Providers clash over proposed broadband funds

WASHINGTON — Internet and telephone communication company representatives met with Washington County Supervisors for a work session last week, going back and forth for over an hour on plans to expand broadband access in the southern portion of the county.

Jefferson County company Natel Broadband has sought county funding for broadband towers it says could bring 100 MB upload and download speeds to several census blocks identified as under served areas by the state.

“This solution was severely vetted,” Natel Founder and President Mike Schill said. “We educated them on the technology and they can see the efficacy of it. The cost per home … is quite a bit less. It’s not an expensive platform, we’ve been looking for a solution like this for a long time.”

While Schill said laying fiber directly to homes would be more effective, he pitched Natel’s wireless proposal as a more cost effective approach for the areas with low population density.

“I love what the independent telecos have done, building out fiber to replace copper,” he said. “It’s the most awesome solution if you can afford to get it out to everywhere.”

The idea, however, has drawn complaints from Washington County phone and broadband companies, which say their competitor’s plan has a number of flaws.

Some skeptical about tower speeds, efficacy

In order to meet requirements for a grant already awarded by the state of Iowa, Natel’s towers would have to deliver 100 MB upload and download speeds. Schill said the towers could do that using 40 MHz of the available spectrum, but the company was shooting for 80.

Farmtel Wireless Manager Sterling Rex said acquiring that much bandwidth was unrealistic.

“We spent $194,000 buying spectrum … it just got too expensive,” he said. “You buy it in 10 MHz blocks, the most any company could buy was 40.”

As a result, local companies working with less revenue have had to settle for less bandwidth.

“I can’t make a 40 operate, I have to operate on 20,” Rex said. “There are other people using the same spectrum, it could be anybody … it could be John Deere operating between this plant and that plant, it doesn’t have to be a public service provider, it could be any entity that wants to make a connection.”

Kalona Cooperative Telephone Company (KCTC) Assistant Manager Jeremy Gugel said even a 40 MHz bandwidth would not meet the needs of the state-required speeds.

“If that’s what’s needed for 100x100, it’s not ever going to be achievable,” he said. “There’s only 80 MHz in GAA (General Authorized Access) available to everyone, and there’s already two providers … nobody’s going to be able to hog all of that.”

Gugel said it wasn’t a limitation of technology, but of physics.

“There’s not enough space in the air for all of this to happen at high bandwidth speeds,” he said. “You’d have to break the laws of physics … there’s only so much frequency.”

Another concern stems from the maps of under served areas. Sharon Telephone Company (STC) General Manager Scott Havel said the state’s methods were unreliable.

“We’ve used Census blocks historically, which, they don’t really tell a true story,” he said. “What we’re working on right now is this fabric map that’s by address. I will tell everyone else, ‘I serve this address at this speed.’”

Other doubts remain about the technology’s effectiveness. The brand and type of tower Natel hopes to install -from a brand called Tarana Wireless — is around 2 years old and not yet widely deployed.

Schill said he remained confident in the platform, though Natel has not yet deployed it in its own network.

“A good friend of mine down in St. Louis, he’s been utilizing it for the last two years as a beta tester,” Schill said. “He said Tarana is the only company that he’s ever used where they say it’ll do X, and it does X … (they) have real high-powered processors in them to be able to process the data to make it possible where it was never possible before. It’s really an impressive feat.”

Rex was more skeptical.

“I think it sounds great in theory, I’ve just never seen this stuff work,” he said. “It’s a lot of hype, it’s a lot of theory, it’s all been around for 12 years, where’s the product?”

Towers won’t interfere with county communications, but might with each other

While county officials have stated their concerns about wireless broadband’s supposed interference with emergency communication systems, providers said the more realistic risk was hindering other private users.

Rex said new towers would risk that interference.

“We’re trying to use the same frequencies, the same technologies,” he said. “Ours is already deployed, it’s already operating in southern Washington County.”

Schill said regulations on broadband frequencies would keep trouble in check.

“We can’t interfere with each other because we both have to comply with a federal system,” he said. “If someone else is using it, you can’t use it, so it’s not going to be an issue.”

STC’s Scott Havel disagreed. He said a new wireless provider would almost certainly clutter the airwaves.

“If you introduce another provider that’s going to battle for that same space, those customers today that are getting 25 might get 20, or might get 15, or it might be sporadic,” he said. “If you’re the only that’s on the interstate, you’re going down the road, everything’s good. If it’s a Hawkeye football game and you’re going down the interstate, it’s a different deal, it’s the same concept. The more users that are using that limited bandwidth … they share your bandwidth.”

In any case, the providers agreed new towers would not risk disrupting the county’s recently purchased emergency communications system, which operates on a distant bandwidth from commercial broadband.

“There is an emergency band that’s made for public utilities,” Rex said. “It’s illegal for us to operate in that range without some sort of special or temporary authorization, we don’t use that frequency.”

Concerns linger about tech’s life span

Opponents say wireless broadband has less staying power than fiber-optic cables.

“Fiber’s super expensive, but it’s pretty future-proof,” Farmtel’s Sterling Rex said. “It’s 1 gig today, 10 gig tomorrow. You don’t have to replace anything but the electronics on either end.”

Schill said he was confident the technology would not go obsolete any time soon.

“The platform we’re deploying … in the future will be even faster,” he said. “Even 100 (MB) is pretty future-proof for most people.”

KCTC General Manager Casey Peck disagreed. She said higher speeds were becoming key to attracting prospective community members.

“I would have thought the same thing two or three years ago when we started offering gig service, that that is like overkill,” she said. “We’ve had Apple app developers move from Iowa City, they’re subscribed to our 1 Gig service and they use it. I do think that as more people stream, more people do Zoom calls … I don’t think it’s a long-term thing to say 100x100.”

Peck urged supervisors to hold out for fiber-optic networks that would be easier to upgrade down the road.

“What you invest in today and what choices you make today can make a difference in your future,” she said. “When you replace a tower system, you’re going to replace not only the tower, but the piece of equipment in the customer’s home, that’s not going to be the case with fiber.”

Regardless of longevity, Natel’s plan appears the fastest solution for under served areas of the county. Fiber-optic cables would only be needed running to the wireless towers, rather than to every home served.

Supervisor Jack Seward Jr. said that was a major upside.

“It’s all in timing,” he said. “We have never had any money to give like that, but the timing right now is, the feds threw us a bucket of money and we’re trying to figure out what to do with it … these guys have a plan to get better service for places in Washington County that have been identified as not having good service.”

Local competition feels left out

Managers of broadband companies in Washington County expressed discontent with the proposal from an out-of-county provider. Peck said local businesses’ tax revenue and jobs justified consideration.

“I have two brick and mortar businesses in your county … we’ve paid a lot of tax dollars into this county so you could do a lot of different things, given lots to your county in many different ways,” she said. “I feel a little bit frustrated, to be frank about it, that somebody that is not in your county, has never put dollars into your county, would have the opportunity to come in and get $150,000.”

The representatives said their companies could make use of the funds to expand access, given some time to plan.

“We have a lot of customers in Washington County, and if you’ve got money to offer, we can definitely build our networks out even further,” Sterling Rex said. “So I guess I’m putting my name in the hat as well … we already have a lot of fiber self-funded.”

Havel said most already had plans to serve the rest of the county in the works: plans that could be accelerated with a funding boost from the county.

“We’re trying to work our way around the county, we’ve got another grant north of Riverside, we just overbuilt the town of Riverside with no grant money,” he said. “Everywhere we can, we look at those spots that make sense for us … we’re either serving them with our own dollars or we’re supplementing them with grant funding.”

Schill defended his company’s involvement, saying a new provider in the county would incentivize improvements for everyone.

“Competition is always good for the consumer,” he said. “It makes for better service, better customer service, better pricing, and we’re not afraid to compete … the cost per subscriber is low, the cost we’re asking from you is relatively low, and it helps leverage the funding we’re already getting to make it possible. I agree fiber is the best, but it’s going to take time. These subscribers could have service now.”

County officials focused on market principles

Jack Seward Jr. has already stated hopes that funding Natel would spark healthy competition.

“Somebody said, ‘Hey, if you’re going to give this kind of money you’re favoring one company that provides broadband over existing companies,’” he said at a separate meeting in mid-June. “This new company coming in, Natel, provides competition. What we’ve got already is established and there is no competition.”

He maintained that position during the work session last week, saying a new wireless option would only attract users unsatisfied with their current options.

“The map we’ve been provided by Natel pretty much fills up most of those gaps,” he said. “So the only customers he’s going to get are the customers that you guys aren’t.”

Supervisor Bob Yoder said he wasn’t persuaded to use spend taxpayer dollars on broadband.

“One path is to go down the free market path, the other path is government subsidies,” he said. “The more I think about it, I lean a lot more to let the free market do it’s thing … the amount of worthy projects that there are that we should do always exceeds the amount of money we have to do it with, and that will never change.”

Others have not yet made a decision. Board of Supervisors Chair Richard Young said it would take time to sift through the information.

“I don’t think we’re going to solve this today,” he said. “If you’ve got further information, you can send it to us.”

Comments: Kalen.McCain@southeastiowaunion.com