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

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.

“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.

The Governor’s Task Force on Broadband today issued a preliminary report that will lay the groundwork for a comprehensive broadband action plan. The Minnesota Broadband Plan Outline issued today will guide the continuing work of the Task Force as it develops specific recommendations for achieving border-to-border broadband access and adoption in all Minnesota communities – urban, rural, and suburban.

Established by executive order, the Governor’s Task Force on Broadband – which represents a diverse balance of broadband interests including consumers, businesses, residential users, educational and health care institutions, traditional telephone and cable companies, wireless providers, and local units of government – has worked collaboratively over the last several months to develop this initial outline. The goal of this document is to provide an initial roadmap that will:

• Move the state aggressively forward in efforts to meet the statutory broadband goals and Governor Dayton’s desire for ubiquitous broadband in Minnesota
• Establish a Task Force work plan and timeline for 2012 and beyond
• Ensure broadband stakeholders and policymakers are aware of how Minnesota is doing in its efforts to meet the state’s broadband goals
• Introduce a set of recommendations that the Task Force believes will help to ensure Minnesota meets our broadband goals and becomes a national leader in developing the economic and social benefits of ubiquitous broadband

Included in the outline is an appendix that establishes a timeline for Task Force deliverables throughout the year, including the creation and submission of an Annual Report to be completed by December 10 of each year for the duration of the Task Force’s work. That Annual Report will consistently provide the state an ability to benchmark Minnesota’s efforts toward achieving our 2015 goals as established by statute.

I hope to take a longer  later - especially at the Appendix, which include a detailed list of ongoing activities and details on upcoming reports. One thing that caught my eye was a desired to keep the Legislators in the loop…

The Task Force will engage Minnesota’s Congressional delegation by providing them with updates on Task Force activity and associated research and reports on the state of broadband in Minnesota.

I hope that will help raise the issue and raise the level of discussion around the state.

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)

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

On January 18th, 2012 the internet is going on strike to stop the web censorship bills in Congress! Now is our moment— we need you to do everything you can, whether you have a website or not.

Here’s a partial list of folks planning to participate (from the SOPA Strike List):

• Google
• WordPress
• Wikipedia
• Internet Archive
• Center for Technology and Democracy
• reddit
• Electronic Frontier Foundation

A couple of weeks ago I wrote a primer on SOPA. The update since I wrote that is that SOPA has been put on ice until outstanding concerns have been addressed. MSNBC reports..

A House subcommittee was slated to prepare the Stop Online Piracy Act, or SOPA, for a vote later this month; the Senate had planned a vote on the companion bill, PIPA (The Protect IP Act,) even sooner. Now, it appears both votes will be delayed.

A little more detail indicates that the issue for SOPA may be in the technical details (again from MSNBC)…

Meanwhile, several signs point to SOPA legislation hitting some serious speedbumps. On Saturday, a statement issued by White House cyberczar Howard Schmidt, and other administration technology officials, threw cold water on SOPA’s anti-piracy efforts.

“Our analysis of the DNS filtering provisions in some proposed legislation suggests that they pose a real risk to cybersecurity and yet leave contraband goods and services accessible online,” says the response, referring to SOPA’s proposal to allow law enforcement officials to blacklist Web sites — cut them off from U.S. users — that allegedly encourage piracy. The response, posted at WhiteHouse.gov on Saturday, does not take a position on SOPA, but it cautioned lawmakers that the administration will oppose anti-piracy efforts that might increase censorship.

The White House has also responded to public comments on SOPA…

Right now, Congress is debating a few pieces of legislation concerning the very real issue of online piracy, including the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA), the PROTECT IP Act and the Online Protection and Digital Enforcement Act (OPEN). We want to take this opportunity to tell you what the Administration will support—and what we will not support. Any effective legislation should reflect a wide range of stakeholders, including everyone from content creators to the engineers that build and maintain the infrastructure of the Internet.
…
Any effort to combat online piracy must guard against the risk of online censorship of lawful activity and must not inhibit innovation by our dynamic businesses large and small.
…
We must avoid creating new cybersecurity risks or disrupting the underlying architecture of the Internet.
…
So, rather than just look at how legislation can be stopped, ask yourself: Where do we go from here? Don’t limit your opinion to what’s the wrong thing to do, ask yourself what’s right. Already, many of members of Congress are asking for public input around the issue. We are paying close attention to those opportunities, as well as to public input to the Administration. The organizer of this petition and a random sample of the signers will be invited to a conference call to discuss this issue further with Administration officials and soon after that, we will host an online event to get more input and answer your questions. Details on that will follow in the coming days.

(For an interesting take on whether or how piracy does hurt America’s economy, check out Tim O’Reilly’s article.)

As mentioned in the primer, it’s an interesting issue because the folks who get the news out generally have some skin in the game so it’s difficult to get a read on the topic that isn’t impassioned. It will be very interesting to see how traditional media cover the blackout tomorrow. It will also be interesting to see what an impact it has on those of us who are online all day, every day.

Finally – if I were a group such as the Minnesota Broadband Task Force, I might look at the blackout as a sneak peek as what might happen if sites were every shut down outside of their own volition. Can we carry on business effectively and efficiently without our regular online tools? (Not just in terms of SOPA and piracy, but a glimpse as the importance of security and redundancy!)

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.