This report was funded by a Rural Cooperative Development Grant awarded by the USDA to the
University of Wisconsin Center for Cooperatives in 2015. The grant also funded participation in this
project by the UW Extension’s Broadband Education and E-Commerce Center.

Lynn Pitman, University of Wisconsin Center for Cooperatives
University of Wisconsin-Madison/University of Wisconsin Extension

Mary Kluz, Broadband and E-Commerce Education Center
University of Wisconsin Extension

January 2017
1

 INTRODUCTION
High-speed internet connectivity has become an essential part of the business, education and health
care systems that are integral to modern society. Community institutions are finding that participation
in these networks is required in order to remain relevant.
Many rural areas have continued to lag behind in developing the broadband access options that allow its
community institutions to participate in these networks and remain relevant. These broad systems and
networks are the basis for future economic development and healthy communities; without them, the
overall economic health of rural communities suffers.
Broadband access and adoption have emerged as critical issues for rural communities. However, the
business case for investing in broadband infrastructure is inherently difficult, given the capital-intensive
investment needed to serve sparsely distributed rural populations.
One response by rural communities underserved by the market is to use the cooperative business
model. When investor-owned utilities did not extend their services to the sparsely populated parts of
the nation in the first half of the twentieth century, rural groups organized cooperatives to provide the
electric and telecommunications services that they needed. These cooperatives have established a long
and successful history of providing rural infrastructure services that continues to this day.
Members of the cooperative own and control it. This user-member ownership structure allows the
cooperative business to operate on a service-at-cost basis to deliver needed services. It allows the
cooperative to take a longer-term perspective on strategic investments that can maintain and improve
services into the future. In addition, because the cooperative is a provider of needed services in a
community, it is embedded in the local economy, and can contribute to broader local economic
development activity.
The ability of cooperatives to deliver rural broadband services has only recently gained wider attention.
This report surveys some of the recent activities by cooperatives to expand or enable broadband
development in rural areas across the state of Wisconsin, the region and the country. While this
preliminary inquiry into approaches employed by cooperatives for broadband development is not an
exhaustive investigation, it suggests ways to begin to formulate possible roadmaps for further
cooperative participation in broadband expansion efforts.

2

 FACTORS AFFECTING BROADBAND DEVELOPMENT
Broadband development is a function of an interplay of factors. To enable easier discussion, the
complicated business of getting useful internet service to customers is condensed to an interaction of a
three factors illustrated in
Figure 1. At the core,
Internet
service
Consumer
internet service provider
provider
demand /
activity results in a certain
activity
adoption
level of available
infrastructure. Customers
make use of that
infrastructure, paying for
Availability of
subscriptions, which
infrastructure
encourages more provider
activity [Figure 1].
Figure 1. Core factors affecting broadband development

Different dynamics work on
each of these core factors.
Internet service providers
are influenced by the
regulatory environment, as
well as their return on
investment. Infrastructure
availability is affected by
grants and loan programs
through federal and state
agencies, and prior
investments in existing
infrastructure. Cost, skill
level and online security
affect how consumers
choose to participate
[Figure 2].

Figure 2. Core and secondary factors affecting broadband development
Figure 2. Core and secondary factors affecting broadband development

Rural cooperatives operate within the same system. Cooperatives investigated in this research are
chiefly rural electric cooperatives, including a sampling from Wisconsin, and from outside Wisconsin,
electric cooperatives that have been active in broadband development, as well as telecommunications
cooperatives. Many cooperative boards have considered how they may affect broadband development
in their regions. Their responses can be categorized based on the three core factors: affecting customer
demand, internet service provider activity or availability of infrastructure.
3

 RESPONSE TO A NEED
There is a perceived connection between potential for future community and economic development
and access to broadband. A National Agricultural and Rural Development and Policy Center publication
concluded that rural median household income grew at nearly twice the rate where broadband
technology was adopted in households compared to where it was not adopted.1
Unmet infrastructure need in rural communities is the major reason both telecommunications and
electric cooperatives were organized in the early part of the 20th century. The business model which
drove investor-owned firms did not support the capital intensive investment required to develop
infrastructure in sparsely populated rural areas. Cooperatives were developed to meet the demand for
reliable utility services that, both then and now, are critical to modernization, innovation, and future
economic development in rural areas.
This preliminary inquiry describes some of the initiatives undertaken by telecommunications and electric
cooperatives to address rural broadband infrastructure needs.

Telecommunications Cooperatives
Telecommunications cooperatives are part of the independent, community-based group of providers
that serve rural areas, providing broadband, voice and data communications services to over 40% of the
nation’s landmass to less than 5% of the nation’s telecom subscribers.2

Background
Farmers were encouraged to establish their own telephone systems on a mutual or a cooperative basis
in the early part of the 20th century as a way to bring service to their rural areas.3 Many small mutual
and private telephone companies dotted the rural landscape by the 1920’s. However, telephone service
deteriorated as the result of business practices and the lack of capital investments needed to maintain
systems by these small enterprises4, as well as the wider economic conditions brought on by the Great
Depression.

1

Whitacre, Brian, Roberto Gallardo and Sharon Strover, National Agricultural and Rural Development Policy
Center, 2013, http://www.nardep.info/uploads/BroadbandWhitePaper.pdf
2
http://www.ntca.org/about-ntca/about-our-members.html August 9, 2016
3
Schmitt, Jr., Richard G., “Farmers’ Mutual Telephone Companies”, Journal of Farm Economics, Vol.33, No. 1, Feb.
1951, p. 135.
4
Hadwiger, Don F., Cochran, Clay, “Rural Telephones in the United States, Agricultural History, Vol. 58, No. 3, p.
223.

4

 A bill passed in 1949 created a federal loan program to support the development and upgrade of rural
telephone systems. The federal program was administered by the Rural Electric Administration (REA),
which had successfully overseen the rural electrification program using loans and cooperative
development assistance in the 1930’s. The REA program aimed to provide the “best possible service to
the widest practicable number of rural people on a sustained basis,”5 service that was comparable to
what urban populations could access.
The new REA telephone program gave initial preference to the upgrade and expansion needs of small
private incumbent companies. Many of these companies took advantage of the new loan programs6.
The REA also provided support to mutually-owned telephone companies and to new cooperatives that
would provide telephone service to unserved areas.
To meet the challenges of building and maintaining telephone systems to serve widely dispersed rural
populations, the REA program supported emerging technologies and engineering solutions that could
improve service but keep costs down. As a result, the cooperative and small private telephone
companies that participated in the REA loan program were early adopters of technological advances
such as dial service.7

Changing Markets
Telephone cooperatives and independent private providers have had to adapt to major changes in the
market. The 1984 break-up of the Bell System and the Telecommunications Act of 1996 promoted
competition into formerly regulated service areas. Federal and state regulations have also contributed
to changes in the market that continue to the present.
The advent of internet delivery over telephone lines provided a more recent and significant challenge
and opportunity to provide service to cooperative member owners. The largest competitive threat to
the telecom cooperatives has been from cell phone providers, although in some cases cable and satellite
may also compete.
Small rural telecom cooperatives need to respond to market opportunity and competitive challenges in
meeting demand for broadband services, but their resources for raising the needed upfront capital
investment may be limited. As Universal Service Fund monies and fees from inter-carrier compensation
to small rural telecommunication companies decline, they may need to rely more on the revenue from
subscribers, which places pressure on subscriber rates. 8

5

Schmitt, p.139.
Hadwiger et al., p. 233.
7
Hadwiger et al., p. 233.
8
http://www.rtfc.coop/content/rtfc/news/rtfc_news_archive/rtfc-reed-talks-broadband-financing-at-senatesession.html . Accessed October 28, 2016.
6

5

 Support
The Rural Utilities Service (RUS) of the United State Department of Agriculture (USDA) is the successor to
the REA. RUS, through its Telecommunications programs, is committed to “ensuring that rural areas
have access to affordable, reliable, advanced telecommunications services comparable to those
available throughout the rest of the United States.”9
RUS has continued to support the telephone – now telecommunications – cooperatives. Many
cooperatives have been clients of RUS for 50 to 60 years, having received and paid back loans multiple
times.
The RUS direct loan program is for assets that can be expensed and depreciated, and the loan term is for
the life of the asset. The program also includes requirements for financial, engineering, and other
planning and assessment work. Very favorable interest rates are based on the federal rate and are
significantly lower than commercial bank loans. RUS will make loans in overlapping areas, but won’t
finance competition to existing loans.10

Broadband Adoption
Access to broadband infrastructure is only part of broadband deployment. Subscribers who value
broadband access enough to pay the monthly subscriber fees provide the financial return which feeds
reinvestment. In some areas, early adopters willing to commit are a relatively small percentage of the
potential subscriber base, and may not be a sufficient subscriber base to support the ongoing costs of
expanded broadband service.
Broadband adoption by a larger subscriber base is driven by a variety of factors. The perceived benefits
of broadband services to a subscriber are influenced by that subscriber’s skill and comfort level with
technology. Increased knowledge and skill can raise a member’s awareness of benefit and subsequently
provide greater benefit, which will also affect the subscriber’s willingness to pay, within the general
affordability limits driven by household income. Households are looking for a return on their investment
in their subscription charge.
Outreach efforts to increase the knowledge and skill of the subscriber are aligned with the cooperative
business model. Member education has long been a part of a set of cooperative principles that
differentiate the cooperative from other business approaches. 11 Member education is used to help

9

https://www.rd.usda.gov/about-rd/agencies/rural-utilities-service. Accessed November 15, 2016.
Interview with Andre Boening, General Field Representative, Wisconsin Rural Utility Programs, USDA, March 14,
2016.
11
Cooperative Business Principles, Cooperative Information Report 45, Section 2, April 2011.
http://www.rd.usda.gov/files/CIR45_2.pdf
10

6

 members fully understand the benefits that their cooperative can provide to them. It is also seen as
essential for the effective governance of the business by its member-owners.
Some cooperatives proactively incorporate this aspect cooperative identity into their operations, and
may run retail centers to facilitate their members’ purchases, help with comparison shopping, or provide
help for installation.

In Wisconsin
To profile some of the broadband activities by telecom cooperatives, this report looked to Wisconsin,
where there are 11 telecommunications cooperatives12. The cooperatives have approximately 35,000
access lines13 that serve rural areas in the northwestern and western portions of the state.
The current Wisconsin telecom cooperatives were incorporated in 1948-1967, and were clients of the
federal REA program since its inception.14 Wisconsin telecom cooperatives have continued to be clients
of RUS.
Wisconsin telecom cooperatives are typical of many nationwide, in that they have made an investment
in fiber optic networks, including fiber to the premises (FTTP). Fiber offers virtually unlimited
bandwidth, and uses light signals to transmit data. It is 10 to 20 times faster than 3G/4G wireless
service, and offers unlimited data with no caps. Once it is installed, upgrades to the fiber network are
made through updating the electronics that generate the light pulses, rather than replacing the fiber
itself. These characteristics of fiber provide significantly more capacity at lower costs, but only over a
long-term, 20 year cost-recovery period. Wisconsin telecom cooperatives have FTTP capabilities that
provides coverage to approximately 80-100% of their service areas.15
Wisconsin telecom cooperatives also provide service to gigabit business parks in the rural counties in
which they operate. Gigabit business parks are one of the criteria that can be used in site selection tools
on the Wisconsin Economic Development Corporation (WEDC) website16, reflecting their importance in
attracting and retaining businesses in an area.

12

Telecom cooperatives and independent private providers serving rural areas share a blended history and
common interests that are represented by the NTCA-Rural Broadband Association. Until several years ago, the
association’s membership was limited to telecom cooperatives. It now includes independent private provider
members. As a result, its public reporting on national rural broadband service providers does not differentiate
between telecom cooperatives and other providers.
13
Wisconsin Legislative Council Information Memorandum, “Regulation of Telecommunications Services,” June 2,
2011, p.3
14
Boening, March 14, 2016.
15
Boening, March 14, 2016.
16
Based on http://inwisconsin.com/select-wisconsin/available-sites/locate-in-wisconsin/ Accessed and data
compiled August 2016. See Appendix II.

7

 There are at least 222 gigabit business parks in the state, with service provided by 33
telecommunication companies. Nine of those providers are telecom cooperatives, which service 29
parks in 15 rural counties.
These rural counties make up 21% of the land area of the state, but only approximately 9% of the state’s
population reside in those counties.
This is in contrast to the relationship between population and land area for gigabit park locations which
are serviced by independent private and investor-owned providers. Parks serviced by those providers
are located in counties comprising 40-44% of the Wisconsin’s area, but where 67-70% of the state’s
population resides. The financial requirements to build and maintain the physical infrastructure
required to service more sparsely populated areas can create disincentives for these types of providers.
That telecom cooperatives are servicing gigabit parks in areas with lower population density overall
reflects the use of the cooperative business model to effectively address rural infrastructure needs.

Type of Provider
Ownership Structure

Number of
Providers
Servicing
Business
Parks

Number
of Parks
Served by
Provider
Type

Population
of Counties
Served

Population
of Counties
Served as %
of State
Total

Area of
Counties
Served (in
sq mi)

Area of
Counties
Served as
% of State
Total

Telecom Cooperatives
Independent Private
Providers
Investor-Owned
Providers

9

29

477,662

9%

11,533

21%

21

86

3,607,826

67%

23,656

44%

3

107

3,777,738

70%

21,897

40%

Totals

33

222

State Total Population
State Total Area in Sq
Miles

5,363,715
54,158

Telecom cooperatives in Wisconsin are also addressing broadband adoption issues. Telecom
cooperatives’ website show that many provide retail services for computers and tablets, offer computer
diagnosis, repair, and system design, home and business networking, and technology classes.
As an example, Citizens Connected (http://citizens-tel.net/) telecommunications cooperative has
services such as a retail center, residential and business IT (information technology) services, technology
classes at no charge, and help with online security available to their members17.

17

See Appendix for listing of Wisconsin telecom cooperatives.

8

 Vernon Communications Cooperative provides another example of how a telecom cooperative is
educating its community about how broadband can be used to accomplish business development goals,
and promotes adoption of broadband services. The cooperative staff worked with the UW-Extension
Broadband and E-Commerce Center to offer web and online training for small- and mid-size businesses.
Using online tools for website design, social media and online marketing, 49 attendees learned how to
build their businesses and enhance their bottom line18.
The cooperative priority of service to its member-owners, as opposed to the requirements of investorowned companies for returns to its investors, may facilitate a longer-term view that supports fiber
deployment. Cooperatives need a financial return to maintain financial stability, and are subject to the
same regulatory and cost environments as other telecommunications businesses. But they may also be
willing to take some risk and sacrifice some profitability in order to meet member and local service
needs over the long-term.

A Closer Look – Marquette-Adams Telecom Cooperative
The Marquette-Adams Telecom Cooperative provides an example of how one Wisconsin telecom
cooperative has approached broadband service provision, and by expanding its system is able to pursue
broadband opportunities in neighboring rural areas in need of service. 19
The cooperative has about 5000 lines, and has been active in expanding service provision for internet
and television over the last 10 years. It also provides backhaul services to other telecommunications
providers. While fiber has been part of the networks since the 1970’s as backbone and trunk cables, it
began providing FTTP in the 1980’s. The cooperative is still in the process of replacing copper lines with
fiber. It also provides backhaul services to 30+ cell towers, including those of AT&T and Verizon.
Marquette-Adams recognizes that it must be competitive to gain new customers, and works to adopt a
proactive and forward-thinking approach. A 2010 ARRA grant of $20 million was used for a major service
area expansion, and covered 69% of the costs. The remaining piece of the project was financed through
a RUS loan. The project included laying miles of fiber, allowing the cooperative to offer gigabit service to
the home.
The cooperative is continuing the expansion and has invested its own equity to do so. Fiber will last
“forever” in the ground. The cooperative oversized its build to its service boundaries to allow
expansion. The expansion has allowed the cooperative to respond to a variety of requests for broadband
service. It worked with Allied Cooperative, a farm supply cooperative, to supply the fiber Allied needed
for its own network. The cooperative was also able to provide high-speed internet to a new
condominium development.
18

http://broadband.uwex.edu/blog/2016/08/web-online-training/
Interview with Jerry Schneider, GM of Marquette-Adams, All Sebastiani, Board President, and Dick Wirth,
Director, April 22, 2016.
19

9

 Marquette-Adams is exploring partnering with the city of Adams to provide broadband service, in
response to the interest that the city has expressed over the last three years. In discussions with the
city, Marquette-Adams has emphasized its cooperative structure, and their focus on service. The
cooperative staff is proud of its service record, and tracks customer satisfaction as a way to monitor the
quality of their contracted maintenance services.
Marquette-Adams has recognized that experience and training of staff is key to future successful
operations, as technology continues to change. It has taken a proactive approach in embracing new
technology, and invests in staff with ongoing technical training.
The Role of the Board
As a cooperative, the board is elected from the membership, and is responsible for overseeing the
cooperative’s strategic direction. Expanding and upgrading broadband service is a critical issue that the
boards of telecommunications cooperatives must navigate.
Marquette-Adams has worked to diversify its board over recent years, intentionally recruiting directors
from different business backgrounds so that broader business perspectives can inform the cooperative’s
strategic planning. Initially 99% of the board were farmers; now the seven members represent a variety
of sectors, and include a banker, two farmers, a machinist, a business owner, a cheese-maker, and a
person with a technical professional experience.
Board decisions are decided by a majority vote. The board values diverse opinions, and unanimity is not
expected: individual directors will take a minority position if that seems warranted to them.
Board approval was needed to forward with investing in the development of the ARRA grant proposal.
The ARRA proposal that was developed covered major portions of their territory that was underserved.
The board met to discuss and raise questions the proposal, before deciding whether to submit the
proposal that was developed. Marquette-Adams was debt-free at the time, and the project proposal
also included the RUS loan. There were also creative financing opportunities for construction loans.
While there was risk associated with the project, the board also felt that there was a business risk
associated with doing nothing and so voted to approve the project.
The board and management have decided not to go after state grants offered through the Public Service
Commission. The grants are too small for any significant project, and the cash match requirements are
not aligned with the current cash priorities of the cooperative.
Partnering and community engagement
Partnering is an approach that can leverage rural community assets to provide broadband services. It
also can provide a wider, community-based perspective on larger economic development opportunities
10

 and challenges. At the same time, community engagement can support outreach activities that
familiarize members and others with services that the cooperative offers, and contribute to subscriber
broadband adoption. Marquette-Adams has engaged in sector and local partnership arrangements, and
engages with the communities it serves.
Marquette-Adams is part of Wisconsin Independent Network, the largest independent fiber network in
Wisconsin. It is owned by 31 independent telecom providers in the state, including the telecom
cooperatives. It provides services to accessing and managing networks and network security, and for
data storage.
In the past, the Marquette-Adams has partnered with three rural electric cooperatives and two telecom
cooperatives to deliver satellite TV services to members.
The board makes small, local economic development grants using monies from unclaimed capital
credits. These grant requests are reviewed and approved by the board. The cooperative is interested in
working more closely with economic development groups to leverage the capacity that they have and
explore additional expansion possibilities. Expansion out of the cooperative’s original incumbent
territory has provided valuable experience as well as opportunities for cost-sharing and member-base
expansion.
Marquette-Adams engages in a variety of community outreach activities that highlight cooperative
services of interest to its members. The cooperative distributes cameras to schools so that students can
produce content, and broadcasts sports team events from surrounding high school districts. It has
provided free wireless connectivity at local events such as the Marquette County Fair.

Rural Electric Cooperatives
Electric cooperatives currently are less visible players in the rural high speed internet system. But the
internal needs of the sector, coupled with the cooperative orientation toward local economic
development, is pushing the sector to become more active.
According to the National Rural Electric Cooperative Association, 42 percent of the nation’s electric
distribution lines are owned by electric cooperatives. These lines cover 75% of the U.S. land mass to
reach just over 12 percent of the nation’s meters, an average of 7.4 customers per line mile. This is
much lower than investor-owned utilities, which average 34 customers per line. Public owned utilities,
or municipals, average 48 consumers per line mile.20 Because electric cooperatives are organized and
operated to provide service to member-customers rather than a return to investors, they have been
able to develop and maintain the infrastructure to serve rural, sparsely populated rural areas.

20

http://www.nreca.coop/about-electric-cooperatives/cooperative-facts-figures/ August 9, 2016.

11

 Background
The parallels between the current broadband access issues and the lack of electricity in rural America
during the 1930’s has been frequently noted. Given the success of the rural electrification program that
was created to address the problem, aspects of that program’s development may be relevant in
discussions about promoting broadband access and adoption in rural areas. 21
The REA was created in 1935 to “initiate, formulate, administer, and supervise a program of approved
projects with respect to the generation, transmission, and distribution of electric energy in rural areas”.
It was originally conceived of as a program to stimulate employment during the Depression, although
there were others who saw rural electrification in larger public interest terms and had long supported a
more proactive stance to its development.
It was initially expected that the REA would follow patterns established by other agencies and use grants
and subsidies, as well as a loan program, to stimulate commercial activity and employment in the
manufacture and construction of new electric infrastructure. However, the REA considered rates and
costs a critical factor in the development of a successful electrification program, and called for planning
on an area basis so that economies of scale could be realized.
To support these goals, the program became an interest-bearing, self-liquidating lending program,
making loans for the construction of rural electric systems at interest rates based on Treasury bills. In 15
years, the number of farms that were electrified increased from 11% to 78%22.
The loan program did not exist in isolation. The REA provided technical assistance to emerging
cooperatives that including organizing, legal and incorporation work, financial planning, cost-effective
engineering and negotiating wholesale power contracts. The level of assistance provided reflected the
fact that the loans were 100% secured by the physical assets, necessitating the proper construction and
operations of the financed facilities.
As borrowers became established, the REA responded to changing needs with programs and policies
that emphasized the importance of member education, community relations, and effective business
management practices.23

A Spectrum of Response
Throughout our research interviews, we discovered that many electric cooperative boards are
considering what part, if any, they could play in broadband development in their communities. The

21

Person, H.S., “The Rural Electrification Administration in Perspective”, Agricultural History, Vol. 24, No. 2, April
1950. http://www.jstor.org/stable/3741056
22
Person, pg. 73
23
Person, pg. 84

12

 interviews disclosed a dynamic tension between several of the cooperative principles and values that
govern the boards’ deliberations.
Electric cooperatives’ primary mission is to deliver electric service to member-owners in a financially
responsible manner. Boards setting the strategic direction for the cooperative have the fiduciary
responsibility to assure that mission can be met into the future. However, as the necessity of
broadband access grows, the lack of high speed internet is increasingly a problem for members.
In addition, technological changes that are affecting the architecture of the electric grid increasingly are
making questions about broadband access more directly relevant to the electric cooperative’s own
future operations. By upgrading the communications technology that is part of the cooperative’s
electric infrastructure, a “smart grid” will allow cooperatives and their members to better manage
energy demand and distributed energy functions that allow customers to contribute to the grid.24
Other values may also drive a cooperative board to explore providing broadband access. Many
cooperatives are guided by seven cooperative principles, one of which embraces a concern for the
community. In the case of electric cooperatives, management or boards often participate on local
economic development boards and committees. The cooperative’s electric infrastructure is critical to
community economic activity, which in turn maintains the cooperative business and supports future
growth. The overlap between the electric cooperative membership and the community aligns the
service goals to members with a service orientation to community.
Management and board directors have begun to ask: how can the need for improvements to their
communication infrastructure also contribute to meeting the needs of their members and communities?
What role is appropriate for them to take on while they maintain their focus on delivering electric
service?
The response from electric cooperatives to these needs falls across a spectrum (Figure 3).

24

http://www.electric.coop/nreca-tapped-develop-transformational-grid-technology/ Accessed November 30,
2016.

13

 Figure 3. A spectrum of response by electric cooperatives

community
participation

enabling
members

•The cooperative supports local coalitions or committees which have addressed the
need for broadband adoption and improved access by authorizing directors or staff
members to participate.
•The cooperative invests time.

•The cooperative enables members' ability to subscribe to high speed internet access
through an independent internet service provider.
•The cooperative invests in partnerships.

•The cooperative builds internet-related infrastructure to support the organization's
need for improved efficiency and maintaining industry standards, upgrading
communications between facilities.
internal needs •The cooperative invests in infrastructure.

leveraging
infrastructure

expanding
business model

•The cooperative leverages their infrastructure in order to serve the community or
region, entering into business relationships to improve regional backbone or enable
member subscription to internet service.
•The cooperative invests in infrastructure and organization-organization partnerships.

•The cooperative expands their business model to include internet service to members.
•The cooperative invests in new infrastructure, services and/or marketing strategies,
sometimes creating a new organization.

At the top of the graphic, on the relatively low end of investment, electric cooperative directors or
management are participating in community discussions concerned with economic development in their
regions. Broadband deployment and utilization has become a topic of interest among economic
development committees and coalitions. In some areas, coalitions focused exclusively on broadband
adoption and/or deployment have formed.
In the next level of response, a cooperative enables their members' ability to subscribe to high speed
internet access, often by negotiating special member pricing through an independent internet service
provider. The organization may or may not directly benefit from these arrangements and invests in
partnerships to make service available. The investment involves the benefits and risks of being
associated with another business whose service to the membership and reputation may reflect on the
14

 cooperative. The cooperative staff spend time investigating potential partners to develop a level of trust
in the provider to deliver services that will be perceived positively by members.
Toward the middle of the spectrum, cooperatives are investing in broadband-related infrastructure to
support their own needs as electric utilities. As with other industries, high-speed internet is changing
operation standards for electric utilities. Opportunities for improved efficiency and customer service has
led to an increase in the amount and frequency of data collected by utilities; data transfers are
facilitated by improved broadband-capable infrastructure. Cooperatives have invested in wireless and
hard-wire infrastructure that improve communication between their facilities.
Taking this investment a step further, some cooperatives leverage their investments and their unique
funding structures to strategically develop more infrastructure in ways that serve their community’s or
region’s overall internet needs. This entails entering into business relationships with other entities to
carry signals over a regional backbone and/or enable members’ subscription to an internet service. The
electric cooperative’s infrastructure may facilitate access to a separate internet service provider for
member benefit.
The most robust response electric cooperatives have taken comes after a board decision to take active
steps to provide internet service. The board may elect to form a separate organization or enlist other
partners to accomplish some of the tasks required, but the electric cooperative takes a committed role
in creating the structure which allows members to access high speed internet.
Examples to illustrate this spectrum follow below. It should be noted that cooperatives are often
engaged in more than one of these responses; these examples are selected case studies and not an
exhaustive survey of what has been accomplished by electric cooperatives or by any individual
cooperative.
Pierce Pepin Electric Cooperative Services25
Electric cooperatives are often involved in local economic development initiatives. The
Pierce Pepin Cooperative Services narrative highlights a leadership role in a locally
driven effort to better understand the current state of broadband service in their area.
Pierce Pepin Cooperative Services board and staff started to become aware of the
community’s increasing internet needs over 10 years ago, as members shared
frustrations with lack of adequate internet service getting in the way of doing business. In the
meantime, the board has refocused on their core business of providing electric service, and has phased
out the cooperative’s involvement with appliance retail sales and service, propane sales and home
security services in recent years. In the past, the cooperative had offered members satellite internet
service through an agreement with another company, but no longer does so.

25

Interview with Jeffrey Olson, VP, Engineering, Pierce Pepin Cooperative Services, May 20, 2016

15

 Wary of potential financial risk for the cooperative in a domain where the rules keep changing, Pierce
Pepin is exploring broadband possibilities as an active member of a wider community effort. Jeff Olson
regularly participates in efforts through the Ellsworth Area Industrial Council. In 2014, the Council
conducted a survey of Pierce County residents and businesses to assess broadband service in the county
and determine opportunities for residents and businesses. The cooperative provided staff time for
development of the survey, administrative support for the survey, as well as GIS analysis and mapping
assistance.
Pierce Pepin Cooperative Services has an eye on the future of broadband in the community because
there are mutual benefits to this communication technology. Pierce Pepin is experiencing exponential
growth in data and in upgrading their communications infrastructure there may be opportunities to
work with local businesses to add broadband services for the surrounding area. Wireless is considered a
bridge technology to fiber optics, which is a more ‘fail safe’ approach. The staff are looking ahead to
generate more cooperation in construction projects where fiber could be added, and building
partnerships with local businesses to provide adequate broadband to Pierce County as a whole.
Central Wisconsin Electric Cooperative26
Another electric cooperative involved with local economic development is the Central
Wisconsin Electric Cooperative. The cooperative board has a track record of monitoring
and responding to the changing needs of members. In the past, it formed partnerships
to extend satellite television access to members. The satellite television experience
grew into the cooperative and these partners offering satellite internet. The satellite
internet business was subsequently sold. The board’s position is that member services
outside of electric service cannot compromise their ability to provide electric service.
On a broader level, Central Wisconsin Electric Cooperative invests time in local economic development
and quality of life of the community. Staff participate in several economic development group meetings
at the municipal and county level, at which broadband is discussed as a development issue. Staff have
noted great business and residential interest in improved internet service through their participation in
local discussions. They are actively seeking opportunities for expanded access in their service area as
they look for ways to meet their members’ needs.
Adams-Columbia Electric Cooperative27
Adams-Columbia Electric Cooperative serves member customers in south central
Wisconsin. The cooperative currently helps to provide internet service by acting as an
agent for Bug Tussel, a wireless internet provider, to provide services to interested
customers. This was a spin-off from agreements made with the provider to meet the
cooperatives own service needs for a number of its substations. Cooperative members

26

Interview with Mark Forseth, Vice President of Customer Relations and Economic Development, July 29, 2016
Interviews with Marty Hillert, CEO of Adams-Columbia Electric Cooperative, December 21, 2015, January 22,
2016, February 18, 2016.
27

16

 can learn more about internet service plans and sign up for wireless service at the cooperative’s
showroom or by contacting their cooperative. This has been a win-win for both parties; by servicing the
cooperative, the provider has been able to expand its markets.
Adams-Columbia Electric Cooperative
Bug Tussel, a wireless internet provider, wanted to place towers in Adams-Columbia
service territory. Adams-Columbia needed the internet services for metering functions
at its substations and had the right-of-ways in place. The two parties worked out an
agreement that allowed Bug Tussel to place its towers near substations so that they
would meet the cooperative’s needs as well as its own. Five or six substations in the
northern part of the Adams-Columbia service area are now covered in this way, and
another substation project is scheduled. Adams-Columbia and Bug Tussel have worked out a mutually
beneficial financial relationship which allows both to reduce their potential costs.
More on the Adams-Columbia Electric Cooperative story can be found the narrative in the following
section, “A Closer Look: Two Wisconsin Rural Electric Cooperatives”.
Richland Electric Cooperative
Richland Electric Cooperative serves about 3500 members in and around Richland
County, Wisconsin. Richland Electric partnered with two telecom cooperatives to form
a competitive local exchange carrier, Genuine Telecom, and compete as a local service
provider in the city of Richland Center. Richland Electric worked out an arrangement
with the city to build and lease the fiber network. More on the Richland Electric
Cooperative story can be found in the narrative in the following section, “A Closer Look:
Two Wisconsin Rural Electric Cooperatives”.
.
Gibson Electric Membership Corporation28,29
Gibson Electric Membership Corporation is headquartered in Trenton, TN and serves
members in western Tennessee and western Kentucky. In 2015, Gibson Electric
expanded their fiber transport business. Initially installed to serve Gibson’s substations
and member service centers, the fiber network has expanded to enable internet service
to members such as schools, banks and commercial businesses located along the fiber
route to access state of the art telecommunication services.
Gibson’s investment in infrastructure has allowed them to develop relationship with five internet service
providers. Leveraging the infrastructure necessary for their business, the corporation is also part of an
aggregated network between 20 utilities.

28

Personal communication, Charles Phillips, Vice President of Engineering and Technical Services, April 5, 2016.
Gibson Electric Membership Corporation, 2015 Annual Report.
http://www.gibsonemc.com/sites/gibsonemc/files/Annual%20Report%202016.pdf
29

17

 Lumbee River Electric Membership Corporation30
Lumbee River Electric Membership Corporation (LREMC) is a member-owned utility
serving Cumberland, Hoke, Robeson and Scotland counties in North Carolina. With the
help of an ARRA (American Recovery and Reinvestment Act) award, LREMC created
infrastructure to deliver internet service to its members. The corporation built for open
access, but internet service providers did not show the interest for which they were
hoping.
It took searching and negotiation to build a relationship with a provider. LREMC chose to create a
separate business entity to manage the service, Blue Wave Communications (http://bluewavenc.net/ ).
In a presentation at the Broadband Communities Summit in April 2016, LREMC executive Steven Hunt
shared lessons learned for commitment at this level. The entire organization needs to be on board to
make this kind of leap; alignment at all levels is necessary. He also stressed that working in broadband
requires quite a different approach and skills, as the market is very different from the electric
distribution business.
Arrowhead Electric Cooperative31,32
Located at the northeast corner of Minnesota, Arrowhead Electric Cooperative serves
rural members along the Lake Superior shoreline. Arrowhead became involved when a
local coalition began to build their capacity as a Blandin Broadband Community. The
coalition conducted a survey to assess existing internet service and potential customer
interest. This background work prepared community champions to apply for ARRA
grant funding, and they were successful with their second application.
In 2010 the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) awarded Arrowhead Cooperative over $16
million in grants and low interest loans to build a FTTP broadband network throughout Cook County. In
addition, Cook County awarded Arrowhead Cooperative a $4 million grant from the 1% sales tax fund.
These financial resources allowed Arrowhead to build infrastructure and capitalize on a business
partnership with CTC, a telephone cooperative located 200 miles away in Brainerd, Minnesota. CTC
handles billing and much of the customer support.
During the project’s construction phase, customers were informed of building phases and invited to use
internet service at the cooperative headquarters.

30

Panel presentation, Broadband Communities Summit, Strategies for Electric Cooperatives to Deliver FTTP
Services, Austin, TX, April 5, 2016.
31
Interview with Joe Buttweiler, Arrowhead Electric Cooperative, February 26, 2016.
32
Arrowhead Electric website, http://www.aecimn.com/

18

 Co-Mo Electric Cooperative33
Co-Mo Electric Cooperative’s investment in broadband started with 600 letters from
members, asking for the cooperative to do something about their internet service. CoMo’s service area extends from the Missouri River in the north to the Lake of the
Ozarks in the south, comprised of 2300 square miles. The board’s response to the
members’ request started with a pilot project in 2011. The board found the pilot so
successful they decided to extend the project to their full territory. The cooperative
created Co-Mo Connect, a service of Co-Mo Cooperative, as a subsidiary to the cooperative.
Co-Mo used various methods to build support and subscribership, including updates on their own
YouTube channel and yard signs to encourage neighbor to neighbor marketing. The cooperative
averages 7.8 meters per mile. While the cooperative tackled the project without grants, loans or
subsidies, they met their break-even point in three years, even though they had planned for seven
years.

A Closer Look – Two Wisconsin Rural Electric Cooperatives
There are 24 rural electric distribution cooperatives (RECs) in Wisconsin, covering rural areas in central
and western parts of the state.34 Eight of those cooperatives offer internet services to their members
through arrangements with wireless or satellite providers.
In an informal survey of general managers of Wisconsin electric cooperatives35, two of the cooperatives
expressed interest in making high speed internet available throughout their service territory. Both
already provide access to wireless or satellite internet service providers. The cooperative that sent out
the survey was also interested in exploring the issue, while also offering a high-speed internet option
through a wireless provider. While three of the cooperative CEOs indicated no interest in providing
broadband, they also made comments that reflected continuing board interest about this issue.
Other survey comments noted that at least portions of their service areas were already being served by
providers that included telecom cooperatives, independent private providers, and investor-owned
companies.
Interviews with two electric cooperative CEOs, summarized below, reflected the unique set of factors
and perspectives that each cooperative brings to questions about broadband access.

33

Panel presentation, Broadband Communities Summit, Strategies for Electric Cooperatives to Deliver FTTP
Services, Austin, TX, April 5, 2016.
34
http://psc.wi.gov/utilityinfo/maps/documents/largeElectricMap.pdf
35
Informal email survey sent by Marty Hillert, CEO of Adams-Columbia Electric Cooperative, on December 21,
2015.

19

 Richland Electric Cooperative36
Richland Electric Cooperative serves the southwest region of the state. It serves approximately 3.5
households or farms per route mile, the lowest ratio in the state. The CEO, Shannon Clark, is very
knowledgeable about the issues surrounding electric cooperatives and broadband. He serves on the
board of the National Rural Telecommunications Cooperative (NRTC), which was founded by electric
cooperatives, the National Rural Electric Cooperative Association (NRECA), and the Cooperative Finance
Corporation (CFC).
Clark sees a strong need for broadband for the cooperative to manage its infrastructure internally, for its
members to access the cooperative’s energy efficiency programs. He also sees the benefits that
broadband access brings to the community by supporting economic development and area educational
institutions.
Three telecom cooperatives and one independent company serve half of the county in which Richland
Electric Cooperative operates, and provide FTTP. The remainder of the county receives coverage from
two price-cap carriers which have received CAF II grants for building and delivering broadband service.
Clark discussed the difficulty in developing economically feasible approaches to providing broadband in
rural areas. While many see broadband access as a necessity, there is still a percentage of rural
residents that do not see its value. He pointed out that virtually all households passed would opt to
connect to a new electric distribution line being built. In contrast, a new fiber line build-out must
contend with lower adoption rates that are affected by rates, affordability, and lack of perceived need.
Richland actively considered a buildout to cover the rest of the county to serve 5000 to 8000
subscribers, which would cost $22 million. While the low rural density made it challenging, the adoption
rates at the rate necessary for financial feasibility seemed attainable. However, Connect America Fund
(CAF) II grant funding has changed the competitive landscape. With the right partner, Clark thought that
the buildout was possible. Partnerships work when the parties are willing to take a piece, rather than
the whole, of the potential success of the project.
Clark sees partnerships as key to expanding broadband access, and has partnered with two telecom
cooperatives to bring broadband to the adjacent city of Richland Center. Clark commented that rural
electric cooperatives need broadband and are agnostic about who provides it. They only require that
their member investment not be subject to extreme levels of risk. In particular, members who already
have broadband access from a local telecom cooperative may view new ventures into broadband as an
undue risk. While cooperatives need some return on investment, it is not at the level required by
investor owned firms.

36

Interview with Shannon Clark, CEO of Richland Electric Cooperative, February 9, 2016.

20

 Partnerships with other utility cooperatives have challenges that are unique. Boards are respectful of
the autonomous nature of each cooperative, and would like to avoid comparisons that would cause
disagreement among members.

Adams-Columbia Electric Cooperative37
Adams-Columbia Electric Cooperative is the largest electric cooperative in the state. It spans seven
counties, and crosses into five additional counties serving areas near the adjacent borders.
Broadband access, the need for services, and how the cooperative might participate in delivery was
identified by the board as a strategic issue for the cooperative. This has been primarily driven by the
membership. Some of the members are already well-served; others have minimal or substandard
service. Marquette Adams Telecom Cooperative is located in the center of the cooperatives service
area, and its fiber network also provides service to Adams-Columbia. The cooperative currently provides
a link to its wireless internet provider for its members.
The cooperative has also been involved in community-level conversations about the need for broadband
access. As CEO of the cooperative, Hillert sat on the economic development committee for the county,
and chaired the group.
Internal Broadband Needs and Smart Metering
Adams-Columbia has considered an approach to increase accessibility for its members by working with
Bug Tussel to expand on the towers that are currently being built. This type of expansion is broadly
estimated at $40 million and would involve a lease arrangement with a payback period of 10 years.
Members would see higher costs for some years, but they would have needed service.
The cooperative promotes member use of new technologies to monitor their energy usage, but this is
dependent on broadband access. Bug Tussel collects large amounts of data for smart metering, but
there is not the broadband capabilities to collect data from all of the cooperative’s 35,000 meters. The
smart meters are 1st generation and depend on power lines for transmission. Bug Tussel’s infrastructure
and radio might allow the cooperative to go with the 2nd generation of smart meters.
While the “internet of things” takes this a step forward, it relies on broadband availability. The
cooperative also sees some opportunities to partner with Marquette-Adams Telecom Cooperative,
which received a significant grant to invest in fiber (described earlier in this report). While its service
area is smaller than that of Adams-Columbia, there might be some areas where an expansion by
Marquette-Adams would benefit the electric cooperative’s members.

37

Conversations with Marty Hillert, CEO of Adams-Columbia Electric Cooperative, December 21, 2015, January 22,
2016, February 18, 2016. Hillert retired on July 1, 2016.

21

 Partnering and Community Engagement
As chair of the county’s economic development committee, Hillert saw the need for broadband access.
The economic development committee supported exploratory conversations between MarquetteAdams Telecom Cooperative and the city of Adams. He also had conversations with three county board
chairs about county needs, and ideas and possibilities for broadband access and delivery.
Adams-Columbia has experience with partnerships around issues other than broadband. The CEO felt
that although the cooperative was on a learning curve on the broadband issue, it already was skilled in
partnerships. Partnerships have been used in the past to deliver satellite TV, coordinate with LP gas
business, a tree-trimming operation with seven other cooperatives, and healthcare arrangement with 10
other cooperatives.
Besides Richland Electric Cooperative, there is not much involvement by rural electrics in the state to
provide broadband. There is overlay of telecom and electric cooperative service areas, and the board of
Adams-Columbia tries to respect those boundaries. Hillert commented that this is probably typical of
board thinking in other electric cooperatives, and some are letting the telecom cooperatives take the
lead.
The board recognizes that there is not an incentive for investor-owned firms to invest in rural
broadband, so there is a social or community component in its discussions about providing broadband
to its members. The cooperative business model has an advantage in delivering services over the
investor-owned firm model, which doesn’t work as well in low-density rural areas.
There is also a place for cooperatives to help in supporting technology use by the membership. This is
reflective of the cooperative principle of member education, to help people make effective use of the
services offered by the cooperative.
However, the business case ultimately must drive the internal discussion within the cooperative, since
board must evaluate to what extent the resources of the electric side of the business are committed to
this effort.
HIllert suggested that it is more challenging to identify potential partnering opportunities because of the
lack of public information about existing hard assets. This can lead to projects that duplicate fiber.
Projects that would be feasible by building off of existing assets cannot be identified.
Potential partnerships also can be developed around funding opportunities. Hillert observed that there
is disappointment that federal CAF grants have not been made to cooperatives, and concern that the
funding that has been awarded will be used to build out services closer to populated areas. He
expressed concern that there is not better recognition at the national level about rural needs that are
not being met.

22

 The Role of the Board
In the past the cooperative board has looked into providing broadband to its membership. There was
some disappointment that there wasn’t more interest in pursuing this, but preliminary cost/benefit
analyses indicated that it was too expensive to get into the business. The core electric distribution
business might be required to subsidize the venture, which was not acceptable.
The impression of management was that broadband services offered by electric cooperatives was not
widespread, and that there was not an economic model that worked. If there was not the required
density in a service area, a slow wireless connection was the option that was made available to
membership. There were concerns about even with federal grant funding, FTTP projects might struggle
to achieve a subscription rate needed for project feasibility.
Interest in the issue remains. The board considers the high-speed access question a “back burner” issue
and has continued to periodically revisit it.
Member broadband access was again on the agenda for the board’s annual strategic planning meeting
in March 2016. Hillert and management thought that a case study illustrating the investment and
adoption rates required for successful implementation would be helpful to the board. RCDG project
staff presented at the meeting. Besides two examples of cooperative delivery of broadband, the
presentation also included a framework and questions that the board might consider in further
exploring the issue.38

38

Powerpoint presentation available at: http://www.slideshare.net/WI_Broadband

23

 GOING FORWARD
Interviews uncovered some consistent threads as cooperative boards and staff consider how their
organizations could be contributors to broadband development. One strong thread that recurrently
appeared was the strong commitment by the board to their core mission of delivering electricity to their
members, while seeking solutions which did not jeopardize their core mission. Considerations about the
financial strength of the cooperative took a high precedence; it was repeatedly communicated that
board directors take their fiduciary responsibility very seriously.
Another thread in the narratives was a desire to be responsive to membership. In whatever ways the
board and staff responded, there was an underlying intention to deliver value to members. Board
directors are also members of their respective cooperatives, make decisions with the objective of
preserving the interests of the members. Woven into this intention to maintain member benefit was
the thread of trust.
Maintaining members’ trust leads the cooperative representatives to develop business relationships
that generate trust. The cooperatives’ staff communicated the desire to create partnerships that work
for all parties and protect the reputation of the cooperative.
Part of the larger narrative of cooperative involvement with broadband includes community service. The
stories collected highlighted cooperative interest and skill in community development, and knowledge
of how the cooperatives’ success depends upon the communities’ success. All along the spectrum of
response, one of the recurring considerations was whether or not their effort would make the
surrounding, broader community stronger.

A Framework for Change
Individual communities have unique needs and challenges to address, yet there are patterns common to
how sustainable, systemic change happens, supported by formal and informal leaders. Systemic change
such as broadband development typically begins with building awareness of the issue, proceeds to
methods of gathering community support, and follows through with actions taken to create positive,
enduring transformation.
For an electric cooperative or other cooperatives to respond to a community need for increased
broadband development in a more active manner requires organizational change. To choose an

24

 appropriate role for their cooperative, a board may consider
how change happens in an organization with a framework
for change developed by John P. Kotter.
Kotter outlined an eight-step change framework after
analyzing changes failures in companies and organizations
for more than 15 years.39 He identified patterns of errors
that create barriers, and from those, crafted a roadmap for
an organization to overcome those barriers.
Kotter describes the process to create significant change in
eight stages. Formulating how these eight stages would be
addressed in their particular organization helps leaders sort
through barriers and identify which barriers suggest an
alternative course, or perhaps, a different level of response.
Complicating the decision-making is the reality that a
broadband development response affects and is dependent
upon the broader community. Leaders outside of the
cooperative are often engaged with the issue and affecting
outcomes. Case study interviews emphasized the need for
partnerships and networks to build solutions. How can a
cooperative balance their own needs for service and stability
with the community needs?
What may be helpful are parallel tracks of inquiry, in
sequential order, along the eight accelerators of strategic
activity. A method for each track follows, one intended for
reflection internal to the organization and another to
manage thinking about broader community efforts outside
of the cooperative.
To take advantage of a big opportunity, Kotter describes
best practice within an organization as a series of steps.
Kotter advocates that a big opportunity presents a chance to
create a dynamic where people become more active change
drivers and where fluid, creative networks can be
implemented to work with the established and necessary

39

It’s a fast-moving world
In 1996, John P. Kotter authored the
book, Leading Change, in which he
outlined an eight-step change framework
for organizations. Kotter identified
patterns of errors that create barriers,
and crafted a roadmap for
transformation to overcome these
barriers.
Kotter expands on these ideas in his 2014
book, Accelerate, in which he describes
the advantages of a more fluid strategy
network; this model applies more readily
to change beyond the organization, such
as between partners and in the broader
community. The parties who collaborate
for change are not bound by the rules
and structures that one finds in
organizations. Leadership is often
informal; authority comes in the form of
knowledge sharing and relationship.
Kotter’s eight stages for strategic change
are:
1.

Create a sense of urgency

2.

Build the guiding coalition

3.

Form a strategic vision and
initiatives

4.

Enlist a volunteer army

5.

Enable action by removing
barriers

6.

Generate (and celebrate) short
term wins

7.

Sustain acceleration

8.

Institute change

Kotter, John P. Accelerate: building strategic agility for a faster moving world. Harvard Business
Review Press, 2014.

25

 hierarchy. These process steps are intended to foster innovative thinking and structures, to use a big
opportunity to create changes which allow the organization to respond quickly to a rapidly changing
world.
The case studies document many opportunities: efficiencies gained by use of the internet in the
industry, individual member access and adoption, involvement in partnerships and community.
Organizations have the chance to choose which is the “big opportunity” for them.
Two tracks of inquiry are presented here:
Internal Considerations: an organization considers the role of broadband within their own sphere, for
functioning, service delivery and member benefit;
External Considerations: an organization’s role in community, as a player in local economic and
community development. Organizations and communities that have already engaged in the issue may
want to first explore where they are along the eight steps.
These inquiries can add to a strategic planning process engaged by cooperative boards and
management. The directors are members who have been democratically elected to assure that the
cooperative continues to meet the needs of its members. They are responsible for articulating the
mission and vision, goals, and strategic direction for the cooperative. Management works to develop
the strategies that move the cooperative forward to meet those goals.
Assessing the broadband environment and the implications for the cooperative and its members
presents challenges and opportunities for change.

Internal Considerations
Step 1-Create a Sense of Urgency
Awareness of the potential for responding to members’ desire and need for internet access has come to
the attention of cooperative boards, management and staff through a variety of means. In some cases,
the members have brought a message to the board that high speed internet access is a service they
would like their cooperative to provide. In other cases, this issue has been tracked by staff, who
recognize the electric industry’s own need for infrastructure and the prospect for collaboration.
Presentations and discussions at industry conferences at the regional and national level have highlighted
broadband development opportunities.
Questions to consider:
 What evidence do we have that broadband development is an important issue for cooperative
operations? How critical is it for supporting future innovations in our sector?
 What evidence do we have that broadband development is an important issue for cooperative
members? Is it required for them to take advantage of future innovations in cooperative
operations? In opportunities at the community level?
26

 




What is happening at local, regional and national levels with cooperatives related to broadband?
What other information do we need to understand the current state and relative urgency for
our cooperative? Have we considered our potential role in member access and adoption?
What sources of information might we have overlooked?
Within our cooperative, who is not aware of broadband adoption opportunities who should be?

Step 2-Build and Evolve a Guiding Coalition
Pulling the right people together allows an organization to fully explore the opportunity presented by
broadband. As business and industry operations rapidly evolve, directors, management and staff at
every level have experience with how high-speed internet is affecting how they get things done. While
broadband deployment and utilization require knowledge and skills about technical, financial and
relationship matters, the most effective guiding coalitions also include those who want to lead, who
embrace change and who help others see the opportunity. A coalition of employees from up and down
the ranks can productively challenge the tendency toward hierarchical information flows. Participation
across levels also promotes the cross-fertilization of ideas and accelerates information sharing.
Questions to consider:
 Who in our organization has the knowledge, skill and interest to consider the technical aspects
required to make informed decisions regarding broadband deployment? Who has the financial
background? Who has invested in relationships important to broadband? Who has shown
interest?
 How do we want to bring these people together to explore a role for our organization in
broadband deployment? How much time do we want to dedicate, to answer what question?
 How might some members be involved in an internal coalition?
 How will the coalition communicate with the board, management, and staff?
 Where does the decision-making authority reside around each of these matters (technical,
financial, relationship)?
Step 3-Form Strategic Vision and Initiatives
By developing and refining a strategic vision around the potential of broadband, the guiding coalition
helps the organization understand the advantages they see from investing in the opportunity. The
coalition has a key part to play in designing initiatives which take the organization closer to the vision. A
clear vision will help the executives and board understand the reasoning behind the initiatives.
Questions to consider:
 What urgent stories inspired us, as awareness about broadband grew in our organization? What
evidence convinces us to take action?
 How do we paint a picture of the future, enabled by broadband, which is exciting, compelling
AND concrete?
 What does our organization look like, to be capable of maximizing the opportunity?
 What resources are available?

27

 


What is working well in our organization? How can be our best attributes be used to our
advantage in making progress?
What are the first steps we can take toward this future? Which initiatives excite us?

Step 4-Enlist a Volunteer Army
The guiding coalition does not work alone. The board, management and members of the coalition
convey the vision and initiatives to the whole organization, and cooperative members as appropriate.
Effective communication of the opportunity and related initiatives around broadband allows individuals
to align and adjust so that they can contribute, either in teams or with their own contribution.
Questions to consider:
 What practices do we use to communicate this opportunity to the whole organization?
 How can we help employees (and members, as appropriate) understand how the key initiatives
help us create our desired future?
 How can we make best use of employees’ excitement about possibilities, support them and
recognize their contributions?
Step 5-Enable Action by Removing Barriers
The organization is asking people to do things differently, and the impact of this ask depends upon the
broadband initiatives chosen and people’s capacity to adapt. Some of the barriers can be anticipated,
but almost certainly, the organization will get bogged down at one point or another. When that
happens, recognize it as progress; the fact that barriers have been uncovered is an indication of
movement.
Questions to consider:
 What do the challenges teach us about what is in the way?
 What do we hear from colleagues and others about why the broadband initiatives aren’t
working or why they predict initiatives won’t work? Are these the same challenges we see?
 What kind of challenges are these: technical? financial? relationship/communication?
 What can we do to eliminate roadblocks and remove barriers?
Step 6-Generate Short Term Wins
Along the way, the coalition can grab some of the low hanging fruit and relish the small wins.
Celebrating the small, and big, wins helps people within the organization notice the mile markers they
have passed. Communicating the wins to the whole organization provides a psychological boost by
pointing out that together they are moving closer to the strategic vision incorporating broadband.
Questions to consider:
 Which low hanging fruit can move us closer to our vision? Are there partial goals within
initiatives that are logical points to mark?
 How are we backing employees to innovate in support of the long term vision?
 In what ways do we celebrate progress, even small steps?

28

 Step 7-Sustain Acceleration
Taking steps toward a strategic vision which incorporates broadband technology can provide a chance to
develop an innovative culture. The small wins are steps along the way, not the final destination. As they
have moved the organization down this path, the guiding coalition and all involved have more
knowledge than when the process started. Celebrations help to mark the milestones, but are only one
strategy for encouraging a mindset of innovation and improvement using broadband.
Questions to consider:
 How can we use our small wins to encourage more innovation?
 How do we incorporate what we have learned along the way?
 How have our organizational structures encouraged or discouraged people who want to make a
difference?
Step 8-Institute Change
The organization is closing in on the strategic vision with each step forward. Developing broadband
infrastructure and capacity for learning has the potential to bring value to members and create a new
workplace for employees. Establishing systems to take full advantage of the technology positions the
organization for the future.
Questions to consider:
 How can we incorporate smaller wins into the standard operating procedures?
 How are members benefitting from our new way of functioning? How can they gain more
benefit as we incorporate new ways of bringing them service?
 What can employees do to find value in a new resource? How does it become part of ‘business
as usual’?

External Considerations
Working on broadband adoption and access in collaboration with the broader community requires a
more flexible approach. The parties who work together for larger, community change are not bound by
the rules and structures that one finds in organizations. Leadership is often informal; authority comes in
the form of knowledge sharing and relationship. For those who are able to navigate negotiable, less
structured circumstances, these community networks can accelerate activity around a big opportunity
like broadband.
Rural electric cooperatives can be an important participant in these community collaborations. As
infrastructure service providers, they may be already participate in community economic development
arenas. The cooperative mission to provide service to its member-owners is aligned with other
community based development efforts, making it a natural partner in coalitions exploring broadband
development options.
Step 1-Create a Sense of Urgency
Community leaders across all sectors have become more aware of the potential benefits of broadband
access and adoption. Health care, education, business, recreation and government have all been
29

 dramatically impacted by the internet. Learning more about how broadband is affecting multiple sectors
facilitates working in collaboration.
Questions to consider:
 What evidence do we have that broadband development is an important issue for the broader
community?
 Who among our partners are concerned about broadband development? Which issues does our
organization share with other community partners?
 What other information do we need to understand the current state and relative urgency for
our community? Have we considered the interaction between access and adoption?
 Which sources of information might we have overlooked?
 Who is not aware of the opportunities broadband adoption can bring who should be aware?
Step 2-Build and Evolve a Guiding Coalition
Communities are taking varied approaches to tackling broadband development across sectors. In some
communities, economic development committees are leading an effort; in others, it may be health care
or educational coalitions. In other cases, new coalitions are formed to focus solely on broadband.
Regardless of where the coalition begins with membership, coalition members will need some
specialized knowledge to explore options for the community. Individuals with a long term view, a
community perspective and a willingness to learn and change - and help others learn and change – help
build effective coalitions. The coalition will benefit from members with technical, financial and
relationship skills and connections.
Questions to consider:
 Which groups are already discussing improvement of broadband adoption and access?
 What experiences does our cooperative have partnering with other organizations?
 Who in the community has the knowledge and skill to help others learn regarding broadband
deployment?
 Who has invested in relationships important to broadband? Who has shown interest and
understanding?
 How do we want to bring these people together?
 How much time do we want to dedicate, to answer what question?
Step 3-Form Strategic Vision and Initiatives
The guiding coalition has the chance to formulate a strategic vision for broadband development in the
community. Developing a shared vision provides an opportunity to raise awareness more broadly in the
community and to clarify the community interests, and involving others outside of the coalition will help
encourage those to be a part of future initiatives. Considering resources, relationships and challenges,
the coalition can design initiatives to bring the community closer to where it wants to be.
Questions to consider:
 What common interests do coalition members share? Who is willing to explore creative
options?
 What urgent stories inspire us? What evidence convinces us to take action?
30

 





How do we paint a picture of the future, enabled by broadband, which is exciting, compelling
AND concrete?
What does our community look like, to be capable of maximizing the opportunity?
What resources are available?
What is working well in our community? How can be our best attributes be used to our
advantage in making progress? What might get in the way?
What are the first steps we can take toward this future? Which initiatives excite us?

Step 4-Enlist a Volunteer Army
Progress on broadband development to benefit the wider community is aided by extensive engagement.
Community members beyond the coalition have valued skills and resources to bring to the effort; how
will they imagine how they can contribute in their own way to progress toward a vision for broadband
development? Effective communication ties the chosen initiatives to an inspiring vision.
Questions to consider:
 What methods do we use to communicate the vision and important initiatives to our members
and the broader community?
 How does our vision for broadband in the community intersect with other future-building and
visionary community efforts?
 How can we help other community leaders understand how the key initiatives help us create
our desired future, and how broadband development meets their interests?
 How can we make best use of any community member’s excitement about possibilities, support
them and recognize their contributions?
Step 5-Enable Action by Removing Barriers
Developing broadband initiatives for progress, the coalition will try to forecast challenges, whether they
are technical, resource or relationship challenges. Unanticipated challenges are also likely to arise. Part
of the coalition’s work is to develop means to identify and remove barriers to progress. The coalition
needs to find ways to work with the existing community hierarchy. The barriers may show up as
attitudes, policies, or lack of information and/or financial resources.
Questions to consider:
 What do the challenges teach us about what is in the way? Are the challenges internal to our
community or external?
 Are the external barriers at the local, regional or national level? What means do we have to
effect change to remove or lower these barriers?
 What kind of challenges are these: technical? financial? relationship/communication?
regulation/policy?
 What do we hear from colleagues and others about why the broadband initiatives aren’t
working or why they predict initiatives won’t work? Are these the same challenges we see?
 What can we do to eliminate roadblocks and remove barriers?

31

 Step 6-Generate Short Term Wins
The wins along the way are important milestones for marking progress and maintaining enthusiasm
along the way of developing broadband in the community. Celebrating the short term wins helps to
raise awareness in the wider community and holds potential for more involvement. The coalition
membership may also adapt as shorter term initiatives wrap up and new ones are begun, with renewed
communication about the long term vision.
Seeking small wins can also be an opportunity to work with a partner. Smaller projects may lead to new,
trusting relationships, or alternatively, expose areas where deeper commitment is not warranted, if
there are concerns.
Questions to consider:
 Which low hanging fruit are moving us closer to our vision? Are there partial goals within
initiatives that are logical points to mark?
 How are completed initiatives bringing benefit to different audiences and leaders in the
community?
 In what ways do we celebrate progress, even small steps?
 Which small victories provide an opportunity to remind the community about the long term
vision?
 How are we supporting others to innovate in support of the long term vision?
Step 7-Sustain Acceleration
Taking steps toward a strategic vision which incorporates technology can provide a chance to develop
an innovative culture. The small wins are steps along the way, not the final destination. The guiding
coalition and all involved have gained knowledge. Celebrations help to mark the milestones, but are only
one strategy for encouraging a mindset of innovation and community development using broadband.
As trust develops, seek ways to expand the impact for your cooperative, members and the broader
community. Use prior successes to explore further negotiations; who is willing to seek a “win-win” with
the cooperative and for other key organizations which benefit the community?
Questions to consider:
 Which relationships have brought benefits and contributed to trust?
 How can we use our small wins to encourage more innovation within community organizations,
between coalition partners and beyond?
 How do we incorporate what we have learned along the way?
 How have our community structures encouraged or discouraged people who want to make a
difference? How can our coalition influence a positive difference?
Step 8-Institute Change
Developing broadband infrastructure and capacity for learning changes the community in fundamental
ways. Establishing systems to take full advantage of the technology positions the community for the
future. Within the coalition, specific initiatives will lend themselves to ongoing commitment. This is the
time to follow through on promises made and hold others accountable for their commitments.
Questions to consider:
32

 





Which relationships lead to ongoing partnership?
How can coalition member organizations model the way in incorporating broadband technology
into standard operating procedures?
Are there specific sectors of the community who are lagging in adoption of technology? What is
the coalition role in helping them adapt to a new “business as usual”?
How are community members benefitting from coalition initiatives? How can they gain more
benefit, and how do we let them know about the benefits?
How has technology changed relative to when we developed our vision? Have we created an
innovative culture that is capable of adapting to ongoing change?

33

 SUMMARY
Cooperatives have a history of effectively meeting the demand for rural infrastructure services through
a service-oriented, member-owned business model. Wisconsin telecom cooperatives provide an
example of how populations in sparsely populated rural areas can be well-served with broadband access
and adoption services.
Rural electric cooperatives are also becoming more active in examining possible broadband access
solutions for their members and communities. Interviews and research have shown that the responses
to broadband deployment by electric cooperatives cover a spectrum. There is no “one size fits all”
approach, and cooperatives must evaluate a range of factors in making decisions about broadband:
 technology continues to change, presenting differing opportunities for upgrades and
innovations to existing communications infrastructures;
 the unique geography of a region creates technological and engineering constraints;
 the requirements of grant and loan programs that could make a project feasible can change, or
present challenges;
 the learning curve about broadband deployment can be steep, and varies among cooperative
management and boards;
 boards must decide what factors are the most relevant to their particular cooperative as they
balance the need to protect the cooperative’s core electric service mission with the
opportunities to respond to broader member and community needs;
 the shared mission between electric and telecom cooperatives to meet infrastructure needs of
their rural member-customers can support the development of potential partnerships;
 electric and telecom cooperatives may have different cooperative cultures that reflect the
degree of sector regulation, and may present challenges in developing partnership
opportunities.
Each cooperative must strike the right balance among competing local member and community
interests. The member-owned and controlled cooperative structure, with its orientation toward service,
supports a decision-making process that is uniquely suited to balance those inherently local interests.

34

 RESOURCES
Broadband E-Commerce Education Center
http://broadband.uwex.edu/
Broadband Reference Guide
Broadband Policies and Regulations
University of Wisconsin Center for Cooperatives
http://www.uwcc.wisc.edu/
Blandin Foundation
http://broadband.blandinfoundation.org/programs/
Community for Local Internet Choice (CLIC)
Library on Broadband Public-Private Partnerships
http://www.localnetchoice.org/ppp-library/
The Emerging World of Broadband Public-Private Partnerships, A Business Strategy and Legal Guide
https://www.benton.org/sites/default/files/partnerships.pdf
Gig.U and Benton Foundation: The Next Generation Connectivity Handbook: a Guide for Community
Leaders Seeking Affordable Abundant Bandwidth
http://www.gig-u.org/the-handbook/
Institute for Local Self Reliance
Broadband Resources
https://ilsr.org/initiatives/broadband/
RS Fiber: Fertile Fields for new Rural Internet Cooperative
https://ilsr.org/report-mn-rural-fiber/
This in-depth case study describes a different type of cooperative approach: a new cooperative
created to provide broadband services through a local government-community-agricultural
cooperative coalition
October 2016 Listing of 63 Gigabit Deployments by Cooperatives
https://ilsr.org/ilsr-researchers-find-63-gigabit-deployments-by-cooperatives/
Kotter, John P. Accelerate: building strategic agility for a faster moving world. Harvard Business Review
Press, 2014.

35

 APPENDIX I
Wisconsin Telecom Cooperatives:
Chequamegon Communications Cooperative/Norvado
Citizens Telephone Cooperative, Inc.
Cochrane Cooperative Telephone
LaValle Telephone Cooperative
Marquette Adams Telephone Cooperative
Chibardun Telephone Cooperative/Mosaic Telecom
Ntec (Nelson Communications Cooperative)
Richland-Grant Telephone Cooperative
Tri-County Communications Cooperative
Vernon Communications Cooperative
West Wisconsin Telecomm

Wisconsin Electric Distribution Cooperatives:
Adams Columbia Electric Cooperative
Barron Electric Cooperative
Bayfield Electric Cooperative
Central Wisconsin Electric Cooperative
Chippewa Valley Electric Cooperative
Clark Electric Cooperative
Dunn Energy Cooperative
Eau Claire Energy Cooperative
East Central Energy Cooperative
Jackson Electric Cooperative
Jump River Electric Cooperative
Oakdale Electric Cooperative

Oconto Electric Cooperative
Pierce Pepin Cooperative Services
Polk Burnett Electric Cooperative
Price Electric Cooperative
Richland Electric Cooperative
Riverland Energy Cooperative
Rock Energy Cooperative
St. Croix Electric Cooperative
Scenic Rivers Energy Cooperative
Taylor Electric Cooperative
Vernon Electric Cooperative
Washington Island Electric Cooperative

36

 APPENDIX II

The table on page 8 of this report is based on data compiled by UW Center for Cooperatives staff in
August 2016, using the map on the Wisconsin Economic Development Corporation’s webpage
promoting site selection in Wisconsin:
http://inwisconsin.com/select-wisconsin/available-sites/locate-in-wisconsin/.
The “Businesses” and “Gigabit Parks” search function generated 222 locations on the map. Requests to
WEDC for the data listing behind the map were unsuccessful. Staff then compiled data from each
location indicator on the map in a spreadsheet:




The provider for each gigabit listing was assigned an entity type.
The county in which the gigabit park was located was identified through online searches.
Data on county population and area in square miles were added to each listing from two online
resources that used 2010 U.S. Census data:
o County population:


o

County area:




http://www.doa.state.wi.us/Divisions/Intergovernmental-Relations/Demographic-ServicesCenter/Wisconsin-Population-Projections/

http://www.doa.state.wi.us/Divisions/Intergovernmental-Relations/Demographic-ServicesCenter/Wisconsin- Population-Projections/

Population and area data by county were aggregated by provider type. County data were only
counted once for each provider type, regardless of the number of parks in a county served by
that provider type. If more than one provider type served a gigabit park in a county, the data for
that county was included in the totals for both provider types.

Data compilation tables are included on the following pages.

37

 KEY

Telecom Cooperatives =
Independent Private Providers =
Investor-Owned Providers =
Name of Park

Size

City

county

Provider

New Auburn TIF District

10 Gbps

New Auburn

Barron, Chippewa

Citzen Telephone Cooperative

Westfield Business Park

10 Gbps

Westfield

Marquette

Marquette-Adams Co.

Endeavor Business Park

10 Gbps

Endeavor

Marquette

Marquette-Adams Co.

Adams County (South) Industrial Park

10 Gbps

Oxford

Marquette

Marquette-Adams Co.

Adams City (South) Industrial Park

10 Gbps

Adams

Adams

Marquette-Adams Co.

Regional Sustainable Business Park

1 Gbps

Turtle Lake

Barron, Polk

Mosaic

Turtle Lake Industrial Park

10 Gbps

Turtle Lake

Barron, Polk

Mosaic

Washburn Business Park

10 Gbps

Washburn

Bayfield

Norvado

Ashland Business Incubator

10 Gbps

Ashland

Ashland

Norvado

Ashland Industrial Park

10 Gbps

Ashland

Ashland

Norvado

Bayfield County Business Park

10 Gbps

Town of Eileen

Bayfield

Norvado

Willow Run Industrial Park

10 Gbps

Iron River

Bayfield

Norvado

Iron River Landing

10 Gbps

Iron River

Bayfield

Norvado

Barnes Business Park

10 Gbps

Barnes

Bayfield

Norvado

Cable Business Site

10 Gbps

Town of Cable

Bayfield

Norvado

Mondovi Industrial Park

10 Gbps

Mondovi

Buffalo

Ntec-Nelson Group

Town Commercial District

10 Gbps

Durand

Pepin

Ntec-Nelson Group

City Commercial Group

10 Gbps

Durand

Pepin

Ntec-Nelson Group

Waubeek Industrial District

10 Gbps

Waubeek

Pepin

Ntec-Nelson Group

Soldiers Grove Industrial Park

1 Gbps

Soldiers Grove

Crawford

Richland Grant Telephone Cooperative

Gays Mills Industrial Park

1 Gbps

Gay Mills

Crawford

Richland Grant Telephone Cooperative

Osseo Industrial Park

1 Gbps

Osseo

Trempealeau

Tri-County Communications

Independence Industrial Park

10 Gbps

Independence

Trempealeau

Tri-County Communications

Arcadia Industrial Park

1 Gbps

Arcadia

Trempealeau

Tri-County Communications

Cashton Greens Energy/Industrial Park

10 Gbps

Cashton

Monroe

Vernon Telephone Corp.

Westby Industrial Park

10 Gbps

Westby

Vernon

Vernon Telephone Corp.

Viroqua Industrial Park

10 Gbps

Viroqua

Vernon

Vernon Telephone Corp.

Viola Business Park

10 Gbps

Viola

Richland, Vernon

Vernon Telephone Corp.

Gateway Business Park

10 Gbps

Eau Claire

Eau Claire

West Wisconsin Telecome Cooperative

Lake Wissota Business Park

10 Gbps

Chippewa Falls

Chippewa

AT&T

East Park Commerce Center

10 Gbps

Stevens Point

Portage

AT&T

Evansville Business Park

10 Gbps

Evansville

Rock

AT&T

Willowbrook Business Park

10 Gbps

Beloit

Rock

AT&T

Gateway Business Park

10 Gbps

Beloit

Rock

AT&T

STH 11 Business Park

10 Gbps

Janesville

Rock

AT&T

Midlands Office Park

10 Gbps

Janesville

Rock

AT&T

East Side Business Park

10 Gbps

Janesville

Rock

AT&T

Delavan Business Park

10 Gbps

Delavan

Walworth

AT&T

Lake Geneva Industrial Park

10 Gbps

Lake Geneva

Walworth

AT&T

The Corporate Ridge Business Park

10 Gbps

Genoa City

Walworth

AT&T

Lakeview Corporate Park West

10 Gbps

Pleasant Prairie

Kenosha

AT&T

Lakeview Corporate Park East

10 Gbps

Pleasant Prairie

Kenosha

AT&T

Business Park of Kenosha

10 Gbps

Kenosha

Kenosha

AT&T

Haag Industrial Park

10 Gbps

Union Grove

Racine

AT&T

Enterprise Business Park

10 Gbps

Sturtevant

Racine

AT&T

Renaissance Business Park

10 Gbps

Sturtevant

Racine

AT&T

Appendix.Gigabitparks.xlsxparks-provider,sq mi, pop

12/1/2016

1

 Grandview Business Park

10 Gbps

Sturtevant

Racine

AT&T

Mount Pleasant Commerce Center

10 Gbps

Mount Pleasant

Racine

AT&T

F.M Young Business Park

10 Gbps

Racine

Racine

AT&T

Caledonia Business Park

10 Gbps

Franksville

Racine

AT&T

Franklin Business Park

10 Gbps

Franklin

Milwaukee

AT&T

Mitchell Industrial Park

10 Gbps

Cudahy

Milwaukee

AT&T

Brown Deer Business Park

10 Gbps

Brown Deer

Milwaukee

AT&T

Germantown Business Park

10 Gbps

Germantown

Washington

AT&T

Jackson Northwest Business Park

10 Gbps

Jackson

Washington

AT&T

Trenton Industrial Park

10 Gbps

Trenton

Washington

AT&T

River Road Industrial Park

10 Gbps

West Bend

Washington

AT&T

West Bend Industrial Park

10 Gbps

West Bend

Washington

AT&T

West Bend Coporate Center

10 Gbps

West Bend

Washington

AT&T

West Bend Industrial Park - East

10 Gbps

West Bend

Washington

AT&T

Soutwest Industrial Park

10 Gbps

Fond Du Lac

Fond Du Lac

AT&T

Aeronautical Business Park

10 Gbps

Fond Du Lac

Fond Du Lac

AT&T

West Industrial Park

10 Gbps

Fond Du Lac

Fond Du Lac

AT&T

Northgate Business Park

10 Gbps

Fond Du Lac

Fond Du Lac

AT&T

Sheboygan Business Center

10 Gbps

Sheboygan

Sheboygan

AT&T

Sheboygan Southside Industrial Park

10 Gbps

Sheboygan

Sheboygan

AT&T

Kohler Company Industrial Park

10 Gbps

Kohler

Sheboygan

AT&T

Willow Creek Business Park

10 Gbps

Sheboygan

Sheboygan

AT&T

Sheboygan Falls Forest Avenue Industrial 10 Gbps

Sheboygan Falls

Sheboygan

AT&T

Town of Sheboygan Business Center

10 Gbps

Sheboygan

Sheboygan

AT&T

1-43 Technology and Enterprise Campus 10 Gbps

Manitowac

Manitowac

AT&T

Racine Street

10 Gbps

Menasha

Winnebago, Calumet

AT&T

Midway Business Park

10 Gbps

Menasha

Winnebago, Calumet

AT&T

Southwest Industrial Park

10 Gbps

Appleton

Outagamie

AT&T

Province Terrace

10 Gbps

Menasha

Winnebago, Calumet

AT&T

Southpoint Commerce Park

10 Gbps

Appleton

Outagamie

AT&T

Kimberly

10 Gbps

Kimberely

Outagamie

AT&T

Central Business District

10 Gbps

Kaukauna

Outagamie, Calumet

AT&T

Commerce Crossing

10 Gbps

Kaukauna

Outagamie, Calumet

AT&T

Industrial Park South

10 Gbps

Kaukauna

Outagamie, Calumet

AT&T

Agricultural Development Center

10 Gbps

Kaukauna

Outagamie, Calumet

AT&T

New Prosperity Center

10 Gbps

Kaukauna

Outagamie, Calumet

AT&T

Granite Rocky Industrial Park

10 Gbps

Lawrence

Brown

AT&T

Hobart Industrial Park

10 Gbps

Hobart

Brown

AT&T

Lawrence Business/Industrial Park

10 Gbps

Lawrence

Brown

AT&T

West Business Park

10 Gbps

De Pere

Brown

AT&T

De Pere Business Park

10 Gbps

De Pere

Brown

AT&T

Ashwaubenon Business Center/Industrial 10 Gbps

Ashwaubenon

Brown

AT&T

Millenium Park

10 Gbps

Bellevue

Brown

AT&T

Lime Kiln Bellevue Industrial Area

10 Gbps

Bellevue

Brown

AT&T

Bellevue St. Industrial Area

10 Gbps

Bellevue

Brown

AT&T

1-43 Business Park

10 Gbps

Green Bay

Brown

AT&T

Packerland Industrial Park

10 Gbps

Green Bay

Brown

AT&T

Centenial Centre at Hobart

10 Gbps

Hobart

Brown

AT&T

Brookfield Industrial Park

10 Gbps

Green Bay

Brown

AT&T

Howard Industrial Park

10 Gbps

Green Bay

Brown

AT&T

Deer Field Business Park

10 Gbps

Suamico

Brown

AT&T

Woodfield Business Park

10 Gbps

Suamico

Brown

AT&T

Appendix.Gigabitparks.xlsxparks-provider,sq mi, pop

12/1/2016

2

 South Deerfield Business Park

10 Gbps

Eagle River Tamarack Business Park

10 Gbps

Suamico

Brown

AT&T

Eagle River

Vilas

Frontier Communications

Rhinelander Business District - Hwy 8 We 10 Gbps

Rhinelander

Oneida

Frontier Communications

Crandon Industrial Park

10 Gbps

Crandon

Forest

Frontier Communications

Tomahawk North Industrial Park

10 Gbps

Tomahawk

Lincoln

Frontier Communications

Tomahawk South Industrial Park

10 Gbps

Tomahawk

Lincoln

Frontier Communications

Antigo Industrial Park

10 Gbps

Antigo

Langlade

Frontier Communications

Neenah

10 Gbps

Neenah

Winnebago

TDS

Grand Chute

10 Gbps

Grand Chute

Outagamie

TDS

North East Business Park

10 Gbps

Appleton

Outagamie

TDS

New Way Industrial Park

10 Gbps

Greenwood

Taylor

TDS - Badger

Neillsville Industrial Park

10 Gbps

Neillsville

Clark

TDS - Badger

Burlington Manufacturing & Office Park 10 Gbps

Burlington

Racine, Walworth

TDS - BB&W

Bonduel Business Park

10 Gbps

Bonduel

Shawano

TDS - Bonduel

Necedah Industrial Park

10 Gbps

Necedah

Juneau

TDS - Central State

Dickeyville Industrial Park

10 Gbps

Dickeyville

Grant

TDS - Dickeyville

Lancaster Industrial Park

10 Gbps

Lancaster

Grant

TDS - Farmers

Fennimore Industrial Park

10 Gbps

Fennimore

Grant

TDS - Granland

Mineral Point Road Business Park

10 Gbps

Middleton

Dane

TDS - Mid-Plains

Old Sauk Trains Business Park

10 Gbps

Middleton

Dane

TDS - Mid-Plains

West Univesity Ave. Industrial Park

10 Gbps

Middleton

Dane

TDS - Mid-Plains

Schneider Road Business Center

10 Gbps

Middleton

Dane

TDS - Mid-Plains

Middleton Industrial Park East of Beltline 10 Gbps

Middleton

Dane

TDS - Mid-Plains

Medford Industrial Park 2

10 Gbps

Medford

Taylor

TDS - Midway

Medford Industrial Park

10 Gbps

Medford

Taylor

TDS - Midway

Dorchester Industrial Park

10 Gbps

Dorchester

Marathon

TDS - Midway

Iola Business Park

10 Gbps

Medford

Taylor

TDS - Midway

Mosinee Industrial Park & Paper Plant

10 Gbps

Mosinee

Marathon

TDS - Mosinee

Central Wisconsin Business Park

10 Gbps

Mosinee

Marathon

TDS - Mosinee

New Glarus Industrial Park

10 Gbps

New Glarus

Green

TDS - Mt. Vernon

Nine Mounds Industrial Park

10 Gbps

Verona

Dane

TDS - Mt. Vernon

Liberty Business Park

10 Gbps

Verona

Dane

TDS - Mt. Vernon

Scandanavia Industrial Park

10 Gbps

Scandanavia

Waupaca

TDS - Scandanavia

Elkhorn Business Park

10 Gbps

Elkhorn

Walworth

TDS - State Long Distance

Other Elkhorn Industrial Park

10 Gbps

Elkhorn

Walworth

TDS - State Long Distance

Honey Creek Industrial Park

10 Gbps

Monroe

Green

TDS - UTELCO

North Industrial Park

10 Gbps

Monroe

Green

TDS - UTELCO

Waunakee Business Cener

10 Gbps

Waunakee

Dane

TDS - Waunakee

Stout Technology and Business park

10 Gbps

Menomonie

Dunn

24-7 Telecom

Miller Junction

10 Gbps

Menomonie

Dunn

24-7 Telecom

New Richmond North Industrial Park

10 Gbps

New Richmond

St. Croix

Amery Telecom

Clayton Industrial Park

10 Gbps

Clayton

Winnebago

Amery Telecom

Amery North Industrial Park

10 Gbps

Amery

Polk

Amery Telecom

Amery South Industrial Park

10 Gbps

Amery

Polk

Amery Telecom

Somerset Industrial Park

10 Gbps

Somerset

St Croix

Amery Telecom

Amherst Business Park

10 Gbps

Amherst

Portage

Amherst Telephone Co.

Portage County Business Park

100 Gbps

Plover/Stevens Point Portage

Amherst Telephone Co.

New Richmond Business & Technical Park1 Gbps

New Richmond

St. Croix

Baldwin Telecom

Thompson Industrial Park - Woodville

1 Gbps

Woodville

St. Croix

Baldwin Telecom

Baldwin 1-94 Industrial Park

1 Gbps

Baldwin

St. Croix

Baldwin Telecom

Hammond Industrial Park

1 Gbps

Hammond

St. Croix

Baldwin Telecom

Hammond - St. Croix Business Center

1 Gbps

Hammond

St. Croix

Baldwin Telecom

Appendix.Gigabitparks.xlsxparks-provider,sq mi, pop

12/1/2016

3

 Roberts Business & Rail Park

1 Gbps

Roberts

St. Croix

Baldwin Telecom

Commerce Park - Hudson

1 Gbps

Hudson

St. Croix

Baldwin Telecom

Hudson St. Croix Business Park

1 Gbps

Hudson

St. Croix

Baldwin Telecom

Sterling Ponds Corporate Park

1 Gbps

River Falls

Pierce

Baldwin Telecom

Whitetail Ridge Corporate Park

1 Gbps

River Falls

Pierce

Baldwin Telecom

River Falls Industrial Park

1 Gbps

River Falls

Pierce

Baldwin Telecom

Ironhorse Industrial Park

10 Gbps

Bloomer

Chippewa

Bloomer Telephone Co.

West Industrial Park

10 Gbps

Bloomer

Chippewa

Bloomer Telephone Co.

South Industrial Park

10 Gbps

Bloomer

Chippewa

Bloomer Telephone Co.

Bruce Industrial Park

1 Gbps

Village of Bruce

Rusk

Bruce Telephone

Coon Valley Business Park

1 Gbps

Coon Valley

Vernon

Coon Valley Farmers Tel.

Burlington Manufacturing & Office Park 1 Gbps

Burlington

Racine, Walworth

Ethoplex

Westerra Business Campus

1 Gbps

Waterford

Racine

Ethoplex

Norway Industrial Park

1 Gbps

Wind Lake

Racine

Ethoplex

Union Grove Industrial Park and Annex

1 Gbps

Union Grove

Racine

Ethoplex

S. F Olsen Industrial Park

1 Gbps

Racine

Racine

Ethoplex

Phoenix Park

1 Gbps

Mount Pleasant

Racine

Ethoplex

Wieczorek-Wright

1 Gbps

Racine

Racine

Ethoplex

Park 94 Business Park

1 Gbps

Mount Pleasant

Racine

Ethoplex

Land & Lakes @ Mount Pleasant Business 1 Gbps

Mount Pleasant

Racine

Ethoplex

Blackhawk Industrial Park

1 Gbps

Franksville

Racine

Ethoplex

Raymond Business Park

1 Gbps

Caledonia

Racine

Ethoplex

MKE Regional Business Park

1 Gbps

Oak Creek

Milwaukee

Ethoplex

Franklin Industrial Park

1 Gbps

Franklin

Milwaukee

Ethoplex

North Cape Business Park

1 Gbps

Franklin

Milwaukee

Ethoplex

MKE Regional Business Park

1 Gbps

Oak Creek

Milwaukee

Ethoplex

Endeavor Business Park

1 Gbps

Richfield

Washington

Ethoplex

Dodge Industrial Park

1 Gbps

Hartford

Washington, Dodge

Ethoplex

Wingate Creek Business Center

1 Gbps

West Bend

Washington

Ethoplex

Grantsburg Industrial Park

10 Gbps

Grantsburg

Burnett

Grantsburg Telcom

Enterprise Drive Industrial Drive

1 Gbps

Hillsboro

Vernon

Hillsboro Telephone Co

Frederic Industrial Park

1 Gbps

Frederic

Polk

Lakeland Communications

Luck Industrial Park

1 Gbps

Luck

Polk

Lakeland Communications

Milltown Industrial Park

1 Gbps

Milltown

Polk

Lakeland Communications

Centuria Industrial Park

1 Gbps

Centuria

Polk

Lakeland Communications

Balsam Lake Industrial Park

1 Gbps

Balsam Lake

Polk

Lakeland Communications

St. Croix Falls Industrial Park

1 Gbps

St. Croix Falls

Polk

Lakeland Communications

Osceola Industrial Park

1 Gbps

Osceola

Polk

Lakeland Communications

Airport Industrial Park

1 Gbps

Osceola

Polk

Lakeland Communications

Mauston Industrial Park

10 Gbps

Mauston

Juneau

Lemonweir Valley Telecom (DBA Lynxx)

New Lisbon Industrial Park

10 Gbps

New Lisbon

Juneau

Lemonweir Valley Telecom (DBA Lynxx)

Camp Douglas Industrial Park

10 Gbps

Camp Douglas

Juneau

Lemonweir Valley Telecom (DBA Lynxx)

Tomah Industrial Park

10 Gbps

Tomah

Monroe

Lemonweir Valley Telecom (DBA Lynxx)

Sparta Industrial Park

10 Gbps

Sparta

Monroe

Lemonweir Valley Telecom (DBA Lynxx)

West Salem Industrial Park

10 Gbps

West Salem

La Crosse

Lemonweir Valley Telecom (DBA Lynxx)

Industrial Park

10 Gbps

Prairie Du Sac

Sauk

Merrimac Communications LTD.

Industrial Park

10 Gbps

Sauk City

Sauk

Merrimac Communications LTD.

Barneveld Business Park

10 Gbps

Barneveld

Iowa

Mount Horeb Telephone

Blue Mounds Business Park

10 Gbps

Blue Mounds

Dane

Mount Horeb Telephone

North Cape Commons

10 Gbps

Mount Horeb

Dane

Mount Horeb Telephone

Niagara Business Park

1 Gbps

Niagara

Marinette

Niagara Telephone

Sturgeon Bay Industrial Park

10 Gbps

Sturgeon Bay

Door

Nsight Teleservices

Appendix.Gigabitparks.xlsxparks-provider,sq mi, pop

12/1/2016

4

 Pulaski Industrial Park

10 Gbps

Pulaski

Brown, Oconto, Shawano Nsight Teleservices

Pulaski North Industrial Park

10 Gbps

Pulaski

Brown, Oconto, Shawano Nsight Teleservices

Bay Lake Industrial Park

10 Gbps

Shawano

Shawano

Nsight Teleservices

Raasch Acres Industrial Park

10 Gbps

Shawano

Shawano

Nsight Teleservices

Sharon TIF #4

1 Gbps

Sharon

Walworth

Sharon Telephone Company

Webster Business Park

10 Gbps

Siren

Burnett

Siren Telephone

Siren Business Park

10 Gbps

Siren

Burnett

Siren Telephone

Air Park

10 Gbps

Marshfield

Wood, Marathon

Solarus

Mill Creek Business Park

10 Gbps

Marshfield

Wood, Marathon

Solarus

Rapids East Commerce Center

10 Gbps

Wisconsin Rapids

Wood, Marathon

Solarus

Biron Business Park

10 Gbps

Village of Biron

Wood

Solarus

Woodlands Business Center

10 Gbps

Wisconsin Rapids

Wood, Marathon

Solarus

West Side Industrial Park

10 Gbps

Wisconsin Rapids

Wood, Marathon

Solarus

Nekoosa Industrial Park

10 Gbps

Nekoosa

Wood

Solarus

Alpine Village Business Park

10 Gbps

Rome

Adams

Solarus

Banbury Place

100 Gbps

Eau Claire

Eau Claire

WIN

University Research Park

100 Gbps

Madison

Dane

WIN (Wisconsin Independent Network)

American Center Business Park

100 Gbps

Madison

Dane

WIN (Wisconsin Independent Network)

Whitewater University Technology Park 100 Gbps

Whitewater

Walworth, Jefferson

WIN (Wisconsin Independent Network)

Wittenberg Business Park

Wittenberg

Shawano

Wittenberg Telephone

10 Gbps

Appendix.Gigabitparks.xlsxparks-provider,sq mi, pop

12/1/2016

5

 SUMMARY

Telecom Cooperatives
Independent Private Providers
Investor-Owned Providers
Total

Number of
Entities
Servicing
Business
Parks
9
21
3
33

Number of Parks
Served by Entity Type
22
86
(counting WIN)
107
215

Net
population- Area in sq mi-US
Counties served by telecom cooperative 2010 census census
Adams
20,875
646
1,045
Ashland
16,157
863
Barron
45,870
Bayfield
15,014
1,478
672
Buffalo
13,587
1,008
Chippewa
62,415
Crawford
16,644
571
Eau Claire
98,739
638
Marquette
15,404
456
Monroe
44,673
901
Pepin
7,469
232
Polk
44,205
914
Richland
18,021
586
Trempealeau
28,816
733
Vernon
29,773
792
Total
477,662
11,533
State Population
5,363,715
54,158
%
9%
21%

Counties served by private
independent providers
Adams
Brown
Burnett
Chippewa
Dane
Dodge
Door
Dunn
Eau Claire
Iowa
Jefferson
Juneau
La Crosse
Marathon
Marinette
Milwaukee
Monroe
Oconto
Pierce
Polk
Portage
Racine

Net
population- Area in sq mi-US
2010 census census
646
20,875
530
248,007
822
15,457
1,008
62,415
1,197
488,073
876
88,759
482
27,785
850
43,857
638
98,736
763
23,687
556
83,686
767
26,664
452
114,638
1,545
134,063
1,399
41,749
241
947,735
901
44,673
998
37,660
574
41,019
914
44,205
801
70,019
333
195,408

Appendix.Gigabitparks.xlsxparks-provider,sq mi, pop

12/1/2016

6

 Rusk
Sauk
Shawano
St. Croix
Vernon
Walworth
Washington
Winnebago
Wood
Total-Counties served
State Population
%

14,755
61,976
41,949
84,345
29,773
102,228
131,887
166,994
74,749
3,607,826
5,363,715
67%
44%

Counties served by investor-owned
providers
Brown
Calumet
Chippewa
Clark
Dane
Fond Du Lac
Forest
Grant
Green
Juneau
Kenosha
Langlade
Lincoln
Manitowac
Marathon
Milwaukee
Oneida
Outagamie
Portage
Racine
Rock
Shawano
Sheboygan
Taylor
Vilas
Walworth
Washington
Waupaca
Winnebago
Total counties served
State Population
%

Net
population- Area in sq mi-US
2010 census census
530
248,007
318
48,971
1,008
62,415
1,210
34,690
1,197
488,073
720
101,633
1,014
9,304
1,147
51,208
584
36,842
767
26,664
272
166,426
871
19,977
879
28,743
589
81,442
1,545
134,063
241
947,735
1,113
35,998
638
176,695
801
70,019
333
195,408
718
160,331
893
41,949
511
115,507
975
20,689
857
21,430
555
102,228
431
131,887
748
52,410
434
166,994
3,777,738
21,897
5,363,715
54,158
70%
40%

Appendix.Gigabitparks.xlsxparks-provider,sq mi, pop

914
831
893
722
792
555
431
434
793
23,656
54,158

12/1/2016

7