Bridging the Digital Divide With Advanced Fiber Networks

Bridging the Digital DivideWith Advanced Fiber Networks

WHAT YOU WILL LEARN IN WASHINGTON: New Technologies, New Strategies, New Services – No One Covers It Like We Do!

• Weigh technologies to determine what works best for your community: Fiber, Wireless, Fixed Wireless, Satellite, 5G….

• Consider ways to fund infrastructure needs so that high-speed broadband is affordable for all Americans: USDA loans and grants; FCC funds; public-private partnerships; opportunity zone financing… and more.

• Explore best practices for creating an accurate broadband map.

• Empower co-ops to provide high-speed broadband.

• Learn about successful digital inclusion efforts.

• Bring better healthcare to all.

• Educate the workforce of tomorrow.

LOOK WHO YOU WILL MEETFederal legislative and government officials • Municipal, regional and state officials • Systems operators Telco and electric cooperative leaders • Investors and lenders • Economic development professionals Community anchor institution officials • Teleheath experts • Broadband champions

WHAT WE BELIEVE: Broadband Communities is committed to connecting all communities with ultra-fast broadband in order to drive growth and maximize economic benefits. Urban vs. rural; high vs. low income; big carriers vs. the small guys… our Bridging the Digital Divide event will address the haves vs. have-nots problem and debate how America can become a nation of all haves.

BROADBAND DRIVES AMERICA’S GROWTH

For More Information:www.TownsAndTech.com

To Exhibit Or Sponsor Contact:Irene Prescott I [email protected] I 505-867-3299

For Assistance Contact:[email protected] I 877-588-1649

WASHINGTON, DC OCTOBER 30 - 31, 2019

CONFERENCE SITEThe Westin Alexandria – Old Town400 Courthouse Square, Alexandria, VA 22314

(703) 253-8600

Conveniently located near Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport & Washington Dulles International Airport

WHY WASHINGTON, DC?The digital divide is a haves vs. a have-nots problem:

urban vs. rural, high vs. low income, big guys vs. small guys… getting it solved is a Washington problem.

Fiber broadband offers the means to bridge the gap. Come hear from the people we’ve elected to get it done.

HELPING COMMUNITIESTAKE CONTROL

OF THEIR BROADBAND FUTURES

Wednesday, October 30Full Day of Sessions

Exhibit Hall Open Evening Reception

_____________

Thursday, October 31Full Day of Sessions

Breakfast Buffet Exhibit Hall Open

MARK YOUR CALENDAR

EDITOR’S NOTE

Broadband Communities (ISSN 0745-8711) (USPS 679-050) (Publication Mail Agreement #1271091) is published 7 times a year at a rate of $24 per year by Broadband Properties LLC, 1909 Avenue G, Rosenberg, TX 77471. Periodical postage paid at Rosenberg, TX, and additional mailing offices. POSTMASTER: Please send address changes to Broadband Communities, PO Box 303, Congers, NY 10920-9852. CANADA POST: Publications Mail Agreement #40612608. Canada Returns to be sent to Bleuchip International, PO Box 25542, London, ON N6C 6B2. Copyright © 2019 Broadband Properties LLC. All rights reserved.

CEOBarbara DeGarmo / [email protected]

PUBLISHERNancy McCain / [email protected]

EDITOR-IN-CHIEFMasha Zager / [email protected]

EDITOR-AT-LARGESteven S. Ross / [email protected]

ASSOCIATE EDITORSean Buckley / [email protected]

ADVERTISING SALES ACCOUNT EXECUTIVE

Irene Prescott / [email protected]

EVENTS COORDINATORDennise Argil / [email protected]

ONLINE NEWS EDITORMarianne Cotter / [email protected]

ART DIRECTORKarry Thomas

CONTRIBUTORSRollie Cole, Sagamore Institute for

Policy Research David Daugherty, Clarus Broadband

Heather Burnett Gold, HBG StrategiesJoanne Hovis, CTC Technology & Energy

Trevor Jones, OTELCO Michael A. Kashmer, Digital Broadband

Programming ConsultantW. James MacNaughton, Esq.

Christopher Mitchell, Institute for Local Self-Reliance

Bryan Rader, UpStream NetworkCraig Settles, Gigabit Nation

Robert L. Vogelsang, Broadband Communities Magazine

BROADBAND PROPERTIES LLCCEO

Barbara DeGarmo

VICE PRESIDENT, BUSINESS & OPERATIONSNancy McCain

CHAIRMAN OF THE BOARDRobert L. Vogelsang

BUSINESS & EDITORIAL OFFICE BROADBAND PROPERTIES LLC

1909 Avenue G • Rosenberg, TX 77471 281.342.9655 • Fax 281.342.1158

www.broadbandcommunities.com

[email protected]

2 | BROADBAND COMMUNITIES | www.broadbandcommunit ies.com | MAY/JUNE 2019

This year, there was a subtle shift in tone at the BroadBand Communities Summit,

particularly the sessions that dealt with communities on the wrong side of the digital divide. One attendee at the April event commented that “the projects are more ‘shovel ready’ now and not just concepts.” Another told us, “People are more interested in tangible ways to secure funding for their communities.”

Earlier events – BBC Summits and economic development conferences, Fiber Connect conferences and others – inspired many communities to begin the search for better broadband. Today, not as many people need inspiration. More people need to know how to get from A to B – or, often, from C to D.

At the 2019 Summit, I heard attendees ask many questions like these:

“How can I make my telehealth service sustainable in the long term?”

“We’re a small fiber community. How should we prepare for 5G?”

“What gives an electric co-op an advantage as a borrower?”

“Can we partner with different local entities when we apply for ReConnect funds in multiple areas?”

“How can we take advantage of the Opportunity Zone program?”

“What’s the best way to finance private competitive fiber builds?”

DIGGING INThere were detailed questions about selecting technology, about marketing services, about mitigating risk, about managing partnerships and about using fiber to market communities. Attendees wanted to dig in and apply the lessons learned by communities a few steps ahead of them on the path to broadband. And there were answers to (almost) every question.

It’s great to see so many people determined to build broadband networks and to reap their benefits. I’d like to think the industry has reached the tipping point that the team in Medina County, Ohio, identified in its Summit presentation. (See p. 20 for a fuller description of that project.) After the tipping point, more fiber networks will be built because people are thinking deeply about how to make them work and not focusing on why they need them.

If you’re at Fiber Connect in June, you’ll find still more experts willing to share their experiences and insights into the business, operational and engineering issues surrounding fiber networks. You’ll see the latest technology advances that can make the difference between “fiber sooner” and “fiber later.” And you’ll come away with new ideas about how to move your community forward. v

Shovel Ready

Communities across the United States have shifted from “Why fiber?” to “How?”

TMSimply Exceptional Connections

Stabilityintegrity

And our customer service scores rock.

Contact US TODAY

[email protected]


TABLE OF CONTENTS

DEPARTMENTS

2 EDITOR’S NOTE

6 BANDWIDTH HAWK

82 MARKETPLACE ADS

84 ADVERTISER INDEX / CALENDAR

IN THIS ISSUEPROVIDER PERSPECTIVE

8 For More Wins, Outwork the Competition / By Bryan J. Rader, UpStream Network

MULTIFAMILY BROADBAND TECHNOLOGY

10 FCC Proposed Expansion Of the OTARD Rule / By Carl Kandutsch, The Kandutsch Law Office and Multifamily Broadband Council

NEW WORLD OF VIDEO

12 Teenagers in the Online World / By Michael A. Kashmer, Digital Broadband Programming Consultant

CONNECTIVITY MATTERS

14 USDA ReConnect: Expensive Money / By Trevor Jones, OTELCO

PROPERTY OF THE MONTH

16 Millennials Love Home Automation: 985 High at The Castle, Columbus, Ohio / By Sean Buckley, Broadband Communities

BROADBAND DEPLOYMENTS

24 Ontario & Trumansburg Telephone Companies Deploy FTTH / By Alyson Moore, Corning Optical Communications

26 A Digital Inclusion Blueprint For Public Housing / By Hannah Rank and Christopher Mitchell, Institute for Local Self-Reliance

30 Missouri Innovation Center Takes Advantage of Gig Services / By Sean Buckley, Broadband Communities

CONFERENCE COVERAGE

34 Fiber Moves Forward: A BBC Staff Report on the 2019 Broadband Communities Summit

46 Fiber Connect: Broadband Communities’ Guide to the 2019 Fiber Broadband Association Conference

BROADBAND POLICY

60 Community Connectivity Is Threatened / By Kevin Donnelly, National Multifamily Housing Council

64 Border to Border 2.0: Minnesota’s Broadband Reboot / By Matt Schmit, University of Minnesota

TECHNOLOGY

68 Three Myths of Fiber Cleaning / By Jay Tourigny, MicroCare Corporation

72 Student Housing Technology: Predictions Versus Reality / By Andrew Marshall, Campus Technologies Inc.

74 Decoding the 10G Opportunity / By Sean Buckley, Broadband Communities

ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT

78 Technology Access For an Equitable Future of Work / By Cat Blake, Next Century Cities

BROADBAND APPLICATIONS

80 Educational Technology Assumes Robust Broadband / By Rollie Cole, Sagamore Institute for Policy Research

FEATURES

COVER STORY20 Is Fiber at the Tipping Point? By Masha Zager, Broadband Communities

Medina County, Ohio, is trying a new model for financing and building rural broadband.

twitter.com/bbcmag

Visit www.bbcmag.com for up-to-the-minute news of broadband trends, technologies and deployments

New York artist Irving Grunbaum sees fiber networks landing everywhere.

ABOUT THE COVER

16

Set your property apart and attract the residents you really want. Get secure, reliable, best-in-class WiFi speeds. Deliver endless streaming entertainment options and feel confident with 24/7, industry-leading support standing by.

Exceed residents’expectations with faster WiFi

To increase the value of your property, visit SpectrumCommunitySolutions.com

BANDWIDTH HAWK


Huawei, the world’s largest supplier of equipment for broadband networks, is under fire as a potential security risk. Governments in the United States,

Australia, the United Kingdom and elsewhere have sounded their displeasure about using Huawei equipment. Germany has signaled approval, and many companies in other countries have shelved plans for Huawei purchases.

Is excluding Huawei fair? And if you are in the market for broadband equipment, what should you do?

Huawei is truly huge. Its annual revenues are about $100 billion, of which about half comes from consumer electronics and half from network gear. Of the network gear business, a quarter ($12 to $15 billion of about $50 billion) is from software sales and service contracts. With roughly $40 billion in network equipment sales, the company is about the size of all American suppliers combined.

These comparisons are tricky; like Cisco, Huawei has a supply chain with many third-party players. Many American firms specializing in access network products, such as Adtran and Calix, manufacture abroad – in China – but are turning themselves into software companies. Their network access equipment is becoming more and more commoditized, as is Huawei’s.

Cisco, specializing in network core equipment, has its own custom chipsets. Huawei won’t comment, but it seems to customize its core equipment more than its access equipment. Custom chipsets are tough to monitor for hidden functions.

Huawei has leveraged its volume in wireless and fiber, edge and core, to become a huge competitor in the emerging 5G market – a major reason for the extra scrutiny it’s getting.

Huawei’s growth accelerated around 2011 and faltered only in the past year or so as government opposition mounted worldwide. Growth started when Huawei solved nagging quality control problems and moved beyond copying established software. Holding Huawei circuit boards in hand, I was always impressed. They rarely had jumpers, which are a key indicator of bad design practice. Mechanically, they were first-rate, with quality connectors and brass and aluminum castings and extrusions. Through-board solder-and-cut mounts for chips on the boards were almost nonexistent. Chips that consumed much power were well sited on the boards to minimize local temperature hot spots.

However, Huawei boards often failed in the field anyway. Evidently, manufacturing defects at contract assembly plants were to blame. Huawei made good on solving its problems. It also took a few years to bring those issues under control, it seems. Revenues jumped. Competitors adjusted or died – or got deeper into trouble when they took shortcuts to compete. A competing Chinese vendor, ZTE, went through that experience. But it seems to have had even more support from the Chinese government than did Huawei. The Chinese military itself is a major owner of ZTE.

In short, Huawei has more than just low prices going for it.One argument Huawei and its supporters make is that

bad actors and the U.S. National Security Agency have had little difficulty penetrating modern networks, even with no involvement in equipment or software design. But penetration is far less an issue than, say, an entire carrier or an entire country’s network going dead after a seemingly innocent software update.

That scenario is less plausible if all or almost all the action happens at the network edge. Malware would have to be inserted into millions of sites before being discovered. Wouldn’t it be easier to simply knock out the constellation of GPS satellites upon whose timing signals so much of the internet depends? But some carriers and concerned countries already limit Huawei equipment to the edge and ban it from the core. These carriers say they can continue to do so, although 5G, in particular, blurs the distinction.

Another approach would be to allow Huawei to sell whatever equipment it wants but hand software off to multiple third parties. As network functions and software become more and more complex, that is not a trivial task – but it is not impossible, either. And although Huawei would potentially give up a quarter of its revenue to outside software vendors, it would collect licensing fees for little work.

This approach would complicate the work of hackers, who would have to attack multiple software families, even if most of them were related to open-source parents. And, of course, it would satisfy politicians in the United States and elsewhere as they seek to bring home some of the money spent in China. v

Contact the Hawk at [email protected].

To Protect Network Security, Regulate Software, Not HardwareWorried about political opposition to buying from Huawei? Here’s a short guide and a possible solution.

By Steven S. Ross / Broadband Communities

Welcome Home.InvisiLight® Optical FiberSolutions for Today’sConnected World.

www.ofsoptics.com

Virtually InvisibleIn Hallway:

InvisiLight® Compact Point of Entry Module

Seamless Integration Into Your Living Unit:

InvisiLight®

EZ-Connect Module

SPEAK WITH THE FTTx EXPERTS:Fiber Connect 2019 | Orlando, FL | June 3-6 | Booth #1401

PROVIDER PERSPECTIVE


My company, UpStream Network, recently was chosen by the HOA board of directors as the service provider for a large, high-rise condo

building. The day after we received the contract, I called the board president.

He told me, “We went through an exhaustive process, evaluating six different options. We then narrowed it down to two companies.”

“What was the deciding factor?” I asked.“You and your team wanted it more,” he said. “In other

words, you outworked your competition.”So often in the broadband business, we think the better

product will win the battle or the better price will drive the deal. Prospects evaluate options and features and pick the best value, right?

Well, there’s a lot more to it than that. You can’t spreadsheet the options among six different providers and pick one based just on speed and price. The formula is much more detailed.

For many years, I was a consultant who represented property owners and condo boards as they pursued the best options for bulk services for their communities. Typically, this required a very detailed, two-month process that culminated in a service provider’s closing with a new client.

We worked with all types of providers – the national big cable guys, telcos, independents, local wireless folks, you name it. What’s interesting is that we always saw clients ask the same question in each bid process: “Who wants it most?”

Sometimes, a provider submitted a bid that had a picture of the wrong property on the cover of the proposal. At other times, we received proposals with information that wasn’t requested, such as a DVR offer that the property owner didn’t want. Worst of all was a provider that submitted a bid without even visiting the property.

Many times I saw service providers schedule site visits and look only at the MDF and IDF closets. What about sitting down with the property manager? A board member? Even the doorman? Learn your prospect. How badly do you want it?

DIG DEEPERMy company recently did a site survey for a large apartment community, and I flew in for the meeting. I never left the clubhouse! I spent two hours talking with the manager, the maintenance team, leasing agents and more than a dozen residents. I understood the clientele and how we would pursue this opportunity. (The engineers looked inside the closets.)

When I think about our wins, I realize they always come about when we’ve outworked our competition. We preach this internally every day: Go the extra step. Take one more action. Bring energy to the pursuit. Engage more of our team. We do this so much that I sometimes forget this isn’t the norm – until I remember bidders putting the wrong pictures on proposals!

Retention and organic growth require the same intensity. You have to outwork everyone, or you will lose. Don’t rely just on your network. If you’re bidding on a renewal, never ask, “What did we do last time? Let’s do that again.” Dig deeper, and see what’s changed. Different residents? Different needs?

I’m sure that when we don’t win, it’s partly because we simply did not outwork the market. Maybe we didn’t attend to the needs of every stakeholder, or we skipped a step in the process.

In college football, the University of Alabama head coach, Nick Saban, tells his players to “outwork yesterday.” It’s brilliant advice. It keeps raising the bar every day. And it’s worked.

Service providers can use this approach, too. You can’t just have the best network, the best product or the best marketing. You have to be committed to the long-term relationship. Our new condo client certainly believes that’s what separates us from the others. We outworked and eventually won. It’s strong advice going forward. Outwork yesterday. Outwork your competition.

And now I have to outwork you! v

Bryan J. Rader is the president of UpStream Network, a broadband provider (formerly Access Media 3). Reach him at [email protected] or by phone at 314-540-1114.

For More Wins, Outwork the Competition Sure, property owners evaluate speeds, features and prices of broadband offerings – but then they ask, “Who wants it most?”

By Bryan J. Rader / UpStream Network

BBC_Fiber Solutions_May-June 2019_Print Ready.indd 1 4/25/2019 1:53:17 PM

MULTIFAMILY BROADBAND TECHNOLOGY


FCC Proposed Expansion Of the OTARD RuleProviders should explore the possible implications of the rule change and share comments with the FCC.

On April 12, 2019, the FCC Wireless Bureau released a notice of proposed

rulemaking (NPRM) concerning the extension of the Over-the-Air-Reception-Devices (OTARD) rule to cover small antenna devices used as carrier hub facilities rather than as consumer signal reception equipment.

Pressure to transform the OTARD rule from a consumer-protection measure into an end run around local regulation for the benefit of wireless carriers is the result of a confluence of historical accidents, driven by the evolution of wireless technology and producing a conflict between public policies that were once seen as parallel.

The primary technological driver has been the rapid rise of wireless platforms as a supplement to and an eventual replacement for wired platforms for pay television, internet access and voice services. Following enactment of the Telecom Act of 1996, the FCC promulgated two parallel sets of rules dealing with the placement of wireless devices on private property. On the one hand, the OTARD rules were intended to preempt almost all local regulation of the placement of consumer reception devices by customers of a wireless

service (initially satellite television and, beginning in 2000, fixed wireless data). On the other hand, Section 704 of the Telecom Act largely preserved the ability of local governments to regulate the placement of large, obtrusive structures used to transmit wireless telecommunications signals.

Back then, things seemed clear: local regulation of wireless reception devices used by consumers is extremely limited, and local authority over wireless transmission devices used by big carriers is preserved.

Inevitably, however, technology evolved in ways that muddy the once-clear distinction between reception and transmission devices and therefore between the regulatory schemes governing their placement. What rules apply to devices that both receive and transmit wireless signals?

CONSIDERING THE IMPLICATIONSThe FCC already stretched the scope of the OTARD rule almost to its breaking point by ruling (in the Triton Networks case) that a wireless antenna relaying signals via a mesh network can qualify as an OTARD device, despite the fact that it serves remote customers, as long

as at least one customer is located at or near the antenna site. In the new NPRM, the Wireless Bureau proposes to take the crucial additional step of eliminating the requirement that there be at least one customer at the antenna site so that the OTARD rule protects not only reception devices but transmission hubs as well. To take that step would mean, among other things, that OTARD can no longer be viewed primarily as a pro-consumer measure. On the contrary, the FCC is proposing to transform a rule that allows consumers to install small reception devices in their homes into a license to wireless carriers to install anything they want (provided it does not exceed OTARD’s 1-meter-diameter limit) anywhere they want, as long as the carrier owns or leases the site.

If the proposal becomes final, the OTARD rule would have to be seen as a powerful route by which wireless telecommunications and data carriers may escape not only traditional principles of property law but also the reach of almost all traditional police-power regulation at the local level.

The driving force behind the NPRM is the exponential increase in the number of hub or signal relay stations

By Carl Kandutsch / The Kandutsch Law Office, Multifamily Broadband Council

MAY/JUNE 2019 | www.broadbandcommunit ies.com | BROADBAND COMMUNITIES | 11

required to deploy advanced wireless networks, such as 5G, which utilize extremely high-frequency bands in the radio spectrum. Because high-frequency wavelengths are very short, the wave forms are easily distorted; consequently, higher-frequency waves do not travel as far as lower-frequency waves. Shorter travel distances mean more base stations – a lot more. Where to put them, if not on someone’s private property?

The FCC’s rationale for expanding OTARD coverage is as simple as it is circular: 5G networks require dense deployment of smaller antennas across provider networks closer to customers. Because more antenna and relay devices are needed, fewer regulatory restrictions and hurdles are tolerable.

The policy justification for preempting local authority over wireless facilities siting is also familiar – easing regulatory restrictions on the installation of hub and relay antennas will “spur investment” in next-generation wireless networks. In fact, exactly the same logic was used just a few months ago when the FCC issued its declaratory ruling and third report and order in September 2018, limiting the fees that can be imposed on carriers for deploying small-cell antennas in the public right of way. There is ample reason to be skeptical of carrier claims that relief from regulatory burdens is the key to bridging the digital divide. Predictions that repeal of network neutrality rules in June 2018 would “spur investment” were wrong. (See, for example, https://tinyurl.com/y3zdrpqy.)

CUTTING OUT THE MIDDLEMANThe assumption behind the FCC’s OTARD expansion proposal is that carriers are not capable of negotiating reasonable deals with municipal governments. Therefore, the government must intervene in a way that circumvents the need and incentive for carriers to cut a deal with property owners, placing the entire burden of facilities siting on municipal governments and multifamily property owners and conferring the entire benefit on carriers.

In fact, the OTARD proposal goes beyond simply correcting a perceived

(but unproven) imbalance in traditional property access negotiations because the new rule actually prevents property owners from working with telecom carriers at all. That is true because the proposed OTARD expansion deprives property owners of the one effective tool they possess in their dealings with carriers, which is the power to withhold – and therefore to grant – access to real property for the siting of wireless broadband facilities.

Why would a telecom carrier bother to talk about access with a local planning board or with the owner of an MDU building (or an owners’ association, in the case of a condominium) when access is mandated under the law without negotiation? Is it a good idea to basically eliminate municipal governments, HOAs and apartment owners as a voice in discussions concerning the siting of wireless broadband facilities?

In theory (if not in practice), locally elected municipal officials, and to a lesser but still non-negligible extent, apartment owners and HOAs, are supposed to represent their constituents, who are voting city residents on the one hand and MDU residents on the other hand. What happens to those represented when the representative is excluded from access negotiations? Is it reasonable to assume that telecom carriers – which, according to surveys, are among the most hated corporations year after year – actually speak for those constituents’ interests more effectively than do elected city officials and landlords?

To assess the plausibility of this proposition, consider the case of those consumers most in need of representation – consumers in underserved areas that are mostly neglected by cable and telco carriers.

What reason is there to believe that the cost savings realized by a carrier by virtue of not having to negotiate access to desirable locations will be invested in the deployment of networks in less desirable areas?

Under Section 332 (c)(7) of the Communications Act, carriers negotiate with municipalities for access to potential sites for cell towers and other facilities; access to more lucrative areas may be conditioned on the carrier’s commitment to build out networks in less-lucrative locations. By preempting almost all municipal jurisdiction over facilities siting decisions, OTARD expansion will, in effect, do away with those negotiations altogether.

It is possible that OTARD expansion will, in the end, lead to more cherry-picking of facilities siting locations – and therefore of prime service coverage areas – by carriers that can safely ignore less-lucrative locations.

SUBMITTING COMMENTSInterested parties may file comments with the FCC on or before June 3, 2019, and may file reply comments on or before June 17, 2019. Comments may be filed electronically using the commission’s Electronic Comment Filing System (ECFS), referring to WT Docket No. 19–71. v

Carl Kandutsch is a telecommunications and real estate attorney at the Kandutsch Law Office as well as a board member of the Multifamily Broadband Council (MBC). Carl may be reached at [email protected] or 214-427-5354. For more information on MBC, reach the executive director, Valerie Sargent, at [email protected] or 949-274-3434, or visit online at www.mfbroadband.org.

The assumption behind the OTARD expansion proposal is that carriers cannot negotiate reasonable deals with property owners.

NEW WORLD OF VIDEO


Teenagers in the Online WorldDepression and anxiety are major problems for teenage social media users.

By Michael A. Kashmer / Digital Broadband Programming Consultant

How are kids managing in this digital world? Teenagers, like many adults, are swamped by technology overload and a myriad of choices.

With streaming video alone, there are so many programs to consider. This is referred to as “subscription fatigue.”

However, there are big differences in how adults and teenagers use online social platforms. Adult social media users continue with their favorite platforms, YouTube (73 percent) and Facebook (69 percent), while younger users gather at Instagram (37 percent), Snapchat (24 percent) and several other sites, according to a February 2019 Pew Research report.

Anxiety and depression top the list of problems that teens see among their peers. Seventy percent of teens see anxiety and depression as major problems. This category is followed by bullying (55 percent) and drug/alcohol addiction (51 percent). Does this data fill in some of the blanks about where teen stress comes from? Again, thanks to Pew Research Center for this data.

Concern about mental health cuts across gender, racial and socioeconomic lines. The pressure teens feel to excel in school is tied to their postgraduation goals.

Although a majority of U.S. colleges admit most students who apply, the elite colleges grab all the attention when it comes to admissions. More than half of 1,364 postsecondary schools admitted two-thirds or more of their 2017 applicants. By contrast, just 17 schools admitted fewer than 10 percent of applicants.

From current media reports, anyone would think most students are at their wits’ end trying to get accepted at any college. Why else would wealthy parents pay college coaches obscene amounts of money to land a coveted college perch? Although the elite schools are few in number, they remain a popular news topic, even on talk shows and late-night TV.

The students involved with these payoffs, perhaps only peripherally, must be under enormous stress. And the other students and parents who read these stories and are doing their best to get into college are experiencing high anxiety, to say the least.

Given the stress that college admissions cause our future leaders to experience and the pressure to find a well-paying

career upon graduation, is it any wonder that young people voice displeasure with a host of industries and companies?

A poll by Money magazine in 2017 showed that 62 percent of U.S. teens aged 16 to 19 say a career in the oil and gas industry is unappealing. That includes 39 percent who say the industry is very unappealing. Big Oil’s environmental challenges and boom-to-bust cycles create a negative stigma that will make attracting talent difficult in the future.

Not surprisingly, young people want to work for the energy companies of the future. Two-thirds of those polled said that a job working in green energy sounds appealing. Young people have the most to lose from rising sea levels caused by carbon emissions.

NAVIGATING INTERNET DANGERSA new social media application called sexting began in Australia about 2005 and quickly became so popular that “sexting” was added to the Merriam-Webster dictionary in 2012. New sharing technologies have made participation easier for teens.

Common Sense Media (www.commonsense.org/education) offers an excellent handbook that can help teens and parents navigate this new way of communicating.

When you look at this site, be aware that some stories may be shocking, but they describe real experiences of teens who tried sexting. These stories help explain why sexting can be so problematic.

Many adults and schools are panicking. Some think sexting is horrible, stupid and likely to ruin teens’ futures. Others think it is no big deal. Which is it, and what do we need to know to make the right decision?

Here’s what the Common Sense Media handbook says: “The more knowledgeable you are, the better decisions you are going to make for yourself and the better advice you’ll be able to give to a friend.” v

Mike Kashmer has worked in cable TV for more than 30 years in distribution, finance and programming. His experience includes network startups and foreign-language programming. Reach Mike at [email protected].

HIGH DENSITY EXPERTS

www.AFLglobal.com/Experts 864.433.0333

The Smallest Cables AvailableHigher fiber counts in smaller cable packages is in high demand. AFL is recognized as a leader in high density fiber optic cables with its award-winning Wrapping Tube Cable powered by SpiderWeb Ribbon® (SWR®) and OSP/ISP MicroCore® products. The unique constructions of these cables allow for quicker installations and splicing, lowering the overall cost of fiber deployment without sacrificing the quality of traditional high fiber density products.

We’re not exaggerating! Let us show you the difference our cables can make for you.

Ours

Theirs

ACTUAL SIZE

1,728FIBERS 432

FIBERS

CONNECTIVITY MATTERS


USDA ReConnect: Expensive MoneyFor many small communities, the USDA’s latest grant program may be too complex to be worth applying for.

By Trevor Jones / OTELCO

Here at OTELCO, we’re not shy about applying for grants when they allow us to accelerate the deployment of better broadband to our customers

in rural markets. Over the last few years, we’ve applied for, been awarded and deployed funds from A-CAM, the CAF-II reverse auction, the ConnectME Authority and, if all goes as planned, the town of Alton, Maine. We’ve also participated in and supported a successful application to the Massachusetts Broadband Institute and made a few failed attempts to secure funds in the other states we serve.

Even with this history, we ultimately decided to walk away from the USDA’s ReConnect Program after taking a look at it earlier this year. Finding locations that qualify for ReConnect funds and completing the applications were just too complex.

DETERMINING ELIGIBILITYDepending upon whether you are looking for grants or for loans, finding areas on the map that qualify for ReConnect funding can be a bit like playing Where’s Waldo. ReConnect will not provide grant funding in any area that receives funding from the Connect America Fund under CAF-II, and it will provide loans only to the CAF recipient for such an area. If a satellite provider, such as Viasat, received funding to subsidize its satellite broadband services in an area, no one can use ReConnect grant money to fund a fiber-to-the-home build. This is infuriating for small ISPs and municipalities that would like to bring something better to their communities but are barred from securing funds because of the way the funding mechanisms were structured.

Other criteria for ReConnect grants include the following:

• The area must be 100 percent unserved by 10 Mbps / 1 Mbps connections.

• A 25 percent match is required, with matching funds expended first.

• The area must not have been funded by the BIP, Community Connect or RUS Broadband Loan programs.

• The area must not be receiving state funding.

COMPLETING THE APPLICATION The ReConnect application process is rigorous. Because OTELCO is a small provider, we determined that we would not be able to complete the application without investing in the services of an outside consultant. I can appreciate the importance of having the right information on the application so reviewers can properly judge which projects should receive

funding, but the level of complexity in this application puts funding beyond reach for small companies and rural communities with limited resources.

An application must include a detailed plan accounting for all costs. The plan must show a positive year-end cash balance each year, a positive cash flow from operations at the end of year five, a current ratio of 1.2 in year five and, if there is debt, either a times interest earned ratio of 1.2 or a debt service coverage ratio of 1.2 in year five. Required evidence of the 25 percent match includes bank statements, names of equity partners or loans secured by other assets.

SCORING THE APPLICATIONIn addition to the near-impossibility of achieving and proving eligibility for most areas, achieving a high score on an application can pose serious problems, given that the criteria often conflict with one another. Applicants can score up to 150 points using the following criteria:

• Population of six or fewer per square mile: 25 points• One point per farm or business: up to 20 points• One point per presubscribed business (15), health care

provider (15), school (15), or critical community facility (15): up to 60 points

• 50 percent of service area on tribal lands: 5 points• Internet service of at least 100 Mbps /100 Mbps: 20 points• State broadband plan updated in past five years: 10 points• Lack of state restrictions on utilities’ providing broadband:

5 points• State procedures for rights-of-way and environmental

requirements: 5 points

Identifying an area that has a population of only six per square mile but has a high enough density of community anchor institutions, farms and other businesses to score well on the first three criteria will be challenging indeed. It will also likely require service areas to be large, which will be problematic for community networks and small ISPs. Finding these things in an area that is 90 to 100 percent unserved by at least 10 Mbps /1 Mbps and is not funded by CAF is virtually impossible. v

Trevor Jones is vice president of marketing, sales and customer service for OTELCO, which owns independent telephone companies in seven states and partners with several community networks in Massachusetts. Contact Trevor at [email protected].

Instant-On. Gig-Enabled. Premium Wi-Fi & Live Streaming TV.

Increase Revenue – Amaze Your ResidentsNow that’s a game-changer.

FasterWithDISH.com

Meet Your Property’s New #1 Amenity



Millennials Love Home Automation: 985 High at The Castle Columbus, Ohio To deliver a seamless internet experience, 985 High at The Castle capitalized on the opportunity to provide buildingwide Wi-Fi and home automation. Our thanks to Kaileigh Steiner, director of marketing and community engagement for BORROR, and John Casadonte, senior product marketing manager for American Tower, for helping gather information for this profile.

By Sean Buckley / Broadband Communities

The state capital and the most populous city in Ohio with 879,170 residents, Columbus has become an attractive location for businesses and

young professionals alike. In 2016, Money magazine ranked Columbus as one of the six best big U.S. cities, citing a “highly educated workforce and wage growth.”

Columbus’s historic district is now home to 985 High at The Castle, a mixed-use property that includes 105 apartment units, offices and retail. Retail space is located on the first floor, commercial space takes up the second floor, and floors three through eight are residential.

To appeal to the millennial population, 985 High’s developer, BORROR, tasked American Tower with installing Wi-Fi connectivity throughout the building. BORROR was concerned about more than moving raw data – the platform also supports home automation services such as remote door locks.

Kaileigh Steiner, director of marketing and community engagement for BORROR, says connectivity and automation are provided as high-tech amenities that differentiate the property.

“We have our really fast, high-speed Wi-Fi,” Steiner says. “For our corporate office, we have Magnum Innovations [building automation solution], so we

have temperature-adjusted lights and occupancy centers. We also use Control4 as our smart-home solution.”

BORROR, which has its corporate offices on the second floor of 985 High, enjoys the automation amenities and video calling. The building’s access system includes ButterflyMX video call boxes, which provide views of the location’s entrances from the garage and a main entrance in the front. For guest entry, the building has a virtual concierge, which allows residents to give guests access remotely after confirming via video camera.

“It was exciting to experience that video calling capability,” Steiner says. “With our corporate offices on the second floor, our corporate team has been able to experience all the technology offerings.”

John Casadonte, senior product marketing manager for American Tower, says the 985 High building was


designed to accommodate millennials’ desire to access over-the-top content.

“The key thing with BORROR is they are thinking ahead of the game and are largely targeting millennials,” Casadonte says.

These technologies are just the tip of 985 High’s ambitions. Working with American Tower, BORROR is preparing its buildings to handle future 5G wireless services.

BORROR and American Tower are hardly strangers. Previously, American Tower equipped 303, another Columbus-area building.

“985 High is the second property we worked with American Tower on in Columbus for internet access,” Steiner says. “The other is downtown in the River South district. American Tower partnered with Epproach, which controlled the service and worked directly with us for our residents.”

Steiner adds that in the near term, American Tower’s internet service at

both of its Columbus locations gives it “the ability to use smart apartments – something that we know is coming in the near future in our markets.”

For the next stage of its automation drive, BORROR is equipping the units with smart locks. “We have Schlage locks,” Steiner explains. “We’re trying to get those integrated so we can use Bluetooth capabilities on those.”

The fitness center is high-tech, too. “We have a fitness center with a virtual

on-demand fitness class program that includes 300-plus classes you can select from,” Steiner says. “There’s an iPad on the wall where people select the classes, a big TV and a traditional cardio room.”

Given the property’s location, the building appeals to a younger crowd that enjoys city nightlife. “We’re in the Short North, which is a very hip neighborhood,” Steiner says. “There are lots of bars and restaurants, and it’s growing rapidly.”

PROPERTY OF THE MONTH HIGHLIGHTS~ 985 High at The Castle, Columbus, Ohio ~

• Mixed-use property that includes 105 apartment units, office and retail.• 200 Mbps in-building Wi-Fi connectivity via agreement with American

Tower.• Virtual concierge and guest entry system.• Security and fob key access for each floor.

A high-tech oasis in a historic district: 985 High at The Castle leverages building and home automation.



The views are also compelling. “We’re one of the taller buildings in this area,” Steiner says. “The views from the rooftop deck and even from any of the units are pretty spectacular, given that most of the buildings in Columbus are usually five stories, and we’re eight stories.”

VITAL STATISTICS Property Description: 985 High at

The Castle, located at the corner of W. 2nd Avenue and High Street in historic downtown Columbus, includes 11,000 square feet of retail, 12,000 square feet of class A office space, a 210-space public parking garage and 105 high-end luxury apartments with top-of-the-line finishes. This mixed-use, eight-story building is an icon on High Street.

The building has studios, one-, two- and three-bedroom apartments from 400 to 1,764 square feet. The Castle is a joint venture between BORROR, White Castle and the city of Columbus. BORROR worked closely with the Columbus Development Department to bring a public parking garage to this vibrant area of the city.

Demographics: Young professionals

Greenfield or retrofit? Greenfield

Number of units: 105

Style: Mid-rise

Date services started being delivered: 2018

Special Requirements: Integration of smart-home applications

SERVICES Services offered or planned on the

network: High-speed internet access with a top speed of 200 Mbps, burstable to 250 Mbps symmetrical. Residents also can use other Wi-Fi-based services, including Wi-Fi calling, if it’s available on their handsets, and common-area wireless. In addition, home automation services, such as building/home

monitoring and control and remote door lock control, are available.

Provider: American Tower provides Wi-Fi connectivity to residential tenants.

Do additional service providers operate separate broadband networks on the same property? No

Technical support: A white-label concierge service offers residents help-desk support; American Tower provides Tier 2 and Tier 3 technical support.

BUSINESS Which parts of the network are

owned by the service provider, and which parts are owned by the property? All parts of the network are owned by the property.

How are services sold? Services are provided as a standard amenity to every resident, incorporated into the rental fee.

Benefits of the network: The property owner markets the Wi-Fi service as part of its “smart in-home” amenity.

TECHNOLOGY Architecture: Fiber to the building and

floor

Where is the fiber terminated? In the equipment closet on each floor

Residents at 985 High stay logged into their secure, private networks even in the common areas.

The rooftop deck offers beautiful views of the city.


Technology/medium used to deliver signals to each unit: Cat 6A cabling and 802.11ac Wi-Fi access points

Vendors/products: ButterflyMX: Video call boxesControl4: Smart-home automation

systemsMagnum Innovations: Energy

management solutionsSchlage: Smart locks WhiteSpace Building Technology

Advisors: Smart-building technology design and implementation services

LESSONS LEARNED Answers by Kaileigh Steiner, BORROR

What was the biggest challenge? We really wanted to have connectivity throughout the building so users could travel on their own unit networks to all common spaces. This was a change for the team we worked with to install the Wi-Fi. It was something important to us, and American Tower did a great job working with us to make that happen. It’s important to renters that if the property owner supplies the network, it has to be safe and secure. One way to do that is to tell residents they can travel anywhere in the building and stay on their private network.

What was the biggest success? From a sales perspective, our biggest success is being able to offer something better than what residents could obtain on their own by providing faster speeds and better capability. That’s the direction the market is moving in, but many of our competitors don’t provide that. It’s a value-add to be able to offer such high speeds at such a reasonable price.

What was done – and what could have been done better – to limit disruption? No one occupied the building at the time the network was deployed. We were offering service to new residents moving into new construction. We were able to get everything up and online before

we had to give information out. We streamlined the process and said, “When you’re ready to move in, here’s your login information. and you’re good to go.”

Being able to provide all the welcome and login information the day our first resident moved in was a huge success for us. It took away the stresses of moving. Typically, people must schedule times to get their utilities set up. Nowadays, people don’t like to live without Wi-Fi for more than five minutes or lose a day to schedule someone to set it up. I think it’s a big deal for us and our residents.

What feedback does the leasing office get from residents? I think it’s a good thing that we don’t hear much about it. That means it’s working well. It’s one of those things that’s amazing to have but not necessarily something you hear about until something goes wrong.

For us to not hear from our residents about the Wi-Fi service is the biggest win for us because it’s all seamless. When you think about subscribing to Wi-Fi or any internet service, you call them only when your service is out. You don’t call them to say the service is awesome.

What should other owners consider before they get started on a similar deployment? It’s a matter of considering it as a value-add for residents. For us and our residents, it is. Considering the world that we live in, people have concerns about the safety and privacy of their information. Owners want to make sure it’s something that their residents will appreciate. It’s important for owners to fully understand what first-class internet service will do for a property. In a building like 985 High, it’s very important to ensure that everyone can get great service with their Wi-Fi internet. v

Sean Buckley is the associate editor of BroadBand Communities. He can be reached at [email protected].

FTTH DEPLOYMENT


Is Fiber at the Tipping Point?Medina County, Ohio, is trying a new model for financing and building rural broadband. If the model succeeds, it may be adaptable to other localities.

By Masha Zager / Broadband Communities

During the last several years, fiber broadband deployment in the United States has reached new heights. Driven

by rising bandwidth needs and wired-wireless synergies, all major telephone carriers have now committed – to different degrees – to delivering fiber services in large portions of their territories. Capital markets once hostile to FTTH are underwriting this expansion as long as 5G wireless is promised as part of the package.

Small telephone companies continue to tap the Universal Service Fund and RUS loans to build out fiber to customers. Electric utilities that invested in fiber infrastructure for smart grids, as well as municipalities that invested in fiber for institutional networks, are leveraging those assets for community broadband. WISPs, capitalizing on customer loyalty, are beginning to make strategic fiber investments. Property developers are financing fiber networks as part of their overall developments. Even some cable companies are transitioning to FTTH in areas where they face competition from telco fiber.

‘JUST DO IT’This patchwork system of financing and ownership, and an equally patchwork set of federal, state and local policies and subsidies, inevitably creates gaps. Even after a massive building spree, fiber broadband is available to only about 30 percent of U.S. households, and the FCC estimates that 21.3 million Americans lack access to 25 Mbps /3 Mbps broadband. (This is almost certainly an underestimate; Microsoft data shows that 162.8 million people

do not use the internet at 25 Mbps /3 Mbps speeds.) Many communities have been left out in the cold.

Small, nonmetropolitan communities with no locally based ISPs, few fiber assets and little access to capital markets are most likely to be underserved or entirely unserved with broadband. Thousands of them have conducted feasibility studies, sought private partnerships or public grants, and studied other options for improving their broadband service. Though there have been notable successes (many reported in this magazine), most of these efforts have led nowhere.

However, there have always been industry leaders in the “just do it” camp – those who insist that good broadband, and usually fiber, is always feasible, if only because its benefits are so great. They argue that communities should spend less time debating feasibility and more time finding creative solutions, developing workable plans and generating local support.

For example, as early as 2008, Timothy Nulty, then CEO of ValleyNet, told the BroadBand Communities Summit that rural fiber was feasible because the disadvantages – sparse population, low incomes – were counterbalanced by low real estate costs and high take rates. Though his efforts were temporarily derailed by the recession that took hold that year, he succeeded in bringing FTTH to many tiny Vermont communities, using previously untried financing and deployment methods. (He has now moved on to an even more rural part of Vermont.)


THE MEDINA COUNTY PROJECT Today, the “just do it” faction is growing in numbers and strength. A recent example of this philosophy in action is the Medina County, Ohio, project announced in April. It aims to extend a county-owned middle-mile fiber network to homes and small businesses.

Medina County is a largely rural area between Cleveland and Akron. In 2010, the county’s port authority contracted with the Cleveland-based One Community network to build a middle-mile network throughout the county, connecting all towns with 144 strands of dark fiber. The Medina County Fiber Network (MCFN) operates on an open-access basis, leasing fiber to government agencies, anchor institutions, enterprises and 13 carriers that serve those customers.

According to Bethany Dentler, executive director of the Medina County Economic Development Corporation, about 1,000 new jobs were added in the county since the MCFN completion. She estimates that nearly half the total payroll created, half the capital investment, half the square footage and nearly three-quarters of the jobs retained are a direct result of deploying fiber optic broadband.

However, most residents and small businesses in Medina County are still underserved. David Corrado, CEO of MCFN, thought the network could provide transport services for last-mile FTTH networks that would serve residents and small businesses. The port authority didn’t want to invest in last-mile networks – at least not right away – as it is still paying off a $15 million bond for the middle-mile network. So Corrado spent several years talking with companies around the United States, trying to find one interested in extending MCFN’s open-access model to serve smaller customers.

Eventually, he found partners quite by accident. Verizon was building fiber backhaul for a 5G network in Cleveland, and Corrado reached out to Foresite Group, the engineering firm working for Verizon, to find out whether Verizon wanted to lease MCFN fiber for its path through Medina County.

As it turned out, Verizon needed a higher-count fiber cable than MCFN could supply, but MCFN began a conversation with Foresite’s Brian Snider and others that led to new ideas about serving Medina County. Over a year or more, they began contacting other potential partners and investors, as well as the towns that needed better service, and put together a plan.

FINANCING THE PROJECT Unlike the standard vertically integrated model in which a single company finances, builds and operates a network and uses it to sell services, the Medina County project separates all these roles. Overseeing the entire project and arranging the financing will be Lit Communities, a new company founded by Snider and several other Foresite veterans. Originally, Neighborly, which is involved in a similar project in Maine (see p. 39) and which Snider briefly joined, was to have played this role; however, shortly after the project announcement in April, Snider formed Lit Communities and assumed oversight of the project.

The financing is complex and not yet finalized. As Corrado explains, “With fiber to the home, sometimes you have to put the cart in front of horse a little.” Lit Communities will fund some of the project and own a portion of the last-mile network. In addition, private-equity investors are expected to supply some funding, and local banks will issue construction loans. Grant funding may also be available.

At some point in the future, local individuals will be able to invest small-dollar amounts, and further down the road, the goal is to have

iFIBER will be the anchor ISP for Medina County.

FTTH DEPLOYMENT


local municipalities purchase the infrastructure. Legally, the last-mile network will consist of a series of limited liability corporations, one for each municipality, which will allow Lit Communities to track the costs and revenues for each municipality separately. “That makes it easier for the municipalities to take over ownership,” Corrado says.

MCFN, whose fiber will be used for transport, will receive a fee for each subscriber connected and will assist in marketing services to small businesses. Its owner, the Medina County Port Authority, as a local municipality, will have an option to purchase last-mile infrastructure after the network is up and running, and Corrado says, “We might, if it has a high enough take rate that it helps us become self-sustaining and pay our bonds back.” He adds that the county will likely defer to towns and cities that want to purchase their local infrastructure unless integrating the last-mile network with the middle-mile network makes more economic sense.

THE ECOSYSTEMIn addition to Lit Communities and MCFN, a number of other partners are involved in the project. Foresite will be responsible for engineering and construction management and hopes to hire and train local construction crews. Clarus Broadband has been tapped to operate and maintain the network; it, too, may be able to train local residents so the municipalities can eventually support their own networks. The public relations firm Harrison Edwards will oversee the community engagement process.

Technology partners include Vetro FiberMap and CostQuest for preliminary design software; Nokia, Dura-Line and Corning for equipment; and COS Systems for demand-aggregation and open-access B/OSS software.

The final key partners are retail service providers. Although Lit Communities and MCFN describe the network as open access, controlled access might be a better term. According to Snider, an ISP needs about 3,000 subscribers to be financially successful

while providing a high quality of service. The experience of some early open-access networks shows that allowing more ISPs than are sustainable triggers a “race to the bottom.”

Accordingly, the Medina County last-mile network will open with a single ISP, iFIBER Communications, which has offered services on multiple county-owned networks in Washington state since 2005. iFIBER will provide voice and video services in addition to internet access. As the network is built out across Medina County, additional ISPs will be invited to participate; Snider estimates that eventually, as many as six or eight ISPs might coexist. Providers will be held to high service standards, and customers will be able to switch among them using only the COS Business Engine software, without any need for service installation.

iFIBER is used to competing on community networks – it has a 70 percent penetration rate in some markets – and relishes the opportunity to do the same in Medina County. In a prepared statement, CEO Kelly Ryan said, “The open-access model encourages healthy competition between service providers, so we must fight for customers based on better prices and better service.”

However, the plan includes more services than the standard triple play – and more service providers than just ISPs. On day one, Medina County residents will have access to telehealth services provided by Docity, a telemedicine provider that partners with communities. Docity connects patients and providers through live virtual visits using a smartphone, tablet or computer. Its mission is to eliminate 30 percent of all in-person visits by 2030 and replace them with virtual visits at 30 percent of the cost. Telehealth could be a boon to elderly residents and those who live far from their doctors, and it could help hospitals cut costs as well, says Corrado.

Other services under discussion include smart-home and smart-city applications. Snider says he can even envision services such as Netflix offered

on the local network, rather than over the public internet. The more services are available, the more revenue is generated to support the network.

PHASING THE BUILDThe project’s first phase will connect three small, underserved communities in the southern part of the county. The first residents will begin receiving services in fall 2019, and the first phase should be completed in about 18 months.

Snider says the three communities were selected for two reasons: They were the most underserved – and thus most in need of the new network – and their local officials were willing to smooth the path for the network. Mayor Carol Carter of Seville, one of the three towns, a strong booster of the project, said in a statement, “With Medina County Fiber, our residents will finally be able to enjoy the benefits of high-speed internet at affordable prices. Superfast transmission of data will give students access to the best online resources for research and completing homework assignments; home-based work will have clear, reliable connections; farmers will be able to access essential market data in seconds; and property values for homeowners are likely to rise, too.”

Mayor Carter’s words are backed up by actions. Seville and the other first-phase communities have pledged reduced-rate pole permits, fast turnaround for permitting, off-duty police to guard worksites and other steps to help reduce construction costs.

The second phase of the project will connect residents and businesses in the county seat, Medina, and other denser localities throughout the county. These areas are better served today than the first-phase communities. Construction costs there will be lower, but the FTTH network will face stiffer competition from incumbents. The total of the first and second phases will reach about 41,000 premises passed.

Finally, the county has rural areas in which Lit Communities hopes to work with electric co-ops to deliver fixed-wireless service at first and,


eventually, fiber to the home. The goal is to connect all premises in the county within five years.

As it plans the network, Lit Communities is “trying to picture the next 15 to 20 years,” in Snider’s words. That means adding capacity for future needs – extra dark fiber to lease out or to backhaul 5G antennas, support autonomous vehicles or connect new housing developments. Cabinets are also designed to hold more equipment than is needed today. Building spare capacity now will be less expensive than trying to add more later.

THE TIPPING POINT Snider comments that good broadband is always feasible, but each project is unique. In this case, he says, the existence of the MCFN – and the fact that it connects all the towns in the county – made the countywide project feasible. In particular, it made possible

starting with the most underserved towns. Without the MCFN, the first phase would probably have had to begin at the county seat.

Another important asset the county has is the enthusiasm of its residents. Snider says, “Medina County has an older demographic, but people recognize that connectivity is needed. Watching the community come out to the meetings we’ve held and seeing the support they’ve rallied is tremendous.”

Corrado adds, “The meetings are jam-packed. Homeowner associations are calling us. People want to distribute fliers. The Service Zones [COS demand-aggregation software] site is open, and communities are already competing for the next phase.”

Snider believes that, after studying the mistakes other fiber deployers have made, he has found a winning formula for delivering great broadband to underserved communities. Even

though the strategy will vary from place to place, depending on local circumstances, he’s certain he can find ways of structuring projects that private equity and private finance will feel comfortable with. The demand is there – people require broadband to participate in the society and economy. New deployment techniques and community cooperation can reduce costs, demand aggregation can reduce risk, and an open-services model can increase revenues.

All that’s needed is creativity. Snider says, “You have to think outside the box and maybe even blow up the whole box.”

If he’s right, then perhaps the industry is at a tipping point, and many more Medina Counties will be stepping forward in the next few years. v

Masha Zager is the editor of BroadBand Communities. You can reach her at [email protected].

FTTH DEPLOYMENT


Ontario & Trumansburg Telephone Companies Deploy FTTH An independent telco leverages technology to offer next-generation services.

By Alyson Moore / Corning Optical Communications

Ontario & Trumansburg Telephone Companies (OTTC), the largest independently owned telephone

company in New York, has been in the business of connecting people for nearly 100 years. A family-owned operation now in its fifth generation, OTTC has lived firsthand the transformation in telecommunications through changes in technologies, its network infrastructure, the services it offers and the experiences its customers expect.

At the helm of OTTC today is president and CEO Paul H. Griswold, whose great-grandfather Hovey Griswold founded the Ontario Telephone Company in 1920. Trumansburg is nestled in the Finger Lakes region of New York. Working alongside Paul are his children, Ashley and Brenden, both of whom have supported the family business in a variety of roles since high school, just as their dad did before them.

Committed to their customers and to the success of OTTC, the Griswolds operate their business today with the same focus the generations before them had: Seize the opportunities that come with changing times, and continuously deliver state-of-the-art services to attract and retain subscribers.

“State of the art” is a moving target, and OTTC has embraced the challenge and the opportunities it presents. Paul Griswold has said, “We can’t tell the future, but we will be ready for it.” Being ready for the future means staying ahead of the demand for reliable, high-

bandwidth services and applications, so in 2018, OTTC set out to extend the reach of optical fiber in its networks, beginning the process of installing fiber to the 11,000 homes and businesses it serves.

A SOLUTION TO ENABLE FAST DEPLOYMENT Traditionally, expanding fiber-based broadband access involved fusion splicing optical fibers together in the field – a process that is time consuming, requires skilled labor and is highly susceptible to delays from inclement weather, labor and material availability, and human error. But with continuous innovation at the very heart of OTTC’s business, the Griswolds looked to technology and manufacturing advancements to deliver faster results for their subscribers (and for their bottom line).

For the outdoor portion of their network, they chose Corning’s FlexNAP system, with hardened, weatherproof connectors that take the place of field splicing in an installation process that’s similar to plugging an electrical cord into an outlet, so fast and easy that it cuts labor time by as much as five times compared with traditional fiber optic deployment methods. Even better, this plug-and-play solution uses cable lengths preconnectorized in Corning’s pristine manufacturing facilities, giving OTTC the assurance that comes with factory installation and testing.

Every network transformation outside requires a corresponding change in the


central office – the brick-and-mortar facility where business and residential subscribers’ lines connect to electronics. Sometimes referred to as the “core of the network,” central offices house the technologies that drive services and applications. In OTTC’s case, there are six central offices, each requiring corresponding connections for the new fiber installations outside.

For their central offices, the Griswold family selected the Corning Centrix system because it delivers technician-friendly usability with industry-leading density – a critical consideration in the highly valuable real estate that is a central office. Plus, with the Centrix system, OTTC can take a pay-as-you-grow approach, buying central office connections only as individual subscribers sign up for service.

“Our belief and trust in Corning’s products have helped to ease our minds about giving OTTC customers the ultimate experience,” says Paul Griswold. “Corning products are proven to work, and the people we work with make our experience even better.”

THE IMPACTUsing the FlexNAP system allows OTTC to turn up customers at an

impressive rate, enabling the first installation in just under three weeks. Even better, OTTC is now able to use Corning’s innovations to deliver exceptional customer experiences, including same-day installations and the assurance of reliable, fiber-based connections.

This lightning-fast installation didn’t just enable the company to turn up subscribers fast; OTTC estimates that the FlexNAP system has saved its business more than $180,000 per service area in materials and labor, as compared with traditional construction methods.

“The FlexNAP system increases our agility in a competitive field. We are able to plan our builds in a methodical and organized manner, yet we have flexibility to react to unique situations that would require us to open a service area within days instead of months. We surprised a lot of people when we had our first customer lit in three weeks. We just recently celebrated our 100th install in 91 days,” says Brenden Griswold, the operations coordinator. “From a project management point of view, working with the Centrix and FlexNAP systems is a dream for

scheduling and coordination. We are no longer dependent on splicing contractors once the fiber goes up.”

Deploying fiber locally to the people and businesses OTTC serves in upstate New York is doing more than preparing networks to deliver next-gen services: OTTC’s current leadership is leveraging technology so future generations of the Griswold family can continue delivering state-of-the-art services and applications to future generations of subscribers.

“The ability for us to get our fiber network up and running quickly and efficiently is what drove us to work with Corning,” says Paul Griswold. “Reliable products that work seamlessly together allow us to focus on the bigger picture.” v

Alyson Moore is manager of North America marketing for Corning Optical Communications. To learn more, visit www.corning.com/community-broadband. Connect with Alyson by emailing [email protected].

Some buildings on Main Street in Trumansburg appear much as they did during the late 19th century.

Phot

o cr

edit:

Jeffr

ey F

oote

Pho

togr

aphy

FIBER DEPLOYMENT


A Digital Inclusion Blueprint For Public HousingMonkeybrains and the city of San Francisco partnered to deliver gigabit service to public-housing residents.

By Hannah Rank and Christopher Mitchell / Institute for Local Self-Reliance

Urban areas today have nearly universal, albeit pricey, broadband internet access from cable companies and other service

providers, with the number of providers varying from neighborhood to neighborhood. Fewer options are available to those who have less capacity to pay for service. Many low-income households simply cannot pay for decent internet access.

In two affordable housing complexes in San Francisco near the heart of the tech industry, Hunters Point East and West (HPEW) and Robert B. Pitts Apartments, few residents could afford high-quality internet service until Monkeybrains, an internet service provider (ISP) that has operated in San Francisco for 20 years, partnered with the city to provide 100 Mbps connectivity in HPEW and 1 Gbps connectivity in Robert B. Pitts.

Despite nationwide efforts to close the digital divide, at least one-fifth of Americans who do not use the internet cite the prohibitive costs associated with access. The program to connect HPEW and Robert B. Pitts to high-speed internet shows how innovative thinking, organization and commitment from various stakeholders can make high-quality internet access a reality for low-income households. As San Francisco continues on its path to shrink the digital divide, other municipalities could use this model and follow suit.

BIDDING ON HPEWThe nonprofit San Francisco Housing Development Corporation (SFHDC) took over

Hunters Point East and West in 2014, making the complex eligible for Rental Assistance Demonstration, a HUD program that helps transfer low-income housing from public to private ownership. SFHDC was formed in the late 1980s by residents frustrated with the displacement of people of color in their community. Along with The John Stewart Company, a housing developer, SFHDC started renovating the complexes in 2016 and then began temporarily relocating residents and soliciting bids to update the buildings’ internet connectivity.

Monkeybrains wasn’t aware of the upgrades sought at HPEW until Preston Rhea, its director of field operations, caught wind of the bid request through his work on the Community Tech Network (CTN) board of directors. CTN, a nonprofit digital literacy trainng organization, was working with SFHDC to develop training for residents of its housing complexes, including HPEW.

Comcast had already bid on the HPEW project, proposing a single Wi-Fi access point for each building for approximately $200 per month. For the 27 buildings, HPEW would rack up an estimated yearly bill of nearly $65,000. Monkeybrains staff knew they could offer a better solution at a much lower price point that would provide far better access for everyone in HPEW for years to come.

Monkeybrains offered free installation of wireless access points as well as wired access to each individual unit. SFHDC would pay $10 per month per unit to Monkeybrains for the


first two years, but there would be no cost to residents. With 213 units at $10 per month, the total cost to SFHDC runs just under $26,000 per year – half what Comcast bid for an inferior option. After that, Monkeybrains can donate the bandwidth, extend the agreement with SFHDC or offer a low-priced service directly to residents. Monkeybrains takes help-desk calls from HPEW residents just as it does for other customers.

While renovating and securing the internet upgrades after winning the bid, Monkeybrains realized it could tap into funding from the California Advanced Services Fund (CASF). It secured nearly $80,000 in CASF funding for the HPEW installation, which allowed it to install common-area Wi-Fi in addition to the in-unit connections. (Because of changes in state law, CASF now significantly restricts funding eligibility for projects like this one.)

INTERNAL WIRING AT HPEWOngoing renovations at HPEW simplified the network installation process. Monkeybrains said the project upgrade from hallway Wi-Fi to in-unit Ethernet access was “as simple as a change order.” The contractors were to pull new Cat 5e wiring to each unit for telephones and install a type of jack that supports only landlines. Depending on how these wires are installed in the unit, they can support either DSL connections or, with the new jack Monkeybrains requested, Ethernet connections at 100 Mbps and regular telephone connectivity simultaneously.

“This simple change order added almost no cost but would have been a giant hassle and expense if done later,” Rhea explained. “We were able to install a simple Ethernet switch in each building. Now we have a local area network … in each building.”

Although the current wiring supports 100 Mbps symmetrical, Monkeybrains could have asked the contractors to pull two cables instead of one if it had had advance knowledge of the renovation. The ISP says if a resident wants to upgrade and does not need to use the landline for telephone service, it will send a technician at no

charge to reprogram the jack to support 1 Gbps. To date, no one has requested this change.

Though communication between the ISP and SFHDC allowed for a streamlined installation process, costs could have been even lower had the parties been in contact sooner. Running fiber between the 27 campus-style buildings and entry into each building would have been less expensive during the major construction phase, when other utilities were being upgraded. Likewise, running wires to each unit would have been less expensive when crews were doing similar work, rather than after the fact.

The city since has streamlined efforts to ensure that wiring changes occur simultaneously with housing renovations. DT has plans to connect more than 20 additional public housing complexes in fiscal year 2019–2020.

DOING IT RIGHTMason Carroll and Rhea, lead engineers for Monkeybrains, underscore the importance of not simply installing buildingwide Wi-Fi access. They wanted to offer the same high-quality service to affordable-housing units that all their customers expect.

According to Rhea and Carroll, using a single Wi-Fi access point per building “only invests money to further cement the digital divide by establishing different classes of communications infrastructure for different classes of residents.”

Wi-Fi in the hallways is a nice amenity, say Rhea and Carroll, but it is not a sufficient, long-term solution for connecting the households in these buildings. Because a dozen or so families in each building share internet access, heavy use in a few households can cause severe slowdowns for others. In addition, shared Wi-Fi can be less secure than a private connection, and quality of service can vary tremendously depending on a unit’s location relative to the Wi-Fi access point. As more residents depend on telemedicine in coming years and are generally more connected, hallway Wi-Fi may not adequately meet standard needs.

Though buildingwide Wi-Fi may seem like an easier lift, Monkeybrains says that with the right planning, in-unit connectivity can be as simple and does more to bridge the digital divide. Getting the wiring right from the start may be the difference between a sustainable, low-cost, high-quality

Monkeybrains technicians discuss internet delivery with Leo Sosa of <dev/Mission.>

Phot

o cr

edits

: Mon

keyb

rain

s

FIBER DEPLOYMENT


internet solution and significantly less robust shared Wi-Fi.

With proper design, a building can accommodate multiple ISPs in the future, each serving a different niche. Switching providers could be as easy as moving an Ethernet cable in the server closet from one switch to another. These buildings are expected to last for decades, so any assumptions about their residents’ being less technically sophisticated because of poverty will not stand the test of time.

WIRELESS BACKHAULAt first, Monkeybrains used its hybrid wireless and fiber network to backhaul access from HPEW to the rest of the internet. Specifically, it used fixed wireless on HPEW rooftops to connect HPEW to its local network. Two types of radio dishes were used for the HPEW uplink: The airFiber24 has a link distance range of around 8 miles, and the Siklu EH 1200 can link with dishes about a mile away.

In general, Monkeybrains uses a combination of fiber optic and fixed wireless technology because of the cost and permitting issues associated with installing fiber to every location. In a 2017 interview on ILSR’s Community Broadband Bits podcast, Carroll noted that part of the benefit of wireless in a fast-moving city is its ease of installation. “In a matter of 48 hours, if necessary, we can come out, install a licensed radio link in a point-to-point topology, and deliver full gigabit speed really, really quickly,” Carroll said. Some customers asked for a fiber connection but changed their minds after experiencing the wireless service.

Monkeybrains sometimes decides to take fiber to a building if it uses a lot of capacity or is geographically well-suited to feed nearby radios. Building fiber is expensive – rarely more so than in a crowded city such as San Francisco – and the uncertainty of permitting time is a challenge.

Wireless capacity can be diminished by interference from other radios, heavy precipitation or the construction of an inconveniently tall building between two radios. To avoid the latter, Monkeybrains continually tracks large new buildings in the vicinity of its network.

CITY FIBER Drawing on the momentum from the success of the HPEW project, the city began a pilot program to improve digital access in affordable housing complexes elsewhere in the city, starting with the Robert B. Pitts housing complex, which has 203 units in 34 buildings.

The public safety team in the San Francisco Department of Technology (DT) recognized the benefits of connecting these facilities directly with the city’s fiber for backhaul. The Office of Housing and Community Development approached DT and Monkeybrains about working on Robert B. Pitts and Hunters Point West (one of the buildings in the HPEW complex); the city planned to build out the fiber to the buildings and needed an ISP partner. Hunters Point East eventually received fiber as well.

The city contributed significant resources to replace the faceplates at HPEW so each unit could have at least 100 Mbps. DT rewired Robert B. Pitts to allow gigabit internet connections. Monkeybrains donated all the hardware, switches and core equipment required to light the fiber as well as the labor to bring the households online. Monkeybrains estimates that its costs of setting up Robert B. Pitts, which it donated, were approximately $20,000, split approximately evenly between hardware and labor.

One challenge of keeping operating costs low for low-income households is keeping track of devices, such as the home routers used to create local Wi-Fi networks. Monkeybrains did not want to have to track these devices as families moved in and out, so DT and the Office of Digital Equity set up a program to give routers to residents. Google donated 100 Wi-Fi routers, and Monkeybrains donated 132 routers. Making router management easy can

KEY TAKEAWAYS

To get a program like this one going in your city,

• Find a local champion who either understands this technology or is excited to dive into it.

• Find good partners with the right incentives. Some ISPs will be enthusiastic about projects like these, and others (from small to large) may pass. Understand what motivates your potential partner.

• Research funding options. Plenty of states have created programs to subsidize internet access, but few of these programs are available for urban residents. Consider reaching out to foundations to explain that smart, one-time expenditures can create ongoing, self-sustaining, high-quality internet access.

ILSR and the National Digital Inclusion Alliance can offer help for those who need additional information.

The city of San Francisco is bringing city-owned fiber to affordable-housing complexes so residents can access high-speed internet. The inside wiring is provided by private ISPs.


meaningfully lower the operating expenses of providing internet access in a multitenant building.

DIGITAL LITERACYA fast, affordable connection is a key part of bridging the digital divide for low-income populations. However, once people are connected to high-speed internet access, they need literacy to maximize benefits and safety.

CTN has been involved in digital literacy since 2001, working with libraries, senior centers and affordable housing to provide services to individuals who previously lacked adequate internet access. For three years, with support from CASF, CTN has worked in affordable-housing developments to promote access to the digital world through training programs that focus on basic digital literacy. Email and internet safety, job search and social media connectedness are the main priorities. Those who complete the three-part, eight-hour training get a free device to join the internet.

With support from the San Francisco Department of Aging and Adult Services, CTN also offers one-on-one responsive tutoring to walk-in clients at computer labs in the partners’ spaces. CTN operates in more than 20 affordable-housing complexes in the Bay Area, in both senior and multifamily residential developments.

In the first six months that CTN offered services at Hunters Point West and Bayview, 17 students graduated from its training program. CTN still operates at those housing sites, and an organization called <dev/Mission> offers IT training and coding classes to young adults. CTN and housing managers promote adoption of technology and digital literacy after the barriers to access have been eliminated. CTN also helps lighten the customer support load for Monkeybrains, keeping operating costs low enough to offer fast access at low prices.

Customer service is Monkeybrains’ single costliest ongoing expense. When a building is properly wired, costs to the ISP range from $60–$100 per unit in one-time expenses. The bandwidth cost per unit per month is less than $1, and other expenses are similarly low,

except providing help-desk support. And even there, if a local digital literacy effort can be a first line of help, Monkeybrains believes its model is sustainable at a cost of $10 per month per unit – for a gigabit.

PULLING IT ALL TOGETHEROnce a community decides universal broadband access is a priority and understands the basic economics of deploying broadband in different scenarios, the opportunities for closing the digital divide broaden immensely. Even in a large city, where bureaucratic silos and industry bottom lines can cloud community outreach, the case of San Francisco and Monkeybrains shows that a few committed stakeholders can make a difference for digital inclusion.

In American urban centers today, very few households lack access to other basic infrastructure, such as roads, running water and electricity. The case should be no different for broadband internet access.

Monkeybrains saw the decision to bring gigabit capability to each unit in the housing complexes as a way to demonstrate its belief that broadband is an essential utility.

“This is the infrastructural part of ‘bridging the digital divide’ at the level of access – fiber, a solid radio backup and top-grade carrier infrastructure right to the unit, just as would be expected in a well-resourced luxury condo building,” Rhea explained.

What makes this project stand out is not only the manageable upfront and operating costs but also the fact that a few simple yet key decisions during the renovation process made the project sustainable for years to come.

Monkeybrains is helping San Francisco harness its dark fiber assets to provide internet connectivity to low-income housing. The city has

expertise in building fiber assets. Monkeybrains can provide access on that fiber and support individual users. The Department of Technology Office of Digital Equity, through CTN and others, offers training and home routers to drive adoption. This combination offers a model for true digital equity. v

Hannah Rank is a researcher and master’s in public policy candidate at the Humphrey School of Public Affairs. Christopher Mitchell is director of the Community Broadband Networks initiative at the Institute for Local Self-Reliance (ILSR). This article is adapted from a report published by the ILSR, which is available at https://ilsr.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/sf-broadband-public-housing-2019.pdf.

The digital literacy training that CTN provides residents of affordable housing helps minimize ISP customer support expenses, which keeps the costs of access low.

Installing a wireless antenna on an HPEW rooftop

FIBER DEPLOYMENT


Missouri Innovation Center Takes Advantage of Gig ServicesStartup businesses use broadband to compete and grow.


The home of the University of Missouri, Columbia is fast becoming one of the Midwest’s new business innovation hubs.

One major reason is the Missouri Innovation Center (MIC) and a fiber pipe from Mediacom.

The cable MSO extended its fiber to enable 1 Gbps internet service for the center, which serves as a startup company incubator. The MIC offers startup businesses mentoring, financial support and resources for conducting research and development.

Launched in 1984, the MIC is part of the state’s initiative to create economic development support systems through its universities. The University of Missouri is the home of the country’s largest research reactor, which makes radioisotopes used for medical imaging and developing new drugs. In 2009, the university selected the MIC to operate and maintain the MU Life Science Incubator at Monsanto Place. In 2016, the center expanded its role to support technology startups in fields that include health care, precision agriculture, media, education, financial services and online marketplaces.

The MIC is one of several locations dedicated to supporting innovation. Missouri’s nine innovation centers, which run independently, are overseen by a statewide agency called the Missouri Technology Corporation.

Other locations include large facilities in St. Louis and Kansas City. The remaining centers are in smaller towns and cities throughout the state.

Bill Turpin, president and CEO of the MIC, says being collocated with the University of Missouri gives new businesses hatched inside the university immediate access to resources.

“The cool thing for us is, we’re right by this major research university,” Turpin says. “A big part of our mission is to help faculty spin out businesses in the life sciences.”

Turpin adds that, in addition to supporting a mix of new companies developing energy technologies, engineering and medical devices germinated inside the university, the Columbia MIC works with startups throughout the state and in other locations.

“We serve a broader charter with support for community and other startups from the area,” Turpin says. “Occasionally, we even have companies that move here from other countries or other parts of the United States.”

Turpin has plenty of experience running startup companies and leading IT installation efforts. Prior to joining the MIC, he was the founding CEO of four startups and a senior executive at public companies, including Netscape, where he participated in the internet company’s 1995 IPO.

After several years of working in Silicon Valley, Turpin returned to Columbia to share his experiences and provide guidance to new companies.

BROADBAND IS A NECESSITY Many MIC businesses collaborate with clients and partners in various regions and countries,


so high-speed broadband is more than nice to have – it’s a requirement.

Mediacom provides the MIC a dedicated fiber connection, allowing incubator companies to access big data in the cloud and share files. All members of the MIC share the 1 Gbps connection. But because the facility has a limited number of clients, the burst throughput for any one client can often be close to 1 Gbps.

Because of his technical background, Turpin drove the MIC’s IT and internet services strategy. He says broadband is important for emerging companies to compete.

“We wanted the incubators and the companies to have equal footing with companies elsewhere in the world,” Turpin says. “Broadband is one of the key things you have to have to be an entry player.”

One of the MIC startups taking advantage of the Mediacom fiber-based 1 Gbps service is StoryUP, the developer of Healium, a biometrically controlled, drugless solution for stress. This “digiceutical” application is powered by the user’s feelings of love and calm via a VR headset and proprietary technology.

High-speed connectivity enables StoryUP to talk to clients in diverse areas, including Spain, Slovenia and the West Coast, and to back up its data, archive files and protect assets.

Any one of StoryUP’s video projects could consist of 5 terabytes of data. When it puts these virtual reality feeds together, the company sometimes pools data from several cameras. From

there, the data is sent to the cloud, and the cloud-based application stitches it together and sends it back down.

Sarah Hill, CEO of StoryUP, says that without broadband, the company would struggle to conduct business activities.

“You can imagine how putting enormous amounts of data into the cloud and bringing it down would require a fast internet connection,” Hill says. “The internet is like water for us because if we don’t have it, we cannot create virtual reality.”

Prior to using the gigabit connection, StoryUP had to cobble together connections from various sources. “We would have to wait hours and go to different sites and almost have to borrow internet service from a bunch of different sites to upload different shots,” Hill says. “We couldn’t do it all at once or we would have clogged up the system, but with gigabit connectivity, we don’t have to parse together different internet connections.”

SIMPLE INSTALLATION PROCESSBecause Mediacom had already installed fiber near the MIC location, connecting the facility was a simple process.

To get its fiber into the Columbia MIC, Mediacom only had to run a lateral path into the building from a nearby pole on the street. A Mediacom crew later showed up and trenched fiber into the building.

“The process to get the service installed was pretty easy,” Turpin says. “After Mediacom sent an engineer [to

our site], it turned out the fiber was on a utility pole in front of our building.”

MIC’s proximity to Mediacom fiber is an example of how businesses have benefited from the company’s Project Open Road initiative.

Launched in 2016, Project Open Road set about to put gigabit internet speeds within immediate reach of more local businesses, using fiber and hybrid fiber coax–based DOCSIS 3.1. Project Open Road is part of Mediacom’s broader plan to invest $1 billion over three years to upgrade and expand its national broadband network.

Targeting previously unserved and underserved business locations, Mediacom Business built its facilities to the doorsteps of commercial properties. Project Open Road also sought to eliminate issues related to construction costs and installation time frames.

As CEO of the MIC, Turpin wears multiple hats, including IT director. He installed the routers and associated equipment to take advantage of Mediacom’s 1 Gbps connection.

“We’re a small, four-person nonprofit, so we don’t have an IT staff,” Turpin says. “I had a hard time finding a router that would do network address translation fast enough to keep up with the gigabit fiber connection. I found one on Amazon and installed it myself in my spare time.”

As the MIC building was already wired for internet – including a University of Missouri connection – Turpin has been selectively migrating businesses such as StoryUP to the 1 Gbps connection.

Life science companies started by University of Missouri faculty develop in the MIC incubator.

FIBER DEPLOYMENT


He says what makes the Mediacom service better is that “we don’t have a lot of the restrictions that the university has placed on us because we have unfettered gigabit access.”

However, Turpin adds, some university faculty-related businesses want to stay on the university network.

ATTRACTING DIVERSE BUSINESSESCreating the MIC was a collaborative process. Turpin and the University of Missouri drafted a federal Economic

Development Administration grant application, planning that the MIC would manage the facility.

“All along, the plan was for us to manage it for them,” Turpin says. “We jointly constructed it with the university.”

Because the isotope reactor is across the street from the MIC, the location is convenient for cancer-related startups to develop solutions.

One company that decided to relocate to Columbia to take advantage of the reactor and the university’s R&D

capabilities is Tensive Controls. The company is developing new cancer drugs and conducting trials on dogs.

Owners of the dogs that participate in these trials, which are recruited through the University of Missouri School of Veterinary Medicine, don’t have to pay anything.

“If you do a drug trial on a mouse, there’s less than a 50 percent chance you’ll get the same result in a human,” Turpin says. “But if you do a trial on a dog, there’s a 90 percent chance it will work in a human.”

DRIVING COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENTA key goal of all the innovation centers is to drive economic development across the entire state of Missouri.

For the MIC, the match with Mediacom came at a relevant time, particularly as the cable MSO decided that Columbia would be one of its network buildout targets.

“We needed the broadband, and Mediacom is pretty active in our community,” Turpin says. “We’re one of the communities they decided to become more active in, and they looked at communities where they could make a big difference.”

Turpin adds, “We found that we had a common goal of helping small companies here in town that would also help provide references for larger companies that are interested in Mediacom.”

Columbia is not in a remote, rural area; it is a big university town with more than 120,000 residents. However, it is in a “flyover zone” that most site selectors don’t initially think about.

But Turpin says that having sound broadband enables it and its surrounding community to be more competitive. “I believe the internet and broadband access is one of those things that levels the playing field [to the point] where Missouri can compete against anywhere else in the world,” he says. v


“Broadband access is one of those things that levels the playing field to the point where Missouri can compete against anywhere else in the world.”

Help your community compete & thrive.

Reliable, community-based broadband opens the door to countless opportunities for the people you serve. EPB Broadband Solutions offers the expertise and resources you need to reduce financial risk and accelerate your speed-to-market, boosting your ability

to build a better future for your community.

Visit us at booth #1022 to learn more.

10 West M.L. King Blvd. Chattanooga, TN 37402 | [email protected] | 423-648-1279

SUMMIT COVERAGE


Fiber Moves ForwardSpeakers at the 2019 BroadBand Communities Summit, held in Austin in April, agreed that every community wants – and needs – great broadband. How best to deliver great broadband to MDUs, master-planned communities, underserved towns and rural areas is still up for debate, however. Following are some highlights of speaker presentations.

A BBC Staff Report

CenturyLink and Verizon agree fiber is the future for their last-mile networks, but in the Conversation With the Big

Carriers session, they expressed different points of view about what to do with their legacy copper networks.

CenturyLink, which deepened its business and wholesale service lines with fiber gained via its acquisition of Level 3, is not trying to migrate customers from copper. Dan O’Connell, senior director of consumer markets for CenturyLink, said the company plans to maintain dual

networks of copper and fiber: “Where we do fiber builds, we will run copper and fiber in parallel, and I am not aware of any strategy that says that is going to change anytime soon.”

CenturyLink, the slowest of the major telcos to build FTTH, is moving to expand its consumer fiber reach. “In terms of coverage, fiber expansion is an ongoing initiative,” O’Connell said. “If you ask anyone from the CEO all the way down what the company’s No. 1 mission is, it’s fiber expansion to bring these capabilities to our consumer base as quickly as we possibly can.”

O’Connell added that “the pace of the fiber expansion is accelerating, and you can expect over the next five years that a large percentage of our residential base will have fiber.”

Verizon, on the other hand, is actively retiring copper plant in parts of its Northeast wireline footprint. Although it has slowed the pace of its Fios buildout, it continues to roll out fiber in select markets.

Michael Weston, senior leader, Verizon Enhanced Communities, told attendees that it is “aggressively deploying fiber” to reach about 25 million households in its territory.

In a recent FCC filing, Verizon asked to retire copper in several parts of New York, New England and Pennsylvania as it continues moving customers to fiber-based technology. Specifically, Verizon is addressing 50 wire centers in New

Verizon, CenturyLink Diverge on Copper Retirement

IN-BUILDING WIRELESSShawn Cullingford, Ruckus Networks: Never put wireless access points in the hallways of multifamily buildings! WAPs are now critical infrastructure. Their bandwidth drops off very quickly with distance because they operate at high frequencies, so they should be placed as close as possible to tenants. In addition, a hallway is a radio-frequency wind tunnel, and if its walls are constructed with chicken wire in plaster, it will act as a Faraday cage, blocking electromagnetic fields. Multiple WAPs may be required for each unit.

Shawn Cullingford, Ruckus Networks


York City. The copper retirement plans in New England will target four wire centers in Massachusetts.

“It’s a lot like having a Microsoft Windows 1995 computer, as I do, in the

basement,” Weston said. “It still works fine, but Microsoft no longer supports Windows 95, and for good reason: It’s outdated, and the company is putting its capital toward newer and more modern

technology.” Weston added, “We’re doing the same thing by bringing people off the copper network as part of our strategy. Copper, by definition, is subject to degradation from the elements.”

Broadband, Smart Technologies Drive Housing ChoicesConsumers’ choices of home purchases and apartment rentals are increasingly influenced by the presence of broadband connections.

Service providers and property managers outlined their responses to this trend.

Telcos and cable operators are equipping more single-family and MDU locations in their footprints with higher-speed broadband via fiber or HFC-based services. Meanwhile, property developers are taking advantage of the latest technologies to deliver higher speeds to consumers.

CENTURYLINK, COMCAST FAN OUT BROADBANDCenturyLink, which recently enhanced its MDU division by bringing on telecom and cable veteran Dan O’Connell as senior director of consumer markets, is finding new growth opportunities for consumer broadband using a mix of fiber and hybrid technologies such as G.fast.

For example, O’Connell’s team focuses on securing agreements with residential real estate developers, owners and property management companies, and delivers CenturyLink ON technology to new developments. This technology enables residents to activate symmetrical internet service up to 1 gigabit in minutes, without help from a CenturyLink technician.

“Broadband connectivity is a critical component of the household,” O’Connell said. “It is key for life simplification.”

O’Connell added that providers need to ensure the service delivery and overall experience is smooth.

“We can’t lose sight of the when, how, what and where that residents demand service,” he said. “How and what that experience is, is just as critical

in this process as the service itself and the price point.”

Having built out 1 Gbps capabilities across its HFC footprint, Comcast noted in its first-quarter earnings report that it had added 375,000 new broadband subscribers.

The cable MSO is seeing more consumers base apartment rental decisions on the presence of broadband. “According to our surveys, 94 percent of residents said internet service was a major factor in their rental decisions,” said Mike Slovin, vice president of national field sales, Xfinity Communities, during the same panel.

PROPERTY OWNERS, PROVIDERS BANK ON THE GIGProperty owners and providers serving planned communities also see the value of broadband connections.

Speaking on the Great Communities panel, representatives of the Whisper Valley and Walsh Ranch communities explained how fiber-based broadband makes their communities attractive to buyers.

Working with Google Fiber, Whisper Valley delivers 1 Gbps to each home in its community in Austin, Texas. Besides offering smart-home and energy services, the company sees broadband as a key amenity, particularly for telecommuters who require broadband to conduct daily work.

Kara Weinstein, homeowners association and lifestyle director for Whisper Valley, said potential home buyers tell her broadband is at the top

of their priority lists in considering new homes.

“A third of all the people I talk to about Whisper Valley are looking specifically for communities that have dependable, fast internet service,” she said. Weinstein added, “If our EcoSmart system, which includes geothermal [heat pumps] and solar panels, is our bones, high-speed internet service is our nervous system.”

A similar trend is taking place at the Walsh development in Fort Worth, Texas. As the development’s lead service provider, Frog offers consumers a low-cost migration path to 10G. “Every home is connected at a minimum of 2 Gbps, and we offer residential upgrades of up to 10 Gbps for less than $200 a month per resident,” said Michael Voll, CEO of Frog.

Additionally, Frog equipped the Walsh community with small cells to support future 5G deployments.

“We’re not just focused on the wireline side,” Voll said. “We’re working with the wireless providers on deploying small-cell nodes throughout the community for 5G coverage and building for the future.”

The company uses high-speed connections to enable services such as telehealth, musical playgrounds and an augmented-reality map of the community.

Voll said the endgame for its wireline and wireless technology is to empower members of the Walsh community by “creating a place that will inspire human innovation for every resident and every business.”

Ninety-four percent of residents said internet service was a major factor in rental decisions.

SUMMIT COVERAGE


Run Muni Networks Like Businesses, Not Like City HallA community that wants to run a network business must realize that good business practices, not politics, should rule decision-making. In other words, municipal network operators must have clearly developed operational plans.

Panelists in the Lessons Learned From Turnaround Communities session agreed that to overcome the perception that municipal networks are not feasible, community leaders must be willing to listen to new points of view.

Consider Highland, Illinois-based Highland Communication Services, a provider that offers residential customers 1 Gbps service for $70 a month. When Angela Imming became director of technology and innovation for the city of Highland, the municipal service provider faced the challenges of flat ARPU and inflated video fees. Imming said what kept Highland from moving forward was a lack of focus. “Our take rate was flat because we had not convinced people to leave the perch of Charter Communications,” she said. “The big question was, why were we doing this? As soon as we were able to find the answer, we refocused.”

NETWORKS ARE DIFFERENTMunicipal providers must also learn that running a network effectively differs from running other town or city operations.

Before hiring Don Patten as the general manager in 2014, MINET, a municipal provider that serves the cities of Monmouth and Independence,

Oregon, faced issues with operations, billing, documentation and marketing.

Patten’s first order of business was to analyze how the business could be realigned and persuade the board to listen to new ideas.

“After realizing that MINET could be salvaged, one commitment I had to get from everybody involved was that members would be willing to listen to adult conversations and make the place efficient so we could get on with running the business,” Patten said.

A six-member board, three from each community, runs the municipal provider. “Unfortunately, whenever you have government involved in something, you have politics involved in it,” Patten said. “When you have politics involved in it, you have the need to candy coat everything. When you candy coat everything, that is the recipe for failure in our business.”

Imming noted that, besides getting its operations in order, Highland Communication Services had to persuade others that running a network is not like running a water department.

“For the city of Highland, one of the toughest barriers to overcome is that municipalities can build and operate a network, but it can’t be operated like city hall or the other utilities,” she said.

In Salisbury, North Carolina, network organizers had to overcome not only state legislature leaders but also incumbent providers that did not want a new competitor.

“We had significant areas of the business population saying, ‘You don’t need to do this,’” said David Post, mayor pro tem for the city of Salisbury. “We also faced a massive PR campaign against us.”

FOCUS ON OVERSIGHT, EXPERTISEPolitics is only one challenge for municipal providers. Creating tight cost controls and marketing services correctly are also requirements for success.

To avoid problems, municipal providers need to exercise oversight of their financial processes and spending.

Utah-based open-access operator UTOPIA, which has seen its share of ups and downs throughout its existence, has found solid new ground and embarked on a new life, adding cities, retail providers and subscribers.

In its early years, UTOPIA, one of the first U.S. municipal networks, made mistakes caused by lack of experience. In addition, it was hampered by the state legislature and by a lawsuit from Qwest, now CenturyLink. Qwest accused UTOPIA of creating unfair competition that allowed its contractors to sell services at below-market prices.

Roger Timmerman, executive director and CEO of UTOPIA Fiber, said, “We got a lot of good people with good intentions, and the economics did not pan out. I would encourage any community embarking on a fiber project to do its homework. Then, have a level of in-house expertise to scrutinize the spending and purchasing decisions.”

Timmerman added “If you go and just fill your shopping cart, you’re toast. But if you pick the right partners that are efficient, you will have a successful project.”

In Salisbury, network builders had to face off against anti-municipal broadband marketing campaigns. “We found ourselves having to compete with big boys that were spending more marketing dollars to have people not use us than our entire revenue base,” Post said.

HEDGING AGAINST UNCERTAINTYBryan Rader, UpStream Network: The multifamily industry always oversupplies housing, and eventually it will have to lower rents. The best strategy for broadband providers is a long-term bulk internet contract. That has a guaranteed rate of return. It’s bankable. No one knows what will happen over 10 years, so a bulk platform is a vehicle for predictability.

Bryan Rader, UpStream Network


To overcome this issue, Salisbury created a network operation agreement with Hotwire, which leases the network and provides services. “A few

years ago, we ended up in a public-private partnership where we still own the infrastructure,” Post said. “Municipalities have to spend the

money to build the infrastructure, and we lease the facility and get the revenues. I think we’re going to end up on the plus side.”

5G Is Nothing Without Deep FiberThough wireless operators are excited to build out 5G wireless – a technology that promises theoretical speeds up to 1 Gbps – the reality is that 5G won’t work without a large amount of last-mile fiber in neighborhoods. The remote small-cell radio nodes that will carry millimeter-wave signals to homes and businesses will depend on fiber for backhaul and fronthaul.

Angie Kronenberg, chief advocate and general counsel for INCOMPAS, said rolling out enough fiber to enable 5G is a national problem, and all stakeholders need to help solve it, not only for 5G but also for a host of consumer and business services.

“We don’t have enough fiber in the United States as compared with other countries,” Kronenberg said. “On top of that, 5G will require tons of fiber. The densification of fiber at every small antenna will need to be our nation’s goal.”

Drew Clark, chairman and publisher of BroadbandBreakfast.com and president of the Rural Telecommuni cations Congress, agreed: “You can’t get 5G without deploying fiber deeper into the neighborhoods.”

VERIZON BULKS UP FIBER ARSENALWireless operators, including Verizon and AT&T, have been ramping up their fiber deployments to support 5G and other services.

Verizon turned on its 5G Ultra-Wideband network in select areas of Minneapolis and Chicago a week ahead of schedule. It claims customers in Chicago and Minneapolis should expect typical download speeds of 450 Mbps, with peak speeds of nearly 1 Gbps and latency of less than 30 milliseconds.

The wireless operator plans to equip 20 additional cities with the 5G Ultra-Wideband network in 2019, with more to come throughout the year.

As it anticipated building a backbone network to support 5G, Verizon bulked up its fiber arsenal, signing multibillion-dollar contracts with Corning and Prysmian in 2017. These fiber agreements will support wireline builds as well as wireless as part of Verizon’s One Fiber initiative to speed 5G deployment, densify its 4G LTE coverage and provide broadband services to homes and businesses.

Verizon signed a $1.1 billion, three-year fiber and hardware purchase agreement with Corning, enhancing its capacity to support the next-generation fiber platform it needs. Under the terms of that agreement, Verizon is purchasing up to 12.4 million miles of optical fiber each year from 2018 through 2020.

Later, Verizon named Prysmian as an additional supplier of fiber cable to support its 4G and 5G wireless and wireline broadband plans, signing a $300 million deal with that company.

Under the terms of the three-year contract, Prysmian will supply Verizon with more than 10.6 million miles of ribbon and loose-tube cables.

“To do 5G, we’re driving fiber deeper and deeper into the deployment, so we’re becoming more of a fiber company,” said Michael Weston,

senior leader for Verizon Enhanced Communities.

AT&T GETS FIBER WISEAT&T is no less aggressive with its 5G network and accompanying fiber builds.

Having launched its mobile 5G network in parts of 12 cities in December 2018, the service provider plans to deploy mobile 5G in parts of seven additional cities in the first half of 2019.

Like Verizon, AT&T is deploying fiber to fit various wireline and wireless needs under its “fiber wise” strategy.

Whether for fiber to the business, fiber to the home or fiber to the picocell site for 5G densification, AT&T is deploying fiber deep in its network. Over three years, the service provider spent roughly $130 billion between its fiber network, wireless ugrades and the FirstNet network.

“At the end of the day, fiber is fundamental to expanding our networking capabilities,” said Jackie Arbour, general manager, national sales and mixed-use, AT&T Connected Communities, during the Big Carriers panel. “It’s fundamental to expanding our 5G network, and it’s fundamental to our ultra-fast, highly personalized customer experience that consumers are looking for.”

THE SWISS CHEESE PROBLEM Jim Baller, Baller Stokes & Lide: If you can’t overbuild 10 Mbps/1 Mbps networks, and you have to deal with a world that looks like the holes in Swiss cheese, that’s going to put a significant constraint on the intelligent use of the $600 million [ReConnect fund for rural broadband].”

Jim Baller, Baller Stokes & Lide

SUMMIT COVERAGE


WHAT ABOUT RURAL AREAS?Clark said during the Big Picture panel that the most likely scenario is that

wireless operators will concentrate their 5G rollout efforts in Tier 1 cities.

“To the extent we get something that’s 5G, according to the standards,

you’re going see it in denser markets,” Clark said. “We still have a long way to go before we get 4G networks in rural America.”

Community Broadband and TelehealthCraig Settles, CJ Speaks: Why should a community broadband network care about providing telehealth? Here are four reasons:

1 If a network’s mission includes improving quality of life, telehealth is a good way to do that.

2 A strong telehealth service makes customers loyal to the network. This can be especially important if the network faces competition.

3 A telehealth service can boost economic development in the

community by providing jobs for medical personnel.

4 Ready accessibility to health services strengthens the community’s viability.

Milton Chen, VSee and This American Doc: Three recommendations for community broadband networks considering launching a telehealth service:

1 Provide network testing and setup services for the system’s users. For

people to accept telehealth, it has to work seamlessly.

2 Offer consulting for medical professionals to help them understand legal, billing and related issues. Medical professionals won’t sign up to provide telehealth services unless these problems are solved ahead of time.

3 Offer a broad selection of localized telehealth services, including medical, nursing, pharmacy and digital home monitoring.

Addressing MDU Deployment Challenges

5G Wireless Inside MDU Buildings: Yes or No?

Cory Douglas, Pavlov Media: When deploying broadband in an existing building, make sure you understand who owns the cabling infrastructure. We’ve found cases where the owner had invested in the infrastructure in a building but wasn’t aware of it. That makes the difference between being able to reuse the infrastructure and having to put in all new wiring.

HVAC and power in the communications rooms can also be challenging – you may need more than one circuit. Check the bonding and

grounding throughout the property because lightning and other electrical problems can ruin electronics.

Make sure there are good vertical and horizontal pathways. Sometimes an owner thinks a building has good conduit, but it may not be passable, or even there. In a high-rise, make sure the fill ratio in the conduits is acceptable – is there room to add more wiring? If you have to add vertical pathways, find out whether the owner is OK with conduit going up the side of a building – putting the pathways inside is costlier. When there is no horizontal conduit down the hallways, be prepared for construction and repair. The result has to look good!

In garden or cottage apartment communities, you will have underground drilling, trenching, and cutting up sidewalks and driveways as

well as work inside the buildings. It can be pretty intense.

Find out where the fiber enclosures will be placed. Ideally, they should be in back of the building, but you have to have conversations about that with the owner early on. Similarly, inside the units, find out whether the ONTs should be placed in living rooms or hidden in closets.

For a deployment in new construction, try to get involved in the planning phase. Ask questions: Should we put conduit down a corridor? Should we future-proof the building now for lower operational expenses down the road? That’s a business decision to be made in the early stage of the project.

And don’t downsize the communications room!

Kara Mullaley, Corning Optical Communications: Inside buildings, we already have infrastructure that can manage many devices. I don’t personally know how 5G is needed in my home right now unless I’m a day trader or hosting my own video website.

Taylor Jones, Boingo Wireless: I disagree. People will see a dropoff in speed when they walk into an MDU building from the outside, so owners will have to extend 5G into their buildings.

Shawn Cullingford, Ruckus Networks: It’s going to be hard to penetrate buildings with 5G. 5G will be good for stadiums and highways, but it will be a losing proposition for residential buildings.

Cory Douglas, Pavlov Media


Rural Broadband Funding Models: Katahdin Fiber Network Lindsey Brannon, Neighborly: In the Katahdin Fiber Network project, several underserved communities are looking to connect to the Three Ring Binder, Maine’s middle-mile network, to help drive economic development. Neighborly, by pooling private investments to fund the network, is helping to revitalize the area, of which about 82 percent is designated as opportunity zones. [Opportunity zones were created by the 2017 tax law as an incentive for investors to reinvest unrealized capital gains into distressed areas.]

Neighborly will own the network originally, but it will be branded as the community’s.

Most of the investors in the project are high-net-worth individuals; there is also funding from a technology company. We’re bringing together private investors with local banks. To

be eligible for this type of funding, a community should want to own the network eventually so there will be an exit opportunity for the investors. The investors are venture capitalists, not long-term owners.

Once we get the Katahdin Fiber Network up and running, the municipalities can take out bonds, which they can’t do now because there aren’t any revenues. In addition, bringing in partners from the outside is important. Without statewide support, this project might not be as suitable.

We’re using local nonprofits to spread the word about the project.

We hold community engagement events to recruit fiber champions for the neighborhoods and tell potential customers how to sign up for service. Mainers are very determined and community focused.

Eventually, about 4,000 residents will be connected, mostly to fiber but some to a fiber-fed wireless tower. We’re partnering with an ISP that wants to make an impact. The goal is to get the network to the point of being self-sustaining so it can build fiber to remote areas. The project is a proof of concept that we can extend to other areas of Maine.

Fiber Versus Fixed Wireless for Rural AreasKeith Montgomery, Declaration Networks Group: There are now some really good wireless technologies. Using a wireless network, some kids recently invented a mechanical hand that can pick up a dime, and they won the National Science Award. You need a toolbelt with lots of tools. First see where people live and what their services are, then figure out what works for them.

We don’t supply upload speeds below 10 Mbps, particularly for small and medium-sized businesses. Even in a residence, the more people there are in a house, the more speed they need. Another critical issue is latency. Old wireless technologies had bad latency; transactions were always rewinding and couldn’t complete. Newer wireless technology has lower latency, so the transactions complete, and there is more capacity in the network.

Jameson Zimmer, BroadbandNow.com: Fixed wireless tends to have high customer satisfaction rates. People mostly approach their internet connections as good or bad. Above a

certain point, they stop noticing. Below that point, they get upset. People don’t tend to notice upload speed as much unless they’re telecommuting. There’s a huge economic impact for symmetrical gigabit service, but not for the average user.

Keith Gabbard, PRTC: 10 Mbps symmetrical is OK for telecommuters. Some can’t keep their jobs if they can’t find that.Christopher Ali, University of Virginia: People need symmetrical speeds for work. Winnebago, Minnesota, has an agricultural drone company that uploads terabytes per day. It has fiber to the building and could not exist in Winnebago without that.

Keith Gabbard: Is it reasonable to say that wireless is temporary but fiber is the end game? Well, that’s a good goal, but it may not be achievable. It’s all about money. It’s going to take a while.

Keith Montgomery: For really remote areas, wireless can be 1/20th the cost of fiber to the home. Also, people want to be mobile and secure.

Christopher Ali: Precision agriculture is the coolest thing. Getting the signal out to the fields is important – there are a number of connected devices, including tractors. It’s a regulatory issue. Regulators think about a farm as a home, not a business. Dedicated funding is needed to move toward cropland broadband.

THE FIRST-MOVER ADVANTAGEMichael Wachtmann, RTC Fiber Communications: First to fiber wins.

There’s a huge economic impact for symmetrical gigabit service for telecommuters, but not for the average user.

SUMMIT COVERAGE


News From the Expo Floor

Dura-Line’s FuturePath line (www.duraline.com) includes multiple variations of duct and microduct bound together with an oversheath for easy placement. The duct slides against the sheath so it can be delivered on spools. The ducts are lined with long-lasting, superslick silicone to reduce friction during cable placement. Reduced-diameter microcable ducts like those shown can accommodate up to 432 fibers. For outside use, these ducts are normally made of HPDE, but they can be manufactured in fire- and smoke-resistant plastics for risers, plenums and so forth. Kentucky-based Blue Diamond industries (www.bdiky.com) offers a

full line of conduit for telecom and other applications. Lengths of HPDE conduit are often joined by aluminum couplers with interior barbs that hold fast. Here are a few examples.

In a re-imagining of technology that many considered obsolescent, G.hn from Positron (www.positronaccess.com) can deliver gigabit broadband inside an MDU, even over old RG-59 coax. Positron offers 12- and 24-port solutions (using coax, one port can serve multiple customers). The price/performance ratio is attractive for a wide range of wiring types, including good twisted pair cable, and the management software is solid.

Multicom’s MUL-HDENC-C-100 HD digital encoder (for converting HDMI to QAM) caught our eye because it costs less than $600, is tiny and has a nice, web-based control interface. The prices for this equipment category have been coming down – they are typically only half what they were a year ago. This is another example of why private cable operators, MDU owners and managers who priced a broadband upgrade last year and put the idea aside should reconsider. See https://multicomstore.com.

S:7”S:10”

T:7.875”T:10.75”

B:8.125”B:11”

FONTS: ITC Zapf Dingbats Std (Medium; OpenType), ATT Aleck Sans (Medium Italic, Medium, Light, Thin; OpenType), ATT Aleck Cmp (Light; OpenType) • LAYERS: type and logo, background, Slug Cubed, Crop Cubed • IMAGES: 19FBR_MDU_BBC_Mar_Apr_AD_M1R.tif (CMYK; 300 ppi; 100%), att_fiber_lgt_4cp_wht_rev.ai (27.47%), att_hz_lkp_4cp_rev.ai (25.17%)

4-18-2019 2:32 PMPrinted at: 4-18-2019 2:30 PMLast saved:From: NCSMD03SS940PSCHMIDT, STEPHANIEUser: 1None

Page #:Print %:

MDU2237_BBC_May_June_AD_M2R.inddMacintosh HD:Users:ss940p:Desktop:MDU2237_BBC_May_June_AD_M2R.indd

RELEASE

_____ Proofreader

_____ CD Art

_____ ACD Art

_____ AD

_____ CD Copy

_____ Copywriter

_____ Photo Editor

_____ Accounts

_____ Studio

_____ Print Production

TRIMLIVE/SAFETYBLEED

Folded SizeGutterPanel Size

7.875" x 10.75"7" x 10"8.125" x 11"

NoneNoneNone

INKS: Cyan, Magenta, Yellow, Black

TO DO: Edits as Marked Create Comp Mech/Re-Mech FPO Art Place Final Art Resize Call AD

PDF: Low Res X1A To Trim Size Crops NO Slug NO Tab Dieline NO Pink Strip NO Dieline

PROOF:_______________%

GRACoL SWOP3 (Circ/Mag) Newsprint (ISO) Uncoated Lightweight Coated Photo

Notes:RELEASE: See Spec Sheet Brand Muscle Simian Collect for Insight CFO NOT for release CFO For Release X1A For Release

X1A & LR in Release Layer PSD release JPEG release DSTO Setting Email files to PM Edits and Release

Single Pages Spreads Under 5 MBs Under 10 MBs Interactive Mobile/Web Create JPEG

OUTPUT: New Laser Separations Comp ______% Mounting:

Foam or Board White or Black

NY Creative Services

● Ultra-fast Internet starting with a 1000 Mbps connection.*

● Residents will enjoy fast, reliable coverage with our latest Wi-Fi technology, including Wi-Fi calling capability.

PUT YOUR NEW

BUILDING FRONT AND CENTER

*Actual customer speeds may vary and are not guaranteed. Download speeds are typically up to 940 Mbps due to overhead capacity reserved to deliver the data. Speeds may also vary based on factors including site traffic, content provider server capacity, internal network management factors, and end user device capabilities. For more information, go to att.com/speed101. ©2019 AT&T Intellectual Property. All Rights Reserved. AT&T, the AT&T logo and all other AT&T marks contained herein are trademarks of AT&T Intellectual Property and/or AT&T affiliated companies.

Limited availability in select areas. May not be available in your area.

Visit att.com/fiberproperties for more information.

April 27 – 30, 2020HOUSTON, TXMarriott Marquis Houston

MARK YOUR CALENDAR

TO SPONSOR OR EXHIBIT: email: [email protected] | phone: 505-867-3299

twitter.com/bbcmag

The Leading Broadband Event for Multi-Housing, Commercial Properties, and Communities

877-588-1649 | www.bbcmag.com

“Thanks for a great Summit in Austin. Wonderful reconnecting with old friends and meeting new ones!” David Hoover, The Ferguson Group

“The Summit is the perfect place to debut hands-on demos,” Molly Gilbert, Dura-Line

“Thanks, Broadband Communities, for another great Summit! This was the best,” Kevin Mitchell, Alianza

“The conference grows each year, and the projects are more ‘shovel-ready’ now and not just concepts as community networks proliferate,” Sean Dundon, VETRO FiberMap

“I met some great contacts for USDA!” Jason Cook, Walton County Board of County Commisioners

“It was a great conference. The panels were filled with a lot of experience,” Nick Pexton, Mid-State Consultants

Here’s what attendees are saying about the 2019 Summit! Make plans to attend the 2020 Summit now.

APRIL 27 – 30, 2020 • HOUSTON SUMMIT

“I met many new persons and learned a lot,” William Patterson, Delta-Montrose Electric

“The Summit was a fantastic opportunity for Render to connect and learn,” Sam Pratt, Render Networks

O U R G U I D E T O T H E S H O WFiber Connect 2019

48 WELCOME TO FIBER CONNECT! by Lisa R. Youngers / Fiber Broadband Association

50 EXHIBITOR BOOTH GUIDE

52 DON’T-MISS SESSIONS AT FIBER CONNECT by Masha Zager / Broadband Communities

54 FEATURED EXHIBITORS AT FIBER CONNECT

58 NEWS FROM FEATURED EXHIBITORS

CONFERENCE & EXPO COVERAGE

FiberBroadband.org/Join [email protected]

Join the Fiber Broadband Association and accelerate the connected future—built on fiber

The Fiber Broadband Association is the largest and only

trade association in the Americas dedicated to the pursuit of

all-fiber optic network infrastructures and technologies.

As a member, you will benefit from the education, information, tools,

resources, and advocacy you need to grow your business and

accelerate fiber broadband deployment.

Invest in your future and join the Fiber Broadband Association today.

FIBER CONNECT


Welcome to Fiber Connect!It’s a great time for the fiber industry. Deployment is proceeding at an unprecedented rate, and still more fiber will be needed in the near future.

By Lisa R. Youngers / Fiber Broadband Association

The fiber industry is on fire. Last year, fiber surpassed DSL to become the second most common type of connection for home internet in North America.

Fiber now passes nearly 60 million homes and connects 23.8 million households in North America. Total fiber deployment is at record levels.

Now, people are reaping the benefits. Fiber broadband is faster and more reliable than other means of connectivity. It supports a host of connected applications and devices. In fact, it is fiber that is propping up 5G. It is fiber that is fueling the internet of things in our homes and workplaces. It is fiber that is supporting smart cities. At the end of the day, it is fiber that is making the difference.

1. Fiber: We Are the Difference. That’s the theme of this year’s conference. To me, this means a few things:

Fiber broadband is the superior way to connect – so let’s show more people that fiber is different.

Fiber provides the highest quality connectivity; it is faster and more reliable than copper, cable, DSL or wireless. But today, close to 20 million Americans lack broadband access. Investing in fiber broadband in small communities is worth the cost because it is a superior technology and has a high ROI, as it enables high-speed internet and the burgeoning internet of things to take hold.

Policy sessions at the conference will address the current regulatory environment for the fiber broadband industry and explain what the Fiber Broadband Association is doing to bring more fiber to more people across North America. These will be can’t-miss sessions.

2. Fiber broadband makes a huge difference in supporting new technology and innovation.

Voice assistants, 4K TVs, high-def video games and other exciting new technologies are changing the way people live, work and play. To take advantage of these innovations, modern homes and enterprises need access to the fastest, most reliable connectivity possible: fiber.

At Fiber Connect, you will hear keynotes from experts who are taking full advantage of fiber broadband’s unparalleled speeds. Michael Hess, smart-city project director of Orlando, will show how our host city is preparing for the connected future; Matthew Gunnin, CEO and founder of Esports One, will share how esports

is changing the video game world; Memo Doring, a senior technical evangelist at Amazon Web Services, will discuss the importance of IoT applications such as machine learning and voice assistants; Adam Zuckerman, an expert in emerging technologies, will discuss artificial intelligence and other innovations; and Glen Wellbrock, director of optical transport network architecture at Verizon, will make the connection between 5G and fiber. Also joining us is Janet Schijns of JS Group, who will share innovative practices to empower women in fiber.

3. Fiber broadband will make the difference in launching 5G.

5G will place enormous demands on fixed-wireline networks. This next-generation mobile network will include use of much higher radio frequencies than today’s cellular networks. These higher frequencies carry larger amounts of data, but they have very short ranges. For 5G to work well, many additional small cells must be installed close together – as close as 200 feet apart. To provide multigigabit service to many users and applications, these small cells will need to be connected to hundreds of thousands – perhaps millions – of miles of new fiber optic cable for fronthaul and backhaul.

Simply put, 5G cannot happen without fiber. That is why we are devoting an entire day of the conference – Wednesday, June 5 – to 5G.

At this year’s Fiber Connect, industry experts and thought leaders are convening to share best practices and discuss what’s next for fiber. Whether you’re looking to deploy a new network, seeking strategies to build your customer base or tools to make deployment more affordable, or looking for the opportunity to learn from industry leaders as they explore the future of fiber, we’ve got you covered.

Thank you so much for joining us here in Orlando. This is my first Fiber Connect as president and CEO of

the Fiber Broadband Association, and I could not be more excited to bring you this show. From myself and from all of us at the Fiber Broadband Association – welcome to Fiber Connect 2019! v

Lisa Youngers is president and CEO of the Fiber Broadband Association.

Virtual/augmented reality, UHD TV and home surveillance along with other high-bandwidth IoT applications congest networks. 10G doubles the life span of fiber access networks with plenty of bandwidth for today and tomorrow. ADTRAN 10G fiber solutions expand residential broadband and capture premium business and 5G backhaul revenues—improving how we all live, learn, work and play.

Visit us at Fiber Connect Booth #1601Learn more at adtran.com/10G

THE YEAR OF 10G

AD10

854A

Cop

yrig

ht ©

201

9 AD

TRAN

Inc.

All

right

s re

serv

ed.

Virtual/augmented reality, UHD TV and home surveillance along with other high-bandwidth IoT applications congest networks. 10G doubles the life span of fiber access networks with plenty of bandwidth for today and tomorrow. ADTRAN 10G fiber solutions expand residential broadband and capture premium business and 5G backhaul revenues—improving how we all live, learn, work and play.

Visit us at Fiber Connect Booth #1601Learn more at adtran.com/10G

THE YEAR OF 10GAD

1085

4A C

opyr

ight

© 2

019

ADTR

AN In

c. A

ll rig

hts

rese

rved

.

FIBER CONNECT


Exhibitor Booth Guide

3-GIS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1625Actavo Engineering Services . . . . . . . . . . 1133ADTRAN . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1601Advanced Media Technologies. . . . . . . . 1927AFL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1707AITELONG . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1131Alianza . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1800American Iisintech . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1825American Polywater Corp. . . . . . . . . . . . . 1922American Products, LLC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1501Automation Exchange Pty. Ltd. . . . . . . . 1010B+T Group . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1223Baltic Networks USA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1923Bear Communications, LLC . . . . . . . . . . . 1435Bentley Systems, Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1232BHC Rhodes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1631Biarri Networks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1712BICSI . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1037Black & Veatch Corporation . . . . . . . . . . . 1901BroadbandNow. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1132Calix . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1301Carefiber Optical Technology Co., Ltd. . 1939Challenger Optics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1215Channell Corporation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1306Charles Industries Ltd . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1106Clearfield . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1617CommScope . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . MR1, 1201CommSoft . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1726ComSof . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1119Condux International . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1326Corning Optical Communications . 1507CSSA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1230CTC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1227Custom Tool Supply . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1330Cyient . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1819Danella Companies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1239DewEze Mft. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1724Ditch Witch . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1410DPS Telecom . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1030Dura-Line . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1613Dycom . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1406ElectriCom . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1012Emtelle . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1917EPB . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1022ETI Software Solutions . . . . . . . . . . . . 1609EXFO Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1439Fiber Hub . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1519Fiber Instrument Sales . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1235Fiber Theater . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1733FIBERONE. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1112FibNet Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1810FibreBond Corp. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1918Finley Engineering Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1319

First Principles Innovations . . . . . . . . . . . . 1903Gabe’s Construction Company, Inc. . . . 1036GCP Applied Technologies . . . . . . . . . . . . 1114General Machine Products (KT) . . . . . . . 1211GeoGraph Technologies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1031GLDS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1701Go!Foton . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1023GOC Co., Ltd. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1237Graybar . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1801Guangdong Huajiayu

Technology Co., Ltd. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1935Hangzhou Softel Optic Co., Ltd. . . . . . . . 1635Hellermann Tyton . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1905Henkels & McCoy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1623Hexatronic North America . . . . . . . . . . . . 1909Hubbell Power Systems, Inc. . . . . . . . . . . 1423HYC Co., Ltd. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1231IDI Billing Solutions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1118InfraMarker by Berntsen . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1719INNO Instrument America Inc. . . . . . . . . 1318Inteserra Consulting Group, Inc. . . . . . . . 1722IPG Photonics Corp. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1931Jameson. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1535KGPCo . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1323knet . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1130Korea Optron Corp. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1639Light Brigade . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1418Lode Data Corporation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1020LongXing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1123Mapcom Systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1937Maptraq . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1015MasTec North America, Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . 1314Maverick Corporation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1019MaxCell . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1101Michels Corporation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1636Millennium . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1806Momentum Telecom . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1630Multicom Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1823Multilink . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1510NiSC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1734National Rural Electric Cooperative

Association . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1441No Lash Line System/Hien . . . . . . . . . . . . 1307Nokia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1708OFS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1401Oldcastle Infrastructure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1217On Trac . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1017Opterna Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1322Pivot Group. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1736Plumettaz America Corporation . . . . . . . 1711Power & Tel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1411PowerTec Solutions International . . . . . 1641PPC Broadband . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1431Preformed Line Products . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1417

EXHIBITOR NAME BOOTH EXHIBITOR NAME BOOTH

Featured Exhibitors ~ Floorplan Subject to Change ~

1001

1003

1005

1006 1007

1008 1009

1010

1012 1013

1015

1017

1018 1019

1020

1022 1023

1030 1031

1032 1033

1034 1035

1036 1037

1039

1041

1100 1101

1104

1106

1112

1114

1116

1118 1119

1123

1130 1131

1132 1133

1134 1135

1136 1137

1138

1140

1201

1207

1211

1215

1217

1218

1223

1225

1227

1230 1231

1232 1233

1234 1235

1236 1237

1239

1301

1306 1307

1314

1316

1319

1322 1323

1326

1330

1334

1336

1338

1401

1406

1410 1411

1417

1418

1423

1431

1435

1439

1441

1501

1507

1510

1519

1530 1531

1534 1535

1538

1540

1601

1609

1613

1617

1623

1625

1630 1631

1632

1634 1635

1636 1637

1639

1641

1701

1707

1708

1711

1712

1719

1722 1723

1724

1726

1730

1732 1733

1734

1736

1738

1800 1801

1806 1807

1808

1810

1812

1818 1819

1823

1825

1901

1903

1905

1909

1913

1917

1918

1922 1923

1924 1925

1927

1931

1933

1935

1937

1939


Primex . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1637ProLabs USA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1225Quanta Telecom Services . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1207Render Networks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1234Rontaray . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1334Security Coverage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1137Shenzhen ADTEK

Technology Co., Ltd. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1135Shenzen Ascent Optics Co., Ltd. . . . . . . . 1933Signaltape . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1033Soltech Infonet . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1738StellarRAD Systems, LLC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1538Streakwave Wireless, Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1913

Sumec Wasin Telecom Co., Ltd. . . . . . . . . 1013Sumitomo Electric Lightwave Corp. . . . 1531Supreme & Company PVT, Ltd. . . . . . . . . 1013T&S Communications Co., Ltd. . . . . . . . . 1338Televes USA LLC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1632TEMPO Communications . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1100Terra Tape . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1812Thermo Bond Buildings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1730Tii Technologies Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1018Total Cable Solutions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1807Trans-Tel Central LLC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1116Vantage Point Solutions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1732Vermeer Corporation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1218

VETRO FiberMap . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1818VIAVI Solutions Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1808Vitruvi Software . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1530Walker and Associates . . . . . . . . . . . . 1723Willamette Valley Company . . . . . . . . . . . 1336Wuhan Yilut Technologies Co., Ltd. . . . . 1925XDK Communications Equipment . . . . 1104XFS Communications, Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . 1534Yangtze Optical Fibre and

Cable Joint Stock Limit . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1236Zhengzhou Weunion

Communications. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1634Zyxel Communications, Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . 1924

EXHIBITOR NAME BOOTH EXHIBITOR NAME BOOTH EXHIBITOR NAME BOOTH

Walker and Associates

1001

1003

1005

1006 1007

1008 1009

1010

1012 1013

1015

1017

1018 1019

1020

1022 1023

1030 1031

1032 1033

1034 1035

1036 1037

1039

1041

1100 1101

1104

1106

1112

1114

1116

1118 1119

1123

1130 1131

1132 1133

1134 1135

1136 1137

1138

1140

1201

1207

1211

1215

1217

1218

1223

1225

1227

1230 1231

1232 1233

1234 1235

1236 1237

1239

1301

1306 1307

1314

1316

1319

1322 1323

1326

1330

1334

1336

1338

1401

1406

1410 1411

1417

1418

1423

1431

1435

1439

1441

1501

1507

1510

1519

1530 1531

1534 1535

1538

1540

1601

1609

1613

1617

1623

1625

1630 1631

1632

1634 1635

1636 1637

1639

1641

1701

1707

1708

1711

1712

1719

1722 1723

1724

1726

1730

1732 1733

1734

1736

1738

1800 1801

1806 1807

1808

1810

1812

1818 1819

1823

1825

1901

1903

1905

1909

1913

1917

1918

1922 1923

1924 1925

1927

1931

1933

1935

1937

1939

FIBER CONNECT


Don’t-Miss Sessions At Fiber ConnectConference attendees in Orlando this year will tap into a wealth of FTTH knowledge and experience. Learn from the trailblazers in the field.

By Masha Zager / Broadband Communities

The educational program at the 2019 Fiber Connect conference in Orlando, Florida, will run from Sunday, June

2, through Wednesday, June 5. Everyone will come away with valuable information – communities and providers just beginning to investigate fiber to the home, those planning or funding their first networks, and even experienced providers seeking to market, operate and use their networks more effectively.

Many time slots have three or four concurrent – and equally important – sessions, so any organization can benefit from sending multiple attendees. Here are just a few sessions you won’t want to miss.

SUNDAY, JUNE 2, is devoted to the Fiber Broadband Starter Kit, which is especially relevant to organizations starting down the path to fiber. However, nearly all sessions will offer new insights even to experts.

Marketing and Promoting Fiber in Your Community is led by Katie Espeseth of Chattanooga EPB, a municipal provider that is legendarily successful at promoting its fiber network – and using its fiber network to promote the city. Other presenters include Sean Kio of Burlington Telecom, Leslie Blevins of Bristol Tennessee Essential Services and Mike Birdwell of Sequachee Valley Electric Co-op.

This powerhouse team will outline best practices for communicating with and acquiring

customers. Find out what different age groups are looking for, how to use social media and other tools to reach customers, and how to ensure that your network serves everyone in the community. Most important, learn to communicate the story of your network in a way that resonates with people throughout the community.

Managing a Legacy Fiber Network draws on the expertise of veterans in fiber network operation. The best way not to make rookie (or any other) mistakes is to learn from the mistakes – and the successes – of those who have “been there and done that.” Joseph Jones of On Trac, a fiber installer that has deployed FTTH networks since 2002, will lead the session. Presenters include Melissa Wright of Smithville Communications and Ron Frye of LUS Fiber, two highly successful fiber operators.

In addition to detailing the challenges of operating a fiber network over many years – and the best ways to address those challenges – this session will shed light on the benefits that accrue to FTTH communities.

Fiber Partnerships and Funding in Rural America tackles one of today’s hottest issues: bridging the metro-rural digital divide. Many rural communities have concluded that no single party – public or private – can solve their connectivity problems; instead, multiple stakeholders must work together in creative ways. Telecom attorney and local-choice


advocate Jim Baller will lead a session that includes two rural fiber operators – Joe Buttweiler of CTC and Brian Gabriel of Mainstream Fiber Networks – and Randy Klindt of Conexon, formerly a fiber operator and now a consultant who helps electric cooperatives get into the broadband business.

Panelists will share their experiences creating and managing broadband partnerships. Allocating responsibilities, risks and rewards among partners is always challenging, as is overcoming differences in institutional cultures. These speakers have succeeded in making partnerships work, and they’ll show you how to do it, too.

MONDAY, JUNE 3, offers a full day of sessions on the business, technology and operational aspects of fiber networks, along with an awards luncheon, a keynote on esports and a series of presentations in the Expo Hall theater.

Fiber Broadband Case Studies for Multifamily Properties brings together experts on deploying fiber to the living unit in multiple-dwelling-unit (MDU) communities. Fiber to the unit, once a novelty, is now a must-have for new buildings in many areas and even a retrofit option for owners and providers concerned about increasing property values; adding new, high-value services; and developing customer loyalty.

John George of OFS, which sells equipment for deploying fiber inside MDUs, will lead the session. Presenters include representatives of three operators that have deployed FTTH in many urban MDUs: Mike Wolf of Cincinnati Bell, Brad Moline of Allo Communications and Dan O’Connell of CenturyLink. Learn from them how to overcome technical challenges (it doesn’t help that each MDU building needs a unique solution!) and how to improve the business case by marketing successfully to MDU residents.

Overview of Fiber Around the Globe delivers news of FTTH from around the world. U.S. operators and news media understandably focus on events at home, but there are important lessons to learn from fiber deployers in other countries. Why is the fiber rollout taking place at a different pace in each country? Does it make sense to talk about “winning the race” for fiber? If so, who’s winning?

Gregg Logan of C Spire, which is deploying FTTH in Mississippi, will lead the discussion. Presenters include Roland Montagne of the analyst firm IDATE; CommScope’s Eduardo Jedruch, who heads the Latin American chapter of the Fiber Broadband Association; and Michael Render, a market researcher who has tracked the deployment of FTTH in North America since 2001.

TUESDAY, JUNE 4, will feature keynotes on the internet of things and artificial intelligence, an armchair discussion with fiber newsmakers and another full day of business, technology and operations presentations.

Accelerating Small-Cell Densification Using Next-Gen PON Cost and Scale Advantages explores the connections between FTTH and 5G wireless networks. Everyone agrees

that 5G, which requires vast numbers of fiber-wired small cells, will complement next-generation FTTH technologies. However, the details of the convergence between wired and wireless networks are still hazy to many operators.

Robert Conger of ADTRAN will explain which fiber access technologies are best suited for various wireless deployment scenarios, and why. He’ll also speak about 5G models that could become economic game changers by supporting a variety of enhanced wireless services.

The Rock and Your FTTx Installation and Maintenance Program Will Roll is not Scot Bohaychyk’s bid for membership in the Rock & Roll Hall of Fame. Rather, the Clearfield product marketing manager will present information on best practices for deployment and maintenance of outside plant in a variety of challenging conditions. Learn how to make installation and repair cost-efficient in rocky or sandy soil, in hot or cold climates, and in recovery from hurricanes, floods, earthquakes and snowstorms.

Attendees will gain confidence in their ability to build and maintain fiber networks in any kind of terrain – and to train their crews to operate in challenging circumstances.

WEDNESDAY, JUNE 5, the Fiber Connect conference concludes with a morning program focused on 5G wireless networks. A keynote on Verizon’s 5G deployment program will start the morning, followed by several sessions on 5G technology and deployments.

The Technology and Components of 5G presents a deep dive into 5G: what distinguishes this generation of wireless technology from earlier technologies, the timeline for availability of 5G components, the impact of 5G on the fiber plant that will support it and the coexistence of 4G and 5G technologies.

Joe Jensen of Corning will lead the session, and panelists include David Sumi of Siklu Communications, Kevin Wynne of Comsof Americas, Ana Pesovic of Nokia and Erik Gronvall of CommScope. v

Masha Zager is the editor of BroadBand Communities. You can reach her at [email protected].

FIBER CONNECT


FEATURED EXHIBITORS AT FIBER CONNECT

Contact these companies to learn more about their broadband solutions.

ADTRAN Booth #1601

At ADTRAN Inc., we believe amazing things happen when people connect – and that 10 gigabit will be the key enabler of this connectivity. From the cloud edge to the subscriber edge, we help communications service providers around the world manage and scale services that connect people, places and things to advance human progress. Whether rural or urban, telco or cable, enterprise or residential, ADTRAN solutions optimize existing technology infrastructures and create new, multigigabit services platforms that leverage cloud economics, data analytics, machine learning and open ecosystems – the future of global networking. Learn more at adtran.com.

AFLBooth #1707

Founded in 1984, AFL is an international manufacturer providing end-to-end solutions to the energy, service provider, enterprise and industrial markets, as well as several emerging markets. The company’s products are in use in more than 130 countries and include fiber optic cable and hardware, transmission and substation accessories, outside-plant equipment, connectivity, test and inspection equipment, fusion splicers and training. AFL also offers a wide variety of services supporting data center, enterprise, wireless and outside-plant applications.

Headquartered in Spartanburg, South Carolina, AFL has operations in the United States, Mexico, Canada, Europe, Asia and Australia, and is a wholly owned subsidiary of Fujikura Ltd. of Japan. For more information, visit www.AFLglobal.com.

Charles IndustriesBooth #1106

Charles Industries provides innovative enclosed solutions that include industry-leading environmental enclosures for fast, flexible FTTH deployments. Charles engineers and manufactures buried distribution pedestals, remote cabinets, terminals, aerial splice cases, fiber rack solutions, multipurpose housings, vaults and handholes for brownfield and greenfield FTTH networks. Charles was the first company to offer nonmetallic buried distribution pedestals for fusion or mechanical splicing of stranded or ribbon fiber. Today, Charles’ lineup of products includes pedestals, terminals and hubs for these splicing methods as well as preconnectorized interconnects and drops. A full range of fiber accessories is also available, including fiber splice and splitter trays, splitter modules, adapters, optic taps, patch plates, jumpers, fan-outs and LGX modules. In 2019, Charles is releasing new lines of optical hub cabinets and fiber sealed drop closures that further expand its rapidly deployable, cost-efficient FTTH enclosure solutions. www.charlesindustries.com


Clearfield Inc.Booth #1617

Clearfield, Inc. (NASDAQ: CLFD) designs, manufactures and distributes fiber optic management, protection and delivery products for communications networks.

Setting the standard for delivering (on time!) a scalable fiber optic network and unmatched fiber performance while lowering the cost of broadband deployment, our “fiber to anywhere” platform serves the unique requirements of leading incumbent local exchange carriers (traditional carriers), competitive local exchange carriers (alternative carriers) and MSO/cable TV companies and caters to the broadband needs of the utility/municipality, enterprise, data center and military markets.

Rather than offering a predetermined, scripted solution, Clearfield promises a product design methodology that addresses your unique requirements and provides the lowest total cost of ownership. Headquartered in Minneapolis, Clearfield deploys more than 1 million fiber ports each year. For more information, visit www.SeeClearfield.com.

CorningBooth #1507

Corning is one of the world’s leading innovators in materials science. For more than 160 years, we have applied our unparalleled expertise in specialty glass, ceramics and optical physics to develop products that have created new industries and transformed people’s lives. Our Optical Communications division delivers connectivity to every edge of the network, from optical fiber, cable, hardware and equipment to fully optimized solutions for high-speed communications networks. Visit us at www.corning.com/opcomm.

EPB Fiber OpticsBooth #1022

Established as an independent board of the city of Chattanooga in 1935, EPB is a municipally owned utility that provides electric power and fiber optic communications services as a means of promoting economic development and enhancing quality of life across the local area.

EPB serves more than 170,000 homes and businesses in a 600-square-mile area that includes greater Chattanooga as

well as parts of surrounding counties and areas of northern Georgia.

In 2010, EPB became the first provider in the United States to deliver up to 1 gigabit internet speeds utilizing a communitywide fiber optic network that provides access to every home and business in its service area. In 2015, EPB became the first – and to date, only – U.S. ISP to make up to 10 gigabit internet speeds accessible to all its residential and commercial customers as a standard offer.

EPB utilizes its communitywide fiber optic network to deploy the most advanced, highly automated smart grid power management system in the nation. In recognition of EPB’s groundbreaking infrastructure, the Department of Energy and Oak Ridge National Laboratory utilize EPB’s smart grid as a national model for researching and developing best practices. EPB is also the first major power distribution utility to earn the USGBC’s PEER certification for having a highly automated, modernized electric power grid. For more information, go to EPB.com.

ETI Software SolutionsBooth #1609

Adapting to new technologies is a key differentiator of ETI Software and has been for more than 25 years. Regardless of the mix of network topographies (fiber, copper, coax or satellite) or devices (ONTs, residential gateways, DSL modems, cable modems or set-top boxes), ETI’s service assurance and analysis software provides a single point of accurate control, enabling communications service providers to monetize the entire life cycle of the customer journey.

ETI is extending its already unmatched portfolio of prebuilt interfaces to support 10G provisioning over PONs as well as fixed wireless provisioning – both of which enable 5G services. An FTTH Top 100 company for 13 years running, ETI delivers the tools that telecom, broadband, video, utility, OTT and IoT providers need to increase efficiencies, reduce cost, improve customer experience and generate new revenue through next-gen technology and services.

FIBER CONNECT


MaptraqBooth #1015

Maptraq is software designed for telecommunication construction management. Our intuitive mobile application makes it easy to record all production right in the field. Daily reports sync automatically in the cloud so office staff have access to detailed and accurate close-out-reports and as-builts ready to be shared at the click of a button.

OFSBooth #1401

OFS is a world-leading designer, manufacturer and provider of optical fiber, optical fiber cable, FTTx, optical connectivity and specialty photonics products. Our manufacturing and research divisions work together to provide innovative products and solutions that

traverse many different applications as they link people and machines worldwide. Between continents, between cities, around neighborhoods and in homes and businesses of digital consumers, OFS provides the right optical fiber, optical cable and components for efficient, cost-effective transmission.

OFS’s corporate lineage dates to 1876 and includes technology powerhouses such as AT&T and Lucent Technologies. Today, OFS is owned by Furukawa Electric, a multibillion-dollar global leader in optical communications. Headquartered in Norcross (near Atlanta), Georgia, OFS is a global provider with facilities in Avon, Connecticut; Carrollton, Georgia; Somerset, New Jersey; and Sturbridge, Massachusetts, as well as in Denmark, Germany and Russia.

For more information, please visit www.ofsoptics.com.

Walker and AssociatesBooth #1723

Walker and Associates is the premier source of telecommunications products for network operators, simplifying network deployments with expert installation, systems integration and unsurpassed sourcing services.

Since 1970, Walker has remained a recognized industry leader, offering products and solutions supporting leading-edge technologies, such as switching, routing, Wi-Fi, microwave, NFV, Carrier Ethernet, VoIP, WDM, ROADM, packet optical networking, SDN, and access technologies such as GPON, active Ethernet, fixed wireless, DSL and more.

Walker provides these solutions to wireline and wireless service providers of all sizes. Walker continues to incorporate new products and technologies that aid in building network infrastructure, allowing upgrades for the embedded base of equipment to higher speeds of broadband service delivery.

Walker’s certified specialists help reduce costs associated with installing and maintaining equipment at customer locations. The company assists customers in solving today’s business challenges and increasing their ability to meet customer expectations from telecommunications service providers.

Want your next construction job to be on time and on budget? There’s an app for that. Using decades of experience working in the trenches, we’ve designed Maptraq to shed new light on telecom construction.

Benefits include:

• See what’s going on with all your projects—without chasing down all the foremen.

• Hold contractors and crews accountable to ensure that established standards are met.

• View detailed interactive KMZ exports with project photos and backup data.

• Know the GPS location of all materials allotted to crews, down to the last bolt.

• Follow change order procedures with complete transparency from start to finish.

Finally, control is in your hands, thanks to Maptraq. Find out more by calling us at 866-MAP-TRAQ.Be sure to visit us at the Fiber Connect Show in Florida at Booth #1015.

Construction projects can get out of control. Think of this as your own remote control.

Sign up for a demo at maptraq.com

FIBER CONNECT


NEWS FROM FEATURED EXHIBITORS

AFL AWARDED FOUR NEW PATENTS

AFL, an international manufacturer of fiber optic cable, equipment and accessories, was awarded four new patents over the past quarter for technology and product developments in optical connectivity and apparatus (OCA) and fusion splicing technologies.

AFL’s OCA division received two patents. The first patent, developed by a team of five AFL associates, was for a network interface device with two base configurations that accepts several types of connectors and allows eight splices. The second patent was developed by a team of three AFL associates for the IDEAA Mini Interior Distribution Cabinet (Mini IDC). The Mini IDC provides a convenient, extremely compact modular approach to centralized fiber distribution in small MDUs.

AFL’s fusion splicing division also received two patents. The first patent was for a method to utilize specialty splicers to manufacture different types of fiber lens structures. These lenses are used in many applications, including medical,

diode laser and detector coupling – generally, any time light needs to be coupled to or from a fiber, this method may be useful. The second patent was for a method and apparatus for performing interrelation profile analysis (IPA). This method rotates an optical fiber that has an internal structure such as PM fiber. Images are taken as the fiber rotates, and these images have unique events that are typically 90° or 180° apart. By finding these unique images, it is possible to align the fibers using a profile view of the fiber to a very high level of accuracy. The major advantage is that customers are able to align very exotic fibers with a high level of consistency.

For more information about AFL, its products and services, visit www.AFLglobal.com.


CLEARFIELD LAUNCHES NEW FIELDSMART FIBER ACTIVE CABINETS

Fiber-optimized outdoor cabinets meet rigorous demands to accommodate integration of any active component

Clearfield Inc. (NASDAQ:CLFD), the specialist in fiber management for communication service providers, announced the new FieldSmart Fiber Active Cabinet (FAC) product line for outdoor enclosures – expanding its impressive portfolio of active and passive enclosures. Blending fiber optimization with capacity for any active components in a Telcordia GR-487 tested outdoor enclosure, Clearfield is positioned to address emerging applications, such as Multi-access Edge Compute (MEC), that require low-latency fiber connections at the edge of the network in a secure location.

“Current and future broadband technologies require active equipment be placed deeper in the network. These same technologies require that fiber be placed right there alongside them to quickly transport and backhaul content with the lowest latency possible,” said Johnny Hill, Clearfield’s chief operating officer. “Our customers are expanding their fiber networks, preparing to meet the insatiable bandwidth demands from new technologies like 5G and the internet of things (IoT). Having one partner that’s able to work with them on any deployment is a benefit.”

“Over the last few decades, cabinets once thought to provide extensive services became obsolete or unusable as supplier technologies advanced, leaving customers with stranded investment,” said Brent Stucker, co-owner of Datacom Solutions. “With the FieldSmart Fiber Active Cabinet universal approach, service providers not only get cost-effective and proven deployment capabilities but also position themselves to prepare for the unforeseen needs of the future.”

The FieldSmart Fiber Active Cabinet (FAC) is designed for modularity and flexibility, while maintaining a maximum cooling capability for the active electronics investment. Designed, tested and certified to meet Telcordia GR-487, the FAC is the ideal outdoor cabinet solution for the harshest outdoor conditions, providing a sealed internal environment where external air and humidity are completely isolated from the electronic equipment. The FieldSmart FAC product line includes the following elements.

• FieldSmart FAC 400 features a 19” vertical frame, accommodating up to 4RU of active electronics and 192 internal fiber distribution ports for deployment.

• FieldSmart FAC 900 features a 19” vertical frame that can accommodate up to 9RU of active electronics and up to 576 internal fiber distribution ports for deployment.

• FieldSmart FAC 3200 features two front and rear 16RU 23” frames that can accommodate up to 32RU of active electronics while providing up to 432 internal fiber distribution ports for deployments.

• FieldSmart FAC 5400 features two swing frame front and rear 27RU 23” frames that can accommodate up to 54RU of active electronics and provides up to 960 internal fiber distribution ports for deployments.

All four FieldSmart Fiber Active Cabinet additions are designed to accommodate the variety of standard options expected in remote cabinets, such as the rectifier system, battery warmers and field upgradeable fiber bulkheads. More information can be found in the associated data sheets at www.SeeClearfield.com.

EPB TO OFFER BROADBAND SOLUTIONS TO HELP COMMUNITIES COMPETE AND THRIVE

Representatives from EPB Broadband Solutions of Chattanooga will be on hand to offer their expertise and resources in support of current and aspiring fiber optic service providers at the Fiber Broadband Association’s 2019 Fiber Connect event, June 3–5 in Orlando, Florida.

After successfully launching America’s first communitywide, gigabit-speed fiber optic network and then bumping the top speed up to 10 gigabits per second as a standard offer, EPB offers solutions and services designed to help other companies deploy fiber optics and grow their customer bases while reducing financial risk (including capital costs) and accelerating time to market.

“As a company that puts our customers and community first, we want to see other utilities solve the broadband gap for their areas,” said Joey Greer, manager of wholesale new products for EPB. “We are always happy to put our experience and success to work to assist other communities so that they can compete and thrive.”

The EPB Fiber Broadband Solutions can assist you in launching and maintaining a fiber broadband network with solutions that include 24/7/365 technical and customer support, direct internet access, video transport, dispatch and network monitoring.

“Community-based fiber optic networks open countless doors for improving economic growth, health care and education,” said Katie Espeseth, EPB’s vice president of new products and vice chairman/chair-elect of the Fiber Broadband Association. “Our goal is to help aspiring fiber providers create leading products and services for their communities.”

EPB representatives will be available at booth # 1022 at the 2019 Fiber Connect event in Orlando’s Gaylord Palms Resort and Convention Center. v

BROADBAND POLICY


Community Connectivity Is ThreatenedProponents bill it as a win for apartment residents and owners, but apartment owners say the recently enacted San Francisco MDU ordinance ultimately creates more hurdles for delivering high-quality connectivity.

By Kevin Donnelly / National Multifamily Housing Council

Despite the success of broadband deployment across much of the multifamily rental market,

policymakers in some jurisdictions have looked to upend existing telecommunications rules that have delivered that success. One such regulation is a recently enacted ordinance in San Francisco (Ordinance 250-16).

The ordinance sets up new rules for internet service providers (ISPs) to access multifamily properties and, in doing so, effectively allows any ISP access to privately owned apartment communities, regardless of how many providers already serve the property. Supporters of the ordinance say the new rules will improve access to broadband services while providing more consumer choice and transparency.

Although perhaps a well-intended effort, the ordinance has a number of shortcomings that will harm broadband deployment and access by raising rates for the city’s apartment residents, slowing expansion and reducing investment in network maintenance, and degrading customer service. For these reasons, many in the apartment industry consider the ordinance an unnecessary hurdle rather than a win for residents, property owners and ISPs, as some proponents of the ordinance have suggested.

This is why the National Multifamily Housing Council (NMHC) takes issue with the

article, “San Francisco’s MDU Ordinance Is a Win-Win-Win,” written by Dane Jasper, CEO of Sonic, a large ISP, that appeared in the October 2018 edition of BroadBand Communities.

COMMITMENT TO QUALITY BROADBANDThe apartment industry takes broadband issues seriously. Changing resident lifestyles and preferences have driven the industry to invest heavily in ensuring that residents have access to high-quality, high-speed internet services from multiple providers.

In fact, recent research shows that the desirability of an apartment community is directly linked to the quality and reliability of on-site internet. In the 2017 NMHC/Kingsley Apartment Renter Preferences Survey, high-speed internet ranked as the second most popular apartment feature after air conditioning in San Francisco, and of the 93 percent of apartment residents who said high-speed internet was important to them, 60 percent said they would not rent without it.

Needless to say, providing access to high-quality, high-speed internet is no longer a choice but a business imperative for apartment firms. Given the threat that the San Francisco ordinance poses to community connectivity, the apartment industry remains opposed to the new rule on several grounds.


ACCESS VERSUS AFFORDABILITYAt the heart of the debate surrounding the ordinance is one number: 100,000. That’s the number of people in San Francisco – 11 percent of a total population of 884,000 – who purportedly do not have internet service, as estimated by supporters of the ordinance. At first blush, that might seem like a big number, considering that the San Francisco area has become an important tech hub. However, there are a few things to consider when evaluating that statistic, not least that it tells us little about where those people live and why they don’t have internet.

According to the Federal Communication Commission’s Broadband Deployment report, more than 98 percent of people in San Francisco have access to broadband at speeds of at least 25 Mbps downstream and 3 Mbps up. Given that the infrastructure is there, the next question is service.

According to the most recent information from the Census Bureau, roughly 85 percent of San Francisco’s residents pay for broadband service. For the 15 percent who reported not paying for broadband, the issue is more one of adoption than access. Those residents may be unwilling or, more likely, unable to pay for the service. And although broadband affordability is a serious problem, the ordinance does little to provide subsidies or other types of solutions to address that challenge.

If the ordinance cannot meaningfully improve broadband internet access to the 19 percent of San Francisco’s population that lives in apartments, the real debate is about whether it can significantly improve transparency and choice for them.

UNDERSTANDING CHOICEWhen evaluating providers, apartment owners have a myriad of concerns. In addition to delivering quality, reliable internet service to residents, property owners also want to ensure that certain obligations are met for customer service standards, installations, network maintenance, upgrades and service;

otherwise, there could be damage to property and harm to the building’s aesthetics or service interruptions that could ultimately affect the property’s value and residents’ connectivity.

A choice in providers is the industry norm because it is good for residents and good for the attractiveness of the community. In the 2017 NMHC Telecom Survey, apartment firms reported that they had two or more service providers available at a substantial percentage of their San Francisco properties, and renters themselves acknowledge that choice exists. According to recent apartment renter preferences data, a greater share of San Francisco apartment residents have provider choice than other renters in California or even the United States as a whole. When asked in the 2017 NMHC/Kingsley Apartment Renter Preferences Survey whether they had more than one internet provider option, 69 percent of San Francisco respondents said yes, compared with 60 percent of California renters and 55 percent of renters nationally who said they had access to multiple providers.

Though nearly seven of 10 apartment renters in San Francisco already have a choice of internet providers, it is important to understand why some may not. A big part of the reason is the economics of the broadband business. Building and servicing broadband networks is very

expensive. Couple high costs with a highly competitive or fractionalized market, and it becomes difficult for providers to stay in business without a way to gain scale. This is why there are often more access issues and less competition in smaller or more affordable apartment communities.

UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCESThe San Francisco ordinance falls short in delivering on its two main promises: accessibility and consumer choice. Data show that broadband affordability remains more of an adoption hurdle than access and that the majority of the city’s apartment residents already have provider choice. Moreover, over time, apartment residents will lose, potentially paying more and/or receiving lower-quality service.

Given how closely connectivity is tied to community satisfaction, property owners have an inherent interest in working with the most reliable providers. Destabilizing partnerships between apartment owners and providers makes it more difficult for ISPs to become trusted, long-term partners and offers apartment owners little assurance of accountability when needs are not met.

With open access, incumbent broadband providers that have already invested in broadband infrastructure in apartment buildings have little

FREE TO CHOOSE

Nearly seven of 10 San Francisco apartment renters say they have more than one broadband service provider at their communities, according to the most recent NMHC/Kingsley Associates Renter Preferences Survey. The survey is the largest renter survey in the industry, with responses from more than 252,000 apartment renters at 4,795 apartment communities. Here’s how those numbers stack up.

Q: Do you have more than one internet service provider at your community?

San Francisco California Total U.S.

Yes, I have more than one option. 69% 60% 55%

No, I have only one option. 31% 40% 45%

BROADBAND POLICY


incentive to reinvest and maintain critical infrastructure they must share with competitors.

Though the ordinance gives new providers the benefit of demanding access wherever they want it, no corresponding obligation exists to offer competition where there isn’t any. As providers look to maximize their returns, they will inevitably focus on serving high-end customers in high-end communities. This type of cherry-picking will leave smaller and more affordable properties with little to no competition and fewer service options, furthering the digital divide rather than improving connectivity.

SHARED CONCERNS Given that the ordinance ultimately delivers the opposite of what it promises – higher costs, more limited access, lower quality service, less reliability – the apartment industry continues to oppose the ordinance.

The existing rules of the road surrounding broadband infrastructure and deployment are working. Apartment owners and operators actively seek partnerships with providers to deliver a choice of high-quality communication services in all markets. The current regulatory framework allows these partnerships to exist because it has continued to be a proven model of success for deploying broadband and other communications services in an efficient, market-driven manner that delivers competition, a choice in providers, better prices, and a range of high-quality services for apartment residents.

The apartment industry is not alone in speaking out against the ordinance. Many broadband providers themselves, under the umbrella of the Multifamily Broadband Council (MBC), are some of its loudest critics and have filed a federal challenge to the law. MBC filed

a petition with the FCC that seeks to block the ordinance by arguing that it is federally preempted and conflicts with FCC regulations governing inside wiring, network sharing and bulk billing arrangements for broadband service to apartment communities.

NMHC, along with individual apartment owners and other real estate groups, has filed comments several times in support of the MBC’s petition and urges the FCC to strike down the San Francisco ordinance and stop similar efforts in their tracks. The FCC has yet to decide on the petition. v

Kevin Donnelly is the vice president of government affairs for the NMHC in Washington, D.C. He can be reached at [email protected].

Optimized for MoCA In-Home Networks running DOCSIS 3.1 to 1218 MHz

Seamless communication between MoCA devices

Maximum Data Rates

MoCA Passive GatewayMoCA made SeamlessIn - Home Networks

BROADBAND POLICY


Border to Border 2.0: Minnesota’s Broadband RebootMinnesota’s state broadband grant program has been praised as one of the nation’s best – but that doesn’t mean it can’t be improved, according to the bill’s author.

By Matt Schmit / University of Minnesota

In 2014, Minnesota was abuzz with broadband. The state’s newly created Office of Broadband Development had opened its

doors, and the legislature was poised to give it an invaluable new tool to extend critical access: the Border to Border Broadband state grant fund.

Five years later, the competitive matching grants have connected more than 40,000 homes, businesses and community anchor institutions; leveraged $85 million in state grant funds for roughly $200 million in targeted investment; and positioned all Minnesotans to enjoy basic service by 2022.

However, Minnesota’s path toward broadband ubiquity has been something short of smooth. An overarching political impasse in 2018 resulted in a year with no grants. And in years prior, when the state did appropriate funds, progress was anything but prescribed. In 2019, however, a new governor and House majority are pushing hard for a broadband reboot.

In fact, the governor has called for a broadband “moonshot,” having pledged $300 million in new funds while campaigning for office last year. And in the nation’s only divided state legislature, Senate Republicans and House Democrats can agree on at least one thing: The state’s broadband fund is a proven winner and worthy of renewed investment.

BIRTH OF THE BROADBAND FUNDAlthough I have worked on broadband as a legislator, a consultant and an academic

researcher for more than 15 years, the issue assumed new meaning to me in January 2014, when the second leg of my 20-stop statewide listening tour kicked off in northern Minnesota. Think lake country, Paul Bunyan and the harshest Minnesota morning you can imagine. My jeep’s engine barely started, and the governor had closed all public schools for the day, but scores of area residents turned out to talk with an out-of-town freshman legislator about one pressing need: You got it, better broadband!

Teachers and parents lamented the limited opportunity for distance learning, area businesses craved more competitive e-commerce, hospital administrators hoped to adopt new technology and telehealth applications, farmers aspired to the power of precision agriculture and folks from all walks of life yearned for the ability to connect and contribute online – anywhere, anytime. Of course, these have become familiar storylines, and rightfully so.

Six months later, after conversations and coalition building, visits with far-flung local newspaper editors and various stakeholders, compelling committee testimony and legislative wrangling, Minnesota had its broadband fund.

Although this story goes back about five years, a fuller telling of Minnesota’s broadband tale extends farther still. For a fair recounting, and to give credit where it is due, consider Minnesota’s two governor-appointed broadband task forces that elevated


the issue, proposed goals and made recommendations; federal and state investment in mapping, as imperfect as it is, that showed where broadband was and, certainly, was not; and years of outreach and education from stakeholders large and small, including Minnesota’s own Blandin Foundation and its Blandin Broadband Communities program.

LEGISLATIVE ACTIONBy 2014, though, folks were growing restless talking about broadband. Those suffering from poor service wanted action. Such sentiment was palpable as we concluded our listening tour, and I shared this message with anyone who would listen – statewide television and public radio, small-town newspapers and various media outlets in between; fellow legislators skeptical of a newcomer wandering outside his district; and a governor who had coined the term “border to border broadband” while seeking his first term four years earlier.

Like many states, Minnesota splits its two-year legislatures into odd-year budgeting and even-year bonding

sessions. 2014 was a bonding year, focused heavily on infrastructure that ranged from traditional bricks-and-mortar buildings to neglected sewer and water facilities to the state’s crumbling roads and bridges. Raising the profile of essential 21st-century broadband infrastructure seemed particularly fitting.

Ironically, though, given how quickly other forms of infrastructure age, state bond counsel, interpreting Minnesota’s constitution, does not consider fiber or the conduit it populates to be a requisite long-term investment and thus eligible for state bonding. Just think – how many roads will be repaired or replaced while the same pair of fibers still provides speedy service and return on investment?

Fortunately, Minnesota was and continues to be blessed with a strong economy, which since 2014 has provided a string of state budget surpluses – and supplemental budgets. Leveraging one-time surplus funds for what, if done right, should be a one-time investment, has provided a fairly reliable stream of state broadband funding – thus far.

However, the question remains: What happens if a budget deficit strikes before the state reaches its speed goals? Can broadband compete with education, health care, transportation or public safety in a general fund budget-cutting environment?

After distilling feedback from our listening tour into key takeaways – the need for state investment, clear authority for local and regional solutions and, above all, action – I wrote two bills designed to meet Minnesota’s statutory broadband goals: ensuring basic broadband service for all homes and businesses and positioning Minnesota as a leader in broadband access and utilization. Since then, the goals have been updated in statute to provide 25 Mbps /3 Mbps ubiquitous basic service by 2022 and 100 Mbps /20 Mbps ubiquitous competitive access by 2026.

The first bill, which created the grant fund, focused on improving service in unserved areas while not ignoring the underserved; achieving technology neutrality while requiring scalability of all state-funded deployments to 100 Mbps /100 Mbps speeds; and

Minnesota’s broadband coverage increased markedly after the grant program was adopted. (Source: Office of Broadband Development)

BROADBAND POLICY


encouraging meaningful partnerships among various entities, such as local communities, tribal governments, incumbent and competitive providers, and rural cooperatives.

The legislation was straightforward enough, but its path to enactment and renewal faced a steady stream of resistance, ranging from honest skepticism and misunderstanding to downright scheming and misinformation. What began with seemingly genuine concerns about the role of government morphed into familiar red herrings regarding satellite and wireless capabilities, deeply flawed federal funding, and the promise of far-off, if not outright fanciful, rural 5G service.

OVERCOMING OBSTACLESAt each turn, we overcame these obstacles, but not without consequence. Concerns over statewide prevailing wage mandates on public funding in rural markets led to a bipartisan exemption in state law, a tweak to the program that has worked well and enhanced program purchasing power. A desire to improve service in underserved areas inspired a small carve-out for targeted investment but to date has produced scant proposals. An infusion of new federal CAF dollars and an interest, however idealistic, in coordinating scarce public resources and leveraging federal funding to maximum benefit led to a challenge process that has failed to push incumbent CAF recipients to provide more competitive service.

As beneficial as Minnesota’s Border to Border program has been, I remain convinced that my other bill was the better bill – and far more likely to inspire greater impact. The bill’s overarching goal was to facilitate local and regional cross-sector collaboration

and partnership by introducing new public financing tools to the rural broadband conversation. After all, if lack of private investment capital for scarcely populated service territories remains the fundamental challenge underlying broadband service gaps, this bill sought to address the problem head on.

Intended to provide new tools for local and regional solutions, the legislation clarified and enhanced local bonding authority, enabled creation of regional broadband districts to strengthen cooperatives and public-private partnerships with new taxing authority, and provided a critical source of non-state match funding for state grant program applicants.

Dramatically mischaracterized by one industry lobbyist as the “most radical legislation ever introduced in Minnesota,” the bill never even received a hearing. Five years later, I struggle to understand what’s so radical about giving rural cooperatives and similar democratic, accountable entities the authority to leverage public funding to help trusted provider partners offer better service in areas where market failure predominates.

A SECOND CHANCE TO GET IT RIGHTJust as the grant program overcame significant resistance, I hope the next iteration of broadband policymaking in Minnesota reconsiders some old ideas. Elements of the second bill have reappeared in new legislation, and an increasingly competitive environment for general fund dollars may inspire innovative thinking about local and regional solutions that supplement state investment.

Minnesota’s broadband reboot offers an opportunity to reconsider what our original broadband legislation got right – and wrong. For instance, housing the

Office of Broadband Development and its grant program in the Department of Employment and Economic Development rather than a regulatory agency fostered buy-in among providers. Prioritizing unserved areas without forsaking the underserved enabled focus on basic service ubiquity and competitive access for economic development. And the requirement of scalability to 100 Mbps / 100 Mbps service ensured that the state is deploying new technology rather than outdated infrastructure – something federal programs have yet to achieve.

At the same time, the broadband grant program would benefit from a few upgrades. First, multiyear base funding, preferably through a dedicated source that limits its exposure to general fund competition, would provide more stability to the program. Second, a reconsidered incumbent challenge process would help achieve the intended purpose of pushing CAF recipients to invest in better technology and offer faster speeds. Third, new tools and clear authority for local and regional entities to raise non-state funds to match a state grant or forego state funding altogether would improve rural broadband providers’ access to capital.

My vision for closing Minnesota’s broadband service gap and enhancing competitive access for economic development centers on creating tools and incentives that foster meaningful partnership and cross-sector collaboration. This requires smart policy that brings partners to the table, as well as significant and sustained funding sources that allow for real planning and robust investment. After five years of Border to Border Broadband grants, Minnesota is well on its way – but my state and many others would do well to consider the critical components of an ideal broadband reboot. v

Matt Schmit was a Minnesota state senator from 2013 to 2017. He now teaches economic competitiveness at the University of Minnesota – Twin Cities and is the principal of P3 Strategies, his consulting practice. You can contact him at [email protected].

A 2014 bill would have provided new tools for increasing rural providers’ access to capital. This problem still needs to be addressed.

WE SPEAK ACRONYMEven our name is an acronym! If you are in telecom, you know that different technologies like the ones above require specific software solutions. At ETI, we’ve been speaking your language for over 25 years, building an automated, pre-integrated platform to reduce operating costs, improve your customer’s experience and generate revenue through next-gen services.

Talk to Us Today! We Speak Your Language.

VISIT US AT BOOTH #1609ETI Software Solutions800-332-1078etisoftware.com

ETI_BBC_FullPg_0419_P.indd 1 4/29/19 1:49 PM

TECHNOLOGY


Three Myths of Fiber CleaningHere’s what’s not a myth: Keeping fiber clean is critical to the long-term reliability of a network.

By Jay Tourigny / MicroCare Corporation

The world’s need for greater connectivity continues to grow. The demand is voracious and limitless. Broadband

connectivity has become a crucial link in nearly every aspect of people’s lives, including their jobs, medical care, entertainment and security.

This increased need for fast, unlimited service drives many network designers to rely on sophisticated fiber optic networks to meet current and future bandwidth requirements. Along with the need for greater capacity and higher speeds comes the need for absolute reliability so networks can provide consistent and uninterrupted service.

For modern optical networks to perform at their peak, fiber must be properly installed and maintained. This includes ensuring that all connections and splices are kept perfectly clean to avoid potential problems, such as insertion loss (weakened signal), back-reflection (signal diverted back to its source) or complete system shutdown. Maintaining the fiber network, especially the connections, is crucial to overall network reliability.

Despite the importance of cleanliness, some in the fiber industry are reluctant to recognize the need for thorough fiber cleaning as a critical factor in network performance. Some installation technicians and their managers are disinclined to spend resources, including time and money, to inspect and clean fiber connections. Some seasoned technicians who have long histories of working on older, slower networks are not convinced that modern, high-speed networks need more attention and care than older networks. They maintain that their legacy

practices are still adequate, and they often do not have the time, tools or budget to clean fiber. We refer to these long-held opinions as the “three myths of fiber cleaning.”

MYTH 1: THERE IS NOTHING TO CLEAN.When it comes to installing or maintaining fiber networks, there is always a need to clean. A major threat to an efficient, reliable fiber optic network is contamination of the fiber optic connector end faces and splices, also called optical interconnects. They are very vulnerable to a host of microcontaminants that can wreak havoc on optical signals. To ensure system performance and reliability, these contaminants must be removed from both sides of each end face every time a fiber is installed, tested or reconfigured.

Any contamination in the contact zone of mated end faces may interrupt the optical

End face contamination can include dust and oils.


signal. Dust particles are one of the most common contaminants and can originate from many sources, including dead skin, plant pollen, cardboard boxes and clothing lint. Although just microns in size, dust particles cause scratches and pitting on the end faces, resulting in insertion loss (weakened signal). Another typical contaminant is fingerprint oils. The oils contain salts that can create air gaps between the end faces and potentially cause back-reflection, signal attenuation or even a complete system shutdown.

Even brand-new fiber needs to be cleaned and tested to ensure contamination is removed. With fiber optics, new does not always mean clean. Jumpers and patch cords, even direct from the factory, are not guaranteed to be clean. Outgassed plasticizers or even plastic particles from the protective dust caps themselves can leave contamination behind and must be removed to ensure cleanliness.

MYTH 2: CLEANING TAKES TOO MUCH TIME AND MONEY.With the increased need for connectivity and the growing number of fiber optic networks, many technicians feel pressure to work as quickly as possible and move on to the next installation. Combine that with the fact that many technicians are compensated based on the number of installations they can complete for the day, and the temptation to cut corners when cleaning can be high.

However, cleaning and inspecting a fiber end face takes only seconds. The minutes spent cleaning and inspecting fiber end faces far outweigh the hours spent if the technician has to return to troubleshoot, identify, repair and clean faulty splices and connectors.

In addition, cleaning labor costs are typically lower than repair costs. Cleaning takes only pennies, but a repair call could potentially cost hundreds of dollars when a connection fails. Dispatching a truck to the work site to rework a faulty splice because of contaminated connections and splicing typically costs much more – not to mention that customers are unhappy, and business may be lost. In most

instances, cleaning during installation is far less expensive than repairing after the fact.

MYTH 3: THERE IS NO NEED FOR SPECIAL TOOLS TO CLEAN.The standard for inspection and cleaning of fiber optic connectors is the international IEC standard 61300-3-35. One of the best ways to meet this cleanliness standard is to use the right fiber optic cleaning tools engineered for fiber optic applications. Using better cleaning tools and procedures allows technicians to clean quickly and thoroughly, saving time and money. It also helps limit warranty claims and ensures a highly functioning, reliable network. Here are the basic tools every technician should have for effective and reliable cleaning of fiber optic connections.

Fabric wipes: For the best cleaning wipes, choose one made from fabric. However, cleaning fiber end faces on a shirtsleeve is not an accepted practice. Cleaning with ordinary wipes, tissues or clothing will deposit even more contaminants to the end faces and spread them around. Instead,

opt for a clean, optical-grade, fabric wipe engineered for cleaning fiber. Fabric wipes are highly absorbent, allowing them to effectively wick the contamination away from the surface of the end face and not generate lint. The fabric wipes are also good, when used with a static-dissipative cleaning fluid, for “wet-dry” cleaning to help eliminate static during cleaning.

Remember to use just one wipe per end face. It is commendable that technicians want to save their companies money by reusing wipes to control costs or to protect the environment. However, reusing wipes runs the risk of cross-contaminating the network. Used wipes will most likely redeposit particulate or oils onto the end face.

Instead of reusing a large wipe, select smaller wipes that come packaged to keep them dry and clean until ready to use. This ensures that the wipes and the end faces remain perfectly clean every time, and network technicians can still reduce waste.

Optical-grade cleaning fluid: iNEMI, IPC, BICSI and other fiber industry organizations recommend “wet-dry”’ cleaning as the most effective method for cleaning fiber end

Use fabric wipes to “wet-dry” clean end faces to prevent leaving lint behind.

TECHNOLOGY


faces. Water and isopropyl alcohol are traditional choices but are hard to buy in high-purity packaging and difficult to keep clean and uncontaminated during day-to-day operations. Instead, specify a pure optical-grade cleaning fluid for best results.

Optical-grade cleaning fluids are fast-drying, static-dissipative and sold

in hermetically sealed packaging. Fast drying time is especially important for cleaning fiber as it speeds cleaning time and keeps moisture from being attracted to the fluid, which minimizes contamination. A static-dissipative fluid also helps deflect impurities, especially dust from the surface being cleaned. Packaging a fluid in a hermetically

sealed dispenser protects the fluid from pollution and keeps it from spilling out if the dispenser tips over.

Because optical-grade cleaning fluids do not contain water, they will not freeze in cold outside-plant environments. They are also nonflammable, making them safe to store and nonhazardous for transport in service trucks.

Fabric-tipped cleaning sticks: Cleaning sticks are typically used to clean bulkhead connectors. Technicians should choose a stick with a tip soft enough to not scratch the ceramic or composite ferrule end face. When working with cleaning sticks, they should first moisten the cleaning tip with a small amount of optical-grade cleaning fluid and rotate the stick in only one direction to avoid cross-contamination. Technicians should use just one stick per end face. They should remove each stick from the factory packaging when it is needed, keeping the others clean inside the package. Pulling out multiple sticks and leaving them lying around will make them vulnerable to contamination.

CONCLUSION Reliable, trouble-free fiber optic networks are the key to an interconnected future. Cleaning is more than important – it is critical to the long-term reliability of any network. One of the biggest threats to fiber signals today is the contamination of end faces. By replacing the “three myths of fiber cleaning” with proven tools and procedures, network technicians can clean fiber connections quickly, affordably and effectively. When choosing cleaning fluids, tools and methods, seek the help of an experienced supplier that specializes in fiber cleaning to advise you on which tools and methods will work best for you. v

Jay Tourigny is senior vice president at MicroCare Corp., which offers Sticklers brand fiber cleaning solutions. He holds numerous U.S. patents for cleaning-related products used in fiber optic, medical and precision cleaning applications. For more information, visit www.microcare.com.Use one cleaning stick per end face, and twist in one direction to prevent cross-contamination.

Specify an optical-grade, hermetically sealed cleaning fluid for best cleaning results.

CenturyLink services are not available everywhere and may vary by multi-dwelling properties. CenturyLink may change, cancel, or substitute offers and services, or vary them by service area, at its sole discretion without notice. All products and services listed are governed by tariffs, terms of service, or terms and conditions posted at www.centurylink.com/terms. Contact CenturyLink for details. 1 Gig service: Customers must accept HSI Agreement prior to using service. Listed Internet speeds vary due to conditions outside of network control, including customer location, equipment, and access through a wireless connection, and are not guaranteed. See centurylink.com/internetpolicy for additional network performance information. © 2019 CenturyLink. All Rights Reserved.

The future is brighter with fiber.

Learn more at centurylink.com/mdu

Get fiber-connected Internet with speeds up to 1 Gig from CenturyLink. Speed may not be available in your area.

Attract potential buyers and tenants with the speed to work, play, and innovate when you power your properties with CenturyLink fiber-connected services.

A fiber connection is more than just fast Internet:

Instant Connection

CenturyLink ON is pre-wired and pre-installed to provide CenturyLink® Internet and Digital Home Phone service instantly after move-in.

Future-Ready

Fiber has a virtually unlimited bandwidth and its durability means it will last for years to come. So you’ll be equipped for whatever comes next, because fiber optic is future-ready.

Improve Property Value

Fiber-connected homes can be a higher value than homes with no fiber connection.

MDU TECHNOLOGY


Student Housing Technology: Predictions Versus RealityA technology seer re-examines some bold predictions he and his team made in 2012. The verdict: not bad at all.

By Andrew Marshall / Campus Technologies Inc.

Predicting anything in the technology sector is a risky business. Predicting anything five or even 10 years ahead is

extraordinarily risky. Nonetheless, in December 2007, the

Campus Techologies Inc. team wrote the first of a series of white papers on future bandwidth requirements and the operation of student housing networks. This was revised every couple of years, and in October 2012, BroadBand Communities published an overview of the July 2012 edition of that white paper.

Seven years on, how did we do? I have to admit I approached this review with some trepidation, but in reality, we did pretty well, given the subject matter and the number of years out we were looking. Inevitably, we fell short in a couple of areas.

CLOSE, BUT NO CIGAR

PER-USER BANDWIDTH REQUIREMENTS In the 2012 paper, we used Nielsen’s law (bandwidth available to a high-end user will increase by 50 percent a year) to extrapolate high-end and average U.S. user bandwidth.

At the five-year mark, in 2017, we estimated 1,748 Mbps for a high-end user and 336 Mbps for an average user. By 2019, those numbers were estimated to be 3,933 Mbps and 756 Mbps.

The real results were significantly lower for three main reasons. First, the technology and its deployment has not kept up with demand by

consumers – many U.S. subscribers have no high-bandwidth choice at all. Second, the applications and content to drive increased demand don’t yet exist (for example, online gaming and 4K streaming consume only 25–30 Mbps). Third, the consumer electronics industry stalled at a 1 Gbps connection for consumer devices and has not seen the need to go above that rate.

It’s worth noting that several residential providers have announced 10 gigabit residential services. However, the availability is so limited that although the announcements validate our predictions, we think it prudent to not include them in our scoring.

Interestingly, many student housing communities now offer gigabit to the bed and, as a result, are much closer to these predictions than single-family or other MDU communities.

It is a chicken and egg situation: Technologies that consume and require large amounts of bandwidth won’t be developed or rolled out until networks are available for consumers to access them, and networks won’t be built out until there is consumer demand.

EDGE BANDWIDTH FOR STUDENT HOUSING In 2012, we predicted that by 2017, a 200-bed community would be connected with a pipe at least 880 Mbps and a 500-bed community with a pipe at least 3,303 Mbps.

We were very close with this prediction. Campus Technologies now routinely provisions


5 or 10 Gbps circuits for student housing communities. In 2017, 1 gigabit for a small community and 3 or more gigabits for a larger one was the norm.

Past the five-year mark in 2017, predictions run slightly too high, mainly because demand has slowed because of the lack of applications and technologies to consume bandwidth.

RIGHT ON THE MARK

INTERFACE CARDS IN COMPUTERSIn 2012, we said, “The majority of network-connected devices will likely be gigabit-capable within two years.” That was correct.

CARRIER (CELLULAR) WIRELESSOur 2012 prediction was that “Carrier wireless (3G or 4G) is unlikely to have a significant impact on bandwidth requirements at student housing properties.”

That was correct. At the time of writing in 2012, there was much speculation about fixed 4G wireless rendering Wi-Fi obsolete. If that sounds familiar today, it’s because many of the same things are being claimed for 5G.

ETHERNET SWITCHESIn 2012, we said, “All new access layer switches deployed today, whether as upgrades or for new construction, should provide 1 Gbps access layer ports to connect to individual users and should provide either a 10 Gbps uplink or the ability to field upgrade to a 10 Gbps uplink.”

That was also correct, and it holds true today.

CONTRACTSIn 2012, we cautioned that “all owners and operators must carefully examine the contract position of their assets with regard to internet provisioning and maintain a high level of flexibility in future years.”

Correct again. This has become the standard operating procedure for most large student housing operators, which now exercise tighter contract control, limit contract terms to three years and take other steps to ensure they can meet resident needs.

MISSED BY A MILE

BANDWIDTH CONSERVATIONIn 2012, we said, “The growing trend of using the public internet to stream multimedia will give rise to new bandwidth-conservation technologies.”

We were mainly wrong with this one. Bandwidth increases became less expensive than introducing bandwidth conservation through techniques such as network edge caching and bandwidth acceleration.

So where does that leave us? Although we predicted student housing demands and trends pretty closely, we were over-optimistic about the general population. It appears that Nielsen’s law will need updating or discarding from now on, as there seems to be very low growth in the bandwidth available to most U.S. residents.

Although there are tantalizing glimpses of technologies that could become high-bandwidth-consuming applications in the future, few would have the ability to utilize them, and this may hamper adoption.

In student housing, there is an inexorable move toward reducing or eliminating traditional cable and video amenities. This will have an effect on bandwidth required at the edge in student housing properties, but it will be incremental and not radical. v

Andrew Marshall is CEO of Campus Technologies Inc., a national, vertically integrated, managed network service provider that designs, builds and operates wired and wireless networks in student housing. Contact him at 215-243-7010 or [email protected]. See more at www.campustechnologies.com.

Campus Technologies now routinely provisions 5 or 10 Gbps circuits for student housing communities.

TECHNOLOGY


Decoding the 10G OpportunityService providers set the pace for 10G broadband and beyond.


GPON and DOCSIS 3.1 are the go-to gigabit broadband technologies for residential and business services today.

But it’s clear that telco and cable operators see 10 Gbps and its variants as the next speed target for consumers and businesses.

The 10G race will be driven by diverse players. Already, Fibrant offers 10G in Salisbury, North Carolina, and Chattanooga’s EPB customers can purchase a premium-priced 10G service.

More recently, Lumos Networks launched four FTTP profiles – 2, 4, 8 and 10 Gbps – to rural Virginia customers. It anticipates increasing speed profiles based on ADTRAN’s software-defined access (SD-Access) architecture.

“The 10G network is an evolution into what we see as a demand for more and more speed profiles and broadband capability,” says Diego Anderson, senior vice president and general manager of Lumos Networks. “And the great thing about this product is, it’s symmetrical.”

WHO NEEDS 10G?The initial use of 10G will be for business and wholesale services. Initially, most service providers will offer residential customers 2–5 Gbps profiles. This is largely because most consumer electronic devices don’t support connections higher than 1 Gbps today. However, service providers will offer 10G to consumers who desire such speeds for a higher premium price.

Broadband Trends said in a study that “deployment of 10G PON for residential applications is not expected until 2020 for the majority of operators.”

AT&T has hinted that its 10G drive will focus on small-business services and wireless backhaul.

“What we tried to develop was something that can be used for consumers – not that consumers would need more than a gigabit – but with that same PON you have the capacity to [serve] small business,” says Eddy Barker, assistant vice president of access architecture and design for AT&T. “You could also use it for mobile backhaul capabilities.”

Although businesses will be the likely target for 10G FTTP, Frog is preparing a residential 10G product at the Walsh Ranch in Fort Worth, Texas. The XGS-PON network will support 2 Gbps with an automatic upgrade path to 10G.

“I get people who ask, ‘Ten gigs? Isn’t that excessive?’” said Michael Voll, CEO of Frog, during the Great Communities session at the 2019 BroadBand Communities Summit. “There’s a kid somewhere who is going to blow away the creativity and the innovation of Steve Jobs, who will change lives, and I don’t want to be living in a community where I don’t have 10G.”

NEXT-GEN PON RISING UP Service providers deploying 10G FTTP have new methods that build on the existing PON family of network standards. By 2024, analyst firm Ovum forecasts, next-gen PON will represent 72 percent of total PON equipment revenues.

Ovum predicts sales of next-gen GPON optical network terminals (ONTs/ONUs) will grow at a CAGR (2019–2024) of 190 percent and sales of legacy GPON ONTs/ONUs will decline at a CAGR (2019–2024) of 11 percent.


Julie Kunstler, principal analyst at Ovum, says 10G GPON deployments in China, Japan and Korea and in cable “have started and will pick up momentum in the second half of this year and into the first half of next year.”

However, 10G PON deployments have been slow because of provider requirements.

“The Chinese operators wanted a combo GPON and 10G PON optical module, which makes upgrades easier because they don’t have to add new ports or chassis to upgrade to 10G GPON,” Kunstler says.

She adds that the adoption of combo PON devices outside China depends on “how much GPON a provider has already deployed and how space constrained [its] central offices are.”

TELCOS SQUARE OFF ON XGS-PON, NG-PON2As telcos move into the 10G race with trials and deployments, they remain divided on XGS-PON and NGPON2.

Verizon, which has trialed solutions from ADTRAN and Calix in its lab and with select customers, launched its first office application of NG-PON2 in Tampa, Florida, last year. It plans to extend the deployment to more customers.

The telco claims NG-PON2 allows it to offer business and residential services on one fiber by supporting multiple wavelengths.

AT&T advocates XGS-PON, running trials in its fiber footprint, which now passes 12 million premises with fiber.

Likewise, Frontier is on the XGS-PON path. Leveraging Nokia’s 7360 XGS-PON solution, Frontier’s phased rollout of XGS-PON services will initially focus on the greater Dallas/Fort Worth area of Texas before expanding to the rest of the state, along with Florida and California.

Building on its existing Fios network, Frontier will invest about $50 million to support 10G fiber-based business and backhaul services.

“In 2019, we will be implementing 10 gigabit capability systemwide for commercial customers and expanding 5G wireless backhaul capacity,” said Dan McCarthy, CEO of Frontier, during its fourth-quarter earnings call. “As we upgrade the network to 10 gigabits, you’ll see us pull more and more commercial units.”

Broadband Trends found most operators are expected to take a “step‐wise migration path” in their 10G PON evolution, with NG‐PON2 adoption not expected until 2020 or later.

“When we did our survey, the bulk of the respondents were going from GPON to XGS-PON, another subsegment will go on to NG-PON2, and a small segment will go directly to NG-PON2,” says Teresa Mastrangelo, principal of Broadband Trends. “XGS-

According to Ovum, sales of next-generation PON equipment will increase rapidly.

PON allows them to position the network for 10G without changing their customer-premises equipment.”

CABLE’S 10G DANCETelcos aren’t the only segment serious about 10G. Led by the National Cable Telecommunications Association (NCTA), CableLabs and Cable Europe, the cable industry unveiled its 10G plans during the January CES trade show.

What’s compelling about cable’s 10G drive is that it uses the existing hybrid fiber coax (HFC) network, which passes 85 percent of U.S. homes. Unlike the cable 1 Gbps products, which typically have slow upload speeds, the planned 10G product is symmetrical.

Comcast, Charter, Cox, Mediacom and Midco joined Rogers, Shaw, Vodafone, Taiwan Broadband Communications, Telecom Argentina and Liberty Global in support of the NCTA/CableLabs 10G initiative.

Cable’s 10G plan claims not only faster speeds but also lower latency and better security. Having taken on large-scale 1 Gbps deployments, Charter and Comcast have set a 10G path.

Charter Spectrum completed its DOCSIS 3.1 build in the fourth quarter 2018, expanding 1 Gbps throughout its footprint. Tom Rutledge, CEO of Charter, said during its fourth-quarter earnings call that the DOCSIS 3.1 rollout puts the company on a rapid 10G migration path and addresses 5G wireless threats.

“We have a pathway to 10 gig symmetrical now spaced out that we announced at CES as an industry,” Rutledge said. “We just went to 1 gig in 2018 and rolled that out across our footprint. And that’s faster than the 5G fixed wireless deployments that have been spoken about so publicly.”

Likewise, Comcast offers gigabit service to nearly 100 percent of its footprint. The MSO increased its residential internet customer base by 1.1 million customers in 2018.

Not content to follow the crowd, Altice USA is migrating to DOCSIS 3.1 but favors FTTH.

Dexter Goei, CEO of Altice USA, told investors during its fourth-quarter earnings call that although it supports cable’s 10G initiative, it considers GPON a priority.

TECHNOLOGY


“As part of the whole CableLabs experience, we’re part of that,” Goei said. “But we are more focused on our fiber-to-the-home GPON technology than coax[-based] 10G technology.”

Kunstler says cable operators in the United States and Japan deploy 10G GPON and 10G EPON mainly in newer developments. “Cable operators in what I call greenfield situations are looking at 10G EPON,” says Kunstler, adding that “most cable operators will drive fiber deeper into the network with distributed access architecture and DOCSIS 3.1 upgrades.”

FOCUS ON AUTOMATION, SOFTWAREIn tandem with migrating to 10G, service providers will benefit from the automation capabilities pioneered in the open-source community. Leveraging a software-based construct, service providers aim to virtualize last-mile network access functions. By using open hardware and software designs, telcos can save time to manage, deliver, monitor, troubleshoot and provide customer care.

Kunstler says service providers see virtualization as a means to ease PON equipment deployments. “There’s definitely interest in how to use some aspects of the cloud for network functions and how to make certain upgrades from 2.5G to 10G easier,’’ she says.

Led by AT&T, Verizon and CBTS, Cincinnati Bell’s integrator division, providers are incorporating software-based network elements into their next-gen PON architectures.

AT&T has been conducting open-source PON system trials. In January 2018, AT&T completed trials of XGS-PON, leveraging Open Source Access Manager Hardware Abstraction (OSAM-HA) software in Atlanta and Dallas.

OSAM-HA was released into the Open Networking Foundation (ONF) open-source community last October. Leveraging the Open Network Automation Platform (ONAP) specification, OSAM is a vendor-agnostic operational suite for managing consumer and business broadband access network elements.

“We have continued to conduct field trials with customers, but the ONF

work is still not completely finished,” Barker says. “The SEBA [SDN Enabled Broadband Access] and vOLTHA [virtual OLT Hardware Abstraction] effort has some critical features and functions that need to be completed by the [open-source] community to be fully hardened and commercialized.”

Barker adds that in 2020, “SEBA will become more ready for commercial use and start being more equivalent to what traditional OLTs are capable of running on an edge cloud.”

AT&T has been developing ONTs that can support GPON and XGS-PON, allowing it to maintain a consistent cost structure.

“My target is to equate the cost structure of GPON with XGS-PON, which has been a big feat with the cost of optics and the cost of silicon,” Barker says. “Our goal was to get to higher capacity, match the cost structure of how we deploy XGS-PON to GPON, and have a better mix of consumer and business infrastructure services on the same PON.”

CBTS unveiled its Carrier Open Infrastructure (COI) architecture. Leveraging the vOLTHA/SEBA framework, COI offers carriers open-source virtual networking functions and off-the-shelf hardware.

COI follows the central office re-architected as a data center (CORD) framework created by the ONF and is deployed on open-source hardware from the Open Compute Project. CBTS 10GB XGS-PON Access Solutions consist of two elements: CBTS 10GB XGS-PON Access and OpenONU.

Robert Lamb, program director of carrier open infrastructure at CBTS, is set on simplifying multiaccess network buildouts. “In an environment where you have G.fast, VDSL, GPON, XGS-PON, EPON and NG-PON2, you have got a large integration bill,” Lamb says. “We have hidden away the complexity from the operational support system and give carriers the agility to react with the appropriate technology.”

EYEING 25G AND 50G Just as the industry looks to 10G, movement around 25G and 50G is already growing to facilitate 5G wireless fronthaul, which requires very low latency and support for bandwidth up to 25G.

Although 25G and 50G PON should begin shipping in 2023, Ovum forecasts low sales volumes – at least initially. “Operators have different opinions: Is 10G enough, or do you need to go to 25G?” Kunstler says.

Some countries, such as China, will go directly to 50G for 5G fronthaul applications.

Most Chinese operators want to go from 10G to 50G because “they want a bigger jump,” Kunstler says, adding that some Chinese operators, including China Telecom, want to leverage WDM-PON.

Vendors such as Nokia have already debuted a 25G platform to support 5G fronthaul and edge cloud deployments. As a component of its Anyhaul portfolio, the platform coexists with 2.5G and 10G PON.

AT&T says it has been conducting research on 25G, which is still in the formative stages.

“AT&T has been an advocate of pushing 25 and 50 Gbps technology,” Barker says. “The primary reason we have been looking at that as we look at our Ethernet capabilities and the cost of how we’re doing mobile fronthaul today ... [is that] it takes quite a bit of capacity. Unfortunately, XGS-PON was not going to give us enough capacity to be beneficial.”

Already, industry groups such as the O-RAN Alliance are addressing these issues. The O-RAN Alliance and the Linux Foundation jointly created the O-RAN Software Community, which will provide open software aligned with the O-RAN Alliance’s open architecture.

O-RAN Working Group 4 also developed Coop DBA. This merges the control plane of the RAN with the PON infrastructure to overcome the latency seen in PON architectures.

“When you coordinate these two control planes, you can look far enough ahead and schedule capacity,” Barker says. “By doing that, we have the capability to use higher-speed PON circuits to carry wireless fronthaul traffic and share it amongst multiple small cell locations.” v


ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT


Technology Access For an Equitable Future of WorkTechnology helps individuals and local economies adapt to workforce displacement. Equal access to broadband is needed to train workers for the knowledge economy.

By Cat Blake / Next Century Cities

Automation isn’t a new phenomenon; people have invented technology to make lives easier for centuries. In

November 1814, the Times of London became the first newspaper to use steam-powered printing presses to print 1,100 sheets of newsprint per hour. This technology replaced scribes, accelerated the printing revolution and transformed the nature of communications.

Despite the cycle of innovation and automation, new technologies often cause anxiety about exactly how – and by whom – their effects will be felt. This worry is not unfounded. A recent report from the Brookings Institution, “Automation and Artificial Intelligence: How Machines Are Affecting People and Places,” shows that just as economic growth has been distributed unevenly in the United States, so the effects of automation will be.

Not all jobs are equally threatened by automation. Industries in which tasks are routine face the highest susceptibility to automation: production, food service, transportation, administration, maintenance and construction. This means that smaller, more rural, less educated communities are often more at risk than cities. Brookings found that roughly three-quarters of counties in metro areas have lower average automation exposure than rural counties. Among metro areas, cities with higher average educational attainment face lower automation exposure.

As for individuals, Brookings found that men, youth, those with lower educational attainment and racial minorities are most likely to be affected by automation. (Consider, for example, that jobs traditionally held by women in the United States are more likely to rely on what we think of as “soft skills” that are harder for technology to replace.)

With a few exceptions, such as age and gender, the populations identified as most likely to be affected by workforce displacement due to automation overlap significantly with populations that are least likely to have robust technology access in the United States. Pew Research Center data shows that there are significant divides along lines of community geography, educational attainment, income and race when it comes to home broadband use and smartphone ownership. For example, Pew found that 67 percent of urban households used home broadband in 2018, but only 58 percent of rural households used home broadband. And though 85 percent of college graduates used home broadband, only 24 percent of those without a high school degree said the same.

HELPING WORKERS UPGRADE SKILLSThe overlap in populations more likely to be affected by automation with those that have notably low access to or adoption of technology is important because technology is a critical tool in helping individuals and local economies adapt to workforce displacement.


At the individual level, technology helps workers upskill and reskill. Access to fast, affordable broadband provides the opportunity for workers to gain new and diverse skills on their own time, schedule and budget. In Westminster, Maryland, the Mid-Atlantic Gigabit Innovation Collaboratory leveraged the city’s robust broadband access to create an ethical hacking competition that teaches cybersecurity skills to students. Wilson Community College in Wilson, North Carolina, recently started offering a fiber optics training course at a low cost to offer entrance to a new technical field through education and apprenticeships.

The Raleigh (North Carolina) Connected initiative teaches technology skills to promote workforce training and attract new technology companies to the area. In Austin, Texas, the network of Austin Free-Net computer labs provide free digital literacy and information technology workforce training programs.

At the community level, robust broadband access can help diversify local economies. Lafayette, Louisiana, has historically depended on the gas and oil industries, but the city’s municipal fiber network helps attract new technology companies and a varied set of opportunities for residents. In Gaylord, Minnesota, the cooperative network RS Fiber played a direct role in bringing a new medical school to town, creating hundreds of new jobs.

Although these communities have made technology access a priority, a lack of competitive options and high costs mean that access is not equitably attainable for everyone in the United States. The repercussions are that individuals and communities that have access to technology are much better positioned to respond and adapt to a changing workforce than those without access.

Automation will inevitably affect jobs, and it’s imperative to make sure the harms aren’t felt asymmetrically.

Workforce displacement is already poised to affect vulnerable populations most significantly, and disproportionate access to the tools needed to adapt will only deepen this divide.

The United States can take steps to prepare for an equitable future of work at the local and federal level by:

• Supporting digital skills training so individuals can fully leverage technology as a tool.

• Making broadband access a national infrastructure priority, just like water and transportation.

• Including broadband and technology access as a pillar in conversations about economic development, education and workforce training. v

Cat Blake is policy and program manager for Next Century Cities, which supports mayors and community leaders as they seek to ensure that everyone has fast, affordable, reliable internet access. Contact her at [email protected].

Students learn cybersecurity skills at an ethical hacking competition in Westminster, Maryland.

BROADBAND APPLICATIONS


Educational Technology Assumes Robust BroadbandWhat homework gap? Educational technology vendors now assume all schools and students have plenty of broadband available. Maybe the assumption will prove to be self-fulfilling.

By Rollie Cole / Sagamore Institute for Policy Research

Once again this March, the South by Southwest organization held its four-day conference on all things new and

exciting in the world of education. The coverage extended from pre-kindergarten through K–12 and higher education to lifelong adult education. I attend each year on behalf of BroadBand Communities to see what developments might increase the demand for broadband in homes and educational institutions. This year, I was struck by three principles that edtech vendors seem to be following.

1. ASSUME “REASONABLE BROADBAND” EVERYWHERE.About nine of 10 contestants in the student and adult startup competitions just assumed that broadband connectivity would exist, at least at a level adequate to stream video on a smartphone. The same was true of more than half the 200-plus firms exhibiting in the convention hall. These firms had no plans for rural areas or poor urban areas where that assumption was not valid.

In earlier years, many firms had online and offline versions of their software; not this year.

The only purported “OFFline solution” I saw was a battery-powered pen for marking multiple-choice tests on paper. The pen needed a docking station with an internet connection to allow its stored results to be extracted (Anoto, caieducation.com).

A more typical example was Care2Rock (care2rock.com), which uses an internet connection and a standard laptop with microphone, camera and speakers to allow one-on-one remote music instruction. The firm just assumed every potential student already had both such a laptop (which could be a Chromebook) and a “reasonable” internet connection.

Another example was Literal (literalapp.com), which “chatifies” classic literature, such as “Alice in Wonderland”; that is, it turns the original text into chat posts to encourage students to absorb literature in bite-size pieces if pages and pages of words on paper are too overwhelming for them.

2. PUT AI TO USE.In earlier years, panels of experts speculated about the future uses of artificial intelligence (AI) in education. The one panel of that kind this year discussed how to teach AI principles to K–12 students.

This year, machine learning and other AI techniques were used in many of the applications shown. Some used AI to develop an application or device. Some used AI to have the application or device respond to a student as the student used it. Some used AI to help make continuous improvement in the application or device itself. In every case, the AI database and the AI algorithms were not at the point of use but somewhere remote. The “assume reasonable


broadband everywhere” principle was in use all the time.

One example was Amira Learning (www.amiralearning.com), which uses AI to listen to beginning readers trying to read out loud and intervenes with videos of teachers saying the words that give the students difficulty.

3. LEARNIFY GAMING. Several sessions discussed how to add learning experiences to video game play, largely by treating multiplayer games as if they were college-level club sports. A national organization, the North American Scholastic Esports Federation (www.esportsfed.org), has sprung up to do this. The association holds various competitions, but the learning comes largely from the club aspect of the events. Unlike traditional major sports at the K–12 and college levels, the students do all the work of running events, including holding contests for best logo, best mascot, best event organization and so forth. Similar organizations are springing up at the college level.

Neither the National Federation of High School Associations nor the National Collegiate Athletic Association has stepped in. Both appear to be

waiting to see how long the fad lasts.Again, the assumption of a robust

pipe appears. The organization and those involved simply assume that sufficient broadband already exists somewhere (remember, speed and latency really, really matter in multiplayer games, almost as much as in electronic stock trading). The panels included one passing discussion of finding a venue with enough computers but assumed that if a venue had computers, it had the required broadband.

IS BROADBAND A DISTRACTION?FCC commissioners have used the term “homework gap” since 2014, if not earlier. Yet I learned today of a Columbia University professor, a former FCC staffer, who claimed never to have heard the term. He and others wondered out loud (OK, in an email list) about whether broadband was just a distraction from reading and student-teacher interaction.

Some of us in the discussion questioned whether the same concerns about student distraction applied to the invention of printing (why attend lectures when one could just read

the book?) and of the electric light (remembering those places in third-world countries where students do their homework in lighted parking lots because they have no lights in their homes).

The educational world has moved well beyond such concerns about distraction. Broadband is used for administrative functions – enrollment, attendance, submitting homework and posting grades – and for instruction, and in both areas, the use of broadband and the amount and quality of broadband required are growing rapidly. The vendors have simply assumed away any “homework gap” problem, starting with the announcement three years ago that the only official preparation for the Scholastic Aptitude Test – which is less renowned than it once was but is still taken by one-third of U.S. high school students – was available online and only online.

I suspect the pressure is building to recognize broadband as an essential utility, at least for education. v

Rollie Cole is a senior fellow at the Sagamore Institute for Policy Research. You can reach him at [email protected].

Virtual reality in the SXSWedu Expo. Photo by Marilyn Garcia.

BROADBAND COMMUNITIES MARKETPLACE


Final_CRR-634-AEN_COR-12674_R2.indd1-25-2017 12:32 PM TB

2

JobClient

Media TypeLiveTrimBleed

Pubs

12674COR

Print AdNone3.375” x 2.75”None

None

Job info

None

Notes

Art DirectorCopywriterAccount MgrStudio ArtistPrint Prd Mgr

TBNoneTTNoneBS

Approvals

FontsTheSans C4s (SemiLight, SemiBold)

ImagesThinkstockPhotos-542095422_Glow-Home_crop.psd (CMYK; 783 ppi; 38.31%), Corning_Blue_BoxLockup_WhiteLogo_Sol-id_cmyk.ai (20.47%)

Inks Cyan, Magenta, Yellow, Black

Fonts & Images

Saved at NoneBy Printed At

© 2017 Corning Optical Communications. CRR-634-AEN / January 2017

Corning fiber brings limitless possibilities home. www.corning.com/ftth/bbc | 800-743-2675

Innovation lives here.

S:3.375”

S:2.75”

T:3.375”

T:2.75”

B:3.375”

B:2.75”

To reserve space in this section and LEVERAGE the power of your advertising via print, digital, and multimedia exposure in the global market, contact Irene G. Prescott at 505-867-3299 or email [email protected].

MAKE THEIR CONNECTIONS MOVE-IN READY.

To learn more visit:SpectrumCommunitySolutions.com

Deliver Fiber WiFi, full-featured Voice services and an extensive variety of entertainment options to your residents.

©2017 Charter Communications

©2018 AT&T Intellectual Property. All rights reserved.

Ltd avail./areas.

Visit att.com/fiberproperties to learn more.

MAKE ANY SIZE PROPERTY STAND OUT.

AD10377A Copyright © 2017 ADTRAN Inc. All rights reserved.

ENABLING COMMUNITIES,CONNECTING LIVESBroadband transforms communities, rebuilds urban centers, revitalizes schools, stimulates economic growth and delivers innovative residential and business services. Uniquely open and interoperable fiber-optic based access architectures enable service providers to expand their addressable market and support the scale needed to unify Gigabit services across residential broadband, cloud connectivity and infrastructure backhaul applications.

Learn more at adtran.com/broadband

www.ofsoptics.com

Welcome Home.InvisiLight® OpticalFiber Solutions forToday’s Connected World.

LEARN MORE!

BROADBAND COMMUNITIES MARKETPLACE


To reserve space in this section and LEVERAGE the power of your advertising via print, digital, and multimedia exposure in the global market, contact Irene G. Prescott at 505-867-3299 or email [email protected].

Broadband Communities’Financial Modeling ToolsDownloaD now at www.FTTHanalyzer.com for FREE

• Cable companies, telephone companies or municipalities

• Rural providers

• Providers in multifamily housing

• Multiple neighborhoods

We can provide limited free guidance by telephone to help users get started. More hands-on help and presentations to community or company audiences are available for a small fee. Call 877-588-1649, or contact us at [email protected].

Connecting Communities Improving lives. Advancing technology.

centurylink.com/mdu© 2019 CenturyLink. All Rights Reserved.

THE SPACE WHERE COMPETITIVE BROADBAND

SOLUTIONS MEET THE MULTIFAMILY INDUSTRY

www.mfbroadband.org

Take your business to the NEXT LEVEL!

ADVERTISER INDEX / CALENDAR


JUNE 24 – 26Mountain ConnectKeystone Resort and Conference CenterDillon, CO970-382-1799 www.mountainconnect.org

OCTOBER 14 – 18WISPAPALOOZA 2019Rio All Suite Hotel & CasinoLas Vegas, NV866-317-2851 • www.wispa.org

16 – 18SHLB Coalition ConferenceRenaissance Arlington Capital View HotelArlington, VA202-263-4626 • www.shlb.org

30 – 31Driving America’s Growth Conference & ExpoThe Westin Alexandria – Old TownWashington, DC877-588-1649www.townsandtech.com

NOVEMBER 4 – 6INCOMPAS SHOWOmni Louisville HotelLouisville, KY202-296-6650 • www.incompas.org

11 – 13NMHC OPTECH Conference & ExpositionHilton AnatoleDallas, TX202-974-2300 • www.nmhc.org

APRIL 2020 27 – 30BroadBand Communities SummitMarriott MarquisHouston, TX877-588-1649 • www.bbcmag.com

ADVERTISER PAGE WEBSITE

ADTRAN 49, 50, 54, 82 www.adtran.com/10G

AFL 13, 50, 54, 58 www.AFLglobal.com/Experts

Antronix 63 www.antronix.com

AT&T 41, 82 www.att.com/fiberproperties

BroadBand Communities Magazine 56, 83 www.bbcmag.com

BroadBand Communities

Summit 2020 Outside Front Cover Flap,

42 - 45, 62 www.bbcmag.com

Broadband: Driving America’s Growth

Conference & Expo Inside Front Cover Flap – 1,

23, 32, 83 www.TownsAndTech.com

CenturyLink 71, 83 www.centurylink.com/mdu

Charles Industries 19, 50, 54 www.charlesindustries.com

Clearfield, Inc. 50, 55, 58, 82,

Back Cover www.seeclearfield.com/

business

Corning 38, 50, 55, 82,

Inside Back Cover www.corning.com/

community-broadband

DISH Fiber 15 www.FasterWithDISH.com

EPB Broadband Solutions 33, 50, 55, 59 www.epb.com

ETI Software Solutions 38, 50, 55, 67 www.etisoftware.com

Maptraq 38, 50, 56, 57 www.maptraq.com

Multifamily Broadband Council 83 www.mfbroaband.org

OFS 7, 50, 56, 82 www.ofsoptics.com

Pavlov Media 3 www.pavlovmedia.com

Spectrum Community Solutions

(Charter Communications) 5, 83 www.SpectrumCommunity

Solutions.com

Synergy Fiber 77 pr.synergyfiber.com

Toner Cable Equipment, Inc. 83 www.tonercable.com

Walker and Associates 9, 51, 56 www.walkerfirst.com

Broadband Communities (ISSN 0745-8711) (USPS 679-050) (Publication Mail Agreement #1271091) is published 7 times a year at a rate of $24 per year by Broadband Properties LLC, 1909 Avenue G, Rosenberg, TX 77471. Periodical postage paid at Rosenberg, TX, and additional mailing offices. POSTMASTER: Please send address changes to Broadband Communities, PO Box 303, Congers, NY 10920-9852. CANADA POST: Publications Mail Agreement #40612608. Canada Returns to be sent to Bleuchip International, PO Box 25542, London, ON N6C 6B2. Copyright © 2019 Broadband Properties LLC. All rights reserved.

Bridging the Digital Divide With Advanced Fiber Networks

Documents

Transcript of Bridging the Digital Divide With Advanced Fiber Networks