Massachusetts Connectivity Overview

The State of K-12 Broadband in Massachuse@s

April 28, 2016

Our Mission

EducaIonSuperHighway

To upgrade the Internet access in every

public school classroom in America so
that all students can take advantage of
the promise of digital learning.

Governor
Charlie Baker

High-speed Internet in the classroom provides an important

foundaIon to prepare our kids to compete for the jobs of the
future. We are commi@ed to making sure our kids have the tools
to succeed and look forward to conInuing our eorts to expand
high-speed Internet to classrooms across the Commonwealth.

Source: Texas Oce of the Governor October 2015

Massachusetts can close the K-12 connectivity gap

53% of students have enough bandwidth to meet the 100 Kbps/student
Internet access target

88% of districts not meeIng goal already have ber infrastructure

Districts that dont have ber have cable connecIons directly to schools, which need to be
upgraded for scalability

The Commonwealth is in posiIon to close the ber gap for the 13% of schools
that may be limited by their infrastructure
The MBI network has been eecIve at geUng ber to schools in the western part of the
state

Pricing transparency can improve broadband aordability

29% more students could meet goals by achieving median pricing

There is potenIal to increase access and lower costs for districts in Western Mass by
be@er leveraging the MBI network

96% of districts can use E-rate to upgrade their Wi-Fi networks

Remaining 4% of districts have used all of their E-rate-eligible budget

What are the demographics in your state?

295 districts
1,700 schools
865k students

LOCALE
Rural/Small Town
Suburban/Urban
County Boundaries

Note: charter (n=81), non-op districts, private, and vocaEonal schools (n=26) are not included
Sources: NCES 2012 database

14% of districts use the MBI 123 network for Internet access

86%

Direct Internet Access

14%

MBI 123 Internet Access

*A total of 126 (43%) districts are in the
MBI service area

INTERNET
INTERNET
AGGREGATION
POINT
DISTRICT
OFFICE
DISTRICT
OFFICE

SCHOOLS

SCHOOLS
SCHOOLS

DISTRICT
OFFICES

SCHOOLS

Our sample consists of 59% of school districts

ConnecIvity data based on E-rate funding requests for 2015-16
Does not include charter, no-op, private, or vocaIonal schools
Sample consists of 175 school districts of varying locale and size
RepresentaIon by locale
3%

66%

RepresentaIon by district size

3%

1%
3%

1%
5%

32%

29%

65%

Mega

Urban
Suburban
7%

7%

24%

25%

PopulaIon
(n=295)

ESH Sample
(n=175)

44%

45%

Small Town

Large
Medium
Small

Rural
20%

21%

PopulaIon
(n=295)

ESH Sample
(n=175)

Tiny

National goals can guide action and promote equity

FCC goals can be used as a benchmark

The 2014 goal represents a minimum threshold for every school

Once minimum thresholds are met, we suggest monitoring

uIlizaIon and prepare to increase bandwidth as much as 50% per
year
FCC Goals by Purpose
Purpose: Internet Access
Goal: 100 kbps per student/sta

Purpose: District Transport (WAN)

Goal: 1 Gbps per school*

More informaIon: h@ps://www.fcc.gov/page/summary-e-rate-modernizaIon-order

*2014 WAN targets were recommended by SETDA, but schools with <100 students are ok with 100 Mbps transport.

Are school districts meeting FCC connectivity goals?

Goals

53% of students meet the 100 kbps/student goal

57% of WAN circuits are >=1Gbps

WIDE AREA NETWORK

Goal: 1 Gbps per school

INTERNET

SCHOOL
DISTRICT
OFFICE

SCHOOLS

INTERNET ACCESS

Goal: 100 kbps per student

Sources: 2015 FCC Form 471 E-rate applicaEons, data claricaEon calls to various districts

CLASSROOMS

DEVICES

53% of MA students are meeting the 100 kbps/student IA goal

Goals

Percent of Districts and Students MeeIng 100 kbps/Student Goal

Massachuse@s

NaIonal
77%
63%

53%

50%

Students

10

78%

Districts

Sources: 2015 FCC Form 471 E-rate applicaEons, data claricaEon calls to various districts, ESH 2015 State of the States Report
Note: concurrency adjustment was not used to determine meeEng 2014 goals; concurrency was applied for 2018 goals

Districts not meeting IA goal are spread throughout the state

Goals

Internet Access in Districts

MeeIng 100 kbps/student goal
Not meeIng 100 kbps/student goal
County Boundaries

11

88% of districts not meeting 100 kbps/student already have

the infrastructure to do so
Goals

Highest-bandwidth IA connecIon,
Districts not MeeIng Goals

88%

9%
Fiber (n=57)

12

Cable (n=6)

3%
DSL (n=2)

13% of all districts have cable for Internet access

Goals

86%

13%
1%
Fiber (n=150)

13

Cable (n=23)

DSL (n=2)

School districts want to upgrade from cable

Case Study: Dracut School District is limited by their cable-based network

Goals

50 Mbps

Englesby Intermediate
99 kbps/student

50 Mbps

Richardson Jr High
80 kbps/student

50 Mbps

50 Mbps

Brookside Elem
80 kbps/student

Dracut High
53 kbps/student

50 Mbps

Greenmount Elem
138 kbps/student

Current SituaIon

14

Each school has its own 50 Mbps cable connecIon

No resource sharing over network
Only 1/6 schools has enough bandwidth to meet current goals

50 Mbps

Campbell Elem
81 kbps/student

At lower bandwidths, cable is more aordable

Goals

Median IA cost/circuit of ber vs. cable, by bandwidth

$1,850

$750
$389
$242

50 Mbps

100 Mbps
Fiber

15

Cable

Cable will not scale to higher bandwidths

Only 18% of schools on cable can scale to 1 Mbps/student

Goals

Cable Goal MeeIng Status (n=64) Assuming every school receives 150 Mbps

24%
18%
11%

2%
0-99

16

18%

9%

9%
4%

2%

2%

0%

100-199 200-299 300-399 400-499 500-599 600-699 700-799 800-899 900-999 1000+

38% of MA schools need to upgrade to 1 Gbps WAN

Goals

38%

29%

57%

61%

Massachuse@s

NaIonal
Have 1 Gbps

Need 1 Gbps

17 Sources: 2015 FCC Form 471 E-rate applicaEons, data claricaEon calls to various districts

99% of WAN circuits are scalable

Goals

57%
36%
1%
6%
<100 Mbps
(n=32)

100 Mbps - 999 Mbps

(n=174)
Fiber

Note: schools that use cable will not have a WAN connecIon

18

Not ber

>=1 Gbps
(n=271)

Are schools connected on scalable technologies?

Fiber

Up to 13% of schools are connected on a non-scalable

connecIon, which could limit their ability to support digital
learning today and tomorrow
ConnecIons lacking ber need to be upgraded to meet future bandwidth demand
WIDE AREA NETWORK
Goal: 1 Gbps per school

INTERNET

SCHOOL
DISTRICT
OFFICE

SCHOOLS

INTERNET ACCESS

Goal: 100 kbps per student

19

Source: 2015 FCC Form 471 E-rate applicaEons and data claricaEon calls to various districts.

CLASSROOMS

DEVICES

Many of the connections that may need upgrades are cable

Fiber

87%

37/113 (33%) are

known cable
connecIons

12%
1%
Fiber
20

May Need Upgrades

Need Upgrades - DSL

Districts that may need upgrades are spread across the state

Fiber

School district upgrades

Districts on cable
Districts not on cable
County Boundaries

21

E-rate provides an opportunity to upgrade all schools to fiber

E-rate modernizaSon has created an unprecedented opportunity for

states to assist schools that need ber construcSon

$500 K cap has been suspended on construcIon costs

More exibility to pay non-discounted porIon of construcIon costs
Could help service providers build out their networks
AddiSonal 10% E-rate discount if state has a matching fund
Digital ConnecSons Grant is already approved as an eligible state match

This opportunity is only guaranteed for funding requests
led by Spring 2018

Source: www.fcc.gov/general/summary-second-e-rate-modernizaEon-order,
22

Fiber

Fiber matching fund can improve eective discount rates by

up to 20%
Fiber
59%

A 10% state match

will bring ber to
these campuses at
no cost to districts
16%

40%

50%

13%

60%

4%

6%

70%

80%

DistribuIon of campuses by E-rate discount rate

EducaIonSuperHighways ber construcIon matching fund

esImate (preliminary) is $5M-$10M

23

2%
90%

Considerations for schools using cable

Cable Internet access is more aordable than ber at lower bandwidths,

but cable currently cannot scale above 150 Mbps
The existence of cable means that ber is nearby
Cable

Fiber

Service
Provider Oce

Fiber
Node

This distance
is typically
within a few
thousand feet

School
Building

Future deployments of cable using DOCSIS 3.1 may scale above 1 Gbps
Timeline, price, and actual bandwidth availability are unknown

24

Fiber

Service providers will upgrade cable to fiber

Case Study: Park City School District in Montana
PROBLEM

SOLUTION

Low-bandwidth cable
connecIon that could not
deliver enough bandwidth

25

400 students, one

campus in a rural town
outside of Billings,
Montana
Cable modem delivering
30 Mbps of ISP was not
sucient for the school
districts long-term
bandwidth needs
No technical experIse
on sta to drive
upgrades

OUTCOME

Research opIons and

release RFP

ExisIng service provider

upgrades the district to
ber

RFP for ber was released

for 2016 E-rate cycle

ExisIng service provider

oered to upgrade the
district to ber with no
special construcIon fee

District superintendent felt

empowered to improve the
network for the rst Ime

District will be upgraded to

100 Mbps over lit ber for
the next school year

Win-win for district and

provider; school district now
has the bandwidth scalability
they need, and provider is
able to oer high-bandwidth
services to the district

ESH helped district

research opIons for
upgrading to ber

School districts want to upgrade from cable

Case Study: Dracut School District is limited by their cable-based network

Fiber

50 Mbps

Englesby Intermediate
99 kbps/student

50 Mbps

Richardson Jr High
80 kbps/student

50 Mbps

50 Mbps

Brookside Elem
80 kbps/student

Dracut High
53 kbps/student

50 Mbps

Greenmount Elem
138 kbps/student

Current SituaIon

26

Each school has its own 50 Mbps cable connecIon

No resource sharing over network
Only 1/6 schools has enough bandwidth to meet current goals

50 Mbps

Campbell Elem
81 kbps/student

School districts want to upgrade from cable

Case Study: Dracut School District is limited by their cable-based network

Fiber

500 Mbps
136 kbps/student

Englesby Intermediate

Richardson Jr High

Brookside Elem

Dracut High

Greenmount Elem

Desired Network

27

Fiber WAN throughout district

Single connecIon to Internet allows bandwidth to scale easily

Campbell Elem

Recommendations for fiber

1. Ensure that Digital ConnecIons grant is set up to support ber upgrades

2. Work with ESH to idenIfy deniIve list of schools lacking ber and
evaluate their opIons for upgrading
3. Engage service providers to understand Imeline, cost, and scalability of
cable connecIons
1. In short-term, upgrade all cable connecIons to max speed (150 Mbps)

28

Fiber

Is K-12 broadband aordable for all districts?

Aordability

Broadband aordability is variable across the state

Districts need more bandwidth for their budget

WIDE AREA NETWORK

Goal: 1 Gbps per school

INTERNET

SCHOOL
DISTRICT
OFFICE

SCHOOLS

INTERNET ACCESS

Goal: 100 kbps per student

29

Source: 2015 FCC Form 471 E-rate applicaEons and data claricaEon calls to various districts.

CLASSROOMS

DEVICES

100 Mbps lit fiber Internet pricing is highly variable

Monthly Cost - 100 Mbps Lit Fiber Internet Circuits

less than $700

$700 less than $1400

$1400 less than $2100

$2100 $2800

more than $2800

30

Aordability

Neighboring districts are paying varying prices for identical

services
Aordability

Wachuse_ School District

SP: Merrimack
Lit Fiber Service
100 Mbps

Clinton School District

SP: CELT
Lit Fiber Service
100 Mbps

Monthly Cost: $3,912

Monthly Cost: $640

West Boylston School District

SP: Charter
Lit Fiber Service
100 Mbps

Monthly Cost: $1,938

31

29% more students would meet 100 kbps/student with median

pricing
Aordability

Percent of students that would meet 100 kbps/student goal at various

pricing levels (holding budget constant)

82%

89%

96%

53%

MeeIng Goals at
Current Pricing

32

MeeIng Goals at
Median Pricing

MeeIng Goals at MeeIng Goals at $3/

25th PercenIle
Mbps Target Pricing
Pricing

In Virginia, 5x bandwidth for marginal increase in cost

Aordability

VA piloted a program with 15 districts to leverage data transparency

By openly sharing bandwidth and cost data, 5/15 districts worked with
providers to negoIate more bandwidth for li@le to no extra cost.
Total Mbps of Internet access
3,200

Total monthly cost of Internet access

$15,678

15%

$18,070

more
cost

5x more

bandwidth
650

Before
(February 2015)

33

Auer
(May 2015)

Before
(February 2015)

Auer
(May 2015)

Districts in the MBI network are paying dierent prices for

the same bandwidth
Aordability

MBI Network Cost per Circuit

$3,000

Cost per Circuit

$2,500
$2,000
$1,500
$1,000
$500
$-
0

10

20

50

100

Bandwidth (Mbps)

53% of districts currently receiving Internet access over the

MBI 123 network are meeIng 100 kbps/student
34

200

250

100 Mbps WAN circuits are expensive

Median Lit Fiber WAN Cost (monthly) by Circuit Size

$1,656

$1,599

$1,399
$1,093
$888

100 Mbps

$795

1 Gbps
Massachuse@s

n (line items) = 13; 768

35 Sources: 2015 FCC Form 471 E-rate applicaEons, sample

10 Gbps
NaIonal

n (line items) = 32; 2043

n (line items) = 14; 487

Aordability

1 Gbps WAN costs are lower than in nearby states

Aordability

Median WAN costs for 1 Gbps circuit in MA and nearby states

$1,000

$721

$727

NH

VT

$795

$811

$830

MA

MD

ME

Sources: 2015 FCC Form 471 E-rate applicaEons; Compare & Connect K-12

36

$1,050

$1,067

PA

NJ

$877

NY

CT

Recommendations for Aordability

Aordability

1. Work with ESH and exisIng statewide iniIaIves, such as the Community
Compact program, to deliver educaIon and tools to districts on
aordability and price transparency
2. Engage Massachuse@s Broadband InsItute, Axia, and MBI 123 service
providers to understand the cost structure of the MBI network and
idenIfy areas for opImizaIon

37

Are districts using E-rate funding to upgrade Wi-Fi and

internal connections?
Wi-Fi

$65M in federal funding for wired and wireless

networks remains

WI-FI

INTERNET

38

SCHOOL
DISTRICT
OFFICE

SCHOOLS

Source: 2015 FCC Form 471 E-rate applicaEons and data claricaEon calls to various districts.

CLASSROOMS

DEVICES

Category 2 opportunity in MA

Wi-Fi

MA by the numbers:

$65 million
of $88
million

of the states ve year

E-rate budget for wired
and wireless networks
in the building is sIll
available

39

Sources: 2015 FCC Form 471 E-rate applicaEons

42%

of districts have
received Category 2
funding

4%

of districts have uIlized

their full $150/student
budget

E-rate is funding Category 2, but districts need to take

advantage
Wi-Fi

Category 2 funding (in $ Millions)

$38

$23
$25
$16

$3
$17

$5
$9

2010

$6

$6

2011

2012

Funded

40

2013

Not Funded

2014

2015

Recommendations for Wi-Fi

1. ConInue the momentum from the Digital ConnecIons grant program,

help districts take advantage of Category 2 E-rate funding

41

Wi-Fi

Massachusetts can close the K-12 connectivity gap

53% of students have enough bandwidth to meet the 100 Kbps/student
Internet access target

88% of districts not meeIng goal already have ber infrastructure

Districts that dont have ber have cable connecIons directly to schools, which need to be
upgraded for scalability

The Commonwealth is in posiIon to close the ber gap for the 13% of schools
that may be limited by their infrastructure
The MBI network has been eecIve at geUng ber to schools in the western part of the
state

Pricing transparency can improve broadband aordability

29% more students could meet goals by achieving median pricing

There is potenIal to increase access and lower costs for districts in Western Mass by
be@er leveraging the MBI network

96% of districts can use E-rate to upgrade their Wi-Fi networks

Remaining 4% of districts have used all of their E-rate-eligible budget

42

Overall recommendations and proposed next steps

1. Provide upgrade support to schools not on ber
1.
2.
3.

MassIT/ESE to ensure that Digital ConnecIons grant is set up to support ber upgrades.
Communicate scope to school districts.
Schedule kick-o call with ESH to begin work to a) idenIfy deniIve list of schools lacking
ber, b) create plan for outreaching to districts, and c) evaluate their opIons for upgrading
Govs oce/MassIT to help engage service providers to understand Imeline, cost, and
scalability of cable

2. Work with ESH to upgrade all of the districts who have ber but are not meeIng goal
1.
2.
3.

Launch awareness campaign to educate districts on goals and programs

Convene districts in-person or via webinar and deliver educaIon and tools on aordability
Provide direct support and progress tracking to districts not meeIng goal

3. Work with MBI to more eecIvely leverage the 123 network
1.
2.

Assess high-cost MBI users and understand the drivers

Educate providers and districts on broadband needs

4. ConInue to fund the Digital ConnecIons grant program, help districts take advantage of
Category 2 E-rate funding
5. Make public announcement about ESH partnership
43

Methods

Sampling methodology
UNIT OF ANALYSIS

All analyses were conducted using line item or district-level records as the primary
unit. Only those districts whose line item records were veried through
EducaIonSuperHighways data management processes were determined to be t
for analysis.
Each line item in the data sample represents one disInct service
reported in a districts Form 471. School districts ouen submit mulIple
funding requests and each funding request may contain mulIple line
items. A single line item may also contain mulIple circuits.
Since cost and bandwidth data is at the line item level, and a large
porIon of our analysis involves understanding the relaIonships
between thee variables and district connecIvity, many analyses in this
report required the aggregaIon of services to the school district level.

ESH
CONVENIENCE
SAMPLE OF
DISTRICTS

Districts were considered t for analysis if:

1) all of its line items were determined to be t for analysis;
2) the district itself was cleared of data quality indicators; and
3) the district was considered to be a regular school district by NCES.

EducaIonSuperHighway chose not to analyze data relaIng to public charter
schools, private schools, libraries, non-instrucIonal faciliIes, and schools
administered by the Bureau of Indian EducaIon (BIE). The procurement pa@erns,
as well as market dynamics, that impact broadband purchases for these enIIes
may not be similar to those that aect tradiIonal public school districts. These
areas represent opportuniIes for future research.

45

Methods

Goals calculations
PERCENT OF
DISTRICTS /
STUDENTS
MEETING THE
2014 FCC
INTERNET ACCESS
GOAL (100 KBPS /
STUDENT)

46

Each districts total bandwidth was compared to the 2014 FCC target of 100 kbps
per student. Districts were classied as either MeeIng 2014 FCC goal (greater
than or equal to 100 kbps per student) or Not meeIng 2014 FCC goal (less than
100 kbps per student).

Methods

Fiber calculations
PERCENT OF
SCHOOLS ON
SCALABLE
CONNECTIONS

For each district, the total number of campuses (accounIng for the sharing of
services among schools) was compared to the number of scalable circuits received
by schools in that district. Circuits received by Non-instrucIonal faciliIes or
charter schools were not included. Percent of schools on scalable connecIons is
calculated by dividing the number of scalable circuits/campuses by the total
number of campuses.

AssumpIons:
All circuits go directly to campuses, unless they have been idenIed as
backbone or middle mile
Medium, large and mega districts without reported WAN have dark
ber WAN
Tiny and small districts with more campuses than circuits received have
potenIally non-scalable circuits
Scalable technologies are dened as:
Scalable: lit ber, dark ber, OCN, Ethernet >100 Mbps for WAN and
>150 Mbps for Internet, broadband over power lines, standalone
internet access, etc.
PotenIally scalable: xed wireless, cable
Non-scalable: Copper (T1/T3), DSL

47

Methods

Aordability calculations

INTERNET ACCESS
COST PER MBPS

Unless otherwise indicated, cost per Mbps was calculated as a weighted average,
agnosIc of connecIon speed and connecIon type.

CIRCUIT
PLANNING

48

Unless otherwise indicated, circuit pricing is calculated at the line item level,
agnosIc of connecIon speed and connect type.
Internet access circuit pricing includes all bundled Internet line items
received by districts.
WAN circuit pricing includes all WAN line items received by districts.

Methods

Category 2 (C2) calculations

STATE CATEGORY
2 FUNDING STILL
AVAILABLE

The theoreIcal maximum amount of funding was calculated by mulIplying the

number of students in the sample by $150, the 5-year Category 2 cap. The cost of
all Category 2 services applied for during the present funding cycle was later
subtracted and the remainder mulIplied by the statewide average discount rate
(across all applicants) to determine the remaining available funding.

PERCENT OF
DISTRICTS IN A
STATE THAT STILL
HAVE THE
OPPORTUNITY TO
USE THEIR $150/
STUDENT BUDGET

PERCENT OF
DISTRICTS IN A
STATE THAT HAVE
RECEIVED C2
FUNDING

49

The number of districts that are listed to receive funding for any Category 2
services within the funding year, divided by the total number of districts in the
state.

The percent of districts in a state that are listed to receive funding for any
Category 2 services within the funding year which accumulate to be equal to or
greater than $150 per student. Note that the C2 total costs included in this
calculaIon are only for those going to district recipients.

Methods

About Us

EducaIonSuperHighway

EducaIonSuperHighway is the leading non-prot focused on

upgrading the Internet access in every public school classroom in
America. We believe that digital learning has the potenIal to
provide all students with equal access to educaIonal opportunity
and that every school requires high-speed broadband to make that
opportunity a reality.
EducaIonSuperHighways data-driven programs accelerate
upgrades in Americas schools. We help school districts and state
leaders develop strategies to upgrade their K-12 networks, get
ber to schools that need it, provide guidance for eecIve Wi-Fi
purchases, and make broadband more aordable. Our work served
as a catalyst for the modernizaIon of the Federal CommunicaIons
Commissions $3.9 billion E-rate program, earning our CEO the
2015 Visionary of the Year award from the San Francisco
Chronicle. To learn more about our programs and services for
governors, state partners, and school districts, visit our website at
www.educaIonsuperhighway.org.

50