I attended the Minnesota Broadband Task Force on Friday October 24. It included a few presentations, as you’ll see below. Most of the presenters were kind enough to allow me to post their PowerPoint slides here. I can’t thank them enough as that allowed me to focus on their presentations rather than to take feverish notes. I did try to track questions.

Here are my notes. I have tried to put some organization around it – but at times it reads a little like a later James Joyce novel. Sorry!

It started with a discussion of trying to get a balance of speakers – especially when it comes to policy-type issues.

Public comment:

Brett Leggy from Connected Nation who will be creating access map for the state offered to answer questions. They are meeting with providers now and signing non-disclosures. They’ll be providing initial maps by Feb 1, 2009. Need providers to participate – and expect they will. The final version of the map is due June 30, 2009. So some modifications can be made between February and June.

They have met with associations. Plan to contact municipal providers too based on the list provided by the FCC.

(Connected Nation will plan to come to February Task Force meeting as well. They have worked with 6 states, including MN.)

Question for Brett: The mapping is usually done before a Task Force starts – do you think the way MN is doing this is OK?

Answer: It shouldn’t be a problem. The providers thus far have been very accommodating.

Question: What will be the detail of mapping?

Answer: Street level – plotting of infrastructure on map. An interactive map will also be available – kind of like the Google Maps – where citizens can click and learn about connectivity in their area.

Logistics

Meetings will be in Eagan Firehouse – sad news for those of us who come to the meetings and like to have WiFi. They will make accommodations for participation via video.

They have talked to more/other legal counsel about balancing data practices and open meeting laws and moving forward efficiently. That was a big topic last month. There are a lot of rules that may need to follow. That will make it difficult get their report written. (For example it sounds as if email conversation has been an issue. Remember from last month – they can’t use email to transfer info that should be in the public record. )

They are going after the California model of report. (I assume this is it.) So there is a template in place – but still creating a report requires resources – which it sounds as if they will be able to get.

Guest Speakers

Steve Kelley – Overview of Regulatory Framework related to Telecommunications

Questions
Subsidies… how much can a provider choose subsidized use? It depends on the type of provider. The cable providers have more flexibility.

Broadband should be a public good! (Like sewer and water? ‘Cause people in rural areas have to dig their own wells. But no one has to build their own telephone poles.)

Don’t get locked into a particular technology. Video is big with customers. Mobility is big with customers.
Sounds as if we need multiple strategies; how do we fund them?

• Cable uses entertainment revenue to subsidize other services. So is there a way to build on that?
• Use explicit subsidies.
• Think about how to be even handed across providers.
• The TAG program was a good way to get schools & libraries connected. It drove regional purchasers.

Mike O’Connor on Internet Basics

Bret Swanson Senior Fellow, Center for Global Innovation on The Exaflood

(view presentation)

Questions

Advice for the Task Force? In 2006, Indiana passed a great telecom reform and now there’s an additional $500,000 investment in broadband. Big boom in FTTH and fiber to the neighborhood. So the initial response to the reform has been positive. In the 90s we over-regulated. In 2003 the FCC review brought out some deregulation. (Brand X) More deregulation in 2006 in the form of state reform.

We fell behind in the early 2000’s. We have corrected some mistakes. State should make it a priority to de-regulate and encourage investment by private sector.

Did Indiana do anything to support rural areas? Telecommunications providers promised to deliver high speed DSL to all rural central offices. There were protections built into the reform. For example in the next 3-5 years prices will transition. Rural areas were heavily subsidized. FTTH is happening in more densely populated areas first. The goal however was to reach the most people with real broadband rather than to mandate that everyone gets connected but at a slower pace.

Do you think the infrastructure will support the exaflood predictions? If you give people the excess technology, they will find a use for it. New applications may outstrip access and demand more capacity. The predictions are based on the assumption that we continue the FTTH build out and wireless broadband. So predictions have been moved out to 2015 versus 2010 because we can’t be sure to have capacity by 2010.

One issue is that the Exabyte traveling at any given time doesn’t all go to the same place. So maybe the pipe doesn’t need to average an Exabyte – it needs to burst at an Exabyte. Is that sufficient? We’ll see. Providers are investing.

The Task Force needs to recommend a speed goal to the state – what would you look at by 2015? 1) By 2015 you want to see 100 Megabits/sec to homes would be ideal – especially with HDTV. 2) Be careful about mandates. When you mandate you discourage investment.

What about security and privacy? It gets back to the layers or service. We need to standardize security at the root level (transport/physical) but once you get to the application layer, there are many options. Need to focus on security at top layer or you risk being out of date. But focusing on that top layer really leaves the decision closer to the user and further from statewide mandates or recommendations.

Myron Lowe, University of Minnesota on Internet2

Internet2 promotes/supports:

• Interactive collaboration such as earthquake testing or virtual surgery
• Hi fidelity Collaboration such as music lessons or language practice
• Virtual communities such as health science communities
• Telehealth – medical instruction, clinical practice and research (BIRN) – very low latency
• Megaconference Jr

These tools support Internet2 success:

• Coordinating Across Geography
• Advisory Councils
• Working Committees
• Strategic Planning

Questions:

What’s missing in current structure? There’s a continuum – some things can happen on the regular Internet; some can’t because there’s too much congestion. Internet2 runs are 20-30% capacity.

Why should we keep Interne2 in mind? These are examples of what’s being done with big broadband. Think about tech transfer – how can things happening in academia (especially science) inform what we’re doing in communities today. Internet2 success is built on the fact that they focus on deriving value from the network. (Ann’s note: I had to highlight that as I thought it was so important.) Observe what’s happening with virtual communities and advanced use of network and you’ll see there’s leadership and coordination.

Is the work being down to develop application on Internet2 going to transfer to regular Internet or will the regular Internet have to develop similar tools? There is a growing gap between the bandwidth available on regular Internet and bandwidth required on Internet2. So it’s a little like NASCAR and regular cars – we’ll never drive NASCAR but the work done on NASCARs can inform cards on the street.

Policy impacts of Internet2: Intenet2 has been involved with policy. It’s not a part of the rural health care pilot program but when the FCC looked at why it’s rural health care wasn’t used – it asked Internet2 what they did as a model.

Will everyone access Internet2 eventually? Internet2 is a private access network. By design it’s over-provisioned. To open it up would be to challenge those characteristics. Also it’s a pay-to-play. But perhaps we can use Internet2 as a model as to what can happen in the home and/or business. Intenet2 can/should inspire.

So how can we use Internet2 as a model? Myron is looking for ways to bring Intenet2 into the community – which led to inclusion of K12 community. They selected focal points who would look at Intenet2 and find ways to use that in K12 community.

Is there a chance that health care will get involved in outreach? Yes. The FCC was inspired by Internet2. They have provided for hospital networks to connect to Internet2. Hospitals that aren’t connected want to get connected and others want to improve connections. Healthcare is one of the fastest growing communities on Internet2.

Back to Task Force Business

Volunteers for a Task Force panel at the Blandin conference and an opportunity to listen to constituents. (Several volunteered.)

Future Meeting Topic Wish List

• B&M Gates state by state broadband study – Minnesota is slated for spring. Peg Werner
• Learning Network & k12 education
• Healthcare
• CWA Study
• Materials from MTA 9inlight of centennial)
• DEED will overlay mapping with demographic info using GIS to show relationships.
• Providers
• What does it take to provide broadband?
• Get other state reports
• How many government entities have been involved in a public network and how did that go?