Twin Cities Pioneer Press reports…

Telecommunications company CenturyLink has asked Minnesota utility regulators to ease a decades-old rule that requires it to give priority for repairs to landline customers, saying the requirement is obsolete in an era dominated by broadband communications.

CenturyLink, a unit of Lumen Technologies, is the largest provider of copper landline phone service in Minnesota and one of the few companies still serving that segment. It petitioned the state’s independent Public Utilities Commission this week to bring its rules up to date, saying customer choices and demands have changed dramatically since the rules were drafted, before the first handheld cellphone appeared on the U.S. market in the 1980s.

Some details on the rule…

The rules set a goal that landline outages should be restored within 24 hours of being reported. CenturyLink says that forces it to spend a disproportionate amount of technician time on landline repairs compared with broadband repairs. And the rules don’t apply to CenturyLink competitors that just provide wireless, internet-based and other broadband communications, which the PUC generally doesn’t regulate.

They have tried to ease these rules in the past…

The PUC considered a similar CenturyLink request in 2014 but held off amid concerns from AARP and the state Department of Commerce about service quality and affordability. CenturyLink says in its new petition that the move by consumers away from copper landlines has only accelerated since then. The company says the most recent federal data show that only 4.4% of Minnesota households now rely solely on landlines for voice service.

If passed, it would help all landline providers…

The rule change CenturyLink seeks would also apply to Frontier Communications and other smaller landline providers in Minnesota, he said.

The request brings up a few topics – first, broadband providers are regulated differently and that’s always been a challenge to the providers and then passed onto the customers. But then they have also received public funding differently. It would be interesting to see an matrix comparing regulation and government inventing in telephone, cable, wireless and other broadband providers.

Also it would be interesting to get some scenarios of who still has a landline. When I’ve asked the most popular answer is – my parents (or grandparents). And that is why the AARP was involved with the decision in 2014. Forbes has an interesting article in January 2020 from a landline user. Some of his reasons were voice clarity, comfort, cost and safety. Safety is the research I remember being used most in 2014, here’s what Forbes said…

A landline phone might be the only phone that is accessible and functional when an emergency strikes. And if you are awoken by an intruder, you probably don’t want to yell “Could you bring me my mobile phone — it’s charging on the kitchen counter?”

Also cell coverage is an issue. In my old house in St Paul, there were certain rooms where my cell phone didn’t work – which may have been partially attributable to thick walls but it didn’t always work in the front yard either. And walking through the same neighborhood as often as I do, I can tell you there are dead zones. Again that’s in St Paul. Driving in rural area I’ve driven through miles of dead zones. Either would feel scary if you were making a life saving call – and that is what the landline phone is designed to do.

We need to demand better broadband maps before we invest more government money based on existing broadband maps.

The FCC uses maps to determine who has broadband (served) and who does not (unserved). These maps are created from data supplied by the broadband providers themselves (477 Form). These maps were used to determine which locations were eligible for RDOF (Rural Digital Opportunity Funds) .

Through RDOF LTD Broadband was deemed eligible to receive $1.32 billion in the US, including $312 million in Minnesota to build FTTH to unserved locations. There is some controversy about that decision – but this post isn’t about LTD, it’s about the maps.

Looking at maps where LTD is eligible to received funding, there are some surprises. For example the Vikings Practice Facility shows up as eligible, as does Henry Sibley High School, lots of locations along the highway and spots in commercial portions of suburban Twin Cities – just feet away from areas that were served. And then there are areas where locations seem to be on or under the highway.

The best way to share the info is to share the maps and include context:

• Census block
• Number of locations
• Implied annual support amount for concluding bid for the census block shown in the map. (The money hasn’t been awarded yet – just the opportunity to get the award.)

Census block: 270370607171
105 locations – including Vikings Practice Facility
potential annual award: $11,322.50

Census block: 270370606032
1 location– Henry Sibley High School
potential annual award: $774.90

Census block: 270370604021
4 locations
potential annual award: $1,398.60

Census block: 270370603011
65 locations
potential annual award: $4,270.70
Notes: locations include businesses such as Sportman’s Guide an off and online camping store, parts of BridgePoint Park, a planned industrial park, So St Paul Steel – these places are couched between businesses served by Xfinity.

Census block: 0370601043
18 locations
potential annual award: $445.90
Notes: locations include two banks. Xfinity appears to serve businesses across the street in all directions; CenturyLink serves businesses in three directions

Census block: 270370605081
28 locations – along the highway
potential annual award: $5,360.60

We need to demand better broadband maps before we invest more government money based on existing broadband maps. You can start by contacting the FCC or your policymakers – some have already made strides to get FCC to improve the maps.

I eat, sleep, (sadly) dream broadband and yet I have my moments of wonder what I don’t get. The technology is detailed and every changing, the policy can get dated and it’s important because as we’ve see at the State and Federal level – millions of dollars are spent based on the definitions. And as is the nature with politics, many people in the room have different agendas. Yesterday I had to step back after watching the MN Senate Agriculture and Rural Development Finance and Policy Committee discussion SF1536: Broadband grants use for fixed wireless broadband and mapping requirements clarification.

So what is SF1536 doing? It is changing the broadband definition of underserved and unserved to include “fixed wireless” service. Today, the State uses only wireline broadband to track whether a house is served or unserved. Listening to the testimony today, the reason that fixed wireless wasn’t included is that is can be over-reported, giving us the false sense of success. Also, when the bill was original drafted fixed wireless wasn’t as good as it is now.

What doesn’t SF1536 do? It doesn’t open a door to fixed wireless projects getting funded through the Border to Border grant process because that door is already open. Grants have been awarded to fixed wireless providers. Technology is unimportant BUT the connection must scale to 100 Mbps down and up. That doesn’t mean it has to provide that tomorrow – but that it’s working toward that.

My takeaway: this meeting was similar to a recent US Senate Committee meeting where policymakers seemed more eager to declare successful broadband expansion than facilitate successful broadband expansion. As I said then, constituents don’t care if they are served/unserved/underserved; they care if broadband is a help or a hindrance in their lives. Changing the definition doesn’t help get people better service – it just reduces the number of local people and businesses eligible for government support. The declaration of success will be short lived in constituents continue to complain when policymakers get home.

What else does SF1536 do? The bill also explicitly says that broadband mapping “reflect all broadband delivery technologies.” The State already has access to data and maps based on wired and fixed wireless status. (There is an interactive map where you can search for wireline and/or fixed wireless status.) The county maps are wireline only but since they can gather the data for the interactive map, I assume they could create a map of fixed wireless access.

But they aren’t just asking for fixed wireless here, they are asking for “all broadband”, which makes me think they are asking for satellite and cellular. No asked about that in the meeting– but otherwise the change seems unnecessary. This makes me think that tracking fixed wireless is a slippery slope. Does your mom know the difference between wireless, fixed wireless, cellular or satellite? Do you?

Satellite should reach everyone and that will color the map – but will the new low Earth orbit options meet the speed goals? With cellular do you want to count 5G, 4G, 3G? It is clouding an already difficult topic. Also I don’t see any more funding for the mapping and they didn’t discuss the fact that the Office of Broadband Development only has a budget for mapping when they are administering grants. So if the Governor’s budget of one-year funding for broadband comes to fruition, they will be asked to do more with less at a time when they are also likely to be asked to look into federal funding.

My takeaway: this in an unintentional can of worms. I suspect that the Office of Broadband could create maps that show fixed wireless access with the information they have now. (It might take resources to compile.)

Senator Duckworth ends the meeting by stating that consumers don’t care how they get served so long as it happens soon and it’s cheap. That’s true so long as the value is good. I think it consumers can get access at speeds of 100 Mbps down and 20 up that they are probably satisfied; less happy if the speeds are 25/3. I don’t know that this bill is helping them get there. I think are missing the forest for the trees. The real measure of whether a household “has broadband” – as we’ve learned acutely during the pandemic – is can parents work, kids go to school, get to the doctor when you need a watch enough Netflix to stay in quarantine.

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