Today I attended an in-person version of the MN Office of Broadband Development Update: BEAD Final Proposal  held last week. For the PPTs and great detail, I recommend you check that post. Last week, I went to the in person meeting in Hutchinson; today I went to Owatonna. Mostly I took note of updates and questions from the attendees. There were about a dozen people in the room including both providers and community folks.

One big note: Public Comments deadline is September 3.

There are three more meetings this week:

• Tuesday Sept. 2, 3:30—4:30pm, Northwest Minnesota Foundation (NWMF), Bemidji, 201 3rd Street NW Bemidji, MN.
  • Note: Attendees, please plan to find street parking.
• Wednesday Sept. 3, 9—10am, West Central Initiative Foundation (WCIF), Fergus Falls, 1000 Western Ave, Fergus Falls, MN.
  • Note: Attendees, please park in the part of the lot on the south side of the building.
• Wednesday Sept. 3, 3—4pm, Northspan, Duluth, 202 West Superior Street, Suite 600, Duluth, MN.
  • Note: Attendees, this is located in the in the WesternBank building. Parking can be found on the street, the Holiday Center, or in the Duluth Transit

Questions:

• Is everything public now?
  Essentially, but we’re still working on some aspects like awards by county.
• Is the provider negation still confidential?
  Yes.
• How many homes are as expensive as the most expensive ($32,000)?
  Maybe 10 in a given area. And some areas were even more expensive $72,000 and a million dollars.
• Rumor has it some providers low-bid areas to call dibs on those areas. Is that true? That could leave us in a RDOF situation again.
  Yes.
• Did some providers choose not to participate?
  Yes.
• Were there satellite applications in the original round of grant apps?
  No.
• Why do we have LEO satellite?
  There are 2 providers Starlink and Amazon Kuiper Starlink claims to reach everyone. Amazon is asking for money for infrastructure. We do understand that satellite is very different from fiber.
• Why has the amount of funding seemingly gone down?
  There’s non-deployment funds. We didn’t build in a contingency for deployment in the original funds because we wanted it to go to infrastructure. With the changes we have changed out plans. We have plans to spend the money on other things such as upgrading or adding towers.
• Will that money stay in MN?
  We hope so. But the money may just go away. It’s likely to be state-to-state.
• Where does line extension fit with BEAD?
  There will be another Line Extension program opening in the next two weeks. We are trying to maximize funding to areas that don’t qualify for BEAD. They went through direct negotiations.
• What percent of applications were fiber/satellite/wireless?
  We will work on that. 110 applications 5-6 were fixed wireless; the rest were fiber. Satellite got through direct negotiations. We lost 20 applications from the first round. Mostly of the fixed wireless were for areas without a fiber bid.
• Is there going to be accountability with providers who have been dishonest about the maps?
  OBD is not regulatory. OBD tries to do the best maps possible. Please continue to ask the regulators.
• The maps online do not all make a ton of sense to the regular reader.
  NTIA required some very technical expertise and software.
• It would be nice to have a statewide broadband conference. Would OBD think about something like that?
  We have been asked for that – but the pieces are moving too quickly. We will try again next year. Also, it would be nice to have our federal partners in the room.
• Maybe the Initiative Founds could take up gauntlet for a conference?
  Folks have seemed interest. The MN Broadband Task Force is a good place to get information. There is a need for digital inclusion information and resources too.
• 40,000 locations will benefit from broadband asis. Are they unserved or underserved?
  Most communities already have better than 25/3 because MN had been doing this for a long time. We have 70,000 that don’t qualify for BEAD
• We are in a RDOF areas that didn’t get the actual funding (LTD Broadband) . Do you know if we qualify for BEAD? I have DSL. I get 2.4Mbps down and 1.6 up. (Goodhue County)
  OBD used data from Line Extension to make decisions on BEAD. We are working on an interactive map by county and location.
• I see fiber going to towers. Much of it is unused. Can we find which areas have unused fiber and use it?
  Beyond the purview of OBD.
• We have talked to different providers about leasing fiber to other providers who might want to finish broadband to the location.
• Can we get earmarks for broadband in the future?
  Not earmarks have been for broadband. Infrastructure works well there, but it’s usually focused on money to local government – not a private provider. You need a community network if you’re going to go for an earmark.
• Does the State know if there are RDOF funds that have yet to default? If that’s the case, maybe BEAD could pick up the slack.
  We did build a 10 percent contingency in all of the projects. So we hope that will help. If there’s something specific, please let us know and we can find out what we can.
• Do you work with the DNR?
  Yes.
  I talked to DNR about working around a river in our community and they said it would take an act of god.
  It’s hard to find a solution.
• What mechanisms are being set up to monitor the satellite connections?
  Good question. We need receipts and deliverables. Also hard to track new subscriptions. For those who have nothing, satellite will be an upgrade.
• Will we see movement on December 4?
  You will see as soon as we see. It could be quicker.
• Could OBD help create development services like Blandin used to provide? So many of us got started with Blandin.
  We don’t have money for development now that the digital inclusion funds are gone. But we would support something.

I finally took a deep dive into the Draft of Minnesota’s Final Proposal. It is a series of answers to very specific questions that help NTIA decide whether Minnesota (Office of Broadband Development (OBD) and subgrantees) will be able to adhere to the application requirements – despite changes made to the original requirements. OBD has been distributing finds for many years. In some ways, I’m sure that made it easier for them to create a proposal compared to other states.  In some ways, the requirements do not assume the experience and expertise of local team, especially in understanding the needs and expectations of residents, communities and providers and that had to be frustrating. Below, I’ve selected lines in the proposals that jumped out for me. (I have also highlighted these sections in a PDF of the full draft proposal.

The attachments from the proposal were more interesting in terms of what we could see on the ground here once the application is approved. I’ve look at this further below.

Comments on the changes made to comply with NTIA’.., (Just a helpful reminder of what the proposal needed to address.)

• The NTIA’s Benefit of the Bargain grant application round took a technology neutral approach and prioritized the lowest cost technology. Minnesota conducted a technology neutral, transparent, and competitive Benefit of the Bargain grant application round that minimized BEAD outlay while prioritizing the lowest cost technology.
• 14 applicants submitted letters of interest including three new applicants.
• Minnesota only completed one round of subgrantee selection prior to the restructuring of the program which was focused on fiber projects only but estimates the restructured round lowered costs per BSL by at least $2,000 per BSL. Additionally, all awards included a 10% contingency to ensure all projects can complete should any barriers or delays occur. Reimbursement payment will be based on actual costs incurred and match requirements must meet a minimum 25% requirement (unless a match waiver is in place) or the amount proposed in its application if higher.

Info on Priority Broadband Projects… (Helpful again to get a reminder of definitions and see the impact of changes.)

• OBD applied the BEAD June 6 Restructuring Policy Notice definition of Priority Broadband Project: one that provides broadband service at speeds of no less than 100 megabits per second for downloads and 20 megabits per second for uploads, has a latency less than or equal to 100 milliseconds, and can easily scale speeds over time to meet the evolving connectivity needs of households and businesses and support the deployment of 5G, successor wireless technologies, and other advanced services. The above applied was in accordance with the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act and the BEAD Restructuring Policy Notice. This definition required Minnesota to embrace technology neutrality and fully realize the benefit of the bargain.
• In partnership with its engineering consultants, OBD applied a principled evaluation process— assessing applications on speed, latency, and scalability—to certify the Restructured BEAD Round supports current and future connectivity needs of Minnesotans.
  As a result of the Restructured BEAD Round, Minnesota benefited from:
  • Over $200 million reduction in original estimated deployment costs
  • All Minnesota BSLs served using all available technologies and recommended awards including fiber-optic, LEO satellite services, hybrid fiber-coaxial, and terrestrial fixed wireless technology.
  • Projects with capacity to meet today’s demand challenges as well as easily scale for future needs of residents, thriving businesses and tourism.
  • Technology-neutral solutions that perform at the required speeds across diverse terrain, including dense tree coverage, undulating slopes, and varying altitudes, to meet unique needs of each BSL.

On Scalability… (Shows OBD’s experiential learning with 10+ years of distributing funds.)

• Minnesota’s technical review team also took into consideration the applicant’s track record of meeting comparable levels of demand relative to the number of BSLs applied to. If a direct example could not be reviewed, OBD looked for examples of the applicants scaling their technology at the required pace.
  Finally, if the performance history did not have an example of the level of scale needed for the BEAD program, Minnesota considered if future scalability would depend on emerging technologies. Emerging technology could require additional regulatory approvals, such as zoning, spectrum, or orbital clearances, which may introduce uncertainty. Additionally, technologies with shorter operational lifespans may pose replacement risks that could impact long-term reliability and cost-effectiveness.

On reliability… (Explains to folks in other states some of the challenges unique to MN.)

• Additionally, Minnesota evaluated reliability of projects to apply the Priority Broadband Project definition based on the geography. Minnesota’s project areas span from bluffs and hills to farmland to glacier formed topography. Minnesota is also home to 60 dense state forest lands and two national forests with over 14.7 billion trees on 18 million acres of forest in eligible areas. These areas represent over 35% of the state.
  Through the Minnesota Office of Broadband Development’s over 12 years of experience in broadband infrastructure projects, past grant-funded implementations revealed that tree canopy, rugged terrain, and slope can complicate installation and/or obstruct line-of-sight (LOS) paths. Broadband technologies with obstructed line-of-sight, specifically wireless and LEO technologies, can have signal degradation, increased latency, and reduced reliability.
  To apply a Priority Broadband Project definition from a reliability perspective, OBD looked at topography by evaluating the change in elevation between neighboring areas (i.e., calculated an average slope). A higher average slope indicates that there are various changes of terrain impacting technologies needing line-of-sight. Average slope was calculated using elevation models from the US Geological Survey averaged per application area. Specifically, OBD applied analysis of average slope when reviewing wireless projects given past experience with State projects where varying slope impacted line-of-sight and service levels.
  Besides elevation change, other common line-of-sight barriers are trees. Given approximately 63% of Minnesota is forest, and applications referenced tree canopy coverage, OBD factored tree canopy coverage in the Priority Broadband Project application and reliability of wireless and LEO proposed projects. Tree canopy impacts the deployment of broadband technology requiring direct line-of-sight. LEO performance is more reliable with an unobstructed sky view, while fixed wireless signals degrade when traveling through vegetation. As discovered through OBD’s
  For over 12 years of experience in broadband infrastructure projects, past infrastructure projects using state grant funds have struggled due to these line-of- sight limitations.

As I mentioned above, the attachments were even more interesting:

• Draft BEAD Program Monitoring Plan Summary (PDF)
• Attachment 1 – Final Proposal Subgrantees (CSV)
• Attachment 2 – Final Proposal Deployment Projects* (XLSX)
• Attachment 3 – Final Proposal Locations* (CSV)
• Attachment 4 – Final Proposal No BEAD Locations (CSV)
• Attachment 14.1 EHP PEIS Memo Minnesota (PDF)
• Attachment 14.1 EHP Requirements (PDF)

In recent presentations, OBD had given some very high, interesting stats:

I’ve pulled out a few details from the spreadsheets on the providers and projects to dive on layer down. It sounds like information will be available by county soon.