cooperative (Sho-Me Technologies)
Missouri
FTTB & Transport Services
Webster Electric Cooperative / Sho-Me Power Electric Cooperative (Sho-Me Technologies)
Missouri
FTTB & Transport Services
White River Valley Electric Cooperative / Sho-Me Power Electric Cooperative (Sho-Me Technologies)
Missouri
FTTB & Transport Services
Valley Electric Association (Valley Communications Association)
Nevada
FTTH
Continental Divide Electric Cooperative (Red Bolt Broadband)
New Mexico
FTTH
Kit Carson Electric Cooperative (Kit Carson Internet)
New Mexico
FTTH
Delaware County Electric Cooperative
New York
FTTH — collaboration with local telephone companies
Otsego Electric Cooperative (OEConnect)
New York
FTTH
French Broad Electric Membership Corporation
North Carolina
FTTH
Lumbee River Electric Membership Corporation (Bluewave Communications NC)
North Carolina
FTTH — collaboration with Horry Telephone Cooperative
Roanoke Electric Cooperative (Roanoke Connect)
North Carolina
FTTH
Consolidated Electric Cooperative
Ohio
FTTH
East Central Oklahoma Cooperative (ecoLINK)
Oklahoma
FTTH (under construction)
Lake Region Electric Cooperative (Lake Region Technology & Communications)
Oklahoma
FTTH
Northeast Oklahoma Electric Cooperative (Bolt Fiber Optic Services)
Oklahoma
FTTH
Oklahoma Electric Cooperative (OEC Fiber)
Oklahoma
FTTH
Consumers Power (Peak Internet)
Oregon
FTTP (open access network) — collaboration with Pioneer Consolidated and Stayton Cooperative Telephone Company
Central Electric Cooperative (LS Networks)
Oregon
FTTB, Schools, & Transport Services
Douglas Electric Cooperative (Douglas Fast Net; LS Networks)
Oregon
FTTH; FTTB, Schools, & Transport Services
Hood River Electric Cooperative (CACHE Communications; LS Networks)
Oregon
FTTH; FTTB, Schools, & Transport Services
Umatilla Electric Cooperative (LS Networks)
Oregon
FTTB, Schools, & Transport Services
West Oregon Electric Cooperative (LS Networks)
Oregon
FTTB, Schools, & Transport Services
Sullivan County Rural Electric Cooperative
Pennsylvania
FTTH (announced)
Tri-County Rural Electric Cooperative
Pennsylvania
FTTH (announced)
Mid-Carolina Electric Cooperative (Carolina Connect)
South Carolina
FTTH
Newberry Electric Cooperative (Carolina Connect)
South Carolina
FTTH — collaboration with Mid-Carolina Electric Cooperative
Appalachian Electric Cooperative
Tennessee
FTTH
Cumberland Electric Membership Cooperative (Cumberland Connect)
Tennessee
FTTH (announced)
Forked Deer Electric Cooperative (Forked Deer Connect)
Tennessee
FTTH
Gibson Electric Membership Corporation (Gibson Connect)
Tennessee
FTTH
Holston Electric Cooperative (Holston Connect)
Tennessee
FTTH
Meriwether Lewis Electric Cooperative (MLConnect)
Tennessee
FTTH
Sequachee Valley Electric Cooperative (SVEConnect)
Tennessee
FTTH
Tri-County Electric Cooperative
Tennessee
FTTH
Volunteer Electric Cooperative (Twin Lakes, powered by VEC)
Tennessee
FTTH — collaboratin with Twin Lakes Telephone Cooperative
Bandera Electric Cooperative (BEC Fiber)
Texas
FTTH
Grayson Collin Electric Cooperative (Grayson Collin Communications)
Texas
FTTH
Guadalupe Valley Electric Cooperative
Texas
FTTH
Jackson Electric Cooperative (MyJEC.net)
Texas
FTTH & wireless with fiber backbone
Taylor Electric Cooperative (Access Fiber)
Texas
FTTH
Victoria Electric Cooperative (Infinium)
Texas
FTTH & wireless with fiber backbone
BARC Electric Cooperative (BARC Connects)
Virginia
FTTH
Central Virginia Electric Cooperative (Firefly Broadband)
Virginia
FTTH
Craig-Botetourt Electric Cooperative
Virginia
FTTH (announced)
Mecklenburg Electric Cooperative (EMPOWER Broadband)
Virginia
FTTH
Prince George Electric Cooperative (Ruralband)
Virginia
FTTH
Columbia Rural Electric Association (Columbia iConnect)
Washington
FTTH Pilot Project
Orcas Power & Light Cooperative (Rock Island Communications)
Washington
FTTH
Chippewa Valley Electric Cooperative (Ntera)
Wisconsin
FTTH — collaboration with telephone cooperative Citizens Connected
Telephone Cooperatives
There are about 260 telephone cooperatives in the United States. Many provide Internet service as a natural extension of their existing infrastructure. Many started out by providing dial-up and DSL services, but only recently have begun to transition to Fiber-to-the-Home. Some have already transitioned to an all-fiber network, having upgraded everyone in their territory to fiber.
The Rural Broadband Association (NTCA) has a gigabit certification program in order to draw attention to how many small telephone companies cooperatives have built these next-generation networks.
Articles & Interviews
We have featured a number of these cooperatives on our website. Some cooperatives choose to work with local governments or electric cooperatives while others focus on providing service alone. Below is just a small selection of the many cooperatives that have built Fiber-to-the-Home networks.
Episode 188 of the Community Broadband Bits Podcast features Eric Cramer, the President and CEO of Wilkes Communications/RiverStreet Networks. He explained how the telephone cooperative has built a Fiber-to-the-Home network throughout several counties in northern North Carolina.
Cooperatives are not just telephone and electric. There is now a workable model for Internet cooperatives created from scratch. RS Fiber in Minnesota is the first cooperative formed for the express purpose of providing reliable, high-speed Internet service.
Yampa Valley Electric Association (Luminate Broadband)
Colorado
Electric
Yucca Telecommunications Systems
New Mexico
Telephone
Community Broadband Bits Podcast Episodes
Listen to our collection of Community Broadband Bits Podcasts to learn firsthand about how electric cooperatives have made the decision to provide Internet service.
What does it take for a telephone co-op in North Carolina to provide FTTH? President and CEO of Wilkes Communications and RiverStreet Networks explains
It’s been a long road for Pinetops, North Carolina, as they’ve sought better connectivity in their rural community. After dramatic ups and downs, the community seems to have finally found a tepid resolution. Greenlight can, for now, continue to serve Pinetops.
With Conditions
On June 28th, the General Assembly passed HB 396, which allows Wilson’s municipal network, Greenlight, to continue to provide gigabit connectivity to the town and to Vick Family Farms but establishes conditions. If or when another provider brings Fiber-to-the-Home (FTTH) service to Pinetops, Wilson has 30 days to end service as customers transition to the new provider. Until a different provider comes to Pinetops, Greenlight will continue to offer its gigabit connectivity to the approximately 600 households and premises in the community of about 1,300 people.
In addition to premises in the town of Pinetops, Greenlight is serving Vick Family Farm, a local potato manufacturer. When the business obtained access to high-quality Internet access, they were able to expand their business internationally; they invested in a high tech distribution facility. The facility requires the kind of capacity they can only get from Greenlight.
Community leaders in Pinetops are relieved they don’t have to give up fiber connectivity, but they’re happy with the service they get with Greenlight and would rather stick with the muni.
“Although not the solution we expected, we are pleased this bill allows us to continue to leverage Greenlight’s next generation infrastructure as we focus on growing our community,” said [Town Commissioner Suzanne] Coker-Craig. “Hopefully, no other provider will exercise the option to build redundant infrastructure that our community neither wants nor needs. Pinetops has made it clear that we want the quality and speed of service that only Greenlight can provide.”
Alexander County, North Carolina, recently released a Request for Proposals (RFP) to find a firm to conduct a broadband assessment and feasibility study. Applications are due July 24th.
Rural Connectivity
In addition to examining what type of service and where service is currently available, the county wants a firm that will help create a strategy to improve what they already know is poor connectivity throughout the county. Funding sources should be identified along with helpful public policy suggestions.
According to the RFP, approximately 50 percent of 1,954 respondents in a recent indicated that their Internet service did not have sufficient speed. Sixty-five percent don’t have access to broadband as defined by the FCC (25 Megabits per second download and 3 Mbps upload), and about 12 percent use their mobile devices to access the Internet. Sixteen percent noted that affordability is a problem. Approximately 84 percent of respondents indicated that they’d like to have more options for Internet access.
Alexander County
Alexander County is mostly rural and home to about 38,000 people. Manufacturing is an important part of the economy but farmland makes up much of its 264 square miles. Taylorsville is the county seat and the only town, with a few other unincorporated communities in the county. Bethlehem, a census designated place is located in the southwest corner of the county and is also somewhat densely populated, relative to the rest of the county.
The community is on the west side of the state, about an hour north of Charlotte. The Appalachian Regional Commission (ARC) classifies the community's economic status as "transitional" and the North Carolina Department of Commerce considers it an average economically distressed county. A little more than half of school kids qualify for free and reduced lunches. Unemployment is at 3.2 percent as of April 2017. County leaders hope that improving connectivity within the region will also help diversify the economy and improve the employment situation for residents.