February 14, 2012
10:00 a.m. to 2:00 p.m.
TIES
Training Center Conference Room
1667 Snelling Avenue North
Roseville, MN 55108

I plan to be there taking notes.

Then to cap off your Valentine’s Day you might want to head over to the Senate to hear more. Here’s an announcement from the Senate Committee Service:

Tuesday, February 14, 2012 – 3:00 PM
Committee on Energy, Utilities and Telecommunications
Chair: Sen. Julie A. Rosen
Room 123 Capitol

Agenda:
Update from the Governor’s Task Force on Broadband

It is essential that businesses and communities have an effective presence on the Internet. Yet over half the businesses in Minnesota cannot be found on the Internet. This means potential customers cannot find them.

The University of Minnesota Extension is changing this through the Minnesota Intelligent Rural Communities program. We offer a pair of free workshops to any business or community group outside the Twin Cities metro willing to host them. These workshops have been offered nearly 200 times throughout the state and are well received.

To arrange these workshops or for questions, please contact: Hans Muessig, Program Director, hmuessig@umn.edu or 763-360-0993. For more information please go to the Extension MIRC website www.extension.umn.edu/community/mirc.

Most of the time the group was focused on looking at a draft report that had been created by staff based on notes from the last meeting. The plan is to use these notes to create a final version of the report – and from the report they will create a spreadsheet of tasks to help guide their progress throughout the year. It sounds very similar to how the National Broadband Plan was rolled out.

To help track the discussion, in bold I have abbreviated the high level goal being discussed. These aren’t the official notes so I didn’t want to retype the whole document – but did want to provide enough context for the discussion to make sense – even if you weren’t there.

Read on for the full notes…

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

Audience: Dennis Fazio, Dave Frankel, Tim Johnson, Heather Rand, Ann Treacy , Brent Christiansen , Ann Higgins. Mike Martin, Tony Mendoza.

II. Approval of January 10, 2012 Minutes 10:10 – 10:20

done

III. Public Comments 10:20 – 10:30

none

IV. Discuss and Finalize Broadband Plan Outline 10:30 – 11:45

Goal is to go through document to turn in at end of month.

Any high level concerns:

• The goals we have set are note achievable without taking steps. We need to recognize that these significant actions must take place if we need to meet our goals in the next few years.
• Yes, let’s emphasize the sense of urgency.

Specific notes – these notes got very specific – so I’m going to try to provide context from the draft reports (highlights anyways) followed by discussion on those items.

1. Pursue collaborative strategies to expand broadband use through advanced applications

• The Commissioner asks that the Task Force try to have a plan in place by Dec 2012 – and that in the future, the reports will reflect back on these notes. The notes will be an action plan.
• Let’s make sure that infrastructure is mentioned earlier in the report. It is the call in the executive order. Also makes sense organizationally.
• Let’s consider using more active verbs – forget about exploring, instead use promote.
• How many dates do we want to specify in the report?

1. There are 4-5 spaces where we can add space. We’ll at least need to prioritize those dates.
2. We might not need to include a timeline – but it might be helpful internally.
3. Actually, let’s include a timeline in the appendix and remove the dates in the document.

Create & maintain an up-to-date public-facing information dashboard describing progress towards reaching the state ubiquitous goals

• Who is currently tracking progress towards goals?

1. ConnectMN is currently tracking some resource. Although ConnectMN is not tracking success stories or including info such as conferences.
2. Are we trying to target the consumer?
3. Consumers, policymakers, anyone…
4. Who is our target audience? We could better define that? Well we don’t want to limit the definition.
5. One of our charges is to gather best practices.
6. We also need to step back to see which of these makes sense –and where we might use our resources best.
7. We need to discuss this next time and be honest about how much time we can spend pursuing some of these things. We can draw from DEED for help too. We could also look outside of government for help.

• Shouldn’t we try to find places where we have one provider too – not just unserved and underserved areas?

1. We find in the communities having one provider can also be an indicator of underserved areas.

Dig once – coordinate infrastructure construction projects with broadband projects

• We made some changes. Do we want to single out Dakota County at this point? It’s nice to know there are leaders – but maybe we want to be more general.
• Also do we want to propose legislation?
  • Might want to add date here.
  • How about Jan 2013.

Evaluate and determine the funding resources necessary in order to reach the broadband goals and methods for funding.

• Maybe we want to say identify instead of determine. Maybe add suggest.
• Maybe we can create a bundle/packet of info.
• We might broaden that to include options other than tax incentives.
• In fact we might broaden the suggestion even more – otherwise it does seem like we’re focused on 3-4 specific suggestions.
• Can we talk to someone in Revenue to get specifics?
• Maybe we can get into specifics later.

Promote current broadband mobilization efforts and fund ways to incent formal community planning.

• Why are we focusing on counties? Shouldn’t we include everyone at the community level?
• Focusing efforts does give us a finite group to survey.
• We might consider using land use management structure. It gives us a ready-made structure.
  • How would that work in practice? Could we survey folks based on that structure?
  • We’d need to check on that.
  • Let’s note that we need better language.
  • We refer to support – who will support?
    • We were thinking moral support.
    • So maybe we go with encouragement.
    • But everything we suggest is not necessarily going to be done by the Task Force or the State – we want to coordinate efforts and tap into a wide range of resources.
    • The state has been supportive – but not financially. Maybe we want to say promote.

Examine best practices

• Let’s review legislation as well.

Focus on adoption issues

• Does the Task Force want to evaluate programs?
• We want to collect and share more than evaluate.
• Maybe the Task Force can shift from “taking steps” to “identifying steps”
• Maybe we want to get presentations on adoption and can we catalog that info?
• Next meeting we will talk about how to turn this outline into a spreadsheet that will track out success.
• Will one of our tasks for next meeting will be to create working groups. Would be nice to have a draft before the meeting.

Survey, research, data: (ongoing surveys of how MN is doing)

• This feels like a lot more doing that we are able to do. Maybe we need to focus on finding the folks to gather and collect data – rather than collecting and gathering ourselves
• ConenctMN already does this.
• Maybe we need to be clearer about what we are doing, as opposed to what we will be getting from others.
• Do we want to explore satisfaction measure rather than specific speed goals? As folks who measure – we all want to see the numbers but maybe the end users should be able to speak about whether their speeds meet their needs.
  • Maybe this is worth exploring – maybe there’s a partner to help.
  • A satisfaction measure is a nice addition – but not a good replacement. When we’re building infrastructure – we need to know where we’re going. We want to build on future need – not today’s need. (Just as we do with bridges.)
  • Yes – those in this game for a while have been professing the need to look at the future.
  • Realistically broadband systems last 3 years – so it’s tough to budget in a way that bridges can last for 15 years.
  • It is nice to look for trends in satisfaction.
  • But our goal is to look at speed, availability & adoption. How doe s this fit in?
  • This does fit into availability and speeds. It’s an idea that’s not totally fleshed out – but it worth considering.

V. LUNCH

VI. Discuss and Finalize Broadband Plan Outline (cont.) 12:30 – 1:30

Coordinate across government

• No comments

Evaluate the impact of FCC actions

• Is the intention to track FCC actions related to CAF?
• Broader than that – but specifically the recent FCC orders. This would be done primarily by the department – that is evaluating and reporting on what’s happening.
• The Greater MN Telehealth Initiative (ongoing for 4 years) will be participating for 3 more years and it will bring $5.4 million in reduced rates. (It’s a pilot project.) There’s another project happening in the NW corner and North Dakota. It would be nice to track what’s happening.
• Will we have the capacity? Maybe we want to include data but not collect ourselves.
• This does seem like this is the first step in doing our homework. So it’s a good piece to leave it. It’s very helpful in planning.
• Tracking the impact would be good – maybe evaluating is too strong. Maybe we need to monitor and understand.
• What’s the CAF program?
  • Connect America Fund – transition from USF to CAF
  • Isn’t anyone tracking that already?
    • The info is so new that no one knows what it will involve.
    • Maybe we want to find someone who might already been doing this (or open to doing this) and tap them?

Establish an ongoing mechanism within state government for high-speed broadband focused efforts.

• Let’s include the support required. So that we don’t have an unfunded mandate. (Not thinking money necessarily but staff support.)

Conclusion – Includes Schemata created by 2009 Broadband Task Force in their report.

• DO we plan to add amendments to this plan?
• Or maybe this is an outline from which we’ll create a plan.
• This can give the larger context in terms of road mapping – but maybe it will work better as an executive summary.

Can we get the next version of this draft by Friday noon? Then folks can look over and approve it.

VIII. Getting Info Out to Members-What and How 1:40 – 1:55 

How are things going?

• The members seem to get info well now.
• This meeting was exactly what was expected.

What’s the plan for the future?

• For the next meeting we’ll need good ideas for work groups.
• We’ll want to think of where we might want to travel.
  • Bernadine said she’d help get folks out in the communities.
  • We’ll turn the report into a spreadsheet for operations
  • Next meeting is a working planning meeting.
  • Next meeting: Feb 14 – Bloomington
    • Need capacity for conference call

VII. Additional Public Comments 1:30 – 1:40

Dave Frenkel (from satellite) – satellite is booming – especially since government is getting out of the business. Why isn’t it mentioned?

• The satellite association has offered to talk to us – and we’ll have them in.
• I think our plan is technology neutral
  • Yes, not it alludes to wired (with Dig once) but doesn’t talk about dish reimbursement.
  • Also no representation from industry
    • This isn’t a self-elected group
    • And Dan is from wireless, Bob is from wireless, no one from Satellite.
    • It’s important to meet with all folks from industry if we want to meet the statewide goals.

Heather Rand – with start of legislation, we may see broadband access come up. Do you intend to delve into those issues?

• From the plan outline, I think we look forward to ideas we might put together, but might not be in the position to evaluate legislation for this year. In fact it might not be within our scope even in later years.
• It would be nice to track legislation through this group.

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

Adjourn Early (12:45)

Last night was an opportunity for the public and elected officials to hear from the various project partners. Each partner gave a presentation on their role and progress and/or plan for their role in the project.

There were well over 100 people there. Closer to 150, I’m sure – despite the fact that it was a bitterly cold night.

I took outline-type notes on the presentations – mostly because I thought it might inform and inspire other communities who are (or should be) looking at creating broadband options. Towards inspiration, I wish that I had a camera on Gary Evans from HBC, he spoke passionately about the need for broadband. I’ll paraphrase just one of his remarks…

“Broadband is an essential utility for a community. And the window for bringing it in to remain vital is closing.”

Here are some of the quick takes from the project…

Their plan is to bring FTTH. If all goes well, they’d like to build the backbone this year and start bringing it to residents next year. The estimate cost is $50 million; they are looking for revenue bonding for $70 million. (Revenue bonds are paid back from revenue from the project – not with taxes. However, parties involved (Joint Powers and members) are responsible for keeping the reserves replenished throughout the project.)

The project is expected to have a positive margin by the end of year two. There are a couple of wildcard factors. First: take rate – the business plan assumes a 65% penetration rate where customers subscribe to at least two services (of the triple play offering). Second: interest rate – they need to get better than 6% interest rate.

There are other wildcards – such as ensuring other numbers are correct, and assuming there are no roadblocks, such as a lawsuit – but I think these that the take rate and interest rate are two biggies because they are outside the scope of the partners to a large degree.

Not surprisingly, attendees seemed most concerned about mitigating risk – starting with the bonding but also with potential lawsuits. They were clearly up on the history of Monticello’s project – but a lawyer has determined that the situation here is different, in part because as a countywide project they can escape some roadblocks set out for municipalities.

Here are more complete notes…

 1. Welcome & Call to Order – Mayor Jim Kreft, City of Arlington & Commissioner Swanson, JPB Chair

 2. Doug Dawson, CCG Consulting

Doug Dawson of CCG Consulting will provide an update regarding the financial model for the project.  Doug will discuss his thoughts regarding the project given the progress that has been made in marketing, management, project finance, and the estimation of construction cost.

Financial Model:

• They went to towns a year ago to introduce this model. This is an update.
• Added 4 new towns (Lafayette, Stewart Buffalo Lake & Browntown)

• 6 year project – to be cash positive by year 5.
• Requires $49.2 million in assets (fiber is biggest ticket item)
• Requires a $69.4 million (will take care of working capital for few first few years)
• Positive margin at very end of Years 2 (Revenues exceed direct expenses)
• Customer savings $970,000 per year by year 4.
• Breakeven penetration rate is 64.5%
• Profits over year after bond retired.

Project will have

• Starts with 7 employees to grow to 15
• Total investment per passing is $5,590
• Assumes private management by owned by cities and county

Financing assumptions

• 30 year bond of $69.4 million
• Guaranteed by overall revenues of the business (not backed by tax dollars)
• Reimburses the cities for the start-up costs
• The project will not cash flow at 6% interest rate

Issues

• Start time will depend on prep (design) complete before bonding.
• It would be nice to start building dark fiber this year – and next year start with customers.
• Need to finalize deal with HBC – figure out headend

Next Steps

• Continue pre-sale and marketing
• Finalize deals with partners and a financial model
• Develop policies
• Bonding process (should take 90 days)

QUESTIONS:

Might we have trouble getting fiber?
There were problems this year – due to ARRA funding and a fire in one of the few fiber factories. We have already pre-order some fiber

Did you budget for equipment upgrades?
In 30 years we assume the electronics will be changes twice.

Does 64% penetration take into consideration the triple play?
We assume that 64% will take at least two services. We think telephone will be dropping eventually.

Who is responsible for changing pledge cards to orders?
The marketing committee will be involved. HBC will probably hire people to help – but the Joint Powers will be involved too.

Do you know how many pledge cards have been collected?
I heard 2900.

 3. Ralph McGinley, Oppenheimer & Co., Inc.

Ralph McGinley of Oppenheimer & Co., Inc. will be summarizing the draft terms sheet that has been presented regarding project financing.  The terms sheet summarizes the obligations of the Joint Powers Board and units of government that are members of the Joint Powers Board if project financing is to be obtained through Oppenheimer & Co., Inc.

Their business is to raise debt capital for projects such as these. We take the bonds to the marketplace to get financing.

We have made a commitment to broadband – and fiber.

We believe FTTH is a very valuable component to communities.

Underwriting Standards

• Need to see clear commitment from community – we’d like to see more than 64% take-rate
• Like to see separate of business from politics
• Need to see a good business plan
• In a market like this we need to see a municipal component and we need to see a conservative pro forma

We will be selling revenue bonds. They will not be backed by tax. They will be backed by revenue from the project.

Bond maturity is 30 years – they will be fixed rate – no payments for first 3 years.

We assume bonds will go to market as an investment grade category. We assume BBB category – conservatively. That is the lowest end.

We are looking at 5% interest rate on tax exempt bonds.

A debt service reserve fund is initially funded by bond. It will be one year principal and interest. It will act as a rainy day fund.

It will also be available for final payments.

A critical component is the debt service reserve fund replenishment guarantee. It means if you have to draw on debt fund – then the participating communities will agree to make up the difference. This is made on an annual appropriations. So the Joint Powers communities will be asked to make up the difference. (So if one community drops out – then the rest will need to make it up to the tune of 1.5 times their originally agreed upon rate.)

Bond holders will want to know that in the event of default – they can step in and take over the project.

We look for investors of high net worth

What’s necessary to complete financing?
Need legal documentation, due diligence, need to get all necessary permits. It’s about a 90 day process.

QUESTIONS:

With revenue bonds what guarantee do we have that cities and county will be sued by investors if funding falls short?
There is no assurance. However bonds will be sold with very full disclosure that these are revenue bonds and there is no pledge by cities/counties to pay bonds with tax. (In fact under MN law you can’t.) The buyers should be aware of what they are buying; we will be clear and they are savvy buyers. Courts have shown in the history that such suits have not been successful.

The Joint Powers board has looked into this issue as well. We have looked at the Amberfield bonds to make sure that we don’t fall into a similar issue.

Debt service replenishment – can we use that for multiple years (for the next ten year for example)?
Yes. But however – but by the time we take the funds to market, we are clearly on your site of the table. SO we will have the same objective – to have a successful project. But things can go wrong. So if we see that in ten years there’s been a draw every year – well that’s a bad sign. SO we’ll go to operations to adjust what needs to be changed to get the project on track.

Is any individual  community obligated to replenish debt reserve?
It’s up to the community on an annual basis. But we strongly suggest that cities consider it. We ask for 1.5 times is simply a limit to give bond holder some opportunity for recovery. And yes at some point communities will be responsible for reserve replenishment.

What happens if one community says no – and the rest follow suit?
There is the reserve fund for a year. But after that the bond holders may exercise the prerogative – and they can take over the project.

So if a bond deal is made – but before we get funding there’s a lawsuit – can we turn down bonds?
As the underwriter for the Monticello projects – it feels like deja vu all over again. You don’t need to accept the funding. You can choose to put the funds in reserve or choose to turn down funding.

In that event – and say the bond doesn’t close – then the issue is resolved – would it would be tougher to get bonding again?
It’s pure speculation – but probably yes.

Will the excess capitalized interest be available?
If you’re not using up the full interest, things are going really well. SO you might keep the cash for operations for later. Use the capitalized interest, keep the cash.

4. Robert Vose, Kennedy & Graven

Robert Vose of Kennedy & Graven will be discussing the legal authority that the project will proceed under, and challenges that the entities may face in implementation.

He is here as attorney for Joint Powers group; not a public funding expert.

Two kinds of authority:

• Regulatory – PUC cert of authority; local franchise – process is straightforward.
• Institutional  – local governments are creatures of statute. So how do we get into business? Via Joint Powers – so we must share same authority. It’s a way to get bonds

Possibly sticky statutes

Ch 237.19 – does not apply – two tricky terms (municipality & telephone exchange)

• - municipality may provide telephone exchange with super majority referendum if there’s an incumbent.
• - But in this example – we are not a municipality – we are county/Joint Power
• - telephone exchange must include switch – but this will not be a part of this project. There will not be a local switch

Ch 238 – applies and will permit Joint Power to provide cable

• Unless otherwise prohibited by law, any municipality may construct, purchase, and operate cable communications systems
• - municipal here is defined
• - cable communication includes TV, radio and other programs

QUESTIONS

Have there been any litigation to back up these decisions?
Yes – 237 has especially been litigated. (MediaOne has fought this case in Lake County.) There has been much less litigation of 238.)

Are we asking for trouble?
Yes – in the sense that there will be incumbents who will be unhappy? We may hear of opposition.

What would make necessary the referendum?
A change in the law – as counties are not included. You could pursue the referendum – except that if you win – the incumbent may claim that it doesn’t matter since we are a county.

You can’t proceed under 237 given the composition of the group.
Right.

Are townships include in 237?
Yes. Municipality does include townships.

Would it mitigate the risk to write this down?
There will be an opinion regarding authority. Oppenheimer needs permits.

Since the Joint Powers has increased – does the increase the chance of opposition?
Practically – yes because more incumbents will get involved which increases the chance of one of them opposing the deal.

5. Gary Evans, Hiawatha Broadband Communications

Gary Evans, CEO of HBC, will be discussing his company’s experience in building and operating other FTTH networks in Minnesota, the role they will play in implementing and managing the RS Fiber Project, as well as their company values and the importance of customer service in a FTTH operation.

The issue today is all about quality of live issues and rural America as a quality place.

New services – wireless telephone and Internet

We worked with Monticello
We worked in Burlington VT

HBC Differentiators – Local customer services & community involvement

HBC Penetration

• Cable
• 75% of units in three retail communities
• 63% of single-family
• Internet
• 83% of total Internet market
• 70% cable modem penetration
• 42% of business connected via direct fiber
• Telephone
• 68% of business market
• 64% of residential market

We’re not the low cost provider in any community we serve – but we are the dominant.

Monticello –

• The customer load in Monticello is where it was expected / forecasted to be (despite delays)
• We want to own the employees – that is not the case in Monticello. That was not a good idea. (Also a problem in Burlington)
• The city drops rates. We advised against it. Now the revenue is below what it should be. We are working to negotiate a contract where we have more authority; Monticello has requested this.
• Monticello is successful – customers are paying much less now than before Monticello went into business.
• In Winona Charter charges $30-40 less than other areas where we aren’t a competitor.

“Broadband is an essential utility for a community. And the window for bringing it in to remain vital is closing.”

We have seen populations grow in the communities that we serve.

QUESTIONS

Would you open a field office in this county?
I would open several.

6. Linda Kramer – R/S Fiber Marketing Committee Update

An update on the activities and progress made by the marketing committee for the project will be provided.  Ms. Kramer will also discuss marketing activities that are planned in the upcoming months.

We are getting the word out on the project and gauging interest. We collect the cards.

We are not professionals; but we are passionate.

We have

• Sent out 2 mailings
• Held community meetings
• Had booths at county fairs
• Billboards
• Website et al
• Newspaper ads et al
• Now working with marketing firm

So far we have 2926 cards mailed in – towards a goal or 4220 (That’s 55% of drops)

7. Question & Answer Period

All of the presenters will be available to answer project related questions.  It would be appropriate to take this opportunity to ask questions about financial risk, potential legal challenges, business model, services to be provided, etc

What would the impact be if there was a draw?
We are still looking at that and we need to come up with some policies. We do have an equation for seed funding; that process may be different.

Is there a potential overlap of responsibility for funding with county and city?
We are looking at this.

Does our rate of return of cards compare with other comparisons?
Yes, it’s very cool.

Do you think we’re close to the numbers we need to be successful?
I think we need about 3200; we have 2900 before bonding.

How many projects has Dough worked on?
80 cities have FTTH; I’ve worked on about half – plus more than 100 commercial projects. None have failed. But there have been projects that have failed; I haven’t worked with them and there’s usually a story behind the failure.

Do we have a feel for the impact adding schools and large business could have?
Those businesses will probably sign up – but they are not usually early adopters. They need security and reliability. We have kept our business plan conservative.

Can we see the business plan?
It belongs to the Joint Power Board.

8. Request for Release of Funds

At the recommendation of the Joint Powers Board, a request is being made to each of the participating entities to release the second half of the project seed funds.  Funds will be used to finance additional marketing activities, legal expenses, and administrative expenses associated with continuing to move the project forward.   It is asked that the Joint Powers participants respond to the request by early March.

I am planning to attend this meeting and will take notes as best I can.

Governor’s Task Force on Broadband
TIES Building
Larpenteur Room
1667 Snelling Ave. N., St. Paul, MN 55108
January 24, 2012
10 AM – 2 PM

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

II. Approval of January 10, 2012 Minutes 10:10 – 10:20

III. Public Comments 10:20 – 10:30

IV. Discuss and Finalize Broadband Plan Outline 10:30 – 11:45

V. Lunch (working lunch if necessary) 11:45 – 12:30

VI. Discuss and Finalize Broadband Plan Outline (cont.) 12:30 – 1:30

VII. Additional Public Comments 1:30 – 1:40

VIII. Getting Info Out to Members-What and How 1:40 – 1:55

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

The City of Arlington and the RS Fiber Joint Powers Board will be hosting a gathering of representatives from the 11 city councils and two county commissions that make up the RS Fiber Joint Powers Board on Thursday, January 19th at the Arlington Community Center.

The focus of the meeting is to update all of the councils and commissions on the progress of the project and discuss next steps for moving forward.

An agenda for the meeting is attached, along with bios for the presenters.

A light supper will be served beginning at 6 p.m. sponsored by the Sibley County Economic Development Commission (SEDCO).

The meeting will begin at 7 p.m.

Representatives from each council and commission will have assigned seating.

The gathering is a work session. No motions or votes will be allowed or taken. If a particular city or county needs to call their group to order, please let RS Fiber JPB Chair Jim Swanson know ahead of the meeting and he will accommodate your request.

There will be five presentations made during the meeting.

During the presentations questions will only be allowed from councils and commissions.

Handouts of the presentations will be available at the meeting.

A general Q&A session will take place following the presentations for the general public.

Cards will be passed out prior to the general Q&A and questions will be read from those cards.

Wade Werner from the AGGW Cable Commission and GFW will be taping the meeting.

Shannon Sweeney from David Drown Associates will moderate the presentations and Q&A.

If you have any comments, questions or suggestions please contact either me or one of the members of the JPB.

If you know of someone you think should receive this email, please forward it to them.

This is a public meeting and everyone is welcome.

My understanding of the Order is very high level and a little looser than I’ve like it to be. There are changes in who may get the funding. The push seems to be to move towards explicitly funding broadband deployment in unserved areas. Broadband has been defined as 4 Mbps download and 1 Mbps up. Strides are being made to track access at an increasingly granular level and to fund only one provider in each area and only if no other provider is present. (One speaker noted that this may be setting the stage for a voucher system in the future.)

There are also changes in sources of the funding. Upheaval of the funding will have an impact on those currently receiving it. So regardless of the long term game plan those changes are an issue – businesses cases have been made based on the old criteria. In fact ARRA funding was awarded based on those business cases. Providers in most areas seemed sensitive to that issue – although clearly some will benefit from the changes too.

There seem to be concerns about the sources of funding being felt more acutely by the end customer than is previously the case. There were also concerns about the speed goals set out by the FCC (via the National Broadband Plan). One provider was wary of the 4down/1up goal because that eliminates some technologies (DSL). It was noted that deployment would be faster and wider if the up goal was 768 kbps. Another provider was discouraged at the limitation of 4down/1up, pointing out that this was not fast enough, especially since cable is more in line with 14down/6up.

The providers also had advice for the PUC. Pay attention and make sure Minnesota gets it fair share of the $4.3 billion caught my ear. It was suggested that while on the surface it appears as if the FCC has handed down an edict of sort, the devil will be in the details and those will be sorted out by the PUC. The video below actually includes comments from all of the presenters on advice/observations for the PUC.

So there are some broad strokes from the day. I will also include my detailed notes – but again there are portions of this that are alphabet soup for me. I’ve done my best to take down what folks said – but if you feel I got something wrong – please feel free to shout it out. Also I know there were some technical glitches so I’m doing my best to get this out in a timely fashion. (In other words please excuse typos.) I did hear that an audio archive of the presentation will be available on the PUC site. If I hear when I’ll post again.)

During the session, industry leaders addressed three topics:

1. universal service funding
2. intercarrier compensation and
3. the substantive and procedural tasks that the Commission can be expected to face in the coming months (video of answer to this below)

The speakers were:

• Jeff Lindsey; CenturyLink
• Brent Christensen; Minnesota Telecom Alliance
• Dan Lipschultz; Moss & Barnett PA, competitive carrier perspective
• Tom Cohen; Kelley, Drye & Warren LLP for the American Cable Association
• Dave Conn; T-Mobile
• Dennis Ahlers; Minnesota Department of Commerce.

Moderated by PUC Commissioner Betsy Wergin

Ellen Anderson (PUC Chari) welcomes folks

Betsy Wergin will be moderating. Here to talk about new FCC Order

Look back to 1996 – even then the reform for USF/ICC was on the table. When competition opened up the industry was on notice. Since then the FCC has made (mostly) minor changes. The task over the last 16 years has been difficult – partially because there are so many sides; partially due to tech and business changes.

We believe that there is awareness that the current method does not work. Payment into system is climbing. Arbitrage, inefficiencies are problems. Voice is dropping. The FCC promotes new funding mechanisms and move ICC to bill and keep.

There’s a lot of consider.

Mike Rothman (Commissioner of Commerce)

Nice to have so many folks here. Want to introduce Dennis Ahlers (new to Commerce staff on Energy reliability & Telecommunications) was at AG. (He’s on panel.)

The FCC order has a significant impact. It’s 750 pages. The decisions will have an impact across the State. The Governor is committing to making BB border to border. We have a Task Force. We’re looking at the issue of broadband. A major issue of the FCC Order is broadband.

We need to look at the FCC order. It will take a public/private partnership to understand complexities for state & industry. MN economy depends on broadband/communications. It’s also important for communities & children.

THE PANEL:

1. Universal Service Fund changes – how will changes have an impact on their industry?

JEFF: (Only speaking to price cap carrier areas.) We think the order is manageable – but there’s a lot of interpretation going on. There are some opportunities, risks.

Pros:

• Goals of National Broadband Plan – getting speeds. We think CAF Connecting American Fund (to census tract) will go a long way to making deployment happen. We think we will be able to better track.
• It’s important that the FCC get the cost model right. If they don’t the issues will fall to the states.
• The legacy was support at 2011 levels. But there’s an interim. We think that’s a piece of additional certainty.

Cons:

• Not going to CAF on day one was a missed opportunity. The interim process is another period of uncertainty.
• The NBP defines 4down/1up – going with 1up means no DSL. 768 would have been better for reaching more homes per dollar.
• Interim CAF set a limit of $775 per house served. That will ask as a prohibitive ceiling. It will likely inhibit deployment in some areas.

BRENT

Big message for PUC – is that you will have to be involved at all stages. Great that Betsy is on NARUC (National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners) in terms of having local presence/connection at national level.

Biggest change is that there is no plan for long term deployment. We’re looking at 99.13% via USF.

The service areas is unclear. If competition in 100% of exchange support is gone. Doesn’t impact a ton of MN – but that’s not a done deal. Now there are 27items of  reconsideration.

Local service rates will change. Basic rates need to be $10/month by Jan 1 or lose USF by July. It was announced November. It doesn’t impact a lot but may mean a change. By next year they need to be at $14.

July 1 – you need to add $.50 charge to qualify for CAF. That means the end user pays. That’s a big shift to the end user.

Two of our companies got ARRA funds – but the changes in USF changes at least one of their business plan. We build broadband networks.

DAN (CLEC in general)

CLEC aren’t  in the USF game. Except that everyone will feel the impact – including wireless. Everyone should be concerned esp of ICC. The order freezes support at $2 billion – will that be enough? Especially now that it include broadband.

I know the world has changed – but these are the same:

1. We’re still talking about transmission for A to B.
2. And it will predominantly go over wire.
3. It’s a capital intensive industry and condensing is natural.
4. Some areas are more expensive to serve.

Number 4 will especially have an impact on ongoing maintenance.

TOM:

Here for American Cable Assoc.

In a sense cable is a microcosm of the industry. Mostly cable but growing number of emerging telcos. Here’s the gist of the Order:

1. There needs to be fiscally resp.
2. Needs to be slower transition for smaller providers
3. Needs to be competitive neutrality.

The FCC is just catching up with what’s been happening in the industry. Also FCC works on average – and no one is average.

Pros:

• They reflected how the market has changed
  • Voice market for incumbent is 45 and dropping moving to cable and wireless
  • They have a budget $4.3 billion ($2 billion for rate of return / $1.8 price cap / $.5 billion for mobility). The issue is mobility.
  • The FCC looked at undeserved areas – mostly served by price cap carriers. And FCC gave more to price cap.
  • FCC started looking at granular basis. Money should not go where an unsupported provider exists.
  • Got the small area transition mostly right.

Cons

• They carved out areas in price (not rate of return) but gave price cap the rights of first refusal. Yet cable is broadband leaders.
• FCC is below market speeds (4/1 is too slow) we think 16/4 is a better speed.
• FCC did not take on issue of eligible telecom carrier. It should be easier for folks to bid.
• FCC

You can see where this is going as we get granular – we’re working beyond census tract to locations and that will mean vouchers.

DAVE:

Impact  of USF on wireless differs from carrier to carrier.

Major changes

• Now wireless guys have a budget/cap – the wireless carriers (taking USF) have had this cap for years.
• We saw where wireless connections surpassed wireline – yet USF allocated 8 times to wireline. There are some valid reasons – but we need to think of big picture.
• When carriers say we need USF – what they’re saying is we need other providers to help pay for our areas.
• Change in definition in voice – removes directory assistance as necessity. It’s no longer a supported service.
• Existing amts that competitive carriers get are frozen as of 2011 and phased out – starting July 1. Will go away in five years. It’s replaced by Mobility Fund
• Mobility Phase 1: $300 million fund for mobility for Capex only – for areas without 3G or 4G only. They will use census block centroid. They will use reverse auction to offer up those areas. (Rebuild time for 3G is 2 years; 4G is 3 years. )
• Looking for auctioning via road miles. Bidders must be ETCs. Winner have colocation and roaming obligations.
• Mobility Phase 2 – $500 million annually for Capex and Opex – for areas that will need ongoing support. One provider per area; only unserved areas. They are favoring reserve auctions.

DENNIS

There’s an emphasis on taking broadband everyone – border to border. That suits MN goals. MN has more aggressive goals. We’ll be looking at how to push broadband out. This is one vehicle to do that.

We want to do no harm. We want everyone to have voice availability. Broadband and voice may conflict. We don’t want that to get pushed to the side.

To the PUC – the FCC has just given you a lot more work.

There are some companies that will need to raise rates. That will mean tariff issues to PUC. The FCC makes decisions and expects PUC to carry them out. Kind of an unfunded mandate.

Carrier of last resort will come up. What rights will the consumers have?

Whole issue of ETCs. There will be more filings. The Department is also be involved. There’s a feeling that this order is taking away much from state commissions – but that’s not true in the short term. PUC will still make decisions on wireline and as DAN pointed out that where everything still stems.

The Department will work on making sure USF happens and that broadband is a part of that. There are lots of reconsiderations and appeals – it will take a while to implement.

POST COMMENTS

JEFF – For prices cap areas will have $1.8 billion, about twice as prior. MN should make sure to get fair share of dollars for rural areas.

BRENT – There is a difference between telco and cable. The USF was designed for rural areas.

TOM – There is a process where competition and equity are colliding. This will cause a disaggregation process. We need to target the money where there is no service.

QUESTIONS FROM AUDIENCE: none

2. Please address ICC

DENNIS:

The order creates a lot more work for local regulators. There’s already a potential dispute filed at Commission on what this means in terms of rates. It’s easy to look at the order and think there’s nothing to decide – Interstate seems clear but there were a lot of debates on what that meant.

The transformation to bill & keep – how will that be implemented will involve the State.

There’s a potential for disputes with interconnection agreements and AFOR provisions. That will mean more work for PUC.

Access recovery charge will be another increase that may hit the PUC desk.

Rates for access are going down – and benefit interexchange carriers and PUC doesn’t regulate. That may be tough.

Commission will retain jurisdiction of some part of the industry – we need to make sure we further the goals of FCC and State.

DAVE

From wireless – ICC provisions are gratifying. We have been for bill and keep for years.

ICC distinction for wireless – there’s a difference if a call originates and terminates in major trading area at time of call it’s a reciprocal compensation call – only when it crossing boundary does is involve access compensation.

Non-Access

• Bill & Keep will be rule  Jul 1
• The FCC interim rural transit rule – when a rural wireline call to wireless call – who pays transit? The FCC says CMRS carrier is resp for call beyond local boundaries – at least for interim.

Accesss

• Rates are frozen. Intrasate moving to Interstate then 007 then bill and keep. Everyone will end up at Bill and Keep at least when tandem is same as originator.
• Access stimulation – new rules deal with stimulation – they will help but not solve the problem.
• Clarifies wireless in the middle.

TOM

Internally, we reflected a conflict between incumbents and competitors. The cable was unable to come up with a position.

VoIP PSTN traffic is benefit.

Glide path is OK. This seems like a logical conclusion.

A reason to move to bill and keep is that ICC had become Wild West. Now we have certainty.

The rules come up short

• In not allowing cable to come up with recovery mechanism.
• The FCC punted with VoIP. Looking at further proceeding.

DON

Two main points:

Verizon and AT&T have larger long distance. They will save a lot of money – not like smaller folks. They both have robust wireless businesses. Changes will be good for Verizon and AT&T for these reasons.

There is a problem when the big guys continually to win and the Order exacerbates the problem.

The end user now pays and that may make sense on one end. Policy makers need to ensure that there is competition. Especially in rural areas.

CLECs – there is no compensation recovery mechanism. CLEC are efficient – we use IP connections. If you are small you don’t have leverage – we need the policy makers – especially with VoIP.

The FCC got right – technology neutrality & competitive neutrality are good and VoIP does move that way. VoIP PSTN will have charges.

BRENT

We come from a world where the end user should pay and so should anyone else. Bill & Keep seems like a euphemism for end user pays all.

We are looking at a slower glide path. It costs more to serve rural areas and we need those funds.

Glad that we are looking at calls equally.

The PUC may not be setting rates – you will be involved in interconnect agreements and they will be very important.

JEFF

Pros:

• Unifying of rate
• Prohibitions on phantom rates
• ICC system was $6-8 billion, we’re taking that down and consumers should see difference.
• Reasonable transmission period (6-8 years) will help with management

Cons

• Preempting termination fees would have made more sense (esp from operational side)

DAVE

VoIP point – An obligation for good faith negotiation is better than nothing, which is what we had.

We think Bill & Keep makes sense because the person who makes the call is really the communicator.

BRENT

But in the wireless world there isn’t an IXE in the middle.

TOM

The policy the FCC are more fully baked on ICC – one there is one wildcard – court review. States are already saying the FCC cant’ touch their rates.  Maybe courts will only look at intrastate areas.

JEFF

In terms of USF intercarrier comp is phasing out so CAF will replace.

QUESTIONS FROM GROUP:

Onvoy – Intra issue – There’s a local area for LAN – MN PUC gets to set local carrier rates – but what happens when call goes to long distance?

The answer depends on where the call terminates (with wireless, wired VoIP). [Ann's note - OK this was pretty steeped for me. I started to video the answer to get the gist.]

Another Question: About court appeals process – the deadline is end of January. They the question is – what will the court do? There are currently about 2 dozen filings on desk. We’ve had same number of petitions for reconsideration. SO what will that mean for the Order – yet to be determined.

How does this apply to PUC?

I captured this section in the video above (near top of post) because I learned at this point that the PUC video wasn’t working. There was also one final question on VoIP from a PUC staffer. (VoIP is really still an open question in many ways it seems.)

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:

Background

On November 18, 2011, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) issued its Order addressing Universal Service Funding and Intercarrier Compensation (WC Docket No. 10-90 and CC Docket No. 01-92). That Order may have substantial and far-reaching implications for Minnesota’s telecommunications service providers and their customers.

Notice of Meeting

The Minnesota Public Utilities Commission will convene an informational meeting in the format of a panel discussion to examine the implications of the FCC Order with respect to (i) universal service funding, (ii) intercarrier compensation and (iii) the substantive and procedural tasks that the Commission can be expected to face in the coming months.

This informational meeting will held in the Commission’s Large Hearing Room from 1:00 p.m. to 3:00 p.m. on Thursday, January 12, 2012.

The meeting will commence with opening remarks by Commission Chair Ellen Anderson and Commissioner Michael Rothman of the Minnesota Department of Commerce. The panel discussion will be moderated by Commissioner Betsy Wergin. The panelists are:

• Jeff Lindsey; CenturyLink
• Brent Christensen; Minnesota Telecom Alliance
• Dan Lipschultz; Moss & Barnett PA, competitive carrier perspective
• Tom Cohen; Kelley, Drye & Warren LLP for the American Cable Association
• Dave Conn; T-Mobile
• Dennis Ahlers; Minnesota Department of Commerce.

The Commission will welcome questions from attendees as time permits. As seating in the Commission’s Large Hearing Room is limited the Commission will make available a live webcast of the proceeding (click on the webcast icon associated with this event on the Commission’s calendar for January 12,2012).

If you have any questions regarding this matter please contact Mark Oberlander (651-201-2212) or Kevin O’Grady (651-201-2218) of the Commission staff.

Governor’s Task Force on Broadband
TIES Building Learning Center Conference Room
1667 Snelling Ave. N., St. Paul, MN 55108
January 10, 2012 10 AM – 2 PM
Agenda:

• 10:00 – 10:10  I. Greetings and Introductions
• 10:10 – 10:20   II. Public Comments
• 10:20 – 10:30   III. Approval  of  December  19,  2011  Minutes
• 10:30 – 11:45   IV. Presentations  from  Group  Leaders
• 11:45 – 12:30   V. Lunch
• 12:30 – 1:45  VI. Discussion  of  Outline:  Format  and  Content
• 1:45 – 1:55    VII. Additional  Public  Comments
• 1:55 – 2:00 VIII. Other Business/Next Meeting Agenda