Multiple states: One Economy Corporation: $28.5 million sustainable broadband adoption grant with an additional $23 million applicant-provided match to implement a comprehensive program of computer training, wireless Internet access, broadband awareness marketing, and online content and applications to residents of 159 affordable and public housing developments and low-income communities in 50 cities and towns across 31 states and the District of Columbia.
States impacted by this grant are: Alabama, Arkansas, California, Connecticut, District of Columbia, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky, Massachusetts, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Virginia, Washington, Wisconsin.

I don’t know if this is the last Round One announcement that the NTIA will be making – but this week I have been trying to track applications at all related to Minnesota and One Economy was the one application I noted as not listed as funded or unfunded. So I suspect that this is the last announcement that will have a direct impact on Minnesota.

The other applications announced today include the following:

Idaho: Digital Bridge Communications: $1.9 million broadband infrastructure grant with an additional $466,000 applicant-provided match to bring affordable wireless broadband service to rural, underserved communities in Cassia County, Idaho, including the towns of Albion, Burley, Declo, Malta, and Oakley. The project would expand Digital Bridge Communications’ existing network by adding five towers, 46 miles of new fiber, and a nine-mile microwave link. The project also proposes to offer speeds of up to 3 Mbps using both fixed and mobile wireless technology, as well as directly connect approximately 25 community anchor institutions at no charge.

Idaho: Digital Bridge Communications: $980,000 broadband infrastructure grant with an additional $246,000 applicant-provided match to bring affordable wireless broadband service to rural, underserved communities in Jerome County, Idaho, including the towns of Barrymore, Falls City, Greenwood, Haytown, Hunt, Hydra, Jerome, McHenry, and Sugar Loaf. The project would expand Digital Bridge Communications’ existing network by adding three towers, 15 miles of new fiber, and two microwave links. The expanded network intends to offer speeds up to 3 Mbps using both fixed and mobile wireless technology, as well as directly connect approximately 25 community anchor institutions at no charge.

Idaho: Digital Bridge Communications: $1.4 million broadband infrastructure grant with an additional $340,000 applicant-provided match to bring affordable wireless broadband service to underserved communities in Twin Falls County, Idaho, including the towns of Buhl, Burger, Clover, Deep Creek, Fairview, Filer, Godwin, and Hansen. The project would expand Digital Bridge Communications’ existing network by adding eight towers, three miles of new fiber, and nine microwave links. This expanded network intends to offer speeds up to 3 Mbps using both fixed and mobile wireless technology, as well as directly connect approximately 25 community anchor institutions at no charge.

Kentucky: City of Williamstown, Kentucky: $535,000 broadband infrastructure grant with an additional $134,000 applicant-provided match to deploy a high-speed fiber-to-the-home broadband network to unserved and underserved communities south of its existing network in Corinth, and north of its existing network to areas of Grant and Owen counties in northern Kentucky. The project intends to offer broadband speeds up to 10 Mbps and directly connect the three municipal organizations within the service area – Corinth City Hall, the Corinth Water District, and the Corinth Volunteer Fire Department – free of charge. In addition, the project expects to offer broadband Internet access for local consumers, including approximately 680 households and 20 businesses, and spur economic growth and job creation in the region.

Oklahoma: Pine Telephone Company, Inc.: $9.5 million broadband infrastructure grant with an additional $2.4 million applicant-provided match to deliver affordable wireless broadband service to underserved areas of Southeastern Oklahoma, including the Tribal lands of the Choctaw Nation and its 10 counties. The project intends to directly connect 20 community anchor institutions, including Choctaw Nation agencies, public schools, public safety agencies, fire and police departments, and a health clinic. The project’s last mile network plans to offer broadband speeds ranging from 1 Mbps to 3 Mbps to as many as 7,000 households and 75 businesses.

Puerto Rico: Critical Hub Networks, Inc.: $25.8 million broadband infrastructure grant with an additional $6.7 million applicant-provided match to provide fast, affordable broadband connectivity for last-mile Internet service providers and underserved areas of Puerto Rico, including of the islands of Culebra and Vieques. The project plans to purchase a 10 Gbps undersea fiber-optic cable directly connecting to Miami and deploy more than 180 miles of terrestrial middle-mile microwave network using 11 towers. The network will offer speeds from 100 Mbps to 1 Gbps to anchor institutions, including more than 1,500 K-12 schools, and local Internet service providers.

Virginia: Buggs Island Telephone Cooperative: $19 million broadband infrastructure grant with an additional $5 million applicant-provided match to bring high-speed affordable broadband services to 15 underserved counties and the cities of Emporia and Franklin in South Central Virginia by expanding and enhancing its existing high-speed broadband and voice communications wireless network. The BIT Wireless project intends to offer wireless broadband at speeds of up to 10 Mbps to as many as 100,000 households, 14,800 businesses, and 800 community anchor institutions. In addition, the project will promote broadband adoption by discounting the cost of the equipment necessary to subscribe at home.

Washington: Public Utility District of Pend Oreille County: $27.2 million broadband infrastructure grant with an additional $6.8 million applicant-provided match to bring high-speed, affordable broadband to underserved areas of Pend Oreille County in northeastern Washington State, which borders Idaho and Canada. The proposed fiber-to-the-premises network would deploy approximately 526 miles of fiber-optic cable to deliver last-mile broadband Internet services and facilitate critical network redundancy in this rural area. The project plans to offer affordable, high-speed broadband access to as many as 3,200 households, 360 businesses, and 24 community anchor institutions.

Mike O’Connor wrote a post on Wednesday about Minnesota Departments of Employment and Economic Development (DEED) and Commerce recommending to the Governor that the State work with Connected Nation to pursue a grant to conduct a broadband map for the State of Minnesota with data that will be used to create a national broadband map. Connected Nation are the folks doing the current mapping for the State. This money would extend/expand on that work. Twelve other states and one territory are working with Connected Nation on their applications.

The Story

Here’s the quick take on the deal, partially gleaned from Mike’s post, Brent Legg at Connected Nation and Diane Wells at the Minnesota Department of Commerce.

The NTIA will provide “approximately $240 million in grants to assist states or their designees to develop state-specific data on the deployment levels and adoption rates of broadband services.” The NTIA seemed to be looking for a “single eligible entity in a State that has been designated by the State to receive a grant.” So state approval was important.

The folks at the State heard from two possible mappers – Connected Nation and the University of Minnesota. At this point I suspect local readers are saying – hey why didn’t they go with the U? All things being equal I buy local, especially if I have federal dollars to spend.

When CN approached the State they had a track record, a complete plan in place and the required 20 percent match. According to the letter of recommendation from the State, they have been “very satisfied” with CN’s work to meet the terms of the 2008 contract and the price paid. The funding from NTIA will allow the State to ask more questions, which will help get better maps. (Although the State wasn’t necessarily thrilled with all of the details as set out by the NTIA.) There will be a Steering committee to work with CN. The State and CN have a memorandum of understanding in place concerning the question of verifying availability and speeds

The University had a good idea but the plan was not complete. They were unable to specify staff members dedicated to the project. Their 20 percent match was less assured than CN’s. Without existing relationships with the providers, it seems optimistic to think that the U could meet the short deadlines required by the NTIA.

The Controversy

The old controversy is CN. People have extreme feelings about Connected Nation and have for a while. Steve Borsch outlines his concerns in a recent article; CN’s Brian Mefford has addressed concerns in a recent rebuttal of a Wall Street journal article, which I think is the basis of Steve B’s article – only Steve’s article is still online for free.

The new controversy is about how a mapper was selected in Minnesota. Should the State have consulted with the TF board? Did they consult with members offline? Does consulting with some members count? (CN is slated to speak at the next Task Force meeting. They were scheduled to speak earlier but as I recall they were asked to postpone while the TF was on the road.)

I’ve tried to present the facts. I’ll offer my own two cents and open this up to comments if others have an opinion.

The problem in Texas was that the State was that the RFP was done too quickly, it was open to nonprofit organizations only – and worst of all, that nonprofit status requirement was not clearly stated. (There’s more but that’s the Reader’s Digest version.) In the end, the contract went to Connected Nation.

In Tennessee, there wasn’t a RFP – the contract was simply awarded to Connected Nation – because they had done a good job with Kentucky and this was a similar project. Naturally “good job” is in the eye of the beholder. Also once you look at the contract it focuses on branding as being as much a primary goal as mapping.

So that’s the article from Public Knowledge.

All of this reminds me of how quickly the stimulus funding applications will go as well and how that gives the advantage to the slick – not necessarily the ones who need it. Now it’s been a big game of hurry up and wait for potential applicants – but once the NOFA is out (and shouldn’t that be today if they want to hit the before July 1 deadline?) it will go fast.

A huge part of the process is how you write the application – and I am concerned that the best and/or most deserving projects won’t have what it takes to get the best application done in time – after all that’s part of what made them the un- and underserved in the first place. If they were slick – they’d have better broadband already!

I hope that we’ll see more partnerships like the Blandin Foundation, Lake County and Hiawatha Broadband where folks with NOFA (or at least proposal) experience are partnering with the folks who need the help.

So I guess that’s why I don’t get into the CN debate.

I want to thank Brent Legg from CN for emailing me with the correction and sending some other material. There’s a response to the WSJ article.

Better than that though is a list of the providers with whom they have worked. One thing to remember is that at least in Minnesota they only talk to folks who provide infrastructure – not resellers. (So you may not see your ISP listed.) They have been able to work with most providers in Minnesota. Going through the CenturyTel merger at the time, Embarq was not able to get them info before the preliminary maps completed last February – but they have since responded.

Mostly I avoid the debate – because I’m used to working with the hand I’m dealt and Minnesota has been dealt Connected Nations maps. Last fall, Connected Nation was hired to map broadband access in the state. They came out with preliminary reports in February indicating that 92 percent of the state has broadband.

It was interesting to see how often the CN maps came up in the paragraphs written by Minnesota Ultra High-Speed Broadband Task Force members. Some questioned their results; other quoted them. At the end of the day, I think the legislators will pay attention to the report, because they’ve paid for it.

I did find it interesting (in the WSJ article) that Kentucky seems to have become less and less enamored with CN.

Also while referring to the Kentucky report, WSJ said that, “Connect Kentucky says its maps include data from more than 300 Internet providers and disputes it left smaller carriers off its maps.” I spoke to CN last winter and they told me that there were about 100 providers in Kentucky. So, 300 seems strange. I remember the number because they were expecting to talk to 225 providers in Minnesota – that number was changed to about 100 – the reason being that apparently once they looked at the list many ISP were merely resellers, subsidiaries or different names for other companies. So I understood that change – but I don’t understand this discrepancy.

The provider list includes to AT&T Internet Services, San Antonio; Charter Communications, St. Louis; Comcast Cable, Moorestown, N.J.; Direct TV, Los Angeles; Dish Network, Englewood., Colo.; Embarq and Sprint/Nextel, both of Overland Park, Kan.; Frontier Communications, Stamford, Conn.; Qwest, Denver; Verizon Wireless, Bedminster, N.J.; and Wildblue Communications, Greenwood Village, Colo.

So if you have any accounts with any of the 200 sites – you might want to cash out soon.

What’s kind of funny is that they’re using a federal law that enables restrictions on phone calls used for wagering. (They are also calling for the 200 companies’ phone numbers to be blocked.) So some folks think this might not work. John Morris, general counsel at the Center for Democracy and Technology in Washington notes that the courts will probably not uphold this rule because it originally targeted phone companies with relationship to the bet takers. (Most of the online gambling sites are offshore and have no relationships with US ISPs.)

John Palfrey, co-director of the Berkman Center for Internet & Society at Harvard University, says it won’t work because filtering sites doesn’t work. (I have to ask if filtering sites doesn’t work – well then what’s all the hubbub on Net Neutrality. This might be an excuse to get filtering to work.)

Folks in the gambling industry press are wondering why this is happening now. Apparently legislation is in the works to overturn the UIGEA (Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act) and make online gambling legal.

I haven’t seen much from the Net Neutrality folks on this yet – but the gambling folks seem determined to draw in potential partners – such as Save the Internet. That being said, Kentucky tried a different approach to stopping online gambling from their citizens by trying to get 141 domain names moved to the State’s control as seized gambling property in an effort to get those sites to block Kentucky users. I haven’t seen much on Net Neutrality there either but again it’s a different situation.

I’ve seen where Net Neutrality folks recognize the potential hardship for gambling (and other) industries if the Internet goes non-Neutral. Then providers can charge fees to bring traffic to those sites, but I think policy-wise the Minnesota case is a little different. Technology-wise I suspect that whatever the providers learn here will be helpful to them in a non-Neutral world.

If the comments posted on an article on the Star Tribune (New tactic in war on online gambling) are any indication, this should be a good show.

First – I didn’t take great notes on the Broadband Mapping presentation because it was remarkably similar to the sneak preview I wrote about on Thursday. I just added notes and questions that were new.

Second – I just read an article in the Minneapolis Star Tribune (Broadband task force drops plan to get stimulus funds). I think the tone of the article is misleading. I don’t think the Task Force dropped the list of projects so much as they decided that realistically they couldn’t be the ones to decide which projects should be funded – and if they handed over a list of projects that the powers that be would assume that the Task Force had made some qualitative decisions to create the list.

They couldn’t decide which projects should be funded because (1) they don’t know the rules for funding yet because Congress is still creating rules and (2) they don’t have the time to delve into these projects and create a recommendation for the future of broadband in Minnesota, which is their primary goal. So instead of providing a list, it sounded to me at if the Task Force decided to provide benchmarks or guidelines for Legislators to decide which projects to fund after they gather their own list of potential projects.

Third, the Star Tribune article did pick up on the tension in the room between potentially opposing views on how and where to increase broadband in Minnesota. I think we saw a touch of this last month – I think we’re going to see a lot more as the group moves forward to make recommendations on how and where to increase broadband in Minnesota.

On with the meeting notes…

They approved agenda of special meeting (BB Mapping – then shovel-ready projects)

Topics for Feb 20 (to meet at Inver Hills – for TC attendants)

• Stimulus Funds
• Municipal Panel is set
• Option for more panels
• Talk about specific chapters

March 20 (to meet at Inver Hills – for TC attendants)

• Healthcare panel
• Speaker on economy
• More form Connected Nation (post economic data over BB maps)
• Possibly look at CWA research

Connected Nation

Brent Legg, Chip Spann, and Wes Kerr spoke. This is their fifth time through the presentation in the last 2 days. It’s my second time seeing it. I posted detailed notes on yesterday’s meeting last night. I’m just going to post new notes today – or notes I missed yesterday.

They are working with several other states; sometimes they are just doing mapping, as they are in Minnesota. In some states they work towards stimulating broadband demand.

One thing I forgot from yesterday – 92 percent of Minnesota has broadband (again as defined by 768 Kbps) but they expect that could increase by 2 percent once they hear back from more providers.

They will be providing info on average speeds in Minnesota outside the Twin Cities soon. Right now the average download speed is 6.5Mbps – which as I remarked yesterday is high.

One correction from my notes yesterday. They have heard from 98 providers. They think that there are probably 150. Earlier they thought there were 225 – but once they culled through the list they realized that some providers were listed multiple times with multiple names.

Questions:

Question: On the map we see patches of fiber in rural areas – what’s the deal there?

They were surprised with the patches of fiber in rural areas too. It sounds as if there may be some skepticism in the fiber maps. So CN will follow up with those providers.

Question: Speed Matters (2008) indicates that median download speed was 1.5 Mbps, upload was .5Mbps. BB without Boundaries (2007) showed speeds of 3.3 Mbps. CN is coming up with rates that are considerably higher. How does that compare? What does that indicate?

We need to extract the TC data and see what we get. Comcast and Qwest have deployed high speeds in the TCs and that skews the results. The average download speed in Kentucky is about 3.5 Mbps.

The difference may also indicate that the incumbents have stepped up since the last surveys have been taken. The CN surveys were done in November.

Question: How is the speed test impacted if folks take this at the office with ultra high-speed connections?

It skews the results to appear artificially high. They do extract the very high results and often can track by IP address test that are clearly special cases and not reflective of residential or home business connections.

Gauging speed by geography helps. It makes it easier to pull out counties or zip codes that are anomalies.

Note: Others have seen a dramatic increase in speeds according to other speed test results in the last few months too – again due to Comcast’s recent offering of high bandwidth options. Comcast probably decided that this was worth the investment after doing market research – that research might indicate that other providers will follow suit – in the TWIN CITIES.

It would be interesting to see when tiered services are offered which service is most popular.

What are you using to gauge speed: provider info, speed tests, other?

They have used about 200,000 tests for the current map. They have talked to providers. They will be taking on new data through Connect Minnesota tests and will be talking to more providers and talking to included providers again.
There are two aspects of the differential between what’s offered and what folks get. First – customers don’t always take the highest service available. Second – customers might not actually be experiencing speeds advertised.

Is there a minimum number of speed tests required?

Lake of the Woods needed more testers – so they draw back further than November to make up the difference.

Note: Collecting and integrating pricing info was not part of the contract. Maybe it should have been maybe it would be added.

Note: A histogram of the speeds would be a good way to present that info too.

Note: Non-disclosure agreements with providers make it difficult to share some levels of information.

Note: The hope from CN is that the contract will continue to update the maps even after the contract.

Question: Do the speed tests take into consideration IP address? Sometimes IP addresses in rural areas are not representative of location.

When folks take the test, they are asked to provide an address – that information helps track tester location.

We need as many people as possible to take the test! (You can take it here: http://speedtest.connectedmn.org/)  

Question: If one person in a zip code takes the test – does that represent the entire zip code?

Nope. They go to a more granular level and look at an aggregation of tests.

Data on availability comes entirely from providers. Speed tests feed into the maps that track speed.

Note: Akamai speed testing seemed to show different results – they plan to update those monthly.

Question: Reliability – does that get tested?

They want to look at that. Much of the data comes from providers but the preliminary maps are a great way to air the maps and get public validation.

They also want to look at standards of reliability, which is difficult because what consumer think is network error can often relate to consumer error or a network problem beyond the scope of any one provider.

What is reliable for a home might not be the same as for a business or hospital. You get what you pay for. A business making $2 million a day needs to pay for better connection than the college student. (Ann’s Note – the last comment comes from a board member.)

Question: Are there many municipalities providing service?

Some are successful, many aren’t. Generally they aren’t successful when there is competition. It’s tough to think of a provider that hasn’t struggled at some point. Difficulties are a consistent theme.

Williamstown is an example – they provide service in the city. They went with a fixed wireless service to outskirts and have run into troubles.

What happens when municipal provider fails?

Municipal providers have run into troubles when they have had to deal with consumers. Many cities have then left the project or sold it for pennies on the dollar. It makes great sense when there are other providers but not when there are providers.

Does an Open Access Network model work?

Nope. Owensburg Municipalities did that but it didn’t work out.

Notes: They are working at breaking up the data in different ways. But they plan to go to a county level for final maps – the difficulty with providing more granular level is getting a good sample size of testers in more granular levels.

Question: Are there plans to add performance in future tests? www.measurementlab.net would be a helpful tool.

None yet – but worth looking into it.

Question: What’s the difference between fixed and mobile wireless?

Fixed Wireless – typically licensed providers that use BB radio license to broadcast off a tower to a certain, defined area

Mobile Wireless – iphones (et al) use mobile wireless (3G)

Surprised to see DSL coverage in rural areas – is that accurate?

The co-ops have built out a lot. So many coops do have 100 % availability in their areas. We may need to get back to those folks to double check.

Note: The Task Force wants to see CN in June or July to discuss the final map.

Question: How can people offer feedback?

Use the web site and flag any potential inaccuracies.

LUNCH

Shovel-Ready Projects

Public comments:

Jeff O’Neil from Monticello

They could be ready this spring – which would mean jobs this spring. In May 2005, the citizens wanted FTTH for economic development reasons. The talked to incumbents – not much happened. The City Council investigated the opportunity with a feasibility study. They held a referendum in Fall 2007 – it passed with 74%. Money would come through revenue bonds – then go for private investment.

They worked with HBC to create a plan. May 2008 they sold bonds worth $26 million. The incumbent, TDS, sued because they felt the use of revenue bonds was bad. The lawsuit is still happening. The $26 million is still in hold but the fear is that the lawsuit will drag out rendering the bonds useless.

So Monticello is looking for money to get that job going.

Question: More on job creation please…

They had a specific number of jobs, which I kind of missed. I heard 104 construction jobs.

Question: How is Windom successful and how does that compare to Monticello?

Windom says the program is working well and they are taking on new subscribers. They are meeting their projections. Monticello needs a certain take rate – surveys and the results of the referendum indicate that the market is there – though they know they need to market. They have the expertise of HBC.

Note: This is not a discussion of Municipal model – but a time to talk about shovel-ready project.

Question: Do you feel like your success might lead to less revenue for the existing provider and therefore might lead to job loss?

We haven’t taken that into consideration but we also haven’t looked at the increase in jobs due to added efficiencies with FTTH – which is why they initially went into this.

Note: The Task Force asks, Is it our job to move forward projects that would be built anyways or is our job to move forward projects to get access to the 8 percent of the State that doesn’t have access?

Note: The money will go through traditional means – which may require the city to adhere existing rules and regulations.

Note: The stimulus money should go to projects that will offset costs to build out in areas without access.

Most federal programs are loans; it isn’t clear what will be the issue with the stimulus proposals.

What are the rules? What are the goals?

Kathy Lucas Embarq, a Midsize CLEC –

Here are some important public policy points:
1. They have been working with Congress to get folks to prioritize unserved areas. Minnesota has those areas.
2. They are working on shovel-ready projects to get 1.5 Mbps upload speeds in areas that are currently unserved.
3. Public money could help serve those areas.

Note: Need to talk to providers who say they provide service but not to everyone. For example a provider who offers service within a city but not to homes just outside the city boundaries.

Question: Would you run copper or fiber?

We currently run copper to those areas but we’d need to look into those options.

Note: We need to look at different levels of unserved. There are people who can’t get access because there is no broadband. There are people who don’t have computers and/or knowledge to get online.

Note: They are looking for money to get to those people who need computer and training.

The Legislature asked the Task Force to create a list of shovel-ready projects. Today we’re going to look at that list and hope to finalize it at the next meeting.

Projects need to be:

• Shovel-ready – projects that are ready to go and just need money
• Replacing 80/20 money (local/federal mix)

However

• The money will go through existing channels (USDA, NTIA for example)
• Not a ton will come through state for broadband
• Maybe we need to brainstorm yardsticks and processes if the State does get money
• Minnesota is supposed to get $500 million for Infrastructure

Question: Do we agree that it doesn’t make sense to give the Legislators a list of projects today?

Yes

Ann’s Note: There was a lot of discussion about what the rules might be for shovel-ready projects. Task Force members had different information based either on their knowledge of how things are going with the federal discussions or their past experience with federal funding. There was a lot of discussion about who would most likely be responsible for dispersing the funds. There was very little – actually no discussion of the actual projects except as they were brought up by members of the public (Monticello and Embarq).

Question: Do we want to provide guidelines to Legislators to look at broadband projects?

Mostly yes!

So the plan is to shelve the list of projects but to create some guidelines for the legislators. Towards that end the Task Force members brainstormed characteristics or qualities that would most likely be desirable in shovel-ready projects. You can see that list below – I listened but wasn’t able to see what they listed so this list isn’t perfect. After they brainstormed each Task Force member voted on the items they felt was most important. I have highlighted the biggest vote-getters.

One astute observation by a board member was that no one checked shovel-ready, which is presumably one characteristic we can assume will be part of the federal equation. (Ann’s note: I think the silver lining is that the Task Force is clearly thinking about the long term impact of their decisions. That’s good for the long term but perhaps not as helpful for the quick turnaround needed for the list of shovel-ready projects.

Characteristics that will likely be desirable in project categories

1. Rural
2. Unserved
3. Underserved
4. Job creation
5. Education
6. Healthcare
7. “Digitally Disadvantaged”
8. Shovel-Ready
9. Passed regulatory & environmental hurdles
10. Ready to go but don’t have funding
11. Engineering docs
12. Construction docs
13. Right of way
14. Creating a benchmark Idea
15. Education (rural, unserved & underserved) – got 8 votes
16. Healthcare
17. Libraries
18. Government
19. Community
20. Security
21. Rural
22. Unserved – got 14 votes
23. Underserved – got 7 votes
24. Economic Impact
25. Job creation (prevailing wage) (public & private)
26. Long term
27. Sustainability – got 8 votes
28. Private Capital Investment
29. Public/Private Partnerships
30. Concern about spending public dollars where private money might go
31. Non-duplication
32. Economic Development
33. Advanced (45-101 Mbps)
34. Market Enlargement/Development (BB stimulation/use)
35. Affordability – got 4 votes
36. Subsidy
37. Customer Awareness
38. Roll of government
39. Lessons Learned
40. Increasing demand with applications
41. Increasing speed & quality
42. Open Networks

The plan is to compile these results and look again during the next meeting. Also keep an eye on the situation with Congress.

Back to mapping – it would be a good idea to take a look at the maps. The folks in the legislative meetings had questions but were glad that the Task Force was there to ask even better questions.

Rep Sailer was glad to hear about the rural meetings planned for next summer. Rick King spent time with someone from the Governor’s office and they were curious about what was happening.

Well I was reminded of the project in a post from someone called Freedom Dogs. His decsripiton of the WiFi equipment on the street was great when he said it “looked like an 8th grade science project.” I’m going to go out on a limb and admit that I’m probably more liberal than Freedom Dog. His last line quotes another resource and sums up the tenor of his article:

FFM has a summary graph that I could not put better myself: The simple lesson: All taxpayers are put at extraordinary risk when local government gets involved in these risky projects.

My focus might not be so much on government getting involved in risky projects. Just yesterday I talked about how Kentucky risked getting involved in broadband and won. I would focus on the need to mitigate risk.

It seems as if the big hiccup with St Louis Park was that they selected a vendor they didn’t like – or ended up not liking. Also, they were going to be the first to go green and get broadband in one fell swoop. It seems to me that maybe they needed to do more research at the front end to perhaps choose a different contractor for the work or to re-think the go green aspect.

Here are the notes from the conversation. The notes are long. It was a good conversation, I feel as if I learned something. Mostly we talked about the mapping, working with providers, demand stimulation and why are they do darned successful.

Connected Nation (CN) often comes in two pieces. First is mapping supply of broadband. Second is measuring and stimulating demand. At this point they will only be doing mapping for Minnesota, although I think they’d like to help with demand stimulation as well.

About Mapping

The goal of mapping is to find out where broadband exists, determine where the gaps are and target build out. The mapping is as granular as possible. The goal is to know by house where broadband is available. One of the outcomes will be an interactive map where residents can plug in their address and the tool will tell them who (if anyone) provides broadband in that area.

That check-your-address map should be ready by February 1. Once it is I’ll post it on the blog so that readers can check it out. In fact the CN folks want people to check it out, test it out and provide feedback on any issues, especially since the data will be gathered from the providers. CN will accept feedback for a couple of months and then make modifications based on feedback. Then I think the interactive maps will be made available (but not updated) for one year.

The CN team will be contacting broadband providers in the State. They estimate 225 providers, which they said is a lot. It’s more than any of the other states they covered. For example Kentucky has about 100 providers. I found that kind of surprising – but that’s because my “normal” is Minnesota. Also back in the MRNet day I swear I personally spoke to 225 people who wanted to start ISPS. (Some did and some didn’t.)

CN has relationships with most of the big providers, especially if they have worked with them in the past so it is easy for them to get data from the big guys. They will generally call a new provider, sign a nondisclosure and get data from them. (The providers are protected from sunshine laws, which means that specific info about their networks will not be accessible.) Some providers track access down to the household. For those who don’t CN will work with them to get as close as they can to that level of info. CN creates a service coverage map and the provider approves it.

Working with Providers

One challenge is getting new providers to want to work with CN. They aren’t mandated to cooperate – but CN has had success showing providers the advantages of the data collection. As a librarian I can’t understand why someone wouldn’t jump at the chance to have the State pay for their market research – but I suspect it can be tough.

One reason to participate is that the State is going to use these maps to target underserved areas. If you don’t participate and show your coverage, then your area will look like a dead zone, which may make it ripe for the picking for another provider. The flip side of that is by getting full participation the maps will be most valuable to the providers in that it will help them select their areas for growth. Brent and Laura mentioned that those maps have been really valuable for that reason, especially for the small providers.

CN will be providing high level maps color coded by availability, population/household density and topography. These may be most valuable to providers and policy makers.

CN have worked to make the providers feel like they are part of the solution, not part of the problem. To be successful everyone needs to be at the table – that includes government, nonprofits and the private sector – especially in today’s economy.

Demand Stimulation

CN is not providing any info or service related to demand in Minnesota. If they did, they would be contacting people to ask about broadband use to gauge areas where demand is high and low.

They also provide services to stimulate demand. They facilitate community leadership teams at a local level, recruit members from 9 sectors and work through a process (using the survey research and maps) to create a map for the community.

The plan sounds similar to some of the work that Blandin has done – most recently with the Community Broadband Resources program where local communities can sign up to get up to 32 hours of consulting to get a local program started. What I like about both the Blandin and CN approach is that you start by getting the local community involved with creating a plan. That assumes that each community will have a different plan rather than trying a cookie cutter approach where you assume what works in one rural community will work in another.

Why are they SO successful?

I have always been impressed with Connected Nation’s (going back to the Connect Kentucky day) ability to capture the attention and imagination of legislators. So I asked what their secret was. Clearly I wasn’t the first to ask as there was no hesitation in the answer.

They picked a good name. I have to say that they couldn’t emphasize that enough with me. I see the initiatives that go far and they have good names, Net Neutrality (by any other name could be ignored), Save the Internet, white spaces. I think statewide cable franchising gets lost because they don’t have a good name, yet.

Scale is important. There have been successful local and regional efforts to promote broadband but Connect Kentucky was the first on such a grand scale. Until you get that statewide scale the legislators just don’t want to know. They credit the Kentucky legislators and governors for buying into CN.

I hadn’t thought about this before but the Kentucky folks were brave to take the time to do the baseline research and mapping on such a large scale – because that kind of research isn’t cheap but without it you can’t measure success. Also without it you aren’t make decisions based on empirical data – you’re going on hunches. I’ve seen loads of businesses do this – both do the research and make informed decisions and move forward on a hunch. I’ve seen both ways work – but you don’t really learn much going on a hunch. You never know why you succeeded or why you failed – sometimes you don’t even know if you succeeded or failed. So it’s hard to replicate or avoid the same action or reaction again.

The speed of the Kentucky results made a difference. They were able to act quickly. So people didn’t lose interested and the data was easy to compare. The supply-demand approach was also a good way to go. It’s not a new way – but including the data behind it was new. So again they were able to say, “we were there, we did this and now we’re here.”

Finally they worked in states with large congressional districts and with states with high profile legislators and governors. So that helped the word get out. I’m just not that politically astute so I’m always impressed when someone is.

Well now they have captured the imagination of the incumbents. OK that’s not new there has always been a link from one to the other – but recently the incumbents AT&T, Verizon, Comcast and others sent a note to Congress outlining a new broadband policy for them and Connected Nation seems to be the model they are touting.

That’s great! It reminds me of my least favorite past co-worker who I affectionately called Boss Junior. She wasn’t really my boss, she couldn’t (or wouldn’t) do her own job, but she had a lot of helpful advice for me. She didn’t have a Master’s Degree in Library Science, she had a very vested interest in how I did or didn’t do my job and she didn’t get why that should matter. (She was helpful to everyone, not just me.) Often I wondered why in the heck she didn’t just spend half of the energy just doing her own job – but she never did. She preferred to get us all spinning our wheels, than working. (Eventually, that workplace closed its doors.)

So maybe that story relates; maybe it doesn’t.

Last night Karl Bode from Broadband Reports posted a great and more explicit article on his views on “Nation’s Largest ISPs Crafting Fake National Broadband Policy.”