1

COMMUNITY-BASED BROADBAND 

SOLUTIONS

THE BENEFITS OF COMPETITION AND CHOICE FOR 

COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND HIGHSPEED 

INTERNET ACCESS

The Executive Office of the President

January 2015
Contents

Executive Summary ...........................................................................................................................3

Economic Benefits of Broadband......................................................................................................5

Challenges in Broadband Access and Adoption ...............................................................................6

Broadband Competition .................................................................................................................. 10

Community-Based Broadband........................................................................................................ 13

Chattanooga, TN: Gigabit service drives investment, innovation.............................................. 13

Wilson, NC: Municipal broadband encourages private competition......................................... 14

Lafayette, LA: Network increases customer savings, strengthens local anchor institutions .... 15

Scott County, MN: Municipal government sees savings for county, school operations ........... 16

Leverett, MA: State and federal programs enable local investment...........................................17

Choctaw Nation Tribal Area, OK: Public private collaboration brings broadband to new 

communities..................................................................................................................................17

Promoting Broadband that Works.................................................................................................. 18

Appendix 1: U.S. Municipalities with Broadband Networks..........................................................20

2
Executive Summary

Affordable, reliable access to high speed broadband is critical to U.S. economic growth 

and competitiveness. Upgrading to higher-speed broadband lets consumers use the 

Internet in new ways, increases the productivity of American individuals and 

businesses, and drives innovation throughout the digital ecosystem. As this report 

describes, while the private sector has made investments to dramatically expand 

broadband access in the U.S., challenges still remain. Many markets remain unserved or 

underserved. Others do not benefit from the kind of competition that drives down costs 

and improves quality. To help fill the void, hundreds of towns and cities around the 

country have developed their own locally-owned networks. This report describes the 

benefits of higher-speed broadband access, the current challenges facing the market, 

and the benefits of competition – including competition from community broadband 

networks. 

~

Since President Obama took office, the United States has significantly expanded its 

broadband network and increased access. Investments from the federal government 

have helped deploy or upgrade more than 78,000 miles of network infrastructure since 

2009, and more than 45 million Americans have adopted broadband Internet during the 

President’s time in office. Today, more than 90 percent of Americans can access the 

Internet on a wired line and 98% by either wired or wireless connection. 

Competitive markets have helped drive expansion in telecommunications services as

strong infrastructure investments and falling prices have opened up a wide range of new

communications products and services. Where there is strong competition in broadband 

markets today, it drives similar improvements. Unfortunately, competition does not 

extend into every market and its benefits are not evenly distributed. While the U.S. has 

an extensive network “backbone” of middle-mile connections (long, intra- or interstate 

physical fiber or cable network connections) with the capacity to offer high-speed 

Internet to a large majority of Americans, many consumers lack access to the critical 

“last-mile” (the last legs of the physical network that connect homes and businesses to 

the broader system), especially in rural areas. It is these last-mile connections that make 

higher speeds possible. For example, 94 percent of Americans in urban areas can 

purchase a 25 Mbps (megabit per second) connection, but only 51 percent of the rural 

population has access to Internet at that speed. 

Competition has also been slow to emerge at higher speeds. Nearly forty percent of 

American households either cannot purchase a fixed 10 Mbps connection (i.e. a wired, 

land-based connection), or they must buy it from a single provider. And three out of four 

Americans do not have a choice between providers for Internet at 25 Mbps, the speed 

increasingly recognized as a baseline to get the full benefits of Internet access.

Without strong competition, providers can (and do) raise prices, delay investments, and 

provide sub-par quality of service. When faced with limited or nonexistent alternatives, 

consumers lack negotiating power and are forced to rely on whatever options are

3
available. In these situations, the role of good public policy can and should be to foster 

competition and increase consumer choice.

At the federal level, the government has already taken active steps to support 

broadband, committing billions of dollars to deploy middle-mile and last-mile 

infrastructure, and to ensure that our public schools and libraries have high speed 

broadband connections.

But local governments also have an important role to play. As this report details, 

communities around the country like Chattanooga, TN and Wilson, NC have developed

a variety of strategies for building locally-owned broadband networks and promoting 

higher-speed Internet access. Over the past few years, these municipal networks have 

emerged as a critical tool for increasing access, encouraging competition, fostering

consumer choice, and driving local and regional economic development. Local

investments have also spurred the private sector to compete for customers, improving

services, increasing broadband adoption, and providing more choice for consumers. 

Not all communities, however, have the choice to pursue a local broadband network. 19 

states currently have barriers in place limiting community broadband and protecting 

incumbent providers from competition. President Obama believes that there should be a 

level playing field for community-based solutions and is announcing today a series of 

steps that the Administration will be taking to foster consumer and community choice. 

4
Economic Benefits of Broadband

In technical terms, broadband refers to a method of transmitting information using 

many different frequencies, or bandwidths, allowing a network to carry more data. For 

most Americans, however, the term broadband simply refers to a fast Internet 

connection—whether fixed or wireless. 

Over time, our perceptions of what constitutes a “fast” Internet connection have

changed. As consumer and business uses of the Internet evolve, and new applications 

become more deeply embedded into everyday life, higher speeds frequently shift from 

being a luxury to a requirement for many users. For example, beginning in 2000 the 

Federal government defined “broadband” as any service with a download speed of 200 

kilobits per second (kbps) or faster.1 In 2010, the Federal Communications Commission 

redefined “basic” broadband service as a connection with speeds of at least 4 megabits 

per second (Mbps) downstream – 20 times faster than the 2000 definition – and at 

least 1 Mbps upstream.2

Today, as everyday experiences for tens of millions of Americans suggest, even these 

speeds are insufficient for some applications, particularly when a connection is shared 

by several users. In recognition of the growing need for increased bandwidth, the FCC is 

considering further revisions to the definition of broadband, and has expressed interest 

in raising the threshold to 10 or even 25 Mbps downstream and from 1 Mbps to 3 Mbps 

upstream.3 The following chart provides a sense of what these definitions mean by 

showing how long it would take a single user to upload or download different types of 

content at various connection speeds.

Demand for Internet access is growing quickly. Total wired and wireless Internet access 

revenues in 2013 were $140 billion, and have increased by about 15 percent per year in 

real terms since 2005. 4 The rapidly growing demand for bandwidth is driven by new 

applications of the Internet that effectively require a broadband connection. These 

applications, which are increasingly central to everyday life for many Americans, include 

video streaming, which is used for education, entertainment, and communication; 

teleworking; cloud storage that allows users to store their files on the Internet, share 

them, and access them from any device; and online games that allow users to interact 

with one another in a virtual environment. 

3 Minute Song 2 Hour Movie 20 Photographs 5 Minute Video

5 MB (Download) 5 GB (Download) 40 MB (Upload) 200 MB (Upload)

 256 Kbps, 256 Kbps

2000 Broadband

 4 Mbps, 1 Mbps

2010 Broadband

 25 Mbps, 3 Mbps

Advanced Broadband

Source: CEA Calculations Note: These numbers assume that the ISP is meeting its advertised speed. Download times may be greater during periods of peak traffic. 

Time Required for Selected Internet-Based Activities at Different Speeds

2m36s

10s

1.6s

43h24m

2h46m

26m40s

20m50s

5m20s

1m46s

1h44m

26m40

8m53s

5
Economic studies confirm that broadband Internet creates significant value for 

consumers and makes an important and rapidly growing contribution to GDP. For 

example, one study of expenditures for Internet access estimates that as of 2006 –

before the widespread availability of streaming audio and video – broadband Internet 

accounted for $28 billion in U.S. GDP. That study also found that broadband created an 

additional $5 to $7 billion in consumer surplus in 2006, meaning that consumers would 

have been willing to pay that much more for the service.5 Another industry-sponsored 

study from 2009 estimates that broadband creates $32 billion in annual consumer 

surplus.6 While these studies estimate consumer surplus by examining price sensitivity, 

another approach is to examine the amount of time users spend online, leading to 

estimates of $2,500 to $3,800 in value per-user per-year, which imply total consumer 

surplus in the hundreds of billions of dollars. 

Over the longer term, broadband adoption also fuels a virtuous cycle of Internet 

innovation. This cycle begins when new applications of the Internet create demand for 

more bandwidth, resulting in a wave of network-level innovation and infrastructure 

investment. As more bandwidth becomes available, application-sector innovators find 

new ways to use that capacity, creating additional demand, leading to another round of 

network investment, and so on. While it is impossible to know what the next bandwidthhungry killer application will be — perhaps it will be the “Internet of Things” or 

immersive virtual reality — both history and economic theory show that this virtuous 

cycle is a powerful driver of innovation and economic growth.7

The recent history of wireless broadband provides a good example of the virtuous cycle 

of innovation and investment. Industry studies suggest that between 2007 and 2011 

mobile applications development grew from almost nothing into a $20 billion industry, 

creating 311,000 U.S. jobs in the process.8 This led to increased demand for wireless 

broadband, so that by 2013 private investment in new wireless infrastructure was $34 

billion, more than the investments of the big three auto companies combined.9

Challenges in Broadband Access and Adoption

Since the President took office, national broadband availability has increased at all 

advertised speed levels.10 Today, about 93 percent of Americans have access to wired 

broadband speeds of at least 3 Mbps downstream (i.e. broadband that allows a user to 

download 3 megabits per second), and 99 percent of Americans have access to similarly 

fast mobile wireless broadband. This increased availability reflects both private and 

public investment, including the $4 billion invested through the National 

Telecommunications and Information Administration’s (NTIA) Broadband Technology 

Opportunities Program (BTOP) and $3.5 billion invested through the U.S. Department 

of Agriculture’s (USDA) Rural Utilities Service Broadband Initiative Program (BIP), 

both part of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, as well as $66

million through USDA’s ongoing Community Connect grant program.

6
Nevertheless, nearly 51 million Americans cannot purchase a wired broadband 

connection with download speeds of at least 25 Mbps, and only 63 percent have access 

to speeds of 100 Mbps or more.11 Moreover, the costs, benefits, and availability of 

broadband Internet are not evenly distributed. For example, the following two maps 

show the state-level availability of broadband with download speeds of at least 3 Mbps, 

and at least 25 Mbps respectively as of June 2013. The first map shows that most 

Americans have access to “basic” broadband, though some work remains to fully 

connect the most rural states. However, there is considerable variation in the availability 

of 25 Mbps connections between states, with some reaching 95 percent penetration and 

others offering this high-quality service to less than 70 percent of households. 

0

20

40

60

80

100

3 to 6

Mbps

6 to 10

Mbps

10 to 25

Mbps

25 to 50

Mbps

50 to 100

Mbps

100 Mbps

to 1 Gbps

≥ 1 Gbps

All Broadband

Wireline

Wireless

Share of US With Access to Various Download Speeds, 2013

Percent of US Population

Source: NTIA

7.1 6.86.7

60 63

9.3

8382

16

84 86

98

92

98 99

93

99 99

93

99

0.1

7
Urban and Rural Communities

One factor that creates disparities in broadband access and adoption is the divide 

between urban and rural communities. While the gap for the most basic broadband 

speeds has almost closed (nearly 100 percent of urban residents have access to speeds of 

6 Mbps or greater compared to 95 percent of rural residents), rural communities still 

enjoy far less access to higher speeds. The following figure illustrates this point:

 

0

20

40

60

80

100

≥ 3 Mbps ≥ 6 Mbps ≥ 10 

Mbps

≥ 25 

Mbps

≥ 50 

Mbps

≥ 100 

Mbps

≥ 1 Gbps

Rural

Urban

Broadband Availability in Urban and Rural Areas, 2013

Percent of Population

Download Speed Source: NTIA

97 95 94

51 47

33

2.9

7.7

70

91 94

100 99.9 99.9

8
The gap in broadband availability between urban and rural communities is linked to the 

economics of network investment. The costs of providing a connection increase with 

distance, and the expected profits increase with the number of customers served. This 

makes it more economical to serve densely populated urban locations, where shorter 

wires can serve a larger number of potential customers. While satellite and terrestrial 

wireless technologies continue to deliver promising improvements, more work is needed 

to close the urban rural gap in broadband availability. 

To address this gap, the USDA, BTOP, and the FCC’s Connect America Fund program 

have all invested in creating the middle-mile infrastructure that provides high-speed 

access to “anchor institutions” such as schools and libraries in many rural communities. 

With middle-mile and community infrastructure in place, the remaining challenge is to 

provide last-mile connections so millions of Americans have access to high-speed 

broadband. As we describe below, the availability of middle-mile connections creates a 

significant opportunity for municipalities to increase such access. 

Affordability

In total, almost 30 percent of American households did not have a home broadband 

connection as of 2013. One of the main challenges facing increased broadband adoption

is price. In a 2010 survey conducted by the FCC, 36 percent of households without a 

home broadband connection pointed to expense as the major barrier.12

Not surprisingly, the cost of broadband represents a greater obstacle for lower-income 

Americans than middle- and high-income Americans. The NTIA reports that in 2012, 32 

percent of families not online with incomes below $25,000 indicated that the high cost 

of Internet service prevents them from using broadband at home, compared to less than 

22 percent of households not online with annual incomes above $50,000.13 Overall 

Internet use is strongly correlated with household income, as illustrated in in the figure 

below, which plots median income against Internet adoption for a sample of 368 

Metropolitan Statistical Areas.

9
U.S. broadband is also relatively expensive when compared internationally. The next 

chart uses data from a recent report on broadband prices in 24 U.S. and international 

cities.14 While the 24 cities in this study may not be representative of all urban locations 

in the U.S. or abroad, it is notable that the median monthly price at each speed level is 

higher in the U.S., often by 50 percent or more. And while it appears that the U.S. has 

less price variability at speeds above 75 Mbps, this observation actually reflects the fact 

that fewer U.S. cities even offer a consumer plan at that level.

Broadband Competition

50

55

60

65

70

75

80

85

90

95

20,000 40,000 60,000 80,000 100,000

Source: Census

Percent

Percent of Households with Internet Access by Metro Area 

vs. Median Household Income by Metro Area, 2013

Median Household Income in 2013 (dollars) 

Laredo, TX

0

50

100

150

200

250

Less than 5

Mbps

5-15 Mbps 15-30 Mbps 30-75 Mbps Greater than

75 Mbps

Monthy Price of a Yearly Internet Plan by Speed: US vs. World

US Dollars (PPP-adjusted)

Less than 

5 Mbps 5-15 Mbps 16-30 Mbps 31-75 Mbps

More than 75 

Mbps

US

Source: New America Foundation, CEA Calculations Note: Lines cover price range, point=median

Rest of 

World

Rest of 

World

Rest of 

World

Rest of 

World

Rest of 

World

36.52

59.99

35.73

55.98

46.39

75.24

51.55

89.98

41.39

70

US

US

US

US

10
One proven mechanism for increasing Internet access, quality and affordability is to 

promote competitive markets. Over the past 30 years, telecommunications policy has 

consistently attempted to encourage market competition in local, long-distance and 

Internet access markets. For example, the threat of satellite services pushed cable 

companies to expand their network capacity, positioning them to challenge phone 

companies in the market for home Internet access. And the ongoing competition 

between phone and cable companies has created a positive cycle of investment, as 

providers in many communities continuously upgrade their networks and improve their 

offerings.15 

However, the overall national investment picture obscures regional variation. Many 

local and regional markets today do not have the kind of competition required to 

continue to ensure affordable access to the higher-speed broadband connections that 

Americans increasingly require. For example, the following table illustrates the number 

of choices available to American consumers in fixed and mobile broadband markets. 

When it comes to wired Internet, which can reliably deliver the highest speeds, the 

majority of Americans have three choices or less. The situation is somewhat better in 

wireless markets, although focusing on the number of choices obscures the large share 

of the market served by a handful of the largest providers. And while competition 

appears reasonably robust if one focuses on combined choices, it is important to 

recognize that fixed and wireless Internet are not necessarily substitutes, particularly at 

speeds of 25 Mbps or higher where there is typically no wireless service available.

To illustrate the declining level of competition at higher speeds, the following chart 

shows the number of wired broadband service providers serving American consumers at 

different speeds. At speeds of 4 Mbps or less, 75 percent of consumers have a choice 

between two or more fixed providers, and 15 percent can select among three or more 

ISPs. However, in the market for Internet service that can deliver 25 Mbps downstream 

– the speed increasingly recognized as a baseline to get the full benefits of Internet 

access – three out of four Americans do not have a choice between providers.

Number of 

Choices Fixed Mobile Combined

1 9 0 0

2 33 3 1

3 37 5 2

4 13 22 4

5 3 26 10

6 1 22 18

7 0 11 19

8+ 0 12 46

Source: NTIA, CEA Calculations

Broadband Choice for American Consumers

Share of U.S. Population (%)

11
While increased competition will not necessarily solve all broadband access challenges, 

basic economics suggests that increased competition leads to a better deal for 

consumers. For example, a 2014 OECD survey of eleven OECD member countries found 

that new entrants in wireless markets have a substantial impact on both prices and 

quality of service. Tellingly, the OECD study indicated that this result occurred even 

when a market already had three participants – that is, the fourth entrant into a wireless 

market significantly improved costs and services.16 As shown above, less than 1 out of 40 

American homes has 3 or more choices of providers at speeds in excess of 25 Mbps. 

Entry also had a positive impact on the market even when the new firm was very small.17

In the U.S., a 2013 NTIA report found that among those who reported switching their 

Internet service provider, 38 percent did so to get a better price, and this option is 

simply unavailable to consumers who are only served by a single Internet Service 

Provider—or a single provider at the speeds they require.18

Even the threat of new competition can lead existing firms to make investments to 

improve the quality of their goods or services. In the Netherlands, for example, 

incumbent wireless carriers began offering plans at lower rates in an effort to prevent a 

new entrant from capturing market share by undercutting existing prices.19 The U.S. 

cable television industry also provides an example of the benefits of potential 

competition. Academic research has shown that during the 2000’s U.S. cable television 

operators were more likely to upgrade their systems to allow two-way communications 

in cities where the cable operator faced a threat of entry from a local municipal electric 

utility.20

Domestic experiences also show how the threat of competition can produce gains for 

broadband consumers. When Google announced that Google Fiber was coming to 

Kansas, speeds on existing networks surged 97 percent—the largest year-over-year jump 

in bandwidth observed in any state, ever. Likewise, when Google indicated that it would 

begin offering extremely fast connection speeds in Austin, TX, AT&T responded by

announcing its own gigabit network. 

0

20

40

60

80

100

4 Mbps 10 Mbps 25 Mbps 50 Mbps

No Providers 1 Provider 2 Providers ≥3 Providers

Number of Choices of Wired Residential Service Provider by 

Download Speed Percent of Homes

Source: FCC, NTIA

14.6

6.3

9.8

51.5

30.3

8.4

2.4 1.6

22.9 16.0

55.3

61.4

19.4 21.0

60.1

18.9

12
Community-Based Broadband 

Where the market does not generate the optimal level of competition or investment, the 

public sector can step in to make investments, encourage competition and provide 

choice to consumers. For example, government infrastructure investments, such as 

those made by the Department of Commerce and Department of Agriculture or by 

Massachusetts (as described below), may be able to put in place the “middle mile” 

network that lowers costs of entering the “last mile” market. These investments can 

attract the private sector or provide local governments the opportunity to build their 

own systems at much lower prices. 

Antitrust and telecommunications policies can also promote competition. At the Federal 

level, the Department of Justice has an important role to play in preventing the unlawful 

acquisition or abuse of market power. The Telecommunications Act of 1996 also 

empowers the FCC to regulate service providers in a manner that promotes competition 

both within and between technology-based platforms such as cable, cellular, satellite, 

and wireless. The President’s recent call for strong Net Neutrality rules to ensure that no

company can act as a gatekeeper to Internet content are fundamentally about preserving 

access and competition in the digital marketplace. And states have an important role in 

promoting competition and ensuring fairness in their local communications markets. 

But these federal and state initiatives are only part of the solution. Local governments 

also have a critical role to play. In markets where private competition is anemic, 

whether because of regulatory barriers to entry or the high fixed costs of infrastructure 

investment, town and cities can build their own middle-mile networks and offer 

competitive access to the private sector, as Scott County, MN has done. Or 

municipalities can provide service directly to consumers, like in Chattanooga, TN. In 

either case, municipalities are creating more choices for consumers, fostering 

competition and creating opportunities for economic growth. Municipal broadband is 

often a logical choice for towns and cities that are already served by a municipal electric 

utility, since infrastructure costs can be shared across those two services, just as private 

cable companies leveraged their networks to provide Internet service. Hundreds of 

towns and cities around the country have experimented with these networks and created 

tremendous benefits for consumers and businesses. APPENDIX 1 includes a full list of 

municipal networks around the country. 

Today, however, there are barriers to community-owned broadband in 19 states around 

the country. The Obama Administration believes that consumers should have the option 

to provide themselves broadband services through local government and locally-owned 

utilities and that state and local policy should support a level playing field for these 

community-based solutions. This section considers several detailed case studies of 

municipal broadband initiatives and their benefits for consumers, businesses and 

communities. 

Chattanooga, TN: Gigabit service drives investment, innovation

13
In 2007, Chattanooga’s Electric Power Board (EPB), a municipally-owned utility, 

announced a 10 year plan to build out a fiber network to serve all of Chattanooga. Based 

on their analysis, EPB had determined that investments in the network could both drive 

a smart grid system that would generate significant savings by increasing the reliability 

of its electricity and also provide customers with improved communication services. In 

2009, EPB began offering its triple-play services—Internet, phone, and cable television. 

Since 2009, EPB has upgraded the mid-tier consumer service from 15 to 30, from 30 to 

50, and from 50 to 100 Mbps, without raising costs. In 2010, EPB announced it would 

offer the first 1 gigabit per second (Gbps) service in the United States. Today, EPB 

operates 8,000 miles of fiber for 60,000 residential and 4,500 business customers out 

of a potential 160,000 homes and businesses.

EPB’s efforts have encouraged other telecom firms to improve their own service. In 

2008, for example, Comcast responded to the threat of EPB’s entrance into the market 

by investing $15 million in the area to launch the Xfinity service – offering the service in 

Chattanooga before it was available in Atlanta, GA. More recently, Comcast has started 

offering low-cost introductory offers and gift cards to consumers to incentivize service 

switching. Despite these improvements, on an equivalent service basis, EPB’s costs 

remain significantly lower. 

EPB’s investments are reshaping Chattanooga’s economic landscape. The gigabit 

broadband service has helped the City attract a new community of computer engineers, 

tech entrepreneurs and investors. For example, local entrepreneurs have organized 

Lamp Post, a venture incubator that provides capital and mentorship to startups. Lamp 

Post now has over 150 employees in a 31,000 square foot office space in downtown 

Chattanooga. CO.LAB, a local nonprofit organization, provides shared working space, 

access to investor networks and hosts the annual summer GITANK program, a 14-week 

business accelerator. The investment community has responded in kind. Since 2009, 

Chattanooga has gone from close to zero venture capital to at least five organized funds 

with investable capital of over $50 million. The growing tech ecosystem has been 

profiled by the New York Times, Washington Post and The Atlantic. 

While the broadband network is opening up new economic pathways, EPB itself remains 

the most important customer for the fiber network, which it has used to develop one of 

the nation’s leading smart grids. The smart grid, which involves 170,000 intelligent 

electric meters all reporting every 15 minutes, helps EPB monitor and respond to 

outages, emergencies, and electricity theft in real time. EPB’s smart grid has cut 

duration of power outages by 60 percent, saving local businesses and industry an 

estimated $45 to $60 million. With the monitoring system in place, EPB crews can also 

respond in a targeted fashion during emergencies, helping families and businesses cope 

with tornados and other natural disasters. 21

Wilson, NC: Municipal broadband encourages private competition 

In November of 2006, Wilson’s City council voted unanimously to build a fiber-to-thehome (FTTH) network through the town’s electricity provider, Greenlight. The City 

Council issued $28 million in debt to start construction. Greenlight began offering its 

14
services in 2008 and expanded its network to include triple-play (television, phone, and 

internet) services citywide by January 2009. In 2010, the city took another $4.5 million 

loan from Wells Fargo to improve its network. The subscription base grew steadily in its 

first few years and numbers over 7000 today –more than a third of Wilson’s 21,000 

households.

Greenlight has been a commercial success. Greenlight achieved its first monthly 

operating profit one year ahead of schedule in October 2010 and made a profit of nearly 

three-quarters of a million dollars in 2013. However, a 2011 state law prevents 

municipalities from providing broadband service to other towns outside of its area, 

limiting further growth. 

Greenlight’s introduction of its triple-play service has increased industry competition, 

which has lowered prices for Wilson’s residents. From 2007 to 2009, Time Warner 

raised rates for almost all of its services across the board. According to a December 

2009 presentation for the House Select Committee on High Speed Internet Access in 

Rural and Urban Areas, TWC raised rates in non-competitive areas around Wilson while 

holding Wilson’s rates steady. According to the same report, TWC raised its prices for 

basic internet service in the North Carolina Research Triangle — as much as 52 percent 

in Cary — but did not impose any rate hike in Wilson. Moreover, TWC stabilized prices 

in Wilson for the digital sports and games tier, while Triangle customers paid 41 percent 

more. The lowered prices in Wilson make a big difference. According to an independent 

consultant for Wilson, Greenlight saved its residents more than $1 million each year 

compared to what Time Warner Cable customers in other areas pay.

Increased competition has also yielded increased speeds for Wilson customers. 

Greenlight’s system offers speeds of up to 1 gigabit for consumers and businesses. In 

2008, Time Warner's residential Road Runner service in the state offered speeds no 

higher than 10 Mbps, equivalent to Greenlight’s lowest consumer tier. TWC charged $57 

per month for the service while Greenlight charged $35. In response, TWC upped its 

top-tier speed to 15 Mbps "because of the competitive environment," according to a 

Time Warner spokesperson.22

Lafayette, LA: Network increases customer savings, strengthens local 

anchor institutions

The residents of Lafayette have a long history of supporting local infrastructure 

initiatives. Recognizing the need to modernize its broadband infrastructure in the early 

2000’s, the community voted in 2005 to approve construction of a fiber-to-the-home 

(FTTH) network. After overcoming serious opposition from local broadband service 

providers, the publicly-owned Lafayette Utilities System (LUS) started connecting 

homes and businesses to its LUS Fiber network in 2009. The network seeks to provide 

equitable access to all of Lafayette’s citizens, and the system was rolled out across highincome and low-income neighborhoods equally. LUS Fiber now offers 100 Mbps speed 

for all subscribers. 

15
As competing firms adjusted their plans to account for LUS Fiber’s market entry, 

residents who weren’t customers of the network started to see lower prices. Cox 

Communications, a major regional provider which had raised rates six times in four 

years, kept its rates stable from 2004 to 2007 to account for LUS’s possible market 

entry. Still, LUS’s prices have been consistently lower than those offered by Cox. Terry 

Huval, the director of LUS, estimates that the community saved $4 million from these 

deferred rate increases. Using estimates of Cox’s average competing discounts and LUS 

Fiber’s lower rates, LUS projects the fiber system will create total savings of between 

$90 and $100 million over the its first 10 years. 

The fiber network has brought in companies eager to obtain fast service at lower prices. 

Pixel Magic brought 100 to 200 jobs when it built an office in Lafayette to accomplish 

work on the movie “Secretariat”. The high-speed capability of the broadband network 

was a big factor in their eventual decision to maintain their office in Louisiana 

permanently. The tech startup firm Skyscraper Holding moved from Los Angeles to 

Lafayette to obtain 100 Mb/s speeds at a fraction of the cost the company was charged 

on the west coast. The company pays just $200 a month for more reliable service.

The network has strengthened community anchors as well, delivering greater value and 

opportunities for connectivity to Lafayette’s school and library systems. By mid-2008, 

all of the schools in the Lafayette Parish School System were able to access 100 Mbps 

speeds for $390/month. Not only can students now do more to leverage the Internet for 

better learning opportunities, this monthly fee saves community tax dollars by being a 

better value than competitors could offer. Lafayette’s public libraries also benefit from 

the network by sharing a 90 Mbps connection from LUS that was rated as the best value 

amongst possible providers by the federal E-Rate program. 23

Scott County, MN: Municipal government sees savings for county, 

school operations 

In the early 2000s, Scott County started exploring options for increasing broadband 

services for county government buildings and schools. In 2007, the County issued $3.5 

million in bonds to install a high-speed middle-mile network. The network connects all 

county-owned facilities, including schools, libraries, city halls, policy and fire 

departments and public safety towers. It also connects with the state’s high capacity 

backbone network and with multiple private providers. From the beginning, the project 

was a joint effort between local and state government and the private sector. While the 

county paid the upfront costs, the state pays for the network’s operating costs in 

exchange for use of the network. The open architecture of the system allows private 

companies to offer their own services; private providers, in turn, cover the network’s 

maintenance costs. 

The network has achieved significant benefits. Scott County’s annual bond payment for 

the construction of the backbone is $35,000 less than what the County was paying for 

leasing private sector lines. Local schools have seen even greater savings. The costs for 

Scott County’s school districts per megabit of Internet service went from an average of 

$58.00 to $6.83 per megabit for all school districts—a cost reduction of nearly 90 

16
percent per megabit. The net effect was a tripling of availability (100 to 300 megabits) 

while costs fell from $5,800 to $2,049 a month. At the state level, the government is 

saving approximately $1 million per year from access to the public network. 

The network has also helped attract significant private investment and fostered job 

creation. In 2010, for example, Emerson Process Management was finalizing a decision 

on where to site a new $70 million investment that would create 500 jobs. Emerson’s 

two finalist sites were the town of Shakopee in Scott County, Minnesota and Chihuahua, 

Mexico. Recognizing the savings from the high-speed broadband network, Emerson 

chose Scott County. 24

Leverett, MA: State and federal programs enable local investment 

In 2008, Massachusetts Governor Deval Patrick created the Massachusetts Broadband 

Initiative (MBI). MBI was charged with bringing broadband to all residents and 

businesses in MA within three years. The Broadband Act provided MBI with initial $40 

million in state bond funds. Over the last six years, Massachusetts has built 1,200 miles 

of new fiber optic cable that provide access to more than 120 communities in Western 

and North Central Massachusetts. 

Of the original state funds, $25 million were directed to build a broadband network in 

Western, MA. With the support of additional federal funds, MBI developed 

“MassBroadband 123”, a middle-mile network serving 123 communities in the region. 

MBI worked closely with the private sector to build the project. Today, MassBroadband 

123 is operated by Axia NGNetworks. The network has an open architecture that allows 

any Internet service provider to purchase wholesale services on the network at the same 

rates. The network also positions municipalities to focus on putting homes and 

businesses on the network through last-mile connections. 

Leverett, MA saw the opportunity to build its own broadband system. In 2012, Leverett 

voters approved a modest property tax increase and a $3.6 million bond to fund the 

network. Leverett created a publicly controlled Municipal Light Plant (MLP) entity to 

own and operate its network, named LeverettNet. The town is currently in the process of 

building the network – which will provide 1 gigabit service – and connecting it to all 630 

households in the community. 25

Choctaw Nation Tribal Area, OK: Public private collaboration brings

broadband to new communities 

In early 2009, much of the ten Southeastern Oklahoma counties encompassed by the 

Choctaw Nation’s Tribal Area lacked access to reliable broadband service. The low 

population density (8.3 to 19.7 people per square mile), the high poverty rate (25 

percent of the population below the poverty line) and the rugged terrain made the 

economics of broadband infrastructure very challenging. Initial capital costs to deploy 

broadband meant that broadband service was limited only to commercially viable areas.

17
Pine Tele, the service provider offering voice, video, cell, long distance, and high-speed 

broadband in SE OK applied for and received 4 American Recovery and Reinvestment 

awards in 2009 and 2010. One grant was to build out fiber to the home in the area 

already covered by landlines, and the other three were for wireless – advanced 3G 

technology – to completely unserved areas. As of September 2014 Pine Tele had 

deployed 324 miles of fiber, 5,500 fiber drops, and 54 tower sites. New or improved 

broadband service had been made available to 1,757 fiber customers and 1,194 wireless 

customers. Today, Pine Telephone provides a variety of broadband packages over both 

their fiber and wireless facilities ranging from 1.5 Mbps to 5 Mbps for download speeds 

and 384 Kbps to 5 Mbps for upload speeds.

The benefits for the community have been significant. Every school in the 10 county 

Pine Tele service area is now connected with high-speed fiber optic broadband service. 

This has created the ability to integrate online educational tools into everyday teaching 

and assessments of student comprehension. Broken Bow School District is one example. 

This district serves approximately 1,280 students per day. They have been able to 

integrate smart boards, iPads, online lesson plans, and the “I-Ready program” to 

supplement learning. Hundreds of performance tests are now completed online. And 

family engagement is improved, as parents are increasingly provided online access to 

records of attendance, assignments, and test scores. The connectivity also allows the 

Choctaw Nation to multicast educational videos and share messages from Tribal 

leadership from a central location. For example, the Choctaw School of Language now 

offers distance learning courses to approximately 14 head starts and 32 high schools 

within the Choctaw Nation, in addition to several universities. 26

Promoting Broadband that Works

Last November, the President outlined his plan to keep the Internet open to new 

competition and innovation by safeguarding net neutrality — which will help ensure 

no one company can act as a gatekeeper to digital content. But there is more work to 

do so that every American has access to a free and open internet. This is particularly 

true in areas where broadband competition is lacking, resulting in high prices and 

slow service.

High-speed, low-cost broadband is paving the way for economic revitalization not 

just in Cedar Falls, but in places like Chattanooga, TN and Lafayette, LA — which 

have Internet speeds up to 100 times faster than the national average and deliver it at 

an affordable price. To help more communities achieve these results, support 

economic growth, and promote a level playing field for all competitors, the Obama 

Administration is:

• Calling to End Laws that Harm Broadband Service Competition: Laws in 19 states —

some specifically written by special interests trying to stifle new competitors — have 

held back broadband access and, with it, economic opportunity. Today President 

Obama is announcing a new effort to support local choice in broadband, formally 

opposing measures that limit the range of options to available to communities to 

18
spur expanded local broadband infrastructure, including ownership of networks. As 

a first step, the Administration is filing a letter with the Federal Communications 

Commission (FCC) urging it to join this effort by addressing barriers inhibiting local 

communities from responding to the broadband needs of their citizens.

• Expanding the National Movement of Local Leaders for Better Broadband: As of 

today, 50 cities representing over 20 million Americans have joined the Next 

Century Cities coalition, a nonpartisan network pledging to bring fast, communitysupported broadband to their towns and cities. They join 37 research universities 

around the country that formed the Gig.U partnership to bring fast broadband to 

communities around their campuses. To recognize these remarkable individuals and 

the partnerships they have built, in June 2015 the White House will host a 

Community Broadband Summit of mayors and county commissioners from around 

the nation who are joining this movement for broadband solutions and economic 

revitalization.

• Announcing a New Initiative to Support Community Broadband Projects: To 

advance this important work, the Department of Commerce is launching a new 

initiative, BroadbandUSA, to promote broadband deployment and adoption. 

Building on expertise gained from overseeing the $4.7 billion Broadband Technology 

Opportunities Program funded through the Recovery Act, BroadbandUSA will offer 

online and in-person technical assistance to communities; host a series of regional 

workshops around the country; and publish guides and tools that provide 

communities with proven solutions to address problems in broadband infrastructure 

planning, financing, construction, and operations across many types of business 

models.

• Unveiling New Grant and Loan Opportunities for Rural Providers: The Department 

of Agriculture is accepting applications to its Community Connect broadband grant 

program and will reopen a revamped broadband loan program which offers 

financing to eligible rural carriers that invest in bringing high-speed broadband to 

unserved and underserved rural areas. 

• Removing Regulatory Barriers and Improving Investment Incentives: The President 

is calling for the Federal Government to remove all unnecessary regulatory and 

policy barriers to broadband build-out and competition, and is establishing a new 

Broadband Opportunity Council of over a dozen government agencies with the 

singular goal of speeding up broadband deployment and promoting adoptions for 

our citizens. The Council will also solicit public comment on unnecessary regulatory 

barriers and opportunities to promote greater coordination with the aim of 

addressing those within its scope.

19
Appendix 1: U.S. Municipalities with Broadband Networks27

City State Name of Network Type

Ketchikan AK KPU Telecommunications cable

Kotlik AK Kotlik cable

Statewide AK Rural Alaska Video E-Health Network 

(RAVEN) inet

White Mountain AK White Mountain cable

Opelika AL Opelika fiber

Opp AL Opp Cablevision cable

Scottsboro AL Scottsboro EPB cable

Sylacauga AL Sylacauga cable

Conway AR Conway Corporation cable

Paragould AR Paragould Light Water and Cable cable

Sells AZ Tohono O'odham Last-Mile FTTH and 

Broadband Wireless Network partial

Anaheim CA Anaheim dark

Anaheim CA Anaheim Fiber inet

Burbank CA Burbank Water and Power partial

Glendale CA Glendale dark

Humboldt County CA Digital Redwoods inet

Loma Linda CA Loma Linda dark

Loma Linda CA Loma Linda Connected Community fiber

Lompoc CA City of Lompoc (LompocNet) inet

Long Beach CA Long Beach dark

Mendocino County CA Mendocino Community Network inet

Palo Alto CA Palo Alto Fiber dark

Pasadena CA Pasadena dark

San Bruno CA San Bruno Municipal Cable TV cable

San Francisco CA SF Fiber question

Santa Clara CA Santa Clara partial

Santa Monica CA Santa Monica City Net partial

Santa Monica CA Santa Monica Fiber partial

Shafter CA City of Shafter, California partial

Truckee CA Truckee Donner Public Utility District dark

Vernon CA Vernon Light & Power fiber

Cortez CO Cortez Community Network partial

Durango CO Durango dark

Glenwood Springs CO Glenwood Springs Community Broadband 

Network (GSCBN) partial

Longmont CO NextLight fiber

20
Bristol CT Bristol CT inet

East Hartford CT Connecticut Education Network dark

Manchester CT Manchester Wireless inet

Fort Pierce FL FPUAnet Communications partial

Gainesville FL GATOR NET partial

Hobe Sound FL Martin County Dark Fiber dark

Indiantown FL Martin County Dark Fiber dark

Jacksonville FL Jacksonville iNet inet

Jensen Beach FL Martin County Dark Fiber dark

Jupiter Island FL Martin County Dark Fiber dark

Lakeland FL Lakeland dark

Leesburg FL Leesburg partial

New Smyrna Beach FL Utilities Commission, City of New Smyrna 

Beach inet

Ocala FL Ocala Utility Services partial

Ocean Breeze Park FL Martin County Dark Fiber dark

Palm Beach County FL Palm Beach County partial

Palm City FL Martin County Dark Fiber dark

Palm Coast FL Palm Coast FiberNET partial

Port Salerno FL Martin County Dark Fiber dark

Quincy FL NetQuincy fiber

Sewall's Point FL Martin County Dark Fiber dark

Stuart FL Martin County Dark Fiber dark

Tallahassee FL Tallahassee dark

Valparaiso FL Valparaiso Broadband cable

Baconton GA Community Network Services - Camilla cable

Baker County GA SGRITA Rural Last-mile Infrastructure 

Project Last-mile partial

Cairo GA Community Network Services - Cairo 

(Syrup City) cable

Calhoun GA CALNET partial

Calhoun County GA SGRITA Rural Last-mile Infrastructure 

Project Last-mile partial

Camilla GA Community Network Services - Camilla cable

Cartersville GA Fibercom partial

Catoosa County GA OptiLink partial

Columbia County GA Columbia County Community Broadband 

Network partial

Dalton GA OptiLink fiber

Doerun GA City of Doerun cable

Douglasville GA Douglas County School System Fiber inet

Dublin GA Dublin partial

21
Early County GA SGRITA Rural Last-mile Infrastructure 

Project Last-mile partial

Elberton GA Elberton Utilities cable

Flintstone GA EPB Fiber Optics fiber

Forsyth GA Forsyth Cablenet cable

LaGrange GA LaGrange Telecommunications 

Department partial

Miller County GA SGRITA Rural Last-mile Infrastructure 

Project Last-mile partial

Mitchell County GA SGRITA Rural Last-mile Infrastructure 

Project Last-mile partial

Monroe GA Monroe Utilities Network cable

Moultrie GA Community Network Services - Moultrie cable

Murray County GA OptiLink partial

Pelham GA Community Network Services - Pelham 

(Pelnet) cable

Rossville GA EPB Fiber Optics fiber

Sandersville GA Sandersville FiberLink partial

Thomasville GA Community Network Services -

Thomasville cable

Tifton GA Tifton dark

Whitfield County GA OptiLink partial

Wildwood GA EPB Fiber Optics fiber

Algona IA Algona Municipal Utilities cable

Alta IA Altatec cable

Bellevue IA Bellevue fiber

Cedar Falls IA Cedar Falls Utilities fiber

Cedar Falls IA Cedar Falls Utilities - rural expansion partial

Coon Rapids IA Coon Rapids Municipal Utilities cable

Grundy Center IA Grundy Center Municipal Light & Power cable

Harlan IA Harlan Municipal Utilities cable

Hartley IA The Community Agency cable

Hawarden IA HITEC - Hawarden Integrated 

Technology, Energy, & Communication cable

Independence IA Independence Light & Power, 

Telecommunications cable

Indianola IA Indianola partial

Laurens IA Laurens Municipal Power and 

Communications cable

Lenox IA Lenox fiber

Manning IA Manning Municipal Communication and 

Television System Utility cable

Mapleton IA Mapleton Communications cable

22
Muscatine IA MachLink cable

Osage IA Osage Municipal Utilities cable

Paullina IA The Community Agency cable

Primghar IA The Community Agency cable

Reinbeck IA Reinbeck Telecom cable

Sanborn IA The Community Agency cable

Spencer IA Spencer Municipal Utilities fiber

Webster City IA Webster City dark

Ammon ID Ammon partial

Idaho Falls ID Circa dark

Plummer ID Coeur d'Alene Reservation FTTH Project 

Last-mile Non-remote partial

Aurora IL Onlight Aurora partial

Aurora IL OnLight Aurora dark

Champaign IL Urbana-Champaign Big Broadband UC2B partial

DeKalb County IL DeKalb Advancement of Technology 

Authority Broadband partial

Evanston IL Evanston partial

Highland IL Highland Communication Services fiber

LaSalle County IL DeKalb Advancement of Technology 

Authority Broadband partial

Princeton IL Princeton Municipal Utilities partial

Rochelle IL Rochelle Municipal Utilities partial

Rock Falls IL Rock Falls partial

Urbana IL Urbana-Champaign Big Broadband UC2B partial

Anderson IN Anderson Municipal Light and Power partial

Auburn IN Auburn Essential Services fiber

Lebanon IN Lebanon Utilities cable

Mishawaka IN Saint Joe Valley MetroNet dark

South Bend IN Saint Joe Valley MetroNet dark

Westfield IN City of Westfield partial

Chanute KS Chanute partial

Lenexa KS Lenexa Fiber dark

Ottawa KS Ottawa Network partial

White Cloud KS Iowa Tribe of Kansas and Nebraska Fiberto-the- Premise partial

Barbourville KY Barbourville cable

Bardstown KY Bardstown Cable cable

Bowling Green KY Bowling Green Municipal Utility partial

Corinth KY City of Williamstown partial

Frankfort KY Frankfort Plant Board cable

23
Franklin KY Franklin Municipal FiberNET partial

Glasgow KY Glasgow Electric Power Board cable

Grant County KY City of Williamstown partial

Hopkinsville KY Energy Net cable

Monticello KY Community Telecom Services cable

Murray KY Murray Electric System cable

Owen County KY City of Williamstown partial

Owensboro KY OMU Online partial

Paducah KY Paducah Power System partial

Russellville KY Russellville EPB SmartNet fiber

Williamstown KY City of Williamstown cable

Lafayette LA Lafayette Utilities System fiber

Braintree MA Braintree Electric Light Department cable

Chicopee MA Chicopee Electric Light partial

Holyoke MA Holyoke Gas & Electric Co. partial

Leverett MA LeverettNet fiber

Norwood MA Norwood Light Broadband cable

Russell MA Russell Municipal Cable cable

Shrewsbury MA Shrewsbury Electric and Cable Operations cable

South Hadley MA Five College Fiber Optic Network inet

Taunton MA Taunton Municipal Lightning Plant partial

Worcester MA Worcester Municipal Fiber Loop inet

Carroll County MD Carroll County Broadband dark

Columbia MD Howard County Fiber Network dark

Dayton MD Howard County Fiber Network dark

Easton MD EastonOnline cable

Elkridge MD Howard County Fiber Network dark

Ellicot City MD Howard County Fiber Network dark

Fulton MD Howard County Fiber Network dark

Highland MD Howard County Fiber Network dark

Savage MD Howard County Fiber Network dark

Coldwater MI CBPU cable

Crystal Falls MI City of Crystal Falls cable

Holland MI Holland Fiber Network fiber

Negaunee MI City of Negaunee Dept. of Public Works cable

Norway MI City of Norway CATV System cable

Sebewaing MI Sebewaing Light & Water fiber

Wyandotte MI Wyandotte cable

Bagley MN Bagley Public Utilities fiber

Barnesville MN Barnesville Municipal Utilities partial

Belle Plaine MN Scott County Fiber Network dark

24
Bingham Lake MN SMBS - Bingham lake fiber

Brewster MN SMBS - Brewster fiber

Carver MN CarverLink dark

Chanhassen MN CarverLink dark

Chaska MN Chaska.Net partial

Cologne MN CarverLink dark

Crosslake MN Crosslake Communications fiber

Eagan MN Access Eagan partial

Elko New Market MN Scott County Fiber Network dark

Hamburg MN CarverLink dark

Heron Lake MN SMBS - Heron Lake fiber

Jackson MN SMBS - Jackson fiber

Jordan MN Scott County Fiber Network dark

Lake County MN Lake County partial

Lakefield MN SMBS - Lakefield fiber

Mayer MN CarverLink dark

Monticello MN Monticello Fiber Network fiber

New Germany MN CarverLink dark

New Prague MN Scott County Fiber Network dark

Norwood Young 

America MN CarverLink dark

Okabena MN SMBS - Okabena fiber

Pine City MN Pine City Fiber Optic Backbone partial

Prior Lake MN Scott County Fiber Network dark

Round Lake MN SMBS - Round Lake fiber

Savage MN Scott County Fiber Network dark

Shakopee MN Scott County Fiber Network dark

Silver Bay MN Lake County Fiber Network partial

St. Louis Park MN St. Louis Park inet

Two Harbors MN Lake County Fiber Network partial

Victoria MN CarverLink dark

Waconia MN CarverLink dark

Watertown MN CarverLink dark

Westbrook MN Westbrook Municipal Light & Power cable

Wilder MN SMBS - Wilder fiber

Windom MN Windomnet fiber

Kahoka MO Kahoka cable

Marshall MO Marshall fiber

North Kansas City MO liNKCity fiber

Poplar Bluff MO City of Poplar Bluff Municipal Utilities cable

Springfield MO SpringNet partial

Collins MS Collins Communications cable

25
Asheville NC ERC Broadband dark

Chapel Hill NC Chapel Hill Fiber Optic Services inet

Cornelius NC MI-Connection cable

Davidson NC MI-Connection cable

Mooresville NC MI-Connection cable

Morganton NC Morganton cable

Salisbury NC Fibrant fiber

Sylva NC BalsamWest FiberNET partial

Tryon NC PANGAEA partial

Wilson NC Greenlight fiber

South Sioux City NE South Sioux City Municipal Network inet

Cheshire NH Fast Roads dark

Claremont NH Fast Roads dark

Enfield NH Fast Roads partial

Fitzwilliam NH Fast Roads dark

Goshen NH Fast Roads dark

Hanover NH Fast Roads dark

Keene NH Fast Roads dark

Lebanon NH Fast Roads dark

Lyme NH Fast Roads dark

Marlow NH Fast Roads dark

New London NH Fast Roads dark

Newport NH Fast Roads dark

Orford NH Fast Roads dark

Richmond NH Fast Roads dark

Rindge NH Fast Roads partial

Springfield NH Fast Roads dark

Sunapee NH Fast Roads dark

Swanzey NH Fast Roads dark

Glassboro NJ Glassboro Municipal Area Network inet

Vineland NJ Vineland Metropolitan Area Network inet

Churchill NV CC Communications fiber

Bristol Center NY Axcess Ontario dark

Bristol Springs NY Axcess Ontario dark

Canandaigua NY Axcess Ontario dark

Cheshire NY Axcess Ontario dark

Clifton Springs NY Axcess Ontario dark

East Bloomfield NY Axcess Ontario dark

Farmington NY Axcess Ontario dark

Fishers NY Axcess Ontario dark

Geneva NY Axcess Ontario dark

26
Gorham NY Axcess Ontario dark

Hogansburg NY

St. Regis Mohawk Tribe Connect 

(Economic Development for the 21st 

Century)

partial

Honeoye NY Axcess Ontario dark

Hopewell NY Axcess Ontario dark

Manchester NY Axcess Ontario dark

Naples NY Axcess Ontario dark

New York City NY New York City Wireless Network NYCWiN inet

Phelps NY Axcess Ontario dark

Rushville NY Axcess Ontario dark

Stanley NY Axcess Ontario dark

Victor NY Axcess Ontario dark

West Bloomfield NY Axcess Ontario dark

Akron OH OneCommunity partial

Ashtabula OH OneCommunity partial

Barberton OH OneCommunity partial

Bryan OH Bryan Municipal Utilities cable

Butler County OH Butler County inet

Canton OH OneCommunity partial

Cincinnati OH Hamilton County inet

Cleveland OH OneCommunity partial

Cleveland Heights OH OneCommunity partial

Dover OH Dover Technology dark

Dublin OH Dublink+ partial

Eastlake OH OneCommunity partial

Elyria OH OneCommunity partial

Gahanna OH Gahanna inet

Hamilton OH Hamilton Miami U inet

Lorain OH OneCommunity partial

Mayfield Village OH OneCommunity - Mayfield Village partial

Medina County OH Medina County dark

Mentor OH OneCommunity partial

Middletown OH Middletown Miami U inet

New Albany OH BlueAlbany partial

Sandusky OH OneCommunity partial

Wadsworth OH City of Wadsworth Electric & 

Communications Dept. cable

Wadsworth OH OneCommunity dark

Woodsfield OH Woodsfield Municipal Power cable

Wooster OH OneCommunity partial

Ponca City OK Ponca City Technology Services partial

27
Sallisaw OK DiamondNet fiber

Ashland OR Ashland Fiber Network cable

Canby OR Clackamas Broadband Express dark

Damascus OR Clackamas Broadband Express dark

Douglas County OR

Oregon South Central Regional Fiber 

Consortium Lighting the Fiber Middlemile Projectpartial

Estacada OR Clackamas Broadband Express dark

Eugene OR Eugene dark

Gladstone OR Clackamas Broadband Express dark

Government Camp OR Clackamas Broadband Express dark

Happy Valley OR Clackamas Broadband Express dark

Independence OR MINET fiber

Klamath County OR

Oregon South Central Regional Fiber 

Consortium Lighting the Fiber Middlemile Projectpartial

Lane County OR

Oregon South Central Regional Fiber 

Consortium Lighting the Fiber Middlemile Projectpartial

Milwaukie OR Clackamas Broadband Express dark

Molalla OR Clackamas Broadband Express dark

Monmouth OR MINET fiber

Mulino OR Clackamas Broadband Express dark

Oregon City OR Clackamas Broadband Express dark

Sandy OR SandyNet partial

Sherwood OR Sherwood Fiber partial

Springfield OR Springfield Utility Board dark

The Dalles OR Q-Life Network partial

Wilsonville OR Clackamas Broadband Express dark

Beaver County PA Beaver County Fiber inet

Kutztown PA Hometown Utilicom fiber

Pitcairn PA Pitcairn Power/Community Cable cable

Hartsville SC Hartsville question

Oconee County SC Oconee FOCUS (Fiber Optics Creating 

Unified Solutions) partial

Orangeburg County SC Orangeburg partial

Aberdeen SD CityNet (Dakota Interconnect) inet

Beresford SD Beresford Municipal 

Telephone/Cablevision cable

Brookings SD Swiftel fiber

Bristol TN Bristol TN Essential Services fiber

Chattanooga TN EPB Fiber Optics fiber

Clarksville TN Clarksville CDE Lightband fiber

28
Columbia TN CPWS Broadband cable

East Ridge TN EPB Fiber Optics fiber

Erwin TN Erwin Utilities partial

Fayetteville TN Fayetteville Public Utilities cable

Jackson TN Jackson Energy Authority fiber

Johnson City TN BVU OptiNet partial

Lookout Mountain TN EPB Fiber Optics fiber

Morristown TN FiberNET fiber

Nashville TN NESNet dark

Pulaski TN PES Energize fiber

Red Bank TN EPB Fiber Optics fiber

Ridgeside TN EPB Fiber Optics fiber

Signal Mountain TN EPB Fiber Optics fiber

Tullahoma TN Tullahoma Utilities Board fiber

Greenville TX GEUS cable

Lindon UT Utah Telecommunications Open 

Infrastructure Agency (UTOPIA) partial

Brigham City UT Utah Telecommunications Open 

Infrastructure Agency (UTOPIA) fiber

Centerville UT Utah Telecommunications Open 

Infrastructure Agency (UTOPIA) HQ fiber

Layton UT Utah Telecommunications Open 

Infrastructure Agency (UTOPIA) partial

Midvale UT Utah Telecommunications Open 

Infrastructure Agency (UTOPIA) partial

Murray UT Utah Telecommunications Open 

Infrastructure Agency (UTOPIA) partial

Orem UT Utah Telecommunications Open 

Infrastructure Agency (UTOPIA) partial

Payson UT Utah Telecommunications Open 

Infrastructure Agency (UTOPIA) partial

Perry UT Utah Telecommunications Open 

Infrastructure Agency (UTOPIA) partial

Spanish Fork UT Spanish Fork Community Network cable

Tremonton UT Utah Telecommunications Open 

Infrastructure Agency (UTOPIA) fiber

West Valley City UT Utah Telecommunications Open 

Infrastructure Agency (UTOPIA) HQ partial

Abingdon VA BVU OptiNet fiber

Arlington County VA ConnectArlington dark

Atkins VA BVU OptiNet partial

Bluefield VA BVU OptiNet partial

29
Bristol VA BVU OptiNet fiber

Castlewood VA BVU OptiNet partial

Cedar Bluff VA BVU OptiNet partial

Chillhowie VA BVU OptiNet partial

Clay Pool Hill VA BVU OptiNet partial

Cleveland VA BVU OptiNet partial

Clinchco VA BVU OptiNet partial

Clintwood VA BVU OptiNet partial

Damascus VA BVU OptiNet partial

Danville VA nDanville partial

Duffield VA LENOWISCO Planning District 

Commission partial

Eastern Virginia VA Eastern Shore of Virginia Broadband 

Authority question

Emery-Meadow 

View VA BVU OptiNet partial

Galax VA Wired Road partial

Glad Spring VA BVU OptiNet partial

Grundy VA BVU OptiNet partial

Haysi VA BVU OptiNet partial

Hiltons VA BVU OptiNet fiber

Honaker VA BVU OptiNet partial

Independence VA BVU OptiNet partial

Lebanon VA BVU OptiNet partial

Luray VA Page County Broadband Project partial

Marion VA BVU OptiNet partial

Martinsville VA Martinsville Information Network -

MINET partial

Nelson County VA Nelson County Virginia Broadband Project partial

Page County VA Page County Broadband Project partial

Richlands VA BVU OptiNet partial

Rockbridge County VA Connect the Dots: Rockbridge Broadband 

Initiative partial

Rural Retreat VA BVU OptiNet partial

Saltville VA BVU OptiNet partial

Shenandoah VA Page County Broadband Project partial

St Paul VA BVU OptiNet partial

Stanley VA Page County Broadband Project partial

Staunton VA Staunton dark

Sugar Grove VA BVU OptiNet partial

Tazewell VA BVU OptiNet partial

Troutdale VA BVU OptiNet partial

Vansant VA BVU OptiNet partial

30
Wytheville VA BVU OptiNet partial

Barnard VT ECFibernet (East Central Vermont 

Community Fiber Network) partial

Bethel VT ECFibernet (East Central Vermont 

Community Fiber Network) partial

Braintree VT ECFibernet (East Central Vermont 

Community Fiber Network) partial

Brookfield VT ECFibernet (East Central Vermont 

Community Fiber Network) partial

Hancock VT ECFibernet (East Central Vermont 

Community Fiber Network) dark

North Randolph VT ECFibernet (East Central Vermont 

Community Fiber Network) partial

Pomfret VT ECFibernet (East Central Vermont 

Community Fiber Network) partial

Reading VT ECFibernet (East Central Vermont 

Community Fiber Network) dark

Rochester VT ECFibernet (East Central Vermont 

Community Fiber Network) dark

Royalton VT ECFibernet (East Central Vermont 

Community Fiber Network) partial

Sharon VT ECFibernet (East Central Vermont 

Community Fiber Network) partial

Stockbridge VT ECFibernet (East Central Vermont 

Community Fiber Network) dark

Aberdeen WA Grays Harbor PUD partial

Ardenvoir WA Chelan PUD partial

Bauer's Landing WA Douglas County Community Network inet

Benton City WA Benton PUD Broadband partial

Benton County WA Benton PUD Broadband partial

Blewett WA Chelan PUD partial

Bridgeport WA Douglas County Community Network inet

Bridgeport Bar WA Douglas County Community Network inet

Burlington WA Mt Vernon Fiber Optic Services partial

Cashmere WA Chelan PUD fiber

Chelan WA Chelan PUD partial

Chelan County WA Chelan PUD fiber

Cheney WA Cheney Fiber Network partial

Chumstick WA Chelan PUD partial

Clallam County WA Clallam PUD partial

Coulee City WA Grant PUD partial

Coulee Dam WA Grant PUD partial

31
Desert Aire WA Grant PUD fiber

Desert Canyon WA Douglas County Community Network inet

Douglas County WA Douglas County Community Network inet

Dryden WA Chelan PUD fiber

East Wenatchee WA Douglas County Community Network inet

Edmonds WA City of Edmonds dark

Entiat WA Chelan PUD partial

Ephrata WA Grant PUD partial

Franklin County WA Franklin PUD Broadband partial

Grand Coulee WA Grant PUD fiber

Grant County WA Grant PUD fiber

Hartline WA Grant PUD fiber

Kennewick WA Benton PUD Broadband fiber

Kitsap County WA Kitsap PUD fiber

Leavenworth WA Chelan PUD fiber

Mansfield WA Douglas County Community Network inet

Mason County WA Mason County PUD3 partial

Mattawa WA Grant PUD fiber

Meritt WA Chelan PUD partial

Monitor WA Chelan PUD fiber

Moses Lake WA Grant PUD partial

Mt Vernon WA Mt Vernon Fiber Optic Services partial

Newport WA Pend Oreille County Public Utility District 

(PUD) Broadband Network partial

Okanogan County WA Okanogan PUD fiber

Orondo WA Douglas County Community Network inet

Pacific County WA Pacific County PUD#2 partial

Pasco WA Franklin PUD Broadband fiber

Pend Oreille 

County WA Pend Oreille PUD fiber

Peshastin WA Chelan PUD fiber

Port of Skagit 

County WA Mt Vernon Fiber Optic Services partial

Prosser WA Benton PUD Broadband fiber

Quincy WA Grant PUD fiber

Royal City WA Grant PUD fiber

Sequim WA Clallam PUD partial

Shelton WA Mason County Public Utilities District partial

Soap Lake WA Grant PUD fiber

Sun Cove WA Douglas County Community Network inet

Tacoma WA Click! Network cable

Warden WA Grant PUD fiber

32
Waterville WA Douglas County Community Network inet

Wenatchee WA Chelan PUD fiber

Wilson Creek WA Grant PUD fiber

Yodelin WA Chelan PUD partial

Eau Claire WI Chippewa Internetworking Consortium 

(CINC) inet

Oconto WI Oconto Falls Municipal Utilities cable

Platteville WI Chippewa Internetworking Consortium 

(CINC) partial

Reedsburg WI Reedsburg Utility Commission fiber

Reedsburg WI Reedsburg Utility Commission - rural 

expansion partial

Shawano WI Shawano Municipal Utilities fiber

Sun Prairie WI Sun Prairie Utilities partial

Superior WI Chippewa Internetworking Consortium 

(CINC) partial

Wausau WI Chippewa Internetworking Consortium 

(CINC) partial

Philippi WV Philippi Communications System fiber

Powell WY Powell Fiber Optic Network fiber

33
1

National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA). 2013. “US Broadband 

Availability: June 2010-June 2012." 

http://www.ntia.doc.gov/files/ntia/publications/usbb_avail_report_05102013.pdf, 3.

2Federal Communications Commission. 2010. “Sixth Broadband Deployment Report.” July 20. 

https://apps.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-10-129A1_Rcd.pdf. 

3Federal Communications Commission. 2014. “Tenth Broadband Progress Notice of Inquiry.” 

August 5. https://apps.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-14-113A1.pdf

4United States Census Bureau. “Table 4: Estimated Sources of Revenue for Employer Firms: 

2010 through 2013.” November 19. Annual and Quarterly Services.

https://www.census.gov/services/index.html (CEA Calculations). 

5Greenstein, Shane and Ryan C. McDevitt. 2009. “The Broadband Bonus: Accounting for 

Broadband Internet’s Impact on U.S. GDP” NBER Working Paper No. 14758. 

http://www.nber.org/papers/w14758. This study suggests that roughly 50 percent of this 

amount– $8 to $11 billion– was “new GDP” that would not have been realized but for the 

replacement of dial-up with broadband connections. 

6Dutz, Mark, Jonathan Orszag, and Robert Willig. 2009. “The Substantial Consumer Benefits of 

Broadband Connectivity for U.S. Households.” COMPASS LEXECON, commissioned by the 

Internet Innovation Alliance, July. http://internetinnovation.org/files/specialreports/CONSUMER_BENEFITS_OF_BROADBAND.pdf. 

7Bresnahan, Timothy F., and Shane Greenstein. 1999. “Technology Competition and the 

Structure of the Computer Industry.” Journal of Industrial Economics 47: 1-40, 

DOI: 10.1111/1467-6451.00088.

8Mandel, Dr. Michael. 2012. “Where the Jobs Are: The App Economy.” February 2. 

https://www.conference-board.org/retrievefile.cfm?filename=Where-the-Jobs-Are_-The-AppEconomy.pdf&type=subsite.

9US Telecom. The Broadband Association. “Broadband Investment.” 

http://www.ustelecom.org/broadband-industry/broadband-industry-stats/investment; Carew, 

Diana G. and Michael Mandel. 2012. “Investment Heroes: Who’s Betting on America’s Future?” 

Progressive Policy Institute, July. http://progressivepolicy.org/wpcontent/uploads/2012/07/07.2012-Mandel_Carew_Investment-Heroes_Whos-Betting-onAmericas-Future.pdf.

10NTIA, 2013.

11Office of Science and Technology Policy & The National Economic Council. 2013. “Four Years 

of Broadband Growth.” June. 

http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/broadband_report_final.pdf.

12Horrigan, John B. 2010. “Broadband Adoption & Use in America. Results from an FCC 

Survey.”. March. http://transition.fcc.gov/DiversityFAC/032410/consumer-surveyhorrigan.pdf.

13Department of Commerce (NTIA and ESA). 2013. “Exploring the Digital Nation. America’s 

Emerging Online Experience.” June. 

http://www.ntia.doc.gov/files/ntia/publications/exploring_the_digital_nation_-

_americas_emerging_online_experience.pdf, page 39.

14Hibah, Hussain, Danielle Kehl, Patrick Lucey, and Nick Russo. 2013. “The Cost of Connectivity 

2013. Data Release: A comparison of high-speed Internet prices in 24 cities around the world.” 

New America Foundation, October. 

http://oti.newamerica.net/publications/policy/the_cost_of_connectivity_2013. The US cities 

included are: Bristol (VA), Chattanooga (TN), Kansas City (MO), Lafayette (LA), Los Angeles 

(CA), New York (NY), San Francisco (CA), and Washington (DC). The international cities 

included are: Toronto (Canada), Hong Kong, Prague (Czech Republic), Copenhagen (Denmark), 

Paris (France), Berlin (Germany), Dublin (Ireland), Tokyo (Japan), Riga (Latvia), Mexico City 

34

 
(Mexico), Amsterdam (Netherlands), Bucharest (Romania), Seoul (South Korea), Zurich 

(Switzerland), and London (UK). Some of these cities are omitted from the data underlying the 

chart below, as the plans included in NAF’s dataset are not all annual contracts. 

15Wheeler, Tom. 2014. “Prepared Remarks of Chairman Tom Wheeler. ‘The Facts and Future of 

Broadband Competition.’” September 4. https://apps.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC329161A1.pdf.

16OECD. 2014. “Wireless Market Structures and Network Sharing.” OECD Digital Economy 

Papers, No. 243. OECD Publishing. http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/5jxt46dzl9r2-en. 

17The case of 3UK is cited by OECD as particularly indicative of this reality. 

18 Department of Commerce (NTIA and ESA). 2013. “Exploring the Digital Nation. America’s 

Emerging Online Experience.” June. 

http://www.ntia.doc.gov/files/ntia/publications/exploring_the_digital_nation_-

_americas_emerging_online_experience.pdf, page 39.

19 OECD. 2014.

20Seamans, Robert. 2012. Fighting City Hall: Entry Deterrence and Technology Deployment in 

the

Cable TV Industry. Management Science 58(3): 461-475.

21Sources used to prepare this case study: Technology, Gig, and Entrepreneurship Task Force. 

2014. “Chattanooga Forward.” March 19. 

http://www.chattanooga.gov/images/Mayor_Images/Chattanooga_Forward_Working_report.

pdf; Wyatt, Edward. 2014. “Fast Internet is Chattanooga’s New Locomotive.” New York Times,

February 3. http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/04/technology/fast-internet-service-speedsbusiness-development-in-chattanooga.html; Fung, Brian. 2013. “How Chattanooga beat Google 

Fiber by half a decade.” Washington Post, September 17. 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-switch/wp/2013/09/17/how-chattanooga-beatgoogle-fiber-by-half-a-decade; Rushe, Dominic. 2014. “Chattanooga’s Gig: how one city’s superfast internet is driving a tech boom.” The Guardian, August 30. 

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/aug/30/chattanooga-gig-high-speed-internet-techboom; Cosco, Joey. 2014. “A City in Tennessee Has The Big Cable Companies Terrified.” 

Business Insider, July 30. http://www.businessinsider.com/chattanooga-tennessee-biginternet-companies-terrified-2014-7; Mitchell, Christopher. 2012. “Broadband At the Speed of 

Light. How Three Communities Built Next-Generation Networks.” April. Institute for Local SelfReliance and Benton Foundation, April. http://ilsr.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/muni-bbspeed-light.pdf.

22Sources used to prepare this case study:

Mitchell, Christopher. O’Boyle, Todd. 2012. “Carolina’s Connected Community: Wilson Gives 

Greenlight to Fast Internet.” December. Institute for Local Self-Reliance and Common Cause 

Education Fund, December. http://ilsr.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/wilsongreenlight.pdf; New York Times. 2014. “Communities Fight State Laws That Can Divide 

Broadband Access.” November 9. http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/10/technology/in-ruralamerica-challenging-a-roadblock-to-high-speed-internet.html; Indy Week. 2008. “Mighty, 

mighty broadband.” June 18. http://www.indyweek.com/indyweek/mighty-mightybroadband/Content?oid=1209049; Wired.com. 2011. “North Carolina Enacts Pro-ISP, AntiMunicipal Broadband Law.” May 23. http://www.wired.com/2011/05/nc-gov-anti-munibroadband/; Davidson, Charles M. Santorelli, Michael J. 2014. “Understanding The Debate 

Over Government-owned Broadband Networks: Context, Lessons Learned, and a Way Forward 

for Policy Makers.” June. Advanced Communications Law and Policy Institute at New York Law 

School, June. http://www.nyls.edu/advanced-communications-law-and-policy-institute/wp35

 
content/uploads/sites/169/2013/08/ACLP-%E2%80%93-Wilson-Case-Study-%E2%80%93-

June-2014.pdf; Wilson Times. 2010. “Greenlight competition affects rates elsewhere.” 

http://www.wilsontimes.com/greenlight/Story/Greenlight-competition-affects-rates-elsewhere

23Sources used to prepare this case study: 

Huval, Terry. 2010. Testimony Before the Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship. 

Hearing on “Connecting Main Street to the World: Federal Efforts to Expand Small Business 

Internet Access.” Senate Hearing 111-1166, April 27. 

http://www.sbc.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?a=Files.Serve&File_id=646b01b6-6e75-4f5a9c0f-790c0ba48889

Jervis, Rick. 2012. “Louisiana city blazes high-speed Web trail.” USA Today, February 5. 

http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/nation/story/2012-02-01/broadband-telecomlafayette/52920278/1

Mitchell, Christopher. 2012. “Broadband at the Speed of Light: How Three Communities Built 

Next-Generation Networks.” April. Institute for Local Self-Reliance and Benton Foundation, 

April. http://ilsr.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/muni-bb-speed-light.pdf

Pollick, Michael. 2010. “Dark lines are a draw for business”. Sarasota Harold-Tribune, 

September 7. 

http://www.heraldtribune.com/article/20100907/ARTICLE/100909825/-

1/news?p=all&tc=pgall

24Sources used for this case study: Collaborative Governance Council. 2010. “Scott County 

Broadband (Fiber) Project.” Minnesota Office of the State Auditor, August 12. 

http://www.osa.state.mn.us/Other/councils/CollaborativeGovernance/081210/ScottCountyBro

adbandProjectPresentation.pdf; Minnesota Ultra High Speed Broadband Task Force. 2009. 

“Scott County Broadband (Fiber) Approach.” February 20. http://www.ultra-high-speedmn.org/CM/Custom/Shelton%20-%20Broadband%20Task%20force%20Presentation.pdf; 

Moore, Janet. 2013. “Scott County approves incentives for Shutterfly.” Minnesota Star Tribune, 

August 20.

http://www.startribune.com/blogs/220393971.html; Mitchell, Chris, and Lisa Gonzalez. 2014. 

“All Hangs on Deck. Minnesota Local Government Models for Expanding Fiber Internet 

Access.” Institute for Local Self-Reliance, September. http://www.ilsr.org/wpcontent/uploads/downloads/2014/09/all_hands_on_deck_mn.pdf.

25Sources used for this case: Gonzalez, Lisa. 2012. “Network Moves Forward in Leverett, 

Western Massachusetts.” Community Broadband Networks, December 20. 

http://www.muninetworks.org/content/network-moves-forward-leverett-westernmassachusetts; Crawford, Susan and Robyn Mohr. 2013. “Bringing Municipal HighSpeed 

Internet Access to Leverett, Massachusetts.” Harvard University Berkman Center Research 

Publication No. 26, December 17. 

http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2366044; Lennett, Benjamin, Patrick 

Lucey, Joanne Hovis, and Andrew Afflerbach. “The Art of the Possible: An Overview of Public 

Broadband Options.” New American Foundation Open Technology Institute and CTC 

Technology & Energy, May 6. 

http://newamerica.net/sites/newamerica.net/files/policydocs/TheArtofthePossibleOverviewof

PublicBroadbandOptions_NAFOTI-CTC.pdf; Scherban, Debra. 2014. “Crocker Communications 

to provide Internet Service for Leverett’s own broadband network.” Daily Hampshire Gazette, 

September 2. http://www.gazettenet.com/home/13387776-95/crocker-communications-toprovide-internet-service-for-leveretts-own-broadband-network. 

36

 
26 Sources used for this case: Yocum, Katie. 2010. “USDA Recovery Act-Funded Wireless 

Internet to Reach Remote Choctaw Nation.” United States Department of Agriculture, June 11. 

http://blogs.usda.gov/2010/06/11/usda-recovery-act-funded-wireless-Internet-to-reachremote-choctaw-nation; The Choctaw Nation of Oklahoma. “Programs & Services for the 

Choctaw People.” http://s3.amazonaws.com/choctawmsldigital/assets/2345/choctaw_services_original.pdf. Material from a site visit conducted by 

USDA from September 22 to 25, 2014 in Broken Bow, Oklahoma was also relied upon for the 

Pine Telephone Company Case Study.

27 The Institute for Local Self-Reliance, data provided to NEC/CEA upon request. 

37