13pgs, Sufficient access to and utilization of broadband is an ongoing concern for rural economic development. Using a rural region in Northern New York (USA), we consider the investment and operational costs of a broadband cooperative and determine service prices for which it is financially viable. Service prices need to increase 75%–131%, depending on grant restrictions, relative to existing market prices for a new broadband cooperative to become financially feasible. Put differently, the cooperative would not cash flow at market prices unless there was at least 14 potential subscribers per mile at a 62% take rate. For a cooperative, the grant restriction that providers offer a minimum level of speed at a maximum price results in a high level of subsidization by high-speed to low-speed members to support the business. Given grant funding and member equity investments, financial infeasibility has little to do with construction costs, than with annual operational and maintenance costs required to sustain the system long term. More reasonable feasibility scenarios occur for existing utility cooperatives expanding services into broadband, particularly areas with a high proportion of high-speed, year-round users and strong take rates. Consideration of public benefits of broadband arguably needs to be added to the equation, particularly surrounding access to healthcare and educational purposes, and as a prerequisite to supporting taxpayer-funded public-private partnerships to expand broadband services. Policy levers to eliminate or subsidize property taxes and pole rental costs reduce cash flow prices considerably; however, feasibility is highly sensitive to assumed take rates.
13 pages., via online journal., Drawing on the increasing body of literature on policy stakeholders and the ever-growing acknowledgement that communication policy is crafted by more than just parliamentarians and formal communication regulators this paper examines the role that another set of regulators plays in communication policy: agriculture regulators. Based on a study of the United States Department of Agriculture's Rural Utilities Service (RUS), this paper explores alternative agents of communication policy. More specifically, through document analysis we examine the way in which the Rural Utilities Service has shaped rural broadband policy in the United States over the last three decades. The implications for this research are wide, as it brings another policy actor into the policy making melee, and pushes communication policy scholars to consider the role that non-traditional communication regulators play in the communication policy making process.
