Yesterday I attended the Broadband Task Force meeting. It was held at Unisys in Eagan – so after the meeting we got a fun tour of their data center. The power accoutrements alone were impressive!

There were quite a few presentations at the meeting. Dakota County is developing a lot of best practices in terms of how to streamline broadband/utility development in the area. I think the presentations from the Dakota County folks will be of particular interest to anyone else looking to make it easier for providers to come into your area. (Thanks to everyone for sharing!) Also because Eagan is the home to so many high tech companies – they are experiencing the pain of too much success – specifically over crowded rights-of-way – and talking about solutions.

Much of the meeting was also spent in working group mode. Task Force members and attendees got into small groups and addressed the issues at hand. It was interesting to see what’s been happening outside the public meetings in terms of creating the roadmap that will be unveiled in the annual reports. It was also nice to see the public at large getting involved. It does make the point that folks showing up are having an impact. (Mentioning that to encourage more people to show up!) Because several groups met consecutively I could only take so many notes – but I was able to record a couple of the sessions. So while we have video from the session – the value is in the audio.

Here are the full notes, thanks to the presenters for sharing their presentations.

10:00-10:15 Greetings and introductions, approve meeting minutes

Meeting notes approved

10:15-10:30 Welcome/explanation by host site/description of broadband happenings in area

Welcome by Dan Browning, Unisys

Info on Unisys: 2011 Revenue – $11 billion

Facility was built in 1986 – when Burroughs & Sperry merged – there was a contest to see where Unisys’ Data Center should be – Eagan won.

• Educated workforce
• Infrastructure structure
• Utilities are affordable

Moved from full serve to self-serve to prevent

Transformed the Data center and Secured Enterprise

10:30-11:15 Public comments/description of broadband happenings in area

Dakota Future Intelligent Community Initiative – Bill Coleman

QUESTIONS:

Who are the members? It’s privately funded. Unysis is a member, Goodrich Aerospace.

Dakota County C-Net – Anita Scott, Dakota County Director of IT

Spring of 2011 – Dakota County established broadband principles (http://blandinonbroadband.org/2011/03/07/principles-for-county-broadband-projects/)

QUESTIONS –

Are other counties doing this level of work on dark fiber?

No one in southern metro area are doing this. Dublin, OH has done successful work in this area.

Eagan Data Center: The Connexion – Tom Garrison

[Ann’s note – Tom alluded to the PPT he recently shared on the blog – so while his presentation today is actually an unabridged version. I’m going to repost his presentation here.]

Forever is a collection of nows – Emily Dickenson – we need to start planning.

We need redundancy – we’ve found that not only are there issues with so much infrastructure coming through the 511 – but there are issues with the connection in Chicago as well.

QUESTIONS

In the sign up phase, how are things going?

The level of interest is double the space available.

11:15-12:00 Subgroup reports to full task force and feedback

[These are the breakout sessions. Each target area has been assigned a staff person.]

Coordination Across Government Levels (Leader: Danna MacKenzie)

https://vimeo.com/40620088

Best Practices/Incentives (Leader: Dick Sjoberg)

Best Practices/Incentives (Leader: Dick Sjoberg) – Maybe we could meet May 6^th as a group to go over some this – especially with some folks in legislature. Might also be nice to have subgroups from different associations. Many of us work at places that are already looking at the issues.

Best Practice Ideas:

• State matching program for unserved areas
• There has to be some component for backhaul
• We need to truly define unserved – that might bring in private dollars.
• The final unserved 10% are by far the highest cost areas.
• In the first task force – they said FTTH (or coax) the costs per passing was $2500 for urban $3000 for suburban $13,000 for rural.
• Idaho did it with general fund money. They spent $4.8 million for a 1-to-2 match fund.
• Density vs investment is the issue.
• We need to focus on unserved – doesn’t make sense when there are providers in the area.
• Getting to a definition of unserved can be difficult.
• Maybe we need to come up with the definition first? There is a definition in the original Task Force. There are several definitions floating out there.
• We stepped on landmines in Penn. Homeworkers were not happy when we called satellite served.
• We just ran into troubles with employees that were unable to use wireless. Mayo does not want homeworkers to use wireless. They are invested in wireline. They don’t allow VPN using wireless? The issue is that it’s a big organization that’s hard to move.
• Who should be able to decide on incentives? Perhaps some sort of Task Force. Maybe someone at Commerce?
• It’s difficult when you have providers in the room. Although there is a precedent set up that would allow that – although you need more levels of disclosure.
•  Putting into an agency – DEED might be better that Commerce – you need separation between funding and overseeing.
• In Wisconsin they made a $7 million investment – anytime you deployed BB in an unserved area, there was a WI income tax credit available to you. CenturyTel made good use of that program. It was a big help in Northern WI – but the backhaul became a problem. Transport costs keep rising and it will be a critical issue.
• A bill has passed in AZ – it doesn’t have financing. Two highways for the price of one. It passed. Department of Transportation needs to open up conduit when they are building roads. Estimated cost of incentive $10-15 million in 5-7 years.
  • AZ also has a broadband commission in the works. (SB1403 – still awaiting hearing) They also have a coordination office – but waiting to see if they get action in legislation this year. http://www.azleg.gov/legtext/50leg/2r/laws/0195.htm
• Is there a master plan that communities put together? There’s a MNDOT statewide plan broken down by region.
• Parnell, Rothman & Phillips comprise a broadband subcommittee on broadband called by the Governor. Maybe we can take this to that committee.
• AZ plan is nice in that just the way roads cross borders – no broadband can too.
• Is laying conduit the most expensive part of deploying fiber? Or are there other big ticket item pieces?
  • There’s a difference between deployment and maintenance (Transport is operational); the electronics piece is always an unknown. The ongoing cost is becoming a bigger deal than deployment.
  • Having conduit done – makes it easier in terms of timing, permits.
• The stimulus program was interesting because NTIA said you don’t need environmental study – but RUS said you did.
• Depreciation is an issue too. Right now speed of depreciation is different. Now you can expense rather than depreciation with Feds; MN does not allow this. Getting that in alignment would be helpful.
• Most of the people in the room are operators in one way or another.
• Is there a way to get info on MN’s tax climate and how it might have a negative impact on providers in Minnesota? Maybe CenturyLink could do that. There were a lot of tax incentives listed in the original Task Force report – and info on what other states had done. That too might be a good place to start.
  • Do we have the ability to overlay ConnectMN maps with Department of Transportation maps? Yes, and we’ll try to do that.
• Any programs by industry that might help?
• The SEC Pilot project in the healthcare is coming to MN. 144 mostly rural hospitals in clinics in MN. It’s $5.4 million coming through Department of Health. Unfortunately this is no longer enough money.
• Identifying unserved areas is one thing; getting them service is another. Finding local leaders is also very difficult. And working with leadership is often not funding.
• But isn’t the problem money?
  • Yes that’s probably true.
  • Note the FCC has discounted access by 85% (in healthcare).
  • Ultimately there are no unserved areas that couldn’t be served. It’s just a matter of spending enough money. There are farmers who, once they decide they need it, have put T1s in their homes. But the guy in the basement
• Looking at public-private partnerships and having networks designed together makes sense.
• Tying in anchor tenants can be helpful. Working together we can identify a revenue source.
• It would be helpful to know the federal pots of money – in other industries. USDA has funding. Health & Human Services has funding. Hooking state initiatives with federal initiatives could be fruitful. MN isn’t looking to spend money – but maybe there are efforts that don’t involve new appropriations.
• The Computer Commuter in LqP was funded by federal funds (or maybe a federal foundation).
• That’s another area to investigate. Earmarks through legislators. In can take a couple of years – but it does work. We could look at programs in other states that have been funded thusly.
• It seems like there are grants everywhere these days. And it seems discretionary. Money is going through congressionally directed grants – but congress still weighs in. It’s still competitive – but it’s an opportunity.
• Minnesota has a Central Office equipment (anything you can plugin in) exemption for tax – but it doesn’t extend to fiber. It might help.
• Public Safety – such as ARMER. We could make better use of those. Still post 911 funding.
• Sjoberg did a project that read license plates in northern border counties that tied into border crossing. It creates a tremendous amount of data There are a lot of highways up north.
• In North Dakota – they have a BTWAN – a videoconferencing system. It’s dedicated. Might be nice to link into something like that in MN. There are apparently some restrictions in MN regarding what counties can do with broadband.
• Might be nice to get a list of infrastructure maps by sector in Minnesota. The problem is the proprietary nature of some of this info. OET provides a lot of data – may need to talk to them. They my know what else is going on.

12:00-12:30 Lunch

12:30-1:00 Presentations

ROW Management, Dig Once

Butch McConnell, Dakota County

Used to be that the cost of Joint trenching would be shared. When we talk about adding conduit – we talking about saving in restoration and public frustration. But it’s not as simple as we’re building a road adding conduit is easy to do. The effort is significant.

Non-Joint Trenching – You need to be 2 feet away from existing from infrastructure.

Been tracking utility installation since 2000. Utility infrastructure installed before 2000 has not been tracked (by Dakota County). You can see from the picture above that as competition grows we’ll see more traffic building. Joint trenching has been working but we may need to find a better way. What if we put a big fiber in trenching and start leasing fiber as need arises. It will save space, and cost – depending on your type of company, you may need redundancy. Folks who need redundancy as less interested in leasing fiber – but many are.

Russ Matthys, City Engineer, City of Eagan

City has 240 miles; 47 are state aid streets (such as Wescott Rd) – they are wider streets or minor arterial. We have more than 100 miles for right-of-way. We are working on making residents happy – and today that means broadband. The trenches are dug behind the curb. We want to make sure the roads are safe and that they last.

50-80% of fiber relates to opening and closing of trenches. That cost can relate to size of city “crowdedness” of rights-of-way. Working with local government makes it easier. It’s in the providers interest to consistency in permitting.

ONE STOP PERMITTING SYSTEM

Dakota County in 2007 started with an online permitting process so that they could do 6 different types of permits. The goal was to work together to create a solution that worked for everyone. Wanted to help promote Dakota County. Track the following permits:

• Registration of Applicants
• RTW – Utility
• Obstruction Permits
• Excavation/Grade Permits
• Landscaping Permits
• Oversized Vehicles
• Special Events Permits
• Access Permits (new driveways)

Zayo had 90 miles in Dakota County in which they wanted to work. So the idea is they go into the system, plug in their info, then they see what they need. Then they can continue on to make applications with anyone in Dakota County – then they can check out.

QUESTIONS:

How many permits per year?

1500 in Dakota County now – maybe another 1000 for city permits.

Do applicants know how long permit will take?

We try to keep it within 48-72 hours.

Paul Zyla, Agstar

Work with farmers on loan, leases, crop insurance, business services, succession planning. The focus is rural America. We want to be very client focused. We do that face-to-face. We have seen the value of technology. As CIO I want to find ways to add value to our organization and the clients we serve. We have a portfolio of $8 billion.

We want to share global, national and local info. The ConnectMN maps are very informative. We know we want to get technology into the hands of our customers.

QUESTION:

Do you do anything in terms of education with technology?

We’d like to get tablets into the hands of our clients. We have product called EDGE – provide (classroom) training on a number of topics related to agriculture.

1:00-1:45 Subgroup reports to full task force and feedback

Broadband Adoption (Leader: Shirley Walz)

• It might be nice to look at the following map to see which areas have seen increase in adoption and then to investigate why they have seen improvements: http://investigativereportingworkshop.org/investigations/broadband-adoption/htmlmulti/broadband-adoption-map/
• Can we use existing tools to track what has been successful in Minnesota? Were there adoption efforts in the County? Did new providers come to the area?
• Can we overlay data from FCC Form 477 onto ConnectMN maps? One issue in that the 477 Forms define broadband differently than the MN broadband law would.
• Benton County created a nice form as part of the MIRC project that highlights Internet, Phone and Cable directory in the local area. AN intern developed the brochure. It should be updated at least every year. They have printed then in batches of 100. The print in-house. Maybe this is something we can use as a model to suggest.
  • It might be nice to offer this to the counties and have them adopt it. Or maybe the city is a place to adopt the project. We just need to get this into the hands of folks who need it.
• Maybe it makes sense to put together a toolkit of resources.
• There are resources out there that can help learn how to use your computers. (Such as GCF Learn Free)
• How do we become the default site for getting info on computer adoption/skills?
• One thing with tribes – if they are able to get federal dollars – it can lead to expansion into other areas. We laid fiber for future expansion and now we can lease some of the capacity.
• Essentia could be looking at this too.
• The ConnectMN contract sends on Dec 31, 2014 so we need to find a home for some of this information.

Monitor/Understand Impact of FCC & PUC Decisions; Cost of Broadband

• Legislature – no action this year
•  CTIA, Mobile Future, Cable – are all monitoring
• CAF Order
• Lifeline
• CyberSecurity
• Wireless auction – Auct 27 – T-mobile has already filed their blocks (half think something will happen)

Moderating cost for deployment  – 2009 costs from original report

• Cable Assn – should be able to get number
• Connect Nation may have info
• ARRA – applicants
• Blandin Survey with NESC
• Jack Geller – could he look at this
• Ookla – Net Index – cost per MB (2.32 SD – MN is 4.37 (16 www.netindex.com)

State of Broadband – no notes sorry!

1:45-2:15 Public comments – none

2:15-2:25 Other business/Upcoming meetings

Winona – May 7^th

Reminder – if you have presentation or other idea please email MAK & others. They do weekly calls. (MAK, Diane, Bill & Joanne)  On that call we can talk about upcoming conferences, speaking engagements and ability to move forward with ideas. But these will be addressed on the private phone call.

2:25-2:30 Closing comments/Adjourn meeting