Phase 1 and 2 Exec Summary

Icon Broadband Technologies
A Division of Icon Engineering,, Inc.

6745 Bells Ferry Road
Woodstock, Georgia 30189
Community Broadband Planning Study

Page County, Virginia
Executive Summary Phase I and II—Final Report

March 31, 2008
ICON BROADBAND TECHNOLOGIES
Executive Summary
Synopsis
A telecommunications planning study has been completed for Page County, Virginia that is designed to
answer questions relating to the need for broadband infrastructure, options for providing connectivity,
ways to organize potential networks and address funding requirements. The study management team was
comprised of key county stakeholders representing economic development, healthcare, public schools and
higher education, and leaders from the business community. Detailed results of individual tasks
completed in accordance with Virginia Department of Housing and Community Development (DHCD)
grant requirements are provided in the full report.
Funding for this study was provided by DHCD using Community Development Block Grant funds. U.S.
Department of Housing and Urban Development data indicates 9,296 low to moderate income (LMI)
households located throughout the County and comprising over 40% of total households. Each of the five
census tracts contain a minimum of one block group of households (total of thirteen block groups) in
excess of 51% LMI. The recent economic downturn in the U.S. is clearly evident in Page County, as
unemployment rates have risen to their highest level in the past twelve months. The unemployment rate
in Page County was 8.6% as of February 2008, compared to only 3.8% for all of Virginia.
Unemployment Rates
Past 12 Months
Page County Virginia United States
Source: Virginia Employment Commission, Page County Profile; Last Updated 4/5/2008
Page County, VA Community Broadband Planning Study

Phase I and II Final Report March 31, 2008 Page 4
A comprehensive needs assessment was completed that indicates solid residential and business support
for higher speeds of Internet and data connectivity. Economic development efforts to recruit businesses to
Page County are hampered by a lack of high speed infrastructure to support technology-dependent
industries such as those currently located in high-traffic urban areas. Over one-third of residents are
commuting to work outside the County daily; only citizens located within the limited DSL and cable
modem service areas are capable of participating in the State’s teleworking initiative. Wireless Internet
access is currently deployed in limited areas of the County and at higher costs than DSL, primarily
attributed to high costs associated with data backhaul over private provider networks. In addition, the
requirement for subscribers to fund wireless equipment and installation costs deters broad adoption of this
last mile access method. Most importantly, the absence of a fiber carrier in the County to provide
affordable data backhaul to the Internet has deterred new providers from offering services in competition
with incumbent providers. Through board resolution, the County supports investment in an open access
fiber optic network to encourage broadband service deployment if financially feasible.
While seeking to facilitate broadband service deployment in rural areas, the Commonwealth anticipates
any County investment encompass an open access network solution whereby multiple private providers
can serve subscribers. In areas of Southwest Virginia today, several rural communities are investing in
fiber and wireless technology to bring broadband services closer to their citizens. These communities are
benefiting from the Mid Atlantic Broadband Cooperative (MBC) long haul fiber network passing through
their counties that was the vision of and funded by the Virginia Tobacco Indemnification Commission for
revitalization of these previous tobacco producing areas. Private providers have taken advantage of the
wholesale fiber access and are deploying fiber and wireless services to areas where previously only dial-
up Internet access was possible.
Page County does not have the benefit of this type of community revitalization funding, nor the luxury of
having a fiber optic carrier passing through the County. The first step in encouraging broadband
expansion in Page County is to create a fiber pathway closer to the communities to be served. Additional
demand for Internet services will help support broadband networks, but ultimately the cost of providing
the infrastructure must be borne by private or public providers, or some partnership of both. This
research has shown encouraging signs of attracting new providers, but also the high cost of building
infrastructure. The strategic plan developed for the County utilizes a phased approach, laying the
foundation for broadband services in a fiscally responsible manner.

As a Dillon Rule state, Virginia municipalities must have explicit authority to provide services. The State
has recognized that communication networks in rural areas are not advancing at the same rate as in urban
areas, and lawmakers have provided (and continue to refine) legislative avenues for rural communities to
help themselves. The Code of Virginia authorizes municipalities to provide qualifying communication
services, defined specifically as “...a communications service, which shall include but is not limited to,
high-speed data service and Internet access service, of general application, but excluding any cable
television or other multi-channel video programming services.” Municipalities are also authorized to
enter into public-private partnerships to provide services, and construct and lease dark fiber.
Municipalities may not provide services that are 1) functionally equivalent and 2) readily and generally
available from each of three or more nonaffiliated companies1. Finally, a municipality is authorized to
construct facilities to serve its own departments and governmental entities, as well as those of an
adjoining locality, so long as charges do not exceed costs to provide service. Likewise, facilities can be
sold and communication services received as full or partial consideration of the sale.
One such avenue for municipal provision of communication services is the Virginia Wireless Service
Authorities Act (the Act). The Act authorizes the formation of an authority to construct facilities, issue
revenue bonds and provide qualifying communication services. Additionally, the Act authorizes localities
to convey or lease, with or without consideration, any system or facilities to an Authority. Furthermore,
the Act mandates only the word “Authority” be included in the name of the authority.
Although localities are authorized to provide retail communication services through the formation of a
Wireless Services Authority, the State encourages municipalities to pursue partnerships with private
providers for the delivery of services. Communication facilities owned by a locality must be made
available to private providers of communication services on a non-discriminatory basis (herein referred to
as Open Access). Grant funding for communication projects is scarce and municipal borrowers must
look for multiple sources of financing in addition to issuing bonds. After careful review of legal statutes
and potential funding sources, three business and infrastructure models have been developed for the
County’s consideration:
1
Code of Virginia § 56-484.7:2. Approval.

“Community Network
“Wholesale Network
Model Choices “Dark Fiber Network” plus Dark Fiber”
Model”
(Recommended Model)
Ownership and No Service Ownership and Interim Ownership and Full
Model Characterization
Provisioning Service Provisioning Service Provisioning
Network Ownership: County or Authority County or Authority County or Authority
County, Authority, or Third County, Authority, or County, Authority or Third

Network Management:
Party Third Party Party
Backhaul traffic, from

Access Networks and
Access to the Customer
with the Authority as
Provider of Last Resort for
Source of Network Fees: Backhaul traffic Access to the Customer
data services only. Other
services could be provided
over unused fiber by
private providers
Requirements for Vendors Access Network & Access Network

Customers
using network: Customers Electronics and Customers
Building dark fiber to lease.

An Internet Protocol (IP) Build optical fiber network
Vendors lease fiber based
service layer is provided and supply the electronics
on the number of strands
Infrastructure Platform: over a basic network, such on the front-end and back-
and locations needed.
as a fiber or Wireless end.
Vendor places equipment at
Network.
both ends to light network.
Level of Sophistication: Low Moderate to High Moderate to High

Approx. Initial Cost Range: $30-35k per mile plus
$30k-35k per mile plus
$30-35k per mile $100k CO plus $900 per
$100k Central Office (CO)
additional customer
Decision Contributors
1. If the Authority does not provide services directly to customers, it can consider owning or leasing
the network, and managing and operating the network; i.e. “Govern the Network”.
2. If there are not more than three private service providers offering functionally equivalent services,
the Authority can serve customers in competition with private service providers (Virginia Law).
Based on the needs of the other providers (if present), the County should consider hiring a third
party to manage and operate the network.
3. Where no private service providers are offering functionally equivalent services, the Authority
can own, manage and operate the network, and serve as provider of last resort until such time as
at least three private service providers are providing functionally equivalent service. Under
Virginia Law, the Authority can offer only data (Internet) services directly to end-use customers,
but the Authority can also offer dark fiber and transport services.

First Option: Dark Fiber Leasing
A dark fiber optic network would be built starting with deployment in the largest aggregate demand
regions after at least one vendor has entered into an agreement to lease fiber. Fibers would be spliced into
the vendor network at an agreed upon location(s). The fiber transport network would be dark and it
would be up to the service provider to light the fiber (i.e. installing their own electronics), build the access
network to the customer and serve the customer. The service provider would pay the network owner
(County or Authority, depending on whether the Authority is providing services) for transport fees which
would include a maintenance and support component of the distribution network. Depending on funding
available, the total distribution network size can be initially smaller with room to grow and expand in the
future. As a rule of thumb, one fiber would be required per home passed for 100 percent penetration
(with a reduced number of fibers between remote field cabinets; at least one cabinet would be needed in
each community).
Second Option: Community Network Plus Dark Fiber

A 144 strand fiber optic network would be built to overlay or augment existing telecommunications
networks (copper, coaxial cable, wireless, etc.) that would serve the dual purpose of being a backhaul
distribution network and a new access network for customers located within approximately 500 feet of the
fiber. Some of this fiber could also be made available for dark fiber leasing. The network owner would
provide for the front-end Network Operating Center (NOC) with equipment racks, routers, building
environmental controls, back-up power, patch panels, connection to a main network for bandwidth and
backhaul of traffic out of the county, and an outside plant fiber distribution transport network which
would require one fiber per home served. Fees collected would be for transport of network traffic, which
would include a maintenance and support component of the distribution network.
The network owner (County or Authority) would also light the fiber and could build essentially a Fiber–
to-the-Premise (FTTP) access network. Fees collected by the network owner would be for access to the
customer (which would also have maintenance, support, access network facilities and equipment
replacement components included, etc.). Depending upon funding available and subscriber demand, the
total distribution network can be sized upward or downward with a requirement of one unused fiber for
every new customer added.
If no service providers express interest in building access networks and expanding service areas, the
Authority could continue to expand wireless services and begin serving customers over the FTTP network

as a provider of last resort. Virginia law requires that when at least three service providers are providing
functionally equivalent services, the Authority must discontinue providing retail services (except for
governmental units and subdivisions of government). If this would occur, the Authority could still collect
revenues, but it would be from service providers in lieu of customers.
This model represents the most likely scenario because of its flexibility to meet the needs of a variety of
service providers. This network could start out serving a relatively few customers and grow over time. It
would be guaranteed a certain amount of revenue (based on initial agreements with local governments,
schools and any anchor tenants) before construction. While it is the initially recommended model, its
selection is subject to change based on private provider input. It offers a path to migrate into a wholesale
model as additional businesses want to purchase services and private provider interest increases as the
potential for customers is better defined.
Third Option: Wholesale Model

A completely lit optical fiber-to-the-premise (FTTP) network would be built to include all of the
electronic components necessary to serve the customer premise where cost feasible. Some of the lit
strands would still be available at remote locations for service provider backhaul connectivity, but the
service providers would be paying for lit fiber in lieu of leasing dark fiber and installing their own
electronics. Depending upon funding available and subscriber demand, the network size can be adjusted
upward or downward in a phased approach.
Private Provider Interest

A County investment in broadband infrastructure provides a method for private providers currently
offering services to expand their service area or offer new technology products. Ultimately, the business
model selected will depend upon private provider interest in using the new infrastructure and the revenue
generating capabilities of the network. Private providers currently offering services in the County, as well
as regional fiber owners, long haul network carriers, and wireless firms operating in other areas of
Virginia were invited to provide written response indicating their interest in exploring partnership
opportunities with the County to deploy high bandwidth services. They were provided with the results of
the County’s broadband needs assessment, demographic profile, locations and numbers of potential
subscribers, and the planning information necessary to determine the business case for deploying
advanced services. Providers currently serving portions of Page County and others offering services in
neighboring counties have expressed interest in exploring opportunities to leverage a fiber network
investment. A summary of the initial responses are as follows:

Embarq Corporation: Embarq currently provides DSL services within the more populated areas of the
County, and has expressed interest in exploring partnerships that would enable them to expand broadband
into the less densely populated areas of the County.
Shentel: Shenandoah Telecommunications Company provides regulated and non-regulated

telecommunications services in the Northern Shenandoah Valley. Shentel owns towers within Page
County and is currently providing paging services. They have indicated interest in working with the
County to explore various options for broadband services and use of a fiber optic network.
Comcast Cable: As the owner of the former Adelphia cable system in the County, Comcast has verbally
expressed interest in exploring the mutual benefits of a public/private partnership to deploy additional
fiber within the County. As a large national cable and high speed Internet provider, Comcast seeks to
upgrade older networks to provide a consistent product offering across all markets that includes higher
speeds of Internet access than the Page County system is capable of today.
Rural Broadband Network Services (RBNS): RBNS is an ISP (highspeedLINK) headquartered in

Harrisonburg and currently providing some wireless services within Page County. They have expressed
interest in both using an open access fiber network to expand services and providing managed services
under various business model scenarios.
Virginia Broadband (VABB): VABB is a provider of wireless and wireline network services,
specializing in rural broadband deployments. This firm is currently in partnership with four Virginia
counties and three municipal townships. Currently servicing portions of Rappahannock County, they see
a natural extension into Page County and are interested in accessing a fiber network for wireless backhaul
to their own fiber facilities in Fredericksburg, Culpepper and Warsaw. A county-owned fiber backbone is
attractive to VABB as a way to reduce transport costs and access high capacity Internet access at
competitive pricing.
Premier Technical Services (PTI): PTI is a Virginia corporation providing communication services and
support to a diversified client base which includes Federal agencies, state and local governments,
commercial enterprises, prime contractors, trade associations, nonprofits and the U.S. military.
Headquartered in Luray, this company is keenly aware of the need for cost effective high bandwidth
options for expanding services and attracting jobs to Page County. PTI will benefit from a fiber network

in the County as a means to enhance the level of services they currently provide to their Page County
customers, and improve efficiencies of these services. Additionally, PTI proposes to explore partnership
options to deploy broadband wireless services to reach customers where fiber access is not feasible.
Costs to build a fiber optic distribution network(s) are presented in Table ES-1. As developed, costing
anticipates a fiber connection from Luray through Stanley to Shenandoah with connectivity to
approximately twenty-five schools, health care facilities and municipal buildings. The network could also
serve additional customers located within about five hundred feet of the fiber for approximately nine
hundred dollars ($900) per additional customer. The network is robust enough to also handle telephone
and cable television traffic administered by private partners. The costs are only for the network and do
not include the costs of adding incremental customers (the premise drop or connection to the customer
and equipment at each individual incremental customer).
Based on this study’s work, the following steps for providing broadband infrastructure are recommended.
Acknowledge that at a minimum the infrastructure costs in Table ES-1 (page 26) will likely be
borne by the County or local municipalities in order to encourage private provider(s) to offer
services throughout the County.
Ideally this network should provide direct fiber connectivity to schools, health care facilities,
major business employers, emergency and municipal locations with wireless as last mile access
outside of the immediate area.
Seek letters of intent from partners who would deliver Internet and other services over a
community owned fiber network for data transport. Current providers have indicated interest in
further discussions to explore public/private partnerships to expand services into less densely
populated areas of Page County.
Build the recommended network only when sufficient revenue is guaranteed through agreements
with local governments, schools, health care and anchor customers to provide sufficient revenue
to defray the majority of the annual costs. Migrate to the wholesale model only when sufficient
private partner(s) have been identified and committed to the project to ensure that the network
will not be a burden on local government operations.

Summary of Study Findings by Task
Community Needs Assessment and Asset Inventory:
One objective of the Community Broadband Planning Study is to document the availability of
communication technologies throughout the study area and to assess the amount of demand by residential
and business end-users. Communication technologies as defined in this study include any form of
Internet access, pay TV, and telephone delivered by any medium. Residential and business surveys were
distributed randomly throughout the study areas and to all government offices; public school and higher
education personnel were interviewed for more in-depth responses.
DSL service is currently available to a majority of business consumers and the densely population
residential areas within each town’s limits. Many of those located beyond DSL service areas indicate a
desire to subscribe to service if it were available. Current DSL customers express frustration with
unreliable service, citing network outages due to weather and unreliable telephone infrastructure. Cable
modem Internet service is currently available within the town limits and to a portion of residential areas
extending just outside the towns and used by only a small percentage of subscribers. Dial-up Internet
access is in use by 58% of residents and 19% of businesses; the majorities indicate a desire to subscribe to
higher speed service if it were available and affordable.
Figure ES-A: “Telecommunication Infrastructure” which follows, highlights the current availability of
broadband services in Page County.

Businesses requiring higher speed access than is currently available account for 31% of respondents and
81% of all businesses express some level of dissatisfaction with current providers. Although the majority
of business users were unsure as to how much bandwidth they are currently receiving, one-half of all
businesses (50%) state the greatest amount of frustration is attributed to slow speed and a lack of
bandwidth. The majority of businesses using dial-up state speeds are inadequate, and 24% of broadband
users (DSL and cable modem) are also dissatisfied with the speed (bandwidth) they are receiving. The
majority of dissatisfied businesses are located in Luray.
Price will be a limiting factor in decisions to purchase higher bandwidth. Of those businesses that are
currently dissatisfied, 37% cite price as a reason. Current monthly expenses for Internet or data access do
not exceed $50 per month for the majority (56%) of businesses. Of those businesses citing price
dissatisfaction, the majority are DSL subscribers; monthly spending is split nearly evenly between $30-
$50 per month and $51-$100 per month. This indicates significant pressure for new broadband access
methods at pricing below current DSL service pricing, or significantly higher access speeds for the same
pricing.
Educational institutions exhibit the greatest bandwidth need, primarily to distribute distance learning
resources among individual schools. Current Internet connections are sufficient at this time for Internet
access due to the bandwidth management policy implemented by the school Technology Director.
Videoconferencing is used between Luray High School and Page County High School for sharing classes
between the schools, but current connections to the other schools are insufficient to expand this valuable
learning resource. Lord Fairfax Community College maintains a satellite location in Luray, and the
current Internet infrastructure includes two T1 links purchased through Network Virginia. The two T1
links provide a total of 3 Mbps of connectivity to support a distance learning room and two classrooms.
This amount of bandwidth is sufficient for current needs, but future needs may require an upgrade to
higher speeds.
The public libraries located in each town are in need of Internet access in excess of current, affordable
services. Internet access connections at each of the libraries are shared between public users and staff
access to the library circulation system in Harrisonburg and bandwidth is strained. The Luray and
Shenandoah branches connect to the main library network and the Internet through a 512 Kbps frame
relay connection purchased from COVANET at State contracted rates. The Stanley branch is connected
via 1.5 Mbps DSL service from Embarq. None of the library branches offer wireless Internet access to
users with wireless-enabled laptops or other devices. While each branch has had inquiries as to this

service most commonly from business travelers, the limited bandwidth would be further strained by
additional users. Each of the library branches maintain differing hours of operation, and all are closed on
Sundays. Luray and Shenandoah offer later hours only one evening per week. These hours of operation
may be insufficient to accommodate working families not arriving home from work until 6:00 pm or later.
Municipal facilities currently need dedicated bandwidth between sites and including public safety, to
enable a secure, cohesive network and Internet access for all locations. While Internet access is not
currently an issue, connectivity between sites using current available technologies is slow and the
bandwidth inadequate. Additionally, municipalities are currently unable to offer a number of e-
government services that would improve service to the communities.
Nearly all healthcare locations subscribe to DSL service. This business segment reported mixed reviews
of satisfaction with current speeds; one half describes their current speed of access adequate to meet their
current needs, with the remainder subscribing to 1.5 Mbps service that is inadequate to meet current
needs. A gap exists however, in that doctors do not have universal access from their homes as high-
speed service is not available in all areas.
All survey participants were questioned as to their interest in wireless as an Internet access option; 82% of
residents and 76% of businesses indicate they are very to somewhat likely to use wireless service if it was
available and affordable.
Survey Response Mapping
Responses to the end-user surveys were geocoded based on address of respondent and mapped to analyze
current computer and Internet use, methods of Internet access, voice and video service methods and
expense, and satisfaction with current services. Spatially displaying responses to survey questions and
overlaying with various demographic and economic mapping features resulted in identification of specific
locations of need and consumer interest in acquiring higher speed access.
Figure ES-B: “Internet Connection and Survey Responses” which follows highlights the predominate use
of dial-up as an Internet connection method.

Broadband Education and End-User Applications
Education on potential uses for the Internet and the currently available services is equally important as
purchasing more bandwidth. As the education level of Internet users increases, increasing usage and
demand for bandwidth will follow. Technology is a core education requirement in Virginia public
schools; the Page County Public Schools has made significant investments in technology and students are
proficient in the use of technology and the Internet in particular. Adults seeking to improve technology
skills for the workforce or for participating in Internet commerce can do so locally through the Page Job
Center, Technical Center, Shenandoah Computer Center and the Lord Fairfax Community College
outreach site.
For reasons of availability or cost, virtually no segment of the community is using broadband
communications to a high degree. Residents appear unaware of the benefits and convenience of online
learning and job search. Many businesses are unaware that high speed services can offer savings in voice
calling, secure network access and communication methods. Conversely, 77% of all Page County
business survey respondents identified one or more growth opportunities their business would consider if
an affordable, high speed service were available to them. Primary interest is in offering additional
services over the Internet, indicating a growing understanding of the value of Internet marketing.
Training is needed to help businesses take advantage of this tremendous resource.
Few opportunities are available locally for targeted training for businesses. The Virginia Center for
Innovative Technology (CIT) is an excellent resource for local workshops aimed at educating business
owners and entrepreneurs in marketing on the web and e-commerce. CIT has previously presented such a
workshop in Page County, and should be utilized for future training opportunities with marketing support
from the County and the local chambers of commerce.
The Community Computer Center in Shenandoah was established through a rural broadband grant in
2004. This center is a key resource for college students and local citizens without either a computer or
high-speed access at home. Additionally, this center is the only free training resource in the County. It is
imperative that services and access continue to be available, and opportunities for training marketed to the
entire Page County community.
The three libraries serving Page County each have a limited number of computer stations available for use
and do not offer any training, primarily due to library size. None of the libraries offer wireless Internet
access for patrons with laptop computers; current bandwidth constraints limit sharing with additional

users beyond the library staff and the few computer stations. The libraries are another key resource for
students and job seekers, and their location within each community makes them optimal resources for
Internet access and training. Additionally, current library hours of operation may be insufficient to
accommodate working families and students.
Any investment in bringing broadband to Page County must be supported by marketing the benefits and
facilitating training opportunities to the community. Private providers should also be encouraged to
market services, availability, and benefits to citizens. Help desk support will be a critical component of
increasing usage of the Internet and promoting high speed technology adoption.
Network Design, Last Mile Connectivity Options and Cost Considerations
Network Design
The focus and priority of the rural broadband grant program is to initially ensure reliable, high speed
connectivity to businesses, education institutions, and health care facilities. Although not a priority focus
initially, broadband infrastructure to address the needs of residential end-users in the more rural areas of
Page County is needed. A fiber optic distribution network was investigated for connectivity to the
priority end-users (anchor customers), which can also be used to support a wireless last mile solution to
reach the more rural areas. Fiber optics is considered one of the most future-proof technologies available
today.
Since the program encourages an emphasis on collaborations with private-sector providers and to
maximize the provision and affordability of services to the communities at large, an open access fiber
distribution network has been proposed. Such networks allow all providers to have equal access to the
network and network services at competitive rates. While the network has been proposed as open access,
it is anticipated that Page County, possibly through an authority, could provide Internet access over a
limited network if no viable private providers are found.
Options for a county that desires to promote affordable broadband services are limited in large part by
Virginia Law. The reader is referred to Section 5.2 of the main report for a detailed look at the options
and restrictions afforded by the law. One option which is clearly allowed is for a County 2 to lease dark
fiber (fiber optic cable which is not powered or lit). The benefit to a provider is that significant outside
2
County as used generically in this report might refer to either the County government or an authority created by the
County (e.g. SWBA).

plant costs can be transferred from a capital expense to an annual lease expense. The party(s) leasing the
fiber would need to arrange for lighting the network which could be used for point-to-point backhaul
transport and/or an access network could be built off the distribution network to provide services directly
to end-users. The dark fiber could be managed by the county or an authority of the county.
Network Architecture
A base network architecture has been proposed which has the following features:
It provides highly reliable network connectivity to the health care, municipal facilities and schools in
the three major communities of Luray, Stanley and Shenandoah within Page County.
Businesses and residents within a distance of approximately 500 feet of the fiber can also be served by
the same network.
The network architecture is sufficiently robust to provide voice, data and video services if required.
The network provides a migration path to economically serving additional customers if desirable.
The network can be provisioned and operated from a single location in one of the three communities.
In order to collect transport as well as access fees, a hybrid network could be designed and built where
both dark and lit fibers are provided.
The implications of these decisions are that there must be a fiber backbone between the three
communities sufficient to transport the data from every customer back to the central location.
Additionally there must be fiber access within each community which passes within approximately five
hundred feet of any health care, municipal or school facility. A fiber network has been laid out (Figure 3-
2B and 3-2C) which meets these requirements. A 48 count fiber backbone connecting the three
communities would carry data traffic back to a central office or Network Operations Center while 144
count fiber within each community would provide access to potential customers. The network could be
built in sections starting with the community where the connections to a long haul Internet provider are
made, extending to additional areas as funds and potential customers become available.
The outside plant would consist of approximately 17.5 miles of distribution fiber and 7.5 miles of access
network. The basic cost of the outside plant infrastructure for the network described is approximately
$824,000. Network costs, Network Interface devices3, and installation would increase that cost to
approximately $1,430,000 for a network sufficient to serve 500 customers. Potentially this network
3
The network Interface device or NID is the portal located at any customer’s premise which connects to the
network.

could reach as many as 115 businesses and approximately 2,300 residences within approximately 500 feet
of the fiber build, with an incremental cost of approximately $900 per customer added (beyond 500
customers). The network and outside plant infrastructure could handle VoIP (Voice over IP), Internet and
IP video without additional changes. The private partner would provide the IP video content if video
services were being provided. The network could be scaled upward based on private partner participation
and higher than expected community interest. It could also be scaled downward, possibly replacing the
intercommunity fiber links with wireless, if private partners cannot be obtained.
If Built, Would the Network Be Able to Sustain Itself?
If the fiber distribution network was built, would its presumed use generate enough revenue to sustain
itself and who would use the network? To answer this question fully, the potential partners delivering
services or the services offered by the County or an authority have to be fully developed. To date, the
project has clearly not progressed to that point. As an approach to answering the question, two steps have
been taken. The first of these is the distribution of a Request for Interest (RFI) to potential providers and
other stakeholders in the area. That document, issued on February 25, 2008, described a likely fiber
deployment scenario detailing the number of potential customers that could be reached by the network.
While all responses received by the time this document was published have been included, it is likely that
additional ones may be received over the coming weeks or months. In aggregate they will detail the
private partnership possibilities available to the network as proposed and may suggest avenues not fully
envisioned in the original network.
The second step was the development of a financial model for the operation of an all fiber network
capable of handling voice, data and video traffic. A number of different scenarios have been detailed in
the body of the report. Synopses of two of these, a completely dark fiber network and a community
network (municipal facilities-only) are summarized in this section. The second of these two synopses
addresses the initially recommended option.
One initially possible consideration for the county is a dark fiber only model 4. Such a model would
follow routes desirable to the leaser and could incorporate service to the municipality on a fee basis or as
an exchange of services in partial or full payment for the dark fiber. While in theory there could be many
4
This model envisions an extensive dark fiber network devoted to a single provider. A
Community Network model might include some point to point dark fiber as for example between
two branches of a bank.

entities, each leasing some portion of a given fiber bundle, in practice there would likely be only one.
For purposes of examining initial feasibility, a dark fiber network is assumed to connect the communities
of Luray, Stanley and Shenandoah and pass schools and municipal facilities. This leasing scenario would
cover the cost to build and maintain at an annual cost (debt service plus maintenance) of approximately
$2,400 per mile ($60,000 annually for a 25 mile network). The dark fiber is capable of carrying video
and telephone services in addition to data services if the provider has the network equipment and other
electronics necessary to provide such service.
Major points on this model are:

1. The dark fiber would be built out to encompass a considerable area of the county allowing
the provider(s) to offer services without having to fund the infrastructure.
2. For revenue self-sufficiency, lease rates would have to cover the cost to build the fiber
infrastructure, the annual cost for pole attachments, and any ongoing maintenance costs.
3. Unless the agreements to lease the fiber are in place before the construction, the County will
have limited leverage to demand the revenue level necessary to make debt obligations. The
decision to proceed with such a model would be based on an agreement with one of the
private provider responders to the RFI.
The Community Network Plus Dark Fiber model envisions a fiber build connecting the communities of
Luray, Stanley and Shenandoah, and connecting the schools and municipal buildings along that route.
The network could also provide services to any businesses or homes within approximately five hundred
feet of the route (not shown in model which follows). That model also assumed that the basic build cost
would be partially funded (50%) by grants. Many variations based on funding techniques, services
offered, potential partners and take rates (number of customers) could be developed, some of which will
be viable and some of which will not.
Some of the salient points from the community network model are as follows:
A network providing data services to the municipal customers along the basic fiber route
would probably cover operating expenses but not the cost to build the envisioned network.
The outside plant network would be capable of providing data and other services to
additional customers within drop distance (approximately 500 feet) of the network.
Virginia Law allows only for providing data services by the county or authority and subject
to some restrictions.

The cost to add each customer beyond the initial build (500 customers) is approximately
$900.
While the operational cost for each customer is very low, the benefit of extending services to residential
customers only makes sense in the context of a general benefit to the community. Should large numbers
of additional customers be added to the network, the extent of customer support, costs of billing, and
other issues would need to be included beyond the level shown. The network, with an Authority or other
municipal entity operating as a provider could deliver such services. Additional subscribers could also be
served by a private provider utilizing the fiber not required to serve the County’s direct needs. Under that
scenario, the fiber not utilized by the County would be leased to the provider on a dark fiber basis.
The County would only provide the fiber; the provider would light and provide services over the fiber to
the end user. The only operating requirements from the County would be for maintenance to the fiber
(repairs) and governance concerning how and by whom splicing to connect to the end user is
accomplished.
The financial model for this option is discussed in more detail in section 7 of the main report. Its
profitability will vary based on the number of customers and other network decisions. A summary of the
model for a worst case scenario includes the following assumptions:
Assumption 1: The network serves only 22 municipal/governmental facilities with very high speed
Internet (10-100 Mbps) at a monthly cost of $250 per location served.
Assumption 2: Grants pay for approximately 50 percent of the construction cost of the network.
Under this scenario the shortfall per year for the fifteen year amortization of the project is approximately
$50,000 per year (model assumed no principal payments during year one and two). The cash flows under
this scenario per year are shown immediately following. Under this scenario, a limited number of anchor
tenants, dark fiber leasers, wireless providers or other clients would make the basic network revenue
neutral.
Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Year 6 Year 7 Year 8 Year 9 Year 10
Annual
Cash -16,119 -19,552 -45,586 -46,570 -47,572 -48,594 -49,636 -50,698 -51,780 -52,882
Flow($)

To reiterate the basis of this worst case scenario model, the cash flow in this example is negative for all
years. If the model were adjusted to pay principal and interest in all years, the shortfall each year would
be approximately equal to the annual payment to repay the loan. This base case assumes 50 percent
(50%) grant funding; without grant funding, the shortfall would be approximately doubled. Funding at
100 percent (100%) would make the network as shown approximately self-sufficient. Details of the
major revenue and expenditures are shown in the following tables. Essentially the costs of operating such
a network are the cost of leasing and utilities for a central office location, a part time IT staffer, Internet
access fees, pole attachment fees and maintenance. These functions might most economically be handled
using IT personnel with other duties with existing space, if available, leased from local governments.

The final model considered (Page 4), the Wholesale Model is discussed in detail in Section 7 of the
main report. It is a permissible model under Virginia Law, but it is not believed to be a model
which is feasible for the initial deployment.
Typical Fees and Revenues
Open access network fees vary from one community project to the next. Examples of fees charged to
service providers desiring to use an open access fiber optic network is provided in Appendix C for the
Grant County, Washington Zipp® Network. While these are offered for information purposes, the
community will need to decide a balance between the network cost, what if any contribution will be made
to encourage local development, grants if any and the extent of any income which is required or operating
losses which can be tolerated. Some information helpful in developing those rates is provided in the
following table.
Table ES-1: Typical Charges to Service Providers for Use of an Open Access Network
Mo.
Service Charge
Comments
Standard Service Except as noted, these charges would apply if the fiber network was lit by
the community. In other words, the service provider is paying for access
to the customer through equipment owned by the community network.
Residential Internet $5 Upper figure ($5) is an access fee for a service provider offering Internet
Service per Subscriber service to a customer over a County owned and operated network. The
lower figure is an approximate fee which might be charged for Internet
(A similar service offered ($22) service over a Community owned and operated network with the County
by the County as a providing Internet service as the provider of last resort. The wholesale
provider of last resort) cost of the Internet content will be $1-$2 per customer per month. Still
the incremental cost per customer of $900 means that it would take four
years to pay for the equipment alone. This option may be attractive as a
way to support the economy or meet other goals
Commercial Internet $30-$50 Incumbent telephone providers may easily receive $100 per month to
Service per Subscriber provide a local loop, highly reliable, connection providing 1.5 mbps (T1)
of data access. The monthly charge is very reasonable so long as this
degree of reliability can be provided. To reach this pricing, Quality of
Service guarantees would be required for this level of value. As a service
competing with DSL at that level of service, the monthly charge will be
little higher than for residential service
Video Service per $5 A cable provider may pay $30 per month for video content which is
Subscriber marketed for around $50. This leaves only $20 for network operations,
connectivity to the customer, other fees and profit.
Phone Service (Per $5-$8 Phone service requires little bandwidth but high reliability. The cost of
POTS port) connecting from a County network back to a vendor owned voice switch
will likely determine the possible fees. A VoIP provider might be
interested in such an arrangement; the incumbent provider is unlikely to
be interested as they currently own their own infrastructure.
Wireless Internet per $1-$3 Wireless providers generally compete with dial-up Internet service
wireless customer customers while having to contend with relatively high incremental costs
for serving each customer. This limits their ability to pay access fees for
Internet transport.

Organization and Network Operations
Network organization and operations models vary. Depending on state law, options include networks
being owned and/or operated by the municipality, authority of the municipality, joint action agency,
council of governments (COG), cooperatives, for-profit entities, etc.
In regards to municipal provision of communication services, Virginia does allow local governments to
provide services but with restrictions. Section 5.2 of the report discusses the impact of Virginia Law in
more detail, including allowances for public entities to provide “qualifying communication services”.
The following briefly addresses some of the restrictions and permissible roles of municipalities in relation
to the focus of open access networks.
A locality can build a network and provide services to its departments, boards, agencies, etc. and to
adjoining locality’s so long as the charges for equipment, infrastructure, and/or services do not exceed
the cost of providing the service. Dark fiber can be leased by any locality, electric commission or
board, industrial development authority, or economic development authority. Under no
circumstances can the locality or authority be involved in marketing or promoting the services of the
lessee or purchaser.
The Virginia Wireless Services Authority Act authorizes a locality to “convey or lease to [an]
authority, with or without consideration, any systems or facilities for the provision of qualifying
communications services” and “contract, jointly or severally, with any authority for the provision of
qualifying communications services.” Localities are still held to the requirements of the “qualifying
communication services” and service gap provisions (not more than three providers). This legislation
provides the method by which projects can be financed by an authority.
Communities that want to provide a catalyst for service expansion and an enticement to service providers,
but do not have the expertise in-house to manage and operate a network and want to limit their investment
in a network, will invest in the dark fiber only (no equipment). If services are to be provided to
municipalities and other political subdivisions or agencies only, then they will also contract with another
entity to manage and operate the network. This approach minimizes the extent of staff and training
needed by the municipality. This option should only be undertaken after agreements are in place to lease
such fiber. Generally, communities that have begun such projects before partner agreements have been
completed have had unsatisfactory results.

In order to provide a full range of retail services across a network, staff requirements would typically
include a customer service representative/sales representative, billing clerk, technical field personnel,
technical office personnel to manage the Network Operating Center (NOC) equipment, and probably a
system manager. In addition other costs would include marketing materials, software and invoices, office
and facility space with equipment and furnishings, and training costs. Municipalities that are already
providing other services such as public power (electric) and water and wastewater treatment services are
in a much better position to provide voice, video and data retail products.
Funding Resources
Funding concerns for such an initiative are usually categorized into at least two (2) investigations; capital
expenses and sustainability of operating, maintaining and provisioning the network. Capital expense
funding is usually addressed by analyzing long-term amortization borrowing opportunities with interest
rate impact, as well as potential subsidized funding through grants, against the ability to generate
sufficient revenue to meet the annual debt service obligations. If possible, capital funding obligations are
met by long-term contracts (often associated with providing services to businesses and large bandwidth
users) while annual network sustainability funding is paid for through services provided to residential
customers and shorter-term contracts.
Usual capital funding for municipal projects include revenue or general obligation bonds. Other creative
financing models include buying shares in a for-profit operating entity, customer ownership through a
cooperative, forming a legal public-private partnership, etc. Given that the historical charter for local
government units is to be non-profit entities and not venture capitalists, it is recommended the more
traditional methods of government funding be pursued such as federal and state grants and low interest
loans, issuance of bonds, or incurring debt. Advantageous approaches within these resources can be
investigated such as “wrap-around” debt and refinancing existing debt. Continuing to investigate forming
cooperative and sharing costs among the owners who are the customers also has merit. Input from the
Lower Shore Broadband Cooperative in Maryland is recommended to learn more about the pros and cons
of a cooperative structure.
Section 6.0 “Funding” of the report provides discussion on capital costs versus sustainable costs, assets,
potential partners, funding success stories and funding resources.

Conclusions and Recommendations
The results of the 2,500 residential surveys and 500 business surveys indicate a general dissatisfaction,
particularly with the level of Internet bandwidth available, strength of signal (cell phone and television),
and affordability. Schools and health care facilities (Page Memorial Hospital) have Internet access
currently at no more than about 3 Mbps. This is clearly insufficient bandwidth to utilize the many
learning tools available in more urban areas nor to provide high speed, real time telemedicine connections
between Page County and urban health centers. If cost were no object, these services could be obtained
from existing providers, but affordability effectively limits what is available. Combining this background
and the Virginia Rural Broadband Planning Initiative (VRBPI) objective of ensure community
sustainability through broadband deployment, the consultants have developed the planning steps
necessary to reach the VRBPI’s goals. VDHCD which administer this program has indicated that they
may support these programs with additional funding particularly if the network approach utilizes an “open
access” approach which maximizes the availability of the network to private providers. As a means to
factor in the private provider interest, a Request for Interest (RFI) has been sent to interested parties.
Based on that interest, much of which may not be known at the completion of this study, the planning
document recommendations can be used to direct the County toward a final solution.
There is a problem with developing a telecommunications network without fully understanding what
providers might want in order to utilize a county network. That problem is that the size and scope of the
network cannot be planned without knowing what providers might be interested in accessing.
Conversely, without knowing the size and scope of a proposed network, private providers will not know
their level of interest. To avoid this problem, the consultants have developed a basic network which
addresses the basic VRBPI desire to provide communications to schools, health care facilities and
municipal buildings. The network utilizes fiber interconnectivity which can be extended to serve a
considerable number of businesses and residences by adding the final connectivity from the proposed
network to the end user. Those numbers of potential customers (approximately 2300 potential customers)
were included in the RFI along with a potential route location to assist private providers in their
responses. The final network decisions can be based on the extent of interest. If an increased network
scope can be justified based on the interest, it can be expanded following the planning steps proposed. In
order to meet the minimum objectives of the VRBPI, the cost of the community network includes the
County entity providing Internet services to customers along the distribution and access route.

The planning steps necessary to reach the project goals are:

1. Utilize a County Authority as the basic entity to provide network services over the County’s
network. Under Virginia and Federal law, an authority can provide services (Internet access) and
has rights (negotiating pole attachment agreements), not granted to counties.
2. Utilize the RFI results in conjunction with tools provided with this study to evaluate the potential
financial viability of these partnerships. The interest will also indicate whether a more extensive
network would make financial sense or whether even the most basic fiber network is viable.
Following evaluation of potential partners, a dark fiber network might become attractive.
3. Obtain preliminary commitments from any anchor tenants (schools, hospitals, municipalities,
businesses) that would agree to utilize the network. The potential revenue from these clients can
serve as support for the viability of the network as the County looks for funding sources.
4. Finalize the basic network design as necessary based on the results of Item 2 and the study
results. The approximate network costs developed in this way will serve as the basis for
requested funding. Apply for such funding utilizing the sources suggested (Section 6.0), State
funds which have been proposed for this purpose, or County funds. Based on the scope of the
final network, long-term amortized bonding may be required.
5. Utilize consultants for the final planning, design and construction of the network. Prominent
within this step will be execution of pole attachment agreements, permits for rights of way,
detailed outside plant and central office design, construction and network turn-up.


Phase 1 and 2 Exec Summary

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Phase 1 and 2 Exec Summary

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Icon Broadband Technologies

A Division of Icon Engineering,, Inc.

Community Broadband Planning Study

Executive Summary Phase I and II—Final Report

Page County, VA Community Broadband Planning Study

Page County, VA Community Broadband Planning Study

Page County, VA Community Broadband Planning Study

County, Authority, or Third County, Authority, or County, Authority or Third

Backhaul traffic, from

Requirements for Vendors Access Network & Access Network

Building dark fiber to lease.

Level of Sophistication: Low Moderate to High Moderate to High

Page County, VA Community Broadband Planning Study

First Option: Dark Fiber Leasing

Second Option: Community Network Plus Dark Fiber

Page County, VA Community Broadband Planning Study

Third Option: Wholesale Model

Private Provider Interest

Page County, VA Community Broadband Planning Study

Shentel: Shenandoah Telecommunications Company provides regulated and non-regulated

Rural Broadband Network Services (RBNS): RBNS is an ISP (highspeedLINK) headquartered in

Page County, VA Community Broadband Planning Study

Page County, VA Community Broadband Planning Study

Summary of Study Findings by Task

Community Needs Assessment and Asset Inventory:

Page County, VA Community Broadband Planning Study

Page County, VA Community Broadband Planning Study

Survey Response Mapping

Page County, VA Community Broadband Planning Study

Broadband Education and End-User Applications

Page County, VA Community Broadband Planning Study

Network Design, Last Mile Connectivity Options and Cost Considerations

Page County, VA Community Broadband Planning Study

Page County, VA Community Broadband Planning Study

If Built, Would the Network Be Able to Sustain Itself?

Page County, VA Community Broadband Planning Study

Major points on this model are:

Page County, VA Community Broadband Planning Study

Page County, VA Community Broadband Planning Study

Page County, VA Community Broadband Planning Study

Typical Fees and Revenues

Page County, VA Community Broadband Planning Study

Organization and Network Operations

Page County, VA Community Broadband Planning Study

Page County, VA Community Broadband Planning Study

Conclusions and Recommendations

Page County, VA Community Broadband Planning Study

The planning steps necessary to reach the project goals are:

Page County, VA Community Broadband Planning Study

You might also like