Loading...
10 - August 26, 2021 Connectivtiy Committee Agenda CONNECTIVITY COMMITTEE MEETING Thursday, August 26, 2021 2:00 p.m. Meeting to be held electronically. Agenda 1. Approval of Agenda 2. Adoption of July 22, 2021 Minutes 3. Disclosure of Pecuniary Interest and the General Nature Thereof 4. IBI Engagement – Report Delivery – Director of ITS 5. Presentation – IBI (to be circulated) 6. Report #2 – Options Analysis and Recommendation – IBI (to be circulated) 7. Report Discussion – Director of ITS 8. Correspondence 9. New Business 10. Date of Next Meeting 11. Adjournment Meeting: Connectivity Committee Date: July 22, 2021 Time: 2:00 p.m. Location:Council Chambers/Webex Attendees: Tom Marks, WardenandCommittee Chair (in-person) Dominique Giguère, Councillor and Committee Vice Chair (in-person) Duncan McPhail, Councillor (in-person) Mike Andrews, Community Member (electronic) Justin Pennings, Community Member (electronic) Joshua Kiirya, Community Member (electronic, joined the meeting in progress) Staff: Julie Gonyou, Chief Administrative Officer (in-person) Brian Lima, General Manager of Engineering, Planning & Enterprise (in-person) Jeff Brock, Director of Information Technology Services(in-person) Jeremy Sharkey, IT Coordinator (electronic) Cecil Coxen, IT Manager – Township of Malahide (electronic) Katherine Thompson, Supervisor of Legislative Services (in-person) Carolyn Krahn, Legislative Services Coordinator (in-person) DRAFT MINUTES 1.Call to Order nd The Connectivity Committee met this 22 day of July, 2021. The meeting was called to order at 2:00 p.m. 2. Approval of Agenda Moved by: Mike Andrews Seconded by: Councillor RESOLVED THAT the agenda be approved. Recorded Vote Yes No CouncillorYes CouncillorMcPhailYes MikeAndrews Yes Justin Pennings Yes WardenMarks Yes 5 0 - Motion Carried. 3.Adoption of June 17, 2021 Minutes Moved by: Councillor McPhail Seconded by: Justin Pennings Resolved that the minutes of the previous meeting be adopted. Recorded Vote Yes No Councillor Yes CouncillorMcPhailYes MikeAndrews Yes Justin Pennings Yes WardenMarks Yes 5 0 - Motion Carried. 4. Disclosure of Pecuniary Interest and the General Nature Thereof None. 5. Community Connectivity Engagement Strategy – Director of ITS The Director of ITS presented the engagement strategy for the Connected Elgin Community Connectivity project. The strategy will ensure that public engagement is transparent, focused and accessible and will serve as a guiding document detailing the County’s approach to external public engagement. 6.Current State Assessment – IBI Group IBI Grouppresented the current state assessment for connectivity in Elgin. The assessment looked at the number of served versus underserved areas at the municipal level and assessed the served versus underserved areas based on premises and road network length. The assessment found that while just over half of County premises are served with minimum broadband speeds, the gap to meet minimum speeds for underserved areas is roughly 1,500 km of underserved road segments, or roughly 71% of County road segments. 7.Correspondence None. 8. New Business None. 9. Date of Next Meeting th The Committee will meet again on August 19 at 2 p.m. 10. Adjournment Moved by: Justin Pennings Seconded by: Mike Andrews RESOLVED THAT the meeting be adjourned at 3:09 p.m. Recorded Vote Yes No Councillor Yes CouncillorMcPhail Yes MikeAndrews Yes Justin Pennings Yes JoshuaKiirya Yes WardenMarks Yes 6 0 - Motion Carried. 2021 th August 26 Jeff Brock, Director ITS Report Delivery IBI Engagement Presentation to Elgin County’s Connectivity Committee To be Developed based on Information from – Data Gathering and Analysis of Local ResourcesOptions Analysis and Recommendation (including community specific solutions)Final Report Report # 2, Survey Data, and Recommendations from Committee Expected Deliverables - –- Report # 1 Report # 2 Report # 3 ••• What to Expect from Report Detailed Analysis of DataTechnical OptionsGovernance and Funding Options ••• What not to Expect from Report A Detailed Plan to Reach our Goal • Questions AUGUST 26 , 2021 ELGIN COUNTY OPTIONS ANALYSIS PRESENTATION TO ELGIN COUNTY CONNECTIVITY COMMITTEE 2 ELGIN COUNTY CONNECTIVITY COMMITTEE AUGUST 26 2021 Fibre to underserved areasFibre to Towers and deployment of fixed wireless Technical Options••Governance/ Funding OptionsOptions Analysis 1.2.3. Agenda 3 ELGIN COUNTY CONNECTIVITY COMMITTEE AUGUST 26 2021 This is a ‘Class D’ estimate, with little or no site information, Conceptual level planning and cost estimation has been performed for the The Options Analysis and Recommendations constitutes the second chapter of a report titled Internet Connectivity and Broadband Analysis, Assessment, and Proposed Solutions.Feedback from the Connectivity Committee will be used to inform the Final Report, targeted for September 2021 ••Disclaimer: purposes of identifying options.that indicates the approximate magnitude of cost of the proposed projects, based on broad requirements. This overall cost estimate is derived from unit costs in a similar area for a similar project. It is to be used to obtain approval in principle and for discussion purposes. Background & Context 4 County Summary – ELGIN COUNTY CONNECTIVITY COMMITTEE AUGUST 26 2021 Updates made since last Net result has been a slight increase in Served premises/ road kms • Completed assessment of served vs. underserved at the municipality level.Assessed served vs. underserved based on premises and road network length.Some areas have been identified as requiring further investigation. report with input from M. Andrews.Areas requiring further investigation are assumed as underserved for options analysis and planning purposes. •••• Recap: Served vs. Underserved 5 County Summary – ELGIN COUNTY CONNECTIVITY COMMITTEE AUGUST 26 2021 While just over 60% of County premises are served with minimum broadband speeds, the gap to meet minimum speeds for underserved areas is roughly 1,666 km of underserved road segments, or roughly 76% of County road segments. Served vs. Underserved 6 ELGIN COUNTY CONNECTIVITY COMMITTEE AUGUST 26 2021 Fibre to Underserved Areas – ) yrs High cost option, High capacity and Fibre backbone to all underserved roads“Drops” to connect each underserved premisesAverage cost of $60/m backbone; plus $1000 per premise connection •••Pro: future proofed, long useful life (30 Con: longer deployment timeframes Technical Option 7 ELGIN COUNTY CONNECTIVITY COMMITTEE AUGUST 26 2021 Fibre Backbone to Fixed Wireless Locations – Deploy fibre backbone to connect high value tower locationsPremises along fibre path would be connected to fibre backboneTowers identified that are primary cellular providers (reduce overlap with existing fixed wireless providers) ••• Technical Option 8 ELGIN COUNTY CONNECTIVITY COMMITTEE AUGUST 26 2021 Fibre Backbone to Fixed Wireless Locations – th 12 Existing towers identified, with a 13tower proposed in Belmont as a new build to fill in coveragePremises along fibre path would be connected to fibre backboneTowers identified that are primary cellular providers (reduce overlap with existing fixed wireless providers) ••• Technical Option 9 ELGIN COUNTY CONNECTIVITY COMMITTEE AUGUST 26 2021 Fibre Backbone to Fixed Wireless Locations – Conservative RF propagation model based on 5.8 GHz radiosAssumed subscriber radio at 5m height (roof top antenna mount)Full County coverage is predicted by this model ••• Technical Option 10 ELGIN COUNTY CONNECTIVITY COMMITTEE AUGUST 26 2021 Fibre Backbone to Fixed Wireless Locations – Fibre costs assumed at $60/m and $1000 per premisesTower radio costs estimated at $5000, subscriber radios at $500 eachTower colocation annual lease fees and other operating costs would be applicable Technical Option ••• 11 ELGIN COUNTY CONNECTIVITY COMMITTEE AUGUST 26 2021 Fibre Backbone to Fixed Wireless Locations – Lower capacity and less Lower cost option; faster deployment time vs. full fibre buildFlexibility to redeploy radios to alternative tower locationsFibre backbone can be expanded beyond tower locations Technical Option Pros: •••Con: future proof than fibre (5 yrs. Useful life for radio) 12 ELGIN COUNTY CONNECTIVITY COMMITTEE AUGUST 26 2021 ‘dig once’ approach*) e.g Technical Options Cost Summaries Representative of the spectrum of total costs and cost per premiseRecommend a long term vision of a fibre based network for the County with wireless as ‘interim’ steps to improve connectivityIdentify opportunities to include fibre conduits in future road construction/ rehabilitation programs for future use (Most grant programs and private investors are heavily biased towards funding fibre infrastructure * See October 28,2020 report to Connectivity Committee, “Conduit in Road Allowances” •••• 13 Canada Private Equity / Private equity players are now making investments in broadband infrastructureBacked by institutional investors (e.g. pension funds)Canada Infrastructure Bank can be a lending partner to private equity (lower interest long term debt)Minimum project size is typically $50M, with typical projects of $200M size Infrastructure Bank •••• Infrastructure Program (ICIP) Federal infrastructure grant programBroad range of infrastructure is eligible (e.g. roads, bridges, community recreation facilities)Broadband infrastructure is eligible under this programCapital subsidy program funds up to 75% of infrastructure, balance (25% or more) contributed by applicant Investing in Canada •••• Fund (UBF) ELGIN COUNTY CONNECTIVITY COMMITTEE AUGUST 26 2021 for Ontario (ICON) Universal Broadband Coordinated programs between gov’t of Ontario and CanadaTargeted towards ISPs, Municipalities with ISP partnersCapital subsidy program funds, typically in the range of 50% up to 75% of infrastructure, balance (25% or more) contributed by applicantSeveral funding announcements recently Improving Connectivity •••• Ontario Connects Recently announced $4B program to connect all locations in OntarioReverse auction subsidy processTargeted towards larger ISP ••• Grant Funding Options 14 County takes passive rolePrivate sector market forces and other levels of government involved in any solutions Status Quo Sector Private Facilitate Coordinated procurement strategy for telecom services to leverage spend to direct private investment in underserved areas County role of facilitating and advocating for private ISP investmentIdentify tactics to reduce administrative barriers under County control (e.g. planning/ permitting) Direct Subsidy Approach Support connectivity to other public sector organizations (MUSH Sector Similar to SWIFT and Ontario Connects programsProvides subsidy directly to ISP through procurement processFocused on targeted geographic areasContract operations to private ISP partner(s) ELGIN COUNTY CONNECTIVITY COMMITTEE AUGUST 26 2021 connectivity to Secure investment partner to participate with County in infrastructure Investment Subsidized by grant programs (ICON, UBF, ICIP)Contract operations to partnerSupport other public sector organizations (MUSH Sector) P3 Approach Direct infrastructure InvestmentSubsidized by grant programs (ICON, UBF, ICIP)Contract operations to private ISP partner(s)Support connectivity to other public sector organizations (MUSH Sector) County Owned Governance/ Funding Options 15 Lower to no capital costs and no operational risksLimited municipal investment in effortCounty not in control of investment & timeline Pro:••Con:• ELGIN COUNTY CONNECTIVITY COMMITTEE AUGUST 26 2021 Direct control of investment & timelineEligible for grant programsCost and operational risksRequires municipal capital Pro:••Cons:•• Governance/ Funding Options 16 term term -- Not a recommended Not a recommended option: Can create a option: Can create a longerlongerdisadvantage relative disadvantage relative to neighboring to neighboring municipalitiesmunicipalities Status QuoStatus Quo Sector Private Facilitate Initiate work stream of ISP coordination and advocacy with higher levels of governmentCoordinate with MUSH sector partners to focus procurement on County’s strategic broadband improvement outcomes Direct Subsidy Approach Advocate for Ontario Connects program investments in ElginSeek opportunities to expand SWIFT’s current scope in Elgin ELGIN COUNTY CONNECTIVITY COMMITTEE AUGUST 26 2021 connectivity to Approach to support longer term vision of larger fibre deployment in the County Smaller partner could participate in fixed wireless strategiesSupport other public sector organizations (MUSH Sector) P3 Approach term - Fibre Backbone + Wireless is affordable and allows for a faster deploymentUtilize other capital programs (roads, utilities) to fund fibre conduit on a longbasisSupport fibre connectivity to other public sector organizations (MUSH Sector) County Owned Options Analysis 17 ELGIN COUNTY CONNECTIVITY COMMITTEE AUGUST 26 2021 Receive feedback from the Connectivity CommitteeFinalize recommendationsFinal report and Elgin council presentation in September ••• Next Steps DRAFT Report Internet Connectivity and Broadband Analysis, Assessment, and Proposed Solutions Prepared for Elgin County by IBI Group August 18, 2021 IBI GROUPDRAFT REPORT INTERNET CONNECTIVITY AND BROADBAND ANALYSIS, ASSESSMENT, AND PROPOSED SOLUTIONS Prepared for Elgin County Document Control Page CLIENT: Elgin County PROJECT NAME: Elgin County Internet Connectivity Internet Connectivity and Broadband Analysis,Assessment, and REPORT TITLE: Proposed Solutions IBI REFERENCE: 134843 VERSION: 0.2 DIGITAL MASTER: SharePoint ORIGINATOR: Jason McBeath, Ian Nelson, Keith Ponton, John George REVIEWER: Keith Ponton AUTHORIZATION: Keith Ponton CIRCULATION LIST: Client Project Team HISTORY: 0.1 – Initial Draft (Current State Assessment) 2021-07-13 0.2 – Revised Draft (Recommendations) 2021-08-18 August 18 IBI GROUP DRAFT REPORT INTERNET CONNECTIVITY AND BROADBAND ANALYSIS, ASSESSMENT, AND PROPOSED SOLUTIONS Prepared for Elgin County Table of Contents 1 Executive Summary............................................................................................................ 1 2 Current State Assessment................................................................................................. 1 2.1 Summary of Data Sources....................................................................................... 1 2.2 Analysis Methodology.............................................................................................. 2 2.2.1 Overview..................................................................................................... 2 2.2.2 Data Deficiencies........................................................................................ 3 2.3 Data Review............................................................................................................. 3 2.3.1 Internet Service Providers & Technologies................................................. 4 2.3.2 Fixed Wireless Radio Towers..................................................................... 5 2.3.3 Served and Underserved Premises............................................................ 5 3 Options Analysis and Recommendations......................................................................16 3.1 Technical Options..................................................................................................16 3.1.1 County Wide Fibre Deployment................................................................16 3.1.2 Fibre Backbone to Fixed Wireless Locations............................................19 3.1.3 Summary...................................................................................................23 3.2 Governance / Funding Options..............................................................................23 3.2.1 Ontario Connects: Ontario’s High-Speed Internet Plan...........................23 3.2.2 County Owned..........................................................................................24 3.2.3 P3 approach..............................................................................................25 3.2.4 Direct Subsidy Approach..........................................................................26 3.2.5 Facilitate Private Sector Investment.........................................................26 3.2.6 Status Quo................................................................................................27 3.3 Options Analysis & Recommendations.................................................................. 27 List of Figures Figure 2-1: Elgin County Fixed Wireless Towers............................................................................ 5 Figure 2-2: Current State of Broadband Infrastructure within West Elgin....................................... 6 Figure 2-3: Current Understanding of Served and Underserved Areas within West Elgin............. 7 i IBI GROUP DRAFT REPORT INTERNET CONNECTIVITY AND BROADBAND ANALYSIS, ASSESSMENT, AND PROPOSED SOLUTIONS Prepared for Elgin County Table of Contents (continued) Figure 2-4: Current State of Broadband Infrastructure within Dutton Dunwich.............................. 8 Figure 2-5: Current Understanding of Served and Underserved Areas within Dutton Dunwich.... 8 Figure 2-6: Current State of Broadband Infrastructure within Southwold....................................... 9 Figure 2-7: Current Understanding of Served and Underserved Areas within Southwold...........10 Figure 2-8: Current State of Broadband Infrastructure within Central Elgin................................. 11 Figure 2-9: Current Understanding of Served and Underserved Areas within Central Elgin.......11 Figure 2-10: Current State of Broadband Infrastructure within Malahide.....................................12 Figure 2-11: Current Understanding of Served and Underserved Areas within Malahide...........13 Figure 2-12: CurrentState of Broadband Infrastructure within Bayham.......................................14 Figure 2-13: Current Understanding of Served and Underserved Areas within Bayham.............14 List of Appendices Appendix A – In-Process/ Potential Fibre Builds in Elgin County Appendix B – Internet Service Providers and Technologies August 18 ii IBI GROUP DRAFT REPORT INTERNET CONNECTIVITY AND BROADBAND ANALYSIS, ASSESSMENT, AND PROPOSED SOLUTIONS Prepared for Elgin County 1 Executive Summary This document constitutes the initial chapter of a report titled Internet Connectivity and Broadband Analysis, Assessment, and Proposed Solutions.The content is considered draft and is not final. The current state assessment detailed herein reviews available information and datasets relating to ISP and Internet speeds in Elgin County. Best efforts have been made to collect as much data rd partydata sources as possible within the project scope and time frame, with independent 3 used to provide a composite picture of the current state of broadband infrastructure in the Countyover the time period of Juneand July, 2021. The initial current state review finds that 53.4% of premises are served, while 32.1% are underserved based on the CRTC minimum broadband speeds of 50 Mbps download and 10 Mbps upload. Roughly 14.5% of premises require further investigation. While just over half of County premises are servedwith minimum broadband speeds,the gap to meet minimumspeedsfor underserved areas is challenging withroughly 1,500km of underserved road segments, or roughly 71% of County road segments. The following table summarize the keybroadbandmetrics for the County: BROADBAND PREMISESROAD NETWORK SERVICE (KM) STATUS Served988453% 44220% Underserved594032%156371% Further 267315%188 9% Investigation Total: 18497100% 2193 100% There is an ongoing follow up Internet speed test survey that is anticipated to be complete by August 6, 2021. This section of the report will be followed by Options to Address Broadband Needs and Recommendations. Delivery of the final report is scheduled for August 26, 2021. A more wholesome executive summary will be provided at that time. 2 Current State Assessment This section of the report provides an overview and understanding of the current state of broadband in Elgin County. 2.1Summary of DataSources Data for this analysis was sourced from federal, provincial, and local agencies. The agencies and their respective datasets are identified and explained below: A.Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada(ISED) – Federal – Governmental August 181 IBI GROUP DRAFT REPORT INTERNET CONNECTIVITY AND BROADBAND ANALYSIS, ASSESSMENT, AND PROPOSED SOLUTIONS Prepared for Elgin County ISED maintains the datasets used for evaluation of broadband service across the country. The data extracted for this report was available in two formats, hexagonal polygons and road segment polylines. The hexagonal data was used to show coverage maps of Internet Service Providers and the technologies they used. The road segment data gave more detailed insight into Data Speed Classification throughout the county, mapping each road in 250m sections. The following data was reviewed from ISED: a.Data Speed Classification –Hexagon b.Data Speed Classification –250m Road Segments c.Internet Service Provider (ISP) provided data d.Available Communication Technologies B.Ontario Data Catalogue – Provincial - Governmental The Province of Ontario maintains an extensive GIS database. For this report, point address, municipal border, road and highways, railway, land use classification and other broad economic data was used to verify data from other sources. C.County of Elgin – Local – Governmental The County provided an extensive dataset for the purpose of this report. Administrative Boundaries, Roads and Highways, Railways, Existing telecommunication lines and tower infrastructure (Partial), Municipal Buildings, Land-Use Types, Parcel Map, Civic Address Points. Additionally, the result dataset of a local broadband survey that was completed in 2020 was provided for analysis. The County also provided a list of In-Process/Potential Fibre Builds in Elgin County.See Appendix A for a complete list recently updated in July2021. D.Southwestern Integrated Fibre Technology (SWIFT) – Local/Regional initiative funded by three levels of government SWIFT provided insight into current and future broadband projects that are planned within the County borders.This information is also available on their website at: https://swiftruralbroadband.ca/projects/approved-projects/ E.Regional and Rural Broadband – (R2B2) – Federal - Non-Profit R2B2 provided summaries of their historic broadband related survey results from the region. Notably, it was not in a spatially presented format due to data privacy barriers. F.Local Resources Various sets of data and information were shared from local residents. This data includes a visually conducted inventory of radio towers with estimated ranges and anecdotal reports of known and lacking infrastructure. The information was interpreted and used to estimate current state, for use when classifying broadband status by County. All available data noted above was used in the review of the County’s current state assessment. 2.2Analysis Methodology 2.2.1Overview The datasets were collected and applied to a spatial project for evaluation, data verification, and analysis. The datasets were vetted for duplication of attributes, over-complexity, and accuracy. If multiple datasets were available with overlapping data, they were cross verified to confirm validity and one “master” dataset was selected. Once the data was deemed acceptable, a review andanalysis wereperformed. August 182 IBI GROUP DRAFT REPORT INTERNET CONNECTIVITY AND BROADBAND ANALYSIS, ASSESSMENT, AND PROPOSED SOLUTIONS Prepared for Elgin County 2.2.2Data Deficiencies There is a level confidence in the data used forreview and analysis. However, it is important to note that not all the data provided will be accurate.The following potential shortcomings have been noted: ISED Hexagons There are industry known limitations to the ISED published hexagon data.If there is one data point within the predefined polygon then itbecomes a positive data point. For example, if all residents have <50Mbps download, but one resident within the polygon has 50Mbps+ download, then the polygon is counted as served.For this reason, the road network level data for Internet speeds is used for analysis. For all other datasets (such as provider or technology data) the hexagon is used. Internet Speed Tests County residents were asked to confirm Internet speeds as part of the County’s broadband survey. The results provided by residents were independent and cannot be confirmed to be accurate.A challenge with these self testsis that there could be limitations unknowingly imposed by the resident to limit speeds. For example, residents may be running their test device off a home WiFi network that limits speeds or perhaps not set up in a favourable location. Number of Speed Test 205speed test results were received. Given there are 21,116 premiseson record in Elgin County, this translates to less than a1% response rate.This is a low rate when considering an analysis. There is an ongoing follow up Internet speed test survey to supplement this report.It is anticipated to be complete by August 6, 2021. FixedWireless Radio Towers Fixed wireless solutions have provided many with access to broadband. However, fixed wireless comes withlimitations and is generally not consider an ultimate solution to meet CRTC standards. Limitations include the following: - Radio transmission challenges across varying topology and existing foliage within the Countymay limit data transmission rates; - Towers may not have high capacity backhaul to support all users from a single tower; - Number of active users on a single radio tower often create bottle necks for network equipment at the tower location. As such, tower location and advertised subscriber data rates cannot be taken at full value and presents it challenging to confirm broadband information for those who have access to fixed wireless radio solutions. 2.3Data Review The following section provides a summary of the relevant data and information gathered from the data sources noted above. The current state of broadband within Elgin County was evaluated by assessing the available data and correlatingthedata for a detailed look at what areas of the County are served and what areas of the County are not served. The Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission(CRTC) has set a target of 50 Mbps upload and 10 Mbps download for fixed Internet service to be classified as served. For purposes of this report, this target also applies. Anything less is deemed to be underserved. The following table provides further clarity. August 183 IBI GROUP DRAFT REPORT INTERNET CONNECTIVITY AND BROADBAND ANALYSIS, ASSESSMENT, AND PROPOSED SOLUTIONS Prepared for Elgin County Table 2-1: Broadband Classification DOWNLOAD SPEEDUPLOAD SPEEDBROADBAND CLASSIFICATION Less than or equal to 50 MbpsLess than or equal to 10 MbpsUnderserved Less than or equal to 50 MbpsGreater than or equal to 10 MbpsUnderserved Greater than or equal to 50 MbpsLess than or equal to 10 MbpsUnderserved Greater than or equal to 50 MbpsGreater than or equal to 10 MbpsServed The following sections provide a summary of findings and analysis that will be used in determining next steps. 2.3.1Internet Service Providers & Technologies The following Table lists Internet Service Providers operating within the county and their respective technologies for broadband delivery, based on ISED data: Table 2-2: ISP and AssociatedAvailable Technologies ISP NAMETECHNOLOGY Fixed Wireless High Capacity Transport Services Bell Mobile Wireless DSL Fibre to the home Cogeco ConnexionFibre to the home Coaxial Cable Eastlink High Capacity Transport Services DSL Execulink Fixed Wireless Falcon Internet ServicesFixed Wireless Freedom MobileMobile Wireless KWIC Internet Fixed Wireless NFTC Fibre to the home PresentHigh Capacity Transport Services High Capacity Transport Services Rogers Coaxial Cable Mobile Wireless TekSavvy SolutionsFixed Wireless TekSavvy SolutionsHigh Capacity Transport Services Telus Mobile Wireless Fixed Wireless Xplornet Satellite See Appendix B for detailed maps of ISP and Technology coverage by provider and type. August 184 IBI GROUP DRAFT REPORT INTERNET CONNECTIVITY AND BROADBAND ANALYSIS, ASSESSMENT, AND PROPOSED SOLUTIONS Prepared for Elgin County 2.3.2Fixed Wireless Radio Towers There are severalfixed-wireless radio towerswithin the borders of Elgin County.Mobile wireless towers are not considered in this review because this is a considered a separate function and not within the classification of fixed broadband solutions.This dataset was compiled from various sources and the tower transmission range should be used for illustration purposes only, as it does not factor any environmental conditions. Figure 2-1:Elgin County Fixed Wireless Towers 2.3.3ServedandUnderservedPremises The following maps and commentary are broken out by each lower-tier municipality. The details provided include: - Current understanding of fixed wireless tower infrastructure; - Current understanding of known fibre optic cable infrastructure; - ISED road classification compared to Internet speed survey results; - Confirmed premises meeting CRTC minimum broadband speed standards; - Current understanding of served and underserved areas based on road segments; - Numbers and percentages of served and underserved based on premises and road segment lengths. Discussion on each municipality follows the figures. Key metrics to be carried over into subsequent sections of this report are the number and percentage of premises and road segment lengths considered served versus underserved. This information will enable an understanding of the magnitude of the broadband challenge,help provide cost estimates, and ultimately strategies on how to address the gaps. It is understood that the most effective way to validate the various datasets is to have local site- specific data speed tests. The previously completed survey results have been used to validate August 185 IBI GROUP DRAFT REPORT INTERNET CONNECTIVITY AND BROADBAND ANALYSIS, ASSESSMENT, AND PROPOSED SOLUTIONS Prepared for Elgin County the datasets.By validating Elgin County survey results against ISED road segments, a picture of the true broadband status throughout the county has been developed. A percentage has been identified as requiring further investigation. Reasons for this include the following: - Conflicting known infrastructuredata, ISEDdata, and local Internet speed test results; - Conflicting data regarding current or future infrastructure in the area; - Actual ability of infrastructure owners to provide services along “backhaul” or “feeder” routes; - Anecdotal reports of lacking service or lacking infrastructure from reputable sources. Municipality of West Elgin Figure 2-2: Current State of Broadband Infrastructurewithin West Elgin August 186 IBI GROUP DRAFT REPORT INTERNET CONNECTIVITY AND BROADBAND ANALYSIS, ASSESSMENT, AND PROPOSED SOLUTIONS Prepared for Elgin County Figure 2-3:Current Understanding of Served and Underserved Areas within West Elgin West Elgin primarily has fibre optic infrastructure in and between the communities of West Lorne, Rodney, and New Glasgow.There are a number of fixed wireless towers in and just west of the municipalitythat serve residences and businessesas well. Correlating ISED and Internet speed test data,premises along the path of fibre infrastructure are confirmed to meet CRTC broadband minimum speeds. Future SWIFT funded NFTC fibre build is considered to meet the minimum speeds as well. Areas theoretically covered by fixed wireless towers do not meet the CRTC speed minimums. This is validated with local speed test results. For perceived underserved areas in the municipality, ISED data is confirmed against the local survey data that properly represents the underserved area. Confirmed served premises account for 67.7% of total premises, while underserved premises represent 32.1% of total premises. 0.2% requires further investigation. Based on road segment lengths, 21.6% is considered served while 77.8% is considered underserved. 0.6% requires further investigation. August 187 IBI GROUP DRAFT REPORT INTERNET CONNECTIVITY AND BROADBAND ANALYSIS, ASSESSMENT, AND PROPOSED SOLUTIONS Prepared for Elgin County Municipality of Dutton Dunwich Figure 2-4: Current State of Broadband Infrastructure within Dutton Dunwich Figure 2-5: Current Understanding of Served and Underserved Areas within Dutton Dunwich August 188 IBI GROUP DRAFT REPORT INTERNET CONNECTIVITY AND BROADBAND ANALYSIS, ASSESSMENT, AND PROPOSED SOLUTIONS Prepared for Elgin County Dutton Dunwich primarily has fibre optic infrastructure in and between the communities of Dutton and Wallacetown.There is additional fibre that extends out from these communities, and includes committed fibre builds funding by SWIFT. There are several fixed wireless towers in and just west of the municipality that serve residences and businesses as well. Correlating ISED and Internet speed test data, premises along the path of fibre infrastructure provide confidence that residences and business have access to CRTC broadband minimum speeds. Areas theoretically covered by fixed wireless towers do not meet the CRTC speed minimums. This is validated with local speed test results. For perceived underserved areas in the municipality, ISED data is confirmed against the local survey data that properly represents the underserved area. Confirmed served premises account for 62.6% of total premises, while underserved premises represent 37.4% of total premises. 0% requires further investigation. Based on road segment lengths, 20.6% is considered served while 79.4% is considered underserved. 0% requires further investigation. Township of Southwold Figure 2-6: Current State of Broadband Infrastructure within Southwold August 189 IBI GROUP DRAFT REPORT INTERNET CONNECTIVITY AND BROADBAND ANALYSIS, ASSESSMENT, AND PROPOSED SOLUTIONS Prepared for Elgin County Figure 2-7: Current Understanding of Served and Underserved Areas within Southwold There is limited broadband within the boundaries of Southwold.Connectivity primarily is comprised of fixed wireless radio towersof which there is nopremises with minimum Internet speeds confirmed. There is committed SWIFT funded fibre infrastructure being built around Iona, Iona Station, and Lawrence Station. Correlating ISED and Internet speed test data, there are pockets of areas considered served outside of St. Thomas and Port Stanley. There is conflicting data in communities of Fingal and Shedden. Areas theoretically covered by fixed wireless towers do not meetthe CRTC speed minimums. This is validated with local speed test results. Confirmed served premises account for 38.4% of total premises, while underserved premises represent 39.6% of total premises. 22.0% requires further investigation. Based on road segment lengths, 19.2% is considered served while 75.4% is considered underserved. 5.4% requires further investigation. August 1810 IBI GROUP DRAFT REPORT INTERNET CONNECTIVITY AND BROADBAND ANALYSIS, ASSESSMENT, AND PROPOSED SOLUTIONS Prepared for Elgin County Municipality of Central Elgin Figure 2-8: Current State of Broadband Infrastructure within Central Elgin Figure 2-9: Current Understanding of Served and Underserved Areas within Central Elgin August 1811 IBI GROUP DRAFT REPORT INTERNET CONNECTIVITY AND BROADBAND ANALYSIS, ASSESSMENT, AND PROPOSED SOLUTIONS Prepared for Elgin County Central Elgin primarily has physical broadband infrastructurein and between the communities of Port Stanley, Union, heading into St. Thomas. There is also infrastructure east-west between Lawton’s Corner and Sparta. Correlating ISED and Internet speed test data, premises along the path of physical broadband infrastructure provide confidence that residences and business have access to CRTC broadband minimum speeds. Areas theoretically covered by fixed wireless towers do not meet the CRTC speed minimums. This is validated with local speed test results. For perceived underserved areas in the municipality, ISED data is confirmed against the local survey data that properly represents the underserved area. Confirmed served premises account for 72.0% of total premises, while underserved premises represent 23.5% of total premises. 4.5% requires further investigation. Based on road segment lengths, 28.1% is considered served while 67.7% is considered underserved. 4.2% requires further investigation. Township of Malahide Figure 2-10: Current State of Broadband Infrastructure within Malahide August 1812 IBI GROUP DRAFT REPORT INTERNET CONNECTIVITY AND BROADBAND ANALYSIS, ASSESSMENT, AND PROPOSED SOLUTIONS Prepared for Elgin County Figure 2-11: Current Understanding of Served and Underserved Areas within Malahide The Township of Malahide has fibre optic infrastructure spurring out of Aylmer. Notably infrastructure down into Port Bruce,into Fariview, and up into Lyons. There are several fixed wireless towers in and around the Township that serve residences and businesses as well. Correlating ISED and Internet speed test data, premises along the path of fibre infrastructure provides minimal confidence that residences and business have access to CRTC broadband minimum speeds. Areas theoretically covered by fixed wireless towers do not meet the CRTC speed minimums. This is validated with local speed test results. For perceived underserved areas in the municipality, ISED data is confirmed against the local survey data that properly represents the underserved area. Confirmed served premises account for 22.1% of total premises, while underserved premises represent 42.8% of total premises. 35.1% requires further investigation. Based on road segment lengths, 8.1% is considered served while 68.0% is considered underserved. 23.9% requires further investigation. August 1813 IBI GROUP DRAFT REPORT INTERNET CONNECTIVITY AND BROADBAND ANALYSIS, ASSESSMENT, AND PROPOSED SOLUTIONS Prepared for Elgin County Municipality of Bayham Figure 2-12:Current State of Broadband Infrastructure within Bayham Figure 2-13: Current Understanding of Served and Underserved Areas within Bayham August 1814 IBI GROUP DRAFT REPORT INTERNET CONNECTIVITY AND BROADBAND ANALYSIS, ASSESSMENT, AND PROPOSED SOLUTIONS Prepared for Elgin County The Municipality of Bayham primarily has fibre optic infrastructure in and between the communities of Port Burwell, Vienna, and Straffordville. There is additional fibre that extends out from these communities as well.SWIFT has aconfirmed funded fibre buildin and around North Hall and Corinth. There are several fixed wireless towers in and around the municipality that serve residences and businesses as well. Correlating ISED and Internet speed test data, premises along the path of fibre infrastructure provide confidence in some areas that residences and business have access to CRTC broadband minimum speeds.The exception here is the route between Vienna and Straffordville and the fibre path running west out of Straffordville.Internet speed test data conflicts ISED road network data in these cases. Areas theoretically covered by fixed wireless towers do not meet the CRTC speed minimums. This is validated with local speed test results. For perceived underserved areas in the municipality, ISED data is confirmed against the local survey data that properly represents the underserved area. Confirmed served premises account for 62.6% of total premises, while underserved premises represent 37.4% of total premises. 0% requires further investigation. Based on road segment lengths, 20.6% is considered served while 79.4% is considered underserved. 0% requires further investigation. County Summary Premises servedvs. underserved and served area by road segments are two key metrics to further review.The following table provides a summary of served and underserved premises in Eglin County. MUNICIPALITYPREMISES SERVEDPREMISES PREMISES UNDERSERVEDREQUIRES FURTHER (COUNT / INVESTIGATION PERCENTAGE)(COUNT / PERCENTAGE)(COUNT / PERCENTAGE) West Elgin165567.7%78532.1%6 0.2% Dutton Dunwich119462.6%71237.4%0 0.0% Southwold78738.4%81139.6%45022.0% Central Elgin397572.0%129623.5%2494.5% Malahide84622.1%163942.8%134535.1% Bayham142751.9%69725.4%62322.7% County Total988453.4% 594032.1% 267314.5% *Totals do not equal 100% because there are areas that have been identified as requiring further investigation. August 1815 IBI GROUP DRAFT REPORT INTERNET CONNECTIVITY AND BROADBAND ANALYSIS, ASSESSMENT, AND PROPOSED SOLUTIONS Prepared for Elgin County The following table provides a summary of served and underserved areas of the County based onlength of road segment. MUNICIPALITYSERVED AREA BY UNSERVED AREA BY AREAS REQUIRING ROAD SEGMENTROAD SEGMENTINVESTIGATIONSBY ROAD SEGMENT (LENGTH / (LENGTH / PERCENTAGE)PERCENTAGE)(LENGTH / PERCENTAGE) West Elgin79.3 km21.6%286.5 km77.8%2.2 km0.6% Dutton Dunwich69.7 km20.6%268.4 km` 79.4%0.0 km0.0% Southwold67.5 km19.2%264.6 km75.4%19.0 km5.4% Central Elgin109.2 km28.1%263.5 km67.7%16.5 km4.2% Malahide35.4 km8.1%296.7 km68.0%104.1 km23.9% Bayham81.0 km26.1%183.3 km59.1%46.0 km14.8% County Total442.1 km20.2% 1563.0 km71.3% 187.8 km8.6% The above two tables indicate that roughly 53.4% of the County has access to Internet speeds of at least 50 Mbps download and 10 Mbps upload.On the other hand, roughly 32.1% of County premises do not have access to minimum broadband speeds. In contrast, roughly one third of premises underserved account for more than 70% of the County geographic areaas represented by length of road.This is reflective of the rural broadband challengesthat the County is facing. The Township of Aylmer was reviewed for broadband servicesand deemed to be served. 3 Options Analysis and Recommendations 3.1Technical Options 3.1.1County Wide FibreDeployment Further investigation of the suspect areas enabled the requalification of all road segments and premises to either “Served” or “Under-Served". The County-Wide Fibre Deploymentoption involves the deployment of buried and aerial backbone fibre along all County roads in un/underserved areas of the County,with drops installedto each premise, (home/business),connecting to the network. The benefits of this infrastructure are primarily that premises are connected via fibre optic cable, providing a secure access, with highest possible speeds, and that the connection isfuture- proofed, to the extent that with updated electronics in the future, speeds could be further increased.Based on the performance and longevity of existing fibre optic infrastructure that has been deployed globally, it would beexpected that a fibre optic infrastructure would have a useful life of 30 years or greater. The cons of such an approach are primarily related to the option’s cost. August 1816 $1,000 , and % 78.5%79.4%75.8%70.6%73.9%77.7%76.0% 100% $ 788,000 $ 712,000 $ 902,000 $1,392,000 $1,320,000 $2,006,000 $7,120,000 Served - . 288.7268.4266.0274.6229.3338.9 Under 1665.9 rates - Connected Count s 70% $ 551,600 $ 498,400 $ 631,400 $ 974,400 $ 924,000 $1,404,200 $4,984,000 % 21.5%20.6%24.2%29.4%26.1%22.3%24.0% Premise 17 various take ROAD LENGTH (KM) More dynamically, and perhaps at a rate more Served Served 527 - 79.369.785.181.097.2 rate. 114.6 Count 50% CONNECTION COSTS $ 394,000 $ 356,000 $ 451,000 $ 696,000 $ 660,000 $1,003,000 $3,560,000 % 32.2%37.4%44.0%25.2%48.1%52.4%38.5% Served - Average costs of $60/m for construction of rural backbone fibre 78,800 71,200 Percentage of Under 788712902 1392132020067120 $$$ 90,200 $ 139,200 $ 132,000 $ 200,600 $ 712,000 10% Under rates. Count - were then used to estimate costs, based on backbone and connection costs, it can be seen that the cost of connecting all underserved % 67.8%62.6%56.0%74.8%51.9%47.6%61.5% PREMISE COUNT ackbone), including Served) - , Served $ 17,322,000 $ 16,104,000 $ 15,960,000 $ 16,476,000 $ 13,758,000 $ 20,334,000 $ 99,954,000 165811941146412814271824 KBONE COST 11377 Count (Under BAC Take Rate ANALYSIS, ASSESSMENT, AND PROPOSED SOLUTIONS by Bayham Malahide DunwichSouthwold West Elgin County Total Central Elgin ranges from $100M @ 10% take rate, to approximately $107M @ 100% take s MUNICIPALITY drop (connecting a premise to the b Dutton/ Dunwich MUNICIPALITY West ElginDutton/SouthwoldCentral ElginBayhamMalahide For purposes of costing analysis, it was assumed that backbone fibre would be installed across all underserved roads, with drops only installed to the backbone, based on the assumed takeperSummarizing all costsarea DRAFT REPORT Elgin County IBI GROUP INTERNET CONNECTIVITY AND BROADBAND Prepared for August 18 100% ion. $107,074,000 $ 64,274 $ 15,038 18 prior to construct 70% Served Premises - $104,938,000 $ 62,992 $ 21,055 activities Take Rate COST SUMMARY 50% $103,514,000 $ 62,137 $ 29,077 connected varies from $141,385, to $15,038, as the take rate increases from e- Fibre Connectivity to Under 141,385 10% $100,666,000 $ 60,427 $ Cost Cost/km apital ANALYSIS, ASSESSMENT, AND PROPOSED SOLUTIONS C Cost/Premise apital C Total apital to individual constituents, the cost per premis C Total Total meaningful 10% to 100%, underscoring the importance of marketing and communications DRAFT REPORT Elgin County IBI GROUP INTERNET CONNECTIVITY AND BROADBAND Prepared for August 18 IBI GROUP DRAFT REPORT INTERNET CONNECTIVITY AND BROADBAND ANALYSIS, ASSESSMENT, AND PROPOSED SOLUTIONS Prepared for Elgin County 3.1.2Fibre Backbone to Fixed Wireless Locations This option is comprised of deploying fibre backbone to connect 12high value tower sitesacross the County, and then utilizing radio technologyto connect premises withineach tower’s coverage area.Premises along the fibre paths would be served with fibre. The benefits of such an approach are primarilyfinancial,underscored byshorter deployment timelines. The cons relate toupgradability of the system to higher speeds in the future, as well as the potential for signal degradation based on the density of foliage as well as other environmental factors. For evaluation purposes, the ISED database was scanned to provide a list of all towers within Elgin County.The data provided tower height, spatial position, and owner. It was assumed that towers owned by service providers such as TekSavvy, Xplornet, and others are likely used to provide wireless broadband, and therefore, to positionnew antennas on those towers, would not have any impact on advancing towards the goal of expanding broadband coverage. 12cellular towers (detailed in the following table),dispersed across the county,were then selected from which to modelwirelessbroadband coverage. Total Percent Owner Tower Owner Google Earth Tower Antenna Antenna Antennas Tower IDLatitudeLongitudeHeightStructure TypeCompanyCountCounton Tower 342.55138889-81.7655555660 mKDSSRogers Communications Canada Inc.221 642.58972222-81.6758333360 mGuyedRogers Communications Canada Inc.881 1042.62986111-81.3772777865 mKDSSRogers Communications Canada Inc.221 1242.63944444-81.5561111161 mKDSSRogers Communications Canada Inc.221 1342.66111111-80.7819444490 mGuyedRogers Communications Canada Inc.8120.6667 1542.66472222-81.0002777880 mKDSSRogers Communications Canada Inc.221 1942.67833333-81.23580 mSiloRogers Communications Canada Inc.221 2342.70666667-81.5262 mGuyedBell Mobility Inc.881 3142.76111111-80.9338888980 mGuyedCHPD RADIO111 3842.77202778-81.0016111145 mMonopoleRogers Communications Canada Inc.441 5242.79066667-81.2795277891 mGuyedBell Mobility Inc.661 5542.79527778-80.807590 mGuyedRogers Communications Canada Inc.18181 The towers were then connected, via fibre optic connections, run from the nearest served area, and premises counted along the serving fibre routes, as identified in the following table. August 1819 IBI GROUP DRAFT REPORT INTERNET CONNECTIVITY AND BROADBAND ANALYSIS, ASSESSMENT, AND PROPOSED SOLUTIONS Prepared for Elgin County UNSERVED FIBRE TOWER PREMISE COUNT CONNECTION MUNICIPALITY NUMBERON SERVING LENGTH (M) FIBRE PATH Tower 036,79520West Elgin Tower 062,1297West Elgin Tower 107,63420Dutton/Dunwich Tower 124,39217Dutton/Dunwich Tower 131,6302Bayham Tower 151580Malahide Tower 193,1590Southwold Tower 235,79710Dutton/Dunwich Tower 314,802107Malahide Tower 381,6770Malahide Tower 528,143116Southwold Tower 553,68617Bayham TOTAL50,002316 AconservativeRF propagation model was built, based on 5.8GHz radios, with omni-directional antennas placed at the tops of the towers, for simplicity. Coverage predictions were then run, using the Radio Mobile online tool, with receive omni-directional, 9 dBi antennas mounted at an elevation of 5m, simulatingrooftop antenna mounts. August 1820 IBI GROUP DRAFT REPORT INTERNET CONNECTIVITY AND BROADBAND ANALYSIS, ASSESSMENT, AND PROPOSED SOLUTIONS Prepared for Elgin County Coverage from the 12 towers was found to blanket the majority of the County, with the exception of the far north end of Malahide, and the Belmont area. By finding a suitable site in the Belmont th area, and establishing a 13tower, coverage of the county was significantly enhanced.For the purposes of this report, a new tower in close proximity to the Belmont water tower site was chosen, with a 32m tower modeled, as depicted below. August 1821 , 22 the virtually in 407,500 379,500 509,000 696,000 669,500 056,500718,000 100% $1,$3, per $ $ $ $ $ covering , $1,000 strength 285,250 265,650 356,300 487,200 468,650 739,550602,600 70% $$$2, $ $ $ $ estimated at reas for further examination Served Premises Connected - A are . 203,750 189,750 254,500 348,000 334,750 528,250859,000 50% CONNECTION COSTS $$1, $ $ $ $ $ between St Thomas and Aylmer, as well as the far should provide adequate signal 105,650371,800 and signal strength . 10% Percentage of Under $ 40,750 $ 37,950 $ 50,900 $ 69,600 $ 66,950 $$ the fibre serving the towers g $ 60,000 $255,000 Equipment ,120 Tower Radio Estimated Cost towers modeled 545,440 688,120 255,000328,960 413,220 315 3 1,084,380 3, . $$ $ $ $ $ $ Tower Cost wireless infrastructure - TBD using the (Fibre) icipality 761786 665 139213012006 $ 3,000,120 Count Under Served Premises Estimated Cost Remaining Mun - was estimated at $250,000 266 (km) 338.9 Road 288.7268.4274.6229.3 Under Served Length TBD 50002- Total Fibre Length (m) ANALYSIS, ASSESSMENT, AND PROPOSED SOLUTIONS 0 , would be selection of radio equipment and coverage in the areas 2747 19 on 116107 Fibre Count Tower Under Served Premise fibre option, connection costs for those premises alon $500 per connection for those - phase all and , 0 1 wers 12892453166637 Fibre 1782311302 Tower Length To Number of As can be seen in the above coverage prediction model, the 1all of the County. Lower frequency radio technologies would improve coveragedetailed designnorth end of Malahide.For purposes estimating costs of serving towers, the same cost assumption ($60/m) for fibre and ($1000/ connection) were used as with the first option of deploying fibre to all underserved roads. The cost of radio equipment and antennas was estimated at $5,000 per towerand the cost to build a new tower Similar to the connection DRAFT REPORT Elgin County MunicipalityWest ElginDutton/ DunwichSouthwoldCentral ElginBayhamMalahide IBI GROUP INTERNET CONNECTIVITY AND BROADBAND Prepared for August 18 IBI GROUP DRAFT REPORT INTERNET CONNECTIVITY AND BROADBAND ANALYSIS, ASSESSMENT, AND PROPOSED SOLUTIONS Prepared for Elgin County Summarizing all costs by Take Rate, including fibre to connect towers and premise connection costs, it can be seen in the following table, that the cost of connecting all underserved areas ranges from $3.7M @ 10% take rate, to approximately $7.1M @ 100% take rate. More dynamically, and perhaps at a rate more meaningful to individual constituents, the cost per premise-connected varies from $5,178, to $988, as the take rate increases from 10% to 100%. COST SUMMARY Fibre Connectivity to Under-Served Premises Take Rate 10%50%70%100% Total CapitalCost$3,686,920 $5,174,120 $5,917,720 $7,033,120 Total CapitalCost/km$2,213$3,106$3,552$4,222 Total CapitalCost/Premise$5,178$1,453$1,187$988 3.1.3 Summary Cost estimates for both options are compared in the table below, with the more robust option carrying the higher price tag. COST SUMMARY Fibre Connectivity to Under-Served Premises Take Rate 10%50%70%100% County Wide Fibre Deployment Total Capital Cost$100,666,000 $103,514,000$104,938,000$107,074,000 Total Capital Cost/km$ 60,427 $ 62,137 $ 62,992 $ 64,274 Total Capital Cost/Premise$ 141,385 $ 29,077 $ 21,055 $ 15,038 Fibre Backbone to Fixed Wireless Locations Total Capital Cost$3,686,920 $5,174,120 $5,917,720 $7,033,120 Total Capital Cost/km$2,213$3,106$3,552$4,222 Total Capital Cost/Premise$5,178$ 1,453$ 1,187$ 988 Regardless of which option or combination of options is chosen, anadditional 10% of total capital should be planned for design and project management. 3.2Governance / Funding Options 3.2.1Ontario Connects: Ontario’s High-Speed Internet Plan Note that at the time of writing this report, theOntario Connects programwas initially announced with program objectives as follows: Facilitate speed of delivery of high-speed internet services and 100% coverage at a minimum service level of 50/10 Mbps for approximately 700,000 unserved or underserved homes by the end of 2025 Leverage existing utility infrastructure and rights of way to reduce required subsidies and compress delivery timelines August 1823 IBI GROUP DRAFT REPORT INTERNET CONNECTIVITY AND BROADBAND ANALYSIS, ASSESSMENT, AND PROPOSED SOLUTIONS Prepared for Elgin County Attract broad market participation of quality counterparties that is inclusive of smaller and local players Ensuring infrastructure lasts and can be upgraded as needed The program has committed $4B to connectevery region inOntario to reliable, high speed internet by the end of 2025.It is expected to support accelerated broadband expansion in the Province. While little detailed information is known, the Province has stated that theprocess will enable Internet Service Providers (ISPs) to bid for provincial subsidies through a series of reverse auction events, with winning bids meeting the defined coverage and deployment requirements at the most reasonable price. The program in very early stages of formulation, and few details are knownregarding the eligibility for ISPs and/or municipalities to participate directly in the program. Benefits and Risks The program announcement represents the most amount of funding that any provincial government has committed to improving broadband connectivity. The reverse auction process that is described would tend to favor incumbent ISPs with existing infrastructurein the County that can cost-effectively compete for subsides in a reverse auction subsidy format.If successful, the program would provide a significant incentive to existing ISPsto invest in infrastructureto serve all underserved areas of the County. Risks of the program include the ability of the program tohave sufficient budgetfund connectivity to all underserved areas in the County, as well as the province’s ability to execute on the program in the stated timeframe. Since little detailed information regarding this program is known, we continue to describe other funding solutions in the following sections, assuming that they may be required in a coordinated and complementary fashion tofund areas within the County where the Ontario Connects program may not be eligible or have sufficient funding budget to adequately address. 3.2.2County Owned This scenario sees the Countytaking the initiative inmaking an investment in building fibre optic networks to provide universal connectivity to all residents and business that are currently underserved.The County would seek grant funding from higher levels of government (e.g. Ontario and Canada) through programs such as ICON (Improving Connectivity for Ontario)and theUBF (Universal Broadband Fund). The County would be expected to contribute a percentage of project costs directly (usually 25% to 50%) as part of the conditions of the grant funding program. Recent (August 2021) funding announcements from the governments of Ontario and Canada related to the ICON and UBF programs have committedthe following amounts to fund$1.344B inbroadband projects.It is unclear of the amounts of funding provided from Ontario and Canada, nor if the Ontario contribution is part of the $4B funding announced under the Ontario Connects program. August 1824 IBI GROUP DRAFT REPORT INTERNET CONNECTIVITY AND BROADBAND ANALYSIS, ASSESSMENT, AND PROPOSED SOLUTIONS Prepared for Elgin County REGIONFUNDING AMOUNT ($M) North East Ontario$170 North West Ontario$148 Eastern Ontario$362 Golden Horseshoe Region$73 Central Ontario$230 Telesat(Satellite)$109 South West Ontario$252 Total$1,344 It is unclear at the time of writing the amount of funding that has been allocated for projects within Elgin County. Using County and lower-tier municipal operational connectivity requirements as will as working closely with other public sector organizations, commonly referred to as the MUSH sector (Municipalities, Universities, Schools and Hospitals)as a network anchor / backboneclient, these organizationscould recover some of the upfront capital costs of construction through long rd party providers. Byinstalling additional term savings on connectivitycosts currently paid to 3 conduitand fibre capacity at the time of construction, incremental extensions to the municipal network can be made. The Countywould facilitate retail service deliver through partnerships with retail and wholesale Internet Service Providers (ISPs)to enable the delivery of retail telecommunications services to business and residents. Benefits and Risks This option provides the benefit of stimulating and increasing competition for broadband services at a retail level. Incumbents mayrespond in the form of additional network investments and capacity to maintain their existing market share. The Countyretains local control over its assets. This model may not stimulate the wholesale / reseller telecommunications market (even if wholesale services are offered at reasonable discounted rates) as some resellers may be wary of trying to compete with the County for commercial and residential clients. Risks with this model are both financial and operational.There is a high degree of risk in securing grant funding from higher levels of government as the process to apply for grants is highly competitive and available funding for grants is highly oversubscribedby the requests for grant funding that are received. The cost of construction presents a risk that can be managed through diligent procurement and construction management, however there is a longer term risk of demand for retail services not meeting initial forecasts, or competitive forces creating price pressure on retail services. This may result in underutilized or stranded network investment in the longer term. The Countydoes not have the expertise to operate retail telecommunications services, so there is some risk in terms of creating operational partnerships with ISPs willing to take on this role. 3.2.3P3 approach Under this scenario, the County would engage potential partners in the investment and operations of the network by publishing long range plans and soliciting partner interest through a Request for Proposal (RFP) process. Potential partners could participate in the form of providing financing, construction and/or operational expertise to buildand operate the network. Depending on the nature of the partnership, the Countymay contribute to the partnership in the August 1825 IBI GROUP DRAFT REPORT INTERNET CONNECTIVITY AND BROADBAND ANALYSIS, ASSESSMENT, AND PROPOSED SOLUTIONS Prepared for Elgin County form of capital contribution, long term commitments to purchase telecommunications services or a combination of both. This model is more expensive than direct ownership of assets since private sector partners will want to receive a return (profit) from their investments. Benefits and Risks This option has the benefit of leaving options open for the Countythat is unwilling to commit to a build program orlacks the available capital to invest in broadband infrastructure. Partners may bring needed construction and/ or operational expertise that the Countymay require for such a network. This model creates a shared risk reward scenario for the Countyand the partner. Risks involved with this approach include the ability to attract a suitable partner for various reasons (size of the investment, market conditions, etc), as well as the risk of losing some local control over the implementation of the network, uneven network coverage, etc. Since these arrangements are normally over a period of 10 to 30 years in order to allow for investment recovery and profit, it is important to ensure that long term vision of the partner is aligned with the Countyto prevent partnership conflicts. Exit strategies for both the Countyand the partner must be carefully thought through as part of forming the partnership. 3.2.4Direct Subsidy Approach This approach, modeled after the SWIFT program that is currently active in Elgin County would have the County look to contribute one time funding to providecapital subsidiesto existing ISPs as an incentive to invest in the construction of broadband infrastructure that would connect areas of the County thatare currently underserved. In this model, the County would allocate funds to be provided to service providers through a procurement process that is focused on specific outcomes in geographic areas (e.g. premises served, fibre route meters deployed). Benefits and Risks This model differs from theCounty Owned model in that the County does not retain long term ownership of the assets, nor has the obligations to maintain the assets over their asset life. Risks of this approach include the County not having a long termcontrol and littleinfluence or ability to ensure that service levels to residents and businesses are providedand affordable pricing is maintainedin the long term.In order to ensure that the Municipal Act is followed in terms of unfairly biasing or subsidizing a private sector organization, thissubsidy approach would need to be done through anarms length originationsuch as SWIFT, of which Elgin County is already a participating member. It should be noted that the Ontario Connects program appears take a very similar approach with the reverse auction subsidy model, with 7 year financial holdback provisions to have some trailing influence to ensure that ISPs maintain commitments to service quality and pricing. 3.2.5Facilitate Private SectorInvestment In this approach, the County takes on a role of facilitating and advocating for investment in broadband infrastructure both from privateindustry as well as other levelsof government. The County does make a direct financial contribution, but rather looks to encourage cooperation, partnerships and facilitate the investment through approaches such as the facilitation of economic development and collaboration forums, removing financial or municipal approval challenges to planning and permitting of fibre optic and radio tower infrastructure, as well as leveraging and coordinating the current connectivity requirements and spending of the (i) the County, (ii) lower tier municipalities and(iii)MUSH sector agencies with service providers, providing this committed revenue stream as a mechanism to encourage ISP investment in underserved areas. This coordination approach through procurement and strategic negotiations can help the County achieve itslong term broadband goals without direct financial investment in infrastructure or subsidy programs. August 1826 IBI GROUP DRAFT REPORT INTERNET CONNECTIVITY AND BROADBAND ANALYSIS, ASSESSMENT, AND PROPOSED SOLUTIONS Prepared for Elgin County Benefits and Risks The primary benefit of this approach is that it can be executed with minimal incremental costs and should be undertaken as a best practice from a strategic procurement as well as a County economic developmentand advocacy perspective. Risks with this approach include that without direct investment from the private sector and higher levels of governmentthis approach is unlikely to be successful, or result in a short term improvement.The County has little direct influence or control of outcomes, service levels or timelines with this approach. 3.2.6Status Quo Under this scenario, the Countywould take a passive role, leaving investment in broadband infrastructureto the private sector with any grant subsidies the private sector is able to secure from higher levels of government. The County would continue to purchase the services it requires from commercial telecommunications providers, at the broadband speeds and prices currently available in the current marketplacewithout coordinating procurement efforts with other public sector entities. Benefits and Risks This option has the benefit of no investment being required, however there is a risk that places the Countyat comparative disadvantage in the long run if commercial telecommunications providers do not make investments in fibre optic infrastructure to support the needs of the County as well as local businesses and residents. 3.3Options Analysis& Recommendations \[This section to be finalized afterinput andfeedback from the Elgin County Connectivity Committee\] August 1827 IBI GROUP DRAFT REPORT INTERNET CONNECTIVITY AND BROADBAND ANALYSIS, ASSESSMENT, AND PROPOSED SOLUTIONS Prepared for Elgin County Appendix A–In-Process/ Potential Fibre Builds in Elgin County August 1828 IBI GROUP DRAFT REPORT INTERNET CONNECTIVITY AND BROADBAND ANALYSIS, ASSESSMENT, AND PROPOSED SOLUTIONS Prepared for Elgin County MUNICIPALITY/ISPPOTENTIAL BUILDS Municipality of Bayham North Frontenac is in the midst of a project installing fibre along Plank Rd from our north end (New England) through to Port Burwell.NFTC is currently working with the County and Municipality to ensure documents are in order. Xplornet has received municipal concurrence for 2 towers in Bayham on private lands. Execulink Telecom has approved a project for Corinth/North Hall. Expected completion Dec 2022 as noted on the SWIFT website. Municipality of Central Uplink Communications is planning for a fibre build Elgin in the New Sarum area Municipality of Dutton There are no in-process or proposed fibre builds Dunwich that Dutton Dunwich is aware of at this time. TekSavvy is proposing to install a tower in north Dunwich Town of Aylmer Two ISP’s –EastLink and NetFox Fiber installed to Town Hall Examining potential of broadening fiber through SCADA RFP Township of Malahide Malahide has had a few queries from third-party wireless ISPs. Uplink Wireless has approached Malahide to install fibre in Avon and along some rural roads in order to feed future towers when developed Malahide itself had initiated an RFP in January for a feasibility study on a Township lead wireless project. It was to consider the installation of 3-5 towers in different areas of the Township, specifically on land the Township of Malahideis owner. Determination of height requirements and associated costs were to be detailed for these sites. In addition to this, a preferred solution of municipal tower use only (i.e. connect municipal sites) or one where this could be accomplished along with providing opportunity for a third party provider access for new services in this area. This was report has been delayed but expected to be available in the next few weeks. Township of Southwold August 1829 IBI GROUP DRAFT REPORT INTERNET CONNECTIVITY AND BROADBAND ANALYSIS, ASSESSMENT, AND PROPOSED SOLUTIONS Prepared for Elgin County Municipality of West Elgin Packet works completed work in 2019 to install Fiberoptic lines in the most condensed areas of West Lorne and Rodney. Just recently, in August- 2020 a new wireless service provider installed wireless equipment and offered services to rural residents. We received information that Packet works is now extending fiber service to the residents in New Glasgow along Furnival Road. North Frontenac Telecom The Warden provided North Frontenac Telecom Company Company with a letter of support for their application to the Universal Broadband Fund Rapid Response Stream on January 15, 2021. This application is in regards to an area near Rodney, towards the southwest corner of Elgin County. Xplornet Elgin County will consider providing a letter of support to Xplornet for their application to the Universal Broadband Fund due on February 14, 2021. This application is in regards to the proposed building of hundreds of kilometres of new fibre, establishing a robust backbone for Xplornet’s 5G wireless broadband network, with existing sites in Elgin County connected to fibre. Once completed, this project will enable rural households in communities such as North Hall, Corinth, New Sarum, Iona Station and Crinan to enjoy affordable and accessible 1 Gbps fibre services Bell Canada Bell has no fibre projects planned in Elgin at this time. Bell has decided that if they are unable to connect at least 100 houses with their new builds that they are not worth the investment. This even relates to the proposed ICON applicationthat Elgin County provided a letter of support for in August. August 1830 IBI GROUP DRAFT REPORT INTERNET CONNECTIVITY AND BROADBAND ANALYSIS, ASSESSMENT, AND PROPOSED SOLUTIONS Prepared for Elgin County Appendix B–Internet Service Providers and Technologies August 1831 IBI GROUP DRAFT REPORT INTERNET CONNECTIVITY AND BROADBAND ANALYSIS, ASSESSMENT, AND PROPOSED SOLUTIONS Prepared for Elgin County August 1832 IBI GROUP DRAFT REPORT INTERNET CONNECTIVITY AND BROADBAND ANALYSIS, ASSESSMENT, AND PROPOSED SOLUTIONS Prepared for Elgin County August 1833 IBI GROUP DRAFT REPORT INTERNET CONNECTIVITY AND BROADBAND ANALYSIS, ASSESSMENT, AND PROPOSED SOLUTIONS Prepared for Elgin County August 1834 IBI GROUP DRAFT REPORT INTERNET CONNECTIVITY AND BROADBAND ANALYSIS, ASSESSMENT, AND PROPOSED SOLUTIONS Prepared for Elgin County August 1835 IBI GROUP DRAFT REPORT INTERNET CONNECTIVITY AND BROADBAND ANALYSIS, ASSESSMENT, AND PROPOSED SOLUTIONS Prepared for Elgin County August 1836 IBI GROUP DRAFT REPORT INTERNET CONNECTIVITY AND BROADBAND ANALYSIS, ASSESSMENT, AND PROPOSED SOLUTIONS Prepared for Elgin County August 1837 IBI GROUP DRAFT REPORT INTERNET CONNECTIVITY AND BROADBAND ANALYSIS, ASSESSMENT, AND PROPOSED SOLUTIONS Prepared for Elgin County August 1838 IBI GROUP DRAFT REPORT INTERNET CONNECTIVITY AND BROADBAND ANALYSIS, ASSESSMENT, AND PROPOSED SOLUTIONS Prepared for Elgin County August 1839 IBI GROUP DRAFT REPORT INTERNET CONNECTIVITY AND BROADBAND ANALYSIS, ASSESSMENT, AND PROPOSED SOLUTIONS Prepared for Elgin County August 1840 2021 th August 26 Jeff Brock, Director ITS Report Discussion Presentation to Elgin County’s Connectivity Committee Deployment Technical Options Fibre Backbone to Fixed Wireless Locations County Wide FibreHybrid? ••• Financing Options Ontario Connects: Ontario’s High Speed Internet PlanCounty OwnedP3 ApproachDirect Subsidy ApproachFacilitate Private Sector Investment ••••• Questions