Monthly Archives: January 2016

State Broadband Initiatives (2016): Help me create a better list please!

Posted on by
2

In the last couple weeks a few people asked me for information on what other states are doing to support/develop/map broadband. I wasn’t able to find a very good list. Several lists were published when ARRA funding still supported many state broadband mapping and support efforts but the ARRA funding ended in 2014 and 2015. Many of those ARRA-supported effort have closed; some are still open. It turns out there’s a wide range of what states are and aren’t doing in regards to broadband.

For the last 24 hours I have done almost nothing but look for state broadband efforts and initiatives. Below – organized in alphabetical order is what I found. I am offering this up as a first draft and asking folks to help make the list better.

So please – let me know if you have better or more information on any (or all!) of the state efforts. I will try to update the document as suggestions are made. Either post a comment below or email me atreacy@treacyinfo.com. Once comments have been made I will try to create a cleaner version of the list – maybe even a spreadsheet to help organize the info. For now I present it in very raw format…

Thanks!!

Alabama
Started an Office of Broadband Development and appointed a Task Force in 2015 http://www.madeinalabama.com/sba-news/office-broadband-development-forms-advisory-board-task-forces/

Alaska
Broadband Goal: By 2020, every Alaskan has 100 mbps broadband connectivity. (100 Mbps down and up)http://www.alaska.edu/files/oit/bbtaskforce/2013-08-AK-Broadband-Task-Force-Report%7CA-Blueprint-for-Alaska’s-Broadband-Future.pdf

Arizona
Digital Arizona closed in 2015 https://digitalarizona.az.gov/

Arkansas
ARKANSAS STATE BROADBAND MANAGER’S REPORT http://www.stc.arkansas.gov/Documents/Broadband%20Manager’s%20Activities-Operations%20Report.pdf In October 2015, state lawmakers announced that, by October 2016, a plan would be prepared to connect every home and business in the state to high-speed broadband Internet. The Joint Committee for Advanced Communications and Information Technology voted to find solutions and develop legislation to fix the problem. Members of the committee have also visited rural communities to learn more about challenges to broadband connectivity.

California [additions posted 1/31/2016]
Broadband and Digital Literacy Office http://www.cio.ca.gov/broadband/ In 2008 the CA Broadband Task Force released a report that included numerous specific recommendations such as: State-Issued Broadband Bonds California Advanced Services Fund (CASF), Tax Incentives for Rural, Unserved California and funding channels such as $10 million per year for rural infrastructure grants, up to $55 million annually for discounts to schools and libraries. http://www.cio.ca.gov/broadband/pdf/CBTF_FINAL_Report.pdf

Public Utilities Code Section 281 requires theCalifornia Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) to advance broadband adoption and infrastructure deployment in unserved and underserved areas with a goal of providing broadband access to 98 percent of Californian households through the California Advanced Services Fund (CASF).

The CASF approved funding for infrastructure projects that will provide broadband access to no less than 98 percent of California households. The following are accounts within the fund: the Broadband Infrastructure Grant Account, the Rural and Urban Regional Broadband Consortia Grant Account; the Broadband Infrastructure Revolving Loan Account and the Broadband Public Housing Account.

The CASF is funded by a surcharge rate on revenues collected by telecommunications carriers from end-users for intrastate telecommunications services. The surcharge is currently 0.464% and is authorized to collect $25 million per year. Under changes made in 2012, CASF will fund up to 70% of project costs for unserved areas and 60% for underserved areas. Underserved is defined as no wireline or wireless carrier offering service at advertised speeds of at least 6Mbps down and 1.5Mbps upload; unserved is defined as only having dial-up service available. A revolving loan program was also implemented to provide supplemental financing for projects also applying for CASF grant funding that will provide up to 20% of project costs up to a maximum of $500,000. CASF funded consortia and state agencies have identified areas to be prioritized for funding. There is also a right of first refusal process in place for a certified provider to indicate it has or will be upgrading service to an area that is part of a proposal. Beginning December 2014, project applications are being accepted on a rolling basis. In June 2014, CASF awards totaling $6.9 million in grants and loans for two projects were awarded and in April 2014 four projects were funded with just over $12 million in grants and loans.

The Broadband Public Housing Account will award up to $20 million for broadband connectivity and up to $5 million for up to 85% of the cost of adoption programs. Applications are accepted quarterly. Providers may not charge more than $20/month for service. The speed provided must be at least 6 Mbps down and 1.5 Mbps upload and have a minimum 1.5 Mbps download speed during peak periods of use.

Colorado
Has a State broadband portal http://broadband.co.gov/ that supports local and regional broadband planning. They have $20 million for broadband planning and middle mile infrastructure https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B-vz6H4k4SESX3I1THlRMk1EZjA/view?pref=2&pli=1

Connecticut
They have a State Broadband Office http://www.ct.gov/broadband/site/default.asp A collaboration of Connecticut municipalities issued a RFQ soliciting partnerships with providers to create Gig networks http://www.ct.gov/broadband/cwp/view.asp?a=4524&q=525910

Delaware
Broadband in Delaware is focused on mapping http://www.broadband.delaware.gov/

Florida
The Florida Broadband Initiative was funded by NTIA http://broadbandfla.com – while it doesn’t say the office is closed the site does not appear to be up to date

Georgia
The Georgia Broadband effort was funded by the NTIA https://gta.georgia.gov/annualreport/broadband – while it doesn’t say the office is closed the site does not appear to be up to date

Hawaii
In 2012, Hawaii set its goal for Gig access to everyone by 2018. http://hawaiibroadband.org/about_broadband.html (The Task Force that recommended that goal is now defunct but the Hawaii Broadband website remains.)

Idaho  [additions posted 1/31/2016]
In 2015, Idaho House has unanimously approved a new task force to recommend changes to the state’s piecemeal broadband system. They will report back in 2016. http://www.ksl.com/?nid=157&sid=34169284

Since 2001, Idaho has allowed a tax credit for qualified expenditures in broadband equipment of three percent (capped by the lesser of the amount of taxes owed or $750,000). This tax credit is in addition to the three percent tax credit allowed by the state for capital investment. The broadband that is required to be deployed is 200kbps download and 125kbps upload since the law has not been updated.

Illinois  [additions posted 1/31/2016]
Broadband Illinois (or Illinois Broadband Deployment Council ) is a nonprofit that promotes better broadband http://www.broadbandillinois.org/ .The chair is the Lt Governor.

Governor Pat Quinn today announced the completion of a nearly $100 million, four-year project to install more than 1,000 new miles of high-speed fiber-optic broadband infrastructure across 55 Illinois counties. (Aug 2014) http://www3.illinois.gov/PressReleases/ShowPressRelease.cfm?SubjectID=2&RecNum=12472

Governor Pat Quinn launched a competition in 2013 that will award up to $4,000,000 in prize funding to the most promising ultra high-speed broadband deployment projects in Illinois as part of the comprehensive, multi-year Illinois Jobs Now! economic development program. Open to any private or public organization, the contest will result in seed funding awards to build or expand world-class broadband networks in Illinois. Each proposal is to outline a viable plan to connect at least 1,000 end users to an ultra high-speed broadband network. The Illinois Department of Commerce & Economic Opportunity (DCEO) will review the applications and make the awards.

Indiana
In 2014, the Broadband Working Group released a report with recommendations such as: Streamline permit, zoning, and approval process, Increasing Rural Broadband Adoption, Return on Investment of The Last Mile, Carrier Neutral Access Point Approach and a Rural Broadband Center. http://www.in.gov/lg/files/RBWG_REPORT_12.5.14-_FINAL_v.2.pdf The group agreed to use the [then] current FCC definition of broadband which is 4 Mbps download and 1 Mbps upload.

Iowa  [additions posted 1/31/2016]
They define broadband as  25 megabits per second for downloads and 3 megabits per second for uploads. The Legislature approves the idea of broadband grants with no state appropriation. http://www.desmoinesregister.com/story/news/politics/2015/06/04/iowa-broadband-expansion-bill/28506153/

The Connect Every Iowan released a report in 2013 suggesting a number of recommendations: https://broadband.iowa.gov/sites/files/connect_iowa/documents/Iowa%20STEM%20Broadband%20Committee%20Recommendations%20Report.pdf

House Study Bill 104 was introduced on February 3, 2015 to implement provisions for achieving Governor Branstad’s goal to connect every acre. HSB 104 creates a $5 million grant program with grants awarded in a competitive process to communications service providers for projects serving targeted service areas (defined as not having 25Mbps download/3 Mbps upload broadband service). The bill also provides for a property tax relief of 100 percent of the value added to the property for three years for companies that deploy fiber optic services in areas, including cornfields, which have no high speed service. The bill also requires local units of government to approve permits for the installation of fiber within 60 days; failure to act in that time period would deem the permit approved. Finally, the bill requires the Office of the Chief Information Officer to lead and coordinate a program to provide for the installation of fiber optic network conduit where such conduit does not exist. https://www.legis.iowa.gov/docs/Published/LGI/86/Attachments/HSB104.html

Kansas
There is a Kansas Statewide Broadband Initiative – mostly for gathering information and initiating discussions. http://www.kansascommerce.com/index.aspx?NID=360

Kentucky
Kentucky Communications Network Authority (KCNA) and its governing board to manage the KentuckyWired open-access broadband network. The project will create high-speed Internet connectivity to every corner of the Commonwealth. Over the next two to three years, more than 3,000 miles of fiber infrastructure, often referred to as the “middle mile,” will be built. The total project is projected to cost approximately $324 million. The project consists of $30 million in state bond funds and $23.5 million in Federal Funds. The remainder of the project, $270.9 million, will be funded with private investment. http://finance.ky.gov/initiatives/nextgenkih/Pages/kcna.aspx

Louisiana
Lousiana Broadband Initiative focused on education residents. It is no longer. http://lagic.lsu.edu/Broadband_Working/about-working.asp

Maine
ConnectME Authority is a component unit of Maine state government whose mission is to facilitate the universal availability of broadband to all Mainers. http://www.maine.gov/connectme/ The award grants of up to $100,000 for projects

Maryland
One Maryland Broadband Network (OMBN) is a 1,294-mile fiber optic broadband network that links 1,006+ government facilities and community “anchor institutions” in every county in the state, while interconnecting and extending three independent networks. It was built with ARRA funds.

Massachusetts
In 2008, Governor Patrick and the Legislature created the Massachusetts Broadband Institute http://broadband.masstech.org/ they provide mapping and manage adoption programs for veterans and small businesses. http://doit.maryland.gov/ombn/Pages/ombnHome.aspx

Michigan
Connect Michigan maps broadband availability http://www.connectmi.org/ – they partner with the Michigan Public Service Commission.

Minnesota
MN Office of Broadband Development manages grants for broadband infrastructure across the state. In 2014, they has $20 million for projects, in 2015, they have $10 million. http://mn.gov/deed/programs-services/broadband/index.jsp The Minnesota Broadband Task Force meets monthly and makes annual recommendations to the Legislature to improve broadband access in the state. The state goal is 10-20 Mbps down and 5-10 Mbps up by 2015. http://mn.gov/deed/programs-services/broadband/task-force/index.jsp

Mississippi [additions posted 1/31/2016]
Mississippi is surveying residents about broadband and cell needs http://www.psc.state.ms.us/Commissioners/northern/zapthegap.html Governor Phil Bryant says $15 million will come from oil spill restoration funds Mississippi to fund broadband. http://www.mpbonline.org/blogs/news/2015/06/10/broadband-to-get-15m-boost-on-gulf-coast/

Mississippi offers a tax credit for broadband investment by tier grouping of counties. Counties are grouped into either Tier 1, Tier 2 or Tier 3 based on level of unemployment and per capita income. Between 6/30/2003 and 7/1/2020 equipment installed in Tier 1 counties (lower rate of unemployment, higher per capita income) that delivers broadband of at least 384 kbps in one direction is exempt from one-half the sales tax; equipment installed in counties in Tier 2 and Tier 3 are fully exempt from the sales tax.

A credit against income tax and corporation franchise tax liability is also allowed for investments made during the same time period. The credit amount is 5% of the cost of equipment installed in Tier 1 counties, 10% in Tier 2 counties and 15% in Tier 3 counties. The tax credit begins in the tax year in which the equipment is installed and continues for 9 consecutive years thereafter. The maximum amount of the credit may not exceed the cost of the equipment installed and the tax credit taken in any given year may not exceed 50% of the company’s tax liability.

Missouri
Governor Nixon created MoBroadbandNow as a public-private initiative of multiple cooperative partners to expand and enhance broadband accessibility and adoption to all areas of the state. The organization seems no longer. http://mobroadbandnow.com/

Montana
Montana Broadband Program is now closed. It ran from January 1, 2010 through December 31, 2014. http://www.broadband.mt.gov/about.aspx

Nebraska [additions posted 1/31/2016]
Broadband Goal is: Broadband service of 25 Mbps down will be available to 90% of households by 2020. Nebraska Broadband Initiative does mapping, planning and broadband technical assistance. http://broadband.nebraska.gov/about-nebraska-broadband

In 2015, $500,000 was earmarked for broadband adoption programs.

Nevada
In 2014, the Nevada Broadband Task Force & Connect Nevada released a report that recommended an Office of Broadband Development, a Task Force, State funding and more. http://www.connectnv.org/broadband-plan

New Hampshire
There is a Department of IT and IT Council but neither seem specifically focused on broadband https://www.nh.gov/doit/it-council/index.htm

New Jersey
In 2013, NJ released a broadband report that recommended a number of steps to take, often mentioning federal broadband standards. NJ is currently working on an advisory committee. http://connectingnj.state.nj.us/

New Mexico [additions posted 2/18/2016]
The New Mexico Broadband Program’s two major objectives are to define broadband availability and enhance its adoption. http://www.doit.state.nm.us/broadband/ The working group has not posted notes since 2013.

1st-Mile Institute, in Santa Fe, NM, which has led statewide broadband-for-all efforts since 2006. www.1st-mile.org

New York
NY is investing $500 million. Their goal: Access to broadband at speeds of at least 100 Mbps in most places, and 25 Mbps in the most remote underserved and unserved parts of the State by 2018 https://www.nysbroadband.ny.gov/

North Carolina
NC Broadband provides technical assistance and broadband planning. https://ncbroadband.gov/

North Dakota [additions posted 1/31/2016]
Broadband ND program is focused on ensuring North Dakota’s citizens and public safety agencies have the best possible Broadband service. http://broadband.nd.gov/ There isn’t a lot of recent activity on the website.

SB 2296 was introduced in January 2015 to create a broadband infrastructure revolving loan fund within the state treasury “which is to be used by the Bank of North Dakota to provide loans for upgrades to existing broadband infrastructure to borrowers that qualify under the broadband grant and loan program.” The loan fund would be administered by the bank, which would transfer $50 million, “or so much of the sum as may be necessary, from the bank’s current earnings and undivided profits to the broadband infrastructure revolving loan fund for infrastructure upgrades under the broadband grant and loan program during the biennium beginning July 1, 2015, and ending June 30, 2017.”

In addition, there would be $10 million appropriated from the state’s general fund to the department of commerce for the purpose of providing grants for new construction under the broadband grant and loan program, for the biennium beginning July 1, 2015, and ending June 30, 2017, according to the proposed bill.

Ohio
Connect Ohio is working to bring the benefits of universal broadband to Ohio. http://connectohio.org/ Ohio Academic Resources Network (OARnet), invested $13 million in equipment to “open the faucet” of its current broadband network—increasing the speed of its former bandwidth of 10 gigabits per second (Gbps) to an impressive 100 Gbps. https://www.oar.net/network/100gbps

Oklahoma
The Oklahoma Broadband Initiative was responsible for broadband mapping https://www.ok.gov/broadband/

Oregon
The Oregon Broadband Advisory Council (OBAC) and a Broadband Advisory Council Fund were created in the 2009 Legislative session. They are still meeting. http://www.orinfrastructure.org/ Their latest report cites a number of federal speed goals. http://www.orinfrastructure.org/Infrastructure-Programs/Telecommunications/OBAC/Reports/BroadbandRpt2014.pdf

Pennsylvania
The Broadband Outreach and Aggregation Fund (BOAF) Program provides communities with resources to overcome challenges in securing Broadband access. http://community.newpa.com/broadband-initiatives/ Broadband is defined in Act 183 of 2004 as “a communication channel using any technology and having a bandwidth equal to or greater than 1.544 megabits per second (Mbps) in the downstream direction and equal to or greater than 128 kilobits per second (Kbp). They have a fund that is expiring in Jun 2016.

Rhode Island
Before sun-setting in Jan 2015, the Broadband Rhode Island published their “final report” which recommends a group to focus on broadband issues for the state and a sustainable funding strategy for broadband projects. http://broadband.ri.gov/Portals/0/Uploads/Documents/BBRI%20FInal%20Report%20021915.pdf

South Carolina
Connect Couth Carolina will continue to develop and update the broadband data over time. http://www.connectsc.org/ They appear to be focusing on national broadband goals/definitions (25/3 Mbps).

South Dakota
Broadband.SD.Gov has greatly reduced their services since the end of their federal grant. https://broadband.sd.gov/Default.aspx

Tennessee
Tennessee is currently surveying residents about their broadband need. http://www.tn.gov/ecd/section/broadband-survey They will be looking at municipal broadband legislation in 2016. http://www.tennessean.com/story/money/2016/01/05/tennessee-evaluate-broadband-access-statewide/78311778/ Connected TN seems to no longer be active. http://www.connectedtn.org/

Texas
Connected Texas was commissioned by the Texas Department of Agriculture to work with all broadband providers in the state of Texas to create detailed maps. http://www.connectedtx.org/

Utah
The Utah Broadband Advisory Council was formed in June 2011, and meets to coordinate and collaborate on broadband adoption and deployment efforts in the State of Utah. http://broadband.utah.gov/

The State of Utah passed HB 414 in 2015 which created the Utah Broadband Outreach Center. The center works with broadband providers to map their service areas and participates in broadband planning and policy efforts. The center also convenes the Utah Broadband Advisory Council which meets to coordinate and collaborate on broadband adoption and deployment efforts. The center maintains a residential broadband map at broadband.utah.gov/map and a commercial broadband map at locate.utah.gov,which supports the state’s economic development efforts. General information on the Utah Broadband Outreach Center can be found atbroadband.utah.gov/  [Added 2/22/16]

Vermont
Vermont Connected goal: get every address in Vermont broadband speeds of 100/100 Mbps which is among the best service we have in Vermont. http://governor.vermont.gov/vermontconnnected

Virginia
The Office of Telework Promotion and Broadband Assistance promotes and facilitates better broadband. http://www.wired.virginia.gov They have a well formatted toolkit for communities looking into broadband http://www.wired.virginia.gov/toolkit/

Washington
Washington State Broadband Office was closed on December 31, 2014. http://www.commerce.wa.gov/Programs/Infrastructure/Broadband/Pages/default.aspx

West Virginia
Created in 2015 to replace an earlier iteration, the WV Broadband Enhancement Council is charged with expanding high-speed Internet in West Virginia but has no money. Their website is either down or password protected. http://www.govtech.com/state/West-Virginia-Broadband-Panel-to-Get-New-Duties-but-No-Funds.html

Wisconsin
Wisconsin’s Broadband Expansion Grant program is currently funded for four years at $1.5 million per fiscal year beginning in Fiscal Year 2016; for a total of $6 million. http://www.link.wisconsin.gov/ [updated 1/24/16]

Wyoming
The Enterprise Broadband Architect serves as a champion and advocate for the advancement of broadband access and adoption for all citizens of the State of Wyoming. http://ets.wyo.gov/office-of-enterprise-architecture/broadband-enterprise-architecture They have a detailed roadmap https://docs.google.com/document/d/1388HGvlQRZ9DuzyC4TXw-9hTMs57ijxWGsXaRZzzsvg/view?pref=2&pli=1

A couple possible funding opportunities for broadband projects

Posted on by
Reply

One shared by the Minnesota Office of Broadband Development…

The Rural Utilities Service of the U.S. Department of Agriculture has announced the opening of its application period for the fiscal year 2016 Distance Learning and Telemedicine (DLT) grants. Applications are due March 14, 2016. Grant awards will range from $50,000 to $500,000.
The DLT Program provides financial assistance to encourage and improve telemedicine and distance learning services in rural areas through the use of telecommunications, computer networks, and related advanced technologies that students, teachers, medical professionals, and rural residents can use. The grants, which are awarded through a competitive process, may be used to fund telecommunications-enabled information, audio and video equipment, and related advanced technologies which extend educational and medical applications into rural areas. Grants are intended to benefit end-users in rural areas, who are often not in the same location as the source of the educational or health care service.
More information on the DLT program is available in the Federal Register announcement at https://www.federalregister.gov/articles/2016/01/12/2016-00405/announcement-of-grant-application-deadlines-and-funding-levels and on the USDA website at http://www.rd.usda.gov/programs-services/distance-learning-telemedicine-grants

And one long shot…

Deluxe, Shark Tank Judge Look To Revitalize One American Small Town
The Shoreview-based company and the celebrity entrepreneur will provide one-on-one assistance and a $500,000 investment to the winning town.

OK it might not be specifically broadband – but it could be broadband!

Minnesota House Democrats promote $100 million for broadband

Posted on by
Reply

According to Fox 9…

Minnesota House Democrats are branding a massive rural spending package as their “Greater Minnesota for all” agenda. They claim Republicans have not delivered on their promises when they took control of the House, but GOP lawmakers say their work isn’t done yet.

The plan calls for $45 million for local government aid to help reduce property taxes, $40 million for county program aid and $50 million for agricultural property tax credits. Democrats are also backing the governor’s call for $100 million in broadband expansion.

The Minneapolis Star Tribune goes into more of the politics around the issue..

Republicans didn’t come away from the 2015 session unscathed, however. Last year, the then-president of the Coalition of Greater Minnesota Cities, Ely DFLer Heidi Omerza, called the session a “monumental flop,” saying not enough state money flowed to broadband Internet development, local government aid, job training and workforce housing.
Rural mayors and city leaders already have been intensifying pressure on House Republicans to send more money to their communities, spending that threatens to put GOP leaders at odds with the more fiscally conservative wing of the party.

House DFLers’ plan would fill those gaps, with $100 million for broadband, $95 million for city and county aid, and $150 million as part of a larger transportation package, according to Rep. Paul Marquart, DFL-Dilworth.

Who is responsible for universal broadband service?

Posted on by
9

Universal broadband service is hard. The cost to bring universal broadband service to Minnesota has been estimated at $1-3 billion dollars. That estimate comes from a few years ago – but for now I think that’s the best – albeit gaping – budget we have and it is primarily to serve high cost, low ROI areas – remote places with low population density and sometimes added challenges like communities built on granite or in the woods. It’s difficult for commercial broadband providers to serve those areas and make a profit. It’s difficult for government to serve those areas because their primary focus is not broadband service. Government will benefit when those people are connected – they will be able to provide services more efficiently (healthcare and education for example) and broadband provides greater economic opportunities for a home and/or business. Commercial providers have the know-how; government has the motivation.

So who is (or should be) responsible for universal broadband service? The mantra has been public private partnership.

Where public private partnership has worked, it’s worked well to serve rural areas – but most of the success we’ve had in Minnesota has been from cooperatives and small independent companies. Small folks who are nimble enough to take advantage of ARRA funding and/or Border to Border Grants. Nimble folks will continue to flourish wherever opportunity arises – be that grants or a community willing to help make a business plan work.

Public private partnerships to serve rural areas seems less successful with big providers who have billions of dollars invested in infrastructure – equipment and wires but I also staff, political relationships and previous funding channels from the FCC through earlier iterations of the universal service funds. Government funding has subsidized some of that infrastructure so I think they feel invested too.

I get it – it’s hard to be nimble with that kind of baggage. Maybe it’s time to assess what each side has to offer and what each side really needs moving forward.

Is it really about the money for larger providers?

US Telecom (“the nation’s leading trade association representing broadband service providers and suppliers”), seemingly spearheaded by AT&T, blames the FCC for not budgeting/allocating enough money to subsidize universal service…

The Federal Communications Commission wants to get broadband deployed in extremely rural areas but not pay for it, AT&T said in a blog criticizing the commission for refusing USTelecom’ s request to end service obligations if funding isn’t available. In December, the commission granted some parts of USTelecom’ s 2014 forbearance petition but denied relief in places where price cap carriers receive no support. “In explaining this denial, the FCC sounds an awful lot like a kid explaining why he shoveled only part of the sidewalk,” AT&T said.

The 1996 Telecommunications Act requires the FCC to make sure there is enough universal service funding any mandated obligations. Citing FCC Commission Ajit Pai, AT&T pointed out that not only has the commission “shirked this responsibility,” there is more than $1 billion gap between the cost of serving these areas and the expected revenues from doing so. “If the FCC doesn’t want to fund universal service obligations in these areas, it should just get rid of them, as USTelecom asked it to do,” the blog said.

But digging into the Petition from US Telecom (and by digging I really mean sifting some of the topsoil!) , many of the complaints from US Telecom are about outdated regulations – there are sections on long distance! (My kids don’t even know what long distance is!) Money has a way of making everything easier but maybe it’s not about the money. Maybe it’s about cost reduction through streamlining of processes and telecom regulation overhaul. (After getting into the fiber business, Google maintained that it wasn’t money that drew them to a town – it was accommodation. They chose communities that make things easy.)

There’s a healthy tension here – big providers want things to be easier and government wants universal service. And there’s a third player – the nimble providers – where do they fit in? Maybe there are some natural sweet spots that could be explored if we look beyond the customer-vendor relationship to a new kind of public private partnership.

Who controls it?

Another place where there may be tension is ownership. West Virginia is experiencing that with their recent plans for an open access network. According to the Charleston Gazette Mail, West Virginia is looking into investing in public broadband infrastructure…

“The intent of the bill is to build the fastest, most affordable fiber-optic network in the United States,” he said. “This is how we diversify our economy. This is how you get away from extraction [industries]. This is how West Virginia becomes competitive in the 21st Century.”

Not everyone is a fan…

Frontier Communications and the union that represents the company’s workers are opposing proposed legislation that would create a publicly funded $72 million high-speed Internet network in West Virginia.

A Frontier executive and union boss said Friday there’s no guarantee that Internet companies will sign up to use the network and serve customers. That scenario could leave taxpayers on the hook, they said.

State Sen. Chris Walters, R-Putnam, plans to introduce the broadband project bill during the upcoming legislative session that starts Wednesday.

Frontier is not interested in taking advantage of the service, although the article notes that there is at least one other provider who is and they expect others to follow. Frontier is happy to partner with the FCC to achieve a common goal of increased broadband for rural America…

Frontier Communications says that the company has accepted $283 million in rural deployment broadband subsidies from the Federal Government. In a news release, Frontier says that the money, which is coming via the FCC’s Connect America Fund (CAF) Phase II, will be used to deliver broadband to an additional 650,000 high-cost rural locations throughout its 28-state service area. …

“CAF Phase II is a critical next step in delivering broadband service – and the major economic benefits associated with it – to rural America,” said Frontier CFO Dan McCarthy. “We have reviewed the FCC’s CAF Phase II rules and offers and look forward to partnering with the FCC to achieve our common goal of increased broadband access for rural America.”

… but uninterested in partnering with the West Virginia with the same goal. (Frontier and West Virginia do have history of issues.) It seems like there ought to be a way to collaborate so that they can build upon each other’s work. The traditional customer-vendor relationship doesn’t seem to be working any better with government as vendor. According to Broadband Now, West Virginia is ranked 45th for “most connected state – Only 57 percent of the state has access to broadband. They need a solution.

We might have a homegrown solution to look to in Dakota County – where they have worked with providers and other counties to find ways to cost-effectively expand their fiber networks. The goal is to make the best use of existing conduit and connections, rather than building from scratch…

The County doesn’t necessarily want to get involved with providing broadband services to the end customer – but they are willing to invest and collaborate so that broadband is available.

It’s time to recognize that each partner has different motivations and expectations and leverage those on both side to get the job done. Private business is pretty good at doing this – at least with the two examples given here. Local government may need to reevaluate what they bring to the table – because while private companies can and should be active partners – universal service really is the responsibility of government – because according to the Constitution it’s the role of government (not business) to promote the general welfare. Not that good corporate citizenship isn’t applauded, it’s just not assumed.

Franken questions Google’s approach to privacy for students

Posted on by
Reply

According to AdAge (and based on a letter from Senator Franken)…

Sen. Al Franken (D.-Minn.) has released a letter he wrote to Google CEO Sundar Pichai to express concern about how the company is collecting and sharing the data of K-12 students who use its Google for Education technology products. According to a statement released by the senator’s office, “Sen. Franken said he is concerned that, as a result of this data collection, Google may be able to create detailed profiles of students and ultimately target them for advertising or use the profiles for other non-educational purposes.”

One of the big sticky wickets is shifting the types of interactions students have with Google education products versus non-education products such as Google Maps or YouTube. Senator Franken has asked Google to answer a series of questions before Feb 12…

1. When a student is signed in to their GAFE account but is not using one of the GAFE services, what kind of data does Google collect on an individual student?

2. When a student is using a Chromebook but is not using one of the GAFE services, what kind of data does Google collect on an individual student?

3. If Google does collect any individualized data on a student, such as browsing information or viewing habits, when a student is using a Chromebook or is logged in to their GAFE account but is not using one of GAFE services, please address the following questions:

a. For what purposes does Google collect this information?
b. Is it necessary to collect all of this information for the provision of GAFE services or to deliver other valuable features that may be relevant for educational purposes?
c. Has Google ever used this kind of data to target ads to students in Google services, either in the GAFE services or other Google services, such as Google Search, Google News, Google Books, Google Maps, Blogger, or YouTube?
d. Has Google ever used this kind of data for its own business purposes, unrelated to the provision of Google’s educational offerings
e. Is it possible to make this data collection opt-in?
f. Does Google share this information with additional parties?

4. Google has indicated that it compiles data aggregated from student users of Chrome Sync, anonymizes the data, and uses it to improve its services. Can you expand on how the aggregated information is treated? For example, does this include sharing the aggregated data with third parties for research purposes or otherwise?

5. Can you describe Google’s relationship with school districts and administrators that choose to use Google for Education products and services? Apart from publicly available privacy policies, does Google offer any explanation to parents, teachers, and education officials about how student information is collected and used?

6. Can you describe all the contexts and ways in which both school administrators and parents of students using Google for Education products and services have control over what data is being collected and how the data are being used?

I think these are great questions. Most parents do not fully understand how much privacy they give up themselves when they use free online tools (such as Google, Facebook or others) so are not in a strong position to decide for kids or even advise kids. Schools are so strapped for resources that they may be willing to give up too much too soon. And many educators are in the same position of parents – they don’t fully understand the implications. I am glad that others are stepping in and asking good questions.

It reminds me a little bit of soda machines in the schools debate or having brand name soda companies sponsor school activities. Do you do what makes sense financially or what might be best for health of the kids today and as habits are forming? I’m not saying we shouldn’t sell soda in schools or that Google shouldn’t continue to provide educational tools (and expect some compensation) just that we need to understand the full extent of the compensation.

Blandin Webinar Feb 11: Broadband Considerations in Site Selection and Data Centers

Posted on by
Reply

Broadband Considerations in Site Selection and Data Centers is the topic of our monthly webinar series, which will resume Thursday, February 11 at 3 pm. Click here to register for this free event.

Tom Lambrecht of Great River Energy and Gene Goddard of Greater MSP will share what they know about business broadband for businesses seeking sites for location and expansion. GRE and Greater MSP each have data center attraction initiatives and work with a full range of businesses, including manufacturers and tech-centric firms. They will highlight the broadband-specific site selection requirements presented by site selectors and advise on the best ways to gather and present this information to business prospects. They will also touch on the tech-oriented workforce requirements that are included in these site selection RFPs.

REGISTER NOW!

The schedule is set for the following three months of our webinar series, all focusing on economic development:

  • March 10 Spurring Business Use of Broadband
  • April 14 Broadband-focused Economic Development Marketing
  • May 12 Technology Centers

On June 9, we will discuss the emerging trends of Connect America Fund projects here in Minnesota. Through the summer and fall, Blandin will offer two mini-series on Tech Workforce Development and Digital Inclusion. Watch for more information soon.

Blandin Foundation webinars are archived online for future viewing. Today, you can access webinars on a topics including wireless technologies, fiber optics, universal service funds, community portals and many other topics.

Fiber Construction RFPs from Dakota County

Posted on by
Reply

m sharing these in case there are readers who want to submit a proposal and/or readers who might want to post their own RFP someday and want to borrow ideas from Dakota County. That and maybe it helps people share plans for fiber in such a way that builds collaborative opportunities.

Dakota County Transportation has posted two fiber construction projects online. Check out:

  • 32-80: CSAH 32 – Slater to CSAH 31 Signal Operation Revisions
  • 42-119: CSAH 42 Signal Interconnect

$100 million for broadband! Sounds good but what are the details?

Posted on by
Reply

StateScoop recently ran an article asking questions about Governor’s Dayton call for $100 million for broadband…

Minnesota Gov. Mark Dayton is hoping to make a $100 million investment in the state’s broadband expansion grants, but questions remain over who needs those funds and what kind of connection speeds users deserve.

One question – which areas will benefit…

Yet Dan Dorman, executive director of the Greater Minnesota Partnership, worries that the program’s focus on rural areas limits its potential. Dorman’s group — a nonprofit representing businesses and chambers of commerce around the state — hopes to see broadband expansion serve as an engine for economic development, primarily by improving connection speeds in more developed areas.

“The industry is sort of pushing this view of ‘Oh, just do the townships, we’ll eventually get to the cities,’” Dorman said. “When you do that, you create some islands, where you upgrade everything in the county except for the cities.”

Dorman said that the focus on rural areas instead of urban ones is largely driven by larger cable companies’ unwillingness to upgrade their systems in cities. Kelliher conceded that type of “tension” does exist, but points to the program’s stated goals of providing “border-to-border” connectivity as its true mission.

Another question – who has dictated or influenced the parameters of potential funding…

But Dorman is also concerned about the industry’s influence in charting the state’s Internet future. The governor’s broadband task force, chaired by Kelliher, is currently readying its recommendations for adjusting the statewide speed goals now that the deadline set by the 2010 law has passed.

Earlier this month, Kelliher said her group discussed recommending that the governor push for a statewide baseline of 25 Mbps download speeds and 3 Mbps upload speeds by 2022, with a more “aspirational” goal of ensuring that every Minnesotan can access 100 by 20 speeds in 2026.

Dorman and Schmit are both encouraged by the latter target, but feel the former falls short.

“I suspect the cable industry was very influential in making sure the task force came up with that recommendation,” Dorman said. “We look at that as not really pushing the envelope.”

Kelliher disagrees with that assessment, calling the targets “bold and visionary.”

But there’s also optimism in policymakers’ ability to iron out details and their interest in making an investment in broadband…

But without funding for the grant program, the discussion of statewide speeds may be moot. Schmit said he’s confident that the administration will have a thoughtful proposal crafted by the time the Legislature reconvenes in March, though he cautioned that it may take lawmakers until the end of session in May to pass a bill.

“There are folks out there who ran on this issue,” Schmit said. “There’s a sense of urgency that we’ve got to deliver for Minnesotans.”

There was optimism last year too – although only $10 million was allocated for the broadband fund. Interested constituents could help fuel the sense of urgency by voicing concerns to their representatives.

Webinar Jan 28: Learn about RHC Healthcare Connect Fund and Telecom Programs

Posted on by
Reply

There is support from the federal government for rural healthcare providers. There’s The Healthcare Connect Fund and Telecom programs:

The Healthcare Connect Fund (HCF) Program is the newest component of the Rural Health Care Program. The HCF Program will provide a 65 percent discount on eligible expenses related to broadband connectivity to both individual rural health care providers (HCPs) and consortia, which can include non-rural HCPs (if the consortium has a majority of rural sites).
The Telecommunications Program (formerly known as the Primary Program) provides discounts for telecommunications services for eligible health care providers (HCPs).

They are hosting a webinar on January 28 (1-2:00 pm) for more information. Could be helpful if you (or a partner organization) qualifies.

Here’s more information on the webinar:

During this webinar, you’ll learn about:
• The funding available through the RHC Healthcare Connect Fund and Telecom Programs,
• Who is eligible,
• The differences between the programs,
• How to apply, and
Tips for successful participation.

Sign up on the Trainings & Outreach page of our website.

This presentation is very similar to the one we presented on November 18. Can’t make it to the live presentation? Watch the recording.

Rock County Commissioner Jody Reisch joins the Minnesota Broadband Task Force

Posted on by
Reply

According to the Worthington Daily Globe…

Gov. Mark Dayton on Friday announced the appointment of Jody Reisch, Luverne, to the Minnesota Broadband Task Force. Reisch currently serves on the Rock County Board of Commissioners.

His term on the broadband task force begins Tuesday and will remain in effect until Jan. 7, 2019. Reisch will replace Angela Dickison, of Duluth, on the task force.

 

RFP to build FirstNet Nationwide Public Safety Broadband Network

Posted on by
Reply

NextGov announces FirstNet’s request for proposal to build a public safety  network…

FirstNet, the group leading that effort, posted a much-awaited request for proposal seeking tech partners to provide the infrastructure for that system, including radio access network services, deployment and maintenance. The network is intended to stretch across 56 states and territories; FirstNet has a $7 billion budget authority and is pledging up to $6.5 billion for these task orders.

FirstNet, an independent authority within the National Telecommunications and Information Administration, plans to make an award in the fourth quarter of the 2016 calendar year, the RFP said. Proposals are due April 29, and applicants must submit questions and capability statements by Feb. 12 and March 17, respectively. The contract has an up to 25-year term, according to FirstNet.

It would be really nice to see a project like that go to a Minnesota company. And not only because the door is open to the proposer to do more with the network…

A FirstNet presentation for industry analysts noted partners would get the rights to monetize 20MHz of spectrum, estimating the market value to be in the tens of billions of dollars. Partners would also gain access to a “sticky market of millions of public safety users,” the presentation said.

I hope that means that someone will look at serving unserved market – remote and rural areas – not just sell advertising.

 

FCC auction will open up TV frequencies to auction – for wireless providers

Posted on by
Reply

Minnesota Public Radio reports…

Tuesday was the deadline for TV stations to apply to have the broadcast frequencies they use sold at auction at the end of March.

The FCC would buy the frequencies and resell them to wireless companies that need more bandwidth. The television stations would then move their transmissions to less desirable frequencies or drop out of the broadcast business entirely.

We don’t know which TV stations in Minnesota have applied, because the FCC is keeping that confidential but a representative from the Minnesota Broadcasters Association thought there were probably a lot.

The auction will open the opportunity for wireless providers to buy spectrum for expansion. (And for TV stations to make money.)

Twitter Party to discuss policy change needed to close digital divide #RightToConnect

Posted on by
Reply

An interesting idea – Media Action Grassroots Network is hosting a Twitter Party to talk about digital inclusion…

On January 21st at 12pm PST/3pm EST, join the Media Action Grassroots Network and our partners for a unique and timely conversation on Twitter between families who can’t afford to get online and the elected officials and advocates fighting to change that.

There are close to 100 million Americans who currently don’t have access to the Internet. Over 5 million school age children can’t complete homework assignments because they lack Internet access at home. Modernizing the Lifeline Universal Service subsidy program so that it not only connects families to telephone access but also to broadband at home could be the difference between employment and poverty, education and exclusion.

I have learned that Twitter Parties are big with stay at home parents. I’m not as sure about policymakers but this could be a good opportunity to hear from folks in need. In case Twitter Parties are new to you – the idea is that folks join by following a Twitter hashtag – #RightToConnect. (In case you do join, I have found that it’s much easier to follow the fast paced conversation using a third party site such as TweetChat.)

Tips for digital inclusion – for practitioners and policymakers

Posted on by
2

Benton Foundation recently released a report on un-adopters -folks who had broadband but gave it up. The chart below paints a pretty easy picture – un-adopting is very much an economic issue.

unadopters

But the researchers dug deeper and learned more about how we might better reach un-adopters…

The analysis in our paper, based on two distinct data sets, makes three basic points with policy applications:

  1. Un-adopters with income levels up to $40,000 would benefit from a broadband subsidy program,
  2. Retired and older un-adopters should be targeted for digital literacy/educational efforts that include strategies to assist those who do not feel Internet content and services are relevant to their lives, and
  3. Un-adopters favor wired connections and are extremely price-conscious in their decisions to re-adopt.

It is interesting to see that digital literacy efforts are particularly effective with older un-adopters. That’s a good tip for practitioners and something for policymakers to keep in mind. But the big issue is finances and affordability.

Low income households need financial support. Broadband will save a household money but when money is tight it is difficult to make the investment. The research found that un-adopters don’t need training as much as nonadopters (folks who have never had broadband) but they need help with broadband bills and computers. The third point aligns with the first – cost. It occurs to me that wired connections are preferably to low income households at least in part because the pricing is predictable. Data caps in wireless services can leave customers with serious sticker shock – on monthly basis.

Affordability is something that every Minnesota Broadband Task Force has mentioned as being important and yet none has tackled. It’s difficult because affordability is in the eye of the beholder. Also from a policy perspective – what’s easier to address affordability at the consumer or community level? It is more expensive to serve rural areas but who can close the gap on costs versus price? And how can it be done? Providers and policymakers have agreed that there is a need for public private partnership and that is one way to close the gap – but how and to what extent?

Perhaps research like this will help guide policymakers in the future or help put the issue on the table.

Calix video features RS Fiber story: cooperative FTTH in rural MN

Posted on by
1

Here’s a nice, concise video on the RS Fiber story; how they formed a cooperative and are working with HBC…