Feasibility_Studies_-_01-31-141 Lessons from Rural Minnesota Broadband Feasibility Studies
Table of Contents
AGGREGATE LESSONS FROM PAST FEASIBILITY STUDIES .............................................................. 2
BUSINESS BASICS: COSTS VERSUS REVENUE ................................................................................ 3
PUBLIC PRIVATE PARTNERSHIPS ................................................................................................... 8
TECHNOLOGY SCENARIOS .........................................................................................................10
LOCAL CHAMPIONS ...................................................................................................................13
CONCLUSION ............................................................................................................................14
2
Aggregate Lessons from Past Feasibility Studies
Since 2007, the Blandin Foundation has provided matching grants totaling $372,786 with an
average award of $34,000 to 11 communities to support the cost of research of the feasibility of
geographically based Robust Broadband Networks. For the purposes of this grant program,
“community” was self-defined by applicants and included various combinations of cities and
counties.
The phrase “feasibility study” means different
things to different people and can refer to technical,
financial, organizational or political components of
a proposed development. It is not unusual to
employ feasibility studies at different stages of a
project – preliminary, intermediate or final business
plan stages – and accordingly each involves
different degrees of research and detail. Blandin
Foundation's Robust Broadband Networks Feasibility
Fund has funded a wide range of studies. Each
study has helped the awarded community make
better informed decisions about its future.
The Blandin Foundation grants up to $25,000 for a
feasibility study for a single community or up to
$40,000 for a study that serves multiple
communities or a countywide approach. The grant requires a 1:1 cash match to offset the cost and
to demonstrate community interest and investment. Communities get match from a variety of
sources, including incumbent broadband providers, local economic authorities and other
foundations. Support from local providers can be a mixed blessing. It may indicate interest in
improving the local infrastructure, but it may also impact the results of the study. For example, the
Lac qui Parle County Board specifically requested that a local provider be involved in their
feasibility study in part because they knew they did not want to become the provider. That decision
worked out for them; they have a successfully deployed FTTP (Fiber to the Premise) network.
This report looks at these eleven investments in aggregate through the lens of, “What can we learn
and how should we apply that learning?” Specifically we look at:
● Business Basics: Cost versus Revenue
● Keys to Success (ARRA)
● Public Private Partnerships
● Technology Scenarios
● Local Champions
Communities that have completed
feasibility studies
1. City of Staples/Todd County
2. City of Winthrop (Renville County)
3. Cloquet Valley
4. Cook County
5. Kanabec County
6. Lac qui Parle Economic Development Authority
7. Lakefield
8. Northfield
9. Red Wing
10. Redwood Falls/Redwood County
11. SouthWest Central Service Cooperative
3 Lessons from Rural Minnesota Broadband Feasibility Studies
Business Basics: Costs versus Revenue
Feasibility studies look at the
business basics of providing
broadband access: cost and
revenue. The goal is to create an
equation where revenue is larger
than cost and to secure financing
until those numbers fall in line and
to provide guidance for next steps
in the project.
Costs generally include:
● Planning and Engineering
● Construction
● Equipment
● Backbone Access
● Operations (Marketing, customer support, technology management)
Some costs are set, such as subscriber equipment; others are variable, such as construction, which
is dependent on soils, ground cover, topography, availability of utility poles or existing conduit and
population density. For example, the Kanabec County study outlines per subscriber costs based on
three scenarios:
Per Subscriber Category Wireless FTTP Rural FTTP Urban
Central Office or CSA Electronics N/A $91 $91
Fiber Drop Residential-based on 500’ drop for rural
and 150’ drop for urban
N/A $675 $487
Fiber Drop Business-based on 500’ for rural and
150’ drop for urban
N/A $675 $555
Home Electronics $170 $372 $372
Business Electronics $170 $372 $1003
The differences in cost of Fiber-to-the-Premise (FTTP) in one community (as seen above), based on
technology and rural-versus-urban location, are indicative of the options and variances in most
communities. The central office costs for FTTP are the same in an urban or rural setting. The fiber
drop costs are significantly different based on estimated distance required to reach each premise.
The expectation in Kanabec County is 150 feet ($487) per drop in urban areas and 500 feet ($675)
in rural locations.
For community leaders it can be difficult to make decisions when there are rarely apple-to-apple
comparisons. Financially an urban-only solution may be most viable, but community goals usually
go beyond basic business goals. In fact, the trend since 2011 has been to consider larger networks,
Key Question: Can you create a business plan where
the projected revenue stream exceeds combined
capital and operating costs?
Saying no doesn’t necessarily relegate your community to
modems and satellite, but it means you will need to get
creative. Scott County, for example, created a fiber
network with the primary goal of serving government
needs and a secondary goal of serving residents.
http://wp.me/p3if7-4L Cost saving was enough to drive
their business case.
4
such as county or regional geographic focus, as a way to offset that cost. http://wp.me/p3if7-1bO It
allows the project to take advantage of greater revenue potential in areas with higher population
density and balance that against the higher cost of building the network to the areas with lower
population density.
Taking a broader geographic perspective on network planning also prevents the broadband donut
or Swiss cheese effect, which refers to coverage maps that show cities and towns have much better
broadband coverage than areas between towns. http://wp.me/p3if7-10n The towns are covered
because a business case could be made to provide broadband; the outlying areas are not. The
added difficulty for those unserved outlying areas is that their local incumbent providers have not
shown interest in expansion and new providers are often hesitant to enter a market where the
more profitable nearby areas are already served.
FINANCING
Broadband deployment projections require financing. Costs related to repaying financing also are
variable based on financing options, which in turn is influenced by the ownership model in
question.
Potential financing or funding sources include:
● State Grants and Loans (such as from DEED, Department of Employment and Economic
Development)
● Federal Grants and Loans (such as from the USDA Rural Utility Service)
● Municipal General Obligation Bonding
● Revenue Bonds
One goal of the feasibility study is to flush out the factors that allow for a financing plan to be put
in place. What cannot be monetized is the quality of life and tax base implications of the network
(what new businesses might move to town and add to the tax base and how these new services
might keep current residents or attract new ones). When a community is educating its constituents
on the viability of the network, it is important to not only focus on the financial numbers but also
the intangible benefits of the network.
The financial components of the feasibility study require:
● Business Case Projections of Costs and Revenues
● Balance Sheets
● Income Statements
● Cash Flow Statements
● Capital and Operational Breakeven Analysis
● Sensitivity Analysis for Competitive Responses
5 Lessons from Rural Minnesota Broadband Feasibility Studies
In a retail model, ongoing revenues come
from subscriber fees, but there are some
variables here too, in terms of different
classes of subscribers, such as residential,
business and “anchor institutions” like
schools, libraries and government facilities.
Business customers (large and small) may be
willing to pay more for connectivity and may
be interested in potential added services.
Anchor institutions can become big
customers and/or potential partners in a
community wide upgrade.
There is another option to consider. Rather
than provide retail services to end customers
themselves, a community might opt to go
with an “open access” model – akin to a
wholesale approach where the community
builds a network and works with one or more
third party providers to provide “retail”
broadband services. In this model the
revenue source is strictly a “wholesale lease
rate” from the retail providers.
EACH COMMUNITY IS DIFFERENT
Each community is different; part of value of the feasibility study is fleshing out the variables based
on unique community factors and determining the best alternative for broadband infrastructure
development. But throughout the planning the question remains the same: How to create an
equation where revenue exceeds cost? And how long does it take to get there?
KEY TO SUCCESS: (SURPRISE!) ACCESS TO CAPITAL (SUCH AS ARRA)
Five of the communities that completed feasibility studies have gone on to deploy ultra-fast
broadband networks; six have not. Four of the five communities that are implementing their study
recommendations received ARRA (American Recovery and Reinvestment Act) funding. (Actually
four networks were deployed as two communities with feasibility studies really became one ARRA
project.)
Having feasibility study results in hand may have played a key role in positioning the awarded
communities to be competitive for federal funding. It certainly provided the communities with the
data required in the application process and demonstrated that they were shovel-ready projects,
which was a major requirement of projects seeking ARRA funding.
Updates on those networks, the build-out of which has been facilitated through ARRA funding,
follow.
Importance of Take Rate
Some people ask, “What percentage of the
potential market must a provider acquire to be
profitable?” This is a misleading statistic because
the business case is built a real number -not a
percentage. The higher the population density,
the cheaper it is to serve a community. The higher
the population, the greater the potential for
customers. Conversely, the lower the population
density, the greater the cost. The lower the
population, the less potential for customers.
Reaching 20 percent of an urban market share
may be enough to cover costs; while reaching 80
percent of a rural market may still not be enough
to cover costs.
Take rate does uncover potential issues of
competition and digital inclusion opportunities.
But in terms of a business case, real numbers of
subscribers paints a clearer picture of revenue
potential.
6
Cook County – Arrowhead Electric Cooperative, Inc received $16,137,484 in federal funds, plus
an additional $4 million grant from Cook County. Construction began August 2011. To date, 620
miles of fiber optic cable have been constructed. They are embarking on final stages of
construction and will be scheduling home installation in early 2014. http://wp.me/3if7
Services are being tested with a goal of serving customers in 2014. Arrowhead Cooperative has set-
up a free public computing area for users to access high-speed internet or use the Cooperative’s
high-speed guest Wi-Fi.
http://wp.me/p3if7-2sW (Cook County
also benefits from the Northeast Service
Cooperative $43 million middle mile
ARRA-funded network.)
Lac qui Parle Economic Development
Authority (LqP EDA) - Using a BIP
(Broadband Initiatives Program) award
through ARRA of $9,652,956, Farmers
Mutual deployed fiber to the premise to Dawson, Boyd and rural Madison. The project was
completed in November 2013.
Farmers Mutual is currently signing customers up for service. http://wp.me/p3if7-288 LqP EDA has
been supporting broadband adoption with business training http://wp.me/p3if7-2eU, the
Computer Commuter (a mobile computer lab) http://wp.me/p3if7-1j6 and more efforts.
http://wp.me/p3if7-2j7
Lakefield/ SMBS (formerly the SouthWest Central Service Cooperative and including Lakefield) has
successfully completed their ARRA fiber network build. A 120 mile fiber ring now connects eight
towns and the rural residents along the route to Windomnet, their partner and wholesale provider
of telephone, cable TV and broadband services.
Sales out-paced the original projection in the ARRA application. A final penetration rate of over
75% is anticipated as obtainable in the near future. SMBS’s ARRA award was for $12,700,250.
SMBS is cash flow positive and the project sustainable.
SMBS is working on broadband adoptions
efforts through the Blandin Broadband
Communities initiative. http://wp.me/p3if7-
24h
IMPACT OF FEDERAL FUNDING
Federal investment allowed these projects
to move forward with their broadband
improvement plans. At this point it appears
unlikely that similar federal funding will be
available in the future, but as noted earlier,
the communities in Minnesota that had
feasibility studies prepared or in progress when the ARRA funding was announced were better
poised to complete the proposals and demonstrate preparedness than communities that hadn’t
researched fiber options. Luck favors the prepared.
Key Question: Is there government (or philanthropic)
funding available to help you deploy broadband
and/or promote broadband adoption?
Be sure to check out the Blandin Foundation Broadband
Initiative http://broadband.blandinfoundation.org or
Blandin on Broadband blog for some ideas.
http://blandinonbroadband.org/category/funding/
Note for Policymakers: Broadband is an
Investment
Strategic Networks Group, an economic consultant,
has compiled evidence from studies they have
conducted in North Carolina, Virginia, Kentucky,
Illinois, and Nebraska that demonstrates a $5 million
economic development impact for every 1,000
broadband passes installed. They also found that 23.4
percent of all new jobs created in the economies they
have studied are directly attributable to broadband.
http://sngroup.com/tag/broadband-economic-impacts/
7 Lessons from Rural Minnesota Broadband Feasibility Studies
In the meantime, communities looking at local broadband improvements may want to look to
these projects for ideas worth replicating. For example, are there engineering approaches that
worked well or a partnership model worth modeling?
Communities in proximity to these projects may consider approaching the project leaders and/or
broadband providers to see if there is interest by the providers in extending their network.
CHANCE OF STATE FUNDING
While Federal funding similar to the ARRA funds is unlikely, there is a chance that
Minnesota may make funds available for broadband deployment and/or adoption through
the Office of Broadband Development. In January, 2014, the Minnesota Governor’s
Broadband Task Force recommended the Legislature consider a number of funding options
for broadband mapping, deployment and adoption, including $100 million for a
broadband infrastructure grant fund. http://wp.me/p3if7-2xS
NON-ARRA FUNDED PROJECTS AND OTHER PROGRESS
Red Wing – Red Wing is the only Minnesota community to receive a Robust Fiber Network
Feasibility Fund grant that has successfully deployed a fiber optic network without ARRA funding.
Hiawatha Broadband Communications (HBC) applied for ARRA funding, but was not awarded
funds. http://wp.me/p3if7-Le Despite this setback, HBC moved ahead with the project using their
own source of funds.
Red Wing is currently working with US Ignite http://us-ignite.org/ to promote broadband adoption
of their Gigabit network.
8
Public Private Partnerships
Most of the feasibility studies consider partnership with a commercial broadband provider.
Generally there are three factors that determine the viability of a public-private partnership:
1. Ability to create a level of trust amongst the community and the provider
2. Number of current broadband providers
3. Level of interest or support from at least one current provider
Having a private sector provider, either an incumbent or new competitive provider, willing to step
up into partnership with the community can make moving forward easier, as was the case in Lac
qui Parle County and Southwest Minnesota.
Not having a clear partner introduces some potential challenges and barriers.
TOO MANY PARTNERS?
While competition has been cited as a positive trend in lucrative markets http://wp.me/p3if7-RS, in
small communities it can cause problems in the form of market fragmentation. In general, hard-to-
serve sparsely populated rural communities are well served by approaching and/or encouraging
local providers to participate in any community technology planning conversations at early stages of
planning.
FiberNet Monticello is an example of a community that has competed with two local providers,
the existing telecommunications and cable television companies.
http://blandinonbroadband.org/?s=monticello&x=0&y=0 On the one hand, the community now has
three choices for ultra-fast broadband; on the other hand, FiberNet has run into financial problems
spurred (at least in part) from ultra-competitive pricing and barriers raised by commercial
competition in the wake of a new public option.
Another solution is to collaborate with
willing local providers. Cook County has
partnered with all local providers in the
broadband adoption and digital inclusion
programming http://wp.me/p3if7-29r
funded through ARRA via the Blandin
Foundation’s Minnesota Intelligent Rural
Communities (MIRC) initiative.
A more direct approach to promoting
broadband deployment is to build an Open
Access Network where the community
builds the network and invites commercial
providers to offer services over that
network to local residents, businesses and
(sometimes) anchor tenants. It is akin to a wholesale approach where commercial providers offer
retail access to end customers. This option has been suggested in several feasibility studies.
Key Question: Is there (at least) one commercial
provider that is a likely and willing partner?
• An internet service provider partner is very
beneficial.
• If you have multiple potential partners,
creating collaboration through open access
may be an option.
• If no local/current provider is available you may
want to seek partners elsewhere. Or consider
a cooperative approach.
9 Lessons from Rural Minnesota Broadband Feasibility Studies
INCUMBENT PROVIDERS NOT INTERESTED?
Finding out that the incumbent providers serving your community do not see a compelling business
case for improving infrastructure and services in all or part of your community, on their own or in
partnership, is a challenge. But it is not uncommon. This dynamic is common across all of the
communities that have completed feasibility studies through this Blandin Foundation RFP program,
but have to date not been able to act on the studies’ recommendations for infrastructure build.
At the 2013 Connect Minnesota Broadband Summit, industry representatives noted that a
successful public private partnership recognizes that the role of government is to govern and the
role of the provider is to provide service. http://wp.me/p3if7-2u0 What does a community do when
there is a gap between the services offered and the community’s demand for service?
NEGOTIATING WITH INCUMBENTS
Kanabec County is served by a couple of providers, but none have yet shown interest in improving
service throughout Kanabec County. The Kanabec feasibility study suggests further conversations
with local providers, but also suggests considering other partnerships (such as with East Central
Energy), and a drive to increase demand through
broadband adoption programs and concerted
efforts to identify additional anchor tenants to
pitch to the providers.
In February 2013, Kanabec County began a
conversation with the local providers (CenturyLink
and Midcontinent). The conversation started
publicly at the East Central Minnesota Broadband
Summit. http://wp.me/p3if7-29B It has
continued, but only once non-disclosure
agreements were signed. Due the non-disclosure
it’s difficult to know how those talks are
progressing, but it has been 10 months and so far
nothing has been reported.
CO-OPERATIVE APPROACH
Renville and Sibley Counties have gone a
different route. They have been searching for a
way to deploy a fiber to the farm network for
several years. The focus has been on creating a
network that includes farms and others outside
city limits, despite the higher cost of “to-the-farm” deployments. Initiative sponsors have worked to
get local governments on board, including cities and counties. They formed a Joint Powers Board,
however the project took a dramatic turn when Sibley County decided not to continue with the
project.
The night that Sibley County dropped out, local residents discussed forming a cooperative.
http://wp.me/p3if7-1Vt The project has gained momentum and local community leaders are
moving forward with a cooperative approach. http://wp.me/p3if7-2xp
The co-operative approach was used in 1935,
when America was deploying electricity. Learn
more from vintage video, Power and the Land
on the Rural Electrification Administration
(REA). http://tinyurl.com/reabroadband
10
A cooperative approach was also mentioned at a recent public meeting in Todd County.
http://wp.me/p3if7-2wQ It is worth noting that the Livestock Advisory Commission was involved in
early broadband discussions in Todd County. In the US, the cooperative model has historically been
an approach that has helped farmers keep costs low and been used as a tool to provide consumers
with leverage with which to work with private companies. http://www.cdf.coop/history-of-
cooperatives/ The cooperative model for broadband access is gaining popularity in the US.
http://wp.me/p3if7-258
Technology Scenarios
Having an obvious partner may dictate
many of the technology choices you make.
For example, Lac qui Parle EDA worked
with Farmer’s Mutual, a local
telecommunications company. Farmer’s
had worked with fiber in the past. They
had a “regular way” for building a fiber
network and it became the de facto
solution. The advantage is that the
provider has experience and expertise in a
certain technology and they probably have
investments that can be leveraged to
reduce costs and streamline the process
for the new community build.
One of the advantages of not having an
obvious partner, or having an obvious
partner that is flexible, is the opportunity
to investigate a wide range of technology
scenarios. The following are high level
descriptions of options that have been
suggested in past feasibility studies.
http://www.pcmag.com/encyclopedia/term/43551/fttp
11 Lessons from Rural Minnesota Broadband Feasibility Studies
Definition Advantages Disadvantages
FTTP
(Fiber to the
Premise)
Optical fiber from the carrier
directly into the home or
business.
It provides highest quality
service to the end customer.
It is more costly than FTTN
or other hybrid technology
solutions.
FTTN (Fiber to the
Node/Neighborhoo
d)
Optical fiber to a junction
box (node) in an area that
serves a few hundred
customers within a radius of
about a mile. Connections
from the node to the
customer premises often use
DSL or coaxial cable
(DOCSIS).
It is faster than not using fiber
to the node. It is less expensive
than FTTP. It is an
infrastructure than can be
upgraded to FTTP as a phased
approach.
It is not as fast as FTTP.
Open Access Fiber
Network
A network that separates
the physical access to the
network from the delivery of
services – akin to wholesale
model. The owner or
manager of the network
does not supply services for
the network; these services
are supplied by separate
retail service providers.
It allows for greater variance in
management and investment.
For example, a community can
invest and own the network
while supporting local business
growth that provides service to
end customers.
It is a unique model that
has been more popular
outside the US.
Open Access
Network with
wireless overlay
Builds upon the wholesale
approach that separates the
network from wired services
but includes a layer of
wireless to reach end
customers.
Provides end customers with
service more cheaply and
quickly than wired services. It
is an infrastructure than can be
upgraded to FTTP as a phased
approach. It can provide a
quicker revenue stream for the
project.
Depending on who
provides the wireless
service, it can pit
government services
against commercial-
provided services. While
usually considered a
temporary fix, customer
may decide that wireless is
sufficient and not upgrade
to FTTP once available.
Open Access
Network that serves
community anchor
institutions
Builds upon the wholesale
approach that separates the
network from providing
services but includes
network access to key
anchor institutions, often
government, school and/or
healthcare facilities.
It helps the community
network provider offset some
costs by moving away from an
existing provider, yet still
allows government to support
local provider and stay out of
the business of providing and
managing broadband service.
Local commercial providers
will not have the
opportunity to serve
community institutions,
which often can be big
customers for a
commercial provider.
Within each scenario is another range of scenarios based on what equipment and standards are
selected, community profile details and existing infrastructure. For example, looking at Open Access
Network a community will have to decide who will manage the network, the city or a third party?
Then who will own the equipment used to manage the network, the city, the management
company or the companies providing retail service. Each community will have a unique set of
12
opportunities based on their situation and the intricacies of each option and part of the reason a
feasibility study is valuable.
CHOOSING AN APPROACH
Most communities would like to have FTTP but the potential for revenue may not meet the costs.
For communities with multiple providers, the issue may not be actual number of customers in the
area but market fragmentation. In such cases the Open Access Network model may be worth
considering.
For other communities a phased approach may be more practical. This may mean an iterative
process where they might deploy FTTN, sell services to recoup costs and being a phase II
deployment of FTTP. Or it may mean building wired services (FTTP or perhaps FTTN as an iterative
step) in areas where revenue can surpass cost more quickly (higher population density for example)
and building out wireless services as an iterative step in other areas.
The key to an iterative approach is to minimize investment that does not lead to the ultimate goal
of FTTP. So if construction is required to complete the FTTN connection to end customers, it is
worth the immediate upgrade to FTTP rather than building with copper or cable.
Many communities consider a couple of the options as a phased approach to getting FTTP. SMBS,
for example, decided to extend their network to more communities by offering wireless services to
areas where it was not feasible to offer FTTP. http://wp.me/p3if7-1bW. The advantage to the
community is greater broadband expansion; the advantage to the provider is building a customer
base. In the future, it will be easier to make a business case to upgrade to FTTP with an existing
customer base.
Cloquet Valley is also looking at a phased approach. Cloquet Valley is sandwiched between
communities that are getting fiber connections. In fact, they have watched as fiber has been
deployed down major highways, but bypassed their communities. While they continue to strive for
a fiber network, Cooperative Light and Power (CLP), a local wireless provider, has begun offering
wireless access. The cost is $50-60 for 3-7 Mbps service with an installation fee of $250. For many
residents this service is an improvement on other local options. http://wp.me/p3if7-2xx
Within each technology scenario is also range of management and partnership options. The
community might “go it alone” by owning and operating the network as an Internet Service
Provider. The community might hire and/or partner with a private sector partner to manage the
network and ISP services to the community. The community might work with a private sector
partner via vendor-relationship, as in the case with Open Access models. Or they may try something
innovative as RS Fiber is embarking on, a co-operative model.
13 Lessons from Rural Minnesota Broadband Feasibility Studies
Local Champions
As a rule, feasibility studies don’t highlight the importance of local champions. But people close to
the projects will attest that local leadership and passion make a difference. http://wp.me/p3if7-13j
Behind each project moving forward is a champion who thinks about the work every day and helps
others stay focused on the importance of the work for the common good.
Minnesota broadband champions have
also been recognized by national
publications:
● In an article featuring the RS Fiber
project, Governing lists
“recruiting a champion” as one
of the keys to building a
community broadband network.
http://wp.me/p3if7-224
● SMBS champions get a nod in Broadband Properties (now Broadband Communities). The
article notes the support of champions in several communities within the SMBS project.
http://wp.me/p3if7-1LI
● Robert Bell praised the work of many Minnesota broadband champions when talking about
the Blandin Foundation’s MIRC (Minnesota Intelligent Rural Communities) project.
http://wp.me/p3if7-19q Bell said, “What is important is what they [champions] inspire in
others: the burning desire to succeed, not to mention its darker cousin, envy.”
Successful champions are evangelists. The Blandin Broadband Communities (BBCs) met in
December 2013 to talk about how participating communities can most effectively support
broadband adoption efforts. The important role of local champions was a theme that emerged.
Participants recommended encouraging and resourcing partners and others to tell the story of the
role of broadband as the indispensable infrastructure of our age to create a sense of urgency and
to make sure that broadband is included in conversations about economic development, health
care, education and increased standard of living. http://wp.me/p3if7-2uq
Key Question: How to support local champions?
If you are reading this, you probably are a broadband
champion for your community. How can you enthuse
others to join the effort? Check out the TED Talk by Derek
Sivers, How to Start a Movement for inspiration.
http://tinyurl.com/yhff3kw
14
Conclusion
From the fertile farm lands in Sibley County to the lakes in Todd County to the forests of the
Cloquet Valley, each rural community in Minnesota is different, and the differences go beyond
topography. Population densities are different, existing telecommunication infrastructure and
ownership are different, interest in broadband and broadband adoption rates are different, local
tolerance of risk is different and local economies are different.
Cookie cutter approaches to rural broadband expansion planning do not work, which is why
there’s value in local feasibility studies to create or recommend custom solutions. That said, it is also
true that we can learn from one another. The hope in sharing information gleaned from past
feasibility studies is that it will inform and open dialogue with more communities.
LESSONS LEARNED
● Business Basics: Cost versus Revenue – Revenues must surpass costs for a
sustainable model. That may mean creative financing or for a community it may
mean factoring in costs saving to offset revenue deficits.
● Key to Success (ARRA) – Stimulus funding for broadband deployment was a game
changer that is not likely to happen again soon. But community champions can
learn from those who got funding. See what worked for those networks that were
funded and keep an eye out for opportunity, which may emerge from State
resources.
● Public Private Partnerships – Public Private Partnerships may take many forms, but
for a community where a pure market case cannot be made, there may be a
solution is drawing on private expertise and public funding options.
● Technology Scenarios – While FTTP is the ultimate goal for most areas, there are
iterative designs and ownership plans that can improve financially viability.
● Local Champions – Especially when the business case is hard to make, communities
need local leadership to increase interest in a broadband effort and spearhead
efforts to make it happen.
Leadership: You Have to do it yourself but you can’t do it alone.
15 Lessons from Rural Minnesota Broadband Feasibility Studies
2014 COPYRIGHT, BLANDIN FOUNDATION
CONTACT
Blandin Foundation
100 North Pokegama Avenue
Grand Rapids, MN 55744
218.326.0523
broadband@blandinfoundation.org
blandinfoundation.org