Crookston Times reports on IMPACT 20/20’s recent visit to the Capitol and

IMPACT 20/20 is an influential group of Northwest Minnesota leaders representing diverse interests and working together for the region’s economic success. Established in 2008, IMPACT 20/20 members have worked collaboratively to improve economic conditions in the region by focusing on four key areas: education, workforce, broadband, and housing. The goal of the visit was to highlight issues in these key areas, and offer legislative solutions to help grow the economy of Northwest Minnesota.

On Thursday, February 21, IMPACT 20/20 not only raised awareness for these issues, but offered specific solutions for these lawmakers to consider. The following legislative actions were proposed:

Broadband made their short list of priorities…

‒ Support for the base budget of $70 million in the biennium for the Border-to-Border Broadband Fund that would extend and improve broadband networks in the hardest-to-reach places in Minnesota. Additionally, IMPACT 20/20 supports continued efforts through the Office of Broadband Development and the Governor’s Broadband Taskforce.

Senators Draheim, Sparks and Nelson introduced SF1507 on Feb 21, 2019. Here’s the short description:

• Broadband development pilot program for underserved areas establishment and appropriation

It was referred to Agriculture, Rural Development, and Housing Policy
There is no House companion listed.

Here’s the long version:

A bill for an act relating to telecommunications; establishing an unserved areas broadband development pilot program; appropriating money.

BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA:

Section UNSERVED AREAS BROADBAND DEVELOPMENT PILOT
PROGRAM.

(a) For the purposes of this section, the following terms have
the meanings given them.
(b) “Broadband” or “broadband service” has the meaning given in Minnesota Statutes,
section 116J.39, subdivision 1, paragraph (b).
 (c) “Broadband infrastructure” has the meaning given in Minnesota Statutes, section 

116J.394, paragraph (c).

(d) “Satellite broadband equipment” means a satellite dish or modem installed at a
broadband user’s location to receive broadband service from a satellite broadband provider.
(e) “Commissioner” means the commissioner of employment and economic development.
(f) “Unserved area” has the meaning given in Minnesota Statutes, section 116J.394,
paragraph (i).

Subd. 2.

Establishment.
A pilot program is established under the Department of
Employment and Economic Development to award grants to eligible applicants to promote access to broadband service in unserved areas of Minnesota.

Subd. 3.

Eligible expenditures.
Grants under this section may be awarded to cover costs
related to supporting broadband service, including premise equipment. Grant awards under this section are limited to $300 per household.

Subd. 4.

Eligibility.
To be eligible for grant awards, applicants must provide broadband service that supports speeds of at least 25 megabits per second download and three megabits
per second upload.

Subd. 5.

Application process.
(a) An eligible applicant must submit a grant application
to the commissioner, on a form prescribed by the commissioner.
(b) The commissioner is responsible for (1) receiving and reviewing grant applications,
and (2) awarding grants under this section.

Subd. 6.

Application contents.
An applicant for a grant under this section must provide
the following information on the application:

(1) the location of the project;
(2) the kind and amount of broadband infrastructure or satellite broadband equipment
to be purchased for the project;
(3) evidence regarding the unserved nature of the community where the project is located;
(4) the number of households receiving access to broadband service as a result of the
project;
(5) the total cost of the project; and
(6) any additional information requested by the commissioner.

Subd. 7.

Report.
By February 15, 2020, the Office of Broadband Development must
report on the pilot program to the chairs and ranking minority members of the senate and house of representatives committees with jurisdiction over broadband development. The report must include:

(1) a list of all grant applications received;
(2) the total grant amounts requested; and
(3) the total number of households served by the awarded grants.

Sec. 2. UNSERVED AREAS BROADBAND DEVELOPMENT PILOT PROGRAM;
APPROPRIATION.

$……. in fiscal year 2020 is appropriated from the general fund to the commissioner of
employment and economic development for deposit in the border-to-border broadband fund account under Minnesota Statutes, section 116J.396, to award grants for broadband development in unserved areas as provided under section 1.

The Austin Daily Herald posts an article from Representative Jeanne Poppe on the Governor’s budget, including his broadband investment…

Other parts of Gov. Walz’s proposal include providing access to robust, dependable broadband internet. This utility is now recognized as an important factor in the economic well-being of communities all over the state. Minnesota set a goal of border-to-border broadband access by 2022. The governor’s budget would help accomplish that by funding $70 million over the next two years. These funds would help over 193,000 homes and businesses gain access to reliable internet, and set the groundwork for increasing broadband speeds in the future.

This year (2019) I have seen a greater examination of policy from local and national perspective – specifically people asking, which makes sense? There was the Charter case in Minnesota, where the FCC said the state was overstepping boundaries to step in with a decision…

The new court ruling found that Minnesota‘s state government cannot regulate VoIP phone services offered by Charter and other cable companies because VoIP is an “information service” under federal law. 

The FCC was quick to compare that case to state attempts to introduce Net Neutrality legislation…

Pai argues that the case is consistent with the FCC‘s attempt to preempt state-level net neutrality rules, in which the commission reclassified broadband as a Title I information service instead of a Title II telecommunications service.

A Minnesota version of Net Neutrality was introduced earlier this month. Several broadband providers showed up for the hearing; most were agreeable to the principles of Net Neutrality but felt it was a federal, not state issue.

Last week, Sen Tomassoni introduced a bill to prevent/prohibit robo-calling; the bill has been moved to the Committee on Judiciary but during the meeting someone did ask if this was a state or federal issue.

It’s difficult because by its very nature, broadband is a network. It’s only as strong or weak as it’s strongest/weakest link. The network crosses boundaries and connects nodes that are local, state and federal. In Minnesota, through the broadband grants and the Office of Broadband Development, we have found a way to encourage projects that include local, state and federal solutions. There are several examples of local communities working to apply (or apply jointly with a provider) for state funding to deploy a local networks. There are a few projects (Sunrise Township for example) where federal (CAF II) has been used to match state funding and state requirements have been used to improve the networks built with CAF II money. So there are examples of local, state and federal policies (and funding) working together to create better solutions for the consumers.

Blair Levin asks a similar question a recent article – Mayors or the FCC: Who understands the broadband needs of metropolitan residents? He uses discussions between the mayor of San Jose, Calif., Sam Liccardo, and the FCC commissioner, Brendan Carr to make a case…

The mayor negotiated deals with Verizon and AT&T that commit all sides to actions that assist carriers deploying network facilities, provide benefits to all related Internet of Things applications, and support the city’s efforts to narrow the digital divide and invest in more efficient administration.

By contrast, the commissioner pushed the FCC to adopt an order to preempt local government authorities around where and how quickly broadband providers could install 5G small cell towers. The order raises the costs for cities, forcing them to allocate new resources to meet federal timetables for a single, favored form of construction. It even regulates the price that cities can charge for accessing city property, taking money from cities and transferring it to carriers.

What did the commissioner ask from the carriers? Nothing. In exchange for price reductions on existing uses of the cities’ property—a gift estimated to be worth $2 billion nationwide—the carriers have no obligation to do anything.

Commissioner Carr’s arguments in his op-ed were unlikely to persuade San Jose residents of the benefits of his approach. He asserts that if carriers save money building networks in San Jose, they will spend it by deploying networks elsewhere, thereby accelerating availability of 5G services throughout the country. It’s a curious argument. Why should San Jose residents care or be forced to subsidize network construction outside their city?
But even from a national perspective, Commissioner Carr’s arguments are factually flawed. Market signals confirm the FCC order won’t lead to accelerated investment. As the CFO of Verizon said on a call with investors, “I don’t see it [the FCC’s order] having a material impact to our build out plans. We are [already] going as fast as we can.” Further, since the FCC order, the wireless industry has actually reduced its plans for capital investment. As additional evidence of the flaws in the FCC’s order, it provided no data or explanation to explain why a carrier would prioritize the use of its savings any different than it uses any other additional money. That is, the money is more likely to be used for purposes such as stock buy backs, dividend support, or deleveraging than new capital investments.

Levin raises some good points. But I’m reading this situation from a rural perspective. San Jose is a tech-heavy city. There is a market potential in providers making concessions to come into the area. San Jose doesn’t need the support of federal policies. And the article makes the point that the policies intended to help extend the reach and investment in technology aren’t working. Either way, San Jose will most likely see 5G. But what about 8 miles outside the San Jose, will they? What about communities in rural Minnesota, will they?

Is there a way that federal, state and local policies can work together, as they have with the Minnesota model or grants and more realistic speed goals? The FCC wields a certain power. Can we get them to work with Mayors (I would add County Commissioners) and State voices to create the carrots or the sticks required to encourage providers to extend, expand and improve broadband in areas where market case isn’t as easily made? It seems like the more local the voice, the strong aligned it is with the consumers/residents at the front line. While the federal voice has the expertise in the technology of broadband and the power to make things easier for communities and providers – but eliminating the need for each community to recreate the wheel but that only works when the wheel drives everyone forward.

Today I attended the Jobs and Economic Development Finance Division meeting where they heard fromMN Dep of Employment & Economic Development and Dep of Commerce about their budgets based on Governor Walz’ One Minnesota Budget. You can see the whole meeting below.  Broadband wasn’t a hot topics but a few things came up that were of interest:

For DEED, Steve Grove spoke about various funds, grants and tools to increase economic development opportunities.

• Community Prosperity Grant
  For small towns – based on what community thinks are greatest issues for economic development
  Matching grants
• MN Innovation collaborative
  For everyone innovator job created – 5 more follow – so great network effect
  Get start-ups started – overcome risk aversion
  Education – help people learn how to start a company
  Outreach
• Talk about changing required employee compensation levels – so that if 51 percent of staff make less than $20- you can still qualify. I mention this because there has always been conversation about employ compensation requirements for projects receiving State Broadband grants. And this seems like a similar situation.

For the Dep of Commerce, Steve Kelley spoke about a few specific technology projects:

• $416,000 in FY20. FY21, FY22 to support Commerce IT System Modernization project
• $475,00 in FY20 and $350,00 per year in ongoing funding to modernize the state’s unclaimed property operating system

The Fergus Falls Daily Journal reports on Otter Tail County officials visit to the MN Legislature…

The Association of Minnesota Counties Legislative Conference was a successful event for Otter Tail County. Otter Tail County officials had the opportunity to meet with Representative Nornes, Representative Green, Representative Franson, Senator Ingebrigtsen, DNR Commissioner Strommen, and Representative Mary Murphy, Minnesota House Bonding Chair,” said Rick West, Otter Tail County Public Works Director. “These meetings provided us the ability to engage in constructive one to one conversation on legislative priorities that are important to Minnesota counties and more specifically important to Otter Tail County during this legislative session such as broadband, multi-modal transportation funding, mental health initiatives among others.”

Otter Tail County leaders’ goal was to speak to legislators about the issues important to the residents of the County. Elected officials listened as key issues such as broadband were discussed. They were asked to support the build-out of broadband infrastructure in Minnesota, including legislation that would provide continued funding for the Border-to-Border Broadband Development Grant Program. West also asked officials to fully fund the local Road Wetland Replacement Program; an important program for the County Highway Department in constructing roadways.

The article also mentions upcoming meetings…

County commissioners will host a meet and greet in Perham City Hall Council Chambers on March 5 at 6:15 pm for interested constituents to engage with their commissioner. Look for Board of Commissioner Meetings being held throughout the county in 2019. The Long-Range Strategic Planning Open Houses for Perham and Parkers Prairie have been rescheduled:

March 13, 2019, Perham Area Community Center (PACC), Meeting Room No. 1,620 3rd Avenue SE, Perham.

March 14, 2019, Prairie Event Center, 201 West Main Street, Parkers Prairie.

FOX21 reports…

Rarick says broadband expansion will be a major topic on his agenda as state senator. Fair property taxes in Pine, Carlton and Southern St. Louis County will also be a high priority.

“Right now I really would rather not support a gas tax,” said Rarick.

Rarick is not shy about opposing many of the Governor’s viewpoints, especially when it comes to funding infrastructure.

“In our area especially, people have work trucks, the farmers hauling things, the gas tax really hits the rural areas much harder,” said Rarick.

Walz has said he will push to raise the state’s gas tax to help pay for infrastructure improvements, a measure which would first have to be taken up by the state legislators before being put into law.

“We absolutely have to make investments in our infrastructure whether it’s with roads and bridges, broadband and just the structure that’s already in place whether it’s at the ports or wherever in Minnesota; we’ve got to keep up what we have,” said Rarick.