Yesterday I attended the Minnesota Broadband Task Force. There were a couple of conversations that struck me as particularly interesting:

• The Governor’s November budget forecast will be released December 5. It makes sense to release the Broadband report close to that date to make sure the recommendations are included in any budget discussion. (This is the first time I have heard any talk of public budget related broadband in Minnesota. I think it’s definitely a positive for advocates of better broadband!)
• FirstNet is a public safety network approach – the task force saw an interesting presentation on it. (Kindly shared by Brandon Abley below.) One note – the safety net will reach some of the far corners of the state with LTE. While the FirstNet people cannot serve broadband to residents, they can work with private and/or semi-private entities to share middle mile access (sounds like open access model approach) to folks who could extend to last mile service. That being said, this network may take a while to build – it’s still in the planning stages
• The League of Cities had some questions/suggestions in terms of policies. The details are outlines before. One concern is that the door remains open for municipal networks. Fun to see an outside entity engaging!
• Also fun to get a demo of the online music classes offered by MacPhail, which is where the task force met this month.

The next meeting will be in Duluth on November 13 – immediately preceding the Fall Broadband Conference.

Agenda:

 •10:00 – 10:15 Welcome/Public Comments/Approve Minutes – (moved to end of day

 •10:15 – 10:45 Welcome, Overview and Demonstration by MacPhail

Here’s a very cool demonstration of the remote music instruction – remote jazz class is in Yellow Medicine East…

 •10:45 – 11:00 Discussion of new mobile subgroup lead by Bob Bass, call for volunteers

Create a new subgroup on mobile based on Jack Geller’s comments from the last meeting. It will include Shirley and Gary and Bob.

Anyone else interested?

• Bernadine, Maureen and Dick.

OK…

We’re seeing LTE spread across Minnesota. We’ve seen 45 Mbps at the University.

Mobile Future will come to the November meeting in Duluth. They can talk about MN and national view. Diane Smith (from Mobile Future) is from Whitefish, Montana and understands solutions that suit rural areas. They represent a range of folks – providers, mobile apps groups, content providers…

 •11:00 – 11:45 Discussion of December report—content, organization

We need to back things up – we’re looking at a late November meeting rather than December to give staff more time to make changes. Comments earlier are even better.

How do we get border to border coverage by 2015? What are our recommendations? Any ideas?

• It would be valuable to prioritize recommendations for the Governor.
  • Maybe there’s some low hanging fruit we can highlight.
  • Offering range of solutions also helps get a champion that might be attracted by a special interest
  • Maybe we can add costs, benefits too to help people understand the cost and pay off.
  • The hard stuff won’t happen easily – or ever if we don’t’ start on it.
• One visual presentation may be a swim lane chart
  • It could help present timelines with goals and commentary
• This report will be a status report
  • Need to include more content – as people are asking for it.
  • If we put in where were, are and are going it would help recognize efforts that are on the road. (Maybe we know of projects that might be finished in 2016.)
  • It would help us recognize gaps too – and we can ask why? (Eg. Is it a lake?)
• Maybe we have a swim lane visual for each section
  • Want to help tie policy to other parts
  • Would be nice to pull out stories too – such as Deer River, Grand Rapids, MacPhail, others?
  • It might be nice to include the positive stories as well as the stories of the barriers. (The access denied is opportunity denied.)
  • Take a look at what’s happening with adoption organically and recognize that how we talk about intention and influence is important.
    • This might help create a call to action
    • Look at catalytic factors that can speed adoption
    • Other states are doing things too – to get into the top 5 we need to be intentional.
    • Market forces alone will not get us to our goals and we need to speak up about that.
      • There’s not an ROI to serve some markets
      • Market forces have been moving telemedicine very slowly – we’ve ended up with disparities, we’re been bearing the burden for 20 years. Intentional is important
      • Many people don’t know what they don’t know. We need to extend the desire for broadband.
    • Here’s a document on “end of January report said what we’d do” It would be valuable to look at it.
    • The storytelling piece – we’ll all need to step up OR we need to find some budget
      • Bill, Diane and Joanna cannot do all of this
      • We need someone to help storytelling
        • Peter is the person to be the go-between for the Governor. He can perhaps offer feedback (thought don’t speak for Gov)
          • Staff meeting (Commerce, OMB, Revenue) have been talking about how to make the timing work and gives him maximum opportunity
            • Revenue is pricing out reports (reports like the one the Task Force completed last month)
            • Gov office is focused on outcomes – if you can’t attach an outcome to a budget, you can’t get in the game.
            • There are statutory goals too but… outcomes are a big deal.
            • Stories are important – but focus on outcome to expedite process.
            • We can bring examples to the next meeting with any luck.
            • The November forecast will be released on December 5. That’s when Gove will assemble budget. The report at the end of December is too late. We need to aim for the December 5 (well soon after). We have placeholders for the task force recommendations – but we need to refine.
            • That will require priorities, costs, outcomes.
            • We need for people to do their homework for the late November. No more editing at the table. So that we make this deadline.
            • The Bowling Green Task Force hand delivered the report – a copy of that report was handed out to members.
            • MIRC may be a good partnership to help bring stories to Diane & Bill. Dave Peters may also be a good partner for stories. Some stories may be currently embedded in the latest report – for example detailing info on California database if you want a similar database here.

 •11:45 – 12:15 Working lunch: Discussion of “roadmap” for 2013 (for inclusion in December report)

• Maybe we shouldn’t meet monthly – except that the legislative order says the group should meet monthly
• It would be nice to have a press release event
• Are we recommending ongoing work for ourselves?
  • We should look at what the Governor picks up on and reorganize accordingly
  • DC should be picking up in terms of broadband next year. That may play a role.
  • Maybe we need to ID folks to create success stories.
  • Visit new areas of the state.
    • Renville Sibley could be good if they are moving forward. They would be one of the first fiber to the farm projects
    • Southwest would be good.
    • Are there actions we want to achieve? Let’s think in January.
    • Nice to see high tech applications – sometime through the year.
      • Nice to see healthcare and education on videoconferencing
      • Redwing incubator will be up in January – app work  on public safety
    • It might be nice to have time to get together to get to know each other better before we hit some of the hard stuff next year.

 •12:15 – 12:45 Andrew Elofson and Casey Sorensen, PCs for People

Questions:

• We’d like to use the stories for the next report – especially 90% of recipients moving to broadband
• We do a 15 minute basic training sessions – to help new computers keep computer safe. We are expanding

 •12:45 – 1:15 Brandon Abley, Minnesota Department of Public Safety—FirstNet

Overview of nationwide public safety network – [Ann’s notes: the notes below are somewhat duplicative – but I leave them in case I caught something that wasn’t on the slide.]

1. Intro to LTE – it’s the basis of the network (next generation cell standard) the network will be built on LTE
   1. Guys in public safety are concerned with LTE coverage is not equal to LMR coverage.
   2. Architecture
      1. RAN (radio access network)
      2. EPC (core network)
      3. Applications
2. Why does Public Safety Care?
   1. We tend to be low tech
   2. We don’t like to take chances
   3. We want innovation that will protect people
   4. Want to introduce standards and competition by making applications decision separate of network decisions
   5. Want interoperability – technology is barely interoperable now
   6. Interested in enhanced situational awareness
   7. NG911 – traffic delivery to responders
      1.  Person sends video to responder – maybe responder sees smoke is green, that means a difference response
      2. Reducing long term costs
      3. Better spectral efficiency – helps congress sell more
3. FirstNet
   1. Will be like a cell carrier (got $7 billion)
   2. First Responder Network Authority
4. Transition
   1. FCC to transition public safety to FirstNet
5. Duties
   1. Create a strategic framework for the public safety network
   2. Create SOPs
   3. Deliver economies of scale
   4. Maximize opps for long term cost savings
   5. Maximize efficiencies
   6. Formulate a fee collection that reflects market reality and ensures sustainability (operate like a carrier)
6. Next step
   1. Hire someone to build network (FirstNet must post RFPs)
   2. Governors can decide whether or not to move forward (must opt out)

What is the level of planning in MN? There is major potential here? Does Minnesota have an opportunity to be a first in this arena?

1. FirstNet must consult with states –
2. What is opt out? Very little interest in Minnesota is opting out
   1. Opt to build RAN
      1. Still part of national network
      2. State is not excluded from national funding
      3. Opt-out plans subject to regulatory mandates
3. Info on Minnesota Public Safety Broadband Wireless Data Network Requirements Study [Ann’s note I posted more info on this when it came out http://wp.me/p3if7-1I6]
   1. Did incident modeling
   2. Came out before the FirstNet decision http://wp.me/p3if7-1EC
   3. We now have enough spectrum
4. Options
   1. Preliminary Network Designs: ARMER PLUS – that’s one option (most expensive)
      1. Assumes we use all ARMER sites
      2. 521 sites to meet all requirements
      3. Need 140 more sites
      4. What if we put LTE equipment on existing ARMER sites
         1. Need more coverage in NE
         2. What if we used low speeds as a transitional model (All but NE would have acceptable coverage
      5. To get good coverage is expensive
         1.  To get decent coverage is not nearly as expensive
      6. Plan the Plan
         1. NTIA will release money next year
         2. NTIA says wait until FirstNet gives guidance
      7. An LTE Network is Useless
         1. A network by itself is absolutely nothing
         2. The value is determined by
            1. Services
            2. Services users can provide themselves
            3. Ability of network to deliver services
            4. Potential for consolidation
            5. We need a business case
               1. Need to ID assets
               2. Looking for private and semi-private partners
               3. Public Safety is local

What can we do to help you?

The topic should be on your radar. I think connectivity is your main concern. Public Safety is a big concern too. There are dollar attributed to the project.

We think there are cases where underserved users – that maybe could be served by private or semi-private partners. Tough to negotiate before FirstNet creates guidelines.

Does that mean that while FirstNet can’t offer service to consumers – but could work as an open access model.

Public Safety has burstable traffic needs – but most of the time there is extra capacity. Rural areas have a similar situation.

What can we recommend to the Governor?

If we had more interest from private and semi-public partners. Utilities are on board.

One fear here is that this won’t bear fruit soon – but there might be a tendency to want to wait and see what happens. But that might not make sense for those of us focused on 2015 goals.

How does this have an impact on ARMER?

This is a next logical step. ARMER is the best 2G network. We have a great microwave network – with excess capacity. But LTE is the next logical step – but it won’t be mission critical voice for a while. SO there’s opportunity for transition. Maybe when the standards are revised

 •1:15 – 2:45 Subgroup breakout time—use for discussing workplan and setting up weekly calls:
[Ann’s note: sorry took notes on the sessions I attended; couldn’t attend them all.]

◦1:15 – 1:45 First breakout time for subgroups
Room 125: Best Practices/Incentives – no notes
Room  127: State of Broadband – no notes

Room 310: Locations 

A brainstorm of possible locations:

• Jackson (SMBS)
• LqP
• Mora (Kanabec)
• Red Wing
• North Shore
• Aitkin County
• Look at new stats and maps and find an area with low availability and adoption

◦1:45 – 2:15 Second breakout time for subgroups
Room 127: Mobile Broadband – no notes
Room 125: Coordination Across Government Levels 

The League of MN Cities sent a letter that they would like to put into record based on preliminary report published last month. [Ann’s note – the letter hasn’t yet been shared with the large group. So I’m sharing the notes I was able to take but not the letter.]

• The League is developed a set of policy statements around telecommunications
• The offer 3 action points
  • Tax code relief (MS 297A.68, Subd 42, and 297A.75, Subd 16
    • Single center data center relief want to extend that to multitenant
    • Develop recommendations regarding the future location of a state broadband function/office within state government
    • MN needs an ongoing state broadband advisory panel if it is achieve continued development on and universal access to advanced broadband services by 2015 and to make new recommendation going forward. Define staggered terms for expertise needed and qualifications necessary for the work required to achieve state goals, with broad representation of the state and local interests, users and providers.
• Also they talk about legislation (HF 2695) introduced last session that would revoke local authority to build telecommunications networks of various types.
• People are asking about cyber security point that weren’t picked up by the Task Force
  • We didn’t actively not take this up so much as ran into capacity issue. We didn’t have the time and expertise to take this on.
    • It’s about prioritization.
    • There were 50 or so recommendations in the original report – how can we tackle all of them?
    • Does it make sense to deal with such a sensitive issue in such a public forum?
    • What’s the level of expertise on the task force? Could we take that on?
• It may make sense to tackle the issue one way or another because if they are bringing it up now – they will bring it up later.
• The issue of municipal network is clearly forefront of their (the League) mind.
• They don’t want any type of limitation on municipal networks.
• They currently can become a municipal utility. The legislation introduced last year would prohibit that. That seems to be the top issue for them.
• Do we need to take that on? We would be remiss not to take it on. Can we do something before December? Probably not – but we should talk about it at some point.

At this point we’ve been working on points of agreement – this will probably not be one of those topics.

Our charge for this meeting – what are we going to do between now and December?

• How do we turn the material we’ve already created into fodder for the December report? Will we set up weekly meetings?
• How do we get a better handle of what’s going on in DC? There is an interest in learning more.
• There isn’t a lot of time to do much between November and December – but be good to turn statements into action oriented recommendations.
• How engaged will the Task Force be in supporting legislative issues? Would the Task Force take issues to legislators if necessary?
  • That might be a work plan for 2013 issue.
• The Dig Once is probably the only item we would have to create an actionable item for,
• Also it makes sense to build relationships that would support learning more (such as about FirstNet or what’s happening in DC).
  • It makes sense for FirstNet stuff to come through this committee
• We may have more on Right of Way and Permitting piece after more work. We need to know who to talk to at MNDOT. And other models are starting to emerge – maybe we could develop that for December
  • We had consensus on working with railroads
  • But we seem to get push back with anything dealing with rights of way issues – but we hear there is potential here for the state to have an impact
  • Everyone has difference issues
    • Congestion is an issue in metro areas
    • Ares that need build-out need greater access
    • Reasonableness depends on the community – so for some it’s about timing.
    • Why are people unreasonable?
    • Congestion may just be a simple increase in utilities issue
    • Dig Once
      • Does that mean one giant conduit
      • Does that mean calling all potential partners for dibs to get their conduit into the project
      • Also need the money available for MNDOT (or whomever) to put in conduit. But should road funding go to broadband?
      • The California database obviously caught someone’s attention and that’s one step towards coordinating efforts
        • Maybe we want to think more about that.
        • We brought up the work HF 237 Sub 162 (rules regarding access to rights of way). But a ton of work went on there. It resolved a lot of issues. And cities kept control of rights of way. We don’t want to open up that can of worms. But there may be compliance issues and barriers coming from lack of compliance. Is there opportunity there?
        • Biggest issues on right of way
          • traffic engineers were actively around (restoration of pavement)
          • permit fee levels
          • Time to process permits
          • Rules are in place but not always being followed
          • Lack of uniformity
          • Maybe the Task Force could go with best practices and encourage uniformity in processes
          • Sometimes the issues comes down to the case by case issue
            • Maybe the cities just need to know the barriers that they are creating
            • Maybe we can encourage better education (“How to encourage broadband with reasonable permit processes”)
            • It’s not the state policy right now
            • It’s the local issues that make the difference.
            • But it does sound like guidelines of recommendations would be helpful
              • (Are you a broadband-friendly community?)
              • If no one comes out with the recommendations how will we know?

 ◦2:15 — 2:45 Third breakout time for subgroups 

Room 127: Monitor/Understand Impact of FCC & PUC Decisions; Cost of Broadband  – no notes

Room 125: Broadband Adoption – no notes

•2:45 – 3:00 Other business/Upcoming meetings

Approve meetings from last month – yes

Any other business ?

Upcoming meetings – November meeting and Blandin Conference

December 4 meeting is moved to November 27 (tentatively in Bloomington)

Deadline for report is December 10