By the numbers

The whole case, at a glance.

Every figure that matters, laid out plainly with a one-line explanation — the money declined, the money walked away from, how much of the county the network reaches, what it earns, what it costs, and the real story behind the subscriber decline. Each number links to where it’s sourced and explained in full.

a strength of the network what’s being given up

The decision

Five numbers that frame the whole thing

If you read nothing else, read these. The District declined a small, self-funded upgrade while walking away from many times its cost — on a network that already reaches most of the county.

$1.2M

The wireless upgrade the District declined — replacing end-of-life radios across seven towers.

the case

~$50M

In federal broadband grants for the county the PUD lost or moved to give back — against that $1.2M.

the record

~77%

Of the county the wireless footprint reaches — the rural majority fiber won’t economically serve.

coverage

~2,700

Active wireless customer connections riding the network today.

the data

25 yrs

How long the District has run broadband for the county — through real financial risk.

timeline

The money walked away from

What ~$50 million breaks down into

The headline number isn’t one grant — it’s a pattern. And it sits next to what the District is willing to spend.

$19.7M

Federal BEAD funding for Methow fiber — confirmed lost when the program went “tech-neutral.”

source

$30.2M

USDA ReConnect fiber grant the Board moved to rescind in June 2026.

news

~$4.3M

What the District is spending — to wire 367 homes in Conconully. The most expensive reach-per-home.

compare

$1.2M

The wireless upgrade, for scale — a fraction of any of the figures above, serving thousands.

The network’s reach

Who and how much it actually serves

The wireless layer isn’t a fringe service — it’s the network for the dispersed rural majority, sold through local private providers.

~32,000

County residents inside today’s wireless footprint — of 42,104 countywide.

map

~2,700

Active wireless customer connections (May 2026).

data

62%

Of county residents are rural — the majority the wireless serves.

who

7 / 8

Local providers reselling PUD wireless / total providers on the open-access network.

model

~3,800

Total end-user customers across the District’s telecom network (audited).

Towers in the first-phase upgrade — what the $1.2M covers.

towers

878

Customers served by those seven upgrade towers.

per tower

A profitable network

The finances, in plain figures

Affordability was never the obstacle. The telecom segment is a strong earner that’s simply been under-reinvested in its wireless layer.

~$1.1M

Wireless revenue per year.

data

~1 ⁄ 3

Share of PUD telecom revenue that is wireless.

$808K

Audited telecom operating surplus, 2024.

source

2.2×

Growth in the segment’s audited net worth: $4.86M (2019) → $10.5M (2025).

audited

~1.5 yrs

Of that surplus is all the $1.2M upgrade would cost.

~92%

Collapse in budgeted wireless reinvestment since 2021 — the decline followed it.

forensics

Speeds & prices

What the upgrade changes for a household

The gap between today’s gear and the upgrade is the difference between a disadvantaged connection and a modern one — at a price the towns’ only other option can’t match.

3–20 Mbps

Top speeds on the un-upgraded wireless network today.

250 / 50

Mbps the upgrade delivers — with 500+ Mbps of headroom.

the gear

~$18/mo

What at-cost public wireless can cost a rural home.

$80–$120

Per month for Spectrum — and only available in the towns.

$40/mo

The District’s proposed single wholesale tier.

The decline, in context

Why “subscribers are falling” is misread

Yes, subscriptions slipped this year. But the cause is concentrated and specific — not a broad market verdict that the network is obsolete.

−355

Net wireless subscribers lost over the past year.

breakdown

52%

Of that loss is a single reseller (NCI, −183) — not the broad market.

why

~15%

Of cancellations name Starlink, across the three providers who shared logs — a minority.

the churn

Net change at Will Connect — a resilient local reseller, flat on the year.

Why it matters

The county behind the numbers

These are the figures the connection actually serves — the farm economy, the homes still offline, and the distances that make telehealth essential.

$363.7M

Okanogan’s annual agricultural output — 81% of it tree fruit.

economy

1,011

Farms that increasingly run on connectivity to operate.

~1 in 5

County households with no internet at all (≈20%).

equity

~95 mi

To the nearest ICU & specialists (Wenatchee) — the county’s 3 hospitals are critical-access, no ICU.

health

~23%

Of residents are 65+ — older, and aging in place on that connection.

~140 mi

Omak to Spokane for specialty care.

Why not just fiber

The cost of the last mile

The most common pushback is “just build fiber.” Here’s what the math actually says in a county this rugged and empty.

~$40,000

Per home to run fiber across the NE county — the District’s own ReConnect grant.

why not fiber?

~9×

Okanogan’s per-home fiber cost vs. flat, denser Grant County (~$4,300/home).

the math

35%

Of locations Washington’s federal BEAD plan funds for fiber — the other 65% get wireless/satellite.

BEAD

2 / mile

Customers per mile in the worst areas — fiber needs 15–20 to break even.

why

$32–65K

Per mile to build fiber, per the county’s own 2023 feasibility study (+$650–1,250 per drop).

Every figure here is drawn from the District’s audited financial statements (Washington State Auditor) and its own monthly telecom billing records obtained by public-records request, plus the cited public datasets. Where a number is an estimate or a partial-year figure, it’s flagged on the page it comes from. See the sources & documents →

Want the story behind the numbers?

The figures are the skeleton. These pages are the argument.

The argument

The full case

The audited finances, the per-tower payback, and the logic gaps — in depth.

Read the case →

Plain answers

Questions & answers

From the basics to “why should I care?”

See the FAQ →

Act

Add your voice

Ask the elected Board to give this decision a public review.

Take action →