Broadband Feasibility Study A Study of the Town’s broadband infrastructure with recommendations for the future Prepared by James W. Sewall Company for the Town of Fort Fairfield, Maine 18 April 2016

Broadband Feasibility Study A study of the Town’s broadband infrastructure with recommendations for the future Town of Fort Fairfield, Maine Table of Contents 1.0

Executive Summary............................................................................................................. 1-1

2.0

Internet Access and Broadband Definition ............................................................... 2-1

3.0

Internet Access Technology Overview ........................................................................ 3-1

4.0

3.1

DSL .............................................................................................................................................. 3-1

3.2

Cable Modem .......................................................................................................................... 3-3

3.3

Fixed Wireless ........................................................................................................................ 3-4

3.4

4G/LTE Advanced Broadband ........................................................................................ 3-4

3.5

Satellite ...................................................................................................................................... 3-5

3.6

Fiber to the Premise (FTTP) ............................................................................................ 3-6

Existing Broadband Asset Inventory & Capabilities Assessment .................... 4-1 4.1

FairPoint Communications ............................................................................................... 4-1

4.2

Time Warner Cable .............................................................................................................. 4-4

4.3

Aroostook Technologies .................................................................................................... 4-5

4.4

Pioneer Broadband .............................................................................................................. 4-5

4.5

AiroComm ................................................................................................................................ 4-5

5.0

Connect America Fund—Phase II—FairPoint Investment ................................. 5-1

6.0

Consumer Survey ................................................................................................................. 6-1

7.0

Gap Analysis ........................................................................................................................... 7-1

8.0

Network Design Options to Close Identified Gaps.................................................. 8-1 8.1

Leverage Fairpoint CAF-II Investment ........................................................................ 8-1

8.2

Leverage Time Warner Cable Infrastructure ........................................................... 8-8

8.3

Develop Infrastructure to Support Multiple Wireless Providers ................. 8-11

TABLE OF CONTENTS

8.4

ii

Deploy Municipal Fiber-to-the-Premise Open Access Nework ..................... 8-13

9.0

Cost Summary of Network Options .............................................................................. 9-1

10.0

Potential Operating Models ...........................................................................................10-1

11.0

10.1

Public Private Partnership - Subsidy for Service Providers ........................... 10-1

10.2

Municipally Owned - Open Access Dark Fiber Network .................................. 10-2

10.3

Public Private Partnership – Jointly Owned Dark Fiber Network ............... 10-2

Conclusions & Recommendations ...............................................................................11-1

Appendix A – Consumer Survey Details Appendix B – Maps

List of Tables Table 1 — FairPoint DSL Cost Analysis.......................................................................................................... 8-1 Table 2 — TWC Expansion Cost Analysis .................................................................................................. 8-10 Table 3 — FTTP Summary Cost Analysis ................................................................................................... 8-14 Table 4 — Universal Broadband Coverage Network Options Cost Summary .............................. 9-1

List of Figures Figure 1 — FairPoint twisted pair copper feeder/distribution network ....................................... 4-2 Figure 2 — FairPoint fiber & copper network ............................................................................................ 4-3 Figure 3 — Time Warner Cable hybrid fiber/coaxial network ........................................................... 4-4 Figure 4 — Fort Fairfield utility poles ............................................................................................................ 4-6 Figure 5 — Connect America Fund – Phase II (CAF-II) accepted high cost areas ....................... 5-2 Figure 6 — CAF-II minimum 10Mbps/1Mbps 9,000 foot loops w/all RTs fiber fed ................ 8-2 Figure 7 — CAF-II minimum 10Mbps/1Mbps 9,000 foot loops w/hybrid fiber/VDSL fed RTs ................................................................................................................................................................................ 8-3 Figure 8 — CAF-II minimum 10Mbps/1Mbps 12,000 foot loops w/all RTs fiber fed .............. 8-4 Figure 9 — CAF-II min. 10Mbps/1Mbps 12,000 foot loops w/hybrid fiber/VDSL fed RTs ... 8-5 Figure 10 — FCC Broadband Standard 25Mbps/3Mbps minimum 7,000 foot loops w/all RTs fiber fed .............................................................................................................................................................. 8-6 Figure 11 — FCC Broadband Standard 25Mbps/3Mbps minimum 7,000 foot loops w/hybrid fiber/VDSL fed RTs ........................................................................................................................................ 8-7 Figure 12 — Time Warner Cable potential expansion ............................................................................ 8-9 Figure 13 — Wireless tower infrastructure ............................................................................................. 8-12 Figure 14 — Fiber-to-the-Home overbuild ............................................................................................... 8-13

TABLE OF CONTENTS

8.4

ii

Deploy Municipal Fiber-to-the-Premise Open Access Nework ..................... 8-13

9.0

Cost Summary of Network Options .............................................................................. 9-1

10.0

Potential Operating Models ...........................................................................................10-1

11.0

10.1

Public Private Partnership - Subsidy for Service Providers ........................... 10-1

10.2

Municipally Owned - Open Access Dark Fiber Network .................................. 10-2

10.3

Public Private Partnership – Jointly Owned Dark Fiber Network ............... 10-2

Conclusions & Recommendations ...............................................................................11-1

Appendix A – Consumer Survey Details Appendix B – Maps

List of Tables Table 1 — FairPoint DSL Cost Analysis.......................................................................................................... 8-1 Table 2 — TWC Expansion Cost Analysis .................................................................................................. 8-10 Table 3 — FTTP Summary Cost Analysis ................................................................................................... 8-14 Table 4 — Universal Broadband Coverage Network Options Cost Summary .............................. 9-1

List of Figures Figure 1 — FairPoint twisted pair copper feeder/distribution network ....................................... 4-2 Figure 2 — FairPoint fiber & copper network ............................................................................................ 4-3 Figure 3 — Time Warner Cable hybrid fiber/coaxial network ........................................................... 4-4 Figure 4 — Fort Fairfield utility poles ............................................................................................................ 4-6 Figure 5 — Connect America Fund – Phase II (CAF-II) accepted high cost areas ....................... 5-2 Figure 6 — CAF-II minimum 10Mbps/1Mbps 9,000 foot loops w/all RTs fiber fed ................ 8-2 Figure 7 — CAF-II minimum 10Mbps/1Mbps 9,000 foot loops w/hybrid fiber/VDSL fed RTs ................................................................................................................................................................................ 8-3 Figure 8 — CAF-II minimum 10Mbps/1Mbps 12,000 foot loops w/all RTs fiber fed .............. 8-4 Figure 9 — CAF-II min. 10Mbps/1Mbps 12,000 foot loops w/hybrid fiber/VDSL fed RTs ... 8-5 Figure 10 — FCC Broadband Standard 25Mbps/3Mbps minimum 7,000 foot loops w/all RTs fiber fed .............................................................................................................................................................. 8-6 Figure 11 — FCC Broadband Standard 25Mbps/3Mbps minimum 7,000 foot loops w/hybrid fiber/VDSL fed RTs ........................................................................................................................................ 8-7 Figure 12 — Time Warner Cable potential expansion ............................................................................ 8-9 Figure 13 — Wireless tower infrastructure ............................................................................................. 8-12 Figure 14 — Fiber-to-the-Home overbuild ............................................................................................... 8-13

Acknowledgments and Disclaimer All cost information contained in this report are estimates based upon high level desk-top engineering designs, our estimates of construction costs for the various existing providers, and our knowledge of costs for similar types of projects. In order to develop precise costs, a detailed engineering analysis will need to be performed and actual construction costs determined.

1.0

Executive Summary James W. Sewall Company and the Town of Fort Fairfield have partnered to study the infrastructure gaps and understand the level of effort required to bring the power of the Internet to all unserved and underserved areas of the Town. The intent of this report is not about analyzing Internet usage trends, how much bandwidth will be required in the future, or why the Internet is important to the community of Fort Fairfield. As a society, we already understand that the Internet is pervasive and integrated into all facets of everyday life, and that we all must have unrestricted access to the Internet in order to participate in the increasingly global economy, especially in the areas of healthcare, education, entertainment, financial services, consumer goods and services, and global commerce. Rather, this report presents a foundational understanding of the different Internet access technologies, the existing broadband infrastructure supporting the community, and the gaps that exist in coverage and/or service capacity. With this baseline in hand, we review and present options to leverage and extend the existing infrastructure, which will provide ubiquitous availability and sufficient capability to benefit the current residents, businesses and future generations in an economical and sustainable manner. The results of the survey of the community indicate a significant dissatisfaction with the current broadband services offered within the community. The highest number of satisfied customers responding is served by Time Warner Cable while the least satisfied are those served by satellite or some of the wireless solutions. Though there is a faction supporting the community taking an active role in contributing to enhancement of services, the majority of those surveyed did not respond to this question, and only 25% of those asked answered in the affirmative. This suggests more may need to be done to determine how much overall support a community based solution will have. The study examined the benefits and costs of leveraging the existing and planned FairPoint DSL-based infrastructure, the potential to expand the Time Warner Cable infrastructure, and the opportunity presented by wireless broadband providers and contrasted these options with the costs to deploy a completely new and ubiquitous Fiber-to-the-Premise network. We also recognize the solution for Fort Fairfield may not be any one of these individual solutions by itself, but may involve a portion of

1-1

Town of Fort Fairfield, Maine EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

1-2

each, creating a hybrid infrastructure that takes advantage of potential partners and funding wherever it may exist. Given the extent of existing service coverage and the plans already underway to increase the level of service within the current systems, it does not appear economically feasible for the community to consider overbuilding this infrastructure with another competing network. An approach with the potential to increase the overall capacity and capability might be to assist one or several of the operators in extending coverage through short term subsidies that would offset construction costs. With this foundational understanding, we believe the Town will be well positioned to begin collaboration and partnership with existing Internet service providers and potential new entrants. We recommend negotiations with all of the providers to develop one or more Public Private Partnerships to solve the Internet access challenge facing the Town.

2.0

Internet Access and Broadband Definition The terms “Internet access” and “broadband” are often used interchangeably. There is frequently confusion between the two, especially as the definitions evolve with technology changes. Internet access connects individual computer terminals, computers, mobile devices, and computer networks to the Internet, enabling users to access Internet services, such as email, applications and information delivered via the World Wide Web. Internet service providers (ISPs) offer Internet access through various technologies that offer a wide range of data signaling rates (speeds). Consumer use of the Internet first became popular through dial-up Internet access in the 1990s. By the first decade of the 21st century, many consumers in developed nations used faster, broadband Internet access technologies. Broadband is a generic term representing any wide-bandwidth data transmission method with the ability to transport multiple signals and traffic types simultaneously. This data can be transmitted using coaxial cable, optical fiber, radio or twisted pair copper. In the context of Internet access, broadband is used much more loosely to mean any high-speed Internet access that is always on and faster than traditional dial-up access. Different governing authorities have developed inconsistent definitions of what constitutes broadband service based on access speed. In January 2015, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) voted to define broadband as at least 25 Mbps (mega bits per second) download and 3 Mbps upload. Their definition affects policy decisions and the FCC's annual assessment of whether broadband is being deployed to all Americans quickly enough.

2-1

Town of Fort Fairfield, Maine INTERNET ACCESS AND BROADBAND DEFINITION

2-2

In Maine, the ConnectME Authority Board1 currently defines effective broadband network capacity as 10 Mbps download and 10 Mbps upload. Areas of Maine that have maximum available broadband speeds of at least 10 Mbps/10 Mbps are considered served. Areas with available broadband speeds that are lower than 1.5 Mbps download are considered unserved. Areas where the maximum available service is between 1.5Mbps and 10Mbps download are considered by the Authority as underserved. Finally, for those rural and high-cost areas served by FairPoint where FairPoint has accepted subsidies through the Connect America Fund, the FCC has adopted a minimum speed standard of 10 Mbps downstream and 1 Mbps upstream (10/1 Mbps). Fort Fairfield may elect to pursue access options based on one of these established standards or define its own standard depending upon the serving technology architecture it wishes to pursue, the costs for deployment and funding strategies.

1 In recognition of the critical importance of modern technology for education, health care, and business success in Maine, the Legislature created the ConnectME Authority (Authority) in 2006 as an independent State agency, to develop and implement broadband strategy for Maine. The Authority is governed by a Board which is comprised of members appointed by the Governor or specifically identified and designated by statute.

3.0

Internet Access Technology Overview In this section, we present an overview of different Internet access technology, including digital subscriber line, cable modem, fixed wireless, 4G/LTE Advanced, satellite, and Fiber to the Premise.

3.1

DSL Digital subscriber line (DSL) is a technology used by traditional telephone system operators such as FairPoint Communications to deliver advanced services (highspeed data and potentially video) over twisted pair copper telephone wires. This technology typically has lower data carrying capacity than the hybrid fiber coaxial network deployed by cable system operators like Time Warner Cable (TWC). Data speeds can be range-limited by the length of the copper cable serving the premise, the wire gauge of the copper conductors and the condition of the copper. The most commonly installed DSL technology for Internet access is asymmetric digital subscriber line (ADSL). DSL service can be delivered simultaneously with wired telephone service on the same telephone line. This is possible because DSL uses higher frequency bands for data transmission than are required for the voice service transmission. On the customer premises, a DSL filter on each non-DSL outlet blocks any high-frequency interference to enable simultaneous use of the voice and DSL services. The bit rate of consumer DSL services can range from 256Kbps to over 100 Mbps in the direction to the customer (downstream), depending on the DSL technology, line conditions, and the length of the copper loop. In ADSL, the data throughput in the upstream direction (the direction from the consumer to the service provider) is lower, hence the designation of asymmetric service. At the central office, a digital subscriber line access multiplexer (DSLAM) terminates the DSL circuits and aggregates them, where they are handed off to other networking transport equipment. The DSLAM terminates all connections and recovers the original digital information. For locations beyond the maximum distance from the central office for the particular type of DSL technology deployed (7,000 – 12,000 feet), DSLAM’s can be deployed in the field in outside plant cabinets and connected to the central office by fiber optic cables. A shorter distance from the

3-1

Town of Fort Fairfield, Maine INTERNET ACCESS TECHNOLOGY OVERVIEW

3-2

premise to the DSLAM results in greater bandwidth (speed and/or capacity) for the connected users. The customer end of the connection consists of a terminal adaptor or "DSL modem". This converts data between the digital signals used by computers and the voltage signal of a suitable frequency range which is then applied to the phone line. There are additional formats of DSL technologies that can enhance the capacity of the network. ADSL2+ extends the capability of basic ADSL by doubling the number of downstream channels, increasing the frequency from 1.1 Mhz to 2.2 Mhz. The data rates can be as high as 24Mbps downstream and up to 1.4Mbps upstream, depending on the distance from the DSLAM to the customer's premises. Like the previous standards, ADSL2+ will degrade from its peak bit rate after a certain distance.

ADSL2+ allows port bonding, where multiple ports are physically provisioned to the end user and the total bandwidth is equal to the sum of all provisioned ports. When two lines capable of 24 Mbps are bonded, the end result is a connection capable of 48 Mbps download and twice the original upload speed. Very-high-bit-rate digital subscriber line 2 (VDSL2) permits the transmission of asymmetric and symmetric aggregate data rates up to 200 Mbps downstream and upstream on twisted pairs using a bandwidth up to 30Mhz. It deteriorates quickly from a theoretical maximum of 250 Mbps at the source to 100 Mbps at 1,600 feet and 50 Mbps at 3,300 feet, but degrades at a much slower rate from there. Starting from one mile, its performance is similar to ADSL2+. Bonding may be used to combine multiple wire pairs to increase available capacity, or extend the copper network's reach.

Town of Fort Fairfield, Maine INTERNET ACCESS TECHNOLOGY OVERVIEW

3.2

3-3

CABLE MODEM Cable modem Internet access is provided over a hybrid fiber-coaxial (HFC) broadband network. It has been employed globally by cable television operators since the early 1990s, and is the network architecture utilized by Time Warner Cable to provide service within Maine. In a HFC cable system, the television channels are sent from the cable system's distribution facility, the headend, to local communities through optical fiber trunk lines. The fiber-optic trunk lines provide adequate bandwidth to allow future expansion for bandwidth-intensive services. At the local community, an optical node translates the signal from a light beam to an electrical signal, and sends it over coaxial cable lines for distribution to subscriber residences.

The coaxial portion of the network connects 25–2,000 homes in a tree-and-branch configuration off of the node. RF amplifiers are used at intervals to overcome cable attenuation and passive losses of the electrical signals caused by splitting or "tapping" the coaxial cable. The HFC broadband network is typically operated bi-directionally, meaning that signals are carried in both directions on the same network from the headend/hub office to the home, and from the home to the headend/hub office. The forward-path or downstream signals carry information such as video content, voice and data. The

Town of Fort Fairfield, Maine INTERNET ACCESS TECHNOLOGY OVERVIEW

3-4

return-path or upstream signals carry information such as video control signals to order a movie or Internet data to send an email. The forward-path and the returnpath are carried over the same coaxial cable in both directions between the optical node and the home. Data over Cable Service Interface Specification (DOCSIS) is an international telecommunications standard that permits the addition of high-bandwidth data transfer to an existing cable TV (CATV) system. DOCSIS 3.0 has been deployed by most cable providers including Time Warner Cable to provide Internet access over their existing HFC infrastructure. A new DOCSIS standard, version 3.1, has been developed and is being deployed by some cable operators. It is capable of supporting Internet speeds of up to 10 Gbps but most providers will likely start by offering 1 Gbps service. 3.3

FIXED WIRELESS Fixed wireless broadband is the operation of wireless devices or systems used to connect two fixed locations (e.g., building to building or tower to building) with a radio or other wireless link. Fixed wireless data (FWD) links are often a costeffective alternative to leasing fiber or installing cables between the buildings. The point-to-point signal transmissions occur through the air over a terrestrial microwave platform. The advantages of fixed wireless include the ability to connect with users in remote areas without the need for laying new cables and the capacity for broad bandwidth that is not impeded by fiber or cable capacities. Fixed wireless services typically use a directional radio antenna on each end of the signal. These antennas are generally larger than those seen in Wi-Fi setups and are designed for outdoor use. They are typically designed to be used in the unlicensed Industrial, Scientific, and Medical (ISM) radio frequency bands (900 MHz, 1.8GHz, 2.4 GHz and 5 GHz). However, in many commercial installations licensed frequencies may be used to ensure quality of service (QoS) or to provide higher connection speeds. To receive this type of Internet connection, consumers mount a small dish to the roof of their home or office and point it to the transmitter. Line-of-sight is usually necessary for Wireless Internet Service Providers (WISPs) operating in the 2.4 and 5 GHz bands. The 900 MHz band offers better non-line-of-sight (NLOS) performance. Providers of unlicensed fixed wireless broadband services, such as Aroostook Technologies and Pioneer Broadband, typically provide equipment to customers and install a small antenna or dish somewhere on the roof. This equipment is usually deployed and maintained by the company providing that service. Fixed wireless services have become popular in many rural areas where cable, DSL or other home Internet services are not available.

3.4

4G/LTE ADVANCED BROADBAND 4G/LTE Advanced is the latest wireless technology that is being deployed by cellular telephone providers such as AT&T, Verizon Wireless, US Cellular, Sprint and T-

Town of Fort Fairfield, Maine INTERNET ACCESS TECHNOLOGY OVERVIEW

3-5

Mobile for traditional mobile phone and data services. It is also the technology deployed by Redzone Wireless for their wireless broadband Internet service. The latest standard incorporates two new technologies - Carrier Aggregation, and Multiple Input Multiple Output (MIMO), in order to provide speeds in excess of 100 Mbps, and eventually up to 1 Gbps and beyond. While standard data connections use one antenna and one signal at any given time, 4G LTE Advanced uses multiple signals and multiples antennas. Mobile LTE wireless service uses MIMO technology to combine multiple antennas on both the transmitter and the receiver. A 2×2 MIMO configuration has two antennas on the transmitter and two on the receiver, but the technology is not limited to 2x2. More antennas could theoretically operate at faster speeds as the data streams can travel more efficiently. The signal is then combined with ‘carrier aggregation’, which allows a device to receive multiple different 4G signals at once. The received signals don’t have to be on the same frequency; you could receive an 1800MHz and an 800MHz signal at the same time which is not possible with standard 4G. Up to five different 20MHz signals can be combined to create a data pipe of up to 100MHz of bandwidth. LTE wireless is a rapidly evolving technology and the next generation (5G) is already being field tested. The term “5G” is the fifth generation of wireless systems and expected to provide significant increases in bandwidth. 3.5

SATELLITE Satellite Internet is available to virtually the entire lower 48 states, with some coverage in Alaska, Hawaii and Puerto Rico. The satellites are positioned more than 22,000 miles above the equator. These satellites are geostationary, which means they are always above a specific point on the earth as it rotates. The first Internet satellites successfully brought the Internet to a larger audience, but the rates were incredibly slow. Modern satellites use more advanced technology to transmit information which provides faster Internet access, but still much slower than landline-based Internet and terrestrial wireless Internet services. When a consumer subscribes to satellite Internet, the company installs household equipment, which consists of an antenna dish and a modem. The antenna is located outside of the house and is generally two or three feet in diameter. The antenna must have an unobstructed view of the sky, called the line-of-sight, in order to communicate with the satellite. The antenna is connected to a modem, which connects to a computer with an Ethernet cable. To manage bandwidth quality for all users, each plan comes with a cap on the data you can transmit or consume per month. The amount of data allotted depends on the subscriber’s plan. Plans typically range from 5GB to 25GB of data transmission per month with daily use limits prescribed. If you exceed the allotted data amount, Internet speeds will be throttled until the next month. However, some companies

Town of Fort Fairfield, Maine INTERNET ACCESS TECHNOLOGY OVERVIEW

3-6

allow subscribers to pay for more data capacity once the threshold is met, resetting normal operation levels. 3.6

FIBER TO THE PREMISE (FTTP) Fiber to the Premise (FTTP) is a network utilizing fiber optic cables directly to the home or business and is capable of offering virtually unlimited symmetrical bandwidth. Most FTTP networks can offer 1 Gbps of bandwidth in both download and upload directions, with some providers offering 2 Gbps and even 10 Gbps service capacity. As an option to consider for Fort Fairfield this is the most expensive network to deploy and though it is considered to be future-proof, meaning that other new technologies will not be able to provide faster service, without a significant source to offset construction costs the number of potential customers would make the cost recovery untenable. This type of technology can be deployed economically in densely populated areas but is difficult to deploy universally in rural areas without a public subsidy. Though entities like ConnectME provide grants to close gaps in unserved areas, they would not be a likely source for enough funding to offset enough of the construction of a system providing ubiquitous fiber network that were built by the town.

4.0

Existing Broadband Asset Inventory & Capabilities Assessment Work on the study began by establishing the extent and capacity of coverage already deployed within the community. This information is required to properly assess the technical options and cost comparisons for Fort Fairfield’s broadband solution.

4.1

FAIRPOINT COMMUNICATIONS FairPoint offers residential and commercial broadband utilizing DSL technology via their ubiquitous twisted pair copper network, which is currently limited to customer locations within approximately 18,000 feet from their central office at 5 Fort Hill Street in downtown Fort Fairfield. Customer locations closer than 7,000 feet from their central office can receive service up to 25 Mbps download/3 Mbps upload.

4-1

Town of Fort Fairfield, Maine EXISTING BROADBAND ASSET INVENTORY & CAPABILITIES ASSESSMENT

Figure 1 — FairPoint twisted pair copper feeder/distribution network

4-2

Town of Fort Fairfield, Maine EXISTING BROADBAND ASSET INVENTORY & CAPABILITIES ASSESSMENT

4-3

FairPoint also offers commercial broadband services via their fiber network from the southern border to the northern border of Fort Fairfield along oute 1A, to the Canadian border crossing and between downtown and short distances along Forest Avenue, North Caribou Road and Center Limestone Road. Commercial broadband services are available up to 10Gbps on their fiber optic network.

Figure 2 — FairPoint fiber & copper network

Town of Fort Fairfield, Maine EXISTING BROADBAND ASSET INVENTORY & CAPABILITIES ASSESSMENT

4-4

FairPoint recently agreed to accept Connect America Fund – Phase II (CAF-II) funding from the FCC to deploy broadband services to many of their currently high cost unserved areas of Fort Fairfield at a minimum 10 Mbps/1 Mbps speeds with a commitment to deploy those services over the next 6 years. (See Section 5.0 for a more detailed discussion of the CAF-II program). 4.2

TIME WARNER CABLE Time Warner Cable (TWC) offers broadband service to locations adjacent to their hybrid fiber/coax network along approximately 28 miles of roadway in the most densely populated areas of Fort Fairfield and along South Caribou Road to the border of the City of Caribou.

Figure 3 — Time Warner Cable hybrid fiber/coaxial network

Town of Fort Fairfield, Maine EXISTING BROADBAND ASSET INVENTORY & CAPABILITIES ASSESSMENT

4-5

TWC delivers broadband service using the DOCSIS 3.0 standard with speeds up to 50 Mbps/5 Mbps. For commercial customers, TWC is able to offer up to 10 Gbps through their Business Class service. Many of TWC’s larger systems in other areas of the country have been upgraded to provide speeds up to 300 Mbps/50 Mbps as the systems have been upgraded to 100% digital. It is believed that TWC will be offering a similar service capability throughout their properties in Maine in the near future, although TWC has not announced when that capability will be available. 4.3

AROOSTOOK TECHNOLOGIES Aroostook Technologies, Inc. (ATI) offers a wireless Internet service from four different tower sites located in Fort Fairfield, Parkhurst, Mars Hill and Limestone. ATI’s fixed wireless service is supported by a 2 Gbps connection from their office to the Internet and connects to their towers via wireless backhaul with speeds capable of reaching 300 Mbps utilizing the 5 Ghz frequency. Equipment is deployed at customer locations using one of three different frequencies – 5 Ghz, 2.4 Ghz and 900 Mhz. On installations with a clear line-of-sight, ATI is realizing average speeds of 2030 Mbps at the customer location on 5 Ghz and 2.4 Ghz frequencies. As newer equipment is deployed, speeds of 70-80 Mbps will be available. Upgrades to the latest technology solution that will make this possible are underway. On indirect line-of-sight installations using 900 Mhz technology, ATI is realizing average speeds of 5-15 Mbs and with the new equipment advises that speeds of 1030 Mbps will soon be available. In order to provide more ubiquitous service, ATI will need to deploy more towers and/or “MicroPops” to enable line-of-sight connectivity.

4.4

PIONEER BROADBAND Pioneer Broadband has a limited wireless offering in Fort Fairfield using older fixed wireless technology. They acknowledge the service is not as robust or reliable as they would like and are focusing future efforts on FTTP buildouts to replace this system. They have pursued government grants for various FTTP buildouts in Fort Fairfield, but to date have not been successful in receiving the grant assistance to make those projects feasible. Pioneer is currently in the process of designing a FTTP build out in the southwest portion of Fort Fairfield and will be seeking an implementation grant to offset part of the construction cost from the ConnectME Authority this spring.

4.5

AIROCOMM Another wireless broadband company, AiroComm, has tentative plans to offer service in the near future. They intend to utilize a tower on the north side of town and another on the south side which will wirelessly connect to a network of smaller transmitters located on utility poles throughout Fort Fairfield. The tower in the

Town of Fort Fairfield, Maine EXISTING BROADBAND ASSET INVENTORY & CAPABILITIES ASSESSMENT

4-6

north will connect to fiber in Caribou. The tower in the South will connect to fiber in Presque Isle. Both towers will also have a backhaul between them creating a redundant ring topology. With this infrastructure, AiroComm plans to provide Internet and digital telephone service to business and residential customers primarily in areas where true high speed Internet is not yet available. AiroComm provides service via new wireless technology that can deliver speeds up to 50 Mbps up/down. AiroComm plans to deliver speeds up to 150 Mbps synchronous for business and speeds up to 1 Gbps on demand for larger businesses.

Figure 4 — Fort Fairfield utility poles

5.0

Connect America Fund—Phase II— FairPoint Investment On August 18, 2015, FairPoint announced it had accepted $13.3 million in annual support from the Federal Communications Commission's (FCC) Phase II of the Connect America Fund (CAF-II) for the state of Maine. By accepting these funds, the Company is committing to construct and operate network infrastructure offering broadband service speeds of at least 10 Mbps download and 1 Mbps upload to approximately 35,500 additional Maine households, extending their existing network to new rural locations in Maine. The support program and the FairPoint commitment will be executed over six years beginning in 2016. The FCC developed CAF-II as a part of its mandate to shift federal support focus from voice service in high cost service areas to broadband build out and operation in high cost service areas. It is important to note that these funds are for build out and “operation” in high cost areas. This means, not all of the funds are intended to necessarily be used for deploying the equipment and fiber necessary to provide the 10 Mbps/1 Mbps service. Rather, it is intended that some portion of those funds would be devoted to operating the network in the high cost areas being deployed. CAF-II will accelerate the FCC's mandate by explicitly supporting the development and operation of broadband in high cost service areas. Qualifying locations eligible for service as a part of the six-year build have been predetermined by the FCC. The CAF-II funding available for Fort Fairfield is intended to provide service to 399 currently unserved locations. FairPoint is receiving over $13,000,000 per year for the state of Maine, with approximately $3,490,000 of that amount targeted for Aroostook County each year. Approximately $200,000 of that amount is targeted for high cost areas within Fort Fairfield for a total of approximately $1,200,000 over the course of the 6 year program.

Town of Fort Fairfield, Maine CONNECT AMERICA FUND—PHASE II—FAIRPOINT INVESTMENT 5-2

Figure 5 — Connect America Fund – Phase II (CAF-II) accepted high cost areas

Town of Fort Fairfield, Maine CONNECT AMERICA FUND—PHASE II—FAIRPOINT INVESTMENT 5-3

We understand that FairPoint intends to deploy ADSL2+ technology to provide the service by installing remote terminals within these currently unserved geographic areas. The network will connect back to their central office with either fiber or a combination of fiber and bonded VDSL copper connections. Connection speeds are expected to be a minimum of 10 Mbps down and 1 Mbps up for customer locations the furthest away from these remote terminals. Locations closer to the remote terminals will realize speed in excess of 10 Mbps/1 Mbps with potential speeds of up to 48 Mbps (see the general discussion of DSL technology in section 3.1). It is important to understand that FairPoint is not required to spend the entire CAFII subsidy for network enhancement in the Town of Fort Fairfield to meet the service commitment criteria. Rather, they simply need to meet the service commitment regardless of how much or how little they spend on deployment. Monies not needed for construction or other system upgrades can be applied to operation and maintenance costs or to other indirect items. That said, they do have performance commitments they must demonstrate to the FCC. As part of the CAF-II program, FairPoint will need to demonstrate they are meeting the following performance requirements. •

A minimum usage allowance of 100 Gbps per month at or above the usage level for 80 percent of all of its broadband subscribers, including those subscribers that live outside of CAF-II funded areas.

•

Maximum 100 milliseconds latency. To show that FairPoint is meeting this standard, they will need to certify that 95 percent or more of peak period measurements (also referred to as observations) of network round trip latency are at or below 100 milliseconds. FairPoint will have two options to satisfy this requirement. o

Option #1 – Measurements will be taken during peak period (defined as weeknights between 7:00 PM and 11:00 PM local time) between customer premises and the closest designated Internet core peering interconnection point (often referred to as an Internet Exchange Point – IXP). The measurements must be conducted over a minimum of two consecutive weeks during peak hours for at least 50 randomly-selected customer locations within the census blocks for the state of Maine, using existing network management systems, ping tests, or other commonly available network measurement tools.

Town of Fort Fairfield, Maine CONNECT AMERICA FUND—PHASE II—FAIRPOINT INVESTMENT 5-4

o

Option #2 – For providers participating in the FCC’s Measuring Broadband America program (MBA)2, they may use the results from that testing to support certification that they meet the latency requirements. To use MBA results, FairPoint will need to deploy at least 50 white boxes to customers within the CAF-II funded areas within Maine. Because white boxes take measurements on a continuous basis, FairPoint would prove compliance with the latency limit by certifying that 95 percent or more of the measurements taken during peak periods for a period of two weeks were at or below 100 ms.

The FCC's Measuring Broadband America program is built on principles of openness and transparency. The FCC has made available to stakeholders and the general public the open source software used on both its fixed and mobile applications, the data collected, and detailed information regarding the FCC's technical methodology for analyzing the collected data. The measurement methodology for the Measuring Broadband America program has been developed in collaboration with SamKnows, the FCC's contractor supporting the Measuring Broadband America program, who perform similar projects for other countries around the world. Over the course of the multi-year program the FCC has released the comprehensive measurement methodology used to collect the data and produce reports, and in addition to the various data sets, the actual software source code that was used for the testing has been made available for academic and other researchers for non-commercial purposes by SamKnows. The goal of SamKnows is to help create a standard methodology for measuring Internet performance globally, and in pursuit of this goal, SamKnows is now making the source code of the actual tests available as open source under a GNU General Public License. 2

6.0

Consumer Survey In collaboration with the Town of Fort Fairfield staff, the team conducted a survey to solicit input from the residents and businesses to better understand their perceptions of existing Internet services and to gauge their interest in developing new options. Two hundred four (204) respondents contributed information that helped the team evaluate the level of need and interest in subscribing to enhanced Internet capabilities. The responses also gave insight to patterns of use, typical spending thresholds, and types of applications consumed via the Internet. Data was collected using two primary methods: an online survey hosted by Survey Monkey and implemented by Sewall, and a phone survey conducted by Virtual Managed Solutions (VMS) of Caribou, Maine. Twenty questions were included in the survey. The results are summarized below. Subscription Of the 204 survey respondents, 90% said that they do subscribe to Internet service. Of the 10% who do not subscribe to Internet service: • • • • •

Eight people reported that they do not have a computer; Five residents do not need or want Internet service; Five residents reported that they feel they do not have sufficient service at their location in order to invest in the service; Two people reported that they cannot afford the Internet service in their area; and Two people reported that Internet is not available at their location.

The wired and wireless Internet providers that were noted from the survey results were: Aroostook Technologies, FairPoint Communications, Pioneer Wireless, Time Warner Cable. The mobile and satellite providers noted were: U.S. Cellular, Verizon Wireless, and DishNetwork. Forty-seven percent (47%) of consumers were satisfied to very satisfied with their current service, while 53% were somewhat to not satisfied with their service. Forty-two percent (42%) of consumers indicated they would consider changing Internet providers, and 39% are very interested in switching to a new Internet provider.

Town of Fort Fairfield, Maine CONSUMER SURVEY 6-2

Consumer Spending Almost half of residents reported that they pay between $26 and $50 a month for Internet service and the majority of remaining respondents pay more than $50 per month. These monthly service costs were predominantly for Internet service only and did not include costs for other “packaged” services, such as phone and cable TV. When asked if they were willing to pay more for Internet every month, respondents were fairly divided between three responses: yes, no, and not sure.

Respondents did support the municipal government funding or subsidizing the enhancement of Internet service, but were not in support of building or placing multiple new wireless towers in the Town of Fort Fairfield. Device and Application Use The number of devices in the resident’s home which connect to the Internet was polled. This number includes, but is not limited to, devices such as computers, iPads, smartphones connected to home Wi-Fi, tablets, Kindles, iPods, TiVO, Xbox, Playstation. • •

80% of homes have more than one device that connects to the Internet. 18% of residential users have more than 10 separate devices accessing the Internet at a single residence.

Residents were asked to rate how important high speed Internet is to members of their household. Over half of respondents indicated that high speed Internet was very important and integrated into their daily lives. Only 7% reported that the Internet was unnecessary or somewhat unnecessary to them.

Town of Fort Fairfield, Maine CONSUMER SURVEY 6-3

Internet application was calculated based on a question formatted with prepopulated general Internet use responses. The four most popular uses of the Internet are as follows, in descending order: email, online research, social media (i.e. Facebook, Twitter, etc.), and online shopping.

A quarter of the respondents indicated that they have a home based business, and an additional 32% indicated that members of their household telecommute. The high Internet use and consumption by respondents is reflected in response to the question “what kind of impact do Internet problems have on your home or business?” Ninety percent of respondents reported moderate to total disruption in their households when Internet connection is interrupted. When asked to rate features of Internet service by their level of importance, reliability was found to be most important, followed by customer service, price, and speed.

Town of Fort Fairfield, Maine CONSUMER SURVEY 6-4

General Satisfaction

This chart provides insight into the level of satisfaction with the current access solutions. The majority of respondents have enough dissatisfaction with their current service to at least consider changing providers.

Town of Fort Fairfield, Maine CONSUMER SURVEY 6-5

The complete survey and summary of the responses to the twenty questions are included in Appendix A. A key finding is that consumers have a relatively high subscription rate within this community. There is also a significant dissatisfaction among a high percentage and support for a community based initiative to increase the reliability and capacity of the services being delivered. However, a wireless solution option that includes the deployment of new towers is not supported by a large percentage of the community.

7.0

Gap Analysis As the profile of operators in section 4.0 illustrates, the Town of Fort Fairfield is served by a number of providers utilizing various technologies. Many areas have few options beyond satellite service and lower speed fixed wireless. No provider offers a ubiquitous service throughout the Town with speeds sufficient to meet current or future bandwidth requirements. Time Warner Cable (TWC) service is limited to the most densely populated areas with speeds up to 50 Mbps/5 Mbps and has no plans to expand beyond their current footprint. TWC is obligated by the terms of the franchise agreement with the Town to expand their network in areas where there are 20 homes or greater per mile adjacent to their current network. Due to the rural nature of the Town and the limited growth currently foreseen, expansion of the network will not occur in the near term without some form of subsidy. FairPoint will be deploying a minimum 10 Mbps/1 Mbps service as part of their CAF-II commitment to most of the unserved areas However, the community perceives these speeds as insufficient for many users in the near term and even more inadequate for the bandwidth demands anticipated in the future. Fixed wireless broadband providers are exploring options to expand service and increase speeds. It remains to be seen if they can justify sufficient investment to provide ubiquitous service given the abundance of hilly terrain and forested areas inhibiting line-of-sight solutions without some form of subsidy. As in most rural communities, the poor return on investment for serving customers spaced at a density of less than 10 units per mile limits the investment that operators are willing to make under the current business models.

Town of Fort Fairfield, Maine GAP ANALYSIS 7-2

Section 8 – Network Design Options, provides a high level discussion of the options available to close the service gaps discussed above, and meet the following goals of the Town: • •

• • • •

Universal availability of high-speed broadband in all areas of the Town. Broadband speeds sufficient to: o Retain existing residents and businesses; o Attract new residents and businesses; and o Reverse out-migration and encourage those who have left to return. Stimulate economic growth and increase the tax base. Improve the reliability of broadband service available to the Town. Stimulate a competitive broadband environment with multiple providers and competitive pricing. Assure that any broadband infrastructure investment by the Town is scalable and capable of being improved for future broadband needs.

8.0

Network Design Options to Close Identified Gaps This section will suggest options to address the Town’s broadband needs and goals, including capabilities and high level cost estimates. Each potential option has strengths and potential weaknesses. There is enough in process relative to current plans and funding sources within the existing provider community, we believe the town will be served best at this time to investigate fully the costs and benefits of partnering with any or all of the providers. This section has been developed to provide high level insight into those opportunities and may serve to address a criteria checklist for engagement that has not yet been fully developed.

8.1

LEVERAGE FAIRPOINT CAF-II INVESTMENT FairPoint is committed to providing 10 Mbps/1 Mbps service to 399 locations within the FCC defined high cost areas of the Town (see Figure 5) under the terms of a subsidy from the FCC CAF-II fund of $1.2M over a six year period. There may be an opportunity to leverage that investment with additional dollars to increase the minimum speeds to the FCC’s broadband standard of 25 Mbps/3 Mbps. In order to identify the incremental cost to increase the level of service, we first designed and determined the costs for four different solutions that may be deployed by FairPoint to meet a minimum 10 Mbps/1 Mbps service. Table 1 itemizes the costs for the various scenarios. Table 1 — FairPoint DSL Cost Analysis

Town of Fort Fairfield, Maine NETWORK DESIGN OPTIONS TO CLOSE IDENTIFIED GAPS 8-2

The first solution (total cost = $1,906,104) assumes deployment of (26) remote terminals (RTs) with fiber backhaul to the FairPoint central office with copper loops and customer drops of no more than 9,000 feet in length and using the ADSL2+ standard discussed in section 3.1.

Figure 6 — CAF-II minimum 10Mbps/1Mbps 9,000 foot loops w/all RTs fiber fed

Town of Fort Fairfield, Maine NETWORK DESIGN OPTIONS TO CLOSE IDENTIFIED GAPS 8-3

The estimated material and labor cost for this solution above and beyond the amount accepted by FairPoint from CAF-II is $166,946. Utilizing fiber as the backhaul medium allows FairPoint to configure virtually unlimited bandwidth to the Internet with no contention for bandwidth by the customers connected to each RT. A second solution assumes deployment of the same (26) RTs, but instead of deploying fiber as the backhaul medium for all of the RTs; FairPoint could deploy a bonded VDSL solution, aggregating bandwidth across as many as eight (8) VDSL circuits to create a symmetrical 100 Mbps backhaul connection to the nearest fiberfed RT or the FairPoint central office.

Figure 7 — CAF-II minimum 10Mbps/1Mbps 9,000 foot loops w/hybrid fiber/VDSL fed RTs

Town of Fort Fairfield, Maine NETWORK DESIGN OPTIONS TO CLOSE IDENTIFIED GAPS 8-4

The bonded VDSL backhaul solution is not as reliable as 100% fiber, and may make it more difficult to provide speeds higher than 10 Mbps/1 Mbps for those customers located closer to the RT than the maximum 9,000 feet. Nonetheless, this solution should be considered because it is much less costly. FairPoint is only required to meet a minimum 10 Mbps/1 Mbps standard, and bonded VDSL backhaul would represent an estimated capital expense of $811,832, or $406,762 less than the CAFII funds accepted by FairPoint. The third solution is similar to the first solution with the following differences: a) 24 RTs in place of 26 RTs; b) increases the loop length to 12,000 feet; and c) utilizes a bonded ADSL2+ to ensure a minimum 10 Mbps/1 Mbps performance. The incremental material and labor cost for this solution above and beyond the amount accepted by FairPoint from CAF-II is $13,936.

Figure 8 — CAF-II minimum 10Mbps/1Mbps 12,000 foot loops w/all RTs fiber fed

Town of Fort Fairfield, Maine NETWORK DESIGN OPTIONS TO CLOSE IDENTIFIED GAPS 8-5

The fourth solution, like the second solution described above, assumes deployment of the same (26) RTs, but instead of deploying fiber as the backhaul medium for all of the RTs, FairPoint could deploy a bonded VDSL backhaul solution. This would represent an estimated capital expense of $713,520, or $505,074 less than the CAF II funds accepted by FairPoint.

Figure 9 — CAF-II min. 10Mbps/1Mbps 12,000 foot loops w/hybrid fiber/VDSL fed RTs

Town of Fort Fairfield, Maine NETWORK DESIGN OPTIONS TO CLOSE IDENTIFIED GAPS 8-6

If FairPoint can accomplish the required minimum 10 Mbps/1 Mbps service and spend less than the amount funded by CAF-II, they are free to invest the balance elsewhere. As such, we believe FairPoint will seriously consider the fourth solution, which would result in the greatest capital savings. Finally, we designed two more solutions to estimate the cost to deploy a minimum 25 Mbps/3 Mbps service. Both require reducing the loop length to 7,000 feet and increasing the quantity of RTs to 36. The fifth solution with all 36 RTs fiber fed, would require an additional $687,510 above the amount of CAF-II funds accepted by FairPoint.

Figure 10 — FCC Broadband Standard 25Mbps/3Mbps minimum 7,000 foot loops w/all RTs fiber fed

Town of Fort Fairfield, Maine NETWORK DESIGN OPTIONS TO CLOSE IDENTIFIED GAPS 8-7

The sixth solution with 36 RTs fed by hybrid fiber/VDSL would require only an additional $30,150 above the amount of CAF-II funds accepted by FairPoint.

Figure 11 — FCC Broadband Standard 25Mbps/3Mbps minimum 7,000 foot loops w/hybrid fiber/VDSL fed RTs

Town of Fort Fairfield, Maine NETWORK DESIGN OPTIONS TO CLOSE IDENTIFIED GAPS 8-8

For the purposes of this study, the most important number to understand is the cost to provide the best service option (25 Mbps/3 Mbps minimum) with all RTs fiber fed (the fifth solution), minus the lowest cost to meet the minimum 10 Mbps/1 Mbps CAF-II service level. The difference is $1,192,5843, which represents the potential additional subsidy amount FairPoint might seek to deliver the minimum 25 Mbps/3 Mbps service. This option is also the most scalable of the DSL solutions since it includes the deployment of the greatest amount of fiber that can be leveraged in the future to increase minimum broadband speeds above 25 Mbps/3 Mbps. 8.2

LEVERAGE TIME WARNER CABLE INFRASTRUCTURE We believe expansion of the Time Warner Cable (TWC) system to all currently unserved areas is a potential solution with benefits to the community above and beyond what can be provided by FairPoint. Those benefits would be greater bandwidth speeds (currently offering up to 50 Mbps/5 Mbps for residential services) and a cable TV package not currently offered by FairPoint. In addition, TWC is in the process of upgrading all of their current cable systems to 100% digital, which will enable much faster Internet speeds as discussed in section 3.2 above4. The expanded cable solution will require the construction of approximately 85 miles of network to reach all corners of Fort Fairfield. Given that there is little difference in the cost of deploying fiber versus deploying hybrid fiber/coax, TWC could potentially deploy a 100% fiber expansion, also known as a Fiber-to-the-Premise (FTTP) network.

3 All cost data included in this study is based upon high level desk top estimates. A detailed engineering analysis in collaboration with FairPoint will need to be performed to validate these high level estimates. 4 http://stopthecap.com/2016/01/28/time-warner-cable-maxx-upgrades-coming-this-yearin-the-northeastmidwest/

Town of Fort Fairfield, Maine NETWORK DESIGN OPTIONS TO CLOSE IDENTIFIED GAPS 8-9

Figure 12 — Time Warner Cable potential expansion

Town of Fort Fairfield, Maine NETWORK DESIGN OPTIONS TO CLOSE IDENTIFIED GAPS 8-10

The franchise agreement between TWC and the Town of Fort Fairfield requires TWC to expand their network to those areas with an average density of (20) homes per mile as measured from the nearest point of usable trunk and capable of a standard aerial installation. The franchise agreement also notes that service to homes not meeting that density requirement shall be provided on a time and material basis. TWC has expressed a willingness to discuss expansion of their network in an arrangement whereby the costs would be shared between the Town and TWC based on a ratio of the actual average homes per mile and the (20) homes per mile standard contained in the franchise agreement. Preliminary analysis indicates approximately 910 unserved premises outside of the current TWC footprint, which results in 9.4 average premises per mile. This translates into a 47%/53% ratio, where the Town would be responsible for 53% of the cost. In this scenario, we estimate the total construction cost as $2,133,000 for all unserved road mileage. The Town’s portion of this cost would be $1,133,068.5 Table 2 — TWC Expansion Cost Analysis

The actual quantity of existing premises per mile and the cost of construction would require a more thorough detailed analysis than the scope of this study allowed. 5

Town of Fort Fairfield, Maine NETWORK DESIGN OPTIONS TO CLOSE IDENTIFIED GAPS 8-11

An additional benefit to this solution would be the potential to increase the annual franchise fee the Town receives from TWC. In 2015, this fee amounted to $22,212. We estimate this would increase to approximately $41,263 if TWC enjoyed 100% coverage, or an increase of $19,051 per year. At the same time, since this fee is assessed only on cable TV revenue and the trend is for video to be consumed over the Internet instead of via cable TV packages, franchise fees are anticipated to decline over the long term. 8.3

DEVELOP INFRASTRUCTURE TO SUPPORT MULTIPLE WIRELESS PROVIDERS While wireless broadband has been deployed with mixed results to date, the technology continues to improve and there are a host of competitors continuing to invest in furthering the technology and deploying infrastructure on a national and statewide basis. Aroostook Technologies has announced plans to upgrade their infrastructure in Fort Fairfield. AiroComm has expressed interest in deploying network assets as well. Redzone Wireless has announced plans to cover 95% of the state of Maine. Although Fort Fairfield is not currently in Redzone’s expansion plans, the company has expressed a willingness to discuss subsidies or revenue guarantees to include Fort Fairfield. Verizon, AT&T and US Cellular provide limited service capability and are improving their service over time. A significant barrier to ubiquitous wireless coverage is the lack of sufficient wireless towers and fiber backhaul from those towers. If the capital cost to deploy additional towers and fiber backhaul were subsidized, we believe a robust competitive environment could be created within the Town. The quantity of towers and the cost of deployment, along with the amount and cost of fiber backhaul can only be determined by performing a wireless propagation analysis and design, which is outside the scope of this study. Nonetheless, the concept of subsidized towers is an alternative that could be explored.

Town of Fort Fairfield, Maine NETWORK DESIGN OPTIONS TO CLOSE IDENTIFIED GAPS 8-12

Figure 13 — Wireless tower infrastructure

Town of Fort Fairfield, Maine NETWORK DESIGN OPTIONS TO CLOSE IDENTIFIED GAPS 8-13

8.4

DEPLOY MUNICIPAL FIBER-TO-THE-PREMISE OPEN ACCESS NEWORK The final option we explore is a ubiquitous Fiber-to-the-Premise (FTTP) network to every home and business within the Town to compete with the existing phone, cable and wireless providers, and owned by the Town of Fort Fairfield. This would be a “dark fiber” network, or an “open access” network, that would be available for lease on an individual premise basis to any Internet provider seeking to provide service. The fiber would be “dark”, meaning that no optical electronics would be included and the service provider would be responsible for providing the optical electronics required for each customer premise.

Figure 14 — Fiber-to-the-Home overbuild

Town of Fort Fairfield, Maine NETWORK DESIGN OPTIONS TO CLOSE IDENTIFIED GAPS 8-14

The benefits of this type of network are: • Maximum potential for competing service providers. • FairPoint and TWC could theoretically utilize the network. • Potentially unlimited symmetrical bandwidth. • No municipally owned electronics to become obsolete or requiring repair. The challenge to provide this type of network includes: • Most expensive solution to construct. • Annual operating expenses exceeding the amount of potential revenue, requiring ongoing public subsidy, unless market share exceeds 80-90%. Our high level estimate for the cost to construct a FTTP network along 113 miles of roadway, including utility pole make ready expenses, materials, construction labor, taxes, engineering, project management and project contingency, is approximately $5,500,000. Our conservative estimate for annual operating expenses, including annual pole rental, insurance, maintenance and administration, with no debt service, is approximately $300,000 per year. Our revenue estimate, based upon a 50% take rate and per premise fiber lease of $15.00 per month from the Internet service providers, generates an annual revenue amount of approximately $177,000. An ongoing annual subsidy of $123,000 would be required to reach breakeven on the operation. Table 3 — FTTP Summary Cost Analysis

Factors negatively impacting the cost of this solution include: • Sparsely populated rural nature of Fort Fairfield in comparison to more densely populated urban areas that can economically support multiple providers. • Existing competitors who are able to provide sufficient bandwidth service to much of the population of Fort Fairfield, which impacts the take rate of any potential offering. • The high cost of utility pole make-ready fees and annual license fees in relation to the low average premises per mile.

9.0

Cost Summary of Network Options Below is a cost summary table of network options for universal broadband coverage. Table 4 — Universal Broadband Coverage Network Options Cost Summary

10.0

Potential Operating Models Below, we examine potential operating models with an eye toward sustainability and limiting day-to-day municipal operating responsibility and risk. Each of these models recognizes the fact that it is uneconomical for any provider to invest 100% of the capital required to deploy a ubiquitous solution and realize a reasonable return on that investment, given the rural nature of the Town.

10.1

PUBLIC PRIVATE PARTNERSHIP - SUBSIDY FOR SERVICE PROVIDERS As illustrated in section 9.0 above, providing a one-time capital subsidy to one or more service providers will require the least amount of capital investment for the Town and eliminate any requirement for the Town to be responsible for day-to-day operations. The amount of subsidy should anticipate a capital contribution from the providers as well, with the Town subsidy amount limited to an amount required for the provider to realize a reasonable rate of return on their investment. In return for the subsidy, the providers should be held to certain performance standards, reliability metrics and pricing equal to or better than what is provided to the service providers customers in other parts of the state of Maine. Annual reporting and methodologies for these performance metrics could be based upon requirements similar to what the FCC has implemented for the CAF-II program as discussed in section 5.0 above. It is important to recognize that service providers cannot be expected to develop individual town performance metrics that differ from town to town, which would be an unrealistic burden on the providers and would limit the provider’s interest in participating in such an arrangement. At the same time, there should be a recognition and understanding that service providers will likely not be interested in a scenario whereby the Town retains an ownership percentage in the network being deployed. Shared ownership will be viewed negatively especially by those providers and their shareholders who are regional or national in scope, such as FairPoint or TWC. As such, any type of subsidy in this scenario should be viewed as a one-time grant with little recourse or expectation that the Town will be able to influence future enhancements to the network or services provided by the service provider.

Town of Fort Fairfield, Maine POTENTIAL OPERATING MODELS 10-2

In spite of these concerns, we believe that providing subsidies to service providers is the most viable solution given the limited funds available from the Town or from other state and federal broadband grant programs. 10.2

MUNICIPALLY OWNED - OPEN ACCESS DARK FIBER NETWORK An open access dark fiber network, as discussed in section 8.4 above, would be a completely new fiber network serving all locations throughout the Town. Any number of service providers would be provided non-discriminatory access to the network on an equal basis at a uniform wholesale cost to lease fibers from a central location to any premise. The service providers would be responsible for deploying optical electronics at a centralized point of presence and at the customer location. Internet providers would compete for customers based upon retail price, service capability, reliability and customer service. The Town would own the network in this scenario, but the Town would contract with one or more entities to maintain and administer the physical fibers leased to the competitive providers. The cost of engineering, project management, materials and installation would be born solely by the Town, as well as any operating expenses in excess of the wholesale revenue received from leasing of the fiber. As discussed previously, this is the most expensive solution, provides the potential for the greatest amount of competition and carries the most risk from a sustainability perspective. For these reasons, we do not recommend this solution unless the Town is unable to reach an agreement to subsidize an existing or new provider to meet the goals of the community.

10.3

PUBLIC PRIVATE PARTNERSHIP – JOINTLY OWNED DARK FIBER NETWORK Like the municipally owned dark fiber network discussed above, a new or existing provider may be interested in partnering with the Town to construct a completely new fiber network under a joint ownership arrangement. As mentioned previously, we do not believe FairPoint or TWC would be interested in this arrangement, but there may be other smaller providers who operate FTTP networks in other parts of the state of Maine who would be interested in such an arrangement. The advantage of this scenario would be the ability of such a provider to perform engineering, project management and construction with their own resources at a much lower cost than what would be available under the municipally owned model discussed above. The amount of investment on the part of the Town would be limited to the amount required to insure a reasonable rate of return for the service provider partner. Maintenance, insurance and operating costs would be borne by the service provider partner, as well as deployment and ownership of any optical electronics, and any profits could potentially be shared with the Town, depending upon the negotiated arrangement.

Town of Fort Fairfield, Maine POTENTIAL OPERATING MODELS 10-3

Most potential service provider partners under this arrangement would likely expect exclusive use of the network for an extended period of time before opening the network for use by competing providers. The cost to the Town under this arrangement should be significantly less that the estimated $5,500,000 for a 100% municipally owned network as discussed in section 8.4 above, but the actual amount cannot be estimated without the benefit of a detailed engineering analysis and negotiation with the potential partner(s).

11.0

Conclusions & Recommendations While many municipalities across the United States have built their own broadband networks that provide ubiquitous coverage and increased bandwidth, it is especially difficult to attract the required capital and operate a sustainable network in the presence of other existing competitors. Given the evident challenge to the community that would exist in developing another competing network, we believe it is important to explore all options in leveraging the investments of existing providers, and those providers who are exploring expansion into Fort Fairfield. Our recommendation is for the Town to invite each of the existing and potential future providers to enter into individual discussions with the Town in an effort to clearly understand the goals and motivations of each party, and the willingness to collaborate on expanding broadband service and capabilities. Through these discussions, the Town should be able to validate the provider costs and the conditions upon which a collaborative partnership can be pursed. We also recognize the potential value of working with multiple providers who may be interested in serving a portion of the Town, or limited areas that may be a natural extension of their assets in an adjacent geography, in place of a completely ubiquitous solution. Finally, any discussions should acknowledge that funding subsidies or revenues may not be available or sufficient to implement a universal solution in a single project. As such, any solution may need to be implemented in phases as funding becomes available. All residents of the Town of Fort Fairfield should have access to the Internet at speeds sufficient to meet their current and future needs, with pricing comparable to that enjoyed by consumers in the more densely populated areas of the state. The results of the survey conducted of both users and non-users of the current networks indicate that there is an unmet need and a level of dissatisfaction by current customers, indicating that the purchasers perceive a gap in the value recognized for the current offerings. Working with providers to correlate this need with their network enhancements and future planned offerings seems the best opportunity to close these gaps without creating a significant long term financial impact on the community. This study forms a solid foundation to continue the effort to meet that need.

Appendix A – Consumer Survey Details

Fort Fairfield Broadband Feasibility Study

The Town of Fort Fairfield is conducting an Internet Feasibility Study. This study will help guide our community as we seek t o improve Internet access, speed and reliability in Fort Fairfield. The following survey will help us evaluate our current Internet service. Hearing from every resident ensures your voice is he ard and your opinions are recorded so we can better tell our community’s story and work to improve our economic climate t hrough increased Internet speed and connectivity.

Your responses will be kept confidential, but the information provided will be used to help efforts to improve our commun ity’s Internet access. Your participation is voluntary and you are not committed to sign‐ up with any service provider that might offer service in the future. Thank you again for your time and participation!

1. What company currently provides your Internet service? (If none please skip to Question #2) FairPoint Time Warner Cable Pioneer Wireless Aroostook Technologies Cellular service via smartphone or mobile hot‐spot Satellite (HughesNet, Dish) Other (please specify)

1

2. If you are not currently an Internet Subscriber, please tell us why? Service is not available at my location Service is available but it is not sufficient (slow connection) Do not have a computer Cannot afford the service (too expensive) Do not need or not interested Other (please specify)

3. What is your satisfaction level with your current Internet provider? Not satisfied Somewhat satisfied Satisfied Very satisfied

4. What is your interest level / willingness to change your Internet service provider? Not interested / not willing Would consider changing Very interested / willing

5. Are you willing to pay more for faster Internet service? Yes No Not sure

6. Would you support your municipal government funding or subsidizing improved Internet service? Yes No Not sure

2

7. Would you support placement of multiple new wireless towers to support improved wireless Internet in your town? Yes No Not sure

8. How do you use the Internet at home? (check all that apply) Email Online research Homework Online classes Video calling (Skype, Facetime, etc.) Staying in touch with friends and relatives (social media) Cloud based backup of data, music and/or photos Games Shopping Home based business Other (please specify)

9. How many devices that connect to the Internet do you have in your home, such as computers, iPads, tablets, Kindles, iPods, TiVO, Xbox, Playstation, etc. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10+

3

10. On a scale from 1 to 5, how important is high speed Internet to members of your household? (1 means “It’s unnecessary” and 5 means “We couldn’t live without it.”) 1 2 3 4 5

11. Do you or any members of your household have a home‐based business? Yes No Not sure

12. Do you or any members of your household telecommute (work at home through the use of technology)? Yes No Not sure

13. What is the best estimate of the cost of your Internet service? Less than $25 per month $26 to $50 per month $51 to $75 per month $75 to $100 per month More than $100 per month

14. Does that cost include other services besides your Internet service such as cable TV, telephone, etc.? Yes No Not sure

4

15. What kind of impact do Internet problems, including poor reliability and slow speed, have on your home or business experience? No disruption Minimal disruption Moderate disruption Severe disruption Total disruption

16. Please rate your current Internet service level of importance on a scale of 1 to 5, with 1 being not important to 5 being very important. 1

2

3

4

5

Price Reliability Speed Customer Service

17. Please tell us more about your Internet usage and any impacts, positive or negative, your Internet service has caused.

Thank you for your participation! Please click Done to submit your responses to this survey and to automatically be redirected to the ConnectME Authority website. This website will allow you to perform a simple and free speed test to determine the actual speed of your Internet connection. Your results will be entered into our database and reported to our Broadband Feasibility Study team to assist the Town of Fort Fairfield in its study.

5

Consumer Survey Results and Commentary When reviewing the results from the survey, there are three key items that affect the confidence we have in the answers provided as being representative of the study’s population. One is the overall number of surveys that were completed for the population. In this project, our sample of 204 completed surveys is significantly large by industry standards for a community of 1700+ households. The next factor is the weighting of answers. In other words, a question where the majority of respondents answer in one direction has a higher confidence level than a question with answers that result in a 50/50 split. The final significant item is the confidence factor we desire in the data. A confidence factor of +/- 1 requires a dramatically higher sample size than the sample required to achieve a confidence of +/- 4. For example, if our confidence interval is 4, and 47% of those surveyed gave a particular answer, we can say that if you sample the entire population, we expect the result for that answer to fall between 43% and 51% for the total group. Given this study’s overall sample size and general characteristics for the responses, at a 95% confidence level, our general confidence in these results has a margin of +/- 6 percentage points. There is some variation based on how each question was answered specifically. Where appropriate, these are pointed out in the following summary.

1. Survey respondents Internet subscription rates

10% Has Internet: 183

No Internet: 21 90%

Our confidence interval for this question is +/-4, indicating that a majority of the community subscribes to Internet services.

2. Reasons for not currently subscribing to Internet: 9%

5%

Cannot Afford: 1 Do not have a computer: 8

24%

38%

Do not need/want: 5 Service not sufficient: 5

24% Not available at location: 2

This question represents only those respondents who do not have Internet. In this case, our population sample is a subset of the respondents, or 21 out of 204. Although informative for the potential barriers to adoption, our confidence is not high in this statistical group representing the final weighting of the barriers to adoption. However, this does not mean the data and what it represents is meaningless. What we can infer from this information is that: 1. There is a minority that may never find a reason to subscribe; 2. There are those who do not have the option to subscribe; and 3. There are some who are not able to subscribe for financial reasons. This last group represents a potential opportunity to inform that they may be able to obtain assistance through current programs designed to subsidize the cost of service for those who qualify.

3. What company currently provides your Internet service? Aroostook Technologies: 31 Cellular/Mobile Service: 7

18% 4% 39% 21%

FairPoint: 37 Pioneer Wireless: 15 Satellite: 15

9%

9%

Time Warner Cable: 68

The community has a large number of providers providing service. This is an advantage many Maine communities do not experience.

4. Satisfaction level with your current Internet provider?

16%

21%

Not Satisfied: 35 Somewhat Satisfied: 55 Satisfied: 52

31% 32%

Very Satisfied: 28

These results indicate with reasonable confidence that there is generally an even split between those satisfied with service and those dissatisfied. 5. Interest level to change your Internet service provider?

19% 39%

Not interested/Not willing: 33 Would consider changing: 73

42%

Very Interested/Willing: 69

A majority of subscribers will consider changing options, while a significant group seems ready to change service.

6. Are you willing to pay more for faster Internet service?

No: 65 28%

37%

Yes: 61 Not Sure: 48

35%

The cost/value proposition is an area that will need to be factored into any enhancement strategy in order to manage high take rates. 7. Would you support municipal government funding or subsidizing improved Internet service?

10% 19%

No: 7 Yes: 48 Not Sure: 13 71%

This item was not answered by a significant number of the total respondents. Therefore we are less confident in the weighting of this question.

8. Would you support placement of multiple new wireless towers in your town?

11% 6% No: 162 Yes: 11 83%

Not Sure: 22

We can say with high confidence that a solution which requires more towers to be constructed is unlikely to be popular within the community. 9. How do you use the Internet at home? 180 160

156 140

140

131

130

120 100 80

68

65

60

45

41

40

38

36 4

4

Banking

Working Remote

22

20 Streaming Video

Online Classes

Homework

Home Based Business

Cloud-based Backup of…

Video Calling

Gaming

Shopping

Social Media

Online Research

Email

0

These results are very comparable to other studies that have asked a similar question.

10. How many devices that connect to the Internet do you have in your home? 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 Responses

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10+

27

21

25

23

19

19

9

7

5

17

11. How important is high speed Internet to members of your household? 4% 3% Unnecessary: 6 13%

Somewhat Unnecessary: 6 Undecided/Neutral: 23

54% Important: 46 26% Very Necessary: 93

In Fort Fairfield, 3/4 of the community believes that having access to the Internet is important to them.

12. Do you or any members of your household have a home‐based business?

25% No: 128 75%

Yes: 43

13. Do you or any members of your household telecommute? 3%

No: 44 32%

Yes: 22 65%

Not Sure: 2

The segment of rural America doing business from or working from home is growing.

14. What is the best estimate of the cost of your Internet service? 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0

Responses

Less than $25

$26-50

$51-75

$75-100

More than $100

8

83

37

20

22

15. Does that cost include other services besides your Internet service?

26% No: 125

74%

Yes: 45

Items that impact consumer cost for service include provider, subscription package, and bundling of services.

16. What kind of impact do Internet problems have on your home or business experience?

5% Minimal Disruption: 63 19%

Moderate Disruption: 61

36%

No Disruption: 8

5%

Severe Disruption: 34 Total Disruption: 9

35%

17. Please rate your current Internet service level of importance: Price 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0

Responses

Not Important

Somewhat Important

Undecided

Important

Very Important

4

5

30

50

83

18. Please rate your current Internet service level of importance: Reliability 120 100 80 60 40 20 0

Responses

Not Important

Somewhat Important

Undecided

Important

Very Important

0

4

14

43

110

19. Please rate your current Internet service level of importance: Speed 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0

Responses

Not Important

Somewhat Important

Undecided

Important

Very Important

3

10

26

54

78

20. Please rate your current Internet service level of importance: Customer Service 120 100 80 60 40 20 0

Responses

Not Important

Somewhat Important

Undecided

Important

Very Important

2

8

18

41

102

Questions 17 through 20 represent those factors that are important to consumers when considering their options for Internet service providers.

3x5. What is your interest level / willingness to change your Internet service by provider? 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0

Aroostook Cellular/M Technolog obile FairPoint ies Service

Pioneer Wireless

Satellite

Time Warner Cable

Not interested / not willing

7

1

4

0

0

21

Very interested / willing

9

4

16

10

12

16

Would consider changing

15

2

17

5

3

31

This last table is a correlation of questions 3 and 5. By cross referencing the answers, we get a sense of the level of satisfaction related to technologies being offered and the providers delivering them.

Appendix B – Maps

FairPoint Twisted Pair Copper Feeder/Distribution Network Limestone

´

Caribou

NEW BRUNSWICK, CANADA

Presque Isle

Legend FairPoint Copper Cable Roads

Fort Fairfield Town Boundary Town Boundary

Easton

Canada

FairPoint Fiber & Copper Network

´

Limestone

Caribou

NEW BRUNSWICK, CANADA

Presque Isle

Legend FairPoint Fiber Cable

FairPoint Copper Cable Roads

Fort Fairfield Town Boundary Town Boundary

Easton

Canada

Time Warner Cable Hybrid Fiber & Coaxial Network Limestone

´

Caribou

NEW BRUNSWICK, CANADA

Presque Isle

Legend TWC Hybrid Fiber/Coax Roads

Fort Fairfield Town Boundary Town Boundary

Easton

Canada

Fort Fairfield Utility Poles

´

Limestone

Caribou

NEW BRUNSWICK, CANADA

Presque Isle

Legend Utility Poles Roads

Fort Fairfield Town Boundary Town Boundary

Easton

Canada

Connect American Fund - Phase II (CAF-II) Limestone Accepted High Cost Areas

« ¬ « ¬ 1

¬ « 2

¬ « 2

¬ « 2

¬ « 9

¬ « 7

¬ ¬ « « ¬ « 2

1

4

¬ « 1

¬ «

« ¬ «¬

4

5

¬ « 31

¬ « 3

Caribou

¬ « 3

1

12

10

6

7

¬ «

¬ «

¬ «

¬ «

´

12

¬ « ¬ « 3

2

¬ « 2

¬ « 18

¬ « 16

¬ « 5

¬ « 1

¬ « 11

¬ « 3

5

¬ « ¬ « 7

¬ « 6

¬ « 4

¬ «¬ « 4

2

¬ « 2

NEW BRUNSWICK, CANADA

¬ « 7

« ¬ ¬ «¬ « ¬ « 1

3

¬ « 11

2

1

¬ « 15

¬ « 10

¬ « 1

¬ « 1

¬ «

¬ «

3

7

Presque Isle

¬ « 3

¬ «

¬ «

2

7

¬ « ¬ «¬ « 1

¬ « 3

3

1

¬ « 8

¬ « 2

8

« ¬ « ¬ 2

¬ «

¬ ¬ «« « ¬ «¬ ¬ « ¬ « ¬ « 2

6

¬ « 4

¬ « 4

17

¬ « 3

¬ «

Legend

1

9

¬ «

¬ «

FairPoint Fiber Cable

2

4

16

FairPoint Copper Cable

1

7

Roads 3

Funded Locations per Census Block CAF II Areas

Fort Fairfield Town Boundary Town Boundary

5

Easton

Canada

CAF II Minimum 10Mbps/1Mbps Limestone 9,000' Loops with All RTs Fiber Fed

. !

. !

. !

. !

´

. !

Caribou

. !

. ! . ! . !

. !

. !

. !

. !

NEW BRUNSWICK, CANADA

. !

. ! . !

. ! . !

. ! . ! . !

. !

Presque Isle

. ! Legend

. !

. ! . !

RT 9,000' New Fiber FairPoint Fiber Cable FairPoint Copper Cable

. !

Roads CAF II Areas Fort Fairfield Town Boundary Town Boundary

Easton

Canada

CAF II Minimum 10Mbps/1Mbps Limestone 9,000' Loops with Hybrid Fiber/VDSL fed RTs

. !

. !

. !

. !

´

. !

Caribou

. !

. ! . ! . !

. !

. !

. !

. !

NEW BRUNSWICK, CANADA

. !

. ! . !

. ! . !

. ! . ! . !

. !

Presque Isle

. ! Legend

. !

. ! . !

RT 9,000' New Fiber FairPoint Fiber Cable FairPoint Copper Cable

. !

Roads CAF II Areas Fort Fairfield Town Boundary Town Boundary

Easton

Canada

CAF II Minimum 10Mbps/1Mbps Limestone 12,000' Loops with All RTs Fiber Fed

Caribou

. !

. !

. !

´

. !

. !

. ! . !

. ! ! .

. !

. ! . !

NEW BRUNSWICK, CANADA

. ! . !

. !

. ! . ! . !

. !

. !

. ! Presque Isle

. !

. !

Legend

. !

RT 12,000' New Fiber FairPoint Fiber Cable

. !

FairPoint Copper Cable Roads CAF II Areas Fort Fairfield Town Boundary Town Boundary

Easton

Canada

CAF II Minimum 10Mbps/1Mbps Limestone 12,000' Loops with Hybrid Fiber/VDSL fed RTs

Caribou

. !

. !

. !

´

. !

. !

. ! . !

. ! ! .

. !

. ! . !

NEW BRUNSWICK, CANADA

. ! . !

. !

. ! . ! . !

. !

. !

. ! Presque Isle

. !

. !

Legend

. !

RT 12,000' New Fiber FairPoint Fiber Cable

. !

FairPoint Copper Cable Roads CAF II Areas Fort Fairfield Town Boundary Town Boundary

Easton

Canada

FCC Broadband Standard, 25Mbps/3Mbps Minimum 7,000'Limestone Loops with All RTs Fiber Fed

. !

. !

. !

. !

´

. !

Caribou

! . . !

. !

. !

. !

. !

. ! . !

. ! . !

. !

. !

. !

. !

. ! . !

NEW BRUNSWICK, CANADA

. . ! ! . !

. ! . !

. !

Presque Isle

. !

. !

. !

. ! . !

Legend

. !

. ! . ! . !

. !

RT 7,000' New Fiber FairPoint Fiber Cable FairPoint Copper Cable Roads CAF II Areas Fort Fairfield Town Boundary Town Boundary

Easton

Canada

FCC Broadband Standard, 25Mbps/3Mbps Limestone Minimum 7,000' Loops with Hybrid Fiber/VDSL fed RTs

. !

. !

. !

. !

´

. !

Caribou

! . . !

. !

. !

. !

. !

. ! . !

. ! . !

. !

. !

. !

. !

. ! . !

NEW BRUNSWICK, CANADA

. . ! ! . !

. ! . !

. !

Presque Isle

. !

. !

. !

. ! . !

Legend

. !

. ! . ! . !

. !

RT 7,000' New Fiber FairPoint Fiber Cable FairPoint Copper Cable Roads CAF II Areas Fort Fairfield Town Boundary Town Boundary

Easton

Canada

Time Warner Cable Limestone Potential Expansion

´

Caribou

NEW BRUNSWICK, CANADA

Presque Isle

Legend TWC Hybrid Fiber/Coax TWC Expansion Roads

Fort Fairfield Town Boundary Town Boundary

Easton

Canada

Wireless Tower Infrastructure

´

" / Limestone

" /

" / " /

" /

0 #

/ " /"

Woodland

Caribou

" / # 0

" /

0 # " /

" . ! /

0 #

0 # 0 # " /

Washburn

0 # " /

" / # 0

NEW BRUNSWICK, CANADA

" / " /

0 # " /

" / " /

/# 0 ." !

0 # " / " /

0 #

0 #

Mapleton

0 #

0 #

0 #

" / Presque Isle 0 # " /" / " / " /" 0 # " " / / / " / 0 # " /

0 # " / 0 #

" / " / " /

" /

Legend

Easton

. !

0 #

Chapman

" /

Aroostook Technologies Tower Pioneer Broadband Tower Other Area Towers Roads

Fort Fairfield Town Boundary Town Boundary

" 0 # /

Mars Hill

Canada

Fiber-to-the-Home Overbuild

´

Limestone

Caribou

NEW BRUNSWICK, CANADA

Presque Isle

Legend Fiber-to-the-Home Overbuild Roads

CAF II Areas

Fort Fairfield Town Boundary Town Boundary

Easton

Canada