GNG News Guy
04-30-2008, 12:34 PM
http://i.dslr.net/urls/8/4208.gif (http://www.dslreports.com/shownews/Vermont-Visionary-Rural-Fiber-Perfectly-Economical-94019)
Dr. Timothy Nulty is the director of ValleyFiber (http://www.valleyfiber.net/), a nonprofit organization focused on bringing municipal fiber to towns in rural Vermont. According to the project FAQ (http://www.valleyfiber.net/faq.html), they're helping to bring symmetrical 8Mbps, VoIP and TV to rural areas, using private financing (a fifteen year non-recourse capital lease) where the towns aren't on the hook in the case of default. From the website:The capital lease would be arranged between a regional telecommunications association (a financing vehicle representing the towns involved in the project) and the outside private financier. The towns would not need to float municipal bonds for the funding. The private financier would own the network until the capital lease has been paid off.
Given Verizon just sold their Vermont network to Fairpoint communications, who plans to stick with DSL, this may be the only fiber connectivity many Vermont residents are ever able to get. Nulty tells Telephony Online (http://telephonyonline.com/fttp/news/rural-fttp-economical-0429/) that the idea that fiber isn't economical to deploy in rural areas is "nonsense." Nulty was the architect of a municipal fiber plan in Burlington that's on track to become cash positive next year:Nulty helped oversee the municipal FTTP network in Burlington Vermont, which is on track to become fully cash-flow positive (with revenue exceeding all costs, including debt service) by January 2009, four years after it secured initial financing. He left his position as general manager of Burlington Telecom to try to duplicate its success elsewhere in Vermont.
Vermont spends about $1600 per home connecting subscribers in the city, and about $1800 per home in rural areas. Passing homes is more expensive in the country ($1100) than in the city ($250) because of geography, but Nulty says passing homes is "a small part of the overall cost of fiber deployment," and they see higher take rates in rural communities because there's no competition (or often no service at all).
Dr. Timothy Nulty is the director of ValleyFiber (http://www.valleyfiber.net/), a nonprofit organization focused on bringing municipal fiber to towns in rural Vermont. According to the project FAQ (http://www.valleyfiber.net/faq.html), they're helping to bring symmetrical 8Mbps, VoIP and TV to rural areas, using private financing (a fifteen year non-recourse capital lease) where the towns aren't on the hook in the case of default. From the website:The capital lease would be arranged between a regional telecommunications association (a financing vehicle representing the towns involved in the project) and the outside private financier. The towns would not need to float municipal bonds for the funding. The private financier would own the network until the capital lease has been paid off.
Given Verizon just sold their Vermont network to Fairpoint communications, who plans to stick with DSL, this may be the only fiber connectivity many Vermont residents are ever able to get. Nulty tells Telephony Online (http://telephonyonline.com/fttp/news/rural-fttp-economical-0429/) that the idea that fiber isn't economical to deploy in rural areas is "nonsense." Nulty was the architect of a municipal fiber plan in Burlington that's on track to become cash positive next year:Nulty helped oversee the municipal FTTP network in Burlington Vermont, which is on track to become fully cash-flow positive (with revenue exceeding all costs, including debt service) by January 2009, four years after it secured initial financing. He left his position as general manager of Burlington Telecom to try to duplicate its success elsewhere in Vermont.
Vermont spends about $1600 per home connecting subscribers in the city, and about $1800 per home in rural areas. Passing homes is more expensive in the country ($1100) than in the city ($250) because of geography, but Nulty says passing homes is "a small part of the overall cost of fiber deployment," and they see higher take rates in rural communities because there's no competition (or often no service at all).