Today the Minnesota Broadband Advisory Task Force met at TIES. They really hit the ground running. They focused on what kind of report they would create for 2011 – the benchmark report for tracking broadband access and adoption.
They outcomes were an outline for the future report and a first draft of sorts. The Task Force went through the homework they created after the last meeting to fill in parts of the new report outline.
The Board Chair Joanne Johnson was kind enough to allow me to share the homework/preliminary draft (and education map) of the report. It will help the notes I took after lunch make more sense.
Here are the notes from the meeting…
Dennis Fazio welcomed everyone to TIES. TIES is an education technology collaborative, TIES offers cutting-edge school administration software, hardware and software, Internet services and professional development designed by educators for education. Learn more: http://www.ties.k12.mn.us
Attending.. Task Force members, Diane Wells, Mike O’Connor, Ann Treacy
September Meeting Minutes Approved
Explanation of handouts from Blandin (Blandin sent two reports to share with Task Force memebers.
- Digital Crossroads: Community Guide to State National Broadband Policy http://tinyurl.com/28tzzn3
- A good base for the Task Force report although we’ll want to reach consensus before adding all comments from the report. There are some comments that appropriate for Blandin, but not for the Task Force (such as removing the 65% majority referendum required for municipal telecommunications ventures). The Blandin report could be used as a basis for the Task Force Report.
- Jack Geller’s MIRC Communities Baseline Study. http://tinyurl.com/3yfxjn8
What do we want to do for the first report?
Should we use the Blandin report as a starter? Can we add potentially controversial remarks as statements on where we are rather than opinion?
Do we need to do something this extensive? Our mandate is much smaller.
It might make sense to share the information as an educational effort.
Everything Connect Minnesota has done has been set to FCC standards (768Mbps) that isn’t as helpful here with our changed definitions. Can we get the info we need from Connect Minnesota quickly enough?
Are we looking at only answering the 3 questions? With all of the new legislators, this is an opportunity to provide more info on what we’ve done and what we need to do. In the education realm we really need this.
We feel that we need this for healthcare too. There are huge changes – such as Meaningful use – and we need to help the legislators understand the changes and the concepts.
A lot of the history is in the original report. We could use that. We need to at least focus on the top three questions before we work on additional materials.
What are our stated goals?
1. Attainment of original goals
2. Recommendations for reaching the original goals
We can work with Connected Nation to get the info we need.
This may be a matter of priorities. We need to answer the 3 questions first.
We are talking about the first report – we can do a different job next year when we have more time. Maybe we need to focus on benchmarks for the first year/report.
If we only need to answer the original three questions – it seems as if Connected Nation can do that for us.
Yes – Connected National can provide the numbers and can give a 1-page executive summary. We plan to deliver the draft before you need it. It will include residential and business surveys.
There are concepts that legislators need to learn such as…
More info on Meaningful Use – Federal funded healthcare organizations can receive reimbursements for demonstrating meaningful use of broadband/technology. But to do that you need to have an electronic medical record – and then you need the broadband to access that record. A state unprepared for Meaningful Use will not get that federal funding.
We want to answer the 3 questions we’ve been asked to address. We want to provide an update to the original report, although we may need to provide an abbreviated history for folks who haven’t read the original report. Maybe we also want to talk about the questions we want to answer/address in the future.
Do we want to track relevant changes in federal laws? Yes. Although we need to be careful about bias.
Let’s think about what we can do to effect positive change.
We don’t want to miss an opportunity when broadband is on folks mind.
We want to bring comments to the table. Such as
Of the top 25 employers 3 of government entities. Maybe we need a government telecommuting policy. (healthcare is next.) The Met Council disbanded their report on telecommuting 5 years ago. MTA just held a meeting on Telework. There is federal legislation going through now and we’re focusing on state-focused bills. (We want tax incentives for businesses that focus on telework and education credits.)
18% of my Comcast bill is tax and fees; I’d rather buy high speed than spend money on taxes.
Suggestion: We had 3 goals for the original report – but we also looked at specific things that the state could do to reach goals. Maybe this group could start implementing or monitoring those activities.
Let’s create an outline of the report!
Do we have any expectation of what the legislators will do with this? There is no legislation coming out of this. The question might be easier to answer after the election.
2011 will be dominated by budgeting and redistricting.
While the legislative players may change – the issues won’t. The Department of Commerce gets questions on topics like this – and this group it great to have as a go-to group but to help keep focus.
Does someone keep track of these questions? And is it handed over to providers.
Many folks do ask about access. We do contact local providers and send them to the Connect Minnesota map. We try to steer traffic to Connect Minnesota.
Proposed outline of report
Cover
List of members
Intro/Letter – which should state the mission and purpose. Cross reference past report.
Executive Summary – Include answers to 3 questions. Outline what’s to come. (Stats, where we got them, significant issues, future directions.)
Recommendations/ Future Focus – report on where we are based on the original recommendations. This could be an opportunity to set the agenda for the Task Force. Or focus on top issues, their impact on MN and how the Task Force can play a role.
Notes from the White Board (confirmed outline for report):
- Cover
- Intro
- Mission
- Purpose
- Past report
- Executive Summary
- 3 specific goals
- Future direction of task force
- Background of numbers
- Significant development
- National Broadband Plan
- Stimulus
- Healthcare
- Investment
- Work Plan / Future Direction
- Work off the recommendations from the original report
- Appendix
- Glossary
- Healthcare more info
- Edu more info
We need to frame things. Folks like to promote e-rate; but then someone in the room already complained about 18 percent taxes on a telecommunications bill. That’s where the e-rate comes from. Also we need to recognize that inactivity is a development.
Schools suffer summer slide and from snow days. Maybe the Internet could help there.
We need to think about telecommuting.
Maybe we need to address adoption.
We also want to share info, such as updates on the stimulus projects that touch Minnesota. Right now we have a database that include all of the projects, number of passings for last mile projects, and middle mile projects that satisfy 2015 goals. We may need to better describe the role of the Middle Mile projects; they don’t mean new customers today – but they impact customers later on, build security and redundancy.
We can work with Connect Minnesota on greater data to track how many people are getting new services versus improved services.
We need to care about the Minnesota goals. We can mention the national goals – but we only can about MN goals.
We’re building a foundation that we’ll be building on over the next few years – for the duration of the Task Force.
Maybe our goal here is only to set the benchmark. Although we can compare to the original report.
Looking at investments from private sector as well.
Maybe describing the field by sector is more accessible and better highlights unserved areas.
We can identify projects we will watch moving forward to see how public-private partnerships are working.
LUNCH
After lunch the Task Force looked at their homework/preliminary draft of the report. Below are the notes by section.
Goals: Brent & Mike Martin
– They restated the goals from the report and the Connect Minnesota conclusions.
– Updated data – especially tackling the first goal
– It’s much like an executive summary – a good beginning for what we need.
Comments on this section – none
Numbers Section – Shirley & John
– Restated bill as benchmark
– Propose sections
o What is broadband (definition)?
o FCC Broadband definition
o Broadband availability and speed maps
o State broadband position / broadband goals (from Blandin report)
o In the future look at disparities in broadband adoption
Comments on this section –
Next year we’d like to have what’s available in Minnesota – not just what folks are reporting. Maybe we could find numbers that make us look better.
Is there an ultimate source? It would be nice to have consistency. Any reports will have some drawbacks – but at least with consistency we know we’ll be comparing apples to apples.
It’s tough to compare against broadband leaders – because often folks look at local definition of broadband – and that varies.
We need to mention in the report that the data can be difficult to access. Jack Geller’s report seems to be very good – but it’s hard to find comparable data for other areas.
Connect Minnesota has to send in provider data (access) to the feds; not take rates. But we will be able to track this information going forward since each state does need to report this data each year.
Mapping definitions:
Access and availability are the same.
Penetration, adoption, take rates are the same.
Connect Minnesota – our report will include some comparisons to the policy goals, rather than making broad policy recommendations.
Can we show a map here of the 6% of people who aren’t served?
Let’s add Connect Minnesota survey results too.
Stimulus Funding & Partnerships (John)
– Overview of ARRA program
– Sliced and diced the stimulus projects by different characteristics
o Type of award (Last mile, Middle mile, computer center, sustainability, mapping)
o Technology (FTTH, FTTH/DSL, DSL, wireless, Middle Mile Transport)
o Types of awardee (Incumbent Phone, Incumbent Cable, Coop, Power Coop, Municipality, Tribal Gov, Nonprofit)
Comments on this section
We could put much of this under Public-Private partnerships
A spreadsheet underlies the data, it provides a ton of detail
Could this info go under significant development?
Local Government (Mike Reardon, Cindy Kevern, Peter Lindstrom)
– Current Status (governments that provide services)
o Some projects line with stimulus
o Details the needs (such as next generation 911)
– Barriers
o Like pole attachments
– Technology in Use
– Funding Sources
Comments on this section
Need to add Crosslake – building out beyond city limits (city utility)
Barnesville – provides cable and telephone; they are unique in that they are the incumbents
Note: Crosslake and Barnesville are the only incumbent ILEC and cable providers
I’d highlight lack of business plans as a barrier.
It might be nice to provide education and training.
Lots of barriers will be addresses at the federal level.
Do we want to include barriers here – or hold off until 2011.
There wasn’t consensus on all bullet points – so we decided to include them all. Before we did more with this I think we’d want to reach consensus.
Maybe we can say that there are barriers and we’ll be focusing on overcoming barriers.
Are we going to have anything that addresses WiMAX, WiFi, Wireless? We seem to be focused on fiber – but wireless will become a planner.
A big goal of the National Broadband Plan with leadership in mobile realm. Maybe we need to touch on wireless now – but realize that in 2011 it may play a bigger role.
Wireless is such a big part of the market. Between laptops and iPhones more folks are going wireless. It is something we need to consider.
Maybe the category is emerging technologies? Maybe we can fit it into future direction section.
Healthcare (David)
– $17 billion goes to healthcare IT – reach is so important with electronic medical records.
K12 and Map (Pete Royer assisted by Mary Mehsikomer and Dennis Fazio)
– History of edu (Learning Network of MN)
o TAG grants paid for equipment – but not training and programming
o TARP found that some funding is inequitable
o Last year $8 million was requested; $3.75 million was funded
Comments on this section –
I didn’t know what e-rate was. So I didn’t understand what the discount applies to.
Libraries (Lois Langer Thompson)
– Current status
– Barriers
o Tech support
– Tech in Use
o E-rate is not a big deal in Hennepin, but may be in other areas
– Funding sources
Comments on this section
Are we just looking at public libraries?
What about the fact that information is being stored differently these days? The library is more and more virtual.
We need to look at remote stats. We can look at e-reader stats.
What about security, redundancy?
Joanne will try to put something like this together.
Next version/homework assignments…
Joanne will work on executive summary
Background stats – Shirley & John
Significant development – Joanne will add NBP and pull pieces from other areas.
Conclusion – we’ll wait
It would be nice to get a voice from higher ed – but maybe we’ll add that to future direction.
Next meeting – November 17 at TIES
December 15 – place TBD