Tag Archives: MN PUC

MN PUC meeting on LTD Broadband certification for CAFII: video and notes

Posted on by
Reply

The MN PUC today met to discuss LTD Broadband’s annual Eligible Telecommunications Carriers (ETC) certification related to CAFII funding. I’ll paste my notes (however scattered) and related background information below. The quick take is that the MN PUC wanted to decide on a number of items (listed directly below). They agreed on options 1,3,4,6 and 8, with some modification on number 4. The main change would be adding a note to indicate that the MN PUC is only recertifying the ETC for this purpose. Not in light with anything happening with LTD Broadband and RDOF money.

Does the Commission have sufficient documentation through the filed FCC form 481 to be assured that the high cost funds received by each ETCs have been, and will be, used for their intended purpose, pursuant to 47 C.F.R. 54.314?

1.Certify all companies as indicated in Tables 1, 2, and 4 of Attachment A of the staff briefing papers (Department).

OR

  1. Recertify all companies as indicated in Tables 1, 2, and 4 of Attachment A of the staff briefing papers except for the following, which shall not be recertified: [specify any ETCs that are not being recertified].

AND

  1. Provide USAC with a list of carriers (including their SACs) that should be certified in a letter to the FCC (Department). Should the Commission certify LTD Broadband for CAF II Funding Program?

Should the Commission certify LTD Broadband for CAF II Funding Program?

  1. Certify LTD Broadband to continue to receive CAF II funding as was done by the Commission in Docket No. P999/PR-22-8.

OR
5. Do not certify LTD Broadband to continue to receive CAF II funding and defer certification on this carrier (Department). Should the Commission order all high-cost funding program ETCs to submit Performance Measure (PM) Testing results with all future 481 filings?

Should the Commission order high cost funding program ETCs to submit Performance Measure (PM) Testing results with all future 481 filings?

6. Require all high-cost funding recipients to submit Performance Measure (PM) Testing results with all future 481 filings (Department).
OR
7. Do not require all high-cost funding recipients to submit Performance Measure (PM) Testing results with all future 481 filings. Should the Commission continue to require quarterly filings of Tribal engagement from the ETCs consistent with the requirements in the Commission’s October 21, 2021 and November 8, 2022 Orders?

Should the Commission continue to require quarterly filings of Tribal engagement from the ETCs consistent with the requirements in the Commission’s Oct 21, 2021 and Nov 8, 2022 orders?
8. Continue to require quarterly filings of Tribal engagement from the ETCs consistent with the requirements in the Commission’s October 21, 2021 and November 8, 2022 Orders. (Department)

(You can related materials on the MN PUC site.)

More notes: Continue reading →

LTD Broadband’s ETC designation no longer on MN PUC meeting agenda for Sep 21

Posted on by
Reply

According to the MN PUC latest agenda for the Sep 21 meeting, LTD Broadband’s ETC designation has been removed from the agenda. But they will still be looking at Local Exchange Carriers; Eligible Telecommunications Carrier. Here’s the full agenda.

  1. INTRODUCTION DECISION ITEMS 1. Details 2022-105
    PULLED
    ** P558,6995/M-22-221; LTD Broadband;
    P6995/M-21-133 Minnesota Rural Electric Association; Minnesota Telecom Alliance
    In the Matter of a Petition to Initiate a Proceeding to Revoke the Expanded Eligible Telecommunications Carrier (“ETC”) Designation of LTD Broadband, LLC (“LTD”) and Deny LTD’s Funding Certification for 2023.
    1. Should the Commission lift the January 18, 2023, stay of this proceeding issued by the ALJ?
    2. Should the Commission grant the MREA and MTA’s (Petitioners’) motion to suspend LTD’s RDOF ETC designation previously granted by the Commission? (PUC: Fournier, McShane)
  2. Details 2021-061
    ** E002/M-20-711 Xcel Energy
    In the Matter of Xcel Energy’s Petition for Approval of a Multi-Dwelling Unit Electric Vehicle Pilot Program.
    Should the Commission approve the expanded Multi-Dwelling Unit EV Service Pilot budget set forth in Xcel Energy’s August 18, 2023, Letter? (PUC: Terwilliger) 3. Details 2023-144 ** E002/M-22-403 Xcel Energy In the Matter of Xcel Energy’s 2022 Solar Portfolio. Should the Commission approve the Sherco Solar 3 Project and Apple River Solar Power Purchase Agreement? (PUC: Stalpes, Terwilliger

The following item will not be heard before 10:00am.

  1. Details 2023-143
    ** P999/PR-23-8
    Local Exchange Carriers; Eligible Telecommunications Carriers
    In the Matter of Annual Certification Related to Eligible Telecommunications Carriers’ (ETCs) Use of the Federal Universal Service Support Required Pursuant to C.F.R. 54.313.
    Does the Commission have sufficient documentation through the filed FCC Form 481 to be assured that the high-cost funds received by each ETCs have been, and will be, used for their intended purpose, pursuant to 47 C.F.R. § 54.314? (PUC: Fournier

 

Update on MN PUC and LTD Broadband: customer to be informed of opportunity for comment

Posted on by
Reply

The MN PUC (Public Utilities Commission) is holding a meeting on September 21 to further discuss looking at revoking the Eligible Telecommunications Carrier designation of LTD Broadband. S, I’m sure we’ll know more after it. (If this story is new to you, you can learn more.) In the meantime, the Office of the Attorney General has made a recommendation…

In its August 11 comments, the Minnesota Department of Commerce articulated three recommendations for Commission consideration. First, the Department recommended that the Commission lift the stay imposed by the Administrative Law Judge to ensure timely resolution of this matter.1 Second, relying on the analysis of its retained engineering expert, the Department recommended that the Commission suspend LTD Broadband’s expanded ETC designation until the issue is permanently resolved through the contested case.2 Third, the Department recommended that the Commission require LTD to include bill messages advising customers that they may contact CAO with complaints.3 Because this third recommendation is not reflected in the filed decision options, the Department proposes the following additional decision option: 6. Require LTD to provide notification to its Minnesota customers that they may contact the Consumer Affairs Office (CAO) with questions or concerns, or to provide public comment. Delegate authority to the Executive Secretary to approve the content, format, and timing of the customer notice.

MN PUC briefing papers a petition to revoke ETC designation of LTD Broadband (prep for Sep 21)

Posted on by
Reply

The MN PUC (Public Utilities Commission) is holding a meeting on September 21 “In the Matter of a Petition to Initiate a Proceeding to Revoke the Expanded Eligible Telecommunications Carrier (“ETC”) Designation of LTD Broadband, LLC (“LTD”) and Deny LTD’s Funding Certification for 2023.” (The public is welcome; the meeting is hybrid.) They will take on two issues:

  1. Should the Commission lift the January 18, 2023, stay of this proceeding issued by the ALJ?
  2. Should the Commission grant the MREA and MTA’s (Petitioner’s) motion to suspend LTD’s RDOF ETC designation previously granted by the Commission?

They have just filed the briefing papers (21 pages) for that meeting. The papers outline and summarize all of the remarks and comments that have been made about the issues up until now. Rather than copy and page everything, I will simply share the issues and the staff notes on each.

Should the Commission lift the January 18, 2023, stay of this proceeding issued by the ALJ?

Staff notes that an RDOF allocation will be considered to have an enforceable commitment for qualifying broadband only after the Federal Communications Commission has announced in a Public Notice that RDOF support for that location is ready-to-authorize or is authorized. 25 As part of the FCC’s August 10, 2022, Notice discussed in the Background section above, the FCC denied LTD’s long-form application placing LTD in default for all their winning bids. LTD is not either ready-to-authorize nor is authorized to receive RDOF funding consistent with the NTIA Notice. As such, no enforceable commitment currently exists in those 102,055 locations LTD originally won in the RDOF auction in early 2021, and those locations are eligible for other grant programs, including the NTIA’s BEAD program funding mentioned by ILSR in their August 11, 2023, comments.

Should the Commission grant the MREA and MTA’s (Petitioner’s) motion to suspend LTD’s RDOF ETC designation previously granted by the Commission?
Public comments are summarized in Attachment A to this document. All four commentors opined that LTD should not maintain its RDOF ETC designation.

And the Staff Analysis

If the Commission determines that this matter should be decided with a conclusion, and the expenditure of resources devoted to reaching this conclusion is deemed prudent, the Commission may consider lifting the ALJ’s stay and move this matter forward. There are two procedures available to the Commission that may be applied as a combination.

First, there is lifting the ALJ’s stay of this matter and granting the Petitioner’s motion to suspend. Staff has some reservations with suspending LTD’s ETC designation. The motion would appear to shift the burden of proof from the Petitioners to show that LTD’s ETC designation should be revoked, to LTD having to redemonstrate that it is fit for ETC designation in the Minnesota RDOF census blocks. This concern is balanced against the Commission preserving its role to determine the fitness of the carrier for ETC designation regardless of whether the FCC ever acts on LTD’s appeal.

As part of that authority, and to ensure the preservation of that authority throughout this process, the Commission may consider suspending LTD’s RDOF ETC designation, which was granted in the Commission’s June 3, 2021, Order pending the outcome of this proceeding.38 This will allow the Commission to bring about a smoother final resolution regardless of whether the FCC acts on LTD’s appeal.

However, if the FCC were to grant LTD’s appeal during the pendency of this proceeding, The ALJ reasoned the following:

In addition, if the FCC does change course, it will be based on an analysis that will be similar to what the Commission will face — is LTD capable of fulfilling its technical, managerial, and financial obligations to fulfill obligations under the RDOF program? While the Commission’s interests are somewhat different from the FCC’s, the determination of the FCC, an independent federal agency that has a fiduciary interest in seeing the RDOF funds are properly dispersed, is relevant to issues to be addressed in this proceeding. In addition, there will be a window, at least six weeks, for the parties in this proceeding to reconvene to decide next steps if the FCC does reverse course.

Second, there is lifting the ALJ’s stay of this matter, and referring the matter back to the ALJ to formally develop the record as the Commission requested prior to the FCC’s denial of LTD’s Long-Form application. Staff continues to believe a contested case will develop a complete record regarding whether LTD’s ETC designation should be revoked. A contested case proceeding will allow the parties to engage in discovery, present formal evidence, cross[1]examine witnesses, and develop a robust record fully exploring all the relevant issues consistent with the parties’ due process rights and applicable rules.

In their August 11, 2023, comments, the Department stated the following:

While the FCC’s denial of LTD’s long-form application has paused RDOF funds from flowing to LTD and lessened the initial urgency, the need for the proceeding continues and the Commission’s independent authority to designate and monitor ETCs remains. Given the passage of time, in order to effectuate its authority, the Commission should remove the stay and direct OAH to set a procedural schedule.40 Staff believes that the Department’s position has merit. This process is part of the Commission’s overall authority to designate and monitor eligible telecommunications carriers (ETCs), and the time may have come for the Commission to make a final determination of this matter.

Also, here are the decision options…

Should the Commission lift the January 18, 2023, stay of this proceeding issued by the ALJ?

  1. Continue the stay imposed pursuant to the Administrative Law Judge’s January 18, 2023, Third Prehearing Order. (LTD)

OR

  1. Lift the stay imposed pursuant to the Administrative Law Judge’s January 18, 2023, Third Prehearing Order (Petitioners, Department, and OAG).

AND

  1. Refer the matter back to the Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH) with the request that the matter be restarted following the procedure outlined in the Commission’s August 16, 2022, Notice and Order for Hearing (Department).

OR

  1. Consider the Petitioner’s motion to suspend LTD’s RDOF ETC designation previously granted by the Commission.

[If the Commission selects decision option 2a or 2b, the Commission should consider decision options #3, #4, or #5 based on relevance.]

Should the Commission grant the MREA and MTA’s (Petitioner’s) motion to suspend LTD’s RDOF ETC designation previously granted by the Commission?

  1. Deny the Petitioner’s motion to suspend LTD’s RDOF ETC designation previously granted by the Commission (LTD).

OR

  1. Grant the Petitioner’s motion to suspend LTD’s RDOF ETC designation previously granted by the Commission (Petitioners, Department, and OAG).

OR

  1. Grant the Petitioner’s motion to suspend LTD’s RDOF ETC designation previously granted by the Commission and Refer the matter back to the Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH) with the request that the matter be restarted following the procedure outlined in the Commission’s August 16, 2022, Notice and Order for Hearing (Department).

EVENT Sep 21: MN PUC meeting on LTD Broadband’s ETC designation

Posted on by
Reply

I have been following the saga of MN PUC looking at looking at (not a typo) revoking LTD Broadband’s ETC designation as requested by Minnesota Rural Electric Association and Minnesota Telecom Alliance. MinnPost recently wrote a helpful article on what’s been happening and why it matters. The very quick take is that LTD Broadband qualified to apply for a lot of federal funding. It kid terms, they had dibs on that funding, which meant no one else was able to apply. The federal opportunity fell through. LTD needed the ETC designation from the PUC to qualify for the funds, which they had. But in light of what happened MTA and MREA are asking the MN PUC to reconsider that designation.

On September 21, the MN PUC has this issue on their agenda (below). There are two items that follow this topic on the full agenda that aren’t broadband-related.

  1. Details 2023-143
    ** P999/PR-23-8
    Local Exchange Carriers;
    Eligible Telecommunications Carriers
    In the Matter of Annual Certification Related to Eligible Telecommunications Carriers’ (ETCs) Use of the Federal Universal Service Support Required Pursuant to C.F.R. 54.313.
    Does the Commission have sufficient documentation through the filed FCC Form 481 to be assured that the high-cost funds received by each ETCs have been, and will be, used for their intended purpose, pursuant to 47 C.F.R. § 54.314? (PUC: Fournier)
  2. Details 2022-105
    ** P558,6995/M-22-221; P6995/M-21-133
    LTD Broadband; Minnesota Rural Electric Association; Minnesota Telecom Alliance
    In the Matter of a Petition to Initiate a Proceeding to Revoke the Expanded Eligible Telecommunications Carrier (“ETC”) Designation of LTD Broadband, LLC (“LTD”) and Deny LTD’s Funding Certification for 2023.
    1. Should the Commission lift the January 18, 2023, stay of this proceeding issued by the ALJ?
    2. Should the Commission grant the MREA and MTA’s (Petitioners’) motion to suspend LTD’s RDOF ETC designation previously granted by the Commission? (PUC: Fournier, McShane) 3. Details 2021-061 ** E002/M-20-711 Xcel Ener

The meeting is hybrid. The basic details are below. Visit the PUC announcement for more info, especially if you are interested in commenting.

NOTICE OF COMMISSION AGENDA MEETING – HYBRID FORMAT

Issued: September 8, 2023

Items on the attached agenda will be heard at the Commission’s regularly scheduled meeting.

DATE: Thursday, September 21, 2023 TIME: 10:00am

LOCATION: Large Hearing Room, 121 7th Pl E, Suite 350, St. Paul, MN 55101

AND Online via WebEx, See attached instructions

TO FIND OUT IF A MEETING IS CANCELED OR RESCHEDULED: Call (toll-free) 1-855-731-6208 or 651-201-2213 or visit mn.gov/puc

TO CHANGE YOUR MAILING PREFERENCES: E-mail docketing.puc@state.mn.us or call 651-201-2234

TO MAKE AN ACCOMODATION REQUEST: If reasonable accommodations are needed to enable you to fully participate in a Commission meeting such as sign language or large print materials, please call 651-296- 0406 or 1-800-657-3782 at least one week in advance of the meeting or email consumer.puc@state.mn.us for assistance.

EVENT Sep 21: Minnesota PUC meeting on LTD revocation

Posted on by
Reply

Now much more to report but the MN PUC Agenda meeting on the September 21: LTD ETC revocation; Xcel solar RFP; Annual ETC designations; Xcel EV program and federal funds.

I plan to attend.

Agenda MTG
Large Hearing Room, 121 7th Place E, Suite 350, St. Paul, MN 55101
Thu, Sep 21, 10am
Meeting Details
Agenda
Live Webcast
Viewing Instructions
* items above will be linked when available

MinnPost looks deep into Le Sueur’s broadband to see how policies matter

Posted on by
Reply

Turns out I wasn’t the only one driving a long distance for the Le Sueur County Fair over the weekend, Walker Orenstein from MinnPost was there too and he used the opportunity to take a deep dive into the broadband situation in Le Sueur County.

Le Sueur has been working on getting better broadband for many years. They have had some successes and some roadblocks. Walker outlines the current barriers. It demonstrates the importance of good maps and engaged communities.

There is opportunity…

As the federal government prepares to hand out an unprecedented flood of cash in Minnesota for improving access to broadband – including a whopping $652 million from the 2021 infrastructure bill – decisions on how to direct money to connect rural areas might be influenced by small conversations like these.

There are challenges…

The fair is one way to spread information to people in Le Sueur County, like what internet providers serve certain areas. It’s also a way for county officials to gather intel, especially as they prepare to contest the service claims of a controversial telecom company in hopes of getting a share of broadband money.

And now is a good time to look for challenges in your community…

As those programs get up and running – state officials are still devising a plan with the federal government for using the $652 million – it’s too soon to say which providers and what parts of the state could get money.

But maps of existing coverage published by the FCC are a critical starting point, and have sparked jockeying among telecom and broadband advocates for a slice of the pie. A look at those maps shows wide coverage by LTD Broadband in southern Minnesota, at download and upload speeds of 250 megabits per second (mbps).

That is fast enough to exceed state and federal standards, which considers 100/20 mbps service – which also can match or beat typical speeds in big urban areas – to be adequate.

Critics, however, argue the FCC maps aren’t accurate. And they hope to erase at least parts of LTD’s territory from the map. One survey of 120 LTD customers in Le Sueur County found average speeds of 9/1 mbps, according to a letter sent to state regulators by county officials.

(I have been following the situation with LTD Broadband and the MN PUC. Concerns for losing the opportunity to get better broadband in places like Le Sueur fuels the organizations that have filed the original issue with the MN PUC.)

Another issue is the definition of broadband…

The money from the infrastructure bill is a bit more complicated. It appears that federal regulators overseeing that particular pot of cash don’t count technology used by LTD Broadband. That means the LTD coverage area would still be considered “unserved,” opening the door for grants that would subsidize other providers.

LTD mainly offers what’s known as “fixed wireless,” which distributes a signal from a transmitter placed on a tall structure like a water tower. The feds prefer fiber cable to the home for the infrastructure program. Minnesota officials also believe fiber is faster and more reliable. The performance of fiber compared to fixed wireless has long been a source of debate in the industry.

Hauer [LTD Broadband SEO] told MinnPost he doesn’t think their existing services would block anyone from the cash earmarked for broadband in the infrastructure bill. And he hopes to actually compete for grants from the infrastructure money through building fiber.

What can the communities do? Find a local champion, such as Barbara Dröher Kline, and get people engaged…

For a county-wide challenge, Dröher Kline said she hopes to gather more specific information than from the county’s survey. And she needs enough people to make a case.

That means finding residents who have service from LTD Broadband and running speed tests. It also means working with people to sign up for internet and ask the company for speeds advertised to the FCC to see if the company can deliver them.

The fair booth had detailed maps showing what parts of the county have coverage from any broadband provider. Raffle winners got coffee mugs advertising the county’s broadband initiative. Free coffee was available to all. “But I interrogate them about who their broadband provider is,” Dröher Kline said.

MN PUC on the LTD Broadband case: Comments from Dep of Commerce, MTA & MREA and LTD Broadband

Posted on by
Reply

Last month, I started posting comments from the public on the MN Public Utility Commission’s situation with LTD Broadband and a request to look at revoking their ETC designation. Below I have excerpts from comments from:

  • MN Department of Commerce
  • Minnesota Telecom Alliance and Minnesota Rural Electric Association
  • LTD Broadband

In order of appearance in my in-box.

Comments from Department of Commerce…

The federal government is making a generational investment in broadband through the Rural Digital Opportunity Fund (“RDOF”) program and the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act. It is essential that these public subsidies only flow to providers capable of deploying broadband and delivering on their applicable Eligible Telecommunications Carrier (“ETC”) commitments. LTD Broadband, however, does not appear up to these tasks. Allowing LTD to remain in regulatory purgatory interferes with the efforts of local governments, nonprofits, and other providers to make investments with reasonable certainty and secure federal subsidies. This situation is untenable. To resolve these issues, the Department of Commerce continues to recommend that the Commission lift the stay, suspend LTD’s expanded ETC designation until final disposition of this matter, and direct LTD to notify its customers that they may contact the Consumer Affairs Office with any questions or concerns.

They go on to explain their reasoning. Here’s their outline, which is filled in on the original document…

  1. LTD’S ARGUMENTS AGAINST LIFTING THE STAY LACK MERIT
    1. The Commission Should Exercise Its Judgment and Expertise to Lift the Stay.
    2. LTD Attempts to Reduce the Commission to a Rubberstamp
  2. THE COMMISSION SHOULD SUSPEND LTD’S EXPANDED DESIGNATION.

And the conclusion…

For these reasons, and those discussed in its initial comments, the Department continues to recommend that the Commission lift the stay of this proceeding, suspend LTD’s expanded ETC designation for the pendency of the proceeding, and require LTD to include bill messages advising customers that they may contact CAO with complaints.

Comments from Minnesota Telecom Alliance and Minnesota Rural Electric Association…

The Minnesota Telecom Alliance (“MTA”) and Minnesota Rural Electric Association (“MREA”) (“Petitioners”) hereby respectfully submit these Reply Comments as provided in the Commission’s July 21, 2023, Notice of Comment Period in this matter (the “Current Proceeding”). Petitioners: (1) support the Comments of the Department of Commerce (“Department”),1 the Office of Attorney General (“OAG”),2 the Institute for Local Self Reliance (“ILSR”),3 LeSueur County,4 Minnesota Farmers Union (“MFU”), 5 Martha Milburn and Brad Gustafson; and (2) dispute the Comments of LTD Broadband, LLC (“LTD”).6

They’ve added a handy summary of their points:

  • The Commission has the legal authority and responsibility to suspend LTD’s Expanded ETC Designation (“ETC Designation”) based on facts presented by Petitioners, the Department and others showing LTD is unable to perform its ETC obligation to provide the supported broadband services throughout its Minnesota ETC area. 7
  • The status quo (under which LTD retains its ETC Designation) also poses the risk of immediate and irreparable harm to the public interest by denying access to other public broadband funding for approximately 165,000 Minnesota residents in LTD’s ETC area.
  • These facts and substantial risk to the public interest support suspending LTD’s ETC Designation, as Petitioners, the Department, the OAG, ILSR, and all commenters recommend.

And here’s the outline of their argument, which is filled in for the full comments:

  1. LTD’S ARGUMENT THAT THE COMMISSION SHOULD DEFER TO THE FCC IGNORES THE COMMISSION’S INDEPENDENT AUTHORITY AND RESPONSIBILITY TO ENSURE LTD MEETS ITS ETC OBLIGATIONS.
  2. FACTS PROVIDED BY PETITIONERS AND THE DEPARTMENT SHOW THAT LTD CANNOT MEET THE BASIC ETC REQUIREMENT TO PROVIDE THE SUPPORTED BROADBAND SERVICES TO THE 102,005 LOCATIONS IN ITS ETC AREA.
  3. C. LTD HAS GROSSLY UNDERSTATED THE IMMEDIACY AND SEVERITY OF THE RISK THAT ITS APPLICATION FOR REVIEW POSES TO THE PUBLIC INTEREST IN MINNESOTA
    1. 1. Contrary to LTD’s claim that its application for review is merely preliminary, the application asserts a right to RDOF funding with minimal delay.
    2. 2. The Commission cannot effectively protect the public interest in BEAD and other broadband funding sources without suspending LTD’s ETC designation.
  4. D. LTD’S COMMENTS IGNORE THE RISK OF IRREPARABLE HARM TO THE PUBLIC INTEREST FROM ALLOWING LTD’S ETC DESIGNATION TO REMAIN IN EFFECT DURING THE REVOCATION PROCEEDING

And the conclusion…

For the reasons discussed above and in Petitioners’ Motion to Suspend, it is essential that the Commission suspend LTD’s ETC Designation with or without lifting the Stay Order to properly reflect the overwhelming evidence that LTD is unable to perform its ETC obligations and to fully protect the public interest from irreparable harm.

Comments from LTD Broadband, LLC…

LTD Broadband, LLC (“LTD”), by its counsel, hereby replies to the initial round of comments submitted in response to the “Notice of Comment Period” issued July 21, 2023 by the Minnesota Public Utilities Commission (the “Commission”). While a number of parties have voiced support for removing the current stay and considering the Motion to Suspend that the Minnesota Telecom Alliance (“MTA”) and the Minnesota Rural Electric Association (“MREA”) filed in March, none has carried the burden of demonstrating why this relief should be granted and additional, likely time-consuming proceedings conducted. Accordingly, the Commission should decline to disturb the current stay and no additional proceedings should be initiated at this time.

I am abridging their comments but I think this gets to a major point…

The contention of these parties that LTD’s FCC application could suddenly spring to life and result in LTD obtaining immediate authorization for Rural Digital Opportunity Fund (“RDOF”) support, thereby barring others from seeking alternative funding for broadband deployment, has no basis in fact.4 Even if LTD were to obtain a favorable FCC decision concerning its pending Application for Review, the cascade of events that MTA, MREA and other commenters postulate, without support, could not occur quickly. In the event the FCC staff’s dismissal of LTD’s long-form application is overturned, the Commission would have ample opportunity to initiate its own proceedings, if it determined they were warranted, and to make these steps known to the FCC promptly. But that is not the only possibility – the FCC could authorize LTD for partial support and decline to authorize support in certain areas. LTD could decline support in areas that it now serves or are served by others that have expanded their networks. Full denial or full reversal of the FCC’s staff decision are not the only two outcomes, and the impact on BEAD and other funding programs cannot be reasonably predicted so long as the Application for Review remains pending. Thus, in the absence of further FCC action, further Commission proceedings would serve no purpose at all and would only squander the time and resources of all compelled to participate in them, as LTD has fully articulated in its Comments.5 The Commission therefore should maintain the status quo unless and until the FCC takes further steps to consider LTD’s RDOF application, something that may or may not ever occur.

Finally, it would be entirely prejudicial for the Commission to entertain the Motion to Suspend, which seeks to sideline LTD’s expanded ETC designation “pending (1) conclusion of this proceeding; or (2) a Commission Order removing the suspension based on a showing by LTD that it meets the requirements for expanded ETC designation or that suspension is contrary to the public interest.”6 The Commission should not, based on allegations to which LTD has not responded and for which no standards are established, suspend a designation that the Commission granted based on a full and complete record. The Department of Commerce argues that “the public interest would be greatly prejudiced by such an expedited proceeding” in reference to FCC reversal of the staff denial of the long-form application.7 But it totally ignores the extreme prejudice LTD would suffer if there were no proceedings at all on these “complex issues,”8 and the Commission simply decided to suspend LTD’s expanded ETC designation without articulating standards for suspension, without assigning the burden of proof, and without affording LTD an opportunity to participate – which is what MTA and MREA clearly imply is the objective of the Motion to Suspend in asserting that “completion of a contested case is unlikely before the first round of BEAD funding is awarded, even if a contested case is conducted expeditiously.”

MN PUC on the LTD Broadband case: map correction

Posted on by
Reply

This is a correction to submitted commented earlier this week: More comments to the MN PUC on the LTD Broadband case from Attorney General, ILSR and MTA & MREA

Apparently, there is a correction to the map that the Department of Commerce posted earlier…

Enclosed for filing, on behalf of the Minnesota Department of Commerce, please find errata to Department Exhibit E.1 Specifically, the errata correct page two of the exhibit that erroneously attributed some Rural Digital Opportunity Fund program locations to LTD Broadband. The enclosed map corrects this issue. The other map (page one of the exhibit) obtained from the Department of Employment and Economic Development is unchanged.

More comments to the MN PUC on the LTD Broadband case from LTD and MN Farmer’s Union

Posted on by
Reply

Last month, I started posting comments from the public on the MN Public Utility Commission’s case with LTD Broadband and a request to look at revoking their ETC designation. Last week, I added two more and over the weekend three more comments.

Today I have comments from:

  • LTD Broadband
  • Minnesota Farmers Union
  • Minnesota Telecom Alliance and Minnesota Rural Electric Association submit a number of nondisclosure forms.

LTD Broadband comments…

LTD Broadband, LLC (“LTD”), by its counsel, hereby responds to the “Notice of Comment Period” issued July 21, 2023 by the Minnesota Public Utilities Commission (the “Commission”). The Commission seeks comment in response to ALJ LeFave’s grant of a Motion to Certify1 to the Commission on the maintenance of the current stay as well as the Motion to Suspend ETC Designation (the “Motion to Suspend”) jointly filed by the Minnesota Telecom Alliance (“MTA”) and the Minnesota Rural Electric Association (“MREA”) (together, the “Movants” or “MTA and MREA”).

The Movants are seeking to embroil the Commission in entirely unnecessary proceedings on the basis of speculation, inconsistent logic, and a fundamentally inaccurate characterization of the posture of LTD’s application for Rural Digital Opportunity Fund (“RDOF”) support before the Federal Communications Commission (“FCC”). The Motion is simply an attempt to extinguish arbitrarily LTD’s current ETC status as a means of prejudicing LTD’s position in matters still pending before the FCC, including LTD’s pending Application for Review 3 seeking FCC reversal of a staff decision denying LTD’s RDOF long-form application.

They follow that up with 10 pages of explanation; here’s an outline of their arguments.

  1. The Stay Should Remain in Place.
    1. No Party Other Than LTD is Damaged by Maintaining the Status Quo.
    2. The Motion to Suspend is Based on a False Premise Regarding the Relief that the FCC May Grant in Ruling on LTD’s Application for Review.
    3. Further Proceedings at This Time Would Squander Both Public and Private Resources.
  2. The Motion to Suspend Should Be Held in Abeyance, or Simply Denied, Pending Final FCC Action as It Relies Heavily on Staff-Level Findings at the Preliminary Stage of a Federal Agency Proceeding That Is Not Yet Final.

An interesting part of their argument…

At a recent conference, Minnesota Office of Broadband Development Executive Bree Maki was quoted as saying that the allocated amount is “not going to be enough” to connect all Minnesotans to broadband.15 But the $311 million that LTD is seeking from the FCC would add a significant amount of broadband funding dollars on top of what NTIA has allocated, helping the state achieve its goal of universal broadband.

Minnesota Farmers Union comments…

On behalf of Minnesota Farmers Union (MFU), I urge the Commission to support the petitioner’s motion to suspend LTD’s Eligible Telecommunications Carrier (ETC) designation. I, and many of the members I represent, are concerned that LTD’s inability to fulfill its obligations as a broadband provider will further delay deployment of the broadband that rural communities need and deserve.
…
However, in speaking with members in Le Sueur County and others, I have become concerned that LTD will not only fail to provide broadband services to rural communities but will also further delay broadband deployment by experienced providers. In the Federal Communication Commission’s August 10th, 2022 rejection of LTD’s application for RDOF subsidies, the FCC recognized that support of risky, unproven, and unrealistic companies not only wastes public monies, but also stands in the way of experienced providers delivering the quality internet service.

Burying fiber and other projects that make use of right-of-way effect farms. LTD’s lack of communication with local governments is concerning and could lead to conflicts with and confusion among landowners. I appreciate your consideration.

Minnesota Telecom Alliance and Minnesota Rural Electric Association submit a number of nondisclosure forms.

More comments to the MN PUC on the LTD Broadband case from Attorney General, ILSR and MTA & MREA

Posted on by
Reply

Last month, I started posting comments from the public on the MN Public Utility Commission’s situation with LTD Broadband and a request to look at revoking their ETC designation. Last week, I added two more. Below I have excerpts from comments from:

  • The Office of the Attorney General
  • Institute for Local Self Reliance
  • Minnesota Telecom Alliance and Minnesota Rural Electric Association

In order of appearance in my in-box.

The Attorney General notes that the Office of the Minnesota Attorney General—Residential Utilities Division will appear at the prehearing conference and all subsequent proceedings. And files the following comments…

The Office of the Minnesota Attorney General—Residential Utilities Division (“OAG”) files this letter to reiterate its support for (1) lifting the January 18, 2023 stay of this proceeding, and (2) suspending LTD Broadband LLC’s (“LTD”) expanded eligible telecommunications carrier (“ETC”) designation pursuant to the petition of the Minnesota Telecommunications Alliance (“MTA”) and Minnesota Rural Electric Association (“MREA”) (collectively “Petitioners”). The Minnesota Public Utilities Commission (“Commission”) alone is empowered to extend, withdraw, or suspend ETC designations, thereby safeguarding the integrity of rural broadband dollars. In the several months since the Commission extended expanded LTD’s ETC designation to include approximately 102,000 additional locations in Minnesota1 , extensive evidence has come to light calling into question the accuracy of LTD’s application and LTD’s ability to build out rural broadband internet service. The Commission must act to ensure vital federal resources do not flow to a provider incapable of delivering supported services, to the detriment of other viable entities and, ultimately, rural Minnesota broadband consumers.

The Attorney General outlines the reasoning in full notes.

The Institute for Local Self Reliance offers comments and is joined by the League of Rural Voters and AARP. There are seven pages of notes, which provide a nice history and great explanation of their remarks but here’s an abridged version…
Should the Commission Lift the January 18, 2023, Stay of This Proceeding?
Yes. Evidence-gathering by the Commission needs to start right away, for three reasons. …

Should the Commission Grant the MREA and MTA’s (Petitioner’s) Motion to Suspend LTD’s RDOF ETC Designation Previously Granted by the Commission?
Yes. The broad contours of LTD’s problematic history, revealed by the P-6995/M-21-133 dockets, has not changed. In May 2022 we and others wrote about how the provider had failed to obtain the ETC status it needed in half of the fifteen states for which RDOF awards were won; it does not appear to have rectified that status for many of those states. At the time of our last comment filing, LTD had been placed in involuntary default in a little less than a third of its national RDOF winning bids by the FCC. Since then (in August 2022) the Commission has placed all of LTD’s RDOF bids ($1.3 billion across 528,000 locations) into default (see map of Minnesota defaults below). …

Our other previously enumerated concerns likewise remain; these included concern that LTD would not be able to provide a network that would ensure emergency services would work properly when they are needed. Subscriber reporting bears those concerns out. For instance, a subscriber in Glenwood, Minnesota wrote last year: “I have absolutely had it with LTD Broadband. They cannot seem to provide the services they advertise. Internet is constantly interrupted or completely down. . . . with absolutely no communication and no way to contact them, since our phone is provided by LTD too, I obviously cannot call them to find out what their problem is” (emphasis added).
…
The bottom line is that if LTD is ultimately awarded its RDOF money for Minnesota households, we don’t believe it will be able to meet obligations. Every additional month the state delays in deferring to the FCC makes constructing a state BEAD plan more difficult, and makes that resulting plan more likely to miss unconnected households and more inefficient. All of this means that households that could have been reached – by previous rounds of Minnesota Border-to-Border grants, by RDOF wins from a provider capable of meeting its obligations, and future BEAD-funded locations – will be left out. If the PUC revokes the provider’s ETC status, Minnesota will be granted much more flexibility and power to meet the Internet access goals it has set for itself, enabling all Minnesotans to participate in strengthening community ties, distance education, remote work, telehealth delivery, and the modern economy for the next generation.

The Office of the Attorney General also submitted a number of requested documents:

copies of communications and documents shared by LTD Broadband, LCC and the Federal Communications Commission in connection with the company’s long-form application for Rural Digital Opportunity Fund (“RDOF”) support. A true and correct copy of LTD’s long-form application technical submission as provided by LTD is attached as Exhibit A.

correspondence from the FCC’s Wireline Competition Bureau that identify concerns with LTD’s long-form application. A true and correct copy of this correspondence as provided by LTD is attached as Exhibit B. The Department also obtained a copy of correspondence provided by the FCC’s Wireline Competition Bureau articulating its decision to deny LTD’s long-form application. A true and correct copy of this correspondence as provided by LTD is attached as Exhibit C.

The Department further obtained a confidential copy of LTD’s application for review filed with the FCC on September 8, 2022. A true and correct copy of this pleading as provided by LTD is attached as Exhibit D.

Not all of these were made public but two maps were:

 

Minnesota Telecom Alliance and Minnesota Rural Electric Association also submitted comments; here is a part of those comments…

On June 3, 2021, the Commission granted an expanded Eligible Telecommunications Carrier Designation (“ETC Designation”) to LTD Broadband, LLC (“LTD”) for 102,005 locations in Minnesota based on a record that the Commission recognized was limited, while ultimately concluding that the record at that time did “not contain evidence sufficient to disprove the certifications in LTD’s petition or otherwise support a finding of failure to meet any of the ETC-designation criteria.”2 Facts now available refute LTD’s initial certifications and leave no basis for allowing that designation to remain in effect, absent an affirmative showing by LTD that it will meet its ETC obligations. Moreover, allowing it to remain in effect could result in those locations becoming ineligible for any part of the $652 million of Broadband Equity Access and Deployment (“BEAD”) Program funding that was allocated by the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (“NTIA”) to Minnesota on June 26, 2023.3

Minnesota is now entering a critical time period during which BEAD funding decisions will be made. The Minnesota Department of Employment and Economic Development, Office of Broadband Development (“OBD”) is on schedule to award the first round of BEAD funding recipients in September 2024, and applications for that funding will necessarily be required no less than 30 days before that date (12 months from now). These facts show that completion of a contested case is unlikely before the first round of BEAD funding is awarded, even if a contested case is conducted expeditiously. Further, allowing LTD to retain its ETC Designation would create uncertainty and likely chill applications for BEAD funding by qualified providers. OBD has recognized that BEAD funding is a “once-in-a-lifetime infusion of funding for broadband deployment.” 4 Moreover, if the Federal Communications Commission’s (“FCC”) long-form denial is reversed or modified with respect to Minnesota and LTD is authorized for funding under Rural Development Opportunity Fund (“RDOF”), the 102,005 locations encompassed by LTD’s ETC Designation would become ineligible for BEAD funding. As a result, it is essential that the Commission at least suspend that ETC Designation unless and until LTD can demonstrate to the Commission that it can meet its obligation to provide broadband service to those locations.

A discussion follows.

Comments from Le Sueur County and TC resident for MN PUC on LTD Broadband ETC designation

Posted on by
Reply

Last month, I started posting comments from the public on the MN Public Utility Commission’s situation with LTD Broadband and a request to look at revoking their ETC designation. Today I have two more to add.

Part of the comment from Le Sueur County, who has been engaged with the process and has submitted comments in the past:

Le Sueur County support the PUC lifting the ALJ stay and granting the Petitioner’s motion to suspend LTD’s RDOF ETC designation previously granted by the Commission.

As was stated in our May 2022 comments, Le Sueur County is particularly impacted as it relates to RDOF and related LTD census tracts bid awards within our County. To the best of our knowledge, LTD has been potentially awarded 415 census tracts in our County. The entire RDOF award for LTD amounts to around $1 million in Le Sueur County, an average of $2,410 per census tract.

Within our internal planning processes, and working with existing providers, we estimate a cost of at least $12 million to build fiber-to-the-door, even with extensive middle mile fiber already in place.

Since our last comments, we are not aware of any significant work conducted, underway or planned within our County by LTD to install fiber networks in our communities. …

Continued concerns of misreporting data and services.
We have received numerous complaints from residents about the level of technical and customer service that LTD provides. In fact, a recent GIS mapped survey within our county collected data on 120 current LTD customers in our county. Of the 120 responses, 100 of them reported negative feedback about LTD service. In speed test data collected from LTD customers, the average download speed was nine down and one up. If you review the FCC National Broadband map, LTD reports speeds in Le Sueur County that are 250 down and 250 up, which are false.

 

And a comment from Martha Milburn

Dear Sir or Madam:
I see that the Blandin Blog reported that your agency is accepting public input on LTD’s operations in Minnesota.
I currently live in the Twin Cities but am from southern MN, where all of my immediate and extended family live.
LTD should not be allowed to operate any further in this state. It is an injustice that not only do they operate but actually received federal internet funds.
One can do a basic internet search and find multiple complaints about their service in MN. The following took me 5 minutes to find through a simple google search. These customer testimonials appear publicly on a website called “Downhunter” (www.downhunter.com) and are all from MN.
Comments on LTD Broadband
Let others know about your problems with LTD Broadband:
Kris 3 weeks ago
4 days of the same template response: we know there is an issue, we are working on it, no ETR. If issues persistent for more than 2 hours contact us again.
Neil Mahr 1 month ago
52155 Terrible customer service I was 1st in line on phone for 38 minutes and got no answer why down switching service as soon as contact is up
Josephine 3 months ago
LTD slows or fails at least twice a month. Customer service is ineffective. No one knows anything about why there are constant problems. I can’t wait to cancel with them. 56058. St Peter, MN
Pat Iverson 9 months ago
55060 Owatonna Mn It is 11:26 pm still no internet. I know they are working on problem,but would appreciate updates on progress on repair and general idea of when service might be restored.
Deb P 9 months ago
Rochester 55901. Our Internet went down about 9:30 on 10/17. Still out today, so unable to get any work done. Calling the Tower Support # (we host a tower on our silo but that’s not where our signal comes from- which tech support found surprising another time) only to be instantly greeted by Muzak and “thank you for your patience” every 15 minutes. Regular Support # is off the hook. It is completely shameful that we live 6 miles from Rochester city limits and have such crap internet service!
Tanya 9 months ago
56073 – no service since 9pm last night, 10/17. No communication on the problem. Support line just says “wide spread outages” and call back in an hour if you continue to have issues. It’s been 23 hours…
Andrew K 9 months ago
56048 Janesville—we have been without internet now since early am. No good reason for internet to be out this long. Tired of this. Anyone know of better internet provider?
John 9 months ago
Monday Oct 17th, 2022 lost service at 930pm for about 15 minutes and when it came back on, the service was extremely slowed. This morning woke up to the same issue and has been continuously on and off all day. Working from home, wife has schooling and testing, kids out for school so that’s not drawing any bandwidth, we can only have 1 thing hooked to the internet at a time. Currently using the Hotspot of my phone to do computer work and have used all the data from the provider for the phone service. Will rhere be compensation for the phone bill? We use heavy data in this house hold due to types of drafting and design/and her school masters programs. When will service be back to full and when can we expect compensation? Truman, mn, 56088
Nicole 9 months ago
Another day of nearly constant outage. Another disrupted work day that includes important Zoom mtgs. St. Peter,
MN Minnesota PUC, Please revoke this company’s ability to operate in this state. Southern MN cannot afford to have poor broadband. It affects educational and business opportunities.
Sincerely, Martha Milburn

EVENTS July 26 & 27: MN Dep of Commerce hosts public meetings on CenturyLink phone service in Marshall, Owatonna

Posted on by
Reply

I’ve mentioned these meetings in the past, and wrote up notes from a recent virtual meeting but just got the full details on meetings happening later this week…

The Minnesota Department of Commerce encourages Minnesotans to attend public meetings in Marshall on July 26 and Owatonna on July 27 to discuss their experiences with CenturyLink telephone service.

The Department began investigating CenturyLink’s service after receiving numerous complaints from customers regarding unresolved telephone service outages and challenges reaching customer service representatives. The public comments received during the meetings will inform the Department’s recommendations to the Public Utilities Commission later this year for ways to improve to the company’s telephone service. 

Marshall Public Meeting
6 p.m. Wednesday, July 26
Southwest Minnesota State University
1501 State St., Conference Center 211
Marshall, MN 56258

Owatonna Public Meeting
1 p.m. Thursday, July 27
Steele County Historical Society
1700 Austin Road, Wenger Room
Owatonna, MN 55060

Minnesotans can learn more about the Department’s investigation into CenturyLink’s service by visiting the Commission’s “eDockets” website and entering the year (20) and the docket number (432), and then selecting “Search.”  Minnesotans who are unable to attend these meetings also can submit written comments by e-mail (consumer.puc@state.mn.us), or by U.S. mail (Minnesota Public Utilities Commission 121 7th Place East, Suite 350, St. Paul, MN 55101).

The Minnesota Department of Commerce is a state agency charged by the Legislature with enforcing Minnesota laws relating to telephone service and represents the interests of all customers in related regulatory proceedings.

MN PUC is receiving comments on LTD Broadband’s Designation as an ETC: today’s says cancel designation

Posted on by
3

Last week, I mentioned that the Minnesota PUC was looking for comments on the Petition of LTD Broadband LLC for Designation as an ETC. Today, I see that they got a comment…

 

A message from Brad Gustafson:

LTD’s RDOF award should be fully cancelled. This award has prevented local service providers from moving forward with local grants to distribute fiber. LTD does not have the knowledge of what it takes to build in our region with the amount of rock we have. They can not build for what they said they can. If they are allowed to move forward, the projects, if they ever start, will fail. It will also prevent local providers from expanding their services. Those residents then must wait the 10 years LTD would have to build out the region. I strongly feel LTD will not and cannot deliver on what they promise.

I am torn between posting these as I get them or as they come in. I think I will post as they come in but perhaps compile them all once the date for comment has passed (Aug 11) if there has been a big response.

MN PUC holds meeting to gather comments on CenturyLink

Posted on by
Reply

Communications Workers of America filed a complaint against CenturyLink in April 2020. Last week the MN Public Utilities Commission (PUC) hosted a meeting to get public comments on CenturyLink’s service. The PUC wants to provide a forum for comment before the evidentiary hearing to be held later this year. More comments are welcome in a future meeting or in writing before Aug 31. (On July 24 there’s another online hearing.)

Organizational hosts welcomed everyone with brief comments:

  • The Attorney General is there to address the issue.
  • CWA read a list of their complaints rooted in reduced staff in the field. They note that CenturyLink has turned its focus to fiber instead of maintaining copper in the field.
  • CenturyLink tries to provide good service. We can have a representative contact commenters later to help fix problems if that’s OK with commenters. (Also slide of info.)
  • PUC Analyst talks about how things are going to happen and goals of the meeting

(You can also access the slide on the MN PUC site.)

This slideshow requires JavaScript.

Then Public Comments and Questions:

I took very high level notes; the PUC will release more complete notes with the final report.

Dave J – Just north of Stillwater, I am unable to reach a live voice when issues arise after hours. When I can reach someone, they aren’t helpful. My broadband speed is 20/2 Mbps. There’s no other provider in the area. Cell coverage for broadband doe not work.

Ken M – From Richfield, been a customer for 73 years. There’s been a great deterioration of service. It takes 15 minutes to reach customer support and help is rarely local The local folks are good when I reach them. I was forced to get fiber during the pandemic because CL refused to maintain copper in the area. Fiber is supposed to be faster and clearer but it’s not as fast as I hoped – just marginally faster than DSL. Phone service is not clear. We’ve spent $65,000 over 73 years. Because my phone is now on fiber, it turns out when the power goes out, so does my phone. That didn’t happen with copper.

Warren  K – same issues as previous commenters, living 18 miles south of Hutchinson. When the road was rebuilt, the line was “temporarily moved” outside of the conduit and was never moved back in. The quality is bad -and now it’s been abandoned since Nov 2022. Their repair people can’t talk to billing. We have the names of folks we talk to – and then it falls apart and then they just dropped our account. It’s causing us to not be able to use our computers when we should. We are getting “telegraphing” which is causing staticky and dropped calls. There are only two accounts on this line. We had to get a cell phone to reach CL.

Rowan W – MIS Director for Cook County – we have been working for years to get better service for our residents. We think of it as a pubic safety issue. The sheriff’s office gets reports of outages that impact 911 calls. For just less than 6 months last year we had wide spread outages. I talked to one residents who was without service for 20 days. We talk to them and they acknowledge failure.

Mary D – We get humming on our phone line in Stillwater. We had an appointment scheduled for Jul 11 – but no one showed up until Jul 19. It happens at least every 3 months. The techs tell us that the lines are terrible. I can’t depend on the landline. We are three miles outside of Stillwater. We pay $50/month for something we don’t want to use.

Nathan D – my service in Rochester is fine but I had rental property in the TCs with problems with the pedestal. Seems like folks in metro areas are having fewer problems than folks in rural areas. My phone service from CL is good; price is higher than other services but I feel like that might be federal regulation. Phone company should be a public utility.

Terry H – from St Paul, we have terrible cell and landline service. We are long term customers. The problem is with the phone itself. Every time is rains or the snow melts we get a buzz on the phone that prohibits hearing callers. We live in a hilly area. We do have very good broadband service – but not phone service.