I just returned from the latest Broadband Task Force. The very quick Reader’s Digest version is that offline the task force met (in 3 small groups) to talk about how the earlier task force reports could help inform the report due at the end of the month.

It sounds like some decisions were made:

• The next report will be an outline
• The outline will be/complement a work plan the Task Force will use to create a larger report at the end of the year
• Folks like a framework for action offered in the original Task Force report (pictured at right)

The next meeting will be January 24 – and the Department of Commerce now has a website that will announce meetings et al. (Sorry I didn’t see it earlier!) Here is info on the next meeting:

January 24, 2012
10:00 a.m. to 2:00 p.m.
TIES
Larpenteur Room
1667 Snelling Avenue North
Roseville, MN 55108

The plan is for Diane Wells and Bill Hoffman to take the info presented by group leaders today and to create an outline that will be discussed at the next meeting. If time is left over, they will discuss plans for meetings and goals for the rest of the year. (The following meeting is Feb 14.)

Here are the more complete notes – I tried to capture what I could and provide structure so that it would make sense – even if you didn’t know the original Task Force report like the back of your hand. (All page number refer to that original Task Force report.)

10:00 – 10:10 I. Greetings and Introductions

Guests: Ann Higgins, Tony Mendoza, Brent Christenson, Tim Johnson, Dennis Fazio (Other additions: Mike O’Connor, Mike Martin)

10:10 – 10:20 II. Public Comments

Ann Higgins: brought a handout on recent League of MN Cities  survey of cable system commissions. They asked about institutional networks

• 46% architecture of Internet is fiber
• 54% architecture is hybrid
• 82% have city/commission is responsible for network
• 17% cable company is responsible for network
• 31% Inet is used for public institution networking (libs, edus…)
• 31% Inet has been in place 6-10 years
• 23% More than 10 years
• 15% have younger network

10:20 – 10:30 III. Approval of December 19, 2011 Minutes

Done

10:30 – 11:45 IV. Presentations from Group Leaders

Group leaders report back on their small group discussions on reading of past Task Force reports and how to move forward.

Group One: Shirley (Bob, Danna, Gary & Keith) reports on her group:

Met a few times. Some items we really looked at – some we just noted. There are things we assume are being done such as Formation of Task Force/BB Advisory Commission.

Goal for recommendation of level of service:

• Like that level of service –
  • but don’t love numbers – but not interested in changing legislation but we suggest adding a satisfaction number (for consumers) Important aspect is a feedback loop
  • Do additional research to see what the top states have done
  • Policy & Actions
    • RETAIN: Identify current efforts/encourage collaboration
    • NEW: Review why goals were set to give current Task Force background
    • Can we apply lessons learned – such as monitoring federal incentives?
    • Stimulate
      • NEW: Map existing groups/consortia where there are gaps. Know where the gaps are – and look at how to fill those gaps.
      • Let’s clarify who is responsible for what aspects of work – for example include coordination for TF – so if a foundation is doing work, we’d like to align with them rather than recreate the wheel
      • Assist providers with right-of-way issues
      • Publicize success and failures
      • Track resources/capacity/availability
      • NEW: Need additional info on what is being collected by ConnectMN and who owns that site once the contract is complete? With mapping can we improve mapping and inaccuracies?
      • Security. We could use a presentation from past task force member on security plan.
      • Lots of notes around state government and government items. Where do our universities stand in terms of access?

Question: Did you discuss alignment in terms of organization? No – but we know we need to prioritize the list. Also there’s some redundancy in the report and some of that could be cleaned up. Redundancy possibly born out structure of past report. It might be nice to have calendar of events.

Back to who owns the content of the site? The site belongs to Connect Minnesota – but data belongs to MN Geospatial Office (public gets aggregate info; specific info from providers is under non-disclosure)

More info

• Let’s make sure to pull in experts
• Let’s make sure to define speeds by use. (Numbers are only so valuable to most folks)
• There’s a focus on rural areas especially for secure, fast reliable broadband from home for telework
• Mapping opportunity points at the federal level
• Rights of way / dig once issues – more questions than answers. Is it a city problem or a state problem?
• We talked about barriers and
  • We talked about redundancy of rights or way environmental studies. We talked how timing of dig once doesn’t always align.
  • MN Municipal Utilities Commission, Dakota County, certain cities, are experts in these issues; the MNDOT can be. The answer is regional.
  • USF will be a big issue. Brent Christenson is one expert in that issue
  • Evaluation of benefits – and refreshing those benefits would be helpful

Discussion

• Make a more direct connection with other efforts happening in the state
• Moodle is tool used by K12 and higher ed. But this can require access at home.
• Maybe we could get a visit to a rural hospital using some of the technologies.
• When will the day arrive that a kid can’t do their work from home without broadband access?
  • We talked about the definite divide and the doors that are open in terms of flipped classroom when folks have broadband. It’s becoming an effective tool – to those with access.

Group Two: Dick (Margaret, Steve, Diane, Boa, Matt) speaks for his group:

Had a phone call.

Recommendation 1 – (ID level of service) – let’s update the numbers. Is there anything we can do to help get the last 5% of providers to participate in mapping? Most folks are participating – those who aren’t are generally quite small.

Recommendation 2 – (Policies and Actions Necessary to Achieve Ubiquitous Broadband) – Maybe bring the graph on Page 57 to an actionable item. It needs to be reinforced through document. We need to own it or lose it. It would be helpful to have visuals and text in the report.

Coordinate, build and incent (Pg 59) – nice to build on this with actions that are doable. We need to be practical

Recommendation 3 (Opportunities for Public and Private Sectors to Cooperate) – we should find some example and best practices. Look at what’s happening in other states – and steal what’s working. We’ve got ARRA, RUS funding – see what’s happening there and what’s working. Should look at OET and their model. They connect schools, offices… Look at government’s role in adoption. (Give people access who can’t afford it and look at usage patterns.)

Recommendation 4 (Establish the Broadband Advisory Council for Minnesota) We decided the Task Force wasn’t it. The governor has names the Task Force; legislators would decide on an Advisory Council. It might be nice to have a group that lived on regardless of change in government. The Council would continue on until we had a Broadband Advisory Council. There’s no need for both entities.

Overall the legislature has moved away from forming these sorts of entities – but it’s not out of the question. They Task Force could carry on – until the time was right.

Recommendation 5 (Evaluation of Strategies, Financing, and Financial Incentives Used in Other States/Countries to Support Broadband Development and Cost Estimates) – this is a big aspect. There’s a discrepancy between how the state and feds look at depreciation – it would be nice if those were closer in line. Sales tax reduction for fiber. It would make an economic difference to providers. There are opportunities for tax incentives. There may be an incentive to go into areas with low population density. Also there are items that need to be updated. Looking at trends (Pg 77) – nice to update that.

Recommendation 6 (Evaluation of Security, Vulnerability, and Redundancy Actions Necessary to Ensure Reliability) – Need to “Identify current and planned security and redundancy efforts across the state (such as the Chief Security Officer forum, InfraGuard, and the Center for Strategic Information Systems and Security), and make them available to each community. Strongly encourage collaboration.” (Pg 83)

Recommendation 7 (Economic Development Opportunities) – include examples to incent – such as DigiKey.

Recommendation 8: Evaluation of the Benefits of Broadband Access to –   Organizations and Institutions – Combine with Recommendation 7 .

Discussion

Is the idea that we gather stories by 2013 – or for January? For 2013.

The January report really has to be an outline.

Group Three: Bernadine (Andy, Dan, Maureen, Steve P) reports for her group:

We embrace the idea of using an outline for the report that creates a plan moving forward. We have nice videos of previous task force members offering advice and offering to help.

Recommendation 1 – (ID level of service) – Make sense. Like the ideas of global comparison. A good focus for the Task Force is deployment – that is the expensive and difficult part of broadband access. There are roles for the state and providers. There are market failures – and that’s where the state can step in to help address those gaps.

Discussion: The previous task force set a goal but no assistance maybe the state can step in with some skin in the game. There are senate files that might be worth considering.

We like the idea of using reporting structures to create a public dashboard that shows how we are doing – and promote these at Regional meetings to promote broadband,

Recommendation 2 – (Policies and Actions Necessary to Achieve Ubiquitous Broadband) – collect and disseminate best practices. We see opportunity at town/county level to support technology planning. We can make these folks better partners for providers. Makes sense to map federal opportunities.

We like lead, stimulate, oversee… Our opportunity is to build a roadmap that will put legs under the original report. We need to adapt/adopt best practices.

Recommendation 3 (Opportunities for Public and Private Sectors to Cooperate) – What can we do better together that we can’t do alone. Find ways to incent providers – for infrastructure – but also adoption. Find opportunities to work with jobs centers and computer recyclers. What can we do that doesn’t include a price tag? (Dig once: planning and coordination might help providers take advantage of dig once opportunities). Can we look outside our regular silos? Can we offer broadband as an answer to other policies issues? DO we have someone looking at federal opportunities for the state?

There are opportunities to look at other part of the State (such as procurement) for ideas. Find ways to promote broadband as a solution.

Recommendation 4 (Establish the Broadband Advisory Council for Minnesota) – Given temporal nature of the TF, does it make sense to find a leader in the state to take on the role.

Recommendation 5 (Evaluation of Strategies, Financing, and Financial Incentives Used in Other States/Countries to Support Broadband Development and Cost Estimates) – Tax incentives and share government saving seen with broadband with providers. Consider MN broadband fund – there are concerns with broadband fund (sort of a local USF). Concerns are: providers are concerned with additional surcharges on the bill. We need to look at what is working elsewhere – and how can we improve communication and coordination in our own State. We need to create a measurable work plan to provide goals along the way to lead us to a final answer.

Recommendation 6 (Evaluation of Security, Vulnerability, and Redundancy Actions Necessary to Ensure Reliability) – if we want to be world class, we need to address these issues.

Recommendation 7 (Economic Development Opportunities) –

Recommendation 8: Evaluation of the Benefits of Broadband Access to – Organizations and Institutions – Combine with Recommendation 8. But it’s an important of the report. It’s our opportunity to paint a picture of a broadband rich Minnesota that incents everyone. Broadband could become the new great. Putting some numbers around what ubiquitous access would mean would help make the case.

MRP did a report last year on inter-connection between rural and metro – that helps to make the case that an investment in rural is an investment in the state.

Discussion:

Who is looking after federal opportunities in the state – Office of Rural Health has done a good job – at least for health. Setting up opportunities between rural and metro is another matter.

The Senators do monitor some of this. We could talk to them. The state does have an office – we should make that person aware of what we’re doing and they may be have info for us.

Maybe we need to combine recommendations 7 & 8 and lead with it.

11:45 – 12:30 V. Lunch

12:30 – 1:45 VI. Discussion of Outline: Format and Content

Maybe we can come up with themes to give to Diane and Bill so that they can take an condense and send to folks to read early.

Should we use 2009 structure? We could use the Lead, Stimulate, Oversee model.

Figuring how the best way to head the different sections – it might be possible to separate things into different buckets – such as public sector initiatives. We do want to have headings – we want an outline document. Maybe with a little bit of a narrative or descriptor. It should include under each recommendation – the task force action items.

In an email Margaret sent to the list –she mentioned a promise to deliver a more robust document at a later date.

Maybe we need Bill, Diane & Margaret to create an outline and report back. Or maybe we could talk about different sections at the next meeting. Or use the outline to dictate the regional meetings to get more info through the year.

The executive order refers to a report on Feb 5 – but that’s a Commerce Report.

It would be helpful to have a work plan for the Task Force – they may be the same they may simply support each other. That will help us. Also it may help lead to subgroup – that should come out of the meeting on Jan 24. We may want to ask specific people to attend the meetings.

Mike O’Connor has volunteered to get involved especially with his work at ICANN. We might also get someone from OET.

We’ll be drafting a letter for the report – we might mention some of these tactics in that letter (like travel and guest speakers).

I like the idea of listing our topics. A lot of us have a good understanding of what’s in there – but do we need to know the new items before Jan 24?

If we had the roadmap, we could add suggested action items to the map. Then on the 24^th we could even start to move into planning.

We could use the graphic from page 57 as organization. Mike O’Connor was here to help give the origin of the wheel because there were some questions on the outer ring. The outer ring items are placed in proximity to their place in the structure – but a good job for this task force would be to hone the graphic.

There are three items at the core of the graphic (Stimulate, Oversee. Lead)  can we sign onto these.

Mike: Another point to remember is that this graphic address ubiquity only.

The new Task Force may take this structure to use for other parts of the task force efforts. It’s nice to have a framework in terms of the reader. We may or may not include the third (outer) tier.

Diane and Bill will try to get something ready by Wednesday.

1:45 – 1:55 VII. Additional Public Comments

1:55 – 2:00 VIII. Other Business/Next Meeting Agenda

Next meeting Jan 24 then Feb 14: