Communities, not telcos, should define success of municipal broadband networks

For years, incumbents, state legislative allies, and public broadband detractors relied on CTIC and others analysis reports to influence anti-municipal laws, lawsuits, and adverse telecom policies. Communities intend to change the narrative by conveying how they, rather than incumbents, define broadband success. Generating revenue sufficient to cover on-going operating costs and retiring debt incurred to build the original network is considered financial success. Sebewaing Light and Water (SLW) built a gigabit network in 2014. SLW Superintendent Melanie McCoy stated at the time, “If we can get 500 of our 1800 residents to subscriber to the network, revenue would pay off the $1.7 million investment in the network buildout in eight years.” She reports that the City installed its 528th customer this week.Glasgow EPB, the public utility in Glasgow, Kentucky, measures success in three ways. They initially invested $5 million, which they recovered, plus ongoing maintenance, upgrades, and expansion costs. “Annually we save residents and businesses $3 million that goes into the local economy,” reports CEO William Ray. “We developed technology apps on the grid that manage peak loads that reduce wholesale electricity costs $480,000 each year. And we save $300,000 per year in operations cost through reduced truck runs and remote disconnects.A lot of muni networks proposals and plans center on border-to-border infrastructure projects, and the attendant discussions take on an all-or-nothing stance. Communities could weigh the value of partial-reach networks – incremental buildouts spread over several years. Each increment is a smaller project with manageable costs, has its own ROI and might be easier to finance. In both urban and rural areas there are examples of incremental buildouts generating revenue. Remember the tortoise.