Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Broadband topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Power board discusses broadband competition, undergrounding and plans to reach Ripley
Summary
Board members and staff discussed Fort Dear Electric's planned underground Internet service, competition from providers such as Ritter, AT&T and Spectrum, and challenges and costs to extend the city's broadband network toward Ripley.
Board members spent part of the Sept. 8 meeting discussing broadband deployment and competitive moves by an outside electric provider that plans to install underground Internet infrastructure in town.
Superintendent Almer said Fort Dear Electric has decided to "go underground and provide Internet to the whole city of Hall," a move he described as "super, super expensive" and likely to cause disruption while contractors cut lines. He warned the board that undergrounding typically costs "about 3 times as expensive" as other approaches and said residents could face higher utility rates if the city lost franchise customers.
Almer said the utility is tracking the work and evaluating the costs to bring the city-owned broadband infrastructure to Ripley. "...we'll make a decision to try to figure out exactly what the cost would be to get it at least to Ripley," he said, adding the board will need to weigh take-rate thresholds in subdivisions before extending service.
He noted competitive pressure in Ripley from multiple providers: "when we come to Ripley, we don't have only have AT and T, then we got Spectrum, then we got Ritter," and warned that those competitors make the economics more challenging. He estimated a need for high subscription percentages in subdivisions before running new lines and cited older residents' lower take rates and phone-only Internet usage as factors that reduce expected sign-ups.
Board members asked about grant funding and whether Fort Dear had a grant promise; Almer said Fort Dear "did not get it" and described previous grant promises as uncertain. He recommended a cautious, phased approach, focusing on subdivisions with sufficient pre-registrations to justify buildout.
The discussion was informational; no formal motion or vote was taken. Board members asked staff to continue cost estimates and to return with recommendations on when and where to extend the city's network.
