Broadband Middle-Mile Infrastructure Opportunities for Oregon - Briefing slides Steve Corbató & Stuart Taubman
←
→
Page content transcription
If your browser does not render page correctly, please read the page content below
Oregon Broadband Middle-Mile
Broadband Infrastructure Opportunities
for Oregon
Middle-Mile Briefing slides
Infrastructure Steve Corbató & Stuart Taubman
Planning Group
August 25, 2021Background
▪ Ad hoc group of Oregon broadband leaders with expertise in technology and business models
▪ Convened in May 2021 by Rep. Pam Marsh, Sen. Lee Beyer & Rep. Mark Owens
▪ Purpose was to assess the status of middle-mile network infrastructure and associated economic
considerations in Oregon and to make recommendations to legislators and the Oregon Broadband
Office (OBO).
▪ DRAFT PROBLEM STATEMENT – Rep. Pam Marsh (April 22, 2021)
Attaining digital equity for all Oregonians is about more than availability. Cost differentials caused
by population density variations impact construction costs and length of a return on investment.
More fundamental than that though are the huge disparities in cost of data transport from
communities across the State back to the nearest Internet Exchange. Those costs can vary by a
factor of 20x or more depending on distance and competition amongst transport providers. This
situation makes it almost impossible for citizens of, and communities around our State to realize
the same opportunity that affordable broadband access provides. We must find a solution to this
issue if Oregon is going to realize its full potential.
2Planning Group Participants
Trent Anderson, LS Networks Craig Heidgerken, Western Independent
David Barber, Oregon State University Networks
Steve Corbató, Link Oregon (co-chair) Tre Hendricks, Lumen
Kurtis Danka, State of Oregon CTO, Enterprise Daniel Holbrook, Oregon Broadband Office,
Information Services Business Oregon
Joe Franell, OBAC chair & Blue Mountain Stuart Taubman, Zayo (co-chair)
Networks
Keith Grunberg, Hunter Communications Matt Updenkelder, Wave Broadband
Leif Hansen, LS Networks John van Oppen, Ziply Fiber
Planning group supported by Molly Thurston, Link Oregon
3Key definitions
Last Mile
The connection from the final provider service location (node) to the end user (consumer).
• The end user’s effective speed will be no greater than the bandwidth of this connection.
• Average last-mile construction costs vary depending on the build distance, population density, terrain, and
competitive landscape.
Middle Mile
In general, these connections across the state tie together two or more provider nodes (points of
presence – POPs).
• At the operating level, this definition recognizes that standards are not universal and that it often is not cost
effective to deliver access along the path at every possible point.
• Network planners must cost effectively support the primary goal of why the infrastructure is being installed.
• Over time, new nodes in communities and end user locations may be developed.
4Goals
We identified the following two fundamental goals for Oregon’s upcoming broadband investments:
• Assure the delivery of robust broadband services to all Oregonians
• Attain broadband availability in currently underserved communities with network speeds and
consumer pricing on par with Oregon’s largest cities
5All Middle-Mile Fiber is Not the Same!
When evaluating a community’s middle-mile fiber resiliency or assessing the need for additional
public investment to construct a new route, consider these interdependent factors that can
differentiate existing fiber builds:
• Physical characteristics: fiber type, age, and estimated capacity (number of fiber pairs installed,
maximum bandwidth per fiber pair)
• Design considerations: placement (buried vs. aerial), path redundancy, network purpose (i.e.,
express vs. local – a highway analog is I-5 vs. 99W), spacing and location of access points
• Resiliency factors: environmental risks (wildfire, geotechnical, inundation due to tsunami or
flood), human risks (accident, vandalism)
• Business considerations: availability of unused fiber pairs and equipment colocation space
under commercially reasonable terms
Engineering and general public benefit considerations can frequently provide justification for new
middle-mile fiber builds along previously built corridors when there is outdated fiber, capacity
exhaustion, aerial installations in fire-prone areas, or other forms of non-resilient connectivity.
6Communities Lacking Resilient Middle-Mile Connectivity
Adel (Lake Co.) Fossil (Wheeler Co.) Plush (Lake Co.)
Antelope (Wasco Co.) Granite (Grant Co.) Seneca (Grant Co.)
Ashwood (Jefferson Co.) Imnaha (Wallowa Co.) Shady Cove (Jackson Co.)
Beatty (Klamath Co.) Jewell (Clatsop Co.) Shaniko (Wasco Co.)
Bly (Klamath Co.) Joseph (Wallowa Co.) Sprague River (Klamath Co.)
Christmas Valley (Lake Co.) Kimberly (Grant Co.) Spray (Wheeler Co.)
Clarno (Wasco Co.) Lakeview (Lake Co.) Sumpter (Baker Co.)
Condon (Gilliam Co.) McKenzie Bridge (Lane Co.) Tygh Valley (Wasco Co.)
Crescent Lake Jct. (Klamath Co.) Mitchell (Wheeler Co.) Ukiah (Umatilla Co.)
Elkton (Douglas Co.) Monument (Grant Co.) Unity (Baker Co.)
Elsie (Clatsop Co.) Paisley (Lake Co.) Wallowa (Wallowa Co.)
Enterprise (Wallowa Co.) Pine Hollow (Wasco Co.) Wamic (Wasco Co.)
❖ The Bootleg Fire in Klamath and Lake Counties (2021) threatened a non-redundant, mostly aerial-fiber
deployment over 150 miles in length. Supported communities are highlighted above.
❖ List developed through group discussion and working knowledge of fiber infrastructure across Oregon
❖ List should not be considered authoritative or complete
7Preliminary Oregon Middle-mile Network Map
To LS N P OP @
As toria Ke nne wick
Cha rte r Fibe r
QW Wa ve Fibe r
ES He rmis ton
S e a s ide T Longvie w W indw ave /
Charte r/Ziply
Ne ha le m Te l I-84 Corridor Ziple y
Tilla mook P UD HW Y 82
Cla ts ka nie HMTNOR56
Ne ha le m Da lle s J os e ph/Ente rpris e
P e nde lton
Cha rte r Fibe r P ortla nd
Hills boro ZAYO/BP A Fibe r Arlington
Tilla mook P UD Fibe r TATA Fibe r
ZAYO/BP ABlue W indwave /
MNT Fibe r Charte r/Ziply
Tilla mook I-84 Corridor
Wa ve Fibe r Wa ve Fibe r La Grande
W indwave /
Cha rte r Fibe r BPA/W ave / Charte r
Com cas t Fibe r ZAYO/BP A Fibe r I-84 Corridor
Ziply
P a cific City I-5
HWY 26 HW Y 395
S he rida n/McMinnville
W indwave /
Ba ke r City Charte r
Lincoln City I-84 Corridor
S a le m
Cha rte r Fibe r BPA Fibe r
Wa ve Fibe r via HW Y 97
Ce ntra l Lincoln P UD
P ione e r Fibe r Ma dra s
Corva llis
Ne wport J ohn Da y
Ce ntra l Lincoln P UD
BPA/W ave /
W ave Fibe r Wa ldport
Com cas t Fibe r
I-5
NO FIBER he re
Ya cha ts Re dmond P rinville HW Y 38
RDMDOR01 Onta rio
Da rk Fibe r/
Ce ntra l Lincoln P UD NO FIBER he re NO FIBER he re ZAY O
S is te rs HW Y 395
Wa ve le ngth
TDS /BB Fibe r To P ortla nd thru
Bois e
Flore nce Be nd
Euge ne TDS /BB Fibe r BENDOR24
Ce ntral Lincoln PUD BPA/Zayo Fibe r
Frontie r Fibe r HW Y 126 Burns
BP A fibe r Re e ds port
Oa kridge
Charte r Fibe r La P ine
Hunte r/DFN Fibe r
I-5
BPA/Frontie r?DFN Lum e n/Zayo Fibe r
HW Y 42 Fibe r HW Y 58
Coos Ba y ZAY O
Che mult HW Y 395
Ros e burg
BPA Fibe r
Frontie r Fibe r
Charte r Fibe r
Hunte r Fibe r ZAY O HW Y 31
I-5
Ba ndon P lus h
Lum e n/Zayo Fibe r P a is le y
HW Y 97 Modoc Point
Ziply Fibe r
Hunte r/Frontie r/ Hunte r Fibe r
Charte r Fibe r Charte r Fibe r I-5 Hunte r Fibe r
Gra nts P a s s HW Y 31 & 395
HW Y 199 HW Y 31 & 395
Gold Be a ch
Ade l
Ziply Fibe r Ca ve J unction
Hunte r Fibe r HW Y 140
Charte r Fibe r
Charte r Fibe r
Me dford
Hunte r Fibe r Lum e n HW Y 66
Kla ma th
Fa lls
Lum e n ONLY
HW Y 140
La ke vie w
July 2021
I-5 ZAY O
Brookings As hla nd HW Y 395
To Ca lifornia Altura s HWY 395
Cre s ce nt City To Ca lifornia
8Recommendations*
1 2 3 4
Ensure a robust, capable Establish a Accelerate Oregon’s Establish a central repository
state broadband office ‘future-proof’ broadband mapping of middle-mile network
residential bandwidth infrastructure maps
standard
The OBO needs sufficient We recommend that The State should track The OBO should establish and
personnel and robust Oregon move beyond the status of last-mile maintain a limited-access
external partnerships to keep the current FCC broadband speeds repository of middle-mile fiber
pace with the rapid changes standard (25 Mbps statewide from a route information to assess
in digital infrastructure down, 3 Mbps up) to a broader range of community access and
technologies and achieve its minimum of 100 Mbps sources to enable a resiliency as well as the
mission. symmetrical. more accurate visual anticipated asset performance
indicator of need. and lifetime.
* Order of presentation is thematic and does not convey prioritization
9Recommendations
5 6 7 8
Cultivate a richer array of Develop and evolve Apply some broadband Ensure future growth
local Internet Exchanges effective strategies for funding to develop needed and equitable access
statewide making public broadband middle-mile network for publicly funded
investments extensions network assets
The State should support Competitive, community- We identified 37 remote and Infrastructure that is
the development of more based broadband grant Tribal communities in Oregon mainly capitalized via
exchanges (IXs) in programs could increase that lack middle-mile public funding sources
southern and eastern cost- and time- connectivity to support should be designed
Oregon to extend effectiveness in moving resilient last-mile broadband with sufficient capacity
performance, resiliency, development efforts services, putting them at risk to allow for network
and cost-effectiveness to forward in all regions of should wildfire, earthquakes, growth and expansion
residents in these regions. the state. or other disasters disrupt over time.
main connections.
10Recommendations
9 10 11 12
Recognize State and local Take a Consider the full spectrum Recognize that broadband
governments as ‘whole of government’ of technologies needed to adoption is NOT just a
important stakeholders in approach to solving the connect all Oregonians technical issue
broadband deployment broadband problem
Streamline and We recommend the OBO should add high- State broadband planning
coordinate the processes formation of an interagency speed fixed wireless and must address the
for accessing ODOT and State task force, led by the low Earth orbit (LEO) significant human and
other State and local OBO, to support fast- satellite technologies into socioeconomic factors
rights-of-way for fiber tracked broadband the broadband mix along that influence broadband
builds and any associated deployment, eliminate with fiber to support adoption beyond the
construction permitting. roadblocks, and maximize Oregonians living beyond deployment of
access to federal funding fiber’s reach. technology.
opportunities.
11Recommended Next Steps
1) Establish a future-proof broadband standard (#2)
2) Launch broadband mapping efforts (#3 & #4)
3) Conduct engineering and cost-benefit analyses to scope and prioritize middle-mile gaps (#7)
4) Develop a statewide implementation strategy (#6 & #11)
• Success metrics should be outcomes based – statewide availability & adoption
• Maximize last-mile fiber deployment
• Integrate alternative technologies where necessary
• Leverage upcoming waves of federal broadband investment (largely directed to the states)
5) Develop adoption strategies around affordability, inclusion, and digital literacy (#12)
6) Launch an interagency task force focused on accelerating readiness and deployment (#10)
12Thank you!
Steve Corbató Stuart Taubman
Executive Director VP, Network Services
Link Oregon Zayo Group
corbato@linkoregon.org stuart.taubman@zayo.com
503-998-3957 360-558-4339
13You can also read
