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