Koochiching Charrette Presentation

Koochiching Charrette Presentation

• 1.
  Koochiching Technology Initiative BroadbandPlan Planning Charrette Findings
• 2.
  Key Situational AssessmentFactors • Our vision • Existing providers • Geography and demographics • Community survey results
• 3.
  Our Broadband Vision TheKoochiching Technology Initiative will increase broadband internet access and increase the technological knowledge and skills throughout all of Koochiching County. We have developed a coalition of a diverse group of stakeholders that is well positioned to achieve tangible results. Also, we have overwhelming support from the community and news media outlets.
• 4.
  Existing Broadband Providers •Telephone companies • Cooperative ISP • Price Cap National Telecom • Cable companies: • Large Regional Provider • Fixed Wireless: n/a • Wireless companies: Verizon, ATT, T-Mobile • Satellite: • Hughesnet • Viasat
• 5.
  Broadband Data • Demographics •Number of people: 12,528 • Growth trends: Population is at steady decline and the county has lost roughly 1000 people from 2005 to 2015. This is consistent going back to the 1970’s • Per capita income compared to state average: Koochiching County’s median income is $44,929, Comparatively the states median income $58,476. • Road Miles • Rural • Urban: 34 miles (I-Falls only) • Number of Passings • Single family homes 8,741 • # of multi-family buildings and units: 1,323 units • # of businesses 392
• 6.
  Key Community SurveyResults  282 surveys submitted.  65% of business owners believe their internet puts them at a competitive disadvantage.  Bandwidth was ranked most important to 47% of survey takers followed by price at 20%.  61% say they would not pay more for better internet.  People answered on average between satisfied and neutral for four categories; speed, price, reliability, and customer service.
• 7.
  Challenges • Low incomecounty • Low technical literacy in the county • Community buy-in • Take rates • Geographic distribution • Geography / Terrain (rock, swamp) • Recreational/Seasonal locations • Financing
• 8.
  Key Assets • Existingprovider networks • Mainline fiber • Cable provider • KTI Team / local government and stakeholder buy-in • Population density (ironically) • Starved for broadband • Aligns well with Economic Development plans • Blandin partnership
• 9.
  Technology Decisions • Inthe city, cable modem service from existing provider • Extension from existing operator network • In the rural, FTTH • Preference toward FTTH from existing mainline fiber providers in the area
• 10.
  Partnerships • Existing cablecompany • Existing cooperative ISP/backhaul provider • Existing electric cooperative • Blandin
• 11.
  Potential Finance • Borderto Border Grants • IRRB • USDA RUS Grants • Consolidated Conservation • County • Northstar Electric Cooperative • Blandin Broadband Community • Business Stakeholders • Commercial Banks
• 12.
  Our Plan Summary InKoochiching County we have 5,661 served locations. In this plan, we identified five distinct areas of need as the focus, reaching 1,493 of the 3,080 unserved locations. Developing partnerships will be a key priority for accomplishing this plan, with an existing cable operator in one area, and with an existing cooperative broadband/backhaul provider in the other four areas. Click here for Web Map
• 13.
  Koochiching Charette Results Addresses Mainline Routemi Locations /mi Customers Cost Estimate Cost / Customer Fiber Build 50% Rainy Lake 375 28.22 13.3 188 $ 1,106,200 $ 5,884 Pelland Junction 257 20.92 12.3 129 $ 957,110 $ 7,419 Rogers Corner 279 35.62 7.8 140 $ 1,353,100 $ 9,665 Ray 235 56.56 4.2 118 $ 1,819,620 $ 15,421 Kabetogama 347 27.66 12.5 174 $ 1,138,440 $ 6,543 Total Project 1,493 168.98 8.8 747 $ 6,374,470 $ 8,533
• 14.
  Questions/Contact: Koochiching Technology Initiative JimYount koochiching.tech