INTERIM REPORT TO THE RAPPAHANNOCK COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS FROM THE RAPPAHANNOCK COUNTY BROADBAND COMMITTEE
OCTOBER 2018
Glossary
Broadband: The official FCC broadband definition is a minimum of 25 Mbps download and 3 Mbps upload. The Committee has also been mindful of other important factors, including affordability and reliability.
DSL: Digital Subscriber Line by which a computer connects to the Internet at high speeds using telephone lines. The maximum range for DSL without a repeater is 18,000 feet from the nearest telephone switching station.
Fiber: Internet connection in which data is delivered in light signals via small, flexible glass wires.
Internet Service Providers (ISPs): Businesses that provide internet services to individuals and businesses. This includes through fiber, cable, satellite, DSL, and other wireless service connection options. In Rappahannock County, these include:
• All Points Broadband • Shentel • AT&T • Sonic • Blaze • T-Mobile • Century Link • Verizon • Comcast • Virginia Broadband • Piedmont Broadband
Landline: a wired telephone connection typically provided over copper service lines, which can also be used to provide DSL internet service.
Microwave Antenna: a physical transmission device used to broadcast microwave transmissions between two or more locations, often used to relay high-speed connections to cell towers and wireless internet service providers. Typically they require an unobstructed “line of sight” to each other.
Voice over IP (VoIP): Delivers voice communications over an internet connection similar to a traditional wired telephone service.
Wireless Internet Service Providers (WISPs): Provide internet services to homes and businesses over a wireless connection typically using a network of antennae that are fed with high-speed wired or wireless connections. In Rappahannock, this includes Piedmont Broadband and Virginia Broadband.
A helpful site for other terms is “Broadband 101: A glossary of terms” found at https://www.ruralmn.org/publications/broadband101-glossary
Page 1 of 50
Background
The Rappahannock County Broadband Committee was established by the County’s Board of Supervisors on November 7, 2016 after a public outreach and application process. Appointed members were: William Dant, Casey Eitner, Edward Goshorn, Jr., Michael Mahoney, Todd Summers, and Alan Zuschlag. Supervisor John Lesinksi has chaired the Committee, and Casey Eitner has since resigned. The County Administrator has also attended and participated in meetings as well as assisted in generating the required public notifications.
The Committee’s goals established at its outset were to:
• Review and update the most recent County Broadband Report with current information, technological advances, and changes since the last publication in 2007. • Create and maintain an inventory of public and private broadband assets, including fiber/conduit in the right of way, towers and other assets. • Research/survey residents, local public and emergency agencies, schools, health care providers, utility and service providers to define wants and needs, with specific focus on ensuring coverage for mission critical needs. • Research/survey current IT providers, i.e. Century Link, Virginia Broadband, Piedmont Broadband, Comcast, T-Mobile, Sprint, etc. to understand their associated costs, inventory, new technologies, and interests in providing broadband to the County. • Meet with Orange County government, and collect information on their fiber initiatives, costs, and advantages, if any, for Rappahannock County. • Understand initiatives of FirstNet (State of Virginia’s committee to review broadband throughout the State for first responders) and the impact to the County. • Research opportunities for grants, financial assistance and non-taxpayer funding options. • Summarize data collected and provide an overview to the Board of Supervisors and County residents as well as current and potential service providers. • Recommend possible options and associated costs for improving broadband access.
Progress Made
Since the Committee’s establishment, it has worked diligently to achieve these goals with the overarching objective of improving affordable broadband access to County residents. It has had some notable achievements, including:
Page 2 of 50
• Established a web site to ensure public access to information about the Committee (www.RappBroadband.org). • Held a series of meetings to allow Committee members and the public to work together to raise awareness about and discuss options for addressing the County’s broadband needs. • Completed an inventory of County assets relevant to broadband access. • Completed a County-wide needs assessment in partnership with the Center for Innovative Technology (CIT) – attached as Annex 1. • Helped prompt expansion of high-speed fiber connections to the County’s public library, visitor center, schools, and government offices (this work is currently underway).
County Broadband Needs
The committee commissioned a country-wide assessment of broadband needs to allow better understanding of where there is and isn’t adequate coverage. This was a major undertaking that included distribution and collection of paper surveys, notification of an online version using postcards to County households, a public information session, and outreach efforts to encourage participation. About one in five county residents responded to the survey. Not surprisingly, it found significant diversity in access to and interest in high-speed internet. Major findings include:
• While 86% of County residents have access to broadband, most (70%) report that it is inadequate, expensive and/or unreliable. • Almost half of households with broadband access rely on satellite or DSL connections that are expensive, limit how much can be downloaded at high speed, and are often much slower than advertised. • About one-fifth of households that responded to the survey have children in school, and of these 12% has no internet access at home. Even for those with internet, the majority rely on inadequate, expensive and/or unreliable services (satellite, DSL, cellular).
For businesses, the situation is mixed:
• 93% of businesses use the Internet to support their business • 29% of businesses report their Internet service is unacceptable. Of these, 76% depend on inadequate, expensive, and/or unreliable connections (Dial up, T1, Cellular, DSL, Satellite) • 33% (of all respondents) have home-based businesses • 4% of businesses have NO Internet access available
Page 3 of 50
Figure 1: Residential Access Types Figure 2: Business Access Types
Source: The Path Forward: Community Broadband Assessment for Rappahannock County Virginia, November 2017.
The Committee has also noted the connections between broadband access and other communication challenges for the County. Traditional wired telephone service has been problematic for a number of households, who report long outages, poor quality, and inadequate responsiveness by providers. This has raised interest in expanding wireless options for telephone and internet for personal and business uses that could augment or replace aging copper-wire infrastructure.
Cellular telephone and broadband services are also increasingly identified as necessary both as a backup to wired services but also for residents and visitors who need to communicate when out of home including for emergency purposes. Significant portions of the County are not served by cellular providers though your recent approval of a communications tower in Sperryville will help in that area. This tower will host equipment for at least one local wireless internet provider (Piedmont Broadband) as well as provide access to cellular broadband through the two companies that have committed to the tower (T-Mobile and Shentel/Sprint).
Unfortunately, coverage in the southern part of the County (Woodville, Scrabble, Boston, as well as much of FT Valley south to Madison County) will not be improved by the Sperryville tower. A new tower in Boston has been erected recently, with only one local service provider (Piedmont Broadband) committing to using it; CWS, the company that builds and operates these and other towers, indicated in its most recent meeting with the Board of Supervisors that both T-Mobile and Shentel/Sprint have committed to the Boston tower. The Committee is aware of no plans to address the area of the County south of Sperryville along FT Valley Road.
Fiber internet services, which are being expanded to the library, schools, and government offices, offer the opportunity for state-of-the-art broadband access as well as telephone service through “voice over IP” protocols. This may also result in considerable savings to the County, which now leases expensive
Page 4 of 50
T1 copper lines to feed the emergency dispatch center at the Rappahannock County Sheriff’s Office. Fiber will offer greater speed and reliability at lower cost.
Access to fiber for other businesses and households, however, is likely to be constrained by deployment costs. One option being utilized in other Virginia counties is a partnership between internet service providers and Rappahannock Electric Cooperative (REC). It has recently indicated an interest in utilizing its network of electric poles to support distribution of fiber cables, though the Committee is not aware of specific plans for this initiative.
So while broadband internet, cellular communications, and wired telephone service have distinctive features and issues, they are also increasingly interrelated.
Interim Conclusions
Providing broadband to Rappahannock residents is challenging. That which makes Rappahannock County attractive to residents and guests – expansive geography, low population density, rolling hills, and tree-covered vistas – also makes it difficult and expensive to provide access to reliable, affordable high-speed internet for many County households and businesses.
There is significant and growing demand for broadband, but we see no easy solution to meeting that need. That said, there has been progress. Work has already begun to bring fiber connections to the library, schools, and government offices in Washington. This was the “low hanging fruit” – great that it’s being done but future efforts will likely be harder and slower.
Fiber access is expanding in other areas. There have been reports of private companies bringing fiber to homes in the northern part of the County either directly or by using wireless for the final connection. Fiber will also be run to the new communications tower in Sperryville, though the route and provider are not yet decided. This may offer an opportunity to energize additional nodes for existing providers in that part of the County – Verizon, Comcast, Piedmont Broadband – and entice new players to engage.
The County lacks some critical assets that would make it easier for companies to provide broadband services. Communication towers (“Vertical infrastructure”) are critical to overcome the challenges of our topography and vegetation but there are few in the County and most are privately owned. Adding more may be needed but it will require careful planning and community dialogue. The County also owns none of the fiber lines that run through it. Some are known, such as the Uniti fiber line that runs down Route 211 from Culpeper County through to Washington, with branches down Ben Venue Road and Zachary Taylor Highway and feeds several cell towers. It’s this fiber line that is also being tapped
Page 5 of 50 for the library, schools and county government. Otherwise, Verizon and Comcast reportedly maintain fiber lines in the County but where they are and what access is available remains unknown to us.
Developing Recommendations
Pending input from the Board of Supervisors, we believe that the next phase of our Committee’s work should focus on the following:
• Engaging current and potential internet service providers to understand better what they might need to expand offerings to County residents and businesses. • Identify potential funding sources that could be utilized to support expanded Broadband access (see Annex 2) for more details.
We will use that information to develop specific proposals for your consideration, noting our assumption that limited tax dollars would be available and that we should instead focus on leveraging other funding sources.
Options we intend to consider for recommendation to the Board of Supervisors include the following:
• Expand vertical infrastructure: The County should identify options for expanding the number of communication towers by identifying possible locations that would address areas now under- served by broadband providers while being mindful of their visual impact on residents and visitors. It could facilitate commercial investment in those towers by making the approval process predictable, developing common standards and restrictions, and making clear what protections existing regulations allow and restrict. • Allow for shorter poles by amending relevant regulations to make it easier for property owners to install monopoles slightly above tree-line, allowing them to receive wireless broadband and cellular signals that might otherwise be impeded. • Address broadband in the comprehensive plan: Expanding access to affordable, reliable, high- speed internet service should be a priority for the County’s comprehensive plan. The processes to amend and improve that plan offer an excellent opportunity for the citizens to discuss and debate options available to Rappahannock County, and agree on the way forward over the medium to long term. • Consider adopting PPEA guidelines: The Public-Private Education Facilities and Infrastructure Act of 2002 (PPEA) offers an approach to developing public-private partnerships that would facilitate the County acting in concert with private internet providers to expand broadband access to residents and businesses. The CIT process that the Broadband Committee followed
Page 6 of 50
recommends as a next step for us a “request for expressions of interest” process whereby the County would seek responses by providers to a partnership to expand access. This would require adoption of PPEA guidelines.
We seek general input from the Board of Supervisors on our work to date and any specific requests it has for our future work. We thank the Board for the opportunity to serve the citizens of Rappahannock and look forward to further work on their behalf.
Page 7 of 50
LIST OF ANNEXES
ANNEX 1: The Path Forward: Community Broadband Assessment for Rappahannock County Virginia, November 2017.
ANNEX 2: Funding Sources, Methods and Mechanisms
ANNEX 3: CIT: Rappahannock County Decision Points
Page 8 of 50
ANNEX 1: The Path Forward: Community Broadband Assessment for Rappahannock County Virginia (11/2017)
Page 9 of 50
The Path Forward
Community Broadband Assessment for Rappahannock County Virginia November 2017
Page 10 of 50
Page 11 of 50
Page 12 of 50
Page 13 of 50
Page 14 of 50
Page 15 of 50
Page 16 of 50
Page 17 of 50
Page 18 of 50
Page 19 of 50
Page 20 of 50
Page 21 of 50
Page 22 of 50
Page 23 of 50
Page 24 of 50
Page 25 of 50
Page 26 of 50
Page 27 of 50
Page 28 of 50
Page 29 of 50
Page 30 of 50
Page 31 of 50
Page 32 of 50
Page 33 of 50
Page 34 of 50
Page 35 of 50
Page 36 of 50
Page 37 of 50
Page 38 of 50
Page 39 of 50
Page 40 of 50
Page 41 of 50
Page 42 of 50
Page 43 of 50
ANNEX 2: Funding Sources, Methods and Mechanisms
Funding sources, methods and mechanisms for expanding broadband access
The committee uncovered a number of different broadband funding sources, methods, and mechanisms during the course of its work. Rural broadband is on the tip of the tongue of many federal, state, and local agencies who often equate rural broadband in our time with the massive rural electrification movement of the 1930’s, 40’s and 50’s. In fact, many today cite rural broadband in the same terms as rural electrification; that it is now a necessity and not just a luxury.
The purpose of this interim report is not to attempt to list all the funding sources, methods, and mechanisms. That could be the follow-on responsibility of the committee or local government. Rather, some are listed here as examples for further exploration.
1) Grants: Federal and state grant monies for rural broadband are becoming more and more prevalent, with certain agencies rising to the top. All grant awards are subject to documenting a level of need and often Rappahannock does not qualify because of metrics that indicate a level of per capita income and real estate values that, rightly or wrongly, disqualify the county (the prime example of a formula “penalty” is Rappahannock County Public School’s Local Composite Index (LCI) rating).
Regardless, more federal and state dollars continue to flow toward rural broadband and Rappahannock would be remiss to turn its back on public sector assistance. Federal and state agencies worth monitoring include the US Department of Agriculture (USDA) and the Department of Community and Housing Development (DCHD), respectively. The broadband committee strongly recommends mining these agencies, and other private sector organizations, for grant opportunities.
2) Public Private Partnerships (PPP): PPP’s are financing structures where the locality teams with a private sector broadband provider to obtain funding and/or dedicate fixed infrastructure assets to provide a teaming solution.
PPP’s can be sponsored and encouraged by government agencies. For example, the Virginia Telecom Initiative (VATI) is a DCHD program designed to “provide financial assistance to supplement construction costs by private sector broadband service providers, in partnership with local units of government to extend service to areas that are presently unserved by any broadband provider.” Similar to grants, this is a competitive process requiring a detailed application.
The Center for Innovation Technology (CIT) also advocated for PPP’s as a primary funding mechanism for Rappahannock County and recommended a Request for Proposal (RFP) to providers using the CIT survey result findings of this committee to generate interest. In order to do this, the county would need to adopt a Public-Private Education Facilities and Infrastructure (PPEA) resolution which is discussed later in this report.
Page 44 of 50
The committee also recommends exploring PPP concepts with providers currently or coming soon to the county. This list includes (but is not limited to) Sprint/Shentel, T-Mobile, Verizon, AT&T, Comcast, Piedmont Broadband, and Century Link.
3) Municipal Bonds: This funding method seems targeted to those communities that would like to get into the broadband business and own their infrastructure. In other words, instead of becoming a customer, become a provider.
This committee has already rejected this model, sensing no appetite from the community to take on debt and sink millions of dollars into technology that is rapidly evolving. Failure models such as Bristol, VA and success models such as in Orange County (although the jury is still out) are often cited as examples of the extreme risk/reward challenge of municipal funding. Locally, Fauquier County continues to wrestle with this very question and has proposed $20 million for tower infrastructure investment.
Currently, it would seem that Rappahannock County has little will or desire to even have this discussion yet we believe community funding and municipal bonds should not be rejected out of hand. Public financing firms, such as Neighborly in Silicon Valley, have funded independent rural broadband networks in cities such as Oskaloosa, Iowa; Powell, Wyoming; Red Wing, Minnesota; and Springfield, Vermont. If the Board of Supervisors is able to support a more forward-thinking dialogue, these concepts should be explored.
4) Rappahannock Electric Cooperative (REC): Although not a funding mechanism per se, rural electric cooperatives are fast becoming an infrastructure method to provide rural broadband. The Central Virginia Electric Cooperative (CVEC) in Albermarle County is deeply engaged in exploring and implementing broadband technology to its subscribers.
REC talks of brining rural broadband to customers in its service areas. Rappahannock County needs to push this dialog with REC and this committee strongly recommends that county government engage REC as soon as possible to explore the possibilities, including a PPP.
Page 45 of 50
ANNEX 3: CIT: Rappahannock County Decision Points
Note: This document was provided to the Committee by CIT following completion of the County needs assessment. It was used to guide the Committee’s discussion and the contents of this report but it was not completed and returned because the next step required the County’s agreement to ascribe to the Public- Private Education Facilities and Infrastructure Act of 2002 (PPEA) approach to contracting1 (which it has not done).
Rappahannock County Decision Points
The following three steps highlight the decisions the County needs to make to stipulate their desired role in public private partnerships, broadband goals and priorities, and how the County will facilitate partner expansions.
Once the County completes the following three steps, please return this document to us (completed with number/checks) and CIT will combine these decisions and information from the assessment to prepare the County’s broadband requirements to be included in a draft conceptual phase RFP (PPEA only.) The draft RFP will be provided for the County to set target dates, complete contact information and ensure the RFP meets the County’s procurement policy. CIT is happy to distribute the RFP once the County is ready to publish it.
Step 1: Determine the Desired Role of the County in Partnerships Determine the role and partnership model that works best for Rappahannock County. Select one from the example partnership models listed below (Place a check mark beside desired role):
Locality Shares Assets Only o Some localities do not have the resources (people or money) to bring to a partnership. However, all localities have assets (towers, land, rooftops). In these types of partnerships, the locality agrees to share assets and even provide the private partner some “anchor” tenants on their network – government facilities, fire/rescue stations, schools, libraries that would buy service (or receive service in exchange for sharing assets) from the private partner’s network. This ensures the private provider recurring revenue – or customers that will not go away (residential and small businesses can come and go). Sharing assets lowers the deployment cost (capital investment) of the private provider which expedites deployment and helps make the business case for the less populated areas.
Locality Covers Capital Investment o Some localities prefer to make all the capital investments – funding towers, head-end Internet service (the connection that provides the bandwidth to the network and
1 http://www.djj.virginia.gov/pages/admin/ppea.htm
Page 46 of 50
connects to the world), and/or wireless equipment. The private partner brings their expertise to the table – design, deploy, maintain and operate the network. The private partner would also provide the people resources to support end customers (setting up the connection, billing, etc.). In these models there is a revenue share and typically on a sliding scale – providing more of the revenue to the locality in the early years to reimburse them for the capital investment and then shifts to the private partner in the later years to offset their overhead expenses. The locality owns the network and contracts the private partner to run it.
Locality Invests Some Capital o This model would be a blend of the previous two. The locality may share assets and may invest some capital to offset the initial costs of the network – maybe cover the costs of a new tower (or more) and/or some fiber deployment. The locality may arrange to recoup this investment by obtaining Internet services to county/city facilities, leasing space on the tower or dark fiber to other entities (ensuring there is no interference). The locality may purchase Internet service from the network and pay for years in advance – providing the private partner additional capital to help offset their initial investment. The private partner would fund the wireless equipment, customer premise equipment and all costs to deploy, maintain and operate the network. There would be no revenue sharing.
Step 2: Adopt and Prioritize Broadband Goals The needs listed below were identified from your community assessment. Select and prioritize those needs the County will adopt as goals moving forward with a broadband expansion plan. Feel free to add any other goals the County wants to include in this list. Prioritize by placing a number beside those needs the County will adopt as goals; for example, 1 for highest priority, 2 for the second highest priority, and so on.
⎯ Consider a computer refurb/donation program such as Virginia Star - a state-wide Student Training and Refurbishment program; http://vastar.org/ According to the 2015 American Community Survey:
o Up to 27% may be slow to adopt new services due to affordability challenges.
⎯ Promote computer classes at libraries, senior centers, RappU etc., for the populations that may be slow to adopt technology, need special equipment or may be less likely to subscribe to new services. According to the 2015 American Community Survey:
o 22% may be slow to adopt new services due to age o 13% of the population may be slow to adopt and/or less likely to subscribe to new services due to educational attainment. o 12% may be slow to adopt or need special equipment
⎯ Expand Internet access and capacity for residents that have no service or need other options. According to the Rappahannock County survey;
o 34% of residential respondents say their service is unacceptable. o 69% of residents depend upon inadequate, expensive and or unreliable services; Satellite, DSL, Cellular, Dial-up.
Page 47 of 50
o 21% of households need broadband at home to support K-12 education. o ~57% of K12 students depend upon inadequate, expensive and or unreliable services; Satellite, DSL, Cellular. o 22% of respondents are taking college course or online training o 23% of respondents would work from home (telework) if they had better access. • Working from home keeps dollars circulating in the local economy. o 33% (of all respondents) operate a home based business.
Specific residential priorities include, but not limited to:
o Expand access and capacity to residents, particularly along Old Hollow Rd, Swindler Hollow Rd., Amissville East of 211, Lake Mosby and North along S. Poes Rd., SE of Woodville and 522 towards Castleton along Culpeper border, West of 231 along Rolling Rd.
⎯ Improve telephone and/or cellular service countywide o Many citizen comments from the Rappahannock survey note the poor quality of telephone and/or cellular services.
⎯ Expand Internet access and capacity to businesses that have no access or need other options. According to the Rappahannock County survey;
o 29% of business report their Internet service is unacceptable. o 4% of businesses have NO Internet access available o 57% of businesses respondents depend on inadequate, expensive and/or unreliable connections (Dial up, T1, Cellular, DSL, Satellite) o The major reasons cited for businesses not online are “Unreliable Service and Service Not Available.” o According to Census, ~53% of workforce commutes outside of Rappahannock for work. • Revenue and economic development opportunities lost to neighboring localities
Specific business priority includes but not limited to:
o Expand access and capacity to businesses, particularly in areas West of 231 towards Madison boarder, Gid Brown Hollow Rd North of Keyser Run Rd., Fodderstack Rd North of Horseshoe Hollow Ln., North of Laurel Mill Rd. between 729 and Battle Mountain Rd. Similar to residential: SE of Woodville and 522 towards Castleton along Culpeper border
⎯ Increase capacity to the library to meet the national goal;
o According to The Universal Service Administrative Company (USAC) data for Rappahannock County, the Rappahannock County library system is purchasing 50 Mbps - Below national recommendation of 100 Mbps for libraries serving communities of 50,000 or less (Rappahannock’s estimated total pop. 7,431) o Month-Month contract with Comcast - copper cable connections; old and slow! Consider using Erate to connect to school fiber and external fiber source.
⎯ Rappahannock County school system has connected all schools via a fiber WAN. However, the connection to the commodity Internet (access to the world) is through an old, slow copper cable from
Page 48 of 50
Comcast. Consider leveraging Erate to extend fiber to the Library and connect to external fiber source; Uniti? Include dark fiber to connect other County facilities or to lease.
o Rappahannock County Erate discount is 60% - short time Virginia/eRate match could increase discount 80%. Contact the Virginia Department of Education or the Library of Virginia for guidance.
⎯ Increase Internet access and capacity to local government facilities. According to the County Connections document;
o NO FIBER! Biggest need for the county is to expand capacity via fiber – seek opportunity to attract providers that bring fiber into the county. o Sr. Center on satellite connection. Consider a fixed wireless solution – negotiate no data caps. o Visitors Center represents the county to others. Should have a fast, reliable connection to promote tourism.
⎯ Increase access and capacity to Public Safety facilities. According to the County Connections Document;
o Rappahannock Sheriff Dispatch may be connected via T1 –the oldest (50+ yrs), slowest most expensive connection. o Building Office 911 – unsure if backup connection is in place (should have high capacity, reliable, redundant and diverse connections). o Castleton Fire/Rescue on satellite connection.
Consider fixed wireless solution for Castleton Fire and Rescue – negotiate no data caps. Work with county to expand fiber to Sheriff Dispatch and 911 center.
⎯ Update Rappahannock County Comprehensive Plan to include specific mention of broadband and the county’s adopted broadband goals, desired partnership role and the county’s potential incentives.
⎯ Rappahannock County has not adopted the Public-Private Education and Infrastructure Act of 2002 (PPEA) o CIT’s process is based on a locality adopting the PPEA. If Rappahannock gets to the point of RFP and has not adopted the PPEA they will lose a lot of flexibility and the alternative approach typically results in far fewer (usually very limited) responses.
Step 3: Specify What the County is Willing to Share/Invest Anything the county can offer a potential provider(s) in the form of incentives; rights-of-way, pole attachments, easements, permits, or facilities can shorten future deployment time and make a project more attractive to potential providers.
The following County assets as identified in the assessment should be considered for commitment to any future broadband partnership. Please place a check mark beside the items the County is willing to commit to partners.
Space on vertical assets – existing towers, silos, water tanks, buildings etc.
Page 49 of 50
o 2 water tanks/towers reported by VML. o Reduce or suspend leases on county or municipality owned towers for potential provider(s). Share space for towers, network equipment or poles. o Sharing space at fire stations/rescue buildings for small towers or poles ▪ Amissville Fire and Rescue currently has a tower Share space on or in county owned property for tower construction, location of points of presence, networking equipment etc. o NO County owned property is reported Waive local fees for permitting and construction of any broadband infrastructure deployed by the private partner(s). Assist with project marketing and/or public relations leveraging County media relationships, direct mailings to constituents and social media. Leverage county relationships with local utilities, carrier-grade construction companies, and educational facilities etc., to help facilitate future deployments. Provide a single-point-of-contact for any permitting for broadband infrastructure construction by the private partner(s). Leverage ongoing or pending capital projects, such as water, road construction, main street revitalization, new sub-divisions, fiber builds etc. Provide possible assistance with deployment costs depending on available County funds. Pursue any federal or state broadband funding opportunities to help offset the costs of broadband access and capacity expansion. Provide anchor tenants to any private partner(s)’ broadband networks in order to provide recurring revenue source. The service provided to county facilities must be equal or better than current pricing and quality of service that provides the required bandwidth to support those County functions. Potential sites include: o Dispatch on T1 - the oldest (50+ yrs), slowest most expensive connection o Backup (redundant and diverse) connection to 911 o Schools - Internet Access month-to-month contract, potential external fiber connection o Library(s) Month-Month contract, copper cable connections; old and slow!
Page 50 of 50