Community Broadband Networks – Why Local Governments Matter W2I Digital Cities Convention Washington, D.C. December 11, 2007 Kenneth S. Fellman Kissinger & Fellman, P.C.

Why Local Governments Matter Sorry State of Broadband in the US  Many communities don’t have it  Where we do have “it”…. It’s slow It’s expensive It’s not very competitive

Barriers to Entry Industry: We don’t like them (Some) States: We don’t like them Unless………….. …………..they’re imposed on those pesky local governments!

What’s the Policy Goal Here, Anyway?! Federal, State and Local Governments should work together (what a concept!)  With the telecom industry  With the business community  With the educational community  With the health care community  With non-profits and other public groups

Regionalism and Wireless Networks – an example

Colorado Wireless Communities – What is it? Regional Wireless Broadband Community Initiative 600K+ Population 240,000 HHs 137 Square miles of coverage area Arvada Boulder Broomfield Golden Lakewood Louisville Northglenn Superior Thornton Wheat Ridge

Colorado Wireless Communities – What is it? History, Process, Structure –Began as informal exploration –Summer 2006 – 5 cities completed community Feasibility studies –Fall 2006 – Other communities joined, all signed a Memorandum of Understanding –Developed RFP – released in Jan –IGA signed creating formal, intergovernmental agency

Why Cities are Exploring Broadband Networks Recognition of the connection between broadband infrastructure and community well- being –Economic Development Small, medium-sized businesses Mobile workers –Efficient and Effective Government Field workers, public safety, remote data, phone/radio service –Social Issues: Digital Inclusion –Changing lifestyle and work style expectations

Why Cities are Exploring Broadband Networks Cities have ownership and/or access to vertical assets Some have fiber availability to offer Attraction of increased competition, more consumer choices, and changing use patterns

Benefits of a Regional Approach (City Perspective) Critical mass for best proposals from best providers (600,000 pop., 137 sq. miles) –Improves business case –Increases likelihood for long-term relationship –Increases likelihood for financially strong and stable provider –Strengthens overall position of communities and users of network –Developing trend around the Country (Long Island, Silicon Valley, others)

Benefits of a Regional Approach (Provider Perspective) One clear, consistent process for entering a regional market Single Right-of-way permitting process for all ten jurisdictions Facilitation of access to light poles Facilitation of access to identified City assets Potential for expansion of the CWC –Creates structure and framework moving forward

Timing is Everything Market “adjustment” just about at time of RFP responses Impacted number and type of responses Still found private sector partner with unique elements in business plan Status: contract negotiations underway

Bottom Line Local Governments are part of the market Local Governments are advocates for the best interests of their citizens Local Governments should be seen as partners in broadband deployment efforts We are more effective when we work together

Thank You! For more information: Ken Fellman 3773 Cherry Creek North Drive, Suite 900 Denver, Colorado