Monthly Archives: January 2018

Klobuchar, Capito, King, Boozman, Heitkamp Urge President Trump to Include Dedicated, Stand-Alone Funding for Broadband Deployment

Posted on by
Reply

According to Senator Klobuchar’s website…

In a letter to President Trump, Klobuchar, Capito, King, Boozman, and Heitkamp—the co-chairs of the bipartisan Senate Broadband Caucus—call for the prioritization of direct funding support for broadband deployment in an infrastructure package that will help close the digital divide and ensure our country maintains its global competitiveness

Without dedicated funding for broadband deployment, proposals to bring broadband to unserved areas may struggle to compete with other larger infrastructure projects; Stand-alone funding for broadband will ensure that telecommunications infrastructure is advanced alongside needed upgrades to our roads, rail, bridges, ports and waterways

WASHINGTON, DC – Today, U.S. Senators Amy Klobuchar (D-MN), Shelley Moore Capito (R-WV), Angus King (I-ME), John Boozman (R-AR), and Heidi Heitkamp (D-ND), the co-chairs of the bipartisan Senate Broadband Caucus, have urged President Donald Trump to include dedicated, stand-alone funding for broadband deployment in an infrastructure proposal. Without dedicated funding for broadband deployment, proposals to bring broadband to unserved areas may struggle to compete with larger infrastructure projects. Stand-alone funding for broadband will ensure that telecommunications infrastructure is advanced alongside needed upgrades to our roads, rail, bridges, ports and waterways. In a letter to President Trump, the senators call for the prioritization of direct funding support for broadband deployment in an infrastructure package that will help close the digital divide and ensure our country maintains its global competitiveness.

“As you consider a plan to address the infrastructure needs of our country, the co-chairs of the bipartisan Senate Broadband Caucus write to urge you to include dedicated, stand-alone funding for broadband deployment. Our rural communities have connectivity needs that are not being met, limiting economic opportunity and growth,” the senators wrote. “In parts of the country where geography or population density make deploying and maintaining broadband networks a significant challenge, stand-alone support will help bring economic and social benefits for rural consumers.”

The senators continued, “There is strong bipartisan support for including broadband funding in an infrastructure package. Boosting current investments in broadband deployment will provide new economic opportunities in communities that are struggling to compete. Expanding access to broadband is the infrastructure challenge of our generation and an infrastructure plan for the 21st century must address the broadband connectivity issues facing rural America.”

Last year, the co-chairs of the Senate Broadband Caucus led 48 senators in urging President Trump to prioritize policies that will promote the deployment of high-speed, reliable broadband for all Americans as part of any infrastructure initiative.

The full text of the lawmakers’ letter is below.

Dear Mr. President:

As you consider a plan to address the infrastructure needs of our country, the co-chairs of the bipartisan Senate Broadband Caucus write to urge you to include dedicated, stand-alone funding for broadband deployment. Our rural communities have connectivity needs that are not being met, limiting economic opportunity and growth. Prioritizing direct funding support for broadband deployment in an infrastructure package will help close the digital divide and ensure our country maintains its global competitiveness.

Policies that encourage investment in communications infrastructure and streamline the construction process will help speed up the deployment of high-speed broadband. However, these policies must support, not replace, investments in rural America. In parts of the country where geography or population density make deploying and maintaining broadband networks a significant challenge, stand-alone support will help bring economic and social benefits for rural consumers.

Bringing new telecommunications infrastructure to unserved consumers in the most rural, low-density parts of the country can be aided by direct federal investments. In these communities, generating private investment can be difficult. Without dedicated funding for broadband deployment, proposals to bring broadband to unserved areas may struggle to compete with other larger infrastructure projects. Stand-alone funding for broadband will ensure that telecommunications infrastructure is advanced alongside needed upgrades to our roads, rail, bridges, ports and waterways.

There is strong bipartisan support for including broadband funding in an infrastructure package. Boosting current investments in broadband deployment will provide new economic opportunities in communities that are struggling to compete. Expanding access to broadband is the infrastructure challenge of our generation and an infrastructure plan for the 21st century must address the broadband connectivity issues facing rural America.

Thank you for your attention to this important request. We look forward to working with you on this critical issue.

Sincerely,

Broadband is an issue in rural Minnesota – but it’s a different issue in different parts of rural Minnesota

Posted on by
Reply

MinnPost recently published an article recognizing that “rural Minnesota” is not a homogeneous territory…

In reality, Greater Minnesota contains regions that are distinct from one another because of the land they sit on, because of the people who settled them and the people who live in them now; how rural they are; what businesses they’re home to, and many other factors.

A new report from Minnesota Compass looks at some of those differences across six different parts of the state: the Central, Northland, Northwest, Southern, Southwest and West Central regions.

I see it traveling around the state. Last week I spent two days in Madison Minnesota – this week I’ll spend two days near Chisholm. Let’s just say at no point will I be confused about where I am. The article mentions the need for broadband in rural Minnesota and the added natural complication of deploying it in Northeast MN – built on rock and filled with forests…

Expanding broadband in rural parts of the state to improve internet connections and, hopefully, lure business, is a top issue for all non-metro regions of Minnesota, but it’s especially tricky in the state’s northeast reaches, and expensive to boot, Phillips said.

“In a prairie town, you might go on top of the grain elevator or the water tower … and you can serve the whole county from a couple towers,” Phillips said. Because of topography and trees, which block the signal — “pine trees hate broadband,” he added — it’s not so simple in St. Louis County.

What the Northeast does have is leadership and providers that are interested in upgrading connectivity. So that will help them.

It’s worth noting that two of the nine comments related to the article mention the need to improve broadband in rural areas.

The Perils of Self-Reported Broadband Speeds

Posted on by
Reply

Conexon recently reported on the FCC “upgrading” homes from served to unserved without really verifying the upgrade. Their take on the move is pretty straight forward…

At the end of the year, the FCC released data that it knows to be inaccurate, which will damage the lives and livelihoods of millions of our fellow citizens who live and work in rural America. In its publication of eligible census blocks for the Connect America Fund (CAF) auction, the FCC excluded 432,302 rural homes and businesses in areas that previously had been eligible to receive public support for broadband service.

The vast majority of these areas had been determined by the FCC and the telephone industry to be too costly for the telephone companies to serve with broadband – even with subsidies – so the FCC initially decided to auction financial support for these remote areas. And yet, in the closing days of 2017, the FCC removed 30% of all the eligible rural locations from the CAF auction by applying the filter of newly released data on the availability of broadband service.

The FCC is relying on data that purports to show that, between June 2015 and December 2016, broadband was newly made available to some of the most remote areas of the country covering 432,302 locations. And that all this new rural construction occurred without any federal universal support or any obligation to provide service.

Of course, no such thing happened. It is fake data. 432,302 rural homes and businesses now have phantom broadband service.

Turns out the problem is self-reported data…

What is the data that the FCC is using to make such a critical decision? The self-reported Form 477 data from ISPs regarding their maximum advertised speed in each census block where they provide service. When I was at the FCC, not a single economist who worked in my group believed the data to be accurate or reliable. The FCC’s misapplication of the data in the CAF auction will have consequences for millions of rural Americans.

The infirmities of the FCC’s methodology include:

  1. The FCC does little to verify the accuracy of the self-reported data. Even a simple search of ISP websites reveals that the 477 data reported by many ISPs do not match the advertised speeds. As I wrote last year, a check of the 37 wireless internet service providers claiming 100 Mbps speeds showed that 35 of the 37 did not even advertise such speeds on their websites.

  2. If an ISP claims to advertise internet service availability of 10/1 Mbps to a single locationin a census block, the entire census block has been removed from the auction.

  3. The maximum advertised speed is not the same as the delivered speed. So, when an ISP reports that it advertises 10/1 Mbps service, but only provides 4/1 Mbps service, the census block is still dropped from the auction. Worse still, since some technologies require site surveys to determine availability of service, just advertising 10/1 Mbps availability does not mean actual availability.

  4. 10/1 service isn’t broadband, even by the FCC’s anemic standards.

  5. The FCC refuses to allow challenges to this inaccurate and unreliable data, because it can’t be bothered.

The article clearly has its bias – but a theme is emerging this week. Yesterday, I reported on a Harvard study that tried to compare broadband pricing but was unable because that data isn’t collected. Today we’re hearing about unreliable data from the Form 477. What I’ve heard about the 477 forms is that they are a pain to fill out. Unfortunately, as the article points out, the contents of the form matter. Communities qualify or don’t qualify for potential funding for infrastructure based on the forms. It would be nice to have a community feedback loop. Can you image federal policy based on customer self-reported data? In the world of crowd-sourcing it seems like it could be done. Maybe there’s a balance to be made.

Position open on the Minnesota Broadband Task Force

Posted on by
Reply

Steve Lewsader left the Minnesota Broadband Task Force at the end of 2017. That leaves one seat open and they are looking for applications.

Here’s the mission as reported on the Boards & Commissions website…

To develop, implement and promote state broadband policy, planning and initiatives to achieve State broadband needs and goals. Inventory, assess and report on various aspects of broadband. Develop a Minnesota Broadband Plan outline.

It looks like they will review applications on Feb 4. The group meetings monthly. Two people have already applied. You can apply directly from the website.

FCC proposes $500 million increase for Rural Broadband

Posted on by
Reply

According to Telecompetitor…

FCC rural broadband funding could increase by over $500 million if the commission votes to adopt an order circulated by commission chairman Ajit Pai. According to an FCC spokesman, the funding would include about $180 million for the current funding year for the nation’s smaller rate-of-return (ROR) carriers who get their support through traditional legacy mechanisms and up to $360 million over the next 10 years to ROR carriers who receive support based on the A-CAM cost model.

In a statement Pai said he had heard “from community leaders, Congress and carriers that insufficient, unpredictable funding” has kept them from deploying broadband more extensively to close the digital divide. The funding, he said, will “boost broadband deployment in rural America and put our high-cost system on a more efficient path, helping to ensure that every American can benefit from the digital revolution.”

The $500 million would come, in part, from reserves, the spokesman said. In addition, the order seeks comment on the Universal Service Fund (USF) budget, he noted.

More funding is always good news. I would just like to see a current definition of broadband. I know this time last year (Jan 24, 2017), the FCC announced 182 rate of return companies that elected to received A-CAM support. Below is a chart of Minnesota companies in that list and their obligation to provide service as specified speeds. You’ll see not all of the speeds mentioned would meet the Minnesota speed goals for 2022 (25/3) and none of them meet the speed goals for 2026 (100/20).

(I know that table won’t translate well online – you can also download it in Word.)

State (RoR) Holding Company Annual ACAM Support Locations in Census Blocks Receiving Model-Based Funding Locations with Obligation at 25/3 Mbps Locations with Obligation at 10/1 Mbps Locations with Obligation at 4/1 Mbps Locations Remaining on Reasonable Request Standard
MN  ARVG  Arvig Enterprises, Inc.           21,559,568                    33,455                      20,993                        6,998                        2,732                        2,732
 MN  CHRS  Christensen Communications Company                536,263                        420                            83                            28                          154                          155
 MN  HNSN  Hanson Communications, Inc.             2,572,081                      2,466                       1,179                          393                          447                          447
 MN  INTR4  Interstate Telecommunications Cooperative, Inc.                994,999                        779                          155                          156                          117                          351
 MN  LRSN  Larson Utilities, Inc.             1,423,622                      1,160                          243                          244                          168                          505
 MN  MBLC  Mabel Cooperative Telephone Company                633,384                        518                          186                            63                          134                          135
 MN  NRTH8  Northern Telephone Company/Wilderness Valley Telephone Company                330,942                        231                            33                          101                            24                            73
 MN  NWLM  New Ulm Telecom, Inc.             6,118,567                      7,913                       3,414                        1,138                        1,680                        1,681
 MN  PRKR  Park Region Mutual Telephone Company             3,092,315                      4,351                       2,735                          912                          352                          352
 MN  RRLC  Rural Communications Holding Corporation             4,433,893                      6,035                       2,784                          928                        1,161                        1,162
 MN  RTHS  Rothsay Telephone Co. Inc.                448,181                        335                            24                            73                            59                          179
 MN  TDS  Telephone and Data Systems, Inc.             5,099,964                    10,788                       7,362                        2,454                          486                          486
 MN  VNCE  VNC Enterprises, LLC                274,969                        302                            36                          108                            39                          119
 MN  WKST  Wikstrom Telephone Company, Inc.             6,782,806                      6,587                          997                        2,992                          649                        1,949

I’ve abbreviated heading row above from : “Number of Locations in Eligible Census Blocks with Obligation to Offer” to “Locations with Obligation at”

Study shows Community-Owned Broadband Networks provide best value – and access to pricing info is difficult to get

Posted on by
2

Harvard University recently published a report that compared public-owned FTTH networks with private options in the same market. They learned a few things – perhaps most important to note i- they learned it’s difficult to get info on pricing and packages available from some providers in some markets, which makes it very difficult to have a real conversation about broadband affordability. In this study or any other.

Here’s the abstract from the report…

We collected advertised prices for residential data plans offered by 40 community-owned (typically municipally owned) Internet service providers (ISPs) that offer fiber-to-the-home (FTTH) service. We then identified the least-expensive service that meets the federal definition of broadband—at least 25 Mbps download and 3 Mbps upload—and compared advertised prices to those of private competitors in the same markets. We found that most community-owned FTTH networks charged less and offered prices that were clear and unchanging, whereas private ISPs typically charged initial low promotional or “teaser” rates that later sharply rose, usually after 12 months. We were able to make comparisons in 27 communities. We found that in 23 cases, the community-owned FTTH providers’ pricing was lower when averaged over four years. (Using a three year-average changed this fraction to 22 out of 27.) In the other 13 communities, comparisons were not possible, either because the private providers’ website terms of service deterred or prohibited data collection or because no competitor offered service that qualified as broadband. We also made the incidental finding that Comcast offered different prices and terms for the same service in different regions.

Here are their highlights…

  • When considering entry-level broadband service—the least-expensive plan that provides at least 25/3 Mbps service—23 out of 27 community-owned FTTH providers we studied charged the lowest prices in their community when considering the annual average cost of service over a four-year period, taking into account installation and equipment costs and averaging any initial teaser rates with later, higher, rates. This is based on data collected in late 2015 and 2016.
  • In these 23 communities, prices for the lowest-cost program that met the current definition of broadband were between 2.9 percent and 50 percent less than the lowest-cost such service offered by a private provider (or providers) in that market. In the other four cases, a private provider’s service cost between 6.9 percent and 30.5 percent less.
  • While community-owned FTTH providers’ pricing is generally clear and unchanging, private providers almost always offer initial “teaser” prices and then raise the monthly price sharply. This price hike in the communities we studied ranged between $10 (20 percent) and $30 (42.8 percent) after 12 months, both imposed by Comcast, but in different communities. Only one community-owned FTTH provider employed this marketing practice for a data-only plan. This exception was a student discount offered by the MINET network in Oregon.
  • Language in the website “terms of service” (TOS) of some private ISPs strongly inhibits research on pricing. The TOS for AT&T, Verizon, and Time Warner Cable (now owned by Charter), were particularly strong in deterring such efforts; as a result, we did not record data from these three companies.
  • While the United States has 40 community networks offering broadband FTTH service (many of them serving more than one municipality), we did not make comparisons with private competitors in 13 cases, either because the TOS prohibited data collection or because no competing broadband service existed in the community network’s home community.
  • We noted that Comcast varied its teaser rates and other pricing details from region to region. Our sample size was small; just seven of the communities we studied were served by Comcast. Understanding Comcast’s pricing practices and their consumer impacts across the United States would require much deeper study.
  • In general we found that making comprehensive pricing comparisons among U.S. Internet service plans is extraordinarily difficult. The U.S. Federal Communications Commission (FCC) does not disseminate pricing data or track broadband availability by address. Additionally, service offerings follow no standard speed tiers or definitions (such as the specifics of video or phone service bundles). We focused on comparing entry-level broadband plans in part because of these complexities.

They looked at two communities in Minnesota and this is what they found in terms of average cost per year over four years; it takes into account all fees and recurring cost:

In Monticello:

  • Monticello Fiber Network a 50/50 connection is $640.29
  • TDS Telecom a 25/10 connection is $763.03
  • Charter Spectrum a 60/4 connection is $678.63

In Crosslake:

  • Crosslake Communications a 30/20 connection is $1,030.40
  • Emily Cooperative Telephone Company a 30/30 connection is $1,067.65

It’s interesting to see the differences in those two areas. And to see that we really aren’t talking about apples to apples comparisons – especially when you account for upload and download speeds. Again to me half of the story here is the difficulty in getting the information. The National Broadband Plan paid lip service to gathering more standardized info on services and prices…

Recommendation 4.2: The FCC and the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) should collect more detailed and accurate data on actual availability, penetration, prices, churn and bundles offered by broadband service providers to consumers and businesses, and should publish analyses of these data.

But that doesn’t seem to have happened. Think about the impact of the cost (or calorie) per serving info at the grocery store. Now image how nice that would be for broadband and how that would help us pinpoint real issues based on areas and technologies. Is the problem access or affordability (or something else)? And are there some providers who have been able to overcome challenges to provide affordable access in rural areas – how can we reward and/or emulate them in other areas. Because I know there are providers (public, private and cooperative) who are serving happy customers in hard to reach places.

Supreme Court is looking at online sales tax issue

Posted on by
Reply

According to The Hill…

The Supreme Court on Friday agreed to hear a case about whether states can require out-of-state online retailers to collect their sales taxes.

In agreeing to hear the case, South Dakota v. Wayfair, the court will revisit a 1992 decision in which it ruled that states could only require remote sellers to collect their sales taxes if the business had a physical presence in the state.

State and local governments have been pushing for a greater ability to collect sales taxes from internet purchases in recent years, as the growth of e-commerce has made it harder for governments to reach their revenue targets.

The Senate passed bipartisan legislation in 2013 that would allow states to require out-of-state businesses to collect their sales taxes if the states simplified their sales tax laws.

Similar legislation was introduced last year with bipartisan support, but the effort has stalled in Congress because House Judiciary Committee Chairman Bob Goodlatte (R-Va.) has wanted to take a different approach on the issue.

The online folks want to not collect tax, brick and mortar places want online tax, local communities are interested in the extra revenue tax brings with it and many are concerned about the complication of asking businesses to comply with multiple state tax policies.

Mille Lacs unhappy about not getting broadband grant

Posted on by
4

The Pine and Lakes Echo Journal reports on Mille Lacs not getting a broadband grant…

The denial of a state grant to partially fund a countywide wireless network in Mille Lacs County has officials frustrated, the Mille Lacs Messenger reported. The Minnesota Department of Employment and Economic Development did not select the county’s application for broadband funding.

This rejection comes after a year’s worth of studies and public outreach, and county officials said they believed their project received less consideration than some that would impact 100 or fewer residents. The Mille Lacs County project would serve approximately 26,000 residents.

A consulting firm working with the county on the project intends to request information from the state concerning grant selection criteria.

The article captures the frustration that all of the communities that don’t get funding must feel – because applying for broadband funding is an undertaking as the article points out. Many communities will do a feasibility study, public outreach, partnership development and even some engineering planning before applying for funding. Many are good projects but there just isn’t enough funding to meet the need. The difficult thing about the effort is that without ongoing grants, if your community isn’t selected, you don’t know if you’ll get a chance to try again and even if you do, you’ll probably need to update the research and application.

The Minnesota Broadband Task Force has recommended ongoing funding for grants – that would ease some of the frustration I’m sure.

Comcast Increasing Internet Speeds for Twin Cities Customers

Posted on by
Reply

Good news for some folks in the Twin Cities, according to Business Wire…

Comcast today announced it is increasing the speeds of its Xfinity Internet service packages for existing customers in the Twin Cities area at no additional cost.

The speed increases will vary based on the Xfinity Internet customers’ current speed subscriptions, and the majority of customers will see an increase of 50 Mbps. New and existing customers can expect to experience enhanced speeds this month.

“In today’s fast-moving, always-on world, quickly connecting to the internet is more important than ever,” said J.D. Keller, regional vice president, Comcast Twin Cities. “These increases reflect our ongoing commitment to offer the fastest speeds to our customers and deliver a great experience anytime, anywhere.”

To get the increased speeds, most customers will simply need to re-start their modems when notified by Comcast that the new speed is available. Comcast will also notify customers who may need to upgrade their modems to receive the increased speeds. Those who own their own modems and need to upgrade them to receive the increased speeds will need to purchase a new one or can lease a new modem from Comcast.

Minnesota Broadband Task Force Report – what Minneapolis Star Tribune and Mankato Free Press are saying

Posted on by
Reply

Yesterday I posted about the latest Minnesota Broadband Task Force report. Today I’m reading about it in various publications. Here’s what people are saying…

Minneapolis Star Tribune – Minnesota task force says $35.7 million needed annually to expand broadband

Minnesota spent tens of millions of dollars expanding high-speed broadband internet in recent years, but nearly $1.4 billion in public and private investment is still needed to get access to all households, according to a state task force report. …

The task force’s goal is to connect all of those households by 2022. The $1.4 billion price tag to meet that goal would be covered by a variety of sources, including federal, state and local funding and private companies.

In November, state officials forecast a $188 million budget deficit over the next year and a half. Given that outlook, the task force’s financial request “is a little daunting,” said Kelliher, a DFLer who once served as speaker of the Minnesota House and now is president and CEO of the Minnesota High Tech Association.

The report is a good conversation starter, said Rep. Ron Kresha, R-Little Falls. The next state revenue and expenditure forecast in February will help determine what’s affordable, he said.

“That being said, I think they’re on the right path,” Kresha said of the task force. “Certainly we don’t want to stop the great work we’ve done for rural broadband. And if there [are] any opportunities to continue to expand efforts — whether that’s through policy, funding or innovation — we should do it.”

Mankato Free Press – Broadband Task Force renews push for high-speed access

Bill Otis, president of New Ulm-based NU-Telecom, said rural phone companies like his rely on federal and state grants to help build costly fiber networks.

“We’ve made progress (in adding fiber) but it’s slow without some of the grants. We’ve been involved in grants that allow us to build out to areas that would be economically unreasonable without the grants. And even with the grants, it’s sometimes questionable economically. Getting the fiber out to some of these more remote rural areas can be tough,” Otis said. …

But Otis said those minimum speeds are relatively slow for the growing demands on the internet. “You’d like to say everyone should have 100 (megabits) down and 20 up. And to be perfect you’d have 100 by 100.”

He said that when putting in new lines, having the minimum 25-3 megabit is “underusing your fiber.”

And the demand for more speed is only going to grow as more video content, self-driving vehicles, smart cars, enhanced 911 systems, smart homes and other technology all vie for internet and fiber optic space.

“The projections are for unbelievable, exponential growth in the next five to 10 years,” Otis said.

House Commerce Committee Republicans Lay Out Principles for Broadband Infrastructure

Posted on by
Reply

I am borrowing entirely from the Benton Foundation’s summary of recent activities by the Subcommittee on Communications and Technology…

The House Subcommittee on Communications and Technology, chaired by Rep. Marsha Blackburn (R-TN), introduced a series of resolutions laying out principles for broadband infrastructure:

  • H. Res __ introduced by Subcommittee Vice Chairman Leonard Lance (R-NJ), to direct broadband infrastructure funding toward areas that are currently unserved.

  • H. Res __ introduced by Rep Bob Latta (R-OH), to ensure federal policy treats all broadband providers in a technology-neutral manner, applying consistent rules that support innovation.

  • H. Res __ introduced by Rep. Richard Hudson (R-NC), to ensure wireless broadband infrastructure funding preference for states that support small cell siting reform, helping ease the permitting process in communities across the country.

  • H. Res __ introduced by Rep. Gus Bilirakis (R-FL), to ensure Federal, state, and local tax, regulatory, permitting, and other requirements are coordinated and reconciled to maximize the benefits of broadband investment.

MN Office of Broadband Development is hiring

Posted on by
Reply

Great people, great mission…

Job Class: Grants Specialist Coordinator
Working Title: Broadband Grants Administrator

  • Who May Apply: Open to all qualified job seekers
  • Date Posted: 01/10/2018
  • Closing Date: 01/16/2018
  • Hiring Agency/Seniority Unit: Employment and Economic Development
  • Division/Unit: Broadband Development
  • Work Shift/Work Hours: Day Shift
  • Days of Work: Monday – Friday
  • Travel Required: Yes
  • Salary Range: $24.32 – $35.91/hourly; $50,780 – $70,980/annually
  • Classified Status: Classified
  • Connect 700 Program Eligible: Yes

Job Summary

The purpose of this position is to develop, promote, implement, provide technical assistance for, evaluate and report on state and/or federally funded financing programs of the Office of Broadband Development. The Office develops and administers programs designed to achieve high quality broadband access for all Minnesotans and to support and promote the skills necessary to adopt and use broadband tools for economic, educational, health, and institutional benefits.  Programs administered include the following:

  1. Border-to-Border Infrastructure Grant Program which provides state financing for DEED approved broadband infrastructure expansion projects.
  2. Supporting and maximizing Minnesota entities participation in federally-funded broadband infrastructure programs.
  3. Digital literacy, broadband adoption and use programs.

Minimum Qualifications:

Bachelor’s Degree in Planning, Community and Economic Development, Political Science, Public Administration, or related to broadband AND two (2) years of professional grant management experience involving evaluating, administering, accounting for, training and/or monitoring of grants proposals, grant agreements, or grant recipients.

Extensive knowledge of federal and state laws, rules, regulations, policies and procedures with the ability to effectively interpret and communicate those to grant recipients.

Professional experience working with training and workforce issues, including but not limited to business and economic development issues, instructional design and methods, labor market data and employment projections, accrediting standards, industry certifications, training resources, federal poverty guidelines, strategic planning, finance, and marketing.

Working knowledge of generally accepted accounting principles, financial training to understand financial statements and records and have the training and/or ability to analyze both corporate and municipal financial statements, audits, forecasts, budgets, and demographics

Preferred Qualifications:

Relevant experience and familiarity with the broadband industry in Minnesota or another state.

Additional Requirements

Resumes of all applicants to this posting will be evaluated against the Minimum Qualifications stated above.  If your skills match the required skills for this position, the department may contact you.  Employee reference checks will be conducted on all finalists.  This may include a review of documentation related to job performance.  It includes contact with the applicant’s current and/or former employers.

A Criminal Background Check will be conducted on all finalists for this position.  A criminal conviction will not automatically remove you from consideration for employment.

When the position requires travel and the applicant drives a state owned or leased vehicle, a driver’s license and record check will be conducted.
Application Details

Why Work For Us

GREAT BENEFITS PACKAGE! The State of Minnesota offers a comprehensive benefits package including low cost medical and dental insurance, employer paid life insurance, short and long term disability, pre-tax flexible spending accounts, retirement plan, tax-deferred compensation, generous vacation and sick leave, and 11 paid holidays each year.

How to Apply

Click “Apply” at the bottom of this page. If you are unable to apply online, please contact the job information line at 651.259.3637.

For additional information about the application process, go to http://www.mn.gov/careers.

Contact

If you have questions about the position, contact Jolene Blaser at jolene.blaser@state.mn.us

MN Broadband Task Force recommendations $70 million to meet speed goals (100 Mbps down and 20 up by 2026)

Posted on by
Reply

The Minnesota Broadband Task Force has released their annual report. It’s an abbreviated version of usual report as they are gearing up for next year’s report, which unless something changes will be the last.

Here’s the quick take on the status of broadband in Minnesota…

As reported by Connected Nation in October 2017, 88.11 percent of Minnesota households have wireline broadband access available at a speed of at least 25 megabits per second (Mbps) download and 3 Mbps upload (25 Mbps/3 Mbps), while 73.45 percent of rural Minnesota households have a wired broadband connection that meets these speeds. Nearly 70 percent (70.04 percent) of Minnesota households have wireline speeds of 100 Mbps/20 Mbps. In rural areas of Minnesota, 52.88 percent of households have access to these speeds. As Minnesota strives to meet its updated broadband speed goals, much work remains.

Their recommendations…

This report contains two recommendations to the Governor and the Legislature:

  • Provide $71.48 million in on-going biennial funding for the Border-to-Border Broadband Development Grant Program, until the state achieves its broadband speed goals.
  • Provide the Office of Broadband Development with $500,000 on-going biennial funding and maintain the existing partnership with the Minnesota Department of Commerce, until the state achieves its broadband speed goals.

I want to highlight the first recommendation because the recommendation in the report itself is different from what is in the press release. Here’s the recommendation as stated in the press release:

  • Provide $71.48 million in on-going biennial funding for the Border-to-Border Broadband Development Grant Program, until the state achieves its broadband goals. This funding amount, which accounts for federal funding through the FCC’s Connect America Fund (CAF II) and the FCC’s Alternative-Connect America Cost Model (A-CAM), would provide service to the 252,000 Minnesota households that currently lack Internet service at the state’s speed goals of 25 megabits per second (Mbps) and minimum upload speeds of at least 3 Mbps.

The big difference is that the press release only alludes to the 25/3 speed goals (with a goal date of 2022). The state also has a speed goal of 100/20 by 2026. The state funding has required networks to be scalable to higher speeds; the federal funding does not.

Here’s the text from the statute:

It is a state goal that (1) no later than 2022, all Minnesota businesses and homes have access to high-speed broadband that provides minimum download speeds of at least 25 megabits per second and minimum upload speeds of at least three megabits per second; and (2) no later than 2026, all Minnesota businesses and homes have access to at least one provider of broadband with download speeds of at least 100 megabits per second and upload speeds of at least 20 megabits per second.

The difference is a big one – especially since the future of the Task Force is uncertain. The statute leaves room for 25/3 being a stepping stone, not a resting place for broadband speeds.

And a look at state versus rural status…

Webinar Jan 11 (today): Broadband Under the Community Reinvestment Act

Posted on by
Reply

A Federal Reserve webinar today (Jan 11) from 2-3:00 CST…

Just as broadband access plays a critical role in our lives, access to broadband has become critically essential in community development—education and workforce development, health, housing, small business development and access to financial services. The ability to access the internet is an important tool for workers to use to find and keep jobs in both urban and rural markets. Broadband access lags in many population segments, including low-income and rural communities.

Under the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA), infrastructure investment includes facilitating the construction, expansion, improvement, maintenance or operation of essential infrastructure or facilities for health services, education, public safety, public services, industrial parks or affordable housing. Broadband is included as a form of infrastructure investment—an essential community service.

This Connecting Communities webinar will highlight possible opportunities for financial institutions to receive CRA consideration and take advantage of new opportunities to help close the digital divide across communities and improve economic stability.

Speakers include:

  • Jeanne Milliken Bonds, Federal Reserve Bank of Richmond
  • Jordana Barton, Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas
  • Adrian Franco, Federal Reserve Bank of New York
  • Chelsea Cruz, Federal Reserve Bank of New York
  • Yolanda Davila, BBVA Compass

President Trump’s broadband infrastructure plan – long of streaming the process, short on specific new funds

Posted on by
Reply

The White House reports on the Presidential Executive Order on Streamlining and Expediting Requests to Locate Broadband Facilities in Rural America…

To implement this policy and enable sustainable rural broadband infrastructure projects, executive departments and agencies (agencies) should seek to reduce barriers to capital investment, remove obstacles to broadband services, and more efficiently employ Government resources.

Among other actions, the executive branch will continue its implementation of section 6409 of the Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act of 2012 (Public Law 112-96)(“section 6409”), which requires, among other things, that the General Services Administration (GSA) develop a common form and master contract for wireless facility sitings on buildings and other property owned by the Federal Government.  These documents enable the Federal Government to process wireless facility siting requests more efficiently and will also provide additional predictability regarding the availability of locations for asset installation to installers of wireless broadband facilities.

Sec. 2.  Reviewing Requests to Locate Broadband Facilities on Federal Real Property.  (a)  Within 180 days of the date of this order, the Administrator of General Services (Administrator), in coordination with the heads of Federal property managing agencies, shall evaluate the effectiveness of the GSA Common Form Application for use in streamlining and expediting the processing and review of requests to locate broadband facilities on Federal real property.

(b)  As part of this evaluation, the Administrator shall determine whether any revisions to the GSA Common Form Application are appropriate and, to the extent consistent with law, shall begin implementation of any such revisions.

(c)  In furtherance of section 6409, all applicants and Federal property managing agencies shall use the GSA Common Form Application for wireless service antenna structure siting developed by the Administrator for requests to locate broadband facilities on Federal property.  Federal property managing agencies shall expeditiously review and approve such requests unless an approval would negatively affect performance of the agency’s mission or otherwise not be in the best interests of the United States.

(d)  Within 180 days of the date of this order, and on a quarterly basis thereafter, all Federal property managing agencies shall report to the GSA regarding their required use of the Common Form Application, the number of Common Form Applications received, the percentage approved, the percentage rejected, the basis for any rejection, and the number of working days each application was pending before being approved or rejected.  Each report shall include the number of applications received, approved, and rejected within the preceding quarter.

(e)  Ninety days after the date of this order, and on a quarterly basis thereafter, the Administrator shall prepare and provide to the Director of the Office of Management and Budget (Director) an aggregated summary report detailing results from the reports submitted under subsection (d) of this section.  Not later than 1 year from the date of this order, the Administrator shall recommend to the Director improvements to the Common Form Application needed to further the purposes of this order.

Benton provided a summary…

The Trump administration is eyeing multiple “work streams” to help speed along broadband deployment, the National Economic Council’s Grace Koh told reporters: easing the permitting process on federal lands; letting towers built on federal lands also include infrastructure from telecom companies; and using dark fiber agencies have deployed to help rural providers through interconnection agreements. “We’ll also look at funding sources,” Koh added, noting the existence of “funding sources for both broadband deployment and adoption scattered across the federal government” and a plan to look at “how we can coordinate those funding sources and bring them together in order to get the maximum effect for the subsidy.” But senior administration officials weren’t prepared, when asked later in the call, to say the degree to which the Trump White House aspires to close the digital divide or provide a dollar estimate for what the administration may be interested in spending.

Telecompetitor recognizes that new funding is not specified…

Some stakeholders may have been hoping to hear about new funding for broadband. But Trump did not say anything about that. One of Trump’s first actions after he was elected president was to seek input on infrastructure initiatives that might spur U.S. economic development. At that time, various stakeholders suggested that broadband should be part of any such plans, and Republican FCC commissioners noted that if funding were made available for broadband, it should be administered through the Universal Service program – a program that currently faces a budget shortfall.

But although Trump said today that “necessary funds” would be available to rebuild crumbling rural infrastructure including roadways, railways and waterways, he made no reference to funding for broadband.

And while the rural task force report also highlights the important role that broadband can play in rural America, report recommendations do not discuss broadband funding other than a suggestion to “assess the efficacy of current programs.”