Nevada Broadband - Connected Nation

Nevada Broadband Preliminary Overview of Broadband Infrastructure & Adoption in Nevada

The First in a Series of Reports by Connect Nevada

October 2010

Table of Contents Executive Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 1

Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

2 The FCC’s National Broadband Plan and Nevada’s Broadband Infrastructure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 2.1

The National Broadband Plan Goals and Objectives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

2.2

The Broadband Availability Gap in Nevada and Policy Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

2.2.1

Broadband Infrastructure Gap in Nevada . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

2.2.2

Strategies to Close the Availability Gap . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

2.3

The Broadband Adoption Gap . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16

2.3.1

Broadband Adopters and Non-Adopters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18

2.3.2

Barriers to Adoption . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18

2.3.3

Broadband Applications and Uses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20

2.3.4

Strategies to Close the Adoption Gap . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21

3 Connect Nevada Broadband Inventory and Analysis – Spring 2010 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 3.1

Broadband Availability in Nevada – A State Bird’s-eye View . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23

3.1.1

Fixed Broadband Inventory . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23

3.1.2

Broadband Availability by Technology Platform . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26

3.1.3

Household Density Across Unserved, Underserved, and Served Areas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27

3.1.4

All Terrestrial Broadband Inventory – Including Mobile Wireless Networks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28

3.2

Broadband In Nevada Counties . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29

3.2.1

Terrestrial, Fixed Broadband Availability by County . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29

3.2.2

Fixed Broadband Availability Across Rural and Non-Rural Counties . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35

3.2.3

Nevada’s Underserved Households Across Counties . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38

3.2.4

Broadband Availability by Platform, by County . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40

3.2.5

Nevada’s Counties – Deeper Examination . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41

3.3

Federal and Tribal Lands . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53

3.3.1

Federal land in Nevada . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54

3.3.2

Tribal land in Nevada . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55

3.4

Universal Service Funding in Nevada . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57

3.5 Broadband Stimulus Investments in Nevada Through the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act . . . . . 59 3.6

FCC and Connect Nevada Availability Estimates – A Comparative Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61

3.7

Connectivity Across Community Anchor Institutions in the State of Nevada . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65

Appendix A: Connect Nevada Residential Technology Assessment, June 2010 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A-1 Appendix B: List of Participating and Non-Participating Providers in Connect Nevada’s Broadband Inventory . . . . . . B-1

1

The Broadband Market in the State of Nevada

Executive Summary This assessment of the broadband market in Nevada is conducted by Connect Nevada in partnership with the Nevada Broadband Task Force as part of the State Broadband Data and Development grant program (SBDD) funded by the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA). This report aims to provide a detailed review of the current state of broadband in Nevada that will spark discussion across multiple broadband stakeholders in the state on key policy and strategies to expand and enhance the broadband experience for all Nevadans. The SBDD grant program was created by the Broadband Data Improvement Act (BDIA), unanimously passed by Congress in 2008, and funded by the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) in 2009. As part of the SBDD grant program, in April 2010, Connect Nevada produced a map of broadband availability to identify served and unserved areas across the state. Additionally, Connect Nevada undertook survey research in the spring of 2010 to understand broadband demand trends across the state. The purpose of this research is to better understand the drivers and barriers to technology and broadband adoption and estimate the “Broadband Adoption Gap” across the state of Nevada. Appendix A of this report presents extensive results of this research. The demand-side survey data complements the mapping inventory information describing the state of broadband supply in Nevada. This report analyzes this complementary demand-side and supply-side research and contrasts the data with national benchmarks released by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) as part of the National Broadband Plan (NBP).1 Following the spirit of the NBP and based on the broadband availability and adoption data collected by Connect Nevada, this report proposes a series of recommendations intended to spur discussion and feedback among key stakeholders across Nevada. To account for feedback to this report, the Nevada Broadband Task Force, working with Connect Nevada, will facilitate listening sessions across the state and will gather feedback through multiple other means to ensure all voices are heard and included. This process will ensure a fully informed Broadband Action Plan to be developed and released by the Nevada Broadband Task Force and Connect Nevada in 2011.

Overview of the Broadband Market in Nevada Nevada’s broadband marketplace is a deeply interesting case study in extremes. Geographically large, Nevada is a state that is very urban in two places and very rural everywhere else. Because more than four-fifths of Nevadans reside in the Las Vegas and Reno/Carson City areas, broadband inventory data shows high availability of broadband in the state. The outlook, however, for the state’s remaining households that exist elsewhere in the state indicates fewer choices and slower speeds. It is estimated that as of April 2010, terrestrial, fixed broadband providers offer service to 97.85% of all Nevada households.23 This implies that an estimated 16,164 Nevada households (2.15%) lack basic broadband service and remain unserved by terrestrial, fixed broadband. It is further estimated that approximately 96.09% of Nevada households have broadband available at download speeds of 3 Mbps or more. This implies that an estimated 13,172 Nevada households have basic broadband available but lack fixed broadband service of at least 3 Mbps downstream – a service level now often considered necessary for effectively conducting many Internet applications. The NTIA classifies broadband service at download speeds below 3 Mbps as “underserved.” The data necessary to compile these broadband inventory estimates were collected on a voluntary basis from broadband providers serving the state of Nevada. Appendix B of this report details which providers did, and did not, allow the use of their data in the creation of Nevada’s broadband inventory map. 1

Broadband is defined according to current NTIA definition of at least 768 Kbps download and 200 Kbps upload speeds.

2

Broadband is defined according to current NTIA definition of at least 768 Kbps download and 200 Kbps upload speeds.

3

Broadband data collected from 42 Nevada broadband providers. See Appendix B.

Connect Nevada

2

Statewide estimates do not necessarily reflect the reality faced by each Nevada community. Connect Nevada county-level availability estimates reveal variances, in some cases large, in measured broadband inventory across counties, highlighting the importance of granular data in order to identify gaps in infrastructure and adoption at the community level. County-level as well as more granular, street-level broadband inventory data is available through Connect Nevada’s interactive, online broadband inventory map at http://www.connectnv.org. Significant variance in broadband availability across rural and non-rural counties is measured at different speed tiers. Further, availability at the county level by different broadband platforms similarly varies greatly (for example, fixed wireless availability in rural counties varies from 0% in Eureka and Mineral counties, to 99.94% of households served in the Consolidated Municipality of Carson City. Only two counties in Nevada have any access to fiber). What is important to understand when considering broadband availability in the state of Nevada is that close to 86% of the state’s population resides in two counties: Clark (which includes the city of Las Vegas) and Washoe (which includes the city of Reno). The remaining 14% (or 106,000 households) resides in a state that is the seventh largest in the U.S. geographically, but where 86% of the land is owned by the United States government.4 In fact, while terrestrial, non-mobile broadband is available to 97.85% of Nevada, geographic availability is limited to only 6.05% of the state’s total landmass. Furthermore, each county in Nevada is examined for insight into the factors that may impact current and future broadband investment, deployment, and adoption. Considerations such as geographic size, population, population density, household density, and other factors are described. The disparity of the broadband market across counties suggests that ongoing investment in broadband capacity is affected by local factors. Understanding these local dynamics is essential to developing pragmatic policy solutions tailored to the broadband challenges facing each community. Connect Nevada survey research shows that as of March 2010, just more than three-quarters (78%) of Nevada residents have a broadband connection in the home, which implies an adoption gap for the state of Nevada of 22% of households, smaller than the national adoption gap measured by the FCC.5 This implies that just over one-fifth of Nevada households have basic broadband available but, for various reasons, are choosing not to subscribe to the service in their home. Of the 22% of Nevadans without a home broadband connection, 50% report a lack of interest in broadband, 29% report a lack of a computer as the primary barrier to broadband, 28% say broadband is too expensive, and only 6% report lack of broadband availability to their home. Connect Nevada survey data also show that 11% of Nevada residents do not own a home computer. This translates to more than 207,000 adults without a home computer, with 51% of those without a computer saying they do not believe they need one. FCC national data indicates that non-adopters are generally senior citizens, members of ethnic minorities, rural dwellers, people with disabilities, people of low income, and/or people with less education,6 and these data are largely in line with estimated adoption rates by these same demographic groups in the state of Nevada, with broadband adoption rates for seniors, low-income households, low-income households with children, minorities, those with disabilities and rural households all falling below the statewide broadband adoption average of 78%. Any discussion of broadband availability in Nevada is incomplete without examining the proportion of land in the state that is owned by the federal and tribal governments. This report provides maps comparing broadband availability with federal and tribal lands. This report also details the current impact of key components of the federal Universal Service Fund (USF) program and the state of Nevada’s Universal Service Fund, and contrasts data pertaining to these programs 4

U.S. Bureau of Land Management, 2007.

5

Broadband Adoption and Use in America: OBI Working Paper Series No. 1, J. Horrigan, Federal Communications Commission, February 2010.

6

Broadband Adoption and Use in America: OBI Working Paper Series No. 1, J. Horrigan, Federal Communications Commission, February 2010.

3


with estimates of broadband availability. The FCC Universal Service Fund reforms currently underway are likely to have important implications across the state, and further examination of the impact of comprehensive USF disbursements across Nevada communities is recommended in order to assess the historical and ongoing impact of this federal program upon the broadband market in Nevada and evaluate the implications of proposed reforms. The extent of broadband stimulus funding from the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act that has been obligated to Nevada is detailed in Section 3.5. To date, over $233 million has been announced for projects, either wholly or in part, in Nevada. Connect Nevada’s broadband availability estimates are compared to county-level availability estimates derived in the FCC study “The Broadband Availability Gap,” part of the NBP.7 This study informs the national debate over Universal Service Fund reform currently led by the FCC. Connect Nevada estimates that 96.09% of Nevada households have broadband available at download speeds of 3 Mbps or more. By contrast, the FCC estimates that nationwide, approximately 95% of households have broadband available at download speeds of 4 Mbps or more. A county-level comparison of the two studies reveals significant disparities in broadband availability estimates, particularly in counties with lower population density. Disparities evident at the local level between the Connect Nevada broadband inventory and the FCC Availability Gap simulation for the state of Nevada may result from unique structural factors of the broadband market in the state of Nevada. It is important to continue gathering and validating broadband inventory and adoption data in the state of Nevada – particularly in rural areas – in order to accurately measure the broadband gaps across the state and inform the ongoing Universal Service Fund reform debate currently underway at the FCC.

Policy Considerations The FCC’s NBP recommends a series of strategies to ensure that broadband is more affordable and accessible to all Americans. The NBP recommends a holistic approach to address the availability and adoption gaps by tackling key barriers to adoption including relevance, affordability, digital literacy, and availability. The holistic approach includes programs aimed to encourage adoption in the home, as well as the strengthening of public computing and Internet access capacity at community anchor institutions (schools, libraries, hospitals etc). This approach is consistent with the programs that Congress unanimously mandated in the BDIA. The NBP and BDIA call for a series of principles and programs to be implemented at the federal, state, and local levels for achieving pragmatic solutions to the broadband availability and adoption gaps. Key among these are the following recommendations and programs particularly relevant to the state of Nevada and its communities.

7

The Broadband Availability Gap: OBI Technical Paper No. 1, Federal Communications Commission, April 2010.

Connect Nevada

4

Strategies to Address the Broadband Availability Gap

5

■■

Conduct further analysis of the impact of Universal Service Fund and Intercarrier Compensation Rules Reform upon communities across Nevada. Further research and analysis of FCC data and proposals is recommended to better understand the impact of proposed reforms.

■■

Encourage coordination at the state and local level aimed to achieve economies of scale and promote efficiency of public investments, including comprehensive planning for broadband in infrastructure projects; joint deployment of broadband conduit alongside state financed or enabled infrastructure projects; establishment of “Gigabit Communities” or “Broadband Corridors” in regions in the state; and assessing the possibility of developing a set of state master contracts to expedite the placement of wireless towers on state government property and buildings.

■■

Craft specific planning activities for rural and tribal areas in the state. Large, sparsely populated areas dominate the Nevada landscape, and any efforts to provide high-speed broadband services will require a robust partnership between the public and private sectors.

■■

Facilitate further expansion of mobile 3G and 4G networks by streamlining local and state rules and regulations affecting the cost and build-out speed of towers supporting these networks.

■■

Encourage development of statewide “smart grids” that leverage the state’s broadband infrastructure, making Nevada a more efficient producer and consumer of energy.

■■

Promote lower costs of access to key network inputs such as utility-owned poles, ducts, conduits, and rights-of-way.

■■

Leverage the opportunities potentially available under the extended SBDD grant program to promote public-private partnerships to address existing gaps in the network at the local level.

■■

Continue efforts to measure and map broadband inventory data. The April 2010 Connect Nevada estimates of broadband inventory and mapping is a first-of-its-kind tool that enables a clearer picture of the challenges and opportunities for broadband expansion in Nevada. This report summarizes the results of this research at the county level, and concludes that when it comes to broadband, one-sizefits-all does not apply. It is not enough to evaluate statewide trends and broadband inventory. Granular data at the county level and beyond is necessary to accurately measure the challenges on the ground and develop sound, pragmatic policy to address them. Hence, continued efforts to collect, validate, and benchmark broadband supply and demand data across the state is recommended.


Strategies to Address the Broadband Adoption Gap

■■

Promote and facilitate local community engagement aimed to address local barriers to adoption and develop pragmatic solutions tailored to each community.

■■

Promote public-private partnerships at the state and local levels to build education and awareness campaigns focused on the benefits of broadband technology among at-risk populations. Awareness campaigns should target at-risk populations and address the concrete and pragmatic benefits that broadband technology can afford every community, neighborhood, school, library, community center, and household. Leverage the potential opportunity under the extended SBDD grant program to conduct statewide broadband awareness campaigns and local, grassroots broadband adoption stimulation strategies.

■■

Expand, improve, or create pragmatic digital literacy programs at the state and local level and leverage digital literacy resources available via the NBP proposed National Digital Literacy Program.

■■

Encourage public-private collaboration to educate consumers and families about the reality of online risks and promote online safety practices among children and citizens. Work with not-for-profits promoting online safety practices and encourage online safety practices and principles across various state departments and among educators in the state of Nevada. If funded, leverage the extended SBDD grant program’s statewide broadband awareness campaign strategies.

■■

Leverage the proposed federal National Broadband Clearinghouse portal aimed to promote best practices and information sharing, as well as the federal Online Digital Literacy Portal program.

■■

Promote expansion of publicly available computing and online resources leveraging federal, state, local, and private funds. Optimize access to federal resources available through programs such as the USF Schools and Libraries Program (E-Rate) and Rural Health Care Program as well as public funding available through the federal Institute of Museum and Library Services (IMLS).

■■

Monitor and assess how the proposed reform in the NBP of the Low Income Pprogram under the Universal Service Fund will affect Nevadans.

■■

Coordinate with Nevada tribal nations on broadband issues. The NBP recognizes the importance of working with tribal nations to develop programs tailored to address the particular technology adoption challenges faced by these communities.

Connect Nevada

6

1

Introduction

Connect Nevada is working in partnership with the Nevada Broadband Task Force to implement the State Broadband Data and Development grant program (SBDD) in the state. The SBDD grant program was created by the Broadband Data Improvement Act (BDIA), unanimously passed by Congress in 2008 and funded by the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) in 2009.8 The original SBDD grant program included two key components as defined in the Notice of Funds Availability (NOFA) released by the National Telecommunications and Information Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, in 2009: the Broadband Mapping and Planning Programs.9 In April 2010, Connect Nevada produced a map of the inventory of broadband availability across the state. The purpose of this program is to collect comprehensive data from all broadband providers to create an inventory of the broadband infrastructure across the state. A key goal of the mapping exercise is to identify communities and households that remain unserved or underserved by broadband service; information that is essential to estimate the “Broadband Availability Gap” and understand the scope and scale of providing universal broadband service to all citizens across the state. The April 2010 Connect Nevada Broadband Inventory Map is the first comprehensive inventory of broadband infrastructure in the state. The inventory will be updated twice yearly with the upcoming submission scheduled for the fall of 2010. The map in Figure 1 has been included for illustration purposes only. A high-quality version of this map is available at: ftp://ftp.connectnv.org/CNVPublic/Connect_Nevada_Mapping/Statewide_Maps/NV_Statewide_ Broadband_Official.pdf

8

Broadband Data Improvement Act, P.L. 110-385, (“BDIA”).

9

State Broadband and Development Grant Program Notice of Funding Availability, NTIA,U.S.Department of Commerce, July 9, 2009. (“SBDD NOFA”). Available at http://www.ntia.doc.gov/frnotices/2009/FR_BBNOFA_090709.pdf

7


Broadband Service Inventory An interactive version is available at: http://www.connectnv.org/mapping/_interactive_map_interface/?q=map for the State of Nevada Figure 1: Broadband Service Inventory for the State of Nevada

HUMBOLDT

ELKO

WASHOE

PERSHING

EUREKA

LANDER

CHURCHILL STOREY WHITE PINE

CARSON CITY

LYON DOUGLAS

MINERAL

Symbology NYE

Interstate US Road

ESMERALDA

County Boundary LINCOLN

Water National and State Lands Fiber Broadband Available Cable Broadband Available DSL Broadband Available Fixed Wireless Broadband Available Mobile Wireless Broadband Available Unserved Areas

Submit questions or recommended changes to: [email protected] This map represents areas of broadband service availability determined by technical analysis of provider networks and accommodations for the impact of external factors on servicequality. Satellite broadband services may also be available. Map users are encouraged to participate in improving broadband data granularity through data validation and field testing efforts. Learn more about this and other broadband mapping facts at www.connectnv.org. As required by the US Department of Commerce’s State Broadband Data and Development Grant Program, if broadband service is available to at least one household in a census block, then for mapping purposes, that census block is reported to have some level of broadband availability. As such, broadband availability at an exact address location cannot be guaranteed. Providers supplying more specific data than census block are displayed as such.

CLARK

Updated April 30, 2010 BETA Version

±

0 10 20

40

60

80

Miles All Rights Reserved. © Copyright 2010, Connected Nation, Washington, D.C. 20001

Connect Nevada

8

The Planning program complements and builds upon this Mapping program. To complement the broadband inventory and mapping data, Connect Nevada has undertaken survey research to understand broadband demand trends across the state. In the spring of 2010, Connect Nevada surveyed a sample of 1,200 households across the state to inquire about their current use of broadband and related technologies. The purpose of this research is to better understand the drivers and barriers to technology and broadband adoption and estimate the “Broadband Adoption Gap” across the state of Nevada. Key questions the data address are: Which citizens are using broadband technology across the state of Nevada? How and where are they using it across the state? How is this technology impacting Nevada households and citizens? And, importantly, who is not adopting broadband service and why? What are the barriers that still prevent citizens from embracing this empowering technology? The demand-side survey data and the mapping inventory describing the state of broadband supply in Nevada afford the first-of-its-kind comprehensive review of the state of broadband in Nevada. Based on these data, this report aims to provide a detailed review of the current state of broadband in Nevada that will spark discussion across multiple broadband stakeholders in the state on key policy goals and strategies to expand and enhance the broadband experience for all Nevadans. The report should be understood as a beginning - and not an end for a comprehensive review of matters affecting the broadband market in the state. To this goal, the report analyzes this complementary demand-side and supply-side research and contrasts the data with national benchmarks released by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) as part of the National Broadband Plan.10 The state of Nevada potentially has the opportunity to obtain further federal resources under the SBDD grant program expansion of mid-2010 that would complement the Mapping and Planning SBDD grants awarded in 2009. In partnership with the Nevada Broadband Task Force, Connect Nevada submitted in July an extended application for federal funds under the SBDD grant program. This application requests funding to finance a series of complementary programs including: expanded broadband inventory and demand-side data collection; state broadband capacity building that will coordinate and facilitate strategies to implement pragmatic policies for broadband expansion; and regional technology planning teams that will leverage statewide resources, tools, and best practices in order to facilitate local pragmatic solutions to address the broadband availability and adoption challenges faced by each community across Nevada. This report is structured as follows: Section 2 provides a summary overview of the estimated broadband availability and adoption gaps across the state of Nevada. Based on these data, the section summarizes policy recommendations inspired by the principles and vision of the FCC’s NBP as they apply to the state of Nevada. Section 3 provides a detailed analysis of the broadband availability gap across the state. This section presents an analysis of the SBDD broadband inventory data and compares and contrasts estimated broadband inventory in Nevada with national benchmarks. Finally, Appendix A of this report includes the Connect Nevada Technology Assessment, June 2010, providing detailed results from Connect Nevada’s spring 2010 residential survey research. Appendix B provides a list of participating broadband providers in Nevada’s SBDD program, without which the creation of Nevada’s broadband inventory maps would not have been possible.

10 Connecting America: The National Broadband Plan, Federal Communications Commission, April 2010. (“National Broadband Plan” or “NBP”). Available at http://www.broadband.gov/plan/.

9


2 The FCC’s National Broadband Plan and Nevada’s Broadband Infrastructure This section provides a summary overview of the estimated broadband availability and adoption gaps across the state of Nevada. This overview is based on Connect Nevada’s extensive broadband inventory data, analyzed in detail in Section 3, and survey research data, described in detail in Appendix A. Based on this data, the section summarizes a series of policy recommendations inspired by the principles and vision of the FCC’s NBP as they apply to the state of Nevada. The overview and recommendations of this section are based on data and policy recommendations from two key sources: ■■

The National Broadband Plan: The NBP presents a series of studies analyzing the state of broadband across the USA. These data are used as a benchmark against which we compare data collected in the state of Nevada. Furthermore, the NBP provides a series of goals and recommendations that are evaluated in this section in light of the state of broadband in the state of Nevada. This section outlines policy recommendations that are particularly relevant to the state of Nevada, given the current state of broadband inventory and usage among consumers, businesses, and various key sectors.

■■

The Connect Nevada broadband inventory and survey research funded under the SBDD mapping grant.

The National Broadband Plan is more than 350 pages long and offers a broad set of recommendations directed at more than 20 federal agencies as well as state and local government. In order to synthesize the key elements of these recommendations that are most relevant to the state of Nevada, this section focuses on two key “gap” areas: the broadband availability gap and the broadband adoption and digital skills gap. Future iterations of this report will seek to address and adapt key proposals from the National Broadband Plan that address key national purposes, as well as provide updates on Connect Nevada broadband inventory and survey research activities and findings.

2.1 The National Broadband Plan Goals and Objectives The National Broadband Plan includes six broad goals addressing broadband expansion across the U.S. that form the basis for the strategies it outlines. The first goal calls for at least 100 million U.S. homes with affordable access to actual download speeds of at least 100 Mbps and actual upload speeds of at least 50 Mbps by 2020. It further establishes an interim milestone goal whereby 100 million homes should have affordable broadband available with actual download speeds of 50 Mbps and actual upload speeds of 20 Mbps by 2015.11 Goal 2 of the NBP establishes that the U.S. should lead the world in mobile innovation, with the fastest and most extensive wireless network of any nation and establishes recommendations to reach this goal and accelerate deployment of 3G mobile networks where they are lacking, as well as new 4G technology across the country.12 Goal 3 of the NBP calls for universal affordable access to robust broadband service, and the means and skills for residents to subscribe if they so choose. The NBP also defines a minimum or “floor” capacity for such universal access of 4 Mbps actual download speeds and 1 Mbps actual upload speed capacity. This “floor” speed is the minimum capacity target for the formulation of a new Connect America Fund, designed to substitute the existing Universal Service Fund program (USF) and subsidize the construction of such networks in unserved and underserved areas across America.13

11

NBP, p. 9.

12

Ibid.

13 NBP, p. 10.

Connect Nevada

10

Goal 4 of the NBP targets community anchor institutions (hospitals, schools, government buildings, etc.) with the goal of ensuring that every American community has affordable access to least 1 Gbps broadband service at these institutions. Goal 5 of the NBP is to ensure that every first responder has access to a nationwide, wireless, interoperable broadband public safety network. Finally, Goal 6 of the NBP is that every American should be able to use broadband to track and manage their energy consumption in “real-time.” One key area related to all of these recommendations is the goal of universal availability of broadband infrastructure.

2.2 The Broadband Availability Gap in Nevada and Policy Recommendations 2.2.1 Broadband Infrastructure Gap in Nevada Table 1 reports summary statistics of the estimated fixed, terrestrial broadband availability inventory across the state of Nevada. The table presents the number and percentage of unserved and served households by fixed broadband by speed tiers. Speed tiers are based on the definitions provided by the NTIA’s rules for the implementation of the SBDD grant program.14 Table 1 is based on data from all terrestrial, non-mobile platforms, including cable, DSL, fiber, and fixed wireless, but excluding households served by mobile or satellite broadband. While the NTIA definition of unserved areas encompasses all broadband platforms, including mobile wireless networks, Table 1 focuses only on fixed, terrestrial broadband infrastructure and excludes mobile and satellite service territory.15

14 Speed tiers are based on the tiers defined by the NTIA in the SBDD NOFA, Technical Appendix. 15 “Unserved area means a proposed funded service area, composed of one or more contiguous Census Blocks, where at least 90 percent of households in the proposed funded service area lack access to facilities-based, terrestrial broadband service, either fixed or mobile, at the minimum broadband transmission speed (set forth in the definition of broadband above). A household has access to broadband service if the household can readily subscribe to that service upon request.” SBDD NOFA Section III Page 32549

11


Table 1 –Estimate of Broadband Service Availability in the State of Nevada – By Speed Tier Among Fixed Platforms SBDD Download Speed Tiers

Unserved Households

Served Households

Percent Households By Speed Tier

At Least 768 Kbps

16,164

735,000

97.85%

At Least 1.5 Mbps

19,839

731,325

97.36%

At Least 3 Mbps

29,336

721,828

96.09%

At Least 6 Mbps

49,116

702,048

93.46%

At Least 10 Mbps

62,584

672,415

89.52%

At Least 25 Mbps

747,070

4,095

0.55%

At Least 50 Mbps

749,928

1,237

0.16%

At Least 100 Mbps

750,138

1,027

0.14%

At Least 1 Gbps

751,165

0

0.00%

Source: Connect Nevada, April 2010. The total number of households in Nevada in 2000 was 751,165 for a total population of 1,998,257.16 In April 2010 fixed broadband was available to approximately 735,000 households, or 97.85% of all Nevada households.17 This implies that approximately 16,000 Nevada households, or 2.15%, remain unserved by terrestrial, fixed broadband.18,19 Further, approximately 721,000 households across Nevada have broadband available of at least 3 Mbps download speeds. The percentage of Nevada households having fixed broadband access available of at least 6 Mbps download speeds is estimated at 93.46%. Taking into account both fixed and mobile broadband service platforms, an estimated 99.48% of Nevada households had broadband available from at least one provider at download speeds of 768 Kbps or higher and of 3 – 6 Mbps download speeds. This implies that 0.51% of households remain unserved by a terrestrial broadband connection (including mobile).20 Statewide mobile broadband availability is discussed in greater detail in Section 3.1.4. However, statewide estimates do not necessarily reflect the reality faced by each community. Section 3.2 analyzes estimated broadband inventory across all Nevada counties. Figures 6 and 7 in that section present estimated number and percentage of households served by terrestrial, non-mobile broadband at speeds of 768 download/200 upload Kbps and above, as well as 3 Mbps download speeds or more and including household density by county. The data reveals large variances in measured broadband inventory across counties as well

16 National Census, 2000, U.S. Census Bureau. 17 Broadband is defined according to the current NTIA and FCC definition as 768 Kbps download and 200 Kbps upload speeds. 18 “Unserved area means a proposed funded service area, composed of one or more contiguous Census Blocks, where at least 90 percent of households in the proposed funded service area lack access to facilities-based, terrestrial broadband service, either fixed or mobile, at the minimum broadband transmission speed (set forth in the definition of broadband above). A household has access to broadband service if the household can readily subscribe to that service upon request.”

SBDD NOFA Section III Page 32549

19 While the NTIA definition of “unserved” and “underserved” areas encompasses all broadband platforms, including mobile wireless networks, Table 3 focuses only on fixed, terrestrial broadband infrastructure. Table 8 includes data across all terrestrial platforms. 20 Note that this measure of broadband availability is based on households passed, not geography served. Further, consumers may experience lower availability of mobile broadband service since typically each consumer has access to only one mobile broadband provider. Hence, existence of mobile broadband service by one provider does not necessarily imply that all mobile subscribers have access at that location. Only subscribers to the mobile services available within that location will experience reception.

Connect Nevada

12

as population and household density, highlighting the importance of granular data in order to identify gaps in infrastructure and adoption at the community level. Such information is essential to develop pragmatic policy solutions tailored to the challenges facing each community. Table 1 indicates that the extent of broadband across Nevada is extensive, with 97.85% of households able to connect at download speeds of at least 768 Kbps. Yet, the data reveals that there is still a gap to fill in order to reach the goals set in the NBP. Despite private as well as public investment, an estimated 16,000 households remain unserved by any kind of terrestrial fixed broadband, and approximately 29,000 households are served with broadband service offering speeds below 3 Mbps, or speeds classified as “underserved” by the NTIA.21 This estimate of approximately 45,000 unserved or underserved households is included in the FCC national estimate of 7 million households with no available broadband service or with service at speeds below the NBP target of 4 Mbps download and 1 Mbps upload speed capacity.22 However, given the low density of population in unserved areas across Nevada, it is likely that providing support to connect unserved households across Nevada will continue to fall well within the established rules and programs of the Connect America Fund, currently being designed. The average density of households per Census Block that remains unserved across Nevada is 0.67 (households per square mile of land territory).23 The NBP recommends a series of federal, state, and local measures that aim to encourage further private investment in order to fill these gaps and reach the NBP Goal 1 and 2 targets. We discuss below some of the key recommendations as they apply to the state of Nevada.

2.2.2 Strategies to Close the Availability Gap ■■

Universal Service Fund & Intercarrier Compensation Rules Reform

The NBP calls for a Universal Service Fund (USF) and Intercarrier Compensation (ICC) reform.24 The NBP and the FCC’s Notice of Inquiry (NOI) regarding the reform of the USF High Cost programs correctly asserts that the current federal High Cost USF program, projected to amount to $4.6 billion in 2010, is established to fund traditional POTS (Plain Old Telephone Services) and not broadband services and states that “[w] hile the High-Cost program has made a material difference in enabling households in many high cost areas of America to have access to affordable voice service, it will not do the same for broadband without reform of the current system.”25 FCC procedures to address these proposed reforms are underway in the form of various NOIs and Notices of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) to further understand the complexity of the reform and propose rulemakings.26 In light of this, the following considerations should be taken into account as Nevada policymakers contemplate strategies to expand broadband: 2.2.2.i.

Further exploring the impact of current USF program across different communities of Nevada – both capital investment and operational subsidies. Section 3 below examines data available regarding USF funding to the state of Nevada, as well as the Nevada Universal Service Fund. As noted in this report, this data is revealing, yet insufficient to fully assess the impact upon Nevadans of the current USF program. It does not, for example, include data regarding the

21 Connect Nevada collected data from providers in order to estimate the statewide broadband inventory using the NTIA speed tiers defined in the SBDD NOFA. There is no speed tier in this classification that corresponds directly to the floor target selected by the NBP, of 4 Mbps actual download speeds and 1 Mbps actual upload speed. The closest feasible comparison, therefore, is the NTIA defined tier of at least 3 Mbps to 6 Mbps download speeds. 22 The Broadband Availability Gap: OBI Technical Paper No. 1, Federal Communications Commission, April 2010. (“FCC Broadband Availability Gap” or “Broadband Availability Gap”). Available at http://www.broadband.gov/plan/broadband-working-reports-technicalpapers.html. For a broader discussion of this study and its repercussion, see Section 3 of this report. 23 See Section 3 below for a full discussion of the density of population across served and unserved areas in the state of Nevada. 24 NBP, p.10. 25 NBP, p. 140-142 and Federal Communications Commission, Notice of Inquiry, High-Cost Universal Service Support, WC Docket No. 05337, April 21, 2010, (“USF NOI”). 26 USF NOI.

13


levels of historical funding accruing to various regions and communities for High Cost Loop support; support under other components of the High Cost program; low-income support programs-related subsidies; or disbursements under the E-Rate and Rural Health Care Program support. Furthermore, the data do not demonstrate the impact of ICC access rates upon rural broadband investments in Nevada. Because all of these programs are interrelated, it is imperative to further understand how they affect communities across Nevada in order to evaluate the impact of proposed reforms to the USF currently underway. Hence, collection and analysis of further data regarding USF disbursements and infrastructure enabled by these interlocking programs is recommended. 2.2.2.ii.

■■

Engaging in the FCC discussion over USF and ICC reform to understand, and where possible measure, the impact upon Nevada communities. In particular, consideration should be given to establishing a dialogue with the FCC to explore the particularities of the Nevada market and contrast them to FCC national assessment of the Availability Gap, which serves as a key benchmark for the USF reform debate. The FCC’s Availability Gap study includes a simulation of the broadband infrastructure inventory across the USA. Section 3 of this report compares and contrasts results of this study with the Connect Nevada measured broadband inventory and concludes that the FCC Availability Gap analysis is an insufficient predictor of the state of broadband inventory across Nevada’s rural regions. This report addresses some of the key structural factors of the Nevada broadband market that may explain the discrepancy across these two estimates. It is recommended to continue gathering and validating broadband inventory data across Nevada, under the current SBDD program in order to inform the ongoing Universal Service Fund reform debate currently underway at the FCC and assess how it affects the state of Nevada.

Encourage coordination at the state and local level aimed to achieve economies of scale and encourage efficiency of public investments

According to the NBP, deployment costs for broadband service to unserved areas could drop dramatically through coordination and planning with other infrastructure projects.27 The NBP recommends a series of measures and policies aimed at encouraging this coordination among projects receiving federal funding.28 Many of these measures are applicable to state and local government, including: 2.2.2.iii.

Plan for broadband in infrastructure projects; for example, consider “dig once” measures and legislation that would apply to all future state funded or enabled projects.

2.2.2.iv.

Encourage joint deployment of broadband conduit alongside state financed or enabled infrastructure projects such as highway, road, and bridge projects.

2.2.2.v.

Develop policies aimed to encourage local and state government policies that will deploy broadband conduit to new neighborhoods and developments.

2.2.2.vi.

Establish “Gigabit Communities” or “Broadband Corridors” in regions within the state by working together with state, local, and private stakeholders.

2.2.2.vii.

Evaluate local and state rules and regulations that currently affect the cost and speed of towers supporting mobile networks and assess how such measure can be streamlined to encourage faster deployment of 3G networks across the state, and attract faster investment from mobile providers for the rollout of 4G mobile networks.

27 According to the NBP, placement costs associated with burying fiber or cable on the ground can account for ¾ of the total costs of deployment, which would be partially saved if conducted at the time of road, bridge or development construction. NBP, p. 114. 28 NPB, Chapter 6, p. 109.

Connect Nevada

14

2.2.2.viii.

■■

Explore the possibility of developing a set of state master contracts to expedite the placement of wireless towers on state government property and buildings.

Encourage development of statewide “smart grids”

The NBP emphasizes the opportunity to significantly improve national electricity distribution efficiency by developing “smart grids” that leverage our national broadband infrastructure.29 Efforts are underway at the federal level to assess the challenges facing the expansion of “smart grids” across the nation. Nevada, like all other states, has much to gain from these “smart grids” that will maximize benefits to Nevadans of the broadband infrastructure and result in more energy efficient communities. “Smart grids” will improve Nevadans’ livelihood, benefit the environment, and make Nevada more competitive both nationally and internationally. 2.2.2.ix.

■■

In order to make Nevada a leader in “smart grid” development, a comprehensive review of the challenges of developing these platforms is recommended. Such review would aim to understand Nevada-specific assets and challenges of the electricity distribution market, develop pragmatic policies that will encourage private sector investment in these networks, assess what role the state should have in coordinating and encouraging cooperation across the broadband and energy sectors in the state, and leverage the programs and opportunities to expand “smart grids” developed at the federal level.

Lower costs of access to key network inputs such as utility-owned poles, ducts, conduits, and rights-of-way

According to the NBP, the cost of deploying a broadband network depends significantly on the costs that service providers incur to access conduits, ducts, poles, and rights-of-way (ROW) on public and private lands. The NBP estimates that up to 20% of a rural subscriber’s broadband bill is due to pole rental costs.30 Further, rearranging existing pole attachments or installing new poles, and “make ready” charges can constitute upwards of 10% of the cost of deployment in rural areas. The market for pole rental presents multiple sets of inconsistent rules, policies, and prices across both public and private lands. Often pole rental pricing and rules present different rates for pole attachments based on the category of service that would be supported by the pole network, not on the cost of the inputs. Such a pricing scheme may result in price disincentives for decisions to expand service or invest in capacity upgrades (such as 4G networks). According to the NBP, the cost of deployment of and time to market new technologies can be reduced by a series of measures aimed at cutting rental fees and expediting processes and decreasing the risks and complexities that companies face as they deploy broadband network infrastructure.31 With this goal in mind, the NBP recommends a series of measures, including the following practices by the state of Nevada: 2.2.2.x.

Create a Task Force (or subgroup) of federal, state, local, and tribal ROW experts to catalog ROW policies, identify ROW policies that are consistent and inconsistent with broadband deployment, and recommend guidelines and cost-lowering processes.

2.2.2.xi.

Conduct research to better understand current state and local pole rental and ROW rules and policies and define strategies to encourage efficiencies in essential input for broadband deployment.

2.2.2.xii.

Review and reform Rights of Way and Pole Rental Rules over state public lands and assess means to incentivize more efficient local government rules and regulations that may inadvertently encourage excessive ROW and pole rental prices or delays in deployment plans.

29 NBP, p. 249. 30 NBP, p. 109. 31 NBP, p. 110.

15


2.2.2.xiii.

Explore and establish state policies aimed to lower the cost of entry in the provision of broadband service.

2.2.2.xiv.

Explore the possibility of developing a state master contract to expedite placement of wireless towers on state government property and buildings.

2.2.2.xv.

Collaborate with the FCC and other Federal agencies in the implementation of similar federal policies where they apply to Nevada.

■■

Promote public-private partnerships to address existing gaps in the network at the local level

Once the gaps in the broadband network are identified at the local level, pragmatic solutions to fill these gaps need to be developed. Statewide stakeholders should work to implement strategies to facilitate pragmatic solutions for broadband build-out to unserved areas. 2.2.2.xvi.

■■

Strategies that have a proven record of success include local-level public-private partnerships to build new and expanded broadband capacity across unserved areas. Statewide resources should promote and encourage such strategies and ensure that state and federal resources (both financial and technical) are fully leveraged to achieve these goals. If funded, the extended federal SBDD grant program will provide resources across Nevada to develop best practice resources, and technical engineering capacity to encourage and facilitate this kind of local public-private partnerships.

Continue efforts to measure and map broadband inventory data

The April 2010 Connect Nevada estimates of broadband inventory and mapping is a first-of-its-kind tool that enables a clearer picture of the challenges and opportunities for broadband expansion in Nevada. This first estimate reveals that the state of Nevada is on par with national benchmarks of broadband inventory and speeds. It also reveals that, like elsewhere in the country, there is an availability gap that needs to be addressed by sound policy. Further, the data reveals that broadband inventory across the state is not homogenous. Factors including density of population and geography have an impact on where broadband is available and is not. Other more idiosyncratic factors likely also affect the current state of broadband deployment. It is not enough to evaluate statewide trends and broadband inventory. Granular data at the county level and beyond is necessary to accurately measure the challenges on the ground and develop sound, pragmatic policy to help address them. 2.2.2.xvii. Continued efforts to collect, validate, and benchmark broadband inventory data across the state under the SBDD program is recommend. If funded, the extended federal SBDD grant program will provide financial support for three additional years – beyond the two-year Mapping grant program underway – of collection, integration, and verification of broadband inventory data and mapping.

2.3 The Broadband Adoption Gap As part of the SBDD grant program, Connect Nevada has collected consumer survey data aimed at understanding demand-side trends and barriers in the Nevada broadband market.32 This section summarizes the main findings of this research, contrasts Nevada trends with available national benchmarks, and discusses policy recommendations that stem from the data and the FCC’s NBP policy recommendations. Appendix A of this report presents the Connect Nevada Residential Technology Assessment, released in June 2010, which

32 All Nevada data in this section is based on Connect Nevada’s consumer survey research, available in Appendix A: Connect Nevada Residential Technology Assessment, June 2010. All national data, unless otherwise indicated, is based on the FCC study Broadband Adoption and Use in America: OBI Working Paper Series No. 1, J. Horrigan, Federal Communications Commission, February 2010, (“FCC Broadband Adoption and Use”). Available at http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-296442A1.pdf

Connect Nevada

16

includes detailed results of Nevada’s consumer survey research. Approximately one-fifth (22%) of Nevada residents do not have broadband service in the home, an adoption gap for the state of Nevada slightly less than the national adoption gap measured by the FCC. The percentage of households across Nevada that have broadband service in the home is 78%; by comparison, national surveys show that 67% of American households subscribe to home broadband service. Statewide, 89% of all residents own a home computer. This translates into over 215,000 adults without a home computer, with half of those without a computer saying they do not believe they need one. Six percent of Nevada residents use dial-up service to connect to the Internet and 2% are not certain whether they use broadband or dial-up in the home. Six percent of adults surveyed report accessing the Internet from places other than the home, for a total of 92% who report accessing the Internet from either the home or someplace else. This contrasts with national estimates of 74% of adult residents who access the Internet from home or somewhere else.33 Across Nevada, 86% of surveyed adults report accessing the Internet from home; 36% from work; and 11% from a library. Twenty-six percent of Nevada residents access the Internet via a cell phone or mobile device. Finally, 8% report that they do not use the Internet. (See Figure 2)

Figure 2: Nevada Technology Adoption Summary Use dial-up from home 6% Use the Internet someplace other than home 6% Do not use the Internet 8% Use broadband from home 78%

Don't know if home Internet service is dial-up or broadband 2%

A 78% broadband adoption rate contrasts with the estimates of the broadband availability gap in Nevada presented in this report. According to Connect Nevada broadband inventory estimates, 97.85% of all Nevadan households have broadband available (or are served) at the basic speeds of 768 Kbps download/200 Kbps upload.34 This implies that just more than one-fifth of Nevadan households have broadband available but, for various reasons, are choosing not to subscribe to the service in the home. This adoption gap is slightly less than that measured by the FCC at the national level but still suggests that when it comes to broadband, the old adage of “build it and they will come” does not always work. The NBP recommends that this adoption gap needs to be tackled at the federal, state, and local level through a series of complementary strategies. The NBP recommends that programs aimed to increase adoption rates for lowincome people need to be modernized to support broadband, improve participation in the digital economy and society, and protect against waste, fraud, and abuse.

33

Internet, Broadband, and Cell Phone Statistics, Pew Internet and American Life Project, January 5, 2010.

34

See Section 3 of this report.

17


2.3.1 Broadband Adopters and Non-Adopters FCC national data indicate that non-adopters are generally senior citizens, members of ethnic minorities, rural dwellers, people with disabilities, people of low income, and/or people with less education.35 These data are largely in line with estimated adoption rates by these demographic groups in the state of Nevada. Figure 3 reports Nevada computer and broadband adoption data across these same demographic groups.36

Figure 3: Nevada Technology Adoption by Demographic Computer ownership

Broadband adoption

89%

86% 78%

75%

74% 57%

72%

68% 54%

60%

79% 61%

59% 43%

Statewide

Adults with disabilities

Age 65 or older

Low-income households*

Low-income households with children

Minority

Rural residents

*Low-income=household income less than $25,000

While the statewide average broadband adoption rate is 78%, broadband adoption rates in Nevada are 57% for adults with disabilities (compared to a national average of 42%); 54% among adults age 65 and older (compared to a national average of 35%); 43% among households with annual incomes below $25,000 (comparable national statistics put this figure at 40%); 59% among low-income households with children; 72% among minority households; and 61% among rural households, compared to 50% of rural residents nationally.

2.3.2 Barriers to Adoption The FCC Broadband Adoption and Use study indicates that the main reason people do not adopt broadband is cost of the service, with 36% of respondents who do not adopt broadband citing cost as a barrier to adoption. Fifteen percent specifically point to monthly fees for service, 10% say they cannot afford a computer, and 9% cite activation fees and reluctance to enter into long-term contracts as a barrier to adoption. Twenty percent of non-adopters cite digital literacy as a barrier to adoption. Twelve percent of respondents cite lack of comfort with computers and 10% cite hazards of online safety. Relevance is the third most commonly cited barrier to adoption. Nineteen percent of non-adopters cite relevance as a barrier. Five percent report that they are content with existing dial-up service or don’t need more speed; 5% believe the Internet is a waste of time; 4% report there is nothing they want to see online; and 4% don’t use the Internet much. Other reasons measured include use of the Internet at work, with 3% of non-adopters citing this, and lack of broadband availability reported by 5% of non-adopters.37

35

See FCC Broadband Adoption and Use, Exhibit 1, p. 13.

36

See Appendix A, Slide 8.

37 FCC Broadband Adoption and Use.

Connect Nevada

18

Figure 4 reports data collected in the state of Nevada, which identifies similar barriers to adoption of broadband technology.

Figure 4: Nevada Barriers to Broadband Adoption Percent of Nevada residents with no home broadband service* I don't need broadband/the Internet, or don't know why I don't subscribe

51% 29%

I don't have a computer

28%

Broadband is too expensive

13%

I access broadband someplace else

6%

Broadband is not available where I live

Concerns about fraud or identity theft

I don't know enough about broadband

Available broadband service is not fast enough

5% 3% 2%

*Percentages do not add up to 100% because individuals could give multiple responses.

Figure 5: Nevada Barriers to Computer Ownership Percent of Nevada residents with no computer at home* I don’t need a computer, or don’t know why I need one

51% 42%

Too expensive

13%

I use a computer someplace else

7%

Computers are too complicated

Other

4%

*Percentages do not add up to 100% because individuals could give multiple responses.

19


The top barriers to adoption among Nevada adults who do not have broadband in the home and those who do not own a computer in the home are: ■■

Relevance: Fifty-one percent of Nevada residents, compared to 19% nationally, who do not have home broadband service say it is because they do not need Internet service or don’t understand the benefits it affords. Fifty-one percent of adults who do not have a computer in the home say they don’t need it or don’t know what they need a computer for. Among rural non-subscribers, the belief that they do not need a computer or don’t know why they need a computer is still the top barrier to adoption (67%).

■■

Computer Ownership: Twenty-nine percent of broadband non-adopters say that the lack of a home computer is a barrier to broadband adoption.

■■

Affordability: Twenty-eight percent of broadband non-adopters say broadband is too expensive and 42% of those lacking a computer in the home say it is because Internet services are too expensive.

■■

Availability: Six percent of Nevadans who do not subscribe to home broadband service report a lack of available broadband service.

■■

Other Locations: Thirteen percent of broadband non-adopters claim they access the Internet from somewhere else (16% of those without any home Internet access report accessing the Internet from somewhere else).

■■

Digital Literacy and Perceived Online Risks: Seven percent of non-computer-owners report they don’t have one because computers are too complicated. Three percent of non-broadband subscribers say “I don’t know enough about broadband.” Eight percent of dial-up users say they don’t upgrade to broadband because they don’t know enough about broadband. Five percent of broadband nonadopters and nine percent of Internet non-adopters report concerns about fraud and identity theft as a barrier to adoption.38

2.3.3 Broadband Applications and Uses Broadband is a tool that enables citizens, companies, and government to better communicate, connect, and engage. To better understand how broadband is currently affecting the lives and endeavors of Nevadans today, and what opportunities exist to expand the benefits of this technology, survey research conducted by Connect Nevada explores the online applications used by Nevadans.39 The top applications used by Nevada Internet users include sending or receiving e-mail, researching and purchasing products or services online, using a search engine, and communicating with friends and family online. ■■

E-Health: Slightly more than two-thirds of Nevada Internet users (69%) search for health or medical information online, while 37% communicate with their health insurance company and 30% interact with doctors or healthcare professionals online.

■■

E-Government Services: E-government services are utilized by many Nevada Internet users; 55% report that they search online for information about government services or policies. In addition, 46% conduct online transactions with government offices (such as e-filing taxes or filling out forms), 35% interact with Nevada state government offices, 31% interact with local government offices, and 26% interact with elected officials or candidates online.

38 See Appendix A. 39 See Appendix A.

Connect Nevada

20

■■

E-Education: Many Nevada Internet users go online for educational purposes. Statewide, 47% conduct research for schoolwork online, 35% interact with teachers online, and 29% take classes online, compared to 24% nationally.

■■

E-Jobs: Nevada residents also use the Internet for work purposes. Among Nevada Internet users, 60% interact with businesses, 52% interact with their co-workers online, 44% go online to search for jobs or employment, and 33% report that they go online to work from home at least occasionally. Further, in Nevada, 18% of employed adults report that they telework. Teleworking could also provide an additional boost to the state’s workforce, as one-sixth of retirees, and more than one-third of adults with disabilities and homemakers say they would likely join the workforce if empowered to do so by teleworking.

2.3.4 Strategies to Close the Adoption Gap Research suggests that broadband adoption and usage trends among Nevadans generally follow the national trends. The adoption gap in Nevada is estimated to be similar to the national estimate and non-adopters overwhelmingly include the vulnerable demographics: the elderly, people with disabilities, low-income residents, minorities and those in rural areas. Data also suggests that the reasons why Nevadans are not choosing or able to embrace twenty-first century technologies are similar to national trends: relevance, technology inventory, affordability, availability, and digital literacy being among the top barriers to adoption of broadband and related technologies. Finally, Nevadans are increasingly using broadband technologies to improve their lives and endeavors. Broadband technology is helping citizens better connect with friends and family; federal, state, and local government; health-related resources; and educational and professional opportunities. Yet, there is further room for growth in application and usage of broadband that can and should be promoted by sound state and local policy. Having measured similar adoption trends at the national level, the NBP recommends a series of strategies to ensure that broadband is more affordable and accessible to all Americans. The NBP recommends a holistic approach to address the adoption gap among vulnerable populations and tackle key barriers to adoption including relevance, affordability, and digital literacy. The holistic approach includes programs aimed to encourage adoption in the home, as well as the strengthening of public computing and Internet access capacity at community anchor institutions. This holistic approach is consistent with the programs that Congress unanimously mandated in the BDIA. The NBP and BDIA call for series of principles and programs to be implemented at the federal, state, and local levels aimed to implement pragmatic solutions to the broadband adoption gap. Key among these are the following programs particularly relevant to state and local stakeholders: 2.2.2.xviii. Promote public-private partnerships at the state and local levels to build awareness campaigns about the benefits of broadband technology among at-risk populations. Awareness campaigns should target at-risk populations and address the concrete and pragmatic benefits that broadband technology can afford every community, neighborhood, school, library, community center, and household. Leverage the potential opportunity under the extended SBDD grant program to conduct statewide broadband awareness campaigns and local, grassroots broadband adoption stimulation strategies. 2.2.2.xix.

21

Promote and facilitate local community engagement aimed to address local barriers to adoption and develop pragmatic solutions tailored to each community. The extended SBDD grant program application includes a program for developing local and regional Technology Planning Teams at the county level to leverage the program’s technical assistance tools to establish specific technology adoption goals, recommendations, and action plans across community sectors. Statewide resources should be fully leveraged to ensure the success of these grassroots strategies.


2.2.2.xx.

Expand, improve, or create pragmatic digital literacy programs at the state and local level and leverage digital literacy resources available via the NBP proposed National Digital Literacy Program.

2.2.2.xxi.

Encourage public-private collaboration to educate consumers and families about the reality of online risks and promote online safety practices among children and citizens. Work with not-forprofits promoting online safety practices and encourage online safety practices and principles across various state departments and among educators in the state of Nevada.40 If funded, leverage the extended SBDD grant program’s statewide broadband awareness campaign strategies.

2.2.2.xxii. Leverage the proposed federal National Broadband Clearinghouse portal aimed to promote best practices and information sharing, as well as the federal Online Digital Literacy Portal program. Explore ways to leverage these federal online resources to complement and promote new or existing local or state resources to more efficiently and effectively coordinate and implement best practices models and digital literacy offerings across the state in a manner that is streamlined and non-duplicative of current or proposed assets or offerings. 2.2.2.xxiii. Promote expansion of publicly available computing and online resources leveraging federal, state, local, and private funds. Federal resources available through programs such as the USF Schools and Libraries (E-Rate) and Rural Health Care support programs as well as public funding available through the federal Institute of Museum and Library Services (IMLS). Disbursements in Nevada under the E-Rate amounted to just $4.29 million in 2009 and a cumulative amount of $41 million between 1998 and 2009. Disbursements in Nevada under the Rural Health Care Program amounted to $73,000 in 2009 and a cumulative amount of $453,000 between 1998 and 2009.41 2.2.2.xxiv. Monitor and assess how the proposed reform of the Low Income Support programs under the Universal Service Fund will affect Nevadans. The NBP calls for a comprehensive reform of the USF programs, including programs aimed to support low-income households, including Lifeline and Linkup, and the Federal-State Joint Board on Universal Service is seeking comment on these programs.42 In 2009, disbursement of low-income support funds across the state of Nevada amounted to $2.9 million, mostly from the Lifeline program. Between 1998 and 2009, low-income support disbursements in Nevada amount to $33.5 million.43 Hence, the reform underway is likely to have a significant impact upon the opportunity of low-income households in the state to bridge the digital divide. 2.2.2.xxv. Coordinate with Nevada tribal nations on broadband issues. The NBP recognizes the importance of working with tribal nations to develop programs tailored to address the particular technology adoption challenges faced by these communities. Furthermore, because such a large percentage of the state’s land is owned by the federal government, the authors would recommend strong collaboration where possible with federal government agencies as well.

40 For best practices regarding online safety strategies see The Children’s Partnership, iKeepSafe and the Family Online Safety Institute (FOSI). 41 Annual Report, 2009, Universal Service Administrative Company (“USAC”) http://www.usac.org/default.aspx. 42 See FCC CC Docket No. 96-45, WC Docket No. 03-109. 43 Annual Report, 2009, USAC.

Connect Nevada

22

3 Connect Nevada Broadband Inventory and Analysis – Spring 2010 In April 2010, Connect Nevada, working in partnership with the Nevada Broadband Task Force, produced a map of the inventory of broadband availability across the state. This mapping exercise was funded by the National Telecommunications and Information Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, and is in compliance with the rules and requirements of the federal State Broadband Data and Development grant program.44 The purpose of this exercise is to measure the level of broadband service available to Nevadans and identify communities and households that remain unserved or underserved by broadband service. The FCC’s National Broadband Plan sets six goals that frame the FCC’s recommendations for federal, state, and local policy objectives and strategies for the U.S. broadband market. Based on these six goals (which were listed in Section 2.1), the NBP offers a series of normative recommendations for policy measures to help spur innovation, investment, and adoption of the broadband service. One key area related to all of these recommendations is the goal of universal availability of broadband infrastructure. In order to understand which of these policy measures are best suited to address the challenges to broadband expansion faced in Nevada, this report first examines how the broadband market in Nevada compares against these national goals set in the NBP. Results of the Nevada mapping exercise can be found at Connect Nevada’s interactive online mapping platform available at http://www.connectnv.org/mapping/interactive_map.php. It is important to note that the inventory of broadband measured in these maps and used to conduct this analysis is preliminary in nature. The Connect Nevada spring 2010 broadband inventory and Broadband Inventory Map are the first of their kind in the state of Nevada. Data collected includes the majority of known broadband providers in the state; however, there are a few broadband providers that were unable or unwilling to participate in this first round of data collection. The maps will be further completed as networks owned by these providers are included in the Nevada broadband mapping inventory updates. Further, the measured broadband inventory provides an estimate of the true extent of broadband coverage across the state. There is a degree of measurement error inherent in this exercise, which needs to be taken into consideration when analyzing the data. This measurement error will decrease as the maps become active tools for local, state, and federal stakeholders, who will be able to identify areas where the displayed coverage is underestimated or overestimated. Connect Nevada welcomes such feedback, to be analyzed in collaboration with broadband providers to correct errors indentified in the maps.45 The following section summarizes results from these mapping efforts focusing at the state and county levels.

3.1 Broadband Availability in Nevada – A State Bird’s-eye View 3.1.1 Fixed Broadband Inventory This section provides a bird’s-eye, statewide assessment of the availability of broadband speeds and platforms in Nevada. However, as discussed in more detail below, Nevada is a state of extremes, and statewide figures can often present a distorted view. With the vast majority of the population residing in two relatively urban counties and many of the remaining counties being among the most sparsely populated in the United States, statewide averages do not present a complete picture. There are, in fact, many areas and communities in Nevada that do not have access to robust broadband infrastructure today, a gap that can only widen as demands on bandwidth increase over time.

44 SBDD NOFA: RIN 0660–ZA29 July 8, 2009 45 Questions regarding the maps and data collection can be directed to [email protected]

23


The total number of households in Nevada in 2000 was 751,165 for a total population of 1,998,257.46 Table 2 (similar to Table 1) reports estimates of the number and percentages of households across Nevada having broadband available at various download speed tiers.47 Table 2 is based on broadband inventory data from all terrestrial, non-mobile platforms, including cable, DSL, fiber, and fixed wireless, but excluding households served by mobile or satellite broadband. In April 2010 fixed broadband was available to approximately 735,000 households, or 97.85% of all Nevada households.48 This implies that approximately 16,000 Nevada households, or 2.15%, remain unserved by terrestrial, fixed broadband.49,50 Further, approximately 721,828 households, or 96.09%, across Nevada have broadband available at 3 Mbps download speeds or above. The percentage of Nevada households having fixed broadband access available of at least 6 Mbps download speeds is estimated at 93.46%.

Table 2 – Estimate of Broadband Service Availability in the State of Nevada – By Speed Tier Among Fixed Platforms SBDD Download Speed Tiers

Unserved Households

Served Households

Percent Households By Speed Tier

At Least 768 Kbps

16,164

735,000

97.85%

At Least 1.5 Mbps

19,839

731,325

97.36%

At Least 3 Mbps

29,336

721,828

96.09%

At Least 6 Mbps

49,116

702,048

93.46%

At Least 10 Mbps

62,584

672,415

89.52%

At Least 25 Mbps

747,070

4,095

0.55%

At Least 50 Mbps

749,928

1,237

0.16%

At Least 100 Mbps

750,138

1,027

0.14%

At Least 1 Gbps

751,165

0

0.00%

Source: Connect Nevada, April 2010.

46 National Census, 2000, U.S. Census Bureau. 47 Speed tiers are based on the tiers defined by the NTIA in the SBDD NOFA. 48 Broadband is defined according to current NTIA and FCC definition, or 768 Kbps download and 200 Kbps upload speeds. 49 “Unserved area means a proposed funded service area, composed of one or more contiguous Census Blocks, where at least 90 percent of households in the proposed funded service area lack access to facilities-based, terrestrial broadband service, either fixed or mobile, at the minimum broadband transmission speed (set forth in the definition of broadband above). A household has access to broadband service if the household can readily subscribe to that service upon request.” SBDD NOFA Section III Page 32549 50 While the NTIA definition of “unserved” and “underserved” areas encompasses all broadband platforms, including mobile wireless networks, Table 3 focuses only on fixed, terrestrial broadband infrastructure. Table 8 includes data across all terrestrial platforms.

Connect Nevada

24

While there is no national benchmark of broadband available at this time (the SBDD program is scheduled to generate a national broadband map in February of 2011 that will provide such reference), measures obtained by Connected Nation, (Connect Nevada’s parent company) across 11 other states plus Puerto Rico suggests that broadband investment in Nevada is on par with that of other states similar to Nevada which are highly rural. Table 3 reports data collected by Connected Nation in the winter and spring of 2010 in the following states and territories: Alaska, Florida, Iowa, Illinois, Kansas, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, Ohio, Puerto Rico, South Carolina, Tennessee, and Texas.51 Following the NTIA definition of broadband, this measure of broadband availability includes any connection providing service of at least 768 Kbps downstream and 200 Kbps upstream speeds. The data reported includes broadband service by all types of platforms except for satellite and terrestrial mobile wireless broadband service.

Table 3 - Estimate of Available Terrestrial Fixed Broadband Service of At Least 768 Kbps Downstream - 200 Kbps Upstream Selected States Density of Households Across State

Households with Available Broadband Service

Alaska

0.39

85.55%

Florida Illinois Iowa Kansas Michigan Minnesota Nevada Ohio Puerto Rico South Carolina Tennessee

117.53 82.61 20.57 12.69 66.64 23.81 6.84 108.57 368.62 50.94 54.17

96.23% 97.96% 95.36% 97.23% 95.41% 95.55% 97.85% 97.90% 91.27% 95.32% 92.25%

Texas

28.24

96.52%

Data includes all terrestrial technology platforms except for mobile broadband services. Source: Availability data from Connect Nevada, 2010. Household density data from U.S. Census, 2000, U.S. Census Bureau. Data from Illinois, Kansas, and Tennessee dates from March, 2010. Data from Florida, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, Ohio, Puerto Rico, and South Carolina from April, 2010. Data from Iowa and Texas from May, 2010. Data from Alaska from June 2010. The average broadband household availability measured across these 13 states and territories is 94.95%, suggesting that the broadband inventory measured in Nevada is higher than estimates across these states.

51 Research funded by the ARRA and compliant with SBDD data requirements and definitions.

25


3.1.2 Broadband Availability by Technology Platform The spring 2010 Nevada Broadband Inventory Map is based on data from 35 terrestrial fixed broadband providers. Together these broadband providers offer service to an estimated 97.85% of the Nevada households. An examination of the broadband market by technology platform reveals trends that suggest that the Nevada broadband market offers some unique characteristics. The Nevada broadband sector is characterized by a relatively low number of providers, serving a very large geographic area where the vast majority of residents live in just three cities and/or four counties. Research shows that the most represented technology across the state is mobile broadband.52 Table 4 below reports that there are a total of 5 mobile wireless broadband providers accounted for in the state of Nevada broadband map serving an estimate of 743,645 households, or 99%. There are a total of 7 cable providers reflected on the map, serving 89.37% of the state’s households. Fixed wireless availability is relatively high, with a total of 13 fixed wireless providers supplying service to 91.51% of households across the state. There are 12 Digital Subscriber Line (DSL) broadband providers in Nevada who collectively provide service to 91.34% of Nevada households. Fiber availability is extremely low with 3 providers offering fiber to the premise to just 4,177 (or 0.56%) households across the state. In fact, fiber coverage is limited to just two Nevada counties: Clark County (Las Vegas) with 2,774 households served by a fiber connection, and Lincoln County (total households 1,540) that has 1,403 households (or 91.14%) served by a fiber connection. This lack of fiber availability has large implications for next-generation broadband capability in Nevada, and reinforces the FCC’s NBP policy recommendations to create Gigabit Community Initiatives and Broadband Corridors.

Table 4 - Availability Estimate by Broadband Platform in the State of Nevada Platform Type

Served Households

Percent of Households Served

Number of Providers By Platform

Cable

671,312

89.37%

7

DSL

686,146

91.34%

12

Fiber

4,177

0.56%

3

Fixed Wireless

687,388

91.51%

13

Mobile

743,645

98.99%

5

Total -All Platforms Except Mobile

735,000

97.85%

35

Total – All Platforms

747,270

99.48%

40

Source: Connect Nevada, April 2010. The breakdown of broadband availability by technology showcases unique structural characteristics of the Nevada broadband market. The most important characteristics are the high availability of fixed wireless broadband, cable networks, and DSL, the near ubiquitous availability of mobile wireless in areas where the Nevada population resides, and the almost complete lack of FTTP in Nevada.

52 High-Speed Services for Internet Access: Status as of December 31, 2008, Industry Analysis and Technology Division Wireline Competition Bureau, Federal Communications Commission, February 2010. Available at http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/ attachmatch/DOC-296239A1.pdf

Connect Nevada

26

3.1.3 Household Density Across Unserved, Underserved, and Served Areas Nevada is a very large state with an overwhelming portion of its population living in three counties (those surrounding the cities of Las Vegas and Reno/Carson City). Given the direct correlation between density of population and the cost of providing broadband infrastructure, this factor should have a significant role in explaining infrastructure investment across Nevada. The average density or number of households, per square mile, across Nevada is 6.8, varying greatly by county (see county-level analysis in Section 3.2).53 Table 5 presents average household density by Census Block in areas that the broadband inventory measures as unserved, underserved, and served, based on NTIA definitions. Analysis of served and unserved territories by density of households is an important measure that provides an objective means to assess the challenge of infrastructure build-out in unserved or underserved areas. It also provides critical information for the debate over Universal Service Fund reform underway. These data will further assist in benchmarking the “supplyside” challenge faced in Nevada against national data. At the present time, national benchmarks do not exist. As further data is released across states from the SBDD mapping efforts, it will be possible to assess this comparative analysis between Nevada and other states. Further, these data provide an objective benchmark for assessing progress of infrastructure build-out moving forward, based on future SBDD data submissions. Consistent with expectations, the data show correlations between density of households and infrastructure build-out across Nevada. The average density of households per Census Blocks measured as unserved is a mere 0.16, when accounting for all Census Blocks, and only 0.67 when considering only Census Blocks with population. When considering only areas that have service offered with download speeds of 3 Mbps or more, average population density is estimated at the much higher 211.73. In short, as expected broadband network investment has focused on areas of higher population density and the areas that remain unserved have very low density of population. It is important to note, as discussed in Section 3.2 below, that an analysis of data at the county level reveals that this correlation does not hold across all counties.

Table 5 - Average Number of Households Per Square Mile Across Census Blocks with Fixed, Terrestrial Broadband Available By Download Speeds

All Census Blocks

Census Blocks with Households

Below 768 Kbps - "Unserved"

0.16

0.67

Between 768-3000 Kbps - "Underserved"

38.12

138.62

At Least 768 Kbps

65.52

137.69

At Least 3 Mbps

102.39

211.73

Note: Data does not include mobile or satellite broadband. Source: Connect Nevada, April 2010. Table 6 reports broadband availability in Nevada across areas defined as “rural” by the NTIA SBDD definition standards.54 According to this definition approximately 97,170 households across Nevada are classified as rural

53 U.S. Census, 2000, U.S. Census Bureau. Household density is defined as number of households per square mile of land area. 54 “Rural Area. Any area, as confirmed by the latest decennial census of the Bureau of the Census, which is not located within: (i) a city, town, or incorporated area that has a population of greater than 20,000 inhabitants; or (ii) an urbanized area contiguous and adjacent to a city or town that has a population of greater than 50,000 inhabitants. For purposes of the definition of rural area, an urbanized area means a densely populated territory as defined in the latest decennial census of the U.S. Census Bureau.” SBDD NOFA Section III Page 32549 This analysis includes only Census Blocks that following this definition are completely rural, and not any Census Blocks that fell within both rural and non-rural.

27


(or 12.93% of total households). Of this, approximately 88,300 households are served by at least one terrestrial, non-mobile broadband provider with at least 768 Kbps download and 200 Kbps upload speeds, or 85.73% of all rural households. The number of rural households remaining unserved is estimated to be 13,869. The total number of households – rural and non-rural – estimated to be unserved by non-mobile broadband across Nevada is 16,164. Therefore, the overwhelming majority of unserved households (85.8%) left in Nevada are in rural areas.

Table 6 - Rural Availability Estimate of Broadband Service of at Least 768 Kbps Download/200 Kbps Upload Platform Type

Total Rural Households

Unserved Rural Households

Percent of Rural Households Served

Fixed Broadband (Excluding Mobile)

97,170

13,869

85.73%

All Terrestrial Platforms (Including Mobile)

97,170

3,817

96.07%


3.1.4 All Terrestrial Broadband Inventory – Including Mobile Wireless Networks Table 7 represents data of availability of broadband across Nevada including all types of terrestrial platforms, including mobile broadband. In April 2010, there were a total of 5 facilities-based mobile broadband providers in Nevada, collectively serving an estimated 98.99% of all households.55,56 Taking into account both fixed and mobile broadband service available, an estimated 99.48% of Nevada households had broadband available from at least one provider at download speeds of 768 Kbps or higher. This implies that 0.52% of households remain unserved by a terrestrial broadband connection (including mobile).

Table 7 - Estimate of Broadband Service Availability in the State of Nevada By Speed Tier - All Terrestrial Platforms (Including Mobile) SBDD Download Speed Tiers

Unserved Households

Served Household

Percent Households by Tier

At Least 768 Kbps

3,894

747,271

99.48%

At Least 1.5 Mbps

4,804

746,361

99.36%

At Least 3 Mbps

6,224

744,940

99.17%


55 Connect Nevada, Spring 2010. 56 Note that this measure of broadband availability is based on households passed, not geography served. Further, consumers may experience lower availability of mobile broadband service since typically each consumer has access to only one mobile broadband provider. Hence, existence of mobile broadband service by one provider does not necessary imply that all mobile subscribers have access at that location. Only subscribers to the mobile services available within that location will experience reception.

Connect Nevada

28

3.2 Broadband In Nevada Counties 3.2.1 Terrestrial, Fixed Broadband Availability by County This section examines the estimated broadband inventory by county across Nevada. Figures 6 and 7 below present estimated number and percentage of households served by terrestrial, non-mobile broadband at speeds of 768 Kbps download/200 Kbps upload and above, as well as 3 Mbps download speeds or more, and including household density by county.57 These data are also presented under Table 8. The data reveals large variances in measured broadband inventory across counties, highlighting the importance of granular data in order to indentify gaps in infrastructure at the community level. Such information is essential to develop pragmatic policy solutions for broadband expansion tailored to the challenges facing each community.

57 Based on NTIA definitions, broadband is defined as 768 Kbps download and 200 Kbps upload speeds or more. Areas with service below these speeds are deemed “unserved.” Areas where broadband is available at speeds between 768 Kbps download and 200 Kbps upload and 3Mbps are defined as “underserved.” Areas where broadband is available at 3Mbps or above are defined as “served.” SBDD NOFA. Technical Appendix Page 32557

29


Figure 6: Broadband Availability in the State of Nevada Broadband Availability in the State of Nevada Percentage of Households Served by Terrestrial, Non-Mobile Broadband Service Percentage of Households Served by Terrestrial, Non-Mobile Broadband Service At Least 768 Kbps Download/200 KbpsDownload/200 Upload Speeds Kbps Upload Speeds At Least 768 Kbps Statewide Availability: 97.85% Statewide Availability: 97.85%

Humboldt 95.68%

Elko 77.54% Washoe 98.78%

Pershing 66.32%

Eureka 23.57%

Lander 82.2%

Churchill 88.2%

Storey 72.75% Carson City 99.94% Douglas 94.77%

White Pine 80.51% Lyon 97.09%

Mineral 71.28%

Esmeralda 58.23%

Nye 89.56%

Lincoln 95.42%

< 85% 85 - 90% 90.01 - 93% 93.01 - 96% 96.01 - 98%

Clark 99.29%

98.01 - 100%

Connect Nevada

30

This same pattern exists when analyzing estimates of homes served at download speeds of 3 Mbps or more. While the estimated statewide percentage of households served at speeds of 3 Mbps or more is 96.09%, county availability estimates range from Eureka County, with only 23.57% of households served at these speeds, to Carson City, with 99.90% of households served and Clark County with 99.25% households served. Eleven counties in the state have less than 80% of households served at speeds of 3 Mbps or more: Elko, Esmeralda, Eureka, Humboldt, Lander, Lyon, Mineral, Nye, Pershing, Storey, and White Pine. Ten of these are rural and half have less than 2,000 households.

31


Figure 7: Broadband Availability in the State of Nevada Availability in the State of Nevada Percentage of Broadband Households Served by Terrestrial, Non-Mobile Broadband Service Percentage of Households Served by Terrestrial, Non-Mobile Broadband Service At Least 3 Mbps Download Speeds At Least 3 Mbps Download Speeds Statewide Availability: 96.09%

Statewide Availability: 96.09%

Humboldt 53.64%


Pershing 51.83%

Eureka 23.57%

Lander 61.87%

Churchill 88.2%



Mineral 71.28%

Esmeralda 45.31%

Nye 69.34%

Lincoln 95.42%

< 40% 40 - 60% 60.01 - 80% 80.01 - 90% 90.01 - 95% 95.01 - 100%

Clark 99.25%

Connect Nevada

32

While the estimated statewide percentage of households served by at least 768 Kbps download/200 Kbps upload speeds is 97.85%, Table 8 reports significant variation of infrastructure build-out across counties ranging from Eureka County in the north central part of the state, with only 23.57% of households served, to Carson City, with 99.94% of households served or Clark County with 99.29% of households served. Among the state’s 17 counties, only 4 are urban, while the remaining 13 are rural. 10 counties across the state have broadband service available to less than 90% of households: Churchill, Elko, Esmeralda, Eureka, Lander, Mineral, Nye, Pershing, Storey and White Pine. Except for one, Storey, all of these counties are classified as rural. These data reveal that across Nevada counties, density of population (a critical factor determining infrastructure capital investment) is a good indicator of historical investment in broadband infrastructure, although in rural counties with lower than average broadband availability, the majority of households are clustered together. For example, Eureka County, with only an estimated 23.57% households served, has an estimated 666 homes and a household density of 0.2 households per square mile. Hence, it is a highly rural county with large portions unserved by broadband infrastructure.

33


Table 8 - Estimated Availability of Broadband Service by County Terrestrial Broadband (Excluding Mobile) ≥ 768 Download/200 Upload Kbps Speeds

≥ 3Mbps Download Speeds

County

Household Density

Number of Households

Churchill County

1.8

8,912

88.2%

88.2%

Clark County

64.8

512,253

99.29%

99.25%

Douglas County

23.1

16,401

94.77%

89.11%

Elko County

0.9

15,638

77.54%

76.7%

Esmeralda County

0.1

455

58.23%

45.31%

Eureka County

0.2

666

23.57%

23.57%

Humboldt County

0.6

5,733

95.68%

53.64%

Lander County

0.4

2,093

82.2%

61.87%

Lincoln County

0.1

1,540

95.42%

95.42%

Lyon County

6.5

13,007

97.09%

70.43%

Mineral County

0.6

2,197

71.28%

71.28%

Nye County

0.7

13,309

89.56%

69.34%

Pershing County

0.3

1,962

66.32%

51.83%

Storey County

5.5

1,462

72.75%

72.61%

Washoe County

20.8

132,085

98.78%

97.14%

White Pine County

0.4

3,282

80.51%

68.65%

Carson City

140.7

20,171

99.94%

99.9%

Percentage Households Served

Source: Household Numbers and Density - Census Bureau, 2000. Broadband Availability Rates - Connect Nevada, April 2010. Detailed information on the estimated inventory of broadband in each county can be found on the Connect Nevada website at http://www.connectnv.org/mapping/county_maps/ . For more granular information regarding the estimated broadband inventory see the Nevada online broadband inventory map at http://www.connectnv.org/mapping/interactive_map.php .

Connect Nevada

34

3.2.2 Fixed Broadband Availability Across Rural and Non-Rural Counties Figure 8 below depicts the percentage of households served by county with at least 768 Kbps download and 200 Kbps upload speeds and classifies counties according to rural and non-rural.58 Across rural counties an estimated 85.73% of households have broadband available. The average estimate across non-rural (urban and suburban) counties is 99.996%.59,60 Hence, as expected, broadband availability is on average lower across rural counties and greatest in highly populated urban areas. Therefore, there are significant outliers in the state of Nevada, with estimates of broadband availability in some rural counties being significantly high, while estimates in non-rural counties are below state averages. Figure 9 below depicts the percentage of households served by county with broadband availability of at least 3 Mbps and classifies counties according to rural and non-rural status. Counties with the highest estimates of broadband availability are on the southeastern, western, and northwestern borders of the state (Clark, Lincoln, Lyon, Douglas). By contrast, counties on the eastern border and in the center of the state have relatively low estimates of broadband availability, which can be partially explained by the very large part of the state that is Federal lands (see Section 3.3).

58 Classification of rural and non-rural counties is based on the U.S. Census Bureau urban-rural classification based on Metropolitan Statistical Areas (MSAs), which are designated by the United States Office of Management and Budget to collect, tabulate, and publish federal statistics. Metropolitan statistical areas contain a core urban area with a population of 50,000 or more. According to Census Bureau county classification, counties are categorized as “urban” if they contain the core city of an MSA, “suburban” counties are MSA counties that do not contain a core city, and “rural” counties include all remaining counties that are not part of an MSA. 59 This simple average county-level availability estimate of 92.67% is lower than the statewide estimate of percentage of households with broadband available (97.5%). This is due to the fact that the county-level simple average does not weight county estimates by the underlying population in each county. 60 Counties classified as urban include: Clark, Storey, Washoe, and the Consolidated Municipality of Carson City.

35


Figure 8: Broadband Availability in the State of Nevada Availability in the State of Nevada Percentage of Broadband Households Served by Terrestrial, Non-Mobile Broadband Service Percentage of Households Served by Terrestrial, Non-Mobile Broadband Service At Least 768 Kbps Download/200 Kbps Upload Speeds At Least 768 Kbps Download/200 Kbps Upload Speeds Rural and Non-Rural Counties

Rural and Non-Rural Counties

Humboldt 95.68%


Pershing 66.32%

Eureka 23.57%

Lander 82.2%

Churchill 88.2%



Mineral 71.28%

Esmeralda 58.23%

Nye 89.56%

Lincoln 95.42%

Rural < 85% 85 - 90% 90.01 - 93% 93.01 - 96% 96.01 - 98%

Clark 99.29%

98.01 - 100%

Connect Nevada

36

Figure 9: Broadband Availability in the State of Nevada Availability in the State of Nevada Percentage of Broadband Households Served by Terrestrial, Non-Mobile Broadband Service Percentage of Households Served by Terrestrial, Non-Mobile Broadband Service At Least 3 Mbps Download Speeds At Least 3 Mbps Download Speeds Rural and Non-Rural Counties Rural and Non-Rural Counties

Humboldt 53.64%


Pershing 51.83%

Eureka 23.57%

Lander 61.87%

Churchill 88.2%



Mineral 71.28%

Esmeralda 45.31%

Nye 69.34%

Lincoln 95.42%

Rural < 40% 40 - 60% 60.01 - 80% 80.01 - 90% 90.01 - 95% 95.01 - 100%

37


Clark 99.25%

3.2.3 Nevada’s Underserved Households Across Counties While Nevada does not have a high percentage of underserved households61 (13,172 or 1.75%), the tale is somewhat different when examining Nevada’s counties. At least four counties (Humboldt, Lander, Lyon and Nye) have greater than 20% of their households that qualify as underserved. Figure 10 below illustrates by percentage the underserved households in each county in Nevada (served households that can receive broadband at speeds of at least 768 Kbps download/200 upload but are not able to subscribe to broadband at speeds of at least 3 Mbps download.)

61 “Underserved area means a proposed funded service area, composed of one or more contiguous Census Blocks meeting certain criteria that measure the availability of broadband service and the level of advertised broadband speeds. […] Specifically, a proposed funded service area may qualify as underserved for last mile projects if at least one of the following factors is met, though the presumption will be that more than one factor is present: 1. No more than 50 percent of the households in the proposed funded service area have access to facilities-based, terrestrial broadband service at greater than the minimum broadband transmission speed (set forth in the definition of broadband above); 2. No fixed or mobile broadband service provider advertises broadband transmission speeds of at least three megabits per second (‘‘mbps’’) downstream in the proposed funded service area; or 3. The rate of broadband subscribership for the proposed funded service area is 40 percent of households or less.”

Connect Nevada

38

Broadband Availability the State of Nevada Figure 10: B roadband Availability in the State ofin Nevada Percentage of Served at Download Speeds Between Percentage ofHouseholds Households Served at Download Speeds Between 768 Kbps and 3 Mbps Percent of “Underserved” Households 768 and 3 Mbps Percent of "Unserved" Households

Humboldt 42.04%


Pershing 14.49%

Eureka 0%

Lander 20.33%

Churchill 0%



Mineral 0%

Esmeralda 12.92%

Nye 20.22%

Lincoln 0%

0 - 10% 10.01 - 25% > 25%

39


Clark 0.04%

3.2.4 Broadband Availability by Platform, by County Table 9 reports measured percentage of households served by the type of platform by each county, including cable, DSL, fiber, fixed wireless, and mobile wireless technologies.

Table 9 - County-Level Estimated Availability by Broadband Technology Percentage of Households Served by Broadband, by Technology Platform (≥ 768 Download/200 Upload Kbps Speeds) County

Cable

DSL

Fiber

Fixed Wireless

Mobile Wireless

All Platforms Except Mobile

Carson City

93.78%

94.38%

0.00%

99.94%

100%

99.94%

Churchill County

70.23%

0.0%

0.0%

85.72%

99.92%

88.2%

Clark County

96.57%

96.98%

0.54%

96.53%

99.97%

99.29%

Douglas County

90.91%

66.34%

0.0%

63.28%

94.6%

94.77%

Elko County

0.0%

68.31%

0.0%

12.21%

93.84%

77.54%

Esmeralda County

0.0%

26.54%

0.0%

45.31%

11.4%

58.23%

Eureka County

0.0%

23.57%

0.0%

0.0%

28.82%

23.57%

Humboldt County

63.69%

62.69%

0.0%

86.6%

97.51%

95.68%

Lander County

0.0%

61.87%

0.0%

81.94%

92.94%

82.2%

Lincoln County

0.0%

95.42%

91.14%

0.03%

0.0%

95.42%

Lyon County

47.66%

49.76%

0.0%

73.08%

95.2%

97.09%

Mineral County

0.0%

71.28%

0.0%

0.0%

81.74%

71.28%

Nye County

15.63%

63.83%

0.0%

83.67%

93.35%

89.56%

Pershing County

0.0%

51.83%

0.0%

18.46%

95.86%

66.32%

Storey County

18.33%

51.64%

0.0%

48.39%

96.98%

72.75%

Washoe County

94.15%

92%

0.0%

92.35%

99.71%

98.78%

White Pine County

0.0%

70.89

0.0%

68.38%

88.35%

80.51%

State Total

89.37%

91.34%

0.56%

91.51

98.99%

97.85%

Source: Connect Nevada, April 2010

Connect Nevada

40

3.2.5 Nevada’s Counties – Deeper Examination62,63 (All county broadband availability depicted in Figures 11 through 27 is measure at speeds of at least 768 Kbps download/200 Kbps upload.) Consolidated Municipality of Carson City: Nevada’s capital of Carson City is the smallest Metropolitan Statistical Area in the United States. With 20,171, or 2.96%, of Nevada’s households, Carson City (total area of 168 square miles) has the highest household density in the state at 140.7 households per square mile. For more information on broadband availability in Carson City, click here: ftp://ftp.connectnv.org/CNVPublic/ Connect_Nevada_Mapping/County_Maps/County_Broadband/Broadband_CarsonCity.pdf For more information on unserved households in Carson City, click here: ftp://ftp.connectnv.org/CNVPublic/ Connect_Nevada_Mapping/County_Maps/County_Density/Density_CarsonCity.pdf

Figure 11 Carson City

NV State Avg.

100 80 60 40 20 0

Fixed, Terrestrial Platforms

Cable

DSL

Fiber

62 In Section 3.2.4, demographic and statistical information taken from 2000 U.S. Census data. 63 In Section 3.2.4, broadband availability data source is Connect Nevada, April 2010.

41


Fixed Wireless

Clark County: Clark County, which contains the city of Las Vegas, is home to more than 75% of Nevada’s population with 512,253 households and a household density of 64.8 homes per square mile. Clark County includes 4 other cities and at least 31 other communities or census designated places spread over a total of 8,091 square miles. Clark County also includes much Federal land, including Creech Air Force Base; part of Desert National Wildlife Refuge; part of Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forest; part of Lake Mead National Recreation Area; Moapa Valley National Wildlife Refuge; Mount Charleston Wilderness; Nellis Air Force Base; Red Rock Canyon National Conservation Area; Sloan Canyon National Conservation Area; and part of Spring Mountains National Recreation Area. For more information on broadband availability in Clark County, click here: ftp://ftp.connectnv.org/CNVPublic/ Connect_Nevada_Mapping/County_Maps/County_Broadband/Broadband_Clark.pdf For more information on unserved households in Clark County, click here: ftp://ftp.connectnv.org/CNVPublic/ Connect_Nevada_Mapping/County_Maps/County_Density/Density_Clark.pdf

Figure 12 Clark Co.

NV State Avg.

100 80 60 40 20 0


Cable

DSL

Fiber

Fixed Wireless

Connect Nevada

42

Douglas County: One of Nevada’s original nine counties, Douglas County lies directly south of Carson City and includes 16,401 households (2.18% of the state’s households). At 738 square miles, it is the county with the third highest household density at 23.1 households per square mile. Douglas County is also notable for the inclusion of a large part of Lake Tahoe and its surrounding communities, as well as part of Toiyabe National Forest. For more information on broadband availability in Douglas County, click here: ftp://ftp.connectnv.org/CNVPublic/ Connect_Nevada_Mapping/County_Maps/County_Broadband/Broadband_Douglas.pdf For more information on unserved households in Douglas County, click here: ftp://ftp.connectnv.org/CNVPublic/ Connect_Nevada_Mapping/County_Maps/County_Density/Density_Douglas.pdf

Figure 13 Douglas Co.

NV State Avg.

100 80 60 40 20 0

43


Cable


DSL

Fiber

Fixed Wireless

Washoe County: Washoe County holds Nevada’s second-largest city: Reno. With 132,084, or 17.6%, of Nevada’s households spread over 6,551 square miles, Washoe County is Nevada’s fourth-most densely populated county, with a household density of 20.8. Also included in Washoe County is the city of Sparks and 14 other towns or communities. Washoe County also contains Anaho Island National Wildlife Refuge; part of Black Rock Desert-High Rock Canyon Emigrant Trails National Conservation Area; part of Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge; and part of Toiyabe National Forest. For more information on broadband availability in Washoe County, click here: ftp://ftp.connectnv.org/CNVPublic/ Connect_Nevada_Mapping/County_Maps/County_Broadband/Broadband_Washoe.pdf For more information on unserved households in Washoe County, click here: ftp://ftp.connectnv.org/CNVPublic/ Connect_Nevada_Mapping/County_Maps/County_Density/Density_Washoe.pdf

Figure 14 Washoe Co.

NV State Avg.

100 80 60 40 20 0


Cable

DSL

Fiber

Fixed Wireless

Connect Nevada

44

Lyon County: Located south of Reno-Sparks, and east of Carson City and Lake Tahoe, Lyon County was until very recently one of the fastest growing counties in the United States. Spanning 2,016 square miles and holding 13,007, or 1.73%, of Nevada households, Lyon County is fifth-most densely populated county in Nevada with a household density of 6.5 (the state average is 6.8). Lyon County also contains part of the Toiyabe National Forest. For more information on broadband availability in Lyon County, click here: ftp://ftp.connectnv.org/CNVPublic/ Connect_Nevada_Mapping/County_Maps/County_Broadband/Broadband_Lyon.pdf For more information on unserved households in Lyon County, click here: ftp://ftp.connectnv.org/CNVPublic/ Connect_Nevada_Mapping/County_Maps/County_Density/Density_Lyon.pdf

Figure 15 Lyon Co.

NV State Avg.

100 80 60 40 20 0


Cable

DSL

Fiber

Fixed Wireless

Storey County: Storey County’s position as Nevada’s sixth-most densely populated county is deceptive. While its household density is 5.5 households per square mile, Storey County is comprised of 1,462, or 0.19%, of Nevada’s households spread over 264 square miles, and it is a part of the Reno-Sparks MSA. For more information on broadband availability in Storey County, click here: ftp://ftp.connectnv.org/CNVPublic/ Connect_Nevada_Mapping/County_Maps/County_Broadband/Broadband_Storey.pdf For more information on unserved households in Storey County, click here: ftp://ftp.connectnv.org/CNVPublic/ Connect_Nevada_Mapping/County_Maps/County_Density/Density_Storey.pdf

Figure 16 Storey Co.

NV State Avg.

100 80 60 40 20 0

45


Cable


DSL

Fiber

Fixed Wireless

Churchill County: Located due east of Carson City and Reno-Sparks, Churchill County is 5,023 square miles with 8,912 households (1.19% of Nevada’s households), making it the seventh-most densely populated county in Nevada. Interestingly, household density between Storey County and Churchill County plummets. Churchill County’s household density is 1.8 households per square mile. Churchill County contains at least 11 towns and communities, and owns the local exchange carrier, CC Communications, which is a major provider of DSL and FTTP broadband in the county. While data from CC Communications was not presented as part of initial data provided to NTIA in the spring of 2010, and thus is not represented in this report, data for this provider is in the process of being collected and will be represented on updates of Connect Nevada broadband inventory maps and reports. For more information on broadband availability in Churchill County, click here: ftp://ftp.connectnv.org/CNVPublic/ Connect_Nevada_Mapping/County_Maps/County_Broadband/Broadband_Churchill.pdf For more information on unserved households in Churchill County, click here: ftp://ftp.connectnv.org/CNVPublic/ Connect_Nevada_Mapping/County_Maps/County_Density/Density_Churchill.pdf

Figure 17 Churchill Co.

NV State Avg.

100 80 60 40 20 0


Cable

DSL

Fiber

Fixed Wireless

Connect Nevada

46

Elko County: Elko is a large county located in the northeastern corner of Nevada. In fact, Elko County is the fourth largest county in the United States. With 17,203 square miles and 15,638 households (2.08% of Nevada households), it is Nevada’s eighth-most densely populated county with 0.9 households per square mile. Federal land in Elko County includes part of the Humboldt National Forest and part of Ruby Lake National Wildlife Refuge. For more information on broadband availability in Elko County, click here: ftp://ftp.connectnv.org/CNVPublic/ Connect_Nevada_Mapping/County_Maps/County_Broadband/Broadband_Elko.pdf For more information on unserved households in Elko County, click here: ftp://ftp.connectnv.org/CNVPublic/ Connect_Nevada_Mapping/County_Maps/County_Density/Density_Elko.pdf

Figure 18 Elko Co.

NV State Avg.

100 80 60 40 20 0

47


Cable


DSL

Fiber

Fixed Wireless

Nye County: Nye County is the largest county in Nevada and the third largest county in the United States. Nye County has 13,309 households (1.77% of Nevada households) spread over 18,159 square miles, giving it a household density of just 0.7 households per square mile. There are no incorporated cities in Nye County. In addition, the Nevada Test Site and the proposed Yucca Mountain nuclear waste repository are located in Nye County. Controlling 92% of the land in Nye County, the Federal government’s land also includes Ash Meadows National Wildlife Refuge; part of Death Valley National Park; part of Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forest; and part of Spring Mountains National Recreation Area. For more information on broadband availability in Nye County, click here: ftp://ftp.connectnv.org/CNVPublic/ Connect_Nevada_Mapping/County_Maps/County_Broadband/Broadband_Nye.pdf For more information on unserved households in Nye County, click here: ftp://ftp.connectnv.org/CNVPublic/ Connect_Nevada_Mapping/County_Maps/County_Density/Density_Nye.pdf

Figure 19 Nye Co.

NV State Avg.

100 80 60 40 20 0


Cable

DSL

Fiber

Fixed Wireless

Connect Nevada

48

Mineral County: Mineral County is located just south of Churchill County and makes up part of Nevada’s border with the state of California. 3,813 square miles and only 2,197 households (0.29% of Nevada households), Mineral County’s household density is only 0.6 households per square miles, with 60% of its population living in the county seat of Hawthorne. Mineral County is noteworthy in this report in that it is the only county where DSL is the only choice for fixed, terrestrial broadband. For more information on broadband availability in Mineral County, click here: ftp://ftp.connectnv.org/CNVPublic/ Connect_Nevada_Mapping/County_Maps/County_Broadband/Broadband_Mineral.pdf For more information on unserved households in Mineral County, click here: ftp://ftp.connectnv.org/CNVPublic/ Connect_Nevada_Mapping/County_Maps/County_Density/Density_Mineral.pdf

Figure 20 Mineral Co.

NV State Avg.

100 80 60 40 20 0


Cable

DSL

Fiber

Fixed Wireless

Humboldt County: Humboldt’s household density is 0.6 households per square mile (9,658 square miles and 5,733 households, or 0.76% of the state’s households.) Just east of Washoe County and part of Nevada’s border with Oregon, Mineral County includes the Black Rock Desert-High Rock Canyon Emigrant Trails National Conservation Area; part of the Humboldt National Forest; and part of the Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge. For more information on broadband availability in Humboldt County, click here: ftp://ftp.connectnv.org/ CNVPublic/Connect_Nevada_Mapping/County_Maps/County_Broadband/Broadband_Humboldt.pdf For more information on unserved households in Humboldt County, click here: ftp://ftp.connectnv.org/ CNVPublic/Connect_Nevada_Mapping/County_Maps/County_Density/Density_Humboldt.pdf

Figure 21 Humboldt Co.

NV State Avg.

100 80 60 40 20 0

49


Cable


DSL

Fiber

Fixed Wireless

White Pine County: White Pine County includes at least 16 nationally protected or designated wilderness areas. It is Nevada’s twelfth-most densely populated county, with 3,282 households (0.44% of Nevada’s households) spread over 8,896 square miles for a household density of only 0.4 household per square mile. White Pine is one of eight Nevada counties that have no cable broadband available. For more information on broadband availability in White Pine County, click here: ftp://ftp.connectnv.org/ CNVPublic/Connect_Nevada_Mapping/County_Maps/County_Broadband/Broadband_WhitePine.pdf For more information on unserved households in White Pine County, click here: ftp://ftp.connectnv.org/ CNVPublic/Connect_Nevada_Mapping/County_Maps/County_Density/Density_WhitePine.pdf

Figure 22 White Pine Co.

NV State Avg.

100 80 60 40 20 0


Cable

DSL

Fiber

Fixed Wireless

Lander County: Located in almost the exact center of Nevada, Lander County holds 0.29 % of the Nevada’s households and has a household density of only 0.4 households per square mile (total area = 5,519 square miles; total households = 2,197), and no incorporated cities (the county seat is the unincorporated community of Battle Mountain. For more information on broadband availability in Lander County, click here: ftp://ftp.connectnv.org/CNVPublic/ Connect_Nevada_Mapping/County_Maps/County_Broadband/Broadband_Lander.pdf For more information on unserved households in Lander County, click here: ftp://ftp.connectnv.org/CNVPublic/ Connect_Nevada_Mapping/County_Maps/County_Density/Density_Lander.pdf

Figure 23 Lander Co.

NV State Avg.

100 80 60 40 20 0


Cable

DSL

Fiber

Fixed Wireless

Connect Nevada

50

Pershing County: Pershing County is located directly east of Washoe County and directly north of Churchill County. It has a total area of 6,068 square miles, 1,962 households (0.26% of the state’s households) and a household density of only 0.3 households per square mile. For more information on broadband availability in Pershing County, click here: ftp://ftp.connectnv.org/CNVPublic/ Connect_Nevada_Mapping/County_Maps/County_Broadband/Broadband_Pershing.pdf For more information on unserved households in Pershing County, click here: ftp://ftp.connectnv.org/CNVPublic/ Connect_Nevada_Mapping/County_Maps/County_Density/Density_Pershing.pdf

Figure 24 Pershing Co.

NV State Avg.

100 80 60 40 20 0


Cable

DSL

Fiber

Fixed Wireless

Eureka County: Eureka County is also located in the center of the state of Nevada, east of White Pine County and directly north of Nye County. With only 666 households (0.088% of Nevada households) spread across 4,180 square miles, its household density is only 0.2 households per square miles, and includes a part of Toiyabe National Forest. Eureka County has the lowest broadband availability rate in the state with 23.57%, all of which is available from DSL as the sole fixed, terrestrial platform. For more information on broadband availability in Eureka County, click here: ftp://ftp.connectnv.org/CNVPublic/ Connect_Nevada_Mapping/County_Maps/County_Broadband/Broadband_Eureka.pdf For more information on unserved households in Eureka County, click here: ftp://ftp.connectnv.org/CNVPublic/ Connect_Nevada_Mapping/County_Maps/County_Density/Density_Eureka.pdf

Figure 25 Eureka Co.

NV State Avg.

100 80 60 40 20 0

51


Cable


DSL

Fiber

Fixed Wireless

Lincoln County: The county in Nevada that includes the famous Area 51, Lincoln County is the second mostsparsely populated county in Nevada with only 0.20% of the state’s households (total area = 10,637 square miles; households = 1,540; household density = 0.1 household per square mile). Several other Federal lands exist within Lincoln County, which is the seventh largest county in the United States. Lincoln County is also unique in that more than 90% of its households have broadband availability through a Fiber to the Premises (FTTP) connection, in a state where total fiber availability measures 0.56%, fixed wireless broadband is only available to 0.03% of households, and there is no reported mobile wireless availability. For more information on broadband availability in Lincoln County, click here: ftp://ftp.connectnv.org/CNVPublic/ Connect_Nevada_Mapping/County_Maps/County_Broadband/Broadband_Lincoln.pdf For more information on unserved households in Lincoln County, click here: ftp://ftp.connectnv.org/CNVPublic/ Connect_Nevada_Mapping/County_Maps/County_Density/Density_Lincoln.pdf

Figure 26 Lincoln Co.

NV State Avg.

100 80 60 40 20 0


Cable

DSL

Fiber

Fixed Wireless

Connect Nevada

52

Esmeralda County: Esmeralda County is the most-sparsely populated county in Nevada with only 0.06% of the state’s total counties, and one of the most-sparsely counties in the United States, With 3,859 square miles and only 455 households (household density 0.1 households per square mile), it includes part of Death Valley National Park, part of Inyo National Forest, and has no public high school. For more information on broadband availability in Esmeralda County, click here: ftp://ftp.connectnv.org/ CNVPublic/Connect_Nevada_Mapping/County_Maps/County_Broadband/Broadband_Esmeralda.pdf For more information on unserved households in Esmeralda County, click here: ftp://ftp.connectnv.org/ CNVPublic/Connect_Nevada_Mapping/County_Maps/County_Density/Density_Esmeralda.pdf

Figure 27 Esmeralda Co.

NV State Avg.

100 80 60 40 20 0


Cable

DSL

Fiber

Fixed Wireless

3.3 Federal and Tribal Lands No discussion of Nevada and its infrastructure is complete without an examination of the overwhelming presence of the Federal government in the state and the Native American communities who share borders with Nevada. According to the U.S. Department of Interior Bureau of Land Management, the Federal government manages more than 60 million of Nevada’s 70 million acres, including 1,000,000 acres managed by the Bureau of Indian Affairs. This enormous footprint, including many desolate and uninhabited areas, has undeniable impact on any efforts to expand broadband in the Nevada.

53


3.3.1 Federal land in Nevada Figure 28 below demonstrates the extensive nature of federal lands in the state of Nevada and how that compares to broadband availability in the state.

Broadband Availability the State of Nevada Figure 28: B roadband Availability in the State ofin Nevada Comparison toComparison Federal Lands to Federal Lands

Humboldt Elko Washoe Pershing

Eureka

Lander Churchill

Storey Carson City

White Pine Lyon

Douglas

Mineral

Nye Esmeralda Lincoln

Federal Lands Fiber Cable DSL

Clark

Fixed Wireless Mobile

Connect Nevada

54

3.3.2 Tribal land in Nevada In acquiring both broadband availability and Community Anchor Institution data in Nevada, Connect Nevada made special effort to engage all federal tribal entities within the state. According to the U.S. Department of the Interior Bureau of Indian Affairs, the state of Nevada has 19 Native-American nations: Confederated Tribes of the Goshute Reservation, Nevada and Utah; Duckwater Shoshone Tribe of the Duckwater Reservation, Nevada; Ely Shoshone Tribe of Nevada; Fort McDermitt Paiute and Shoshone Tribes of the Fort McDermitt Indian Reservation, Nevada and Oregon; Fort Mojave Indian Tribe, Arizona, California and Nevada; Las Vegas Tribe of Paiute Indians of the Las Vegas Indian Colony, Nevada; Lovelock Paiute Tribe of the Lovelock Indian Colony, Nevada; Moapa Band of Paiute Indians of the Moapa River Indian Reservation, Nevada; Paiute-Shoshone Tribe of the Fallon Reservation and Colony, Nevada; Pyramid Lake Paiute Tribe of the Pyramid Lake Reservation, Nevada; Reno-Sparks Indian Colony, Nevada; Shoshone-Paiute Tribes of the Duck Valley Reservation, Nevada; Summit Lake Paiute Tribe of Nevada; Te-Moak Tribe of Western Shoshone Indians of Nevada (Four constituent bands: Battle Mountain Band; Elko Band; South Fork Band; and Wells Band); Walker River Paiute Tribe of the Walker River Reservation, Nevada; Washoe Tribe of Nevada & California (Carson Colony; Dresslerville Colony; Woodfords Community; Stewart Community; and Washoe Ranches); Winnemucca Indian Colony of Nevada; Yerington Paiute Tribe of the Yerington Colony & Campbell Ranch, Nevada; and Yomba Shoshone Tribe of the Yomba Reservation, Nevada. Figure 29 below shows both broadband availability in Nevada with the location of tribal lands located inside the state.64

64 Source for tribal land locations represented in Figure 29: http://www.nationalatlas.gov/atlasftp.html#indlanp

55


Broadband in the State of Figure 29: B roadband AvailabilityAvailability in the State of Nevada Comparison to Tribal Lands Comparison to Tribal Lands

Nevada

Humboldt Elko Washoe Pershing

Eureka

Lander Churchill

Storey Carson City

White Pine Lyon

Douglas

Mineral

Nye Esmeralda Lincoln

Tribal Lands Fiber Cable DSL

Clark

Fixed Wireless Mobile

Connect Nevada

56

3.4 Universal Service Funding in Nevada This section explains the current impact of the Universal Service Fund (USF), including the High Cost Program, across the state of Nevada, as well as the state of Nevada’s Universal Service Fund. One major policy recommendation included in the National Broadband Plan involves major revisions to the current program to allow it to directly fund broadband infrastructure deployment. The High Cost Program is designed to ensure that consumers in all regions of the nation have access to and pay rates for telecommunications services that are reasonably comparable to those services provided and rates paid in urban areas, and is sub-divided into categories: ■■

High Cost Loop support is available to rural price-cap and rate-of-return incumbent carriers and competitive carriers providing service in the areas of these rural companies, which must be designated as eligible telecommunications carriers (ETCs) by their state commissions or the FCC. The HCL program provides support for the "last mile" of connection for rural companies in service areas where the cost to provide this service exceeds 115% of the national average cost per line.65

■■

Interstate Common Line Support is available only to rate-of-return incumbent carriers (mostly rural and some non-rural carriers) and competitive carriers providing service in the areas of these incumbent carriers. These carriers must be designated as ETCs. Interstate Common Line Support helps to offset interstate access charges and is designed to permit each rate-of-return carrier to recover its common line revenue requirement, while ensuring that its subscriber line charges (SLCs) remain affordable to its customers.66

■■

Interstate Access Support is available only to price-cap incumbent carriers (mostly non-rural and some rural carriers) and competitive carriers operating in the service area(s) of a price cap carrier. These carriers must be designated as ETCs. Interstate Access Support helps to offset interstate access charges for price cap to companies, is targeted to the density zones that have the greatest need for it.67

■■

Local Switching Support is available to rural incumbent carriers serving 50,000 lines or fewer (mostly rate-of-return and some price-cap carriers) and competitive carriers providing service in the areas of these rural incumbent carriers, who must be designated as ETCs. Local Switching Support is designed to help carriers recoup some of the high fixed switching costs of providing service to fewer customers. LSS helps keep customer rates comparable to more densely populated urban areas.68

The High Cost Program is historically the largest component of the USF program. The FCC projects a total of $8.7 billion for the federal Universal Service Fund in 2010. Of this total, $4.6 billion are projected for the High Cost program, currently providing funding to an estimated 1,800 eligible telecommunications carriers; $1.2 billion are projected to subsidize low income households under the Lifeline and Linkup programs; $214 million are projected for the Rural Health Care Program; and $2.7 billion are projected for the school and libraries E-Rate program.69 In 2009 5 public libraries and CLANs were approved to receive $291,989.04 from the E-rate in Nevada, and Nevada schools and school districts were approved to receive $8,050,089.40.70

65 USAC. 66 Ibid. 67 Ibid. 68 Ibid. 69 NBP, p. 140 and Annual Report, 2010, Universal Service Administration Company. (“Annual Report 2009, USAC”). Available at: http://www.usac.org/_res/documents/about/pdf/usac-annual-report-2009.pdf 70 Nevada Broadband Task Force

57


In 2009 the total USF program disbursement in the state of Nevada amounted to $32.8 million, for a total disbursement in the state of $361.6 million from 1998 to 2009. High Cost Program disbursements for the state of Nevada in 2009 totaled $25 million, for a total of $897.5 million between 1998 and 2009. Of these, disbursements in Nevada in 2009 amounted to $4.9 million for HCL, $6.39 million for ICLS, and $5.2 million LSS.71 Table 10 summarizes these data.

Table 10 – Universal Service Fund Disbursements in the State of Nevada – 1998-2009 (millions) 2009

From 1998-2009

High Cost Loop

$4.9

Interstate Common Line

$6.39

Interstate Access Support

$9.041

Local Switching

$5.2

Total High Cost Component

$25.5

$286.3

Total USF Disbursement

$32.8

$361.7

Source: Annual Report, 2009. USAC While these data provide an overview of the USF federal program, it is important to note that the data provides only a partial assessment of the overall USF program. Under current USF rules, small rate-of-return providers are more likely to receive funding under this program. According to the FCC, in 2009 nationally approximately $2 billion of the High Cost program went to 814 rate-of-return carriers, $1 billion to 17 price-cap carriers and $1.3 billion to 212 competitive eligible telecommunications carriers (CTECs).72 In addition, the state of Nevada has a Universal Service Fund of its own. The Nevada Universal Service Fund collects fees from 370 telecommunications service providers and has disbursed $231,000 in support of High Cost, Lifeline Assistance, Supplemental Aid to Schools and Libraries, Supplemental Aid to Rural Health Care providers and the Extension of Basic Service to previously unserved/underserved areas. More information can be found at http://www.solixinc.com/internet/current-programs/nevada-usf.aspx. Following NBP recommendations for reform of the USF program, and the related Intercarrier Compensation rules, the FCC has now reopened several dockets to evaluate and propose reforms to USF programs and rules. The FCC reforms underway are likely to have important policy implications across the state. Further examination of the impact of comprehensive USF disbursements across Nevada communities is recommended in order to assess the historical and ongoing impact of this federal program upon the broadband market in Nevada and evaluate the implications of proposed reforms. Furthermore, as discussed in the following section, disbursement of USF funds is one factor that partially explains the differences between Connect Nevada’s estimates of broadband availability and the FCC’s NBP simulation estimates (See Section 3.5 below). In order to obtain reliable broadband inventory estimates, it is recommended that the state of Nevada continue gathering and validating data under the SBDD grant program that can be used to ascertain the true extent of unserved and underserved areas in the state.

71 Annual Report, 2009, USAC, p. 39-48. 72 NBP, p. 141.

Connect Nevada

58

3.5 Broadband Stimulus Investments in Nevada Through the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act In addition to federal funding for telecommunications that comes through the Universal Service Fund, a second and significant source of support for broadband improvements in the state of Nevada comes from the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. Funding provided through five separate programs at the U.S. Department of Commerce or U.S. Department of Agriculture has been awarded to various grantees that exist in Nevada.

BTOP CCI 73% BTOP PCC 2%

BTOP SBA 19%

RUS BIP 6%

The U.S. Department of Commerce’s National Telecommunications and Infrastructure Administration (NTIA) administers the Broadband Technology Opportunities Program (BTOP) within three program categories: Comprehensive Community Infrastructure (CCI) -- Projects to deploy new or improved broadband Internet facilities (e.g., laying new fiber-optic cables or upgrading wireless towers) and to connect “community anchor institutions” such as schools, libraries, hospitals, and public safety facilities. These networks help ensure sustainable community growth and provide the foundation for enhanced household and business broadband Internet services.73 Public Computer Centers (PCC) -- Projects to establish new public computer facilities or upgrade existing ones that provide broadband access to the general public or to specific vulnerable populations, such as low-income individuals, the unemployed, seniors, children, minorities, and people with disabilities.74 Sustainable Broadband Adoption (SBA) -- Projects that focus on increasing broadband Internet usage and adoption, including among vulnerable populations where broadband technology traditionally has been underutilized. Many projects include digital literacy training and outreach campaigns to increase the relevance of broadband in people’s everyday lives.75 NTIA also administers the State Broadband Data and Development Program, which is funding the Connect Nevada initiative, Nevada’s broadband inventory map and planning activities.76

73 http://www2.ntia.doc.gov/about 74 Ibid. 75 Ibid. 76 Ibid.

59


The U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Rural Utilities Service (RUS) administers the Broadband Initiatives Program (BIP). BIP furnishes loans, grants, and loan/grant combinations to assist with addressing the challenge of rapidly expanding the access and quality of broadband services across rural America.77 Below is a list of grants announced for the state of Nevada under the programs listed above, totaling $242,282,368. Although it is too early to report on the impact these projects have had in Nevada, Connect Nevada will work to track these projects and their results and provide updates on them in future reports.

BTOP CCI (Total Awarded = $170,402,673):78 ■■

University Corporation for Advanced Internet Development – this $1.24 million project seeks to interconnect more than 30 existing research and education networks across all 50 U.S. states that will benefit approximately 121,000 community anchor institutions.

■■

California Broadband Cooperative, Inc. – the California Broadband Cooperative was awarded $81 million to build a 553-mile, 10 Gbps middle-mile fiber network that will provide new capacity along U.S. Route 395 in the Eastern Sierras region, an area including both California and Nevada.

■■

Nevada Hospital Association – the Nevada Hospital Association was awarded $19 million to build and operate a statewide telemedicine network that would be made available to 37 medical providers in the state. Public safety agencies, educational institutions, tribal governments and last-mile Internet service providers will also benefit from the project.

■■

Pyramid Lake Paiute Tribe – this $7 million project will deploy a fiber-optic middle mile network across the Pyramid Lake Paiute Tribe’s 742 square mile reservation which will provide direct connections to local community anchor institutions at a minimum speed of 10 Mbps.

BTOP PCC (Total Awarded = $6,232,008):79 ■■

Las Vegas-Clark County Urban League – The Access to Computer Technology and Instruction in Online Networking (ACTION) project was awarded $4.6 million to expand the capacity of 14 public computer centers and create 15 new computer centers in public housing developments, community centers, and senior centers in disadvantaged communities of Clark County, NV.

■■

Nevada Department of Cultural Affairs – this project was awarded $806,045 to expand the training and educational capacity at libraries and other hubs for free computer access in each of 15 counties throughout the state. The Nevada One Click Away project plans to upgrade 34 public computer centers and create one new center.

■■

Lyon County School District – this project was awarded $745,000 to fund six new public computer centers with approximately 120 workstations to serve up to an estimated 1,700 users each week and provide training for as many as 7,500 residents.

BTOP SBA (Total Awarded = $43,508,139 across project areas of 32 states and 56 states/territories, respectively. Estimated benefit to Nevada of $1,158,888.39):80 ■■

One Economy Corporation – the One Economy Corporation was awarded $28.5 million to create a program in 32 states including Nevada. The 21st Century Information and Support Ecosystem program of computer training, wireless Internet access, broadband awareness marketing, and online content and

77 http://www.broadbandusa.gov/BIPportal/index.htm 78 http://www2.ntia.doc.gov/nevada 79 Ibid. 80 Ibid.

Connect Nevada

60

applications will serve159 affordable and public housing developments and low-income communities in 50 cities and towns across 31 states and the District of Columbia. ■■

Communication Service for the Deaf, Inc. – this $14.9 million project will provide services in all 56 U.S. states and territories including Nevada. The grantee intends to employ a combination of discounted broadband service and specialized computers, technology training from an online state-of-the art support center customized to the community’s needs, public access to videophones at anchor institutions from coast to coast, and a nationwide outreach initiative.

RUS BIP (Total Awarded = $20,711,222):81 ■■

KeyOn Communications, Inc. – This $10.1 million award, matched by $2 million in private contribution, will allow KeyOn Communications to offer 4G, last-mile wireless broadband and digital phone service (VoIP) in 39 of the most rural communities in Nevada, at broadband speeds of up to 8 Mbps.

■■

Reno-Sparks Indian Colony, Inc. – This $400,000 award will allow Reno-Sparks Indian Colony, Inc. to offer wireless broadband service speeds at a minimum of 5 Mbps to communities in a rural reservation in Hungry Valley.

■■

Rural Telephone Company – This $2.4 million grant/loan project will extend ADSL2+ high speed broadband service to existing and new customers in the North Fork, Tuscarora, and Jarbidge, Nevada service areas.

■■

Arizona Nevada Tower Corporation - This combined loan-grant award of $7.75 million will allow the Arizona Nevada Tower Corporation to offer a state-of-the-art microwave radio backbone and middlemile system to provide significant bandwidth to WISPS, anchor institutions and enterprise users. The project will provide highly reliable and scalable broadband transport to enhance existing fiber-optic cable or where fiber-optic cable is not available to serve users living outside of Washoe and Clark counties. Approximately 41,000 people stand to benefit, as do approximately 186 businesses and community institutions in 15 service areas.

3.6 FCC and Connect Nevada Availability Estimates – A Comparative Analysis As part of the National Broadband Plan, the FCC published in April 2010 a study titled “The Broadband Availability Gap,” which includes research assessing the level of funding necessary to provide broadband to all those U.S. households that don’t currently have service available.82 This estimate is constructed to ensure universal broadband service across the nation of at least 4 Mbps download and 1 Mbps upload speeds, the National Broadband Availability Target.83 The study includes a simulation of the current state of broadband availability that estimates 123 million households, or 95% of the U.S. population, have “or will have in the near-term without government support” service supported at these speeds; while 7 million households, or 5% of the nation, do not.84 It further estimates that the cost to serve these households at the National Broadband Availability Target capacity is $23.5 billion.85 This FCC simulation constitutes the only nationwide estimate of broadband inventory and sets the stage for the national debate over reform of the Universal Service Fund program. As such, it is an important benchmark in the public policy debate. The FCC Availability Gap study includes simulated estimates of broadband inventory for each county across the nation. For the state of Nevada, these estimates are the result of a simulation based on commercially available

81 RUS BIP project summaries adapted from grant announcement notifications issued by U.S. Department of Agriculture. 82 FCC Availability Gap. 83 Ibid, at footnote 3, 4. 84 Ibid, 17. 85 Ibid, 1.

61


data and data from other states. This section presents a comparative analysis between Connect Nevada’s measured broadband inventory and the FCC simulation of broadband availability for the state of Nevada. Connect Nevada has collected broadband inventory data by speed tiers as required by NTIA’s SBDD NOFA.86 This comparative analysis contrasts broadband inventory across Nevada of at least 3 Mbps download speeds (the closest NTIA defined speed tier to the FCC’s National Broadband Availability Target) with the FCC simulation estimates of at least 4 Mbps download speeds. The FCC’s Availability Gap study estimates that 95% of U.S. households are currently served by broadband of at least 4 Mbps download and 1 Mbps upload speeds.87 Connect Nevada estimates that in the spring of 2010, 97.36% of Nevada households are served by broadband of at least 3 Mbps download speeds.88 It further estimates that 93.46% of Nevada households have broadband available at speeds of 6 Mbps or greater. Hence, the statewide Nevada estimates for broadband availability fall in line with FCC estimate of 95% of households served by broadband of at least 4 Mbps. When evaluating county level estimates for broadband availability, there appear to be some significant differences across the two studies. The FCC anticipated outcomes such as this and describes just this situation in its FCC Availability Gap study, stating, “We rely on these results to represent an aggregate, nationwide figure. We are more cautious with results in specific geographies because the estimates of the availability of broadband capable networks are in part based on a statistical model (see Chapter 2 for more detail). When examined at a very granular level, the availability model will sometimes overestimate and sometime underestimate service levels, but should tend to balance out when aggregated to larger geographic areas. …Further analysis and improved source data would be required to refine estimates for particular geographies.”89 Table 11 reports FCC and Connect Nevada estimates of broadband availability by county.90 The data is sorted according to density of population and showcases that the FCC and Connect Nevada estimates are relatively similar in counties with high household density.91 By contrast, results from the two studies differ across rural counties, and in some cases the estimates are significantly different. For example, in Humboldt County the two estimates differ by as much as +36.36 percentage points, where Connect Nevada measured capacity is significantly below the FCC simulation. In Elko County the difference between the two study estimates is 55.7 percentage points; Connect Nevada estimates availability at 76.7% compared to the FCC simulation of only 21% of households served.

86 SBDD NOFA, Technical Appendix. 87 Ibid, 17. 88 See Table 1. 89 FCC Availability Gap, p. 5 90 FCC county availability gap simulation estimates are available at http://www.broadband.gov/maps/availability.htm 91 With the exclusion of Storey County.

Connect Nevada

62

Table 11 – Broadband Estimated Availability In the State Of Nevada By County: FCC and Connect Nevada Estimates Percent Households Served

County

Household Density

FCC Gap Simulation (≥ 4 Mbps)

Connect Nevada Estimates (≥ 3Mbps)

Difference (= FCC-CNV % Estimate)

Esmeralda County

0.1

67%

45.31%

21.69

Lincoln County

0.1

57%

95.42%

-38.42

Eureka County

0.2

40%

23.57%

16.43

Pershing County

0.3

42%

51.83%

-9.83

Lander County

0.4

71%

61.87%

9.13

White Pine County

0.4

72%

68.65%

3.35

Humboldt County

0.6

90%

53.64%

36.36

Mineral County

0.6

57%

71.28%

-14.28

Nye County

0.7

89%

69.43%

19.66

Elko County

0.9

21%

76.7%

-55.7

Churchill County

1.8

100%

88.2%

11.8

Storey County

5.5

57%

72.61%

-15.61

Lyon County

6.5

82%

70.43%

11.57

Washoe County

20.8

92%

97.14%

-5.14

Douglas County

23.1

87%

89.11%

-2.11

Clark County

64.8

100%

99.25%

0.75

Carson City

140.7

100%

99.9%

0.1

STATE TOTAL

6.8

95%

99.94%

0.06

Source: Household Numbers and Density: Census Bureau, 2000. FCC Availability Gap. Broadband Availability Estimates: Connect Nevada, April 2010.

63


What appears to be driving these differences? The FCC Availability Gap study is based on limited data available from commercial sources and a handful of states. This limited data is used to simulate broadband inventory across other states where, as in the case of Nevada, robust broadband inventory did not exist in early 2010. Furthermore, the FCC Availability Gap simulation is based on a series of assumptions of national broadband market trends that are not necessarily applicable to the broadband market in the state of Nevada. These discrepancies likely explain the measured differences between the FCC and Connect Nevada estimates across rural areas in the state. The FCC Availability Gap simulation estimates national cable availability based on cable availability data from commercially available data and publicly available data from the commonwealth of Massachusetts.92 Wireless network coverage is estimated using a commercial dataset from American Roamer. However, due to lack of reliable sources for Wireless ISP (WISP) provider data, this type of platform is not included in the FCC analysis.93 National estimates of DSL (or telco) availability are based on data from the states of California, Minnesota, Pennsylvania, Alabama, and Wyoming.94 For all other states, including Nevada, the FCC Availability Gap analysis estimates broadband availability using statistical simulation modeling. According to the FCC Availability Gap analysis, “the main risk in this approach is the possibility of systematic differences between the states for which we have data and the states for which we do not. Since the statistical regression relies on a small number of states, to the extent that the tie between demographics and network availability in the rest of the country is not the same as these states, the regression will not be accurate. The states we used in our analysis have a wide variety of rural and urban areas and have varied geographic challenges which are advantageous, but there is no way to verify our outputs without additional data.”95 Data and analysis in this report suggest that the state of Nevada is an outlier in the broadband market, characterized by atypical structural factors that likely drive the gap between FCC and Connect Nevada broadband availability estimates, including: ■■

Unserved areas in Nevada have extremely low density of population. The average population density of populated Census Blocks in the United States is 153.6 people per square mile. FCC estimated “unserved” Census Blocks have a lower density, with an average of only 13.8 people per square mile.96 By contrast, the average population density across Nevada is 18.2 and the average household density is 6.8.97 Connect Nevada estimates that the average household density across unserved Census Blocks in Nevada is 0.19 for all Census Blocks, and 0.78 across all Census Blocks where there is population;98

■■

Served areas only comprise 6.05% of the state’s geographic area. When considering this statistic, however, it is imperative to realize that 86% of Nevada’s land is owned by the United State Government, and is inaccessible.99 The high concentration of population in mainly two urban areas, coupled with the extensive federal lands in the state are likely an important factor to consider for broadband policy formulation.100

92 FCC Broadband Availability Gap, p. 21. 93 Ibid, p. 25. 94 Ibid, p. 23. 95 Ibid, p. 24. 96 Ibid, p. 19. 97 U.S. Census Bureau, 2000. 98 See Table 6 in this report. 99 U.S. Bureau of Land Management, 2007. 100 Counties classified as urban include: Clark, Storey, Washoe, and the Consolidated Municipality of Carson City.

Connect Nevada

64

■■

Nevada has a high availability of wireless fixed networks (WISPs) with an estimated 13 WISPs serving collectively 677,821 homes, or 90.23% of all Nevada homes.101

While the broadband market in the state of Nevada presents unique structural factors that collectively amount to important differences between Nevada and the states of Massachusetts, Minnesota, California, Alabama, Wyoming, or Pennsylvania, upon which the FCC relies to formulate its broadband inventory analysis. Nevada’s broadband inventory largely lines up with FCC estimates at a statewide, or aggregated, level. At more granular levels (as predicted by the FCC), these structural differences are likely driving any discrepancies between the Connect Nevada broadband inventory and the FCC Availability Gap simulation for the state of Nevada. It is important to continue gathering and validating broadband inventory and adoption data in the state of Nevada – particularly in rural areas – in order to accurately measure the broadband gaps and demand across the state and inform the ongoing Universal Service Fund reform debate currently underway at the FCC.

3.7 Connectivity Across Community Anchor Institutions in the State of Nevada Connect Nevada has identified the names and addresses of 3,226 Community Anchor Institutions (CAIs) across the state of Nevada, including 85 libraries, 877 K-12 schools, 60 institutions of higher education, 99 public safety facilities (including fire departments, state and local police, and sheriff’s offices), 78 healthcare institutions (such as hospitals and medical clinics), and 702 other state, local, and federal government facilities. Of these identified CAIs, Connect Nevada has gathered partial broadband connectivity data (such as broadband platform, download speed, or upload speed) from 258 institutions including: 1 Nevada library, 130 K-12 schools, 43 higher education institutions, 0 public safety facilities, 30 healthcare facilities, and 52 other identified government institutions across the state. Within these categories, Connect Nevada has collected full connectivity data (broadband platform, download speed, and upload speed) for 249 institutions. Table 12 summarizes data from CAIs that have submitted information regarding the type of platform serving their broadband needs. The broadband platform cited by the largest share of Community Anchor Institutions is other copper service (all copper based technologies other than xDSL [e.g. – Ethernet over copper or T-1]), cited by 49.8% of institutions that indicated their broadband platform. 9.64% of CAIs reported that their broadband platform was DSL service (all reported using asymmetric DSL), while 22.09% said they rely on optical carrier/ fiber broadband, 5.22% have satellite service, and 13.25% use wireless service (12.85% uses terrestrial unlicensed fixed wireless, and 0.4% uses terrestrial licensed fixed wireless).

101 Ibid.

65


Table 12 – Broadband Technology Platform Among Subset CAIs that Report Broadband Platform Data Technology Platform

Percent of CAIs Served by Platform (among those who knew their broadband platform)

Asymmetric DSL

9.64%

Symmetric DSL

0.00%

Other Copper Wireline

49.8%

Cable Modem-DOCSIS

0.00%

Cable Modem-Other

0.00%

Optical Carrier/Fiber

22.09%

Satellite

5.22%

Terrestrial Fixed Wireless-Unlicensed

12.85%

Terrestrial Fixed Wireless-Licensed

0.40%

Terrestrial Mobile Wireless

0.0%


Among those CAIs that reported their service download speeds, the largest share of CAIs subscribe to service between 3.0 Mbps and 6.0 Mbps (41.4%), followed by those that subscribe to broadband service with an advertised download speed between 6.0 Mbps and 10.0 Mbps (32.81%). 17.19% of CAIs reported download speeds between 1.5 Mbps and 3.0 Mbps, and just 7.03% reported speeds faster than 10 Mbps. While these data are suggestive of the type of broadband subscriptions by CAIs across the state of Nevada, the data should be interpreted cautiously. As noted, these broadband connectivity data represents only a small portion of the identified CAIs across Nevada, and the representative sampling must be deemed too low to be representative of the current state of CAI connectivity in the state. Because of the policy implications of these connectivity data, it is important to continue the SBDD data collection effort to build a more complete dataset.

Connect Nevada

66

Appendix A: Connect Nevada Residential Technology Assessment, June 2010

A-1


Appendix B: List of Participating and Non-Participating Providers in Connect Nevada’s Broadband Inventory Connect Nevada’s initial data submission as part of the State Broadband Data and Development Grant Program represents participation by approximately 77.8% of the Nevada broadband provider community, or 42 of 54 total providers. A complete roster depicting participation status is contained below. Six broadband providers have refused to participate or have remained unresponsive to numerous attempts at contact by Connect Nevada. Six other providers are in some form of progress toward data submission but were not able to submit or verify coverage areas at the time of Connect Nevada’s initial data submission. It is the collective opinion of the Connect Nevada principals that all commercially-reasonable efforts were made to account for 100% of the known Nevada broadband provider community. At the program’s inception, Connect Nevada launched a website to create awareness about the initiative. During the provider outreach process, the website prominently featured an informational page specifically for Nevada broadband providers. While one-to-one contact was made with each and every identified provider, the portal page was created to ensure that no provider was overlooked. The website offered clear instructions about the data transfer process and a means to contact a Connect Nevada representative. The Connect Nevada provider outreach campaign was a comprehensive effort that involved multiple provider contacts from Connected Nation. In addition, the Nevada Broadband Task Force, consisting of a group of principal Nevada providers and industry association representatives, conducted several meetings and continuous e-mail outreach to keep providers abreast of the status of the overall effort. Later efforts included phone-based outreach as well as face-to-face solicitations on-site in Nevada. Along with the high-touch, individual provider outreach, Connect Nevada undertook multiple public forum solicitations over the course of this first phase of the project. In addition, the Nevada state government coordinated a statesponsored letter campaign to non-participant providers in March of 2010.

Connect Nevada

B-1

Providers Participating in the Connect Nevada Broadband Inventory: A&J Hardy Enterprises, Inc. Arizona Nevada Tower Corporation AT&T Nevada Baja Broadband LLC CalNeva Broadband, LLC CenturyLink Charter Communications Clearwire Covad Communications Cox Communications Las Vegas, Inc. DISH Network Corporation ETAN Industries Filer Mutual Telephone Company Frontier Communications Company High Speed Networks-Mound House, LLC Hot Spot Broadband, Inc. Hughes Network Systems, LLC Humboldt Telephone Company KeyOn Communications, Inc. Leap Wireless International, Inc. Lincoln County Telephone System, Inc. Moapa Valley Telephone Company Mt. Wheeler Power, Inc. Oasis Online, Inc. Performance Computing Internet Reliance Connects Rural Telephone Company Satview Broadband LTD. Sprint T-Mobile USA, Inc. Tele-NET Internet Services United Cable Management, Inc. Vegas Wifi Communications LLC Verizon California, Inc. Wells Rural Electric Company WildBlue Communications, Inc. Yonder Media 360networks Cogent Communications Qwest Communications Company, LLC tw telecom holdings, inc. XO Communications, LLC Schatnet Internet LLC Oregon-Idaho Utilities, Inc. Beehive Telephone Co., Inc. NV Highlands Wireless, Inc. DSL@Interlync

B-2


Providers Refusing to Participate in the Connect Nevada Broadband Inventory:102 ACI, Inc. Air-Internet.com, Inc. Avant Wireless High Desert Internet Services Las Vegas.Net Pyramid Net

102 While Connect Nevada was unable to collect data from CC Communications (a major provider of DSL and FTTP in Churchill County, NV) in time for submission of data to NTIA in the Spring of 2010, data is in the process of being collected for data submission scheduled for Oct. 1, 2010 and will be reflected on updates of the Connect Nevada broadband inventory maps and reports.

Connect Nevada

B-3

Nevada Broadband - Connected Nation

Nevada Broadband - Connected Nation

Suggest Documents

Nevada Broadband - Connected Nation

Broadband & Business - Connected Nation

Broadband Business - Connected Nation

Broadband Business - Connected Nation

Broadband & Business - Connected Nation

Rural Broadband Expansion - Connected Nation

Rural Broadband Expansion - Connected Nation

Broadband Readiness Index - Connected Nation

Broadband Readiness Index - Connected Nation

Connected Nation - epsrc

Connected Nation - epsrc

Connected Nation - epsrc

van wert county - Connected Nation

Connect Ohio Research Report_2017 June_dgc - Connected Nation

White House Releases Infrastructure Plan - Connected Nation

Connected City Blueprint - Wireless Broadband Alliance

Teleworking and Broadband: Linking Nevadans to ... - Connect Nevada

Nevada

Nevada

Nevada

BBF Value Proposition for Connected Home - Broadband Forum [PDF]

Connected City Blueprint - (Clean) V3 - Wireless Broadband Alliance

If you are connected using Dialup Broadband - Library

Nevada