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

SMBS offers television through a partnership with Windomnet based on per customer charge…

Windomnet oversees the cable TV system, handles service and repair of equipment, updates channels and pays for programming. When residents pay their cable TC fees, Windomnet essentially received $5 per customer to help cover costs.

The phone and Internet services are purchased differently…

On a monthly basis, SMBS pays Windomnet for Internet based on the total amount of bandwidth used. Essentially, Windom is paid so much per megabit.
…
“For telephone, we bill based on number of minutes used, ” [Windom City Administrator Steve] Nasby said, “Everything runs through our switch and we bill the broadband group.”

It sounds as if things are running smoothly both from the perspective of SMBS and Windomnet. SBMS expects to begin connecting more folks very soon – hoping for a pace of about 250 customers a month through 2012. Windomnet may be hiring new staff or at least bumping up a part time employee to full time. So although this is a very high level look, this seems to be a successful recipe.

I was hoping he might take the broadband view of discrepancies in throughout the state based on location, which was mentioned – but his focus was really on cable versus DSL.

Here is the answer he got from Comcast…

“We are able to provide speeds at 1.5 mbps (megabits per second) to over 100 mbps,” she said, depending on the speed level people sign up for.
Schubert said the speed of the Internet can vary based on how many people are online, and the speed of different sites can vary, but the speed of

Comcast’s pipe is constant.

Although the article points our that there are some caveats pops up on the Comcast website…

Comcast acknowledges on its website that “every user’s experience is potentially affected by neighbors’ Internet usage.”

The article goes on to explain that there are potential issues with DSL as well…

DSL travels through your regular phone lines, so you’re not sharing it with your neighbors. But you are directly connected to the internet, so you are affected by everyone logging on. on CenturyLink’s website, they write: “Based on our experience, CenturyLink customers may encounter congestion, if at all, during the hours of peak usage – between 7:00 pm and 11:00 pm local time. During peak hours, the majority of residential customers are attempting to use the Internet simultaneously, giving rise to a greater potential for congestion.”

DSL also has the technological limitation of the wire carrying the signal: is it copper wire or fiber? How far is it from the central office? Distance matters in DSL, not in Cable.

Connect MN mapping

Bill Hoffman spoke on behalf of Connect Minnesota. (Special thanks to Bill for sharing his presentation!)

In 2008, Connected Nation started doing mapping in the state. Now they (Connect Minnesota) are the official designated mappers funded by the NTIA receiving $4.4 million; it will continue until December 2014. Our maps feed into the National Broadband Map, which is used for policy decisions –esp USF funding distribution. (http://broadbandmap.gov/)

We have three goals

1. Support economic development
2. Education and inform policy makers and stake holders
3. Look to partner with others to expand broadband

We offer four services:

1. Data collection on broadband access
2. Survey & Research on adoption & utilization
3. Provide planning support to Dep of Commerce and MN Task Force
4. Program development by partnering with others to find areas to enhance/build broadband adoption (including digital inclusion & computer ownerships)

Broadband Mapping available at http://www.connectmn.org  – we have downloadable maps and interactive maps. Our engineers provide ongoing validation of broadband access. We also encourage Minnesota residents to check out the maps and report back should they question the validity.

QUESTIONS:

Why are there such stark differences between counties that are next to each other in the maps?

Based on research – the providers offer different speeds. It’s a matter of market conditions and what’s available technology-wise. We should remember that our goals are statewide.

Some stats
72% of Minnesotans use broadband at home – that is above national average

We look at main barriers:
Nothing I want to do online
Cost
Not available.

We have 57.4% of the way to the MN Broadband Goals of 10-20Mbps downstream and 5-10Mbps upstream (57.4% of home have that access today).

Questions

Do you hope to increase broadband?

We want to provide the best data we can to help policymakers and other stakeholders make the best decisions they can.

Do you compare us to other states?

Yes we compare to our other 13 states and use federal data to compare to the rest of the country. We are doing above average, but we still have work to do.

How do you track new towers?

We work with providers. We have nondisclosure agreements and so we work closely with them. If we get a report, we check on it. We aren’t involved with the regulations.

Has anyone looked at availability vs access? (In terms of the natural adoption rate for technology.) When will use of broadband match computer use?

We could look into that more.

Do we need to do anything legislatively to help meet the MN Broadband goals?

That is probably an answer for the Department of Commerce.

Federal funding is $4.4 million – what is the state obligation?

There is none. Connect MN has an in kind match (20%) but no direct funding.

Will the $4.4 million allow us to make our goal of ubiquitous broadband?

It will help because we are providing information that is vital to decision makers – but we aren’t involved with building networks. But others in the state have received money to deploy networks.

Can you talk more about your broadband adoption efforts and partnerships?

There are many groups in MN working on broadband adoption. From PCs for People, the Blandin Foundation, providers themselves. We strive to work with them to promote their efforts. Adoption is a big issue.

Brent Christensen from MN Telecom Alliance http://www.mnta.org/ and Tom Farm – FCC order addressing Universal Service Funding and Intercarrier Compensation (Special thanks to Brent for sharing his presentation!)

Comments on Connect Minnesota – as a provider, we have worked with ConnectMN and they have done a great job. We’re trying to keep telcos to double check the maps. The definition of broadband has changed rapidly. In 1994 there was one 56K connection for the whole state. We’re made great strides. It’s growing by itself – we need to get the pipe out there and let is grow. Adoption is a big piece too.

Fees on telephone bills breakdown

• USF is 17.9%
• 911 is $.80 per line per month
• Telephone assistance is $06 per line
• Telephone access is $.06 per line.

Terms to Know:

• Price Cap Carriers – CenturyLink, Frontier and Windstream
• Rate of Return Carriers – everyone else
• USF (Universal Service Fund) – on your phone bill – paid by landline customers – paid into Universal Service Administrative Company. They have a range of programs – E-Rate, rural healthcare and high cost fund (bringing broadband to hard to reach areas) It’s part of your inter-state services.
• Intra-state – calls that start and end in Minnesota
• Inter-state – calls that start and end in different states
• ICC (Intercarrier Compensation) – money paid between companies to originate and terminate calls – generally long distance companies paying local telcos to terminate calls.
• Connect America Fund – what the FCC is building – it will replace the USF – it provides USF for broadband.

Revenues per line – for rural telcos

• 29% – end user fees (residential – local and extended areas)
• 31% – avg USF
• 6% – interstate
• 13% – Interstate service line charge

History of FCC order
National Broadband Plan Feb 2010 – lots of proposed rulemakings. It had one solution for transition without differentiating for different size providers.
Oct 27, 2011 – new plan comes out.
Jan 1, 2012 – new plan is deployed
As of today – there are 27 requests for reconsideration and 13 lawsuits. There may be some changes – although the bulk will probably remain the same.

The burden is now on end-user – CAF will cushion the transition in some ways. The impact on Rate of Return Carriers is still unknown

What can the state expect?
For the first time VOIP have to pay to use the network and vice versa. (Needed to find a way to get tariff between Nov 2011 and Jan 2012)
Reduced USF for carriers that maintain what the FCC calls artificially low rates. But they didn’t consider that in Madelia (for example) a customer can reach 900 people locally while in the Twin Cities a customer can reach millions of other customers locally. So companies with local access have to get to $10 by January 1 to get July 1 compensation. Then need to get to $14 by Jan 2013.
In order to collect CAF, they have some up with an access recovery charge – $.50 charge on consumer phone bill every 6 months until it gets to $3.

Questions – do people find this overwhelming?
We didn’t expect this rate floor. And we didn’t expect this kind of turn around.

Question – so this may cause many people to drop their landlines – except for elderly and poor?
Yes.

One problem is that the PUC doesn’t have jurisdiction over the VOIP carriers.

Telephone rates will probably ramp up to $30/month over the next couple of years, regardless of how many people you can call. Right now rates in Madelia are about $12.65/month.

The local areas aren’t forced to pass on these costs but they would not qualify for certain funding. The difficult thing is that at $30 per line they may also run short of customers.

Why is the FCC do this?

The plan is to transition for Public Switched Telephone Network to Broadband. They don’t mind raising the rates on the telephone service because they feel the service will go away anyways. But the CAF doesn’t provide any long term plans for the Rate of Return Carriers, which leads to a high degree of uncertainty.

This will transform the revenue streams that have kept phone calls prices low and high quality. Right now intra-state rates range from $.10 to $.3. And that’s just terminating calls.

The Reform Plan deals with CAF. The Price Cap Companies also transition.

Phase I: With revenues come obligations – frozen high cost support, it also deals with Competitive Eligible Telcom Carrier status. In 1996, they established ETC status for anyone who could serve whole area. This freezes that support. Also there’s a $750 limit per customer for Price Cap Companies. But that number is not based on any real numbers.

Phase II: Price Cap will have an opportunity to deploy broadband in new areas – it won’t do much for small provider who have already deployed broadband We have carriers who have done a good job – but they have slowed down in anticipation of issues from the unfolding of these decisions.

Question – Is this all done by the FCC? NO backstop from policymakers? This is crazy.

Out national organization is working on education at the federal level. The FCC is charged by Congress to set up the rules. There’s a process for reconsideration. There are lawsuits. We’re doing what we can.

There’s a process to award high cost areas that Price Cap Areas will be able bid upon. If they don’t the area opens up. Providers must offer 4Mbps (downstream) to at least 85% of the area. But our sources of revenue are up in the air. How that plan is implemented is still undecided. If you receive a reasonable request – you need to provide service yet this will have to happen with less money.

The National Broadband Plan set goals from 4Mbps – compared to the State goals (10-20Mbps). We need to get that in order. There is a waiver process but they intend to make it difficult.

Questions – are there areas where the state will lose power?
Yes the biggest change will be that the state will no longer set rates.

The PUC will deal with ETC status. They will certify high cost support. More will be involved at the Commission in terms of filing reports. Significantly more tariffs are required. But neither the PUC, nor vendor, will have a lot of control.

The Phase down of intra-state rates will need to happen. Tariffs will involve local rate increases. We’ve been trying to work through the process and everyone (PUC Dep of Commerce) has been understanding. There are lots of changes in ETC status. The PUC will probably be the point for wireless and wireline connections.

What can the state do? What can the legislature do?

They can look at Chapter 237 and make sure that they’re in line with what’s happening at the federal level. They are suggesting legislation – and we may need to get in line with federal legislation. State government can help boost broadband adoption.

Students and businesses interested in taking part in the SciTechsperience internship program can now complete online applications at MHTA.org. SciTechsperience is Minnesota’s paid internship opportunity for students studying in STEM fields. It is a new MHTA program made possible by funding through the Minnesota Science & Technology Authority.

SciTechsperience is a key economic development initiative aimed at expanding Minnesota’s talented STEM workforce by providing hands-on experience for talented college students. The idea is to keep those students living and working in Minnesota once they graduate in order to strengthen and advance the state’s knowledge-based economy.

Qualified businesses can receive a dollar for dollar match up to 50% of an intern’s wages for a maximum of $2,500. There are other eligibility requirements students and businesses should check out before they apply to take part in the program. You can read them and complete the applications at MHTA’s SciTechsperience program page.

Good luck!

MN Broadband Task Roadmap Unfolds
In December the Minnesota Broadband Task Force released their first report, a state of the state of broadband in Minnesota. http://wp.me/p3if7-1xY In January they released an outline or roadmap that will be filled in throughout the year, much like the National Broadband Plan was fleshed out. http://wp.me/p3if7-1zR The plan builds on recommendations from the original Minnesota Broadband Task Force in 2009. http://wp.me/p3if7-FD

The next Task Force meeting is scheduled for February 14, 2012. http://wp.me/p3if7-1zA

Updates on ARRA in Minnesota
The MN Broadband Task Force report published in December included a comprehensive list of ARRA-funded projects in Minnesota and updates on their progress. http://wp.me/p3if7-1xY Deployment projects are receiving attention as customers in some areas SW Minnesota get connected, while others continue to wait. http://wp.me/p3if7-1zs

For communities that did not receive funding, the MN Task Force report indicates that working with (or maybe even forming?) a Cooperative could help expedite better broadband in your community. http://wp.me/p3if7-1yn

Policy Discussions
SOPA (Stop Online Piracy Act) garnered national attention with an online boycott spearheaded by some big Internet players. http://wp.me/p3if7-1z7 While at a more local level providers presented to the Minnesota PUC (Public Utilities Commission) their concerns regarding changes to funding for rural broadband deployment and maintenance as USF (Universal Service Funds) and ICC (Intercarrier Compensation) transition to CAF (Connect for American Fund). http://wp.me/p3if7-1yQ Telecom policy went mainstream when Thomas Friedman offered a controversial policy recommendation to focus broadband attention improving broadband in university towns, rather than rural areas. http://wp.me/p3if7-1yv

LightSquared vs GPS
LightSquared has been touted as an affordable option to bring affordable wireless broadband to rural America. Unfortunately there have been concerns about how LightSquared’s technology will work with existing GPS systems. The issue came to a head in January. http://wp.me/p3if7-1yL

Digital Inclusion Events around Minnesota
The following MIRC (Minnesota Intelligent Rural Communities) project partners are offering unique opportunities to close the digital divide in communities around Minnesota. PCs for People refurbishes computers to give to families who would not otherwise be able to afford a computer. They are planning to visit 10 cities in Minnesota with their mobile refurbishing unit to bring computers to a wider audience. Contact them for more details http://wp.me/p3if7-1zD The University of Minnesota Extension is looking for opportunities to offer training to local business on how to take advantage of broadband technologies. If you have interested in hosting an event, please contact them. http://wp.me/p3if7-1Aa

Local Broadband News

Benton County
Independent Lifestyles of Sauk Rapids is helping enable the disabled and others with the use of technology and the Internet. http://wp.me/p3if7-1yl

Golden Valley
General Mills is toying with digital cereal prizes and QR Codes to be unveiled later this year. http://wp.me/p3if7-1zU

Lakefield
About 300 Lakefield residents now enjoy FTTH. http://wp.me/p3if7-1zK

Minneapolis
Research developed at the University of Minnesota is being used in a new mobile app intended to help teens become better drivers. http://wp.me/p3if7-1za

Rochester
Rochester Police will use advanced analytics software from IBM to identify local “hot spots,” and allocate resources in advance. http://wp.me/p3if7-1zG

St Paul
The Minnesota Wild App enhances the fan experience during games at Xcel Energy Center. http://wp.me/p3if7-1zv

Sibley & Renville Counties
RS Fiber holds a public meeting with the Joint Powers Board in Sibley & Renville Counties to discuss the future of their FTTH plans. http://wp.me/p3if7-1zl

Stillwater
Stillwater uses flipped math curriculum; students learn material via videos at home and use class time for practicing lessons http://wp.me/p3if7-1zN

Winnebago
A new outlet store in Winnebago combines traditional second-hand and warehouse liquidation offerings with an array of Internet-based services for customers. http://wp.me/p3if7-1ze

Worthington
Thanks to a grant from MIRC (Minnesota Intelligent Rural Communities), WGTN-TV 3 programming, formerly only accessible for cable subscribers in Worthington, can now be accessed through the Internet. http://wp.me/p3if7-1yN

Events

February 24 – MACTA (Minnesota Association of Community Telecommunications Administrators) Day at the Capitol – http://tinyurl.com/7dmmyxn (Sorry that event is not happening this year.)

February 28 – MTA (Minnesota Telecom Alliance) Day on the Hill http://tinyurl.com/87rrups

Looking for more events? Check out TechDotMN’s calendar http://tech.mn/events/. Many events are based in the Twin Cities but it is a comprehensive list. (If you have an upcoming event, consider submitting it.)

Looking for local MIRC (Minnesota Intelligent Rural Communities) events? Check the MIRC Google calendar: http://tinyurl.com/3oz5uzh or University of Minnesota Extension MIRC calendar http://tinyurl.com/66vxghj

Stirring the Pot

It seems that the communities with little or no broadband are increasingly feeling the pain of this shortcoming. It is no longer theoretical that they will be left behind sometime in the future. Community leaders recognize that they have been left behind and that the tail lights of their well-connected community neighbors are disappearing into the future.

The definition of community is also expanding to include rural residents. Township and county officials are recognizing that operators of farms and home businesses, school children, doctors and older adults need and want broadband. Leaders of town-centered enterprises like banks, hospitals and schools recognize that their on-line presence is underutilized because 40-60 percent of their customers cannot access broadband.

These last-to-be-served areas are not the easiest places to provide robust broadband services. Low density population patterns and significant number of the people least likely to subscribe – older, lower income – are not enticing investment drivers. Yet they need to get connected.

Communities struggle to find solutions from the bottom up. We are seeing some incumbent providers sitting at the table to try and solve these puzzles. It would be helpful to learn from incumbent providers to what investment incentives will be necessary to make rural broadband investment possible. I encourage them to sharpen their pencils and to let us in on a formula that works for them and benefits rural communities.

Bill Coleman helps communities make the  connection between telecommunications and economic development.  As  principal in Community Technology Advisors http://tinyurl.com/3f4dx7g for ten years, he assists community, foundation and corporate clients develop  and implement programs of broadband infrastructure investment and technology  promotion and training. Bill is working with the Blandin Foundation on the  MIRC Initiative http://tinyurl.com/2c6mhh4,  Community Broadband Resource Program http://tinyurl.com/cseu7e and other broadband projects.

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.

Mankato has joined the growing Bring Your Own Technology movement that allows students to use their own Netbooks, laptops, and tablets — anything that connects to the school’s wireless network — during class time.

“By allowing kids to bring in their own devices, you free up school resources for the kids who don’t have access,” says Doug Johnson, director of media and technology for the Mankato Public School System. (Johnson wrote the book — literally — on the subject; The Classroom Teacher’s Technology Survival Guide is published this month.) For example, in classrooms that have a group of four computers, finding time for all 30 students to use them can be challenging. In Mankato, 90% of the students have some sort of wireless-capable device, which leaves only eight students in a typical class who will need to use the class computers.

It’s an interesting concept. On one level, I think it’s a practical solution. Having some kids bring in their own computers does mean fewer computers required to cover the kids who don’t have their own. So it can level the playing the field during the school day, in that everyone has a computer. (Although I imagine the playing field isn’t too equal when there is such a wide range of devices out there. Forget about hand-me-down sweaters, imagine going to school with your cousin’s Commodore 64!)

From a management perspective I think this has got to be a challenge. The article brings up the broadband issue of having to plan for enough bandwidth to meet all needs. I think that’s a good problem to have and one we should be striving to solve regardless. The real issue is managing the tech support. Is each kid responsible for the upkeep on his computer? When the computer quits in the middle of the class, who helps? How do you protect the network and computers from viruses and what do you do about security and privacy? Do you allow sharing via flash drives or is everything in the cloud? (Sounds like Mankato is cloud-based but that probably works better with some devices than others.)

The article brings up similar points…

Mobile phones, and especially those that aren’t smart phones, obviously don’t have the same capabilities as computers. But when tablets and Netbooks enter the picture, it becomes less of an argument against insufficient technology and more an argument against managing multiple technologies. Stager adds that in a class full of students handling his or her own device, each one different from the other, will only “amplify [teachers'] anxiety and reduce use.”

From a teaching perspective, how do you handle so many devices and different reactions/reaction times across a classroom? I was a computer teacher in a grade school for a very short time. We had about 12 computer, 8 of which might be working at any one time. Everything was donated; everything was unique. And the network used a dialup connection to the Internet. The class was much less about teaching computer skills than about trying to repair computer issues. It sounds like the situation is Mankato is much better, but is every school so well prepared?

And although Johnson [Doug Johnson, director of media and technology for the Mankato Public School System] admits that more traditional teachers resist or are overwhelmed by this type of learning, students will need little support because they’re already familiar with their own devices. If the bandwidth and infrastructure are in place for students to access the school network, Johnson says they’ll be able to do their work with little oversight.

The advent of devices is a disruptive technology – and I applaud Mankato for taking it on. I am curious to see how this plan pans out in the long term. I think (maybe I hope) there will be a lot of trial and error in education as educators and administrator try to unleash the potential and prepare students for jobs of tomorrow – not the job of today. We can’t be afraid to fail when it comes to integrating technology into the schools - because I think by doing nothing we’re already failing the workforce of tomorrow. (That’s not to say that I think Mankato will fail – but I think their policy may see a few iterations as technology, financing and needs change.)

No surprise that the Twin Cities, with its population density and multiple providers, meets the goal [state's 2015 goal for adequate high-speed Internet access for all households]. But it’s intriguing to see the two large outstate areas in the upper Minnesota River valley and up north.

A big reason is the optic fiber work done in recent years by small rural cooperatives like Farmers Mutual in Madison, Federated Telephone in Morris and Paul Bunyan in Bemidji. Folks in those co-ops will tell you in makes a different when the goal is customer-owner service instead of shareholder profit.

It’s heartening to see coops getting more recognition for their appetite and capacity for helping communities achieve community and statewide broadband goals. It’s a trend that others are picking up as well.

“We gathered good people to formulate these recommendations and action items in order to support innovation in schools and districts,” said State Superintendent Tony Evers. “Schools shouldn’t have to reinvent the wheel when it comes to figuring out how best to use technology. This plan will serve as a roadmap of best practices and maximum impacts.”

Last month, I wrote an article on flipped classrooms in Stillwater and potential issues with assuming all students have adequate access to broadband and technology to participate in a flipped curriculum. (Quick reminder, a flipped classroom instructs students to learn, often via video at home and practice skills in the classroom.) The article spurred a discussion (online, but via Facebook so semi-private) where someone thought access to broadband was probably not an issue in Stillwater. Maybe not – but it is an issue in other areas. I think lifting the discussion to a statewide level rather than community level as Wisconsin has done, helps minimize education gaps. My hope is that it sets a standard that helps raise education goals – but it also requires the schools to consider inequities in broadband access – and helps build the case for ubiquitous coverage.

But to get back to Wisconsin and delve into the specifics, the press release highlighted recommendations…

• Providing students the opportunity to take online and blended courses before graduating from high school
• Exploring methods that allow teachers to maximize their efforts, such as the “flipped classroom”—where the tradition of transferring knowledge via lecture is replaced with a digital homework assignment such as a podcast; meanwhile, students do homework in the classroom, where teachers can engage in improved coaching and assessment
• Invigorating collaborative efforts with businesses and industries
• Allowing students to use their own devices for learning
• Ensuring sufficient and affordable broadband access for schools and students, and equitable access for every household with students
• Developing a statewide, online environment for Wisconsin educators to share and explore quality teaching resources and methods, to avoid redundant curriculum development tasks and to share best practices

The vision is a website it is divided into the following areas:

1. Pedagogy & Instruction – nice shift to teachers as facilitators
2. Curriculum & Assessment – nice focus on collaboration
3. Professional Learning & Leadership
4. Data & Information Systems – nice balance of assessing students and systems, which should mean more strive to improve
5. Policies & Procedures – good connection to workplace
6. Hardware & Infrastructure

I have to pull out just one comment from the Hardware and Infrastructure section because it hits on an issue that I think is important…

The FCC’s “Household Broadband Guide” recommends households with four computers have between 6-15 Mbps, even if just one of those computers is used for an application such as streaming video, video conferencing, or online gaming. “Broadband” is defined as having a minimum of 4 Mbps connection to the Internet.

Finally the site includes a list of action items. I suspect or hope that progress towards achieving those items will be tracked as time goes on. (Given that the vision is less than a week old, it makes sense that nothing is crossed out yet.) The format of the report is easy to follow. It seems as if they had the right people in the room to create a vision that addresses the needs of teachers, administrators, students, families and future employers; it also presents technology as a solution to those needs – not another issue to be addressed.

The vision is built somewhat upon the same structure as the National Broadband Plan – where the required steps will be filled in as the path is followed. Due to many fewer moving pieces, this is a lot easier to grasp than the National Broadband Plan. It would be a nice model for the Minnesota Broadband Task Force’s vision/outline too.