The Office of Broadband Development (OBD) hosted their first webinar on the BEAD Initial Proposals. The goal, I think, is to encourage people to submit public comments – not as critiques but also so that OBD has data on what Minnesota readers like in the proposal.
OBD has been doing broadband grants for a long time. In MN we’ve learned a lot about what works and what doesn’t. The Minnesota way does not always match with the federal recommendations. For example, Minnesota prioritizes wireline connections; the federal process includes fixed wireless when defining served areas. Minnesota is asking that we stick with the Minnesota definition of wired broadband. That’s an area where one might choose to make a public comment whether you agree or not. Often, I think we forget to speak as loudly when we do agree. (The questions below and at the end of the video get to a couple other areas.)
Below I have video from the session (I was a few minutes late), images of the PPT slides and notes from the question portion. A duplicate webinar will happen tomorrow (Join the December 5 meeting (8:30 a.m. – 10:00 a.m.) and is open to the public.
Here are the documents on which you can comment:
Public comments on the BEAD Initial Proposal Volume 1 & 2 can be submitted online by completing this form.
Questions.
How is served/unserved/underserved determined?
Green areas have access and red areas are eligible for BEAD funding. There’s a difference between MN maps and FCC maps.
Considers DSL as underserved
Served locations that don’t receive service as reported will be categorized as unserved/underserved.
Fixed wireless will not be considered served unless providers proves that they can serve location. (So onus is on provider not location/household.)
MN rules Plan A: “you have to have a wired services” but NTIA allows fixed wireless – MN plan if Plan A doesn’t work OBD wants the onus to be on the fixed wireless providers to prove they are able to serve required speeds
MN Laws that might hinder municipal network:
- 429.021 broadband (non-compete) – not applicable since if area is already served, it won’t qualify for funds.
- 237.19 – refers to telephone service and so OBD doesn’t think it’s applicable.
Q: pg 9: Wireless providers are putting customers on the map. What are expectation for challenge process for counties?
- First – requesting that fixed wireless blanket excluded – to match border to border program (NTIA is unlikely to approve)
- Second (if first doesn’t work) – mark fixed wireless as un/underserved unless/until the fixed wireless provider proves that they serve
Q: Do fixed licensed wireless need to provide documentation?
Yes – need to be able to serve area in 10 day and meets other requirements – such as limited latency
Unlicensed wireless providers do not qualify as served.
Q: How can a county get involved in calling out a provider that’s not serving an area?
The County could rebut and say – maybe with speed tests from various locations.
Q: What if NTIA rejects both fixed wireless options?
Locations will have to take multiple speeds tests, then they could submit to county, and county could submit to OBD.
Q: how is state portal different from FCC map?
It will be similar. OBD is working on getting a vendor to create portal.
Q: Why can’t DSL rebut the maps?
Because the FCC has decided it doesn’t county because it’s end of life technology.
Q: Does is help OBD to get feedback from MN folks on the fixed wireless issues?
Yes. Sounds like MN-specific is a good way to go – like mention weather
If you agree with issues – it’s great to feedback on that too.