This morning the MN Broadband Task Force met to comb through a late draft of the annual report. It’s not the final draft, it may not be the penultimate but it’s getting close.

You can read the draft report and watch the discussion below. The video focused mostly on the text so it would probably be easier to listen and use the PDF version to follow along.

Some high level comments on discussion:

• There was discussion on the fourth recommendation related to permits and the OBD (Office of Broadband Development) working with partners. There was confusion more than disagreement. In the end I think the decision was to recommend a workgroup for public rights of way and look at greater oversight of railroad easements.
• There was also a lot of discussion on RDOF and CAF II and the opportunity they have to help or hinder the state in reaching state speed goals. Concerns are that the CAF funding is sunsetting and the speed goals required with CAF funding do not meet even the MN 2022 speed goals of 25/3. Concern with RDOF is the surprising result in Minnesota where one provider received a large percentage of the funding to provide services that they are not known for providing, which results in both concern whether that provider will meet scrutiny of the RDOF long-form application to actually get the funding and concern that if they do they will be able to deliver fiber as promised. Some folks felt that as it was federal funding,  it fell out of the scope of the state task force while others were concerned on the impact the federal funding would have on state funding moving forward.
• There was also discussion on CARES funding with similar cases. Some thought it seemed beyond scope especially since State level CARES funding had not been dedicated to broadband. (Funding trickled down to counties and some did use it for broadband.) Others thought it might be helpful for legislators to see what other states did to improve broadband with CARES funding in case the opportunity arises again.

Every year, the Blandin Foundation does an assessment of how the Blandin Broadband Communities projects are going. The assessment is part update and part cumulation. You can read the whole report online. There update from the following communities:

• Cannon Falls
• Koochiching Technology Initiative
• Rock County
• Swift County
• East Range Joint Powers
• Iron Range Tourism Bureau
• Laurentian Chamber of Commerce
• Tower Economic Development Authority
• Aitkin County
• Chisholm
• Ely
• Grizzlies (Bois Forte, Cook, Orr)
• Hibbing
• Mt. Iron-Buhl

I will post those updates separately so we can all find them next year when we want them. And here’s the overall commentary on the impact of 2020 and all it has brought with it…

2020 COVID-19 Response: Under normal circumstances, community teams are encouraged to invite the public and the media to the third and final Strut Your Stuff Tour to join in celebrating success. BBC Steering Committees use the occasion to revisit the community goals that informed their activities, report on progress achieved toward those goals, and recommit to continued efforts. However, in 2020 the third visit was being planned for early spring, so the decision was made to shift to virtual meetings via Zoom. Furthermore, most communities were very busy with COVID planning and emergency relief activities related to Minnesota’s Stay-a-tHome order. As a result, these were smaller, virtual gatherings where the focus was on both progress-to-date and COVID adjustments.

One nearly across-the-board adjustment was that communities were invited to extend their grant periods through December 31, 2020. Most had been scheduled to be concluded by midyear. The reason this was necessary was because a lot of the work was paused while team members were occupied with emergency response, and in-person gatherings and trainings were put on indefinite hold. An extension allowed the BBCs to pause and reassess current projects and allocate or reallocate funding to implement technology-related COVID response projects.

Other common challenges for BBCs included:

• Mobile devices, hotspots, and even some laptops became difficult to find due to high demand as schools shifted to online learning.

• The gap between students with internet access at home and those without became even more significant, and districts scrambled to find solutions for students. The 35 solutions were often mobile Wi-Fi hotspots or reduced cost internet subscriptions through local providers.

• Trainings and workshops originally designed as in-person had to shift to videoconference. This was a particular challenge when the expected audience had very limited exposure to technology, such as senior citizens.

• Delays related to equipment availability and concerns related to social distancing with installation.

However, the challenges of 2020 highlighted the importance of universal broadband. It became clear to so many additional people that high-speed internet access and the skills to use it is critically important infrastructure. Working and schooling from home is no longer a luxury, it is a necessity, and internet access makes it possible to do so successfully. Meanwhile inequitable access to the internet leads to inequal educational and work opportunities. The digital divide intensified but received more attention from new advocates.

Businesses began to adapt to more online and less in-person traffic. Many BBCs have funded digital marketing and technology trainings for small local businesses and nonprofits over the past few years, and those businesses were in better shape to adapt and respond to the pandemic.

I tried to take more complete notes today in part because the recording can be difficult to watch. I have to rig up a system that would make MacGyver proud to get these sessions streamed and archived and I know they are less than perfect.

At a very high level – each of the three subcommittees presented their recommendations. There was a lot of overlap with recommendations, yet not complete agreement.

There is agreement that there should be funding for the grants and the Office of Broadband Development. There seemed to be agreement that funding should be ongoing. There weren’t any confirmed dollar amounts attached to those investments – although $75M per biennium was mentioned. From each member of the Task Force to the Governor, there seemed to be agreement tat COVID as exacerbated the demand for greater and more ubiquitous broadband.

There was disagreement on:

• Focus on unserved versus underserved
• Speed goals/benchmarks – from 25/3 to 100/20 to 100/100
• Concerns about role of OBD (and others) in terms of communications, coordination and regulation

There were discussion of politic decisions such as deciding to focus on funding over change or asking for more than you think you’ll get.

9:45 a.m. Welcome, Introductions, Meeting Overview
10:00 a.m. Gov. Tim Walz conversation with the Task Force

Governor Walz spoke to the Task Force. Here are some of his observations

• the need for broadband upload and download at industry standards has increased during COVID
• broadband is an investment
• there are local government commissioners that cannot participate is zoom calls
• Because MN did not finish the border to border broadband goal before COVID, people were put at a disadvantage
• COVID forced us to move quickly
• Broadband funding will need to be ongoing. It’s not a problem that gets solved.

Q: Is broadband part of the proposed state budget?
A: The budget is not yet created but it seems likely and there will likely to have even stronger support

Q: How/why are schools being  held responsible for providing broadband access to un/underserved families?
A: We view broadband as regular expenses – we can’t create unequal distribution

Q: How can we
A: Cooperative have been most successful in serving rural areas. It is an economy of scale. When it’s a business decision (for national, business providers) only the math doesn’t work. When stakeholder reward is part of the equation, that changes the math.

Q: What about CARES funding?
A: CARES funding was filtered to counties and towns. More federal funding is likely.

10:30 a.m. Economic Development and Digital Inclusion Subgroup – report content and recommendations
Recommendations:

1. Continue Minnesota’s Border to Border state broadband grant program and fund it from the base budget.
2. Create an Office of Broadband operating fund to promote broadband adoption and use and redress digital inequity.
3. Task the Office of Broadband Development with building computer donation partnerships between state agencies and community-based organizations getting computers into the hands of those who need them.
4. Fully fund the Telecommunications Access Equity Aid (TEA) program by raising the funding cap to at least $9 million in order to allow school districts to equitably procure the Internet and network bandwidth needed to fully support digital learning.

[had those at the ready since I’m helping with that portion of the report]

Discussion:

• The MN Model group is coming up with a number for funding the fund; $70M per biennium was mentioned.
• Need to talk to  Office of BB Development about a number for funding adoption coordination.
• Concerns that #3 might compete with ConnectedMN and/or PCs for People. Or is this more of a prioritization of tasks for OBD than funding question
• With #4 cost per student for technology is not consistent throughout MN, which create a situation ripe for inequity.

11:15 a.m. Barriers and Technology Subgroup – report content and recommendations

1. MN should invest is getting the 157,000 unserved households access to broadband at speeds of at least 100/20.
2. Funding for the OBD should come from base budget and include a focus on mapping
3. The Task Force and OBD should work with the state and providers to create greater communication channels to streamline broadband deployment.

Discussion:

• Do we really want to focus on unserved versus underserved? (with #1)
• There are concerns about getting into the regulations with #3. Providers prefer that broadband not be regulated by the state. BUT it looks like they are talking more about creating a clearing house for info more than regulators.

12:30 p.m. Public Comment – Duluth Mayor Emily Larson discussing the Minnesota Mayors Together letter (See the letter)

The Mayors Together group are prioritizing broadband. It’s a nonpartisan group and a nonpartisan issue. IN Duluth they have a population of 85,000 and 1200 students without access. Here are their recommendations:

1. The first of these is speed. The 2026 goal of 100 Mbps download and 20 Mbps upload, while it may have seemed aggressive when it was adopted, now looks somewhat modest. Why not recommend what the Border-to-Border grant has enabled in some areas of the state: 100 and 100?
2. Second, we would urge the task force to tell legislators that this is an ongoing challenge, that having good access and speed is vital to all Minnesotans. As such, this investment should be a regular and recurring feature of the state’s operating budget. So, we would ask you to say that the Legislature consider the $35-50 million as an annual expenditure – for many years.

12:45 p.m. Minnesota Model Subgroup – report content and recommendations

Recommendations:

1. $75 million per biennium
2. No change to grants
3. 25/3 is irrelevant
4. No mapping changes (since change needs to happen after next year)
5. Fund the OBD
6. Fund the fund

Discussion

• Where did the $75 Million come from? The 2018 TF report had a calculation that came to $70; the 2013 TF report suggested $100M. Might need to work on an estimated cost per passing to figure it out.
• The 25/3 access isn’t irrelevant because of the demographics.
  Except 3 Mbps up during a pandemic doesn’t work for most families
  We have given legislators roadmaps with the 25/3 and 100/20 benchmarks. Is that fair to change now?
  We don’t’ need to change that just add a new benchmark moving forward?
  The pandemic will be over by mid-2021
• Should we wait on policy changes until next year and focus only on funding this year?
• We have another speed test that is not supporting what the OBD maps are finding so it seems like what we’re showing the legislators may not gel with the truth anyways.
• Changing the speed goals will change reality; you can still show they outdated maps.
• Can we change the speed goals to 100/100.
  On the ground what is the difference when designing/developing 100/100 versus 100/20?
  100/100 is fiber / 100/20 is tech neutral
  CenturyLink can provide 100/20 with copper at short distances but we cannot provide 100/100

The Pioneer Press outlines Senate District 51 candidates. Liz Reyer mentioned a priority on broadband…

What would your top priorities be if elected? 1. Making sure every Minnesotan has access to a good job, affordable healthcare, & housing 2. Connecting every household & business to high-speed broadband to thrive in the new global economy 3. Confronting the climate crisis with clean energy powering the economy of the future 4. Fighting racial disparities in every action and for all communities.

Green=served Purple=underesrved Red=unserved

Rank (from 100/20 megabits per second): 23
Code: Yellow

Annually, Blandin Foundation pulls together data from the Minnesota Office of Broadband Development and broadband news to gauge progress toward the state broadband goals (25 megabits per second download/3 Mbps upload by 2022 and 100 Mbps/20 Mbps by 2026). Leaders can use this information to improve broadband access and use in their communities. To see how the state is doing overall, or to compare counties, visit the Blandin Foundation interactive map. Or check out past years’ reports: 2017, 2018, 2019 and 2020.

Clay County: consistent, incremental improvements over years

If slow and steady wins the race, we might want to keep an eye on Clay County. In 2010, they made the FCC list of worst served Minnesota Counties; they are much better off now. They have seen consistent improvements through the years and local provider, Arvig, received a Border to Border grant in the last round that should help improve access for the next profile.

Broadband Access:

Computer Access:

What we learned in the past:

Back in 2010, Clay County made the list of the nine unserved counties in Minnesota based on the FCC Annual Broadband Report, which defined broadband as 4 Mbps down and 1 Mbps up. Clearly Clay County has improved since then. They have a local Minnesota business providing service and choice of providers in much of the county. Their improvements have been slow but steady since we started looking at improvements.

Update from 2020:

2019: Clay County will benefit from a project that was awarded Border to Border funding in the last round.

• Arvig (Loretel Systems, Inc.) – Cormorant Lakes Area Project – GRANT $430,780
  This middle and last mile project will upgrade approximately 481 unserved locations near Pelican Lake, Lake Ida, Turtle Lake, and Big Cormorant Lake in Otter Tail, Becker, and Clay Counties. In a funding partnership with the State of Minnesota and Otter Tail County, Arvig will improve broadband service levels up to 1 Gbps download and 1 Gbps upload, exceeding the 2022 and 2026 state speed goals. These investments will improve quality of life and business development opportunities.
• Total eligible project cost is $1,230,800
• Local match is $800,020

Checklist:

• Find more articles on broadband in Clay County. (http://tinyurl.com/hcgg9rm)
• 100/20 Mbps ranking: 23 (up 6 places)
• Has worked with Blandin: no
• Has received a MN Broadband grant: no
• Household density: 21.2

Details:

• Districts: CD 7
  Senate: 04
  House: 04A, 04B
• Find your reps

I am doing the annual look at broadband in each county – based on maps from the Office of Broadband Development and news gathered from the last year. I’m looking at progress toward the 2022 (25 Mbps down and 3 Mbps up) and 2026 (100 Mbps down and 20 Mbps up) and will code each:

• Red (yikes)
• Yellow (warning)
• Green (good shape)

Green=served Purple=underesrved Red=unserved

Rank (from 100/20 megabits per second): 29
Code: Yellow

Annually, Blandin Foundation pulls together data from the Minnesota Office of Broadband Development and broadband news to gauge progress toward the state broadband goals (25 megabits per second download/3 Mbps upload by 2022 and 100 Mbps/20 Mbps by 2026). Leaders can use this information to improve broadband access and use in their communities. To see how the state is doing overall, or to compare counties, visit the Blandin Foundation interactive map. Or check out past years’ reports: 2017, 2018, 2019 and 2020.

Chisago County: has plans, need funding

Like several other counties, Chisago County has areas where there is one national provider (or another). That can lead to bottlenecks when trying to get upgrades, but Chisago has found creative ways to work with national providers to get Border to Border grants to match federal funding. Border to Border grants require projects to build to higher speeds; the federal funding only required 25/3 Mbps and sometimes only as low as 10/1 Mbps. Chisago area has benefited from two grants in that model and a third was just funded in the last round. They are building a momentum for continued improvement.

Chisago County residents spoke with Blandin on Broadband about the impact broadband had on their ability to deal with COVID. (See video below.) The response was mixed because some residents are well served, and some aren’t. That leads to a local digital divide but that also means that the county (especially schools) needs to do things differently to accommodate both sides, which creates another level of digital divide when compared to counties that have ubiquitous coverage.

Broadband Access:

Computer Access:

What we learned in the past:

Chisago County has benefited from two MN broadband grants:

• 2017 – CenturyLink – Fish Lake Township FTTH Project – GRANT $1,833,724
• 2016 – SUNRISE TOWNSHIP (CENTURYLINK) FIBER TO THE HOME – GRANT: $1,074,852
  

In 2018, a Blandin Foundation report looked at the impact of Federal CAF II funding in two towns in Chisago County. The study found that while some areas were upgraded beyond 10/1 Mbps; some remain at speeds that do not meet the 2022 nor 2026 MN broadband goals. With these funded grants, Chisago found a way, in at least some areas, to encourage providers to build to higher speeds; the state grants that require higher speed buildouts.

Update from 2020:

Chisago remains focused on improving broadband in their area. In the last year, Chisago broadband advocate Nancy Hoffman received an honor from the Blandin Foundation. The County and city of North Branch were named Minnesota Telecommuter Forward communities, which means they promote broadband use. Also, they will benefit from CenturyLink’s successful application in the last round of Border to Border grants:

• CenturyLink (Qwest Corporation) – Nessel Township FTTH Project – GRANT $1,657,550
  This last mile project will upgrade approximately 956 unserved and 64 underserved locations in Nessel Township in Chisago County. In a funding partnership with the State of Minnesota and Nessel Township, CenturyLink will improve broadband service levels up to 1 Gbps download and 1 Gbps upload, exceeding the 2022 and 2026 state speed goals. Building a fiber-to-the-premise network that provides advanced, high speed broadband services to households, businesses, and farms in the proposed grant area improves access to critical school e-learning applications while also making agricultural operations more efficient and enhancing crop production through enabled precision agriculture tools. The broadband network will improve access to rural health care resources and will stimulate a more robust local area economy.
• Total eligible project cost is $5,525,167
• Local match is $3,867,617

Is broadband a help or hindrance in dealing with COVID?
Chisago County met with Blandin on Broadband to talk about how their broadband situation helped or hindered the ability to deal with COVID restrictions.

The short answer is that it has been both. It’s a help where they have it and a hindrance where they don’t.

They have enough residents without access that they shaped plans around the divide. In the video you’ll hear the story of the have and the have-nots. Two were able to work from home without issues. School was possible. It might not be their top choice, but everything worked. For the other, his son missed classes due to outages in the spring. Trying to work from home, he found that his 25/1 Mbps access was not adequate and he was frustrated because that connection had recently been upgraded with federal funding and was still too slow to meet their needs. Neighbors down the block are less lucky.

The schools did what they could to support students with devices and even mobile hotspots to use at home; unfortunately, hotspots did not work for all households. Some are out of cellular reach.

Checklist:

• Find more article on Chicago (https://blandinonbroadband.org/?s=chisago&submit=Search)
• 100/20 Mbps ranking: 52 (down 1)
• Has worked with Blandin: yes
• Has received a MN Broadband grant: yes
• Household density: 44

Details:

• Districts: CD 8
  Senate: 32 & 39
  House: 32A, 32B, 39A
• Find your reps

I am doing the annual look at broadband in each county – based on maps from the Office of Broadband Development and news gathered from the last year. I’m looking at progress toward the 2022 (25 Mbps down and 3 Mbps up) and 2026 (100 Mbps down and 20 Mbps up) and will code each:

• Red (yikes)
• Yellow (warning)
• Green (good shape)

Green=served Purple=underesrved Red=unserved

Rank (from 100/20 megabits per second): 42
Code: Red

Annually, Blandin Foundation pulls together data from the Minnesota Office of Broadband Development and broadband news to gauge progress toward the state broadband goals (25 megabits per second download/3 Mbps upload by 2022 and 100 Mbps/20 Mbps by 2026). Leaders can use this information to improve broadband access and use in their communities. To see how the state is doing overall, or to compare counties, visit the Blandin Foundation interactive map. Or check out past years’ reports: 2017, 2018, 2019 and 2020.

Blue Earth County: Stalled below 80 percent access to 100/20 Mbps

Between 2017 and 2018, Blue Earth County’s broadband access increased substantially but their ranking has remained stagnant since then. They continue to investigate avenues for improvement; the most recent feasibility study (Jan 2020) indicates that it would be expensive to install fiber. However, a local letter to the editor seems to indicate that at least some residents are ready to move forward. We’ll have to see if they have applications in the most recent Border to Border grant round (which closes Sep 30, 2020) and if they are successfully funded.

Broadband Access:

Computer Access:

 What we learned in the past:

In 2017, Blue Earth’s broadband access was deemed non-competitive for business by the FCC. Last year, we noted that Blue Earth County was in danger of not making either the 2022 or 2026 MN speed goals. There were some anomalies, but we’ve moved past to get a consistent picture. It’s not as dire as non-competitive, but signs point to not making the speed goals.

At the end of 2018, Blue Earth County Board resolved to kickstart efforts to bring more broadband options and data fiber connections to the area. In April 2019, they were awarded funding from the Blandin Foundation for a broadband feasibility study, which has been used to help support applications to the state broadband grant program but those applications to date have been unsuccessful.

Update from 2020:

Early in 2020, Blue Earth County unveiled their feasibility study, which included a tough message: If Blue Earth County wants to have rural broadband internet, it’s going to have to pay a potentially unworkable amount of money.

According to the study, it could cost more than $35 million to install 1,067 miles of fiber to connect all rural areas of Blue Earth County, excluding the Mankato area and larger cities such as Lake Crystal and Madison Lake. A combination of wireless networks and fiber, about 161 miles in total, would cost about $11 million to install.

Despite the cost, there was a subsequent local letter to the editor that indicated that residents were prepared to invest: “In these times where rural America is being left behind, according to certain politicians, it seems there would be some kind of push to subsidize rural broadband or require some telecom and broadband providers to contribute to a development fund. Broadband is to the 2020s what rural electricity was to the 1930s. We know rural America got its electricity. Now it needs its broadband.”

These comments were made before the pandemic.

Part of Blue Earth County was served by Jaguar, which was acquired by MetroNet in July (2020). MetroNet claims they will invest $150 million to grow their Minnesota market.

Checklist:

• Find more articles on broadband in Blue Earth County. (http://tinyurl.com/j5pe9kr)
• 100/20 Mbps ranking: 42 (down 3)
• Has worked with Blandin: yes
• Has received a MN Broadband grant: yes
• Household density: 31.9

Details:

• Districts: CD 1
  Senate: 19
  House: 19A, 19B, 23B, 23B
• Find your reps

I am doing the annual look at broadband in each county – based on maps from the Office of Broadband Development and news gathered from the last year. I’m looking at progress toward the 2022 (25 Mbps down and 3 Mbps up) and 2026 (100 Mbps down and 20 Mbps up) and will code each:

• Red (yikes)
• Yellow (warning)
• Green (good shape)