[Advisors] What happens when the adoption money runs out?

[James Van Leeuwen]

Almost all Alberta Government investment in broadband networks has come =
by way of Alberta Agriculture & Rural Development (ARD).=20

i think the Olds FTTH initiative is the lone exception, which the =
Government invested in (with great trepidation) by way of the quasi =
arm's-length Rural Alberta Development Fund (RADF).

Were it not for visionary leadership at RADF, the Olds FTTH initiative =
might very well have died on the vine.

It's disappointing that only one community in the province (Olds) had =
the visionary leadership to capitalize on RADF's willingness to fund =
FTTH development, but at least we have that one community.=20

It's another critical beachhead for the entire community broadband =
agenda, which provides advocates with a lot more strategic leverage.=20


ARD initially invested to expand final mile networks by funding WISPs =
directly, following the lead of federal government.

This policy predictably created major headaches for provincial and =
federal governments alike, and produced lower-than-expected returns that =
made it difficult to defend the policy.

The WISPs didn't reach as much market as they claimed they would, and it =
was difficult or impossible to distribute funds in a manner that did not =
give some WISPs an edge over their competitors.=20

This was partly because of the resource-intensive application process, =
and mostly because of the faulty coverage maps that were used to define =
unserved and underserved regions, many of which were in fact already =
being served.


For it's second funding go-round, ARD recognized that funding local =
governments was a much simpler and more profitable approach.=20

This conflicted with the Government's ideological principle of not =
favouring public enterprise at the expense of private enterprise, but =
this was far less of a headache than what they had to deal with the =
first time around.

Dumber WISPs argued that owning and controlling towers and networks was =
essential to competitive success against mobility operators, and that =
they should continue to receive funding to build towers.

Smarter WISPs recognized that funding local government to build a larger =
number of higher open access towers would enable them to reach more =
market with better service at less expense, enabling them to compete =
more effectively with mobility networks.

It also meant they would have to change their business models to compete =
more effectively on the basis of services, but this was still less risky =
and more profitable than trying to compete on the basis of networks.


Coverage is the GoA's #1 priority, and the shift in policy was driven by =
the realization that open access public infrastructure enables better =
service to more people at lower risk and cost.

It's an exciting development, because it helps make the argument for =
end-to-end open access infrastructure that supports 100% service-based =
competition.

If only we could get our federal government on this train, and drive =
regulatory reform.


JvL






On 2012-11-05, at 11:16 AM, Garth Graham <garth.graham@telus.net> wrote:

> On 2012-11-05, at 8:14 AM, James Van Leeuwen wrote:
>=20
>> The host of GigaBit Nation, Craig Settles, recently did a write-up on =
the community-owned FTTH network that is now operating in the community =
of Olds, AB (attached).=20
>>=20
>> This and other community fibre initiative could provide us with some =
of the most effective leverage for advancing the community broadband =
agenda in Canada.
>=20
> At one point, the Settles article notes, "Alberta's increasingly =
progressive stance on community run initiatives."  Specifically who is =
pushing that in the Alberta Government and why?
>=20
> GG