Office of Technology Policy and Programs (OTP)
250 14th Street, N.W., Room 541
Atlanta, GA 30318
Georgia Centers for Advanced Telecommunications Technology
Office of Technology Policy and Programs
POLICY PAPER SERIES 2003
I. OTP Policy Study No. 50103
Municipal Advanced Telecommunication Infrastructure Project (MuniTIP)
Authors: Kelly E. Clark – Georgia Centers for Advanced Telecommunications Technology
Paul M.A. Baker, Ph.D. - Georgia Centers for Advanced Telecommunications Technology
Contributors: Lisa A. Griffin – Georgia Centers for Advanced Telecommunications Technology
Adam Starr – Georgia Centers for Advanced Telecommunications Technology
Reviewers: Joe Bankoff, David Burgess, Phil Jacobs, Charlie Sasser, Jim Higdon, Lou Comer
A. GCATT Advisory Council
Mr. Joseph Bankoff
Senior Partner
King & Spalding
Honorable David Burgess
Commissioner
Georgia Public Service Commission
Dr. Jean-Lou Chameau
Provost
Georgia Institute of Technology
Mr. Phil Jacobs
President - Georgia
BellSouth Telecommunications
Mr. Charles Ross
Principal
Telecommunications Development Fund
Mr. Bruce Franca
Deputy Chief
Office of Engineering and Technology
Federal Communications Commission
Municipal Advanced Telecommunication Infrastructure Project (MuniTIP)
GCATT
Nikil Jayant, Ph.D., Executive Director
II. Office of Technology Policy and Programs
Helena Mitchell, Ph.D., Director
Paul M.A. Baker, Ph.D., Associate Director, Policy Research/Series Editor
For further information regarding this series call 404.894.0073 or email
0
1ii
Municipal Advanced Telecommunication Infrastructure Project (MuniTIP)
Table of Contents
Executive Summary -iv-
1.0 Introduction -1-
2.0 Methodology -1-
2.1 Project Rationale -1-
2.2 Approach -2-
3.0 Background -2-
3.1 National Perspective -2-
3.2 State of Georgia Landscape -4-
4.0 Policy Framework -6-
4.1 Governmental Policies -6-
4.1.1 The Federal Role -6-
4.1.2 The State Role -7-
4.1.3 The Municipal Role -7-
4.2 Defining "Any Entity" -8-
4.2.1 The Public Sector Argument -8-
4.2.2 The Market-Based Argument -9-
5.0 Assessment Process Model Development -10-
5.1 Approach -10-
5.2 Data Collection -11-
5.2.1 Implementation Process Survey -11-
5.2.2 Summary of Baseline Data Collection -12-
5.2.2.1 Implementation Considerations -13-
5.2.2.2 Community Buy-In -13-
5.2.2.3 Funding & Revenue -13-
5.2.2.4 Physical Factors -14-
5.2.2.5 Workforce -14-
5.2.3 Benchmark Initiatives -15-
6.0 Process Model -15-
6.1 Initiate Process -15-
6.2 Review Materials and Scope of Project -15-
6.3 Determine Rationale -15-
6.4 Conduct Situational Analysis -16-
6.4.1 Political/Regulatory Environment -16-
6.4.2 Competitive Services/Providers -17-
6.4.3 Stakeholder/Community Assessment -17-
6.5 Analysis -17-
6.5.1 Environmental/Baseline Analysis -17-
6.5.1.1 Services -17-
6.5.1.2 Funding -18-
6.5.1.3 ROI/Cost/Risk -19-
6.5.1.4 Technology Selection -19-
6.6 Outcome Evaluation/Scenario Development -19-
7.0 Policy Options -20-
7.1 Develop Municipally Owned Infrastructure -20-
7.2 Expand/Augment Current Infrastructure -21-
7.3 Public/Private Partnerships -21-
7.4 Public/Non-Profit Partnerships -21-
7.5 Stimulate the Marketplace -21-
7.6 Do Nothing -22-
8.0 Summary -22-
9.0 Long Range Research Strategies -23-
Sources/Interviews -27-
References -29-
Appendix A -36-
Municipal-Owned or Proposed Cable Television and/or
Telecommunications Systems
Appendix B -46-
Project Survey
Appendix C -49-
Georgia Cities Involved in Public Telecommunications
Infrastructure Development
Appendix D -51-
Sample Benchmark Initiatives
Appendix E -59-
Process Model Outline
Appendix F -61-
Detailed Process Model
0
1
Municipal Advanced Telecommunication Infrastructure Project (MuniTIP)
Executive Summary
The Municipal Advanced Telecommunication Infrastructure Project (MuniTIP) examines the role of municipal involvement in advanced information infrastructure development. The original objective of the study was to develop a specific set of tools to help municipalities delineate the issues, liabilities, benefits and complexities of information infrastructure development. Complexities in collecting sufficient baseline data required a modification to the objective resulting instead in a schematic process for considering the factors influencing infrastructure development.
Infrastructure development raises some interesting policy problems, such as the specific role of the public sector. The provision of telecommunication infrastructure and services oblige decision-makers to consider not only the effects of capital expenditures, but the possibility that rapidly changing telecommunications technologies may cause problems with planning return on investment timeframes.
Recognizing that telecommunications represents not only the analog of “highways” but also can be linked to educational and workforce development issues, several policy options are available to encourage the widespread deployment of advanced telecommunications infrastructure. These range from direct action (e.g. providing connectivity through state/local facilities, large contracts for aggregating demand, etc.) to indirect “simulative” activities (e.g., training and outreach efforts, technological “information packages”). The deployment of broadband can also be addressed through regulatory activities (e.g. right-of-way guidance; public service reviews, etc.). This is a topic which merits further examination in a follow-up study. Simply asking “to build or not to build?” reduces a complex array of approaches which may leave out key stakeholders, or might lead to an approach that may not be an optimal solution in consideration of “big picture” variables. The process model developed for the study allows municipalities, their stakeholders and policy makers to consider the factors which most influence infrastructure development. The six policy options offer a range of strategies to assist municipalities when deciding how to proceed with the complex issues of infrastructure development. These are: 1) develop a municipally owned infrastructure; 2) expand/augment current infrastructure; 3) create public/private partnerships; 4) create public/non-profit partnerships; 5) stimulate the marketplace; or 6) do nothing.
The role municipalities can (or should) play in initiating advanced information infrastructure development varies from city to city. Comprehensive assessments need to be conducted both of the municipality itself, and of the political and telecommunications environment. Future study development could include: 1) generation of a larger sample of municipalities engaged in public telecommunications infrastructure development; 2) a geographic and regional analysis of telecommunications infrastructure initiatives; 3) a presentation and discussion of various useful analytic tools that municipalities could draw on, including community assessment and needs evaluation instruments; and a discussion of the role of community planning efforts in developing infrastructure objectives; and 4) an examination and discussion of new telecommunications technologies that challenge some of the baseline assumptions. A separate effort 5) might be to develop a set of generalized economic and fiscal risk models usable in “first cut” planning.
0
1iv
Municipal Advanced Telecommunication Infrastructure Project (MuniTIP)
OTP Policy Study
Municipal Advanced Telecommunication Infrastructure Project (MuniTIP)
March 2003
Kelly E. Clark
Senior Research Analyst
Paul M.A. Baker, Ph.D.
Associate Director of Policy Research
Table of Contents
1.0 Introduction - 3 -
2.0 Methodology - 3 -
2.1 Project Rationale - 3 -
2.2 Approach - 4 -
3.0 Background - 4 -
3.1 National Perspective - 4 -
3.2 State of Georgia Landscape - 6 -
4.0 Policy Framework - 8 -
4.1 Governmental Policies - 8 -
4.1.1 The Federal Role - 8 -
4.1.2 The State Role -9-
4.1.3 The Municipal Role -9-
4.2 Defining "Any Entity" -10-
4.2.1 The Public Sector Argument -10-
4.2.2 The Market-Based Argument -12-
5.0 Assessment Process Model Development -13-
5.1 Approach -13-
5.2 Data Collection -13-
5.2.1 Implementation Process Survey -13-
5.2.2 Summary of Baseline Data Collection -14-
5.2.2.1 Implementation Considerations -15-
5.2.2.2 Community Buy-In -15-
5.2.2.3 Funding & Revenue -15-
5.2.2.4 Physical Factors -16-
5.2.2.5 Workforce -16-
5.2.3 Benchmark Initiatives -16-
6.0 Process Model -17-
6.1 Initiate Process -17-
6.2 Review Materials & and Scope of Project -17-
6.3 Conduct Situational Analysis -17-
6.3.1 Political/Regulatory Environment -17-
6.3.2 Competitive Services/Providers -18-
6.3.3 Stakeholder/Community Assessment -18-
6.4 Determine Rationale -18-
6.5 Analysis -19-
6.5.1 Qualitative Environmental Baseline Analysis -19-
6.5.2 Context (from Situation Analysis) -19-
6.5.2.1 Services -20-
6.5.2.2 Funding -20-
6.5.2.3 ROI/Cost -21-
6.5.2.4 Infrastructure -21-
6.6 Outcome Evaluation/Scenario Development -21-
7.0 Alternative Implementation Scenarios -22-
7.1 Develop Municipally Owned Infrastructure -22-
7.2 Expand/Augment Current Infrastructure -22-
7.3 Public/Private Partnerships -23-
7.4 Public/Non-Profit Partnerships -23-
7.5 Incentivize & Stimulate the Marketplace -23-
7.6 Do Nothing -24-
8.0 Summaryy
-24-
9.0 Long Range Research Directions -28-
Table (1)
Georgia Cities with Advanced Information Infrastructure Initiatives -14-
Appendix I
Municipal-Owned or Proposed Cable Television and/or Telecommunications Systems
Appendix II
Project Survey
Appendix III
Georgia Advanced Telecommunications Initiatives and Regional Comparisons
Appendix IV
Sample Benchmark Initiatives
Appendix V
Process Model Outline
Appendix VI
Detailed Process Model
sdelineatemodification to the R, several range from Simply asking “to build or not to build?” reduces a complex array of approaches which may leave out key stakeholders, or might lead an approach which might not be an optimal solution in consideration of “big picture” variables. The process model developed for the study allows municipalities, their stakeholders and policymakers to consider the factors which most influence infrastructure development. The six policy options offer a range of strategies to move municipalities into a greater comfort zone when deciding how to proceed with the complex issues of infrastructure development.
We conclude that the answer as to the role municipalities can (or should) play in undertaking consideration of initiating advanced information infrastructure development draws on a multitude of variables that vary from city to city. The study suggests that comprehensive assessments be conducted both of the municipality itself as to whether the resources, and commitment exist to undertake complex infrastructure development, and of the political and telecommunications environment. Future study development could include: 1) larger sample of municipalities engaged in public telecommunications infrastructure development; and 2) a geographic and regional analysis of telecommunications infrastructure initiatives; 3) a presentation and discussion of various useful analytic tools that municipalities could draw on, including community assessment and needs evaluation instruments; and a discussion of role of community planning efforts in developing infrastructure objectives; and 4) an examination and discussion of new telecommunications technologies that challenge some of the baseline assumptions. A separate effort 5) might be to develop a set of generalized economic and fiscal risk models usable in “first cut” planning.
There is not a simple answer as to the role municipalities can (or should) play in undertaking consideration of initiating advanced information infrastructure development. Thus, the study provides and suggests that comprehensive assessments be conducted both of the municipality itself as to whether the resources, and commitment exist to undertake complex infrastructure development, and of the political and telecommunications environment. The following are potential policy approaches that might be considered.
Option 1: Assessment and Evaluation: Determine the necessity or even the desirability of developing infrastructure, and the potential outcomes flowing from development of advanced information infrastructure.
Option 2: Cooperative/Partnership: The locality uses the economic leverage of aggregate purchasing power to help provide a demand base for service provision.
Option 3: Direct Infrastructure Development: The municipality either directly develops or selected as provider to develop under the direction of the municipality the target services.
Option 4: State Infrastructure Implementation : Under a provider of “last resort” model the State could provide a range of services to cities to help provide information and telecommunication connectivity in areas or situations in which either alternatives do not exist, or do not meet the needs of all the stakeholders.
1.0 Introduction
The Municipal Advanced Telecommunication Infrastructure project Project (MuniTIP) has two primary objectives. The first is to examine public sector involvement in the deployment of advanced telecommunications[1] infrastructure, especially by local, municipal actors. The second objective builds on the first by outlining a process, and a set of assessment tools for assisting stakeholders and policy makers in crafting informed policy decisions. While a variety of special purpose financial and econometric models have been developed to calculate the cost-/benefits and outcomes related to the deployment of these types of infrastructures, frequently they are more suited to private sector objectives, or are highly specialized or proprietary in nature. As such, they are less likely to capture some of the more intangible variables, such as community need and economic development, which are of concern to governmental entities.
A municipality’s approach to infrastructure deployment is more likely to entail consideration of a range of scenarios rather than to make a straightforward “up or down” decision based on a limited choice of variables. Outcome-oriented scenarios that capture the complexities of infrastructure deployment could include such strategies as construction of municipally-owned telecommunications networks, leveraging existing utility networks, creating public-private partnerships, or crafting incentives to encourage desired services from extant providers, among other possibilities. This paper provides significant background information, a summary of sample existing implementation efforts, a review of existing public policy, a synopsis of alternative strategies, and finally outlines a process model to assist municipalities in their policy making activities.
2.0 Methodology
2.1 Project Rationale
In January 2002, the Georgia Centers for Advanced Telecommunications Technology’s (GCATT) Technology Policy Advisory Council encouraged the Office of Telecommunications Policy & Programs (OTP) to undertake a study and draft a white paper that could be used to assist municipalities in considering their infrastructure needs in relationship to the existing and evolving communications-related technology and infrastructure. The study parameters included examining the technical, regulatory, and general telecommunications policy issues and challenges facing potential public sector involvement in developing municipally based or owned telecommunications infrastructure.[2] Further, the study should include a baseline assessment, and development of an analytic process model to help municipalities and other non-traditional telecommunications entities accurately evaluate the needs, associated costs, benefits and general ramifications of undertaking this type of investment. The resulting white paper could then be used to assist them in their decision to proceed or not to proceed.
2.2 Approach
The MuniTIP study includes a review of the pertinent background material related to advanced telecommunications infrastructure development in order to provide an overview of the Federal, state, and local regulatory and political landscape. The study also analyzes historical issues that surround the decision to create publicly owned/managed infrastructures. As well, the study includes a discussion of the factors related to the various public and private approaches to the provision of telecommunications services for background purposes. Building on factors apparent in selected implementation cases, both in Georgia and nationally, the study identifies the local market, policy and technical factors related to municipal involvement in public ownership/management of telecommunications infrastructures. These variables were are used to develop a model outlining a process a policy maker might use to take into account contextual as well as quantitative and financial variables. In addition, an array of the potential alternative strategic scenarios a municipality may choose to implement is included.