Tag Archives: cruzio

CPUC approves $12 million subsidy for six broadband infrastructure projects

by Steve Blum • , , , ,

Six of the eleven broadband infrastructure projects on the California Public Utilities Commission’s agenda yesterday were approved for subsidies from the California Advanced Services Fund (CASF). The other five were bumped to the CPUC’s next meeting, on 19 December 2019. Links to the most current resolutions are below.

Cruzio’s Equal Access Santa Cruz project was approved, without changes, for a $2.4 million grant. The commission rejected an attempt by Charter Communications to re-litigate its earlier and unsuccessful attempt to kill it. In doing so, commissioners reiterated that incumbent broadband service providers get one, and only one, opportunity to block proposed projects…

Staff also agrees with [the Central Coast Broadband Consortium] and rejects Charter’s request to remove a census block from the project area because Staff has already made a determination on the challenge. [CPUC Decision 18–12–018] set forth a clear process for challenges and Staff‘s determination of the challenge stands.

All five of the projects proposed by the Plumas Sierra Electric Cooperative (PSEC), totalling $9.7 million in grants, were approved too. The commission accepted PSEC’s field test data that demonstrated the lack of mobile broadband service in its Lake Davis project area.

Two projects proposed by Frontier Communications and three by Charter Communications are on hold. Both companies filed comments asking for more money than recommended by CPUC staff. As with the Cruzio project, Charter attempted to re-litigate its opposition to Frontier’s project plans in the Taft area of Kern County. It also objected to pricing obligations that CASF rules would normally impose on the projects that it proposed. It’s not surprising that it’s taking a couple extra weeks to get to a decision on those five projects.

The Central Coast Broadband Consortium assisted Cruzio with its Equal Access Santa Cruz grant application, and I was a part of that effort. I’m not a disinterested commentator. Take it for what it’s worth.

CASF broadband infrastructure grant resolutions, as approved 5 December 2019:
Cruzio – Equal Access Santa Cruz
Plumas Sierra – Mohawk Vista Mid-Mile/Last Mile
Plumas Sierra – Elysian Valley Mid-Mile/Last Mile
Plumas Sierra – Keddie Mid-Mile/Last Mile
Plumas Sierra – Lake Davis Mid-Mile/Last Mile
Plumas Sierra – Eureka Mid-Mile/Last Mile

CASF broadband infrastructure grant resolutions bumped to 19 December 2019:
Charter Communications – Highland Orchid Drive, Country Squire Mobile Estates , Silver Wheel
Frontier Communications – Northeast Project: Phase1
Frontier Communications – Taft Cluster

All documents collected in 2019 regarding the CASF program and projects are here.

Mobile data tests count more than maps, as CPUC votes on broadband subsidies for northeastern California

by Steve Blum • , , , ,

Plumas eureka

A sharp-eyed reader of this humble blog spotted a gap in my collection of comments on the draft resolutions up for a vote tomorrow. H/T to David Espinosa, the manager of the Upstate and Northeast California broadband consortia, who sent me Plumas-Sierra Electric Co-op’s (PSEC) response to both the draft resolutions for its five proposed projects in Plumas and Lassen counties and the objections raised by the CPUC’s public advocates office. Links are below.

Short version: mobile broadband tests showing zero coverage trumped map models; PSEC added a low-income service plan and CPUC staff recommended extra funding as a result.

The big issue is whether or not one of PSEC’s projects – a proposal to serve 125 homes in the Lake Davis area of Plumas County – is located in an area that has no broadband service at all, other than satellite or dial-up. According to the CPUC’s published map, mobile broadband service is available there, so the project was deemed ineligible for bonus money. In its comments, PSEC provided test data that shows zero broadband availability from any of the four major mobile carriers. The discrepancy might be due to the time of year the CPUC took measurements. As PSEC pointed out

Foliage and tree canopy attenuates radio waves, causing signal degradation, particularly in rural forested areas; especially in fall and winter seasons. Topography also impacts mobile coverage. This Project is in rough terrain with dense tree coverage, resulting in less than adequate mobile coverage.

Based on the Broadband Map, the latest mobile coverage testing was carried out in 2017. It is likely that mobile testing was carried out by CPUC when weather was benign. However, deep in fall and winter seasons actual coverage and speed levels can be significantly less due to weather precipitations and winds.

CPUC staff accepted PSEC’s test data, and the draft resolution was revised, with the extra funding for completely unserved areas added back in.

The PAO objected to the price of PSEC’s proposed plan for low income residents, which also resulted in a lower subsidy amount. PSEC’s answer was to say okay, $15 a month it is. The subsidy bonus that goes along with low income service offerings was added back into the draft resolution.

I’m not a disinterested commentator, so take it for what it’s worth. I provided very minor assistance to Dr. Espinosa, who did the heavy lifting on the response to the original draft Lake Davis resolution. Congratulations to him and the team at PSEC on well-played applications for five needed projects.

Revised draft resolutions, 4 December 2019:
Plumas Sierra – Mohawk Vista Mid-Mile/Last Mile
Plumas Sierra – Elysian Valley Mid-Mile/Last Mile
Plumas Sierra – Keddie Mid-Mile/Last Mile
Plumas Sierra – Lake Davis Mid-Mile/Last Mile
Plumas Sierra – Eureka Mid-Mile/Last Mile

Comments
Plumas Sierra Electric Co-op – comments on the Plumas Sierra – Plumas Sierra – Lake Davis Mid-Mile/Last Mile, 20 November 2019

Plumas Sierra Electric Co-op – comments on the Plumas Sierra – Eureka Mid-Mile/Last Mile project, 21 November 2019

Plumas Sierra Electric Co-op – comments on the Plumas Sierra – Elysian Valley Mid-Mile/Last Mile project, 22 November 2019

Plumas Sierra Electric Co-op – reply comments on the Plumas Sierra – Keddie Mid-Mile/Last Mile project, 27 November 2019

Plumas Sierra Electric Co-op – reply comments on the Plumas Sierra – Mohawk Vista Mid-Mile/Last Mile project, 27 November 2019

All documents collected in 2019 regarding the CASF program and projects are here.

California broadband subsidies set for CPUC vote, as Charter attempts last minute hit (but not on its own grants)

by Steve Blum • , , , ,

As of last night, all 11 broadband infrastructure projects tentatively approved for subsidies from the California Advanced Services Fund (CASF) are slated for a final vote by the California Public Utilities Commission on Thursday. Arguments for and against the projects and grant conditions as drafted have also been filed. Links to (I think) all of the comments are below.

Frontier Communications made pitches for full funding of their projects as proposed, which were seconded by the California Emerging Technology Fund. Charter Communications made a similar plea, then went on to complain about two other projects – Frontier’s proposal for the Taft area of Kern County and Cruzio’s application for money to extend fiber to the premise service to several low income mobile home communities in Santa Cruz County.

Last June, Charter filed objections to both projects, claiming it already offered broadband service to the specific areas of the communities for which Cruzio and Frontier sought CASF subsidies. CPUC staff upheld some of Charter’s challenges and denied others. The new CASF rules adopted by the commission last year established a quick and transparent process for reviewing objections made by incumbents, which fixed a serious flaw in the CASF program – incumbents were allowed to endlessly challenge proposed projects that threatened their monopoly business models, right up to the eve of a commission vote.

The Central Coast Broadband Consortium responded to Charter’s intransigence (full disclosure: I drafted and submitted those comments) by pointing out that allowing perpetual litigation would lead to failure…

Applicants must spend time and money, often amounting to hundreds of thousands of dollars, to prepare and process CASF infrastructure grant proposals. When faced with this significant expense, applicants must weigh it against the probability of success. Previously, the unlimited challenge opportunities afforded incumbent service providers acted as a significant barrier to independent project development. The experience of project applicants who hazarded this process convinced some to never attempt it again. After witnessing these travails, other independent service providers refused to participate in the program.

[The CPUC’s reboot of the CASF program] was wisely crafted to prevent de facto discrimination against independent service providers because their participation in the CASF program is essential to achievement of the program’s goals. Contravening [this decision] by allowing Charter to re-litigate its opposition to the Equal Access Santa Cruz project would, in turn, contravene the Commission’s responsibility to achieve those goals, as required by [California law].

We submitted largely identical comments regarding Frontier’s Taft project.

The CPUC’s public advocates office also weighed in, particularly concerning whether companies receiving grants should be required to offer low income customers affordable broadband rates and whether rules regarding price commitments for all subscribers should be followed – they’re in favor of both.

The next step is for staff to consider all the comments and replies, and make any changes to the proposed grants that seem necessary. The revised draft resolutions should be posted in the next couple of days, although it’s also possible that the commission’s vote could be bumped to a later meeting.

Charter Communications comments on the Charter Communications Highland Orchid Drive, Country Squire Mobile Estates, Silver Wheel projects, 21 November 2019
Public Advocates Office – comments on the Charter Communications Highland Orchid Drive, Country Squire Mobile Estates , Silver Wheel projects, 21 November 2019
Charter Communications – reply comments on the Charter Communications Highland Orchid Drive, Country Squire Mobile Estates, Silver Wheel projects, 26 November 2019

Charter Communications – comments on the Cruzio Equal Access Santa Cruz project, 25 November 2019
Central Coast Broadband Consortium – comments on the Cruzio Equal Access Santa Cruz project, 25 November 2019
Central Coast Broadband Consortium – reply comments on the Cruzio Equal Access Santa Cruz, project 2 December 2019

Charter Communications – comments on the Frontier Communications Taft Cluster project, 25 November 2019
Frontier Communications – comments on the Frontier Communications Taft Cluster project, 25 November 2019
California Emerging Technology Fund – comments on the Frontier Communications Taft Cluster project, 25 November 2019
Central Coast Broadband Consortium – reply comments on the Frontier Communications Taft Cluster project, 2 December 2019

Frontier Communications – comments on the Frontier Communications Northeast Project: Phase1 project, 21 November 2019
California Emerging Technology Fund – comments on the Frontier Communications Northeast Project: Phase1, project, 21 November 2019

Public Advocates Office – comments on the Plumas Sierra – Mohawk Vista Mid-Mile/Last Mile project, 25 November 2019
Public Advocates Office – comments on the Plumas Sierra – Elysian Valley Mid-Mile/Last Mile project, 25 November 2019
Public Advocates Office – comments on the Plumas Sierra – Keddie Mid-Mile/Last Mile project, 20 November 2019

All documents collected in 2019 regarding the CASF program and projects are here.

CPUC queues up $24 million subsidy for 11 California broadband projects

by Steve Blum • , , , ,

Mobile home park

Eleven broadband infrastructure projects by four companies will be considered by the California Public Utilities Commission next month. Draft resolutions approving California Advanced Services Fund (CASF) subsidies for 11 out of the 13 grant proposals submitted in the May application window were posted on Thursday. The drafts are linked below.

Making the CPUC’s new six month deadline for processing applications is a major milestone for staff, and they deserve congratulations. In the past, reviews have sometimes dragged on for years, with endless and often meritless challenges allowed from marginal broadband providers who wanted to fence off service-poor communities. There was mischief this time around – Digital Path, a wireless ISP, tried to claim a vast swath of northeastern California for example – but challenges were rigorously vetted.

The 11 grants total $23.8 million. The projects would extend broadband service to 1,219 homes, for an average subsidy of $19,500 each. There’s wide variance within that average, though, largely due to where those homes are.

Casf grant totals draft resolution 31oct2019

Frontier Communications is up for $11.1 million, which would pay for VDSL upgrades for the 263 homes in Modoc and Lassen counties in northeastern California and the Taft area in Kern County. According to Frontier, the technology is capable of delivering broadband speeds of up to 115 Mbps download and 7 Mbps upload, but the company is only promising to provide the CASF program’s absolute minimum of 10 Mbps down/1 Mbps up.

Plumas-Sierra Rural Electric Co-op is in line for five grants in Plumas and Lassen counties, totalling $8.9 million. Most of the 414 homes will receive direct fiber-to-the-premise service at a minimum of 100 Mbps down/20 Mbps up, although the system will be able to deliver symmetrical gigabit service. One of the projects, in Lake Davis in Plumas County, is a combo fiber and wireless build, with about half the homes receiving fixed wireless broadband service at the minimum of 10 Mbps down/1 Mbps up.

Cruzio, an independent Internet service provider based in Santa Cruz, has one grant for $2.4 million on the table. It targets 263 homes in seven mobile home parks in Santa Cruz County. It’s a full fiber-to-the-premise project, with symmetrical, 1 Gbps down and up promised.

Charter Communications has three grants totalling $1.4 million pending. The projects would extend its hybrid fiber coax plant to two mobile home parks in Riverside and Ventura counties and a neighborhood in Highland in San Bernardino County. The company promises to provide a minimum of 940 Mbps down/35 Mbps up speeds to a total of 279 homes. The draft resolution would also give Charter a pass on the CASF program requirement that monthly subscription prices, for at least some of a grant recipient’s broadband service tiers, be guaranteed for at least two years. A second exception requested by Charter – that it be allowed to charge for equipment and installation – was denied.

The $23.8 million total is $8.3 million less than originally requested for the 11 projects. Most were scaled back, for a variety of reasons including challenges from existing providers, overlaps with federally subsidised areas and due diligence verifications by CPUC staff. Two grant applications – one by Charter in Riverside County and another by Web Perceptions, a local wireless ISP in Sonoma County – are missing from Thursday’s batch. Charter’s proposed project in Perris in Riverside County was challenged by Frontier (and Charter returned the favor for Frontier’s Taft project, albeit only with partial success). Web Perceptions’ application wasn’t challenged but, judging by the publicly available information, it was poorly prepared. It’s a fair assumption that both were denied, but there’s no official word.

The Central Coast Broadband Consortium assisted Cruzio with its Equal Access Santa Cruz grant application, and I happily participated in that effort. I’m not a disinterested commentator. Take it for what it’s worth.

Charter Communications – Highland Orchid Drive, Country Squire Mobile Estates , Silver Wheel
Cruzio – Equal Access Santa Cruz
Frontier Communications – Northeast Project: Phase1
Frontier Communications – Taft Cluster
Plumas Sierra – Mohawk Vista Mid-Mile/Last Mile
Plumas Sierra – Elysian Valley Mid-Mile/Last Mile
Plumas Sierra – Keddie Mid-Mile/Last Mile
Plumas Sierra – Lake Davis Mid-Mile/Last Mile
Plumas Sierra – Eureka Mid-Mile/Last Mile

AT&T, Charter, Comcast, Frontier, Digital Path challenge California broadband subsidy proposals

by Steve Blum • , , , ,

Santa barbara county pole 29oct2015

Of the 13 new projects proposed for construction subsidies from the California Advanced Services Fund (CASF) in May, only four are unchallenged: three proposed by Charter Communications in Riverside, San Bernardino and Ventura counties, and one proposed by a wireless Internet service provider in Sonoma County. The rest face objections from incumbent Internet services providers that want to protect their turf.

Ten challenges, plus a snarky letter from AT&T, were filed against broadband projects being reviewed for CASF grant eligibility by yesterday’s deadline. Under the rebooted CASF rules, an incumbent provider has, effectively, five weeks to submit evidence that it offers broadband service at the California legislature’s pathetic minimum of 6 Mbps download and 1 Mbps upload speeds in census blocks where a CASF infrastructure grant is requested.

None of the publicly distributed challenge notifications contain any details about incumbents’ broadband coverage or availability. That data is submitted separately to CPUC staff. But if you want to read the notices, you can find them here.

Charter Communications and Frontier Communications are challenging each other’s projects. Frontier is fighting Charter’s request for $277,000 to build 12 miles of new lines in Perris in Riverside County; Charter objects to Frontier’s $1.7 million project in the Taft area of western Kern County.

Charter also joined with Comcast and, sorta, AT&T to try to block a $5.3 million proposal from Cruzio to offer fiber-to-the-home service to 13 mobile home parks in Santa Cruz County. Comcast and Charter filed standard challenge notices and presumably provided valid broadband availability data to CPUC staff; AT&T sent a letter helpfully reminding CPUC staff to read the rules.

The most prolific challenger, though, is Digital Path, a Butte County-based wireless ISP that apparently wants to kill six proposals to build out broadband service to nearly a thousand homes in Lassen, Modoc and Plumas counties. It’s challenging Frontier’s $11.8 million DSL upgrade plan for the northeastern corner of California, and four FTTH and one FTTH/wireless hybrid projects, also totalling $11.8 million, proposed by Plumas-Sierra Electric Cooperative.

I’m collecting the 2019 CASF infrastructure grant proposals here. Information about the program is here. All the CASF-related documents I’ve collected in 2019, including the challenge notifications, are here.

The Central Coast Broadband Consortium assisted Cruzio with its Equal Access Santa Cruz grant application, and I was a part of that effort. I’m not a disinterested commentator. Take it for what it’s worth.

California broadband subsidy grants trickle in at the deadline

by Steve Blum • , , , ,

Verizon taft 2dec2014

There was no last minute rush yesterday as the window closed for California Advanced Services Fund (CASF) broadband infrastructure grant applications. Only two companies submitted a total of three project proposals. It’s possible that other applications were submitted but not publicly distributed as required, but for now three, plus five from Saturday, are what we have. I’ll take a deeper dive into all of them later, here’s the short version for now:

Frontier submitted two applications, an $11.8 million proposal to extend service to 146 homes in the Lassen and Modoc County communities of Alturas, Ravendale and Standish, and a $1.7 million proposal to reach 235 homes in and/or around Taft in Kern County. That’s a project that will be welcome. Western Kern County is oil country, and was never upgraded to even 1990s vintage DSL by Verizon, which operated the telephone system until it was acquired by Frontier in 2015. The picture above shows some of the mess that Verizon left behind.

I did an infrastructure assessment study for Taft in 2015, which built on a broadband workshop I conducted in 2014. There’s no doubt the need exists.

On the other hand, both of Frontier’s project summaries indicate that the money would be used to upgrade service to households that are not eligible for CASF funding, including some that they’re already receiving federal subsidies to serve.

Cruzio proposes to extend fiber to the home service to 940 low income homes, and the business offices of 13 mobile home parks in the Santa Cruz County communities of Soquel, Pleasure Point and Capitola. The Equal Access Santa Cruz application asks for a $5.3 million grant.

When the five CASF project applications submitted by the Plumas-Sierra Rural Electric Cooperative last weekend, and Frontier’s proposal for the Colfax and Weimar communities in Placer County submitted late last year are added in, there are now nine grant proposals pending, totalling $27.6 million. With $300 million added to the CASF infrastructure program in 2017, there’s enough money available to fund them all.

Cruzio
Equal Access Santa Cruz, Soquel, Pleasure Point, Capitola (Santa Cruz County)

Frontier Communications
Northeast Project Phase 1 (Lassen and Modoc counties)
Taft Cluster (Kern County)

Plumas-Sierra Rural Electric Cooperative
Elysian Valley-Johnstonville (Lassen County)
Eureka-Johnsville (Plumas County)
Keddie (Plumas County)
Lake Davis (Plumas County)
Mohawk Vista (Plumas County)

I’m collecting the 2019 CASF infrastructure grant proposals here. Information about the program is here.

The Central Coast Broadband Consortium assisted Cruzio with its Equal Access Santa Cruz grant application, and I was a part of that. I’m not a disinterested commentator. Take it for what it’s worth.

Santa Cruz gets more fiber, more gigabit service

by Steve Blum • , , , ,

AT&T’s recent fiber to the home (FTTH) upgrades in Santa Cruz mean that Cruzio isn’t the only Internet service provider bringing gigabit class infrastructure into town (unless you have a sneaking suspicion that it’s a competitive response – in that case you can thank Cruzio for it too). U.C. Santa Cruz’s Jim Warner tracked it down…

AT&T has been working on an FTTH deployment in parts of west Santa Cruz. The work has progressed to the point where some addresses are showing availability of gigabit service in AT&T’s on-line service availability tool. When you enter a “good” address – one where gigabit service is already available – you see, among other things, a web offer for “fiber” service at 100 Mbps and 1,000 Mbps download and upload speeds (subject to the usual disclaimer: “actual customer speeds may vary and are not guaranteed”).

The 100 Mbps packages is capped at 1 terabyte a month; the gigabit package offers “unlimited data”.

An example of what FTTH looks like “on the pole” is in the picture above. The thin curved lines that appear to loop back into the new tap are not fibers. They are simply plastic retainers to keep the protective caps from falling to the ground. To be ready to serve any address, one of the taps needs to be placed on almost every pole.

It is harder to see what’s going on underground. We need to wait for details about the project to know if areas where utilities are underground (rather than on poles) will be included.

The quality of AT&T’s craftsmanship is highly variable and not all of it looks as clean as in the picture presented. So far, I’ve seen FTTH work in the area bounded by Walnut Ave., California St., Almar Ave. and King St. This is a poor way to gauge the scope of their project, though. I visited the AT&T retail store but discovered staff get no special advance information about what the company is working on.

Wireline carriers, such as AT&T and Comcast, each get one foot of vertical space on each pole for their service. AT&T has attached their new fiber network to their legacy copper network to avoid needing to completely rearrange the pole or pay for another foot of pole space.

Santa Cruz fights fire with fiber

by Steve Blum • , , ,

As a wild fire burned in the Santa Cruz mountains, a key AT&T fiber line was cut nearby, reportedly by a road maintenance crew doing previously scheduled work just before 5:00 a.m. on Tuesday of last week.

In 2009, a break in a different AT&T cable effectively knocked Santa Cruz, Watsonville and most of the rest of the county off of the Internet for most of a day. Since then, AT&T, Comcast and independent broadband companies have upgraded and diversified cable routes running north and south. A few thousand customers were affected by last week’s break, but it went unnoticed by most people in Santa Cruz County.

But not all. The County of Santa Cruz’s IT infrastructure was connected directly to the severed AT&T cable, and there was no failover capacity in place. So the county’s website went down, just as residents in and near the evacuation area would have been waking up and going on line, looking for information about the Bear Fire.

Fortunately, Cruzio, a local Internet service provider of 30 years standing, had a solution ready to go. As a result of an earlier swap with the county, Cruzio installed a 100 Mbps auxiliary circuit in the county’s main building on Ocean Street in Santa Cruz. It was connected to Cruzio’s high capacity links that rely on newly installed, redundant fiber routes, one going north to Sunnyvale and the other, subsidised by the California Advanced Services Fund, heading south through Watsonville to the Internet backbone along the U.S. 101 corridor.

With Cruzio’s assistance, county staff routed their traffic through this connection, and got back on line “a little after noon”, according to a county spokesman.

But it wasn’t enough. The combination of external web traffic and internal county business quickly overloaded the connection – the AT&T service it replaced was specced at 250 Mbps – and county staff asked that the connection be bumped higher. Cruzio replied by opening up a gigabit port. “No charge for any of this of course” said James Hackett, director of business operations and development at Cruzio.

Had there been a repeat of the outage caused by the 2009 AT&T fiber cut, on top of a growing fire threatening lives and homes in the Santa Cruz Mountains, the result could have been a major, and dangerous, disruption. Instead, the work that’s been done over the past eight years to build independently-owned fiber optic lines in the region, led primarily by U.C. Santa Cruz, kept the focus where it needed to be: on fighting the fire.

This post is taken from an article I wrote last week for Santa Cruz TechBeat, and has been updated with information provided by the County of Santa Cruz..

Santa Cruz fiber love becomes serious city business

by Steve Blum • , , , ,

It’s a love fest, several Santa Cruz city council members declared on Wednesday afternoon, as they unanimously approved 1. moving ahead with negotiating a fiber to the home partnership with Cruzio, a local independent Internet service provider, and 2. pursue lease revenue bonds to pay the lions share of the tab. That city-financed portion – Layer 1 in Internet lingo – could go as high as $50 million. The core network – the fiber in the ground – is pegged at about $35 million. Another $7 million is earmarked to pay for customer connections and there’s an allowance for start up, bond financing and other costs.

Cruzio will have responsibility for buying and installing the electronics – Layer 2 – except for the terminals installed on subscriber homes and businesses, and for Layer 3, the Internet bandwidth. The city’s bonds will be paid back by revenue from the system. Final terms haven’t been set, but the model currently under discussion has Cruzio paying $6 per month for every premise passed and another $30 for every subscriber.

The market research done by the city indicates that an eventual take rate of 34% will pay back the investment over time. That’s about 7,500 subscribers, including the approximately 3,000 that Cruzio will transfer from its current service to the FTTH system. Plan B is for Cruzio to pay 80% of any financing shortfall, with the city picking up the remaining 20%.

Santa Cruz mayor Don Lane was clearly on board with the love fest, but he also added a dose of reality before the vote…

My enthusiasm for this is very high, but I think it’s so important that we recognise the magnitude of the commitment we’re making. I think it’s a really worthwhile commitment and it’s really well vetted. Everything is right about it. But it is something new, we’re taking a little bit of risk here, and I just think we should go into this with our eyes wide open about that, so we’re not saying to the community ‘oh, this is just dreamy and perfect’. It’s a serious investment, it makes sense and it’s a business deal. That’s what we have and I think it’s a good one.

That investment is expected to boost Santa Cruz’s economy, economic development director Bonnie Lipscomb said as she briefed council members on the project. High tech companies are moving into Santa Cruz, local residents want to telecommute rather than slug it out over highway 17 to Silicon Valley every day, and investors are looking at the community in a different light. Lipscomb said that investors from as far away as China have heard about the fiber project, and expressed interest because of it. It’s not just that fiber will be available to some – as it already is in downtown Santa Cruz – but that it’ll be available to all. That’s because it’s a city-led project, Lipscomb explained…

Another important element is to talk about is ubiquitous coverage across the city. That’s one of the unique aspects of this being a city network and this being a utility that’s owned by the city, a municipal government. We’re able to actually take this fiber network across every parcel in Santa Cruz. If this were Comcast, if this were another Internet service provider, the challenges are, particularly in a for profit business, is that you go where people are willing to pay for the service. One of the things that we’re really enabling is to level the playing field, so that everyone has access to this fiber network.

Next steps are for the City and Cruzio to agree on detailed deal terms, and arrange for the bond financing. That’s a process that’s likely to take months rather than weeks but, it is hoped, not very many months.

Documents from the 8 December 2015 council meeting:

City of Santa Cruz fiber project staff report, 2 December 2015
CTC market analysis, November 2015
CTC financial forecast addendum (with current deal terms), November 2015
CTC financial forecast, July 2015
Market survey prepared by Cruzio, November 2015

Documents from the 23 June 2015 council meeting:
City of Santa Cruz fiber project staff report, 17 June 2015
Cruzio FTTH proposal to the City of Santa Cruz, 23 June 2015
CTC costs estimates for a Santa Cruz FTTH system, May 2015

Tellus Venture Associates is assisting the City of Santa Cruz with its FTTH project. I’m not a disinterested observer. Take it for what it’s worth.

Santa Cruz city council unanimously approves muni FTTH

by Steve Blum • , , , ,

The vote was seven to nothing, as the Santa Cruz city council moved ahead this afternoon with a plan to build a city-owned dark fiber network that will reach every home and business in town. Under the current plan, the system will be leased to Cruzio, a local independent Internet service provider. Cruzio will light the fiber – buy and maintain the electronics, and provision the Internet bandwidth – and run the business. The cost to the city is in the $30 million range. It’ll be financed with lease revenue bonds, which will be repaid via revenue generated by Cruzio. More details later.

Tellus Venture Associates is assisting the City of Santa Cruz with its FTTH project. I’m not a disinterested observer. Take it for what it’s worth.