Compare and Contrast Paths

To compare and contrast paths, we should first look at the intersections of organizational structures and potential actions and try to determine which organizational structures and actions represent the “best fit”. Then we should compare the “best fit” options.

4.4.1 ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURE AND POTENTIAL ACTION INTERSECTIONS

In the sections above, we introduced four potential organizational structures (ad hoc, jurisdictional control, NWCCOG control, and telecommunications cooperative) and focused on five categories of potential solutions (status quo, develop incentives and penalties for incumbent providers, become a “broadband friendly” community, regional cooperative planning, and build infrastructure). “Table 16: Organizational Structures and Potential Actions” summarizes the intersection of these organizational structures and potential solution categories.

Ad Hoc Jurisdictions NWCCOG Cooperative

Status Quo An ad hoc organizational structure is the best fit for maintaining the status quo. Occasionally, the status quo may need regional or multi-jurisdictional guidance to keep it on course to improve broadband in the region. Jurisdictions currently control the status quo with occasional support from ad hoc groups or from existing organizations like the COG or Club 20. The status quo can be effectively maintained through an ad hoc model supporting jurisdictional control. Creating a mechanism within the COG to manage the status quo seems to be overkill. The status quo is best managed by ad hoc committees supporting local jurisdictions.

A telecommunications cooperative would not function to support the status quo. A telecommunications cooperative would likely find itself crosswise with incumbent providers responsible for broadband development in a status quo implementation model.

115 | P a g e

Ad Hoc Jurisdictions NWCCOG Cooperative

Incentives & Penalties

An ad hoc organizational structure is a good fit for creating incentives and penalties. As a general rule, incentives and penalties should belong to individual jurisdictions. Occasionally, multiple jurisdictions may need to come together to share best practices and create model ordinances. Multiple jurisdictions may find it useful to cooperate to add weight to their incentives and penalties. Most available incentives and penalties belong to the local

jurisdictions and the local jurisdictions should maintain control of them. Ad hoc teams can be used to share best practices and to develop model ordinances, practices, and procedures. The NWCCOG could manage the ad hoc team process. The COG may also function to

aggregate incentives and penalties to add weight to them.

While the NWCCOG could provide real value managing ad hoc teams to share best practices and develop model ordinances, practices, and procedures, incentives and penalties really belong to local jurisdictions. In some instances it may be appropriate for several jurisdictions to work together to aggregate incentives or penalties. A telecommunications cooperative may be able to support systems of incentives and penalties by taking on the role of monitoring

compliance. A telecommunications cooperative may also be a good repository for best practices, and model ordinances and methods and procedures. Broadband Friendly An ad hoc organizational structure is an appropriate fit for developing broadband friendly communities. However, becoming a broadband friendly community is very much a jurisdictional issue. Occasionally, multiple jurisdictions may need to come together to share best practices and to create model ordinances. Becoming a broadband friendly community rests largely on the shoulders of the local jurisdictions. Ad hoc teams may produce model ordinances and the NWCCOG may be able to facilitate coordination and cooperation between multiple jurisdictions to enhance efficiency but the responsibility truly lies with the local jurisdictions.

The NWCCOG may be able to facility cooperation between multiple jurisdictions working towards becoming broadband friendly communities. A telecommunications cooperative could function to facilitate coordination between the multiple broadband friendly communities in the region. A cooperative may also be able to help market the efforts communities have taken to ease broadband

improvements to the various network owners and service providers.

116 | P a g e

Ad Hoc Jurisdictions NWCCOG Cooperative

Regional Cooperative Planning Regional cooperative planning can be performed with an ad hoc organizational structure. To do so, each proposed effort or tactical solution would generate the creation of an ad hoc committee to manage its development. A NWCCOG control structure will create better synergies throughout the region. Local jurisdictions need to participate in regional cooperative planning but, because the effort is larger than any given jurisdiction, the effort truly needs to be owned and controlled by the NWCCOG or some other organization with multi-jurisdictional responsibility. Regional cooperative planning is truly a function of the NWCCOG. Usually, the COG focuses planning efforts on governmental agencies but, in this case, the COG would be working to shape the behavior of private network owners by facilitating meetings and helping to negotiate sharing agreements and multi-vendor solutions needed to improve broadband in the region. A telecommunications cooperative could function in the role of facilitating regional cooperative planning between multiple service providers. The fault in doing so is the risk that the

incumbent providers perceive the cooperative as a competitor and, thereby, hesitate to cooperate.

117 | P a g e

Ad Hoc Jurisdictions NWCCOG Cooperative

Build

Infrastructure

An ad hoc organizational structure is not well suited to building infrastructure. Most infrastructure build solutions will require some form of

continuing operations and support. Ad hoc organizational

structures are not well suited to continuing operations. In some cases, a straight-forward infrastructure build designed to be turned over to another organization once implementation is complete can be completed by an ad hoc organizational structure. Individual jurisdictions can certainly build infrastructure. Glenwood Springs has built a municipal network. Many communities have distribution level infrastructure to support their multiple locations. Some have expanded access to their distribution level infrastructure to other community anchor institutions and have investigated extending capability to businesses. The public-private partnership between Steamboat Springs community anchor institutions and northwest Colorado Broadband that created the carrier neutral location in Steamboat Springs is a local jurisdiction effort.

The NWCCOG may be able to effectively manage new infrastructure implementation but it is not a good fit for managing the assets once they are in place.

New infrastructure will likely require ongoing operations and support. Establishing a telecommunications cooperative is the best way to improve broadband in the region through infrastructure deployments.

Table 16: Organizational Structures and Potential Actions 4.4.2 “BEST FITS”

As presented above, the “best fits” between organizational structures and potential actions are: • Ad Hoc Status Quo

Pursuing an ad hoc status quo model represents the lowest risk course of all models. It requires the least effort by the COG and its participating jurisdictions. It also involves little cost and can be easily managed.

An ad hoc status quo model has the least probability of affecting real change to the state of broadband in northwest Colorado. Private network owners will continue to grow their capabilities as their business cases suggest they should. An ad hoc status quo course will offer the region mostly the same broadband improvement trend it has been on. Ad hoc efforts may lift the trend some but significant improvements are unlikely.

118 | P a g e

Jurisdictions creating incentive and penalty programs for incumbent network owners and service providers has historically helped communities secure ubiquitous service, create packages for low income subscribers, establish service for community anchor institutions, and achieve other public policy objectives.

Typically, larger communities with significant revenue opportunities for incumbents have better leverage when working to create incentive and penalty packages. Northwest Colorado

communities may have a difficult time shaping network owner behavior – even if multiple communities cooperate to aggregate markets.

• Jurisdictional Control Broadband Friendly Community

Taking steps to become a broadband friendly community is a fairly low risk method of enticing new service provider entrants or encouraging incumbents to improve service.

Many communities in northwest Colorado simply cannot become friendly enough to lower barriers sufficient to make a business case for private network owners. Furthermore,

broadband friendly communities may have some influence over last mile infrastructure but they do little to improve weaknesses in the middle mile layer.

• NWCCOG Control Regional Cooperative Planning

Some of the region’s network owners have already expressed some interest in participating in regional cooperative planning. Cooperative planning efforts represent the easiest and least capital intensive mechanism to create true middle mile redundancy throughout the region. The improvements that can be made to the region’s middle mile networks may also improve last mile broadband services by improving middle mile reliability and lowering middle mile cost. There is no simple path to creating regional cooperation. Even within CenturyLink itself,

regional cooperation suffers at the borders between the legacy CenturyTel and Qwest networks. Inability to seamlessly merge these networks within the same company does not bode well for the idea of getting competing network owners to work together effectively.

• Telecommunications Cooperative Infrastructure Builds

Establishing a telecommunications cooperative potentially yields the greatest benefits but also entails the highest risk.