Blandin on Broadband

Thanks to Bernadine Joselyn and Bill Coleman for passing on notes from the latest Blandin Broadband Strategy Board meeting. I think it’s helpful to see what’s being discussed at the meetings.

We wanted to update you on the discussion held at the Blandin Broadband Strategy Board meeting February 12. There was active discussion on a number of topics, especially on Connected Nation, the GIG legislation and the state broadband task force.

The Connected Nation program raised a number of concerns. A number of the task force members were at the Connected Nation presentation in St. Paul. While the Strategy Board did not take any formal action, the following ideas were expressed:

• There was concern that while valuable to some communities, that the mapping expense would not be a good use of state resources and that it would have either a limited shelf life or would be a considerable ongoing expense. Some felt that a relatively accurate picture of broadband availability could be developed in a shorter time period at much lower cost by those engaged in the issue and that the mapping exercise was simply a delaying tactic by providers.
• The value of Connected Nation’s countywide planning and market development activities was recognized. Through our Get Broadband Program, funded in part with $250,000 from DEED, we were able to help 29 communities/multi-community/countywide efforts, including Kandiyohi County. DEED special appropriation dollars were matched by the Foundation and the participating communities. More of this work will be enabled through our new Community Broadband Resources Program. The program will provide technical assistance and guidance, but no funding, for these self-help community initiatives.
• The GIG Group draft legislation was reviewed. There was some concern about the placement of any bandwidth number in the legislation, whether that goal was 1Gb, 250 Mb or something lower. There was some sentiment that replacing the number with a goal of statewide deployment of FTTP was a better approach. The consensus was that the use of a numeric goal provides an immediate target for debate and moves discussion from the real goal, a dynamic broadband economy. We recognize that some may not support the naming of a specific infrastructure, but only fiber can provide the bandwidth that we are all seeking in this type of goal.
• There was also concern that the use of the word “telecommunications” placed all of the responsibility on telephone companies, rather than the use of “communications” that would also impact cable television and other non-regulated providers. At least one board member proposed that a comprehensive rewrite of MN Statutes 237 and 238 was required in the face of technology and business dynamics.
• There was strong interest in the concept of a state-recognized broadband task force, whether created through legislation or executive order. State policies should ensure interconnections and collaborations between economic sectors, especially health care and education. (In our roundtable discussion, we heard of great challenges for both health care and education in meeting their bandwidth challenges, especially with school online testing.) There was also strong support for the concept that this task force should have a clear charge and be time limited. The work done by the Blandin Broadband Strategy Board and published in the “Live at the Speed of Light” Vision for Minnesota deserves consideration as a starting point for any task force charge. I have attached the document.