01
The Question
Why can't we get cheaper, faster internet?
Orcas Power & Light Cooperative · Rock Island Communications
$80 Rock Island 50 Mbps vs. $50 T-Mobile Up to 400 Mbps
About $30 a month savings…
AND up to 8x faster internet.
02
The Reasoning
OPALCO has a joint venture with T-Mobile that brings T-Mobile cellular service to San Juan County on member-built fiber backhaulopalcoopalco pdf. T-Mobile Home Internet is not part of that arrangement and is not offered to members.
03
The Response From OPALCO
Introducing lower-priced alternatives that rely on the same member-built infrastructure, without contributing to its cost recovery, would undermine the financial model that makes the entire system possible.
— J. Foster Hildreth, OPALCO General Manager · April 8, 2026 thread
04
The Counter-Offer
The cost the cooperative recovers today is $1.29 per subscriber per month990 pdf. If OPALCO let T-Mobile pay that same $1.29 directly — exactly what Rock Island pays today — the cooperative would collect the same revenue, members would pay less, and Rock Island would just lose the markup.
Deal?
05
The Solution
We need to renegotiate to allow members more choices for their internet.
What $30 a month becomes over time
Per member · currently flowing to a markup OPALCO will not explain
1 month
1 year
5 years
10 years
The Price Gap
$30 Less. Eight Times the Speed. Blocked from San Juan County.
Rock Island Communications (legally Island Network LLC) is a for-profit broadband subsidiary 100% owned by OPALCO, the member-owned electric cooperative serving San Juan County990 pdf. It is the dominant broadband provider in San Juan County. This page is specifically about Rock Island Communications' fixed wireless product. Rock Island's fiber-to-the-home offering is a different service with a different value proposition and is not the subject of this analysis.
Rock Island's Classic fixed wireless plan is $80 a month for 50 Mbpsrockislandsnapshot 2026-04-11. On the mainland, T-Mobile Home Internet Rely is $50 a month with real-world speeds up to 400 Mbpst-mobilet-mobile — about eight times faster, for less money. T-Mobile Home Internet is not sold in San Juan County as a retail product, even though Rock Island has a joint venture with T-Mobile that put T-Mobile cellular coverage here using OPALCO's own fiber backhaulopalcoopalco pdf.
The 400 Mbps figure is T-Mobile's published maximum for the Rely plan; real-world speeds for fixed wireless service vary by location, signal strength, and tower distance. Whether T-Mobile Home Internet would deliver usable performance specifically in San Juan County is a testable engineering question that the cooperative could answer with field data.
Twelve years. Three statements. One broken promise.
All on the public record · in OPALCO's own words.
2014
“OPALCO will allow cell phone providers to access our infrastructure at the cost of service – like any other member – which could improve cell phone service. Currently, there are no proposals from cell phone companies to do so.”
OPALCO 700 MHz Q&A, June 2014 opalco 2014
2016
OPALCO enters an exclusive joint venture with T-Mobile to deploy cellular service on Rock Island's fiber backhaul. No equivalent “cost of service” access has been publicly offered to any other carrier in the years since.
OPALCO press release, February 2016 opalcoopalco pdf
2026
“Introducing lower-priced alternatives that rely on the same member-built infrastructure, without contributing to its cost recovery, would undermine the financial model that makes the entire system possible.”
— J. Foster Hildreth, OPALCO General Manager, April 8, 2026 thread
The Public Record
The 2023 Amendment Members Were Not Told About
Note 12 of the 2024 audited financial statements discloses a December 2023 amendment to the T-Mobile agreement2024 audit. This amendment was not communicated to members at the time it was executed.
What the 2024 Audit Reveals (Note 12)
2015 — Original agreement: 10-year term
Rock Island and T-Mobile entered a joint venture in 2015 to deploy cellular service on OPALCO’s member-built fiber backhaul. The original agreement carried a 10-year term.
December 2023 — Amendment: 15-year term through 2030
The agreement was amended in December 2023, extending it to a 15-year term through 2030. The amendment included a $1,119,387 settlement payment to Rock Island for historical use of cooperative infrastructure. Note 12 specifies recurring services from January 2024 through December 2026.
2027–2030 — Terms not disclosed
What governs services and exclusivity between January 2027 and December 2030 is not disclosed in the audit. Members cannot see the terms that govern the final four years of this 15-year commitment from any of OPALCO’s published documents.
T-Mobile Revenue to Rock Island (Note 12, 2024 Audit 2024 audit)
Operating income from T-Mobile services, 2023
$1,021,040
Operating income from T-Mobile services, 2024
$1,125,840
For context: Rock Island paid OPALCO $108,653 in backbone access fees in 2024990 pdf while collecting over $1.1 million from T-Mobile the same year per the audit. The cooperative’s member-built infrastructure carries this arrangement. Rock Island earned more from T-Mobile in 2024 than the total amount it paid OPALCO for backbone access.
No Board Approval on the Public Record
Per published board minutes: the November 16, 2023 regular meeting contains no T-Mobile action item or vote. The December 14, 2023 regular meeting contains no T-Mobile action item or vote. The December 22, 2023 special meeting (by email) ratified only the 2024–2028 Collective Bargaining Agreement, with no T-Mobile reference. There is no public record of board approval of the 2023 amendment. Members can ask the board whether a vote occurred in closed session and, if so, what the board reviewed before voting.
Source: OPALCO 2024 Audited Financial Statements, Note 12 (T-Mobile agreement) and Note 5 (Related-Party Transactions) — 2024 audit.
The Public Record
What the 2024 Form 990 Reveals
Federal law requires nonprofits to disclose all financial transactions with controlled subsidiaries on Schedule Rirs. Here is what OPALCO reported to the IRS in November 2025990 pdf. The 2024 audited financial statements (Note 5 and Note 12) provide additional detail on the T-Mobile agreement structure and related-party transactions — and are the stronger primary source for those specifics2024 audit.
Transaction (Schedule R, 2024 Form 990) 990 pdf
Amount
Backbone / infrastructure access fee paid BY Rock Island TO OPALCO (Type A)
$108,653
New loans FROM OPALCO TO Rock Island (Type D)
$2,137,065
Shared employees — OPALCO to Rock Island (Type O)
$70,875
Reimbursements paid TO Rock Island BY OPALCO (Type P)
$832,103
Reimbursements paid BY Rock Island TO OPALCO (Type Q)
$514,778
Cash transferred FROM Rock Island TO OPALCO (Type S)
$302,873
Asset sale to Rock Island (Type G)
$80,861
Source: OPALCO 2024 Form 990, Schedule R — publicly filed with the IRS, November 2025. Direct PDF 990 pdf.
Schedule R Part V labels Type A as “Receipt of (i) interest, (ii) annuities, (iii) royalties, or (iv) rent from a controlled entity.” Since OPALCO owns the fiber backbone that Rock Island operates on, this line is the aggregate fee Rock Island paid OPALCO for use of member-built infrastructure in 2024. If any portion is interest, royalty, or other rent rather than pure backbone access, the backbone-only figure would be smaller, not larger.
The Critical Calculation
Backbone access fee (2024) 990 pdf
$108,653
÷ Rock Island subscribers opalco
~7,000
÷ 12 months
12
Backbone cost per subscriber
$1.29 / month
Members pay $80 per month for 50 Mbps wireless servicerockislandsnapshot 2026-04-11 on a network whose backbone costs $1.29 per subscriber per month. Even accounting for customer service, equipment, maintenance, and salaries, that gap is extraordinary for a cooperative subsidiary.
The $1.29 figure is the per-subscriber average of the total backbone access fee Rock Island paid OPALCO in 2024 ($108,653 spread across roughly 7,000 subscribers and 12 months). It is presented here as a cost-recovery floor — the minimum amount the cooperative collects for backbone access — not as a per-subscriber pricing benchmark or as a marginal-cost figure.
Make That Make Sense
Backbone cost OPALCO recovers, per subscriber per month990 pdf
Markup over the T-Mobile market price members pay every monthrockislandt-mobile
The markup is 23× the cost recovery.
If “cost recovery” is the financial model OPALCO is protecting, members are paying twenty-three times more in markup than the cooperative needs to recover for backbone access. The General Manager has said allowing competing alternatives “would undermine the financial model.”thread The math suggests the financial model being protected is something other than backbone cost recovery — and the cooperative could collect the exact same $1.29 per subscriber by letting T-Mobile pay for backbone access instead of Rock Island.
What the GM Has Confirmed in Writing
On the Record
OPALCO General Manager J. Foster Hildreth responded to a member inquiry across an April 2026 email thread. The full seven-message exchange is published at thread. These are direct quotes.
-
"Introducing lower-priced alternatives that rely on the same member-built infrastructure, without contributing to its cost recovery, would undermine the financial model that makes the entire system possible."
— Foster Hildreth, Apr 8, 2026 thread
-
"We are bound by confidentiality and non-disclosure obligations with T-Mobile that we will honor. For those reasons, it would not be appropriate or legally permissible to publicly disclose the detailed terms of that agreement."
— Foster Hildreth, Apr 8, 2026 thread
-
"There is no separate action underway to renegotiate the T-Mobile agreement, so there is no specific progress to report in that regard."
— Foster Hildreth, Apr 8, 2026 thread
-
"We will continue to evaluate that relationship over time based on what best serves the long-term interests of OPALCO members."
— Foster Hildreth, Apr 8, 2026 thread · no criteria, no timeline, no reporting commitment
Legal Counsel Response, May 2026
The Counsel Response
On May 6, 2026, OPALCO’s General Counsel, Joel R. Paisner of Ascent Law Partners, responded to subsequent member correspondence to the board.
-
“RIC does not provide a material profit center as is suggested, nor does it represent a level of financial magnitude that would distinguish it from the many operational agreements the board routinely oversees.”
— Joel R. Paisner, OPALCO General Counsel (Ascent Law Partners), May 6, 2026
-
Counsel recommended that the board consider the matter closed and characterized the T-Mobile arrangement as offsetting operational costs, not as a profit center.
— Joel R. Paisner, May 6, 2026
Compare with GM Hildreth, April 2026
“Introducing lower-priced alternatives that rely on the same member-built infrastructure, without contributing to its cost recovery, would undermine the financial model that makes the entire system possible.”
— J. Foster Hildreth, OPALCO General Manager, April 8, 2026 thread
The General Manager characterized the T-Mobile arrangement as essential to protecting a “financial model.” The cooperative’s general counsel, a month later, characterized the same arrangement as not representing “a level of financial magnitude” distinguishable from routine operational agreements. Members are entitled to understand which characterization governs how the board will make decisions about this arrangement going forward — and why these two framings differ so substantially.
The full exchange — Philip’s May 4 governance proposal, Paisner’s May 6 response, and Philip’s same-day reply — is published at velorete.com/paisner.
A Constructive Path Forward
Sell the Backhaul. Honor the Promise. Lower the Bills.
Open the backhaul to T-Mobile, AT&T, Verizon, and any other carrier willing to pay for access. Each pays a cost-of-service backbone fee — exactly what OPALCO already promised in 2014. Rock Island keeps its fiber business and meets its federal RDOF commitmentsfcc da 25-350. The cooperative collects more backbone revenue, not less.
Today
$80/mo
50 Mbps fixed wireless
One option: Rock Island Classic.
Under the Constructive Fix
$50/mo
Up to 400 Mbps
Choose from T-Mobile, AT&T, Verizon.
About $30 a month savings…
AND up to 8x faster internet.
And Rock Island wins, too. Less retail support burden. More focus on fiber, where it has genuine expertise and a real track record. The cooperative collects more backbone access revenue from multiple carriers, not less. Everyone does what they do best.
A Structural Proposal
A Stronger Rock Island Through Open Access
The 2030 framework endpoint is a chance to restructure for better member outcomes and a healthier subsidiary.
Rock Island Communications faces a structural challenge that the cooperative has the authority to address. Today, Rock Island operates as both an infrastructure operator (paying OPALCO for backbone access) and a retail ISP (selling fixed wireless and fiber to members). The retail business has to cover the cost of both. That is why members pay $80 per month for service that costs $50 per month elsewhere in Washington.
Most modern ISPs separate infrastructure from retail. T-Mobile, AT&T, Verizon, and Comcast all maintain that separation. The model is well-established because it lets each business be evaluated on its own terms and lets capital flow to where the returns are best.
What an open-access model would look like
If OPALCO opened backbone access to T-Mobile and other carriers at posted, cost-of-service rates:
For the Cooperative
- +Additional backbone revenue from each carrier that contracts for access
- +Less reliance on a single subscriber base for backbone monetization
- +Better return on the 700 MHz spectrum and fiber infrastructure members financed in 2013–2016
- +Consistent with OPALCO’s own June 2014 commitment to allow carrier access “at the cost of service, like any other member” opalco 2014
For Rock Island
- +Keeps its fiber-to-the-home business — its strongest product and core competency
- +Reduces customer service, equipment, and operational burden of the lowest-margin retail segments
- +Frees capital and management focus for federal RDOF build-out commitments through 2028 fcc
- −Loses some retail subscribers who switch to alternatives (the cost)
For Members
- +Choice between providers
- +Lower-cost option for those who want it
- +The cooperative still owns the underlying infrastructure
- +Service quality competition between carriers
The financial framing
Rock Island’s accumulated losses decreased from $11.39M (12/31/2024) to $10.25M (12/31/2025), per OPALCO’s own 2025 unaudited financial report. That improvement happened under the current model. A structural shift to focus Rock Island on its strongest product line — fiber — while expanding the cooperative’s backbone revenue base from multiple carriers, could accelerate that trajectory rather than threaten it.
If T-Mobile alone were licensed to sell home internet in San Juan County, paying OPALCO an additional backbone access fee at the same rate Rock Island pays today, the cooperative would collect new revenue without losing existing Rock Island backbone revenue. Other carriers (Verizon, AT&T, additional fixed wireless providers) could be added on the same terms.
What we are not saying
We are not saying Rock Island should be wound down. We are not saying the fiber business is anything less than valuable. We are not saying members should not support cooperative-owned broadband infrastructure — the opposite. Rock Island’s fiber-to-the-home product is the strongest broadband infrastructure in the county and the cooperative should be proud of it.
We are saying that requiring Rock Island to also operate as the only retail provider in the lowest-margin segments of the market, on infrastructure members financed, is a structural choice that the board should reconsider as the 2030 T-Mobile framework endpoint approaches. The cooperative principles that justify member ownership of the infrastructure also support member access to a competitive retail market on top of it.
Why this is the right time
The December 2023 amendment extended the T-Mobile framework through 20302024 audit. Note 12 specifies recurring services through December 2026. The board has a natural decision window opening in 2026–2027 about how to structure the next phase. Members deserve a voice in that decision — and the decision deserves the cooperative’s honest analysis of whether the current vertically integrated model serves members and Rock Island better than a wholesale-plus-competitive-retail model would.
We are an OPALCO member proposing this for board consideration. The financial framing is based on OPALCO’s own publicly filed audited and unaudited financial statements2024 audit. The structural argument draws on standard industry practice for separating infrastructure operations from retail ISP services. Specific terms of any restructured arrangement would be subject to negotiation and to the board’s responsibility for the cooperative’s financial health. We invite the board, OPALCO management, and Rock Island management to publish a written response to this argument. Any substantive response will be published here in full alongside this analysis, unedited. Contact: philipemanuele@gmail.com.
On the Record
Five Questions Worth Asking
Every question below is sourced to OPALCO’s own public filings and written correspondence. The May 7 annual meeting passed without these questions being addressed from the floor. They remain open. Open each to see the supporting data and inline sources.
The Question
"Schedule R of the 2024 Form 990 shows Rock Island paid OPALCO $108,653 for backbone infrastructure access in 2024990 pdf. That is about $1.29 per subscriber per monthopalco. Why is OPALCO not allowing T-Mobile to pay the same $1.29 backbone fee that Rock Island pays today — so members can buy T-Mobile Home Internet at $50/montht-mobile instead of Rock Island Classic at $80rockislandsnapshot 2026-04-11, and the cooperative still collects the same backbone revenue?"
Why It Matters
Every number comes from OPALCO's own IRS filing990 pdf. Schedule R is the "Related Organizations" schedule that federal law requires nonprofits to fileirs. The backbone is the most expensive component of any ISP network. Here it is $1.29 per subscriber. The gap between that and the $80 retail price needs an explanation members can see on paper.
The Question
"The same 2024 Form 990 shows OPALCO made $2.137 million in new loans to Rock Island in 2024990 pdf. We have been told rates are set to sustain the system because of debt obligations thread. How much total debt does Rock Island currently carry, and what is the repayment timeline?"
Why It Matters
The GM has justified current pricing by pointing to ongoing debt thread. But Schedule R shows OPALCO extended new loans to Rock Island in 2024, not retired existing ones990 pdf. OPALCO’s consolidated long-term debt per audited financials: $94.4M (2022) → $98.4M (2023) → $107.25M (2024)2024 audit. A 2025 unaudited figure of $94.4M has been reported but uses a narrower methodology and is not directly comparable to the audited series; 2025 audited figures are not yet available.
On Rock Island’s own balance sheet, the 2025 unaudited year-end report shows subsidiary undistributed losses of $10,249,247 at 12/31/2025 — down from $11,391,702 at 12/31/2024, a reduction of $1,142,456. Rock Island had a positive year in 2025. It still operates with a cumulative net deficit of $10.25M, but the trajectory in 2025 was toward improvement. The argument here is not that Rock Island is failing financially — it is that the cooperative’s structure of decision-making and the exclusive T-Mobile arrangement deserve member input and a clear timeline.
The Question
"Rock Island received a $16.5 million Washington State BEAD 'Benefit of the Bargain' grant in 2025opalcowa commerce, on top of roughly $15 million from the federal Capital Projects Fund passed through Washington State Commercewa commerce. That is over $31 million in public money flowing to a for-profit subsidiary of a cooperative. What public interest obligations, build-out commitments, and affordability commitments did Rock Island accept in exchange for that funding? And will the board make the subrecipient agreements available to members?"
Why It Matters
Washington State broadband grant agreements held by the Department of Commerce are generally subject to the Washington Public Records Actrcw 42.56. The specific terms Rock Island committed to — build-out milestones, any voluntary affordability commitments, quarterly compliance reports — should be available to members on requestwa pra. The June 2025 federal BEAD restructuring eliminated the prior provider-proposed low-cost plan requirement for Lifeline-eligible householdsntia, lowering the federal floor on what grantees must offer. That makes the question of what Rock Island actually committed to in writing — and whether anything in those agreements protects member affordability — more important, not less.
The Question
"The General Manager committed in writing to evaluate the T-Mobile relationship based on member interests thread. What criteria are being used for that evaluation, and when will the board report back to members with findings?"
Why It Matters
This question does not require disclosure of confidential NDA terms thread. It asks the board to stand behind a public commitment and give members a process and a timeline. A cooperative's GM is not a private company CEO. He works for the members. When he makes a written commitment affecting member pricing, members can reasonably expect a public accounting.
The Question
In plain English: Rock Island just took on a $1.4 million federal grant with hard build-out deadlines that could cost the cooperative money if missed. Members deserve to know how it is going.
"In April 2025, the FCC approved Rock Island acquiring Commnet Wireless's Rural Digital Opportunity Fund support and build-out obligations for two San Juan County census block groupsfcc da 25-350. The transferred support is $138,186 per year — $1,381,860 over the ten-year RDOF term — in exchange for deploying voice and broadband service to 2,305 locationsfcc da 25-350. The FCC order specifies four mandatory build-out milestones, each enforced as of December 31 of the year shown: 40 percent of locations by 2025, 60 percent by 2026, 80 percent by 2027, and 100 percent by 2028fcc da 25-350. The order also required Rock Island to submit an irrevocable letter of credit and a bankruptcy opinion letter within 90 days of the April 18, 2025 release date — a deadline that fell in mid-July 2025fcc da 25-350. Has Rock Island consummated the transaction, posted the required letter of credit, and met its first build-out milestone? What is the current deployment status in the Assigned Census Block Groups, and who at OPALCO is accountable for tracking and reporting it to members?"
Why It Matters
The FCC order itself states that Rock Island “must assume all risks and consequences of noncompliance with program requirements, including default recovery of support and potential forfeiture penalties”fcc da 25-350. The carrier Rock Island is taking these obligations from — Commnet Wireless — had already notified the FCC, before this transfer was approved, that it would not fulfill its RDOF commitments in certain other Washington census blocks and had withdrawn entirely from its RDOF support areas in Idahofcc da 25-350. The two San Juan County census block groups Rock Island acquired were a separate Section 214 transfer rather than part of those defaults, but the broader pattern matters: the prior holder could not make the economics work, and Rock Island has now stepped into the same federal compliance regime with the same hard deadlines. Because Rock Island is wholly owned by OPALCO990 pdf, any clawback of disbursed support, draw on the letter of credit, or forfeiture penalty ultimately sits on the balance sheet of the member-owned cooperative. This is a forward-looking federal financial exposure with hard deadlines and a documented history of difficulty in the same program — the kind of risk members should hear about in plain numbers, in advance, not after the fact at an annual meeting.
Get Involved
What You Can Do
Member transparency requires members to stay engaged. Here are the most effective actions to take now.
1
The May 7 Meeting Is Now on Record opalco
The May 7, 2026 Annual Business Meeting was held virtually for approximately 30 minutes — compressed from a scheduled four-hour window. The substantive issues raised in member correspondence to the board were not addressed in the board’s presentation. OPALCO will post a recording when available. Members can still contact the board in writing and request written responses to the five questions on this page.
OPALCO Annual Meeting Page →2
Email the Board
Send your own questions to the OPALCO board and communications office. Reference the Form 990 Schedule R directly 990 pdf. These are their own filed numbers.
Email Communications → communications@opalco.com3
File a Public Records Request rcw 42.56
Washington State's Department of Commerce holds the Rock Island BEAD wa commerce and Capital Projects Fund wa commerce grant agreements. Members can request the subrecipient agreements, scoring documents, any voluntary affordability commitments, and compliance reports under the Public Records Act.
WA Commerce PRA Portal → WSBO@Commerce.wa.gov wa commerce4
Share With Neighbors
Most OPALCO members do not know about the $1.29 backbone number or the Schedule R filings. Share this page with anyone on Orcas, Lopez, Shaw, or San Juan Island paying a Rock Island bill.
Our Position
Member Transparency Is Not Adversarial
We are not opposed to Rock Island. We are not opposed to OPALCO. We are not opposed to the cooperative model. The cooperative model only works when members have enough information to hold management accountable.
Every claim on this page links directly to a primary source. The numbers come from OPALCO's own public IRS filing990 pdf, from the 2024 audited financial statements2024 audit, from the providers' own published pricingrockislandsnapshot 2026-04-11, from state and federal broadband program recordswa commercentia, and from written correspondence with OPALCO leadership thread. We are not guessing. We are not accusing. We are asking questions that any responsible cooperative member would ask.
The 2025 unaudited year-end data shows Rock Island reduced its accumulated losses by over $1.1 million — a positive year. The argument on this page is not that Rock Island is failing. The argument is that a 15-year exclusive arrangement with T-Mobile, extended in 2023 without any public member communication, on terms partially undisclosed even in the audit, is the kind of governance decision that deserves member input and public accounting.
Members funded this networkopalco pdf. Members deserve to understand how it works.
Right of reply. OPALCO and Rock Island Communications are invited to submit a written response to the questions and claims on this page. Any substantive response will be published here in full alongside the member analysis, unedited. Contact: philipemanuele@gmail.com.
This page presents publicly filed information and written correspondence with commentary and questions from an OPALCO member. Every numerical figure is linked to a primary source. Interpretations, framings, and questions reflect the author's views as a cooperative member exercising governance rights. Nothing here is legal or financial advice. If any factual claim on this page is incorrect, please contact the author and it will be reviewed and corrected promptly.