Broadband Census Massachusetts
Editor’s Note: This is the first of a series of articles surveying the state of broadband, and of broadband data, within each of the United States. The complete list is at http://broadbandcensus.com/blog/?p=713. Or visit the BroadbandCensus.com Broadband Wiki. Help build this wiki by making a contribution to BroadbandCensus.com.
August 4 – At 10 a.m. this morning, Massachusetts Gov. Deval Patrick is scheduled to sign state-wide broadband legislation at the town hall of Goshen, about 12 miles northwest of Northhampton and in the Berkshire Mountains.
The law creates a $40 million Massachusetts broadband incentive fund, allowing the state to issue 30-year bonds to help bring broadband to unserved communities like Goshen. The funds will be administered by a quasi-public agency, the Massachusetts Technology Collaborative, which has been studying broadband in Massachusetts.
Goshen is one of the 32 towns in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts – out of a total of 351 towns and cities – that have no commercial broadband providers, according to Sharon Gillett, Commissioner of the Department of Telecommunications and Cable.
The 32 towns – all of which are in the western portion of Massachusetts, are “the one that we have defined as having no consumer-level provision of service,” Gillett said in an interview. Gillett said that state defined “unserved” as meaning that they had no access to fiber-optic, cable modem, or digital subscriber line (DSL) service.
The bill, which passed the Massachusetts House on June 30, cleared the Senate in July. Initially composed of $25 million, the House added $15 million to bill in an effort to allow underserved communities to tap into the funding.
Once signed into legislation, the technology collaborative will have the authority to tap into the fund, and “issue requests to the private sector, to anyone who wants to co-invest with the commonwealth, in servicing” these areas, said Gillett. “The governor’s initiative was always intended to stimulate private investment.”
In May 2006 the John Adams Innovation Institute, the economic development arm of the Massachusetts Technology Collaborative, developed a broadband initiative to support fast and ubiquitous high-speed connectivity throughout Massachusetts.
Last fall, the the John Adams institute published a town-by-town map (see below) of broadband availability, including the names of the providers that offer service to each township. The map identifies townships with 0 providers, with broadband coverage in a portion of the township (which it defined as “underserved”), and townships with 1, 2 or more broadband providers.
The Massachusetts data differs from the data about the numbers of providers indicated by the Federal Communications Commission.
In the Goshen, MA, ZIP code of 01032, for example, the FCC says that there are 5 broadband services; while Massachusetts says that there are 0 broadband services.
Because Massachusetts publicly releases the names of the available providers, BroadbandCensus.com has been able to incorporate this data onto its web site. BroadbandCensus.com combines data from individual internet users, carriers, and state and local government officials. As a result of the data from the Massachusetts Technology Collaborative, BroadbandCensus.com coverage is more complete in Massachusetts than in any other state.
Gillett said the federal government’s Universal Service Fund and Rural Utilities Service provide subsidization to only 3 of the 32 communities. That’s one reason for the state-wide initiative, she said.
In addition to the unserved communities, “there are another 63 towns that we have identified as underserved or partially served” because they have coverage within a portion of the township.
“Massachusetts has been has been very lucky [in that] we have been a very attractive market,” for investment by major carrier, said Gillett. Speaking of the fiber optic service offered by Verizon Communications, she said, “there are about 70 communities that have FiOS, and the biggest complaint people have about FiOS is, ‘when can I get it?’”
Referring to the combination of internet, cable television and telephone service, Gillett said, “the largest cable provider Comcast has triple play service, and they have all three services available in all communities” in which they offer service.
Gillett said that she expected the state to continue to disclose the names of carriers and where they offer service. “I am all for public disclosure; I understand that the carriers have some issues with that,” she said. “Once you are spending public money, there is accountability as to how you spend it, and there is accountability to make sure that you are spending it in the right places.”
“We need [disclosure] in a way that the state can hold the carriers accountable for the spending of public money,” she said.
Broadband Census Resources:
Below are public and private resources about broadband information in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts that BroadbandCensus.com has been able to identify.
In May 2006 the John Adams Innovation Institute, the economic development arm of the Massachusetts Technology Collaborative, developed a broadband initiative to support public-private partnerships to achieve fast, affordable and ubiquitous connectivity throughout Massachusetts.
- Massachusetts Broadband Legislative Information Packet
- Massachusetts Broadband Information and Resources
- Broadband Initiatives in Massachusetts
- Commissioner Sharon Gillett, Massachusetts Department of Telecommunications and Cable
- “Governor Patrick Files $25 Million Broadband Bill,” Press Release, October 18, 2007
- “Broadband Bill Clears House,” Cape Cod Times, July 1, 2008
Vermont House Backs $150 Million Broadband Plan Creating New State Office
A bill dedicating $150 million of anticipated federal funding to create a new state broadband office to coordinate and accelerate the expansion of high-speed Internet access throughout Vermont passed the State House of Representatives last week with overwhelming bipartisan support.
On March 24th, the Vermont House approved H.B. 360 by a vote of 145-1, backing the creation of the Vermont Community Broadband Authority. If the bill becomes law it would help fund and organize the deployment of broadband infrastructure between Vermont’s nine Communications Union Districts (CUDs) and their potential partners, which include electric distribution utilities, nonprofit organizations, the federal government, and private Internet Service Providers.
The bill was introduced in the state Senate last Friday, and discussed for the first time in the Senate Finance Committee on Wednesday.
Enabled by a 2015 law, CUDs are local governmental bodies consisting of two or more towns joined together to build communications infrastructure. They were established to create innovative solutions to build broadband networks and provide a combination of Fiber-to-the-Home and fixed wireless Internet connectivity in their respective territories across Vermont, especially in areas where incumbent ISPs fail to provide adequate service.
Vermont’s CUDs, which have called for federal funding assistance since the onset of the pandemic, are ideally positioned to distribute funds in a way that will provide reliable and high-performance Internet access to every nook-and-cranny of the state. Vermont’s active CUDs have already constructed deep pockets of fiber.
Whether or not the CUDs will be able to reach the state’s goal of delivering universal 100/100 Megabits per second (Mbps) Internet service by 2024 now rests in the hands of Vermont’s Senate, Congress, and the Biden Administration as state and federal lawmakers wrestle with how to best expand access to broadband.
CUDs Desire State Block Grants
The U.S. government has not yet provided guidance on how states will be able to distribute the federal dollars headed their way. In this sense, amendments added to H.B. 360 before it passed Vermont’s House, increasing the bill’s appropriation from an initial $30 million to $150 million, reflect the CUDs call for federal funding and state lawmakers’ desire for the federal government to establish rules that give states flexibility to utilize the funding how they see fit.
As of yet, it appears one of the main sources of broadband infrastructure funding allocated under the American Rescue Plan Act, the Coronavirus Capital Projects Fund, will be awarded in the form of state block grants. States will be awarded between $100 million and $500 million in block grants for capital projects, which include building improved telecommunications networks at a time when remote work, education, and telehealth are more prevalent than ever.
Vermont’s CUDs are hoping little to no constraints are placed on how states can spend incoming federal grant money. In conversation with ILSR, Carole Monroe, CEO of ValleyNet (the operations company of Vermont’s first fully-operating CUD, ECFiber) expressed deep frustrations about the strings that were attached to CARES Act funding. Recipients of CARES Act money were required to spend the funds within months of it being distributed. Monroe lamented the fact that it forced recipients to pursue short-term solutions.
“By the time it reached the state, it was too late to do anything except a few wireless access points here or there,” said Monroe.
“We’ve all been hoping for an infrastructure bill, but I think there will be many strings attached,” she said, cognizant of her past experiences with bureaucratic contingencies on funding. If the funding comes in the form of “block grants to the state it will make it much easier to move forward” because Vermont has a strategic and well-developed plan.
CUDs Need Startup Capital, and to Consolidate
Based on a Magellan Advisors’ report commissioned by Vermont’s Department of Public Services, it is estimated that it will cost $1 billion to deploy broadband infrastructure to the estimated 254,000 locations (82 percent of Vermont) that currently lack 100/100 Mbps symmetrical service (see inline map below, or high-resolution version at the bottom of this story).
CUDs have historically had limited access to the financial capital necessary for expansion into unserved and underserved areas of the state, as previous broadband grant programs have not offered the scale to solve the problem, and traditional funding sources tend to shy away from investing in entities with limited revenue history and little collateral.
Though private investors are beginning to show interest in funding CUDs initiatives, Vermont’s CUDs see the incoming federal funding as a rare opportunity for the infusion of start-up capital initially necessary for CUDs to be financially self-sufficient.
Monroe said that in order for CUDs to be self-supporting they need enough capital for three years of audited financials, three years of positive cash flow, and three years of positive EBITDA (Earnings Before Interest, Taxes, Depreciation, and Amortization). After getting CUDs to that point, they would then be able to access the municipal bond market, in which interest on money borrowed is not taxable.
While H.B. 360 will help by developing favorable taxing, financing, and regulatory mechanisms to support CUDs, Monroe suggested that it may also make sense for some of Vermont’s smaller CUDs to work together, consolidating Vermont’s nine CUDs into perhaps five or six. Some of the CUDs are very small (serving only about 10 rural towns), which may make it more difficult to gain return on investment.
At the heart of H.B. 360 is a call for increased partnerships to deliver resilient last-mile broadband infrastructure. It will be interesting to follow Vermont’s CUDs to see what entities they end up partnering with, as each partnership is likely to be unique.
Last Friday, Consolidated Communications, a major provider of Internet service in the region, responded to a CUDs request for proposal, demonstrating that the private ISP is willing to partner with the CUDs to deliver high-speed Internet service.
According to Monroe, a large portion of ECFiber’s 6,000 current subscribers switched from Consolidated Communications, so the company quickly learned they needed to improve its service and/or partner with the CUDs to remain viable in the state.
Consolidated Communications could be a desirable partner for Vermont’s CUDs given that they already have access to many pole attachments throughout the state. This will save CUDs from spending already-limited funds on utility pole attachments and make-ready work that often leads to increased costs in the buildout of broadband networks.
Another potential partner for CUDs is Green Mountain Power (GMP), the major electric utility in Vermont, which recently reached an agreement with the Department of Public Service to cover the costs of up to $2,000 for make-ready work in each of the utility’s unserved locations. With 7,500 unserved locations in the utility’s service area, the agreement would reduce the cost of building broadband networks within their footprint by as much as $15 million. Many CUDs are working to calculate how the cost-savings agreement could significantly advance their efforts to expand broadband into unserved regions.
The electric utility’s contributions would also help bring equity to Vermont’s energy sector. Currently all Vermont electric ratepayers are contributing to the rollout of clean energy technologies, yet not all ratepayers are able to access those technologies because they do not have access to adequate broadband.
One thing is clear: Vermont state lawmakers see federal funding, guided by new state legislation, as key to creating a more equitable future and delivering universal broadband access for its citizens.
See a high-resolution map of locations served by 100/100 Mbps in Vermont here.
Editor’s Note: This piece was authored by Jericho Casper with the Institute for Local Self Reliance’s Community Broadband Network Initiative. Originally published on MuniNetworks.org, the piece is part of a collaborative reporting effort between Broadband Breakfast and the Community Broadband Networks program at ILSR.
Stamping out Election Falsehoods Like Playing Whack-a-Mole, Says Georgia’s Brad Raffensperger
February 5, 2021 – With election misinformation and conspiracy theories rampant in Election 2020, secretaries of state representing pivotal states swapped stories on Thursday about the howlers they faced – and what they did to try to maintain public trust in upholding election integrity.
Perhaps no one faced more pressure to act to overturn the results of his state’s presidential vote tally than Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger.
Among the many false accusations he faced was that a Ron Raffensperger, allegedly a brother of his, works for a Chinese technology firm. While there is such a person, and that person does in fact work for the Chinese telecom equipment giant Huawei, that Ron Raffensperger is not Brad Raffensperger’s brother.
At Thursday’s meeting of the National Association of Secretaries of State, Raffensperger said again that he does not have a brother named Ron. He also expressed condolences for the real Ron Raffensperger out there.
Stamping out falsehoods is like playing a game of ‘rumor-whack-a-mole,’ said Brad Raffensperger. Once you eradicate one rumor, another just pops up. It’s as if the truth has 30,000 Twitter followers while falsehood has 80 million followers, he added.
Arizona Secretary of State Katie Hobbs addressed the “Sharpiegate” scandal, another fake claim concocted by Republicans. Sharpiegate was the wrong notion pushed by some that Sharpie pens distributed at polling places were handed out for voting.
But the felt-tip pen’s ink bled through the ballot, making it unreadable by a machine and thus keeping the Sharpie victim’s vote from being counted. The twist in this particular story is that only the Sharpie-marked ballots cast by Republican candidates were thrown out, somehow.
While recognizing the seriousness of this misinformation campaign, exacerbated by Eric Trump’s tweets about it, souvenir Sharpies were ordered bearing “Sharpiegate 2020” printed on them – just as a joke, said Hobbs.
Michigan had a plan in place for months on how to collect, process, and release voting results, said Secretary of State Jocelyn Benson. However, because its processes were so efficient, Michigan caught its critics off guard. This exposed Michigan to accusations of allegedly counting its ballots too fast in an effort to try to “fix” the election. Robocalls targeted minority majority communities, including in Detroit.
Ohio also anticipated a barrage of misinformation. As a preemptive measure, the state rolled out numerous tools and resources to inform citizens of voting processes.
Secretaries of state need to help voters build confidence knowing their voice will be heard in a fair and honest contest, and not to tear it down, said Frank LaRose, Ohio Secretary of State. He praised Ohio’s election integrity and said it had a record low in ballot rejection, and a record high in ballot workers.
The state also tried to stop spreaders of misinformation by warning of felony charges for spreading lies.
California Wrestles With Efforts to Use Broadband for Distance Learning, Healthcare, and Digital Divide
October 16, 2020 — With or without federal action on broadband, California politicians have been active in taking steps to use broadband to drive distance learning and telehealth, and seeking to do more to close the state’s digital divide.
For example, a mid-August order by California Governor Gavin Newsom emphasized broadband’s potential to meet these state priorities.
The order (PDF), in turn, spurred on other telecommunications and broadband proposals, and these were discussed during a Wednesday virtual session of the Federal Communications Bar Association’s Northern California Chapter and Wireline Committee.
“Two bills introduced during California Assembly sessions were focused on broadband deployment,” detailed Emilio Perez, legislative liaison at the California Public Utilities Commission. According to Perez, both bills aimed to amend Section 281 of the Public Utilities Code and establish policies to maximize efficient use of monetary resources in constructing networks.
As action ramped up in the final days of the California Assembly’s legislative sessions, the two bills aimed at expanding broadband access fell by the wayside, without notice or explanation, leading some to criticize the assembly with playing politics with essential broadband needs.
SB 1130, authored by California State Sen. Lena Gonzalez, was in a strong position heading into the assembly. The California senate voted 30-9 to pass the bill on June 26, 2020. The bill would have updated the California Advanced Services Fund to expand its eligibility to all Californians lacking high-speed access.
The bill dramatically departed from original legislation, and would have paved the way for futureproof, state-financed networks capable of handling internet traffic for decades to come. The bill defined new broadband standards, changing speed requirements from six Megabits per second download (Mbps) /1 Mbps upload to 25 Mbps down/25 Mbps up. If passed, SB 1130 would have been the first legislation requiring symmetrical speeds to meet the definition of “broadband.”
Sen. Gonzalez stated in a press release, that despite the chaos the COVID-19 crises is causing around the state “the assembly chose to kill SB 1130, the only viable solution in the state legislature to help close the digital divide and provide reliable broadband infrastructure for California students, parents, educators, and first responders in our communities.”
AB 570 was the other bill focused on expanding connectivity, intended to repeal Section 281 of the PUC, which the Assembly failed to act on. This bill would require the CASF program to promote remote learning and prioritize projects that reach the greatest number of unserved and underserved households.
“The bill would have required that households lacking any service were the first connected,” said Jacqueline Kinney, general counsel at the California Cable and Telecommunications Association, adding that public funds are necessary to subsidize internet where there is market failure, such as in fire-prone regions.
Unlike the two bills addressing broadband deployment, the Assembly managed to pass AB 82, which was a bill focused on the interplay of federal and state funding.
“AB82 was the states effort to try and maximize the amount of federal money rolling into California, to help preserve state dollars,” said Perez.
- Accurate Maps Required To Estimate Cost Of Connecting Rural America, Experts Say
- Biden’s Infrastructure Participants, Low-Price Broadband Access, U.S. Versus EU On Broadband
- Lina Khan Pitches Ideas For Regulating Big Tech In Nomination Hearing
- Lawmakers And Newsmakers Tackle Google and Facebook Market Power
- Verizon Expands 5G, U.S. And E.U. Diverge On Facial Recognition, New Drone Regulations
- Popularity Of Telework And Telehealth Presents Unique Opportunities For A Post-Pandemic World
Signup for Broadband Breakfast
Artificial Intelligence3 months ago
Artificial Intelligence Aims to Enhance Human Capabilities, But Only With Caution and Safeguards
Fiber4 months ago
Smaller Internet Providers Were Instrumental to Fiber Deployment in 2020, Says Fiber Broadband Association
Privacy2 months ago
New Laws Needed on Capturing Data Collection From Mixed Reality, Experts Say
Artificial Intelligence2 months ago
Staying Ahead On Artificial Intelligence Requires International Cooperation
#broadbandlive1 month ago
Broadband Breakfast Live Online Wednesday, March 24, 2021 – The State of Online Higher Education
Cybersecurity3 months ago
Internet of Things Connected Devices Are Inherently Insecure, Say Tech Experts
White House4 months ago
Building Better Broadband Underscores Joe Biden’s Top Policy Initiatives
Broadband Roundup3 months ago
Getting Older Adults Connected, Nextlink Internet Partnership, Tacoma Convention Center Gains 5G Connectivity