Demand Opportunities for Broadband Deployment in Del Norte, Humboldt, Mendocino and Trinity Counties Tina Nerat NERATECH CENIC Conference 3/10/09

2 RCC Project Participants California Emerging Technology Fund Humboldt Area Foundation Humboldt State University All 3 organizations have seats on the Governor’s Broadband Task Force Other funders: RREDC, McLean Foundation, Headwaters Fund, Humboldt/Trinity CDBG

3 What is the project? First CETF project Market Study – 4 county demand aggregation –Markets in rural regions Population locations/density, remoteness, terrain –Broadband service areas –Closing gaps in service We need to understand… –Demand (understanding adoption and usage) –Supply (current infrastructure) –Policy (planning, ordinances, barriers)

4 Lessons to Share: Mapping Quality of broadband coverage map data 1.GIS maps 2.Provider engineering drawings 3.Public information 4.WISP maps on web sites 5.Purchased data - TeleAtlas 6.AAA maps with highlighter marking 7.Linemen & cable guys sharing info 8.WISP lat/long/tower height (GIS modeling) 9.“Local knowledge” marked up on GPS topo software maps 10.Paranoia about sharing information 11.Local dial-up providers know the “lay of the land”

5 GIS data

6 Neighborhood Mapping & Advocacy

7 Mendocino Coast Broadband Alliance Parcel Map

8 State of Infrastructure Rumors of infrastructure issues confirmed: At capacity on some backhaul routes Deteriorating copper in some areas “It survived the ’64 flood” Single provider for backhaul = high cost Lack of route diversity –Widespread regional outages due to storms, backhoes, fires Last mile issues can’t be considered without discussion of backhaul issues

9 Community Access to Broadband 101 Communities Scale of high/medium/low/none based on: number of providers, upload/download speeds, symmetricity, wireline, and backhaul

10 Broadband Demand Random phone survey results More than 90% of residents have home computer

11 Community Ranking Sheet Humboldt County Estimated ResidencesDemand RankSupply RankBackhaul Needed Estimated Annual Residential Revenues Hoopa1882 HighLow Yes 247,907 Willow Creek961 HighLow Yes 126,679 Whitethorn440 HighLow Yes 57,925 Miranda354 HighLow Yes 46,587 Alderpoint165 HighLow Yes 36,339 Blocksburg88 HighLow Yes 11,556 FieldbrookUnknown HighLow Yes unknown Orleans270 HighNone Yes 66,554 Weott141 HighNone Yes 38,210 Myers Flat133 HighNone Yes 29,193 Briceland81 HighNone yes 17,806 Bridgeville394 MediumNone Yes Kneeland217 Low No 28,635 Shelter CoveUnknown Low Yes Unknown

12 Surprises Amazing small provider coverage (DSL, cable) Large providers don’t know who their competition is in rural markets Wireless ISP activity in the past 18 months –101Netlink in Humboldt –No WISPs in Del Norte (yet) Openness of conversations with some providers Backhaul issues (cost, lack of capacity/vendor choice) are huge barriers to rural broadband

13 Large population centers have reasonably high quality broadband access 60% of communities unserved/underserved Business needs often indistinguishable from residential needs (small businesses) Telecom companies and wireless ISPs’ may well be anchor tenants Public sector is generally well-connected Lack of middle mile is single greatest barrier to last mile deployment Subsidization of middle mile will be required Key Findings

14

15

16

17 Last mile broadband deployment is impossible without the middle mile. Proposed Middle Mile Architecture Route (all have redundancy potential) No. of Towns Passe d Under- served Un- served Counties No. of Miles Estimated Cost Eureka to Redding 1266 Humboldt, Trinity, Shasta 150$15-20m Crescent City to Eureka 622 Del Norte, Humboldt 85$4-7m Eureka to Red Bluff 844 Humboldt, Trinity, Tehama 140$10-20m Ft Bragg to Ukiah 210Mendocino60$4-6m Hwy 3 from Hwy 36 to Callahan 660 Trinity, Siskiyou 100$6-12m Gualala/Sea Ranch to Hwy Mendocino, Sonoma 80$4-7m Willow Creek to Somes Bar 312 Humboldt, Siskiyou 48$3-6m Crescent City to OR border & Medford 220 Del Norte, Oregon 110$4-7m

18 Klamath-Orick Scenario Capital and Revenue Total Demand Revenues –Residential $139,392 –Business $ 4,347 –Public $ 60,000 Estimated Capital –Backhaul $5,071,000 –Local Loop 166,511 Discounted Cash Flow –w/o public $ 799,486 –w/public $1,105,537 Est. Subsidy $4-5 million

19 Key State Policy Considerations Anchor Tenants –Create new public/private partnerships utilizing public assets to support new infrastructure –Opening of closed networks for extending broadband into the hard-to-serve communities –Allow government offices in hard-to-serve communities participate in aggregation of demand

20 Capital Funding –Expand funding available to WISPs and other small local entrepreneurial enterprises –Include Community Services Districts providing broadband access to CASF funds –Provide grant funding to support community efforts to create business plans for broadband –Support research and development of new technologies that hold promise for rural areas Key State Policy Considerations

21 Infrastructure Build Out –Create an “open trench” policy whereby state funded infrastructure projects at a minimum encourage burying of conduit or fiber whenever a ditch is open –Fund a pilot project to determine the viability of micro-trenching as an alternative to laying fiber in public right of way (Caltrans) –Create publicly owned infrastructure that can be leased by private operators willing to serve hard to serve communities Key State Policy Considerations

22 Resources Thank You CENIC……. for your support of rural broadband