(Updated with ECFiber response to BFP oped after the break)
they got the mojo, they got expertise, they got the companies ready to do the building and now they got the certificate of public good:
7461 FINAL ORDER AND CERTIFICATE OF PUBLIC GOOD In Re Petition of ValleyNet, Inc., for a Certificate of Public Good to own and operate a cable television system in the State of Vermont, to provide services in the City of Montpelier, and the Towns of Barnard, Bethel, Brookfield, Chelsea, Granville, Hancock, Hartford, Norwich, Pomfret, Randolph, Reading, Rochester, Royalton, Sharon, Stockbridge, Strafford, Thetford, Tunbridge, Vershire, West Windsor, Williamstown, and Woodstock, Vermont
Now all they need is the cash.
East-Central Vermont
Fiber-Optic Network
Box 8, White River Junction, VT 05001January 24, 2010
To the Editor:
The Free Press article of January 17 on the ECFiber project in 22 towns in central Vermont is deeply disappointing. Your reporter relied exclusively on the questionable criticism of one self-styled expert, despite the opportunity to contact many more reputable sources.
Your readers should be aware that the critic, Terry McGarty, outlined a brief against Burlington Telecom and projects like ECFiber months before the Free Press’s article on January 17, painting them as “socialist” on his blog. A number of years ago, however, McGarty attempted a similar, unsuccessful project in a number of towns in western New Hampshire. He now blames his failure on local town officials’ inability to appreciate the appetite of private investors (himself among them) for return on their capital. He has now become an ardent public interest critic of community broadband. What he and your reporter have failed to tell your readers is that like the electrification of rural America, the build out of broadband infrastructure in rural areas requires a more patient, public-oriented approach.
ECFiber’s business plan numbers did not come out of thin air. They are based on signed, fixed-price contracts with major vendors–equipment manufacturers, engineers and construction firms – whose credentials are beyond question. The engineers and construction experts involved in ECFiber’s design and costing have build over 100 comparable networks.
All prices have been thoroughly vetted by a major certified GSA contractor familiar with costs and prices approved by actual Federal contracts. The Free Press’s reporter declined our offer to supply him with the names and contacts of many engineers and operators who would vouch that ECFiber figures represent the norm in the industry. Instead he chose to focus solely on Alcatel, the one company which, due to a non-disclosure agreement, he knew could not provide the data he sought.
Unlike the “back of the envelope” figures supplied by the Free Press’s “expert” source, ECFiber’s financial model has been based on fully delineated and detailed financial metrics. ECFiber’s estimated cost per subscriber is about $6000, including not only the capital cost of the basic fiber network and connection costs of 50% of passed homes, but also the cost of all Central Office equipment, all operating costs, debt service, taxes, etc., during the period before the project becomes profitable. This figure is completely within the norm for comparable networks throughout the US and is compatible with profitable operations, as the Free Press reporter would have found if he’d bothered to check McGarty’s claims. In contrast, McGarty’s figure of $50,000 per mile for fiber network construction in rural areas is completely unsupported.
Mr. McGarty’s questioning of the 50% take rate is also baseless – ECFiber pre-registrant database already has reached nearly 25%, with the town of Barnard at fully 88% (and this is despite a virtual standstill of activity in the wake of the private financial market collapse, while EC Fiber has been exploring alternative financing opportunities). This has been achieved with a marketing investment approaching $0.00. Most municipal Fiber-to-the-Home projects running for 4 or more years have achieved a rate of 60% or more, making our estimate somewhat conservative.
As ECFiber grows in strength and nears reality, and as dozens of other similar efforts around the country also grow in strength, we fully expect the campaign against municipal Fiber to the Home networks to intensify. Incumbent carriers hate the idea of a community-oriented network providing competition and succeeding without tax-payer financing – even on the ?level playing field? that Vermont law requires. Who can blame them – given the huge profits they can realize with a minimum of effort and expense, while providing second-rate, last-century service over an antiquated, obsolete infrastructure.
ECFiber feels that its project stands on its own, technically and financially, and we welcome review and input from qualified and objective experts.
Sincerely,
Loredo Sola
Chair ECFiber Governing BoardECFiber is a community-owned, subscriber-funded group of towns working to build a Fiber-to-the-Home network to provide phone, television, and ultra-high-speed internet services to 100% of the homes and businesses in 22 towns in East-Central Vermont. For more information, see www.ecfiber.net.