I. Cover and List of Task Force MembersII. Introduction

Mission Purpose Past Report

(From Mike Reardon, Cindy Kevern, Peter Lindstrom)

Local GovernmentThere is an ever growing demand for local government to have increasing bandwidth to support the sharing and backup of data, implementation of high bandwidth-intensive technologies, provide improved response to public needs and shared services among government agencies. In the 21st century, slow networks equate to slow government services. Cities, counties and townships require high-speed broadband to enable improved connectivity between public safety agencies; provide the transfer of GIS data between communities replacing large time delays and manual processes; allow community colleges to provide remote classes for distance learning; aid in communication for fire and police calls; and, to allow the video arraignment and electronic transmittal of evidence that reduces travel time and costs to the taxpayer. Local governments also see access to broadband as a means to provide economic enhancements to areas with lower incomes, high unemployment and high foreclosure rates by attracting business, retaining existing businesses and encouraging entrepreneurship.In Minnesota, there are a variety of projects in operation or in process that involve local municipalities and counties. There are several wireless projects such as the City of Minneapolis (WiFi) operating in partnership with USI; the City of Chaska (WiFi) owned and operated by Chaska; the City of Buffalo (WiFi) owned and operated by Buffalo for institutional requirements; and the City of Austin owned by Austin Utilities Commission and operated by Southern MN Internet Group. In addition, there are several fiber projects including the City of Windom (triple-play) who operates and owns WindomNet; the City of Monticello (triple-play) operating and owned by Monticello with HBC as a private provider; the City of Red Wing (triple-play) which will be owned and operated by HBC; the City of Barnesville’s phone and cable services that are expanding outside of the city limits; and Scott County which owns and operates a fiber network for institutional needs.

There are also several projects that have recently received federal stimulus funding: the City of Windom received ARRA grant to expand to eight surrounding communities; Cook County for a fiber to the home project; Lake County for a fiber to the home project; Carver County for an institutional network; and Anoka County in partnership with Zayo Bandwidth for an institutional network. For a complete discussion of the stimulus grant projects, see section _______.

These projects listed above demonstrate varying ways of bringing connectivity to the community. They include municipal owned and operated projects (eg. Windom), private-public partnerships (eg. Minneapolis, Anoka, Cook), Middle Mile projects to build a broadband backbone connecting government anchor institutions (eg. Anoka, Carver) and last mile projects to build out entire communities (eg. Monticello, Lake, Cook).

Local government projects also include a variety of technologies. The technology used varies by area, in part, dependent on availability of local carriers (eg. DSL, T-1’s, Fiber, etc) and by the local geography. Many local governments are in process of building fiber networks to connect their anchor institutions and, in some cases, to their residential and business areas, including the use of cellular technology for mobile workersThere are also a variety of funding sources used for these project including local government bonding, revenue from the operations, NTIA stimulus grants, federal RUS loans, industry partnerships, and other grants.

Language to be included later in the Report.

Barriers to Broadband AdoptionThe Task Force recognizes there are numerous “barriers” or difficult issues to resolve in order to ensure broadband adoption. The Task Force has determined that discussion on these issues requires more time than is allowed for inclusion in our first report. Instead, the Task Force will study the various perceived barriers to broadband adoption as it moves forward over the next several years.

(From Pete Royer assisted by Mary Mehsikomer and Dennis Fazio:)

K-12 Education

History The Learning Network of Minnesota (LNM) was established in 1993 by the Minnesota Legislature to provide a statewide high-speed telecommunications highway for distance learning for higher education. In 1995, the higher education LNM was expanded to establish links to K-12 public education and public libraries. Using high-speed telecommunications transport, the LNM provides access and delivery of information resources to students and library patrons such as Internet access, distance learning opportunities through interactive television (ITV) and on-line learning, a transport system for the state to send and receive data electronically from K-12 schools and libraries, and access to MnLINK, the Minnesota Library Information Network. The Minnesota Education Telecommunications Council (METC) was an active advisory group for from 1996-2005, after which time METC expired in statute.

Telecommunications Access Regional Organization:Critical to the operation of the LNM are the K-12 telecommunications access regions and the higher education telecommunications regions. Services provided by the K-12 telecommunications access regions and their coordinators include:

Aggregation and coordination of service demands and needs Cooperative purchasing and procurement practices based on aggregated needs and cost

effectiveness Coordinated application for federal E-rate telecommunications services discounts Wide area network operational support and maintenance

Coordination and scheduling of distance learning activities via ITV throughout the state Advocacy for the telecommunications access needs of member school districts and libraries

to the Legislature and other policy-making bodies Coordination with telecommunications service providers on service issues Links for schools to content resources for education and life-long learning Guidance and professional development for effective integration of technology for schools

Due to the existence of telecommunications access regions, the technical and logistical burdens associated with delivery of telecommunications access and service for school districts are greatly reduced. For most districts and libraries the delivery of telecommunications access is a “given” and the complex technological logistics are completely transparent. Not only do the regions provide a wide range of technical expertise to their members which does not exist at the independent school district, but the organization of regions throughout the state directly results in an aggregation of need, network efficiencies, technical support and reduction in overall resource needs that would not exist if school districts sought an equivalent level of telecommunications service and support independently. For more information on Minnesota telecommunications access regions, visit http://www.mitnmn.ning.com.

Telecommunications Funding for K-12 EducationSince 1996, the state has provided various levels of funding support for telecommunications costs for schools through three funding programs. A fourth program, the federal E-rate Telecommunications Discount Program supplements state and local funding to help school districts with the costs of telecommunications services and Internet access.

1. Telecommunications Access Grant Program (TAG). In 1996-2000 the Legislature provided funding support for school and library telecommunications through the Telecommunications Access Grant Program (TAG). TAG was a noncompetitive grant program that provided funding for telecommunications through eight telecommunications access regions throughout the state.

2. Telecommunications Access Revenue Program (TARP). Under TARP, each school district received an additional $5 per adjusted marginal cost per pupil unit (AMCPU) in operating capital revenue to be reserved for ongoing telecommunications access costs associated with data, video, and Internet access. In addition to the increased AMCPU, a separate appropriation was provided to assist school districts whose ongoing telecommunications access costs that exceeded these additional operating capital revenue funds. This combination of a per pupil formula and a supplemental entitlement based on projected costs was designed to address the issues of disparity that arise when a school district’s enrollment does not generate sufficient funds to cover the cost of telecommunications through the per pupil formula approach. TARP was not funded again by the Legislature in FY2003 for the FY2004-05 biennium.

3. Telecommunications/Internet Access Equity Aid for Schools. For the FY2006-07 biennium, school districts and charter schools were reimbursed for the approved cost for the previous year that exceed $15 times the adjusted marginal cost per pupil units (AMCPU) for the previous year OR reimbursement of approved costs with no per pupil unit limit if the school district or charter school is a member of an organized telecommunications access cluster that was in operation by

July 1 of the previous funding year. All reimbursement is based on the costs after the federal E-rate discount has been subtracted. The $3.75 million appropriated in FY2010 was prorated at 46.5% as there was $ 8.024 in requests. Please see the graph below for a complete funding history.

4. E-Rate. E-rate is a federal program that provides discounts on telecommunications services (Internet, WAN and telephone costs) of between 20-90 percent to schools and public libraries based on free and reduced price lunch eligibility for students in the school district or school. Nonpublic schools are also eligible for this program. Telecommunications/Internet Access Equity Aid programs require public school districts to apply for E-rate in order to receive state funds for telecommunications access. The E-rate program generates millions of dollars in support for Minnesota schools each year through fees collected by service providers on customer telephone bills.

K-12 Telecommunications Funding Synopsis

The appropriation level of the state telecommunications funding programs for schools is illustrated in the following table: Dollars are expressed in millions; therefore, 4.8 indicates an appropriaton of $4,800,000.

ProgramMN 1996-97 1998-99 2000-01 2002-03 2004-05 2006-07 2008-09 2010-11

TAG 15.5 23 5/0 0 0 0 0 0AMCPU 0 0 4.8/4.8 4.8/4.8 0 0 0 0

TARP 0 0 0/18.5 15.3/ 0 0 0 0 0Equity Aid 0 0 0 0 0 3.75/3.75 7.6/8.7 3.75.3.75

FederalErate 0 0/24 31/18 22/22 26/22 22/21 26/22 23/NA

Conclusion

Access to high speed broadband connectivity is a necessity for all schools. Without broadband, school districts are severely disadvantaged in meeting the constitutional requirement providing a fair and equitable education for every student. Schools rely on telecommunications access to deliver education services, provide additional education opportunities for students, report required data to the state and federal government and conduct school business. The demand for increased bandwidth continues to grow as online education applications increase in sophistication and become more media-intensive. Rural communities in Minnesota continue to be particularly challenged when it comes to obtaining broadband access. Broadband access needs

to be provided to in such a way that it is affordable and readily available to all districts regardless of location in order to provide equitable education to all Minnesotans.

Minnesota has no state level coordinated plan for broadband access for K-12 school districts. The Learning Network of Minnesota implies a central coordinated effort; in reality, the coordination has really been a result of the K-12 Telecommunications Region coordinators who collaborate to manage wide area networks and work to ensure that interoperability between regions and the state exists.

As can be deduced through the history provided, funding for K-12 has been inconsistent and unstable not only for broadband but for technology in general over the last decade. The Minnesota Department of Education does not provide coordination or guidance for broadband access. This is evident in the fact that there is no current E-rate liaison at MDE nor does MDE currently belong to State Education Technology Directors Association (SETDA), a national organization which coordinates and advocates for technology initiatives for education.

E-rate has been a stable source of funding but the demand on the funding by eligible entities is growing as the need for broadband access for schools and libraries continues to increase. E-rate also causes some constraints, as program and procurement rules restrict the ability of community and business entities to partner with K-12 schools without jeopardizing funding for the schools.

As schools move to incorporate more technologies that require increased bandwidth (statewide testing, media rich classroom applications, videoconferencing, online classes), the need for additional bandwidth will continue to grow. A comprehensive statewide approach that leverages the cooperation and collaboration of the K-12 Telecommunications Access regions, the federal E-rate program, and state funding could help all districts achieve the level of bandwidth outlined in the SETDA recommendation of 10 Mbps per 1,000 students right now and at least 100 Mpbs per 1,000 students in the next three to four years.

(From Pete Royer:)

Higher Education

LEARNING NETWORK OF MINNESOTA

The Learning Network of Minnesota© (LNM) serves as core telecommunications network and services infrastructure that supports all aspects of Minnesota's public higher education system. The State's public higher education institutions are dependent upon the LNM for their digital access including a) administrative services, b) basic communications, and c) academic services and support. This shared infrastructure provides for significant cost-savings and economies of scale.

Organization

The services provided by the LNM are based upon six (6) geographically organized regional consortia. The goal of the regional consortia model is to benefit from economies of scale, access fairness and equity, and user participation in planning and operational outcomes. These consortia represent all University of Minnesota and MnSCU institutions. Collectively, approximately 60 campuses and higher

education centers are linked across the State. Each consortium has a governing board representative of their member institutions. This innovative model facilitates the ability for the LNM to meet unique regional service needs.

A LNM Board of Directors exists to provide governance and accountability for the LNM program at the statewide level. This Board is representative of the six regions and the two public higher education systems--the University of Minnesota and MnSCU. The Board also enables coordination and cooperation among regions in order to ensure efficiencies and widespread access to LNM services.

The regions are interconnected through a telecommunications network infrastructure managed by the Office of Enterprise Technologies in cooperation with the two higher education systems and the six regional consortia. This network management approach supports full integration with the Internet, the State of Minnesota's MNET network, and networks that serve the health care sector, K-12 school districts and public libraries. Global networks such as Internet2 are also interconnected.

Fiscal Model

Funding to support the LNM comes from a Legislative appropriation to the six regions with an additional 10% match from the member institutions. Member institutions also contribute additional funding and/or staff support in their respective regions. The LNM appropriation is allocated to the regional consortia pursuant to guidance from the LNM Board. Funds are used by each regional consortium to support coordination activities, core network services, and application support.

Collaboration / PartnershipsThe Learning network is built on collaboration – between schools within a region, between regions, between primary partners (U of M, MNSCU, and OET).

Cost SavingsCollaboration & a shared infrastructure leads to savings. Each dollar of Learning Network support generates approximately two dollars of service when compared to providing the same service at the individual schools.

Customer ServiceRegional organization maintains the ties to individual Colleges and Universities and allows the schools to retain substantial input into support levels, resource allocation and services provided.

Core ServicesThe Learning Network delivers essential network connectivity, without which colleges could not operate. The Learning Network provides all schools with distance learning technologies, enabling those schools to expand the distance learning services provided to students

(From Lois Langer Thompson:)

Public libraries in Minnesota

Public libraries overview and governance

Under Minnesota law, counties are responsible for ensuring that residents have access to public library services. They do this by operating libraries themselves, contracting with cities that operate libraries, or obtaining library services through a regional entity. Counties and all cities that operate a public library must provide at least a minimum level of funding for library services. This amount varies widely among local governments and is based on either their tax capacity or population (whichever is less) or, for those counties and cities paying above this amount, what they spent for library operating expenses in previous years. (State Dept of Ed)

Minnesota uses a complex, multilayered approach to deliver public library services, with local governments primarily responsible for funding and administering public libraries. State government plays an important “behind-the-scenes” role by providing programs and financial assistance to regionally based library systems, not individual libraries.

Any city or county can establish and operate a public library, and three or more counties can band together to operate a regional library. In 2008, 138 counties, cities, and regional entities operated 135 public libraries with 359 buildings statewide at a cost of $202 million. Per capita costs average $38.12. Approximate 2.9 million residents have library cards and 28.6 million visits were made to public libraries in 2008.

State law requires counties and all cities choosing to operate a public library to maintain a minimum level of funding for library services, and most library revenue–84 percent in 2008–comes from local governments. Cities that choose to operate libraries were required to pay more than twice as much per resident for library services than counties in 2008. (OLA report on Public Libraries)

Current status (2008 data)Statewide summaries - Internet Computers and Internet Users

 

Public Internet

Computers

Internet Users

Quantity 4,478 4,160,134Libraries Reporting 141/141 135/141

Regional Public Library Systems Summaries - Internet Computers and Internet Users

REGION PopulationPublic Internet

ComputersInternet

UsersSTATE SUMMARY 5,287,976 4,478 4,160,134Arrowhead Region 308,012 244 298,801East Central Library 175,542 120 111,200Great River Library 451,899 164 199,494Kitchigami Library 163,723 56 101,552Lake Agassiz Library 137,801 2,553 1,925,490MELSA Region 2,871,434 119 153,621Northwest Library 48,078 50 46,856Pioneerland Library 164,425 231 263,038Plum Creek Region 115,528 190 162,919SELCO Region 490,018 393 505,561TDS Region 225,264 254 231,665Viking Region 123,436 87 131,225Unaffiliated Total 12,816 17 28,712

Regional Public Library Systems Summaries - Internet Connections of Central Libraries, Branches and Bookmobiles

REGION DialupISDN DSL Cable Municipal

Dedicated Connectio

n SatelliteFrame Relay

Fiber Optic Wireless None

Don't Know

STATE SUMMARY 3 0 97 36 15 121 1 31 58 1117

(Bkm)1 25

Arrowhead Region 0 0 2 5 0 25 0 0 5 13 0 1

East Central Library                       15

Great River Library 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 24 4 0 0 1

Kitchigami Library 0 0 1 0 0 9 0 0 0 91

(Bkm) 0

Lake Agassiz Library 0 0 7 0 0 6 0 0 0 0 0 0

MELSA Region 0 0 1 11 11 38 0 4 32 132

(Bkm) 8

Northwest Library 0 0 1 1 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 0

Pioneerland Library 0 0 28 0 0 0 0 0 4 31 0 0

Plum Creek Region 0 0 14 6 1 3 1 0 2 10 0 0

SELCO Region 0 0 19 9 1 4 0 3 5 143

(Bkm) 0

TDS Region 3 0 16 2 2 21 0 0 5 141

(Bkm) 0

Viking Region 0 0 2 0 0 10 0 0 0 4 0 0

Unaffiliated Total 0 0 2 2 0 0 0 0 1 3 0 01Bookmobile

Regional Public Library Systems Summaries - Internet Speeds of Central Libraries, Branches and Bookmobiles

Internet SpeedLess than 128 kbps

129 Kbps – 257 Kbps – 769 Kbps –1.5

Mbps (T1)

1.6Mbps – 5.0Mbps

6.0MbpsGreater

than 10Mbps

No Public

InternetDon’t know

256 Kbps 768 Kbps 1.4Mbps –

      10Mbps

State Summary 1 4 58 25 139 40 51 44 7 22

Arrowhead Region         45 6        

East Central Library                   15

Great River Library         27 1 1 3    

Kitchigami Library       5 3 1     1 (Bkm)  Lake Agassiz Library     10   2 1        

MELSA Region     1   18 11 36 38 2 (Bkm) 1

Northwest Library     1   6          

Pioneerland Library     31   1          

Plum Creek Region   2 1 5 5 3 7 2   1

SELCO Region     5 2 7 15 5 1 3 (Bkm) 1

TDS Region 1 2 3 12 17 1 2   1 (Bkm) 3

Viking Region     6 1 5          

Unaffiliated Total         3 1       1aBkm=Bookmobile                    

Funding - E-Rate

Eligibility for public libraries is based upon the Minnesota statutory definitions of public libraries and is verified by the State Library Services Division of the Minnesota Department of Education.

Amount requested and granted to be added.

Summary

Access to high speed broadband connectivity is a necessity for all public libraries. Public libraries in Minnesota provide Internet and computer access to residents in an unequal manner based on access, local funding decisions and ability to obtain state and federal funding resources. As public libraries continue their role in providing lifelong learning and academic support, bandwidth requirements will continue to increase and outpace the ability to support the demand.

NOTE: should there still be a telehealth piece here?

III. Executive Summary 3 Specific Goals in Legislation

Goals (Brent Christensen and Mike Martin):Two Broadband goals were established for the State of Minnesota in Chapter 237.012. They are:

1. Universal access and high-speed: As soon as possible, but no later than 2015 all state residents and businesses have access to high-speed broadband that provides minimum download speeds of ten to 20 megabits per second and minimum upload speeds of five to ten megabits per second.

2. State broadband leadership position: It is a goal of the state that by 2015 and thereafter, the state be in:

a. the top five states of the United States for broadband speed universally accessible to residents and businesses;

b. in the top five states for broadband access; and

c. the top 15 when compared to countries globally for broadband penetration.

This section will address the first goal. In order to determine where Broadband is available and at what speeds, this report will have to rely on data provided by the State of Minnesota.

In 2008 the State contracted with Connected Nation, through its subsidiary ConnectMN, to map Broadband speeds. The first round of mapping, paid for by the State, and only got down to County level of detail. Through the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, the State Broadband Data and Development Grant program provided for more detailed mapping, to the census tract level. ConnectMN was again awarded the contract for this second round of mapping. ConnectMN received data from Broadband providers; cable television companies, local exchange carriers (both incumbent and competitive), Internet service providers, and fiber companies.

These projects have provided substantial data on the deployment of Broadband facilities, both residential and business. Here are some of the conclusions of the ConnectMN research:

1. 95.5% of households statewide are served by a broadband service, other than mobile.

2. 90.5% of rural households statewide are served by a broadband service, other than mobile.

3. 98.51% of all households are served by a broadband service, including all platforms.

These percentages are based on the current FCC definition of 768Kbps download/200Kbps upload.

The Department of Commerce and Broadband Advisory Committee will need updated mapping from ConnectMN, in order to determine access and speeds at the levels defined in Chapter 237.012, Section 1. The Challenge will be in matching the Goals set out in this section with the mapping. The speed goals defined in Chapter 237.012 do not line up with the levels of information collected by ConnectMN.

More information is needed to track the level of broadband speeds that are currently available and identify those areas that are unserved or underserved within the definitions of the goals adopted by the State. This information is currently being gathered.

In addition, it is important that the Broadband Advisory Committee track and monitor the following:

1. Construction, deployment, and adoption within those areas which ARRA funds are earmarked for construction of new broadband facilities.

2. Continue to update current data to include new extensions of existing facilities.

Significant Developments Future Direction of Task Force

IV. Background of Numbers

(From Shirley Walz)

What is Broadband?In general, the term broadband refers to a network connection with high bandwidth. DSL and cable modems are examples of broadband communication. High-speed Internet connections that allow for transfers of information at rates far faster than those of dial-up modems also constitute broadband.

FCC Broadband Definition When the Minnesota Ultra High-Speed Broadband Task Force published its report to Minnesota legislators in November of 2009, the FCC defined broadband as 768 kilobits per second (Kbps). Since that time, as stated in the Sixth Broadband Deployment report1, the National Broadband Plan2 (both published by the FCC) recommends as a national broadband availability target that every household in America have access to affordable broadband service offering actual download (i.e., to the customer) speeds of at least 4 Mbps download and actual upload (i.e., from the customer) speeds of at least 1 Mbps.

Broadband availability and speed maps – need a map just showing availability Show the 6% map – can we get a list of the counties/areas that are included in the 6% or whatever the percentage is now?

1 http://www.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_Business/2010/db0720/FCC-10-129A1.pdf

2 http://www.broadband.gov/download-plan/

Show the coverage maps in MN – need this map from Connected NationCoverage in MN with the Goals stated in the legislation (10 – 20 Mbps download and 5 – 10 Mbps upload)

These were the maps that we included in the first report from Connected Nationa. Minnesota Broadband Service Inventoryb. Minnesota Average Residential Download Speedc. Minnesota Average Residential Upload Speed

Can we get comparison information for states with the same set of data?

State broadband position

The goals as defined by the Minnesota Broadband Law [237.012] are as follows.

It is a goal of the state that by 2015 and thereafter, the state be in:

¦ GOAL NO. 1 ¦ The top five states of the United States for broadband speed universally accessible to residents and businesses.

¦ GOAL NO. 2 ¦ The top five states for broadband access (availability). Note: availability refers to broadband being available at a specific residence, business, or institution.

¦ GOAL NO. 3 ¦ The top 15 when compared to countries globally for broadband penetration (adoption).

The table below details the Advisory Boards finding in reference to goal number 1 to be in the top five States of the United States for broadband speed universally accessible to residents and business.

Source Speed Ranking(s)

Speed Matters 3

23rd for download speed – based on 5,510 tests

Akamai 4 24th for average connection speed (4.5 Mbps)

32nd for High Broadband Connectivity (23% of connections to Akamai at speeds above 5 Mbps)

3 A Report on Internet Speeds in All 50 States http://cwafiles.org/speedmatters/state_reports_2009/CWA_Report_on_Internet_Speeds_2009.pdf?nocdn=1

4 State of the Internet Report http://www.akamai.com/stateoftheinternet/

37th for Broadband Connectivity (63% of connections to Akamai at speeds above 2 Mbps)

Speedtest.net Measures the top states within the United States. Minnesota is ranked in the top 10 based on tests performed.

i. Checking if connect MN can provide anything

The second goal that the advisory board is tracking toward for 2015 is to be in the top five states for broadband access (availability). Note: availability refers to broadband being available at a specific residence, business, or institution.

The FCC is collecting statistics regarding broadband availability and every state must report to the FCC on availability by February of 2011.

I have an e-mail out to this organization (IdInsight) to determine if they are able to provide any data in regards to availability. The State of Broadband Availability in the United States – Aug. 5, 2010

2. http://www.broadbandbeyondborders.com/documents/ broadband_Availability_2010.pdf

3. The top 15 when compared to countries globally for broadband penetration (adoption).

Sources to usei. Speed Mattersii. Akamai – ranks states – Internet Penetration

iii. Leichtman Research Group’siv. OECD

Greec

e

Switzer

land

Luxe

mbour

g

Portug

al

Korea Ita

ly

Canad

a

United

Kin.

..Spa

in

Hunga

ry

Sweden

Icelan

d

Norway

Irelan

d

Finlan

d0

1

2

3

4

5 OECD Broadband penetration (per 100 inhabitants), net increase, Decem-ber (2008-2009), by country

OECD net increase

Source : OECD

Broadband adoption – How does Minnesota Compare2010 Minnesota Internet Survey5

Adoption rates for Greater Minnesota and the Twin Cities, 2001 - 2010

5 http://www.mnsu.edu/ruralmn/pages/Publications/reports/2010%20Minn%20Internet%20Study.pdf

Major findings Statewide, availability continues to spread:

• 76.8% of households report having computers• 73.5% (95.7% of those with computers) are connected to the Internet• 69.5% of households (94.3% of households with Internet) are accessing

the Internet via broadband Computer and Internet adoption are up slightly from the last survey, taken in

December 2007 and January 2008, when adoption rates were 75.9% for computers and 71.5% for Internet. Broad band adoption is up sharply, nearly 12 percentage points from 57.8% in 2007-08.

In Greater Minnesota, computer, Internet and broadband adoption continue to grow and are catching up with the Twin Cities.

• Computer ownership went from 73.0% in 2007-08 to 75.5%• Internet connections have gone from 68.2% in 2007-08 to 71.2% in 2010• Broadband adoption grew from 52.3% to 65.4%.

A high percentage of Minnesota households with Internet continue to engage in the most popular activities. Email is universal, but close behind are shopping, checking the news and banking. Other activities are also growing in use, such as doing work for an employer, communicating with a child’s school, or contacting a legislator or doctor. Greater Minnesota still lags behind the Twin Cities in many activities.

Income and age continue to be significant indicators of whether a household will have a computer, Internet or broadband. Older and lower income groups still tend to be behind in adopting these technologies, but they show steady growth.

Within Greater Minnesota, counties without significant population centers lagged behind those with population centers in computer, Internet and broadband adoption, and in activities.

V. Significant Developments

(From JoAnne Johnson)

National Broadband Plan

ARRA Broadband Stimulus Programs

Election

Healthcare legislation

National Broadband PlanThe National Broadband Plan was presented to Congress on March 16, 2010, and has been the center of attention at the federal level both in Congress and at the FCC since then. There are several parts of the plan which could impact Minnesota. Some are potentially beneficial and some are problematic. There are rulemakings, and in some cases, congressional action would be that will be needed to effect the change in telecommunications focus to broadband ubiquity.

The plan has several stated goals, (see sidebar), one of which is to have 100 million Americans connected to the Internet at speeds of 100 Mbps or better by 2020. It also says that everyone should have access to broadband service of at least 4 Mbps upstream and 1 Mbps downstream. Rural telephone companies and rural advocates are protesting the inequities of the two goals and argue that it sets up an unbridgeable urban – rural divide. It may be that the FCC is contemplating the lower goal as a benchmark for subsidization. The Plan does require the restructuring of the Universal Service Fund to a Broadband Fund and makes several other adjustments to current policy that will be heavily debated over the next several months and probably well into 2012.

¦NATIONAL BROADBAND GOALS¦ GOAL NO. 1 ¦ At least 100 million U.S. homes should have

affordable access to actual download speedsof at least 100 megabits per second and actualupload speeds of at least 50 megabits persecond.

¦ GOAL NO. 2 ¦ The United States should lead the world inmobile innovation, with the fastest and mostextensive wireless networks of any nation.

¦ GOAL NO. 3 ¦ Every American should have affordable accessto robust broadband service, and the means andskills to subscribe if they so choose.

¦ GOAL NO. 4 ¦ Every American community should haveaffordable access to at least 1 gigabit persecond broadband service to anchor institutionssuch as schools, hospitals and governmentbuildings.

¦ GOAL NO. 5 ¦ To ensure the safety of the American people,every first responder should have access to anationwide, wireless, interoperable broadband

public safety network.¦ GOAL NO. 6 ¦ To ensure that America leads in the clean energy

economy, every American should be able to usebroadband to track and manage their real-timeenergy consumption.Blandin Foundation “Community Guide to State and NationalBroadband Policy” 2010

The Minnesota goals recommended by the Ultra High Speed Broadband Task Force report published in 2009 and adopted by the legislature in 2010 are targeted for 2015, five years earlier than the federal plan. With this in mind, it’s likely that the goals are not in opposition since the earlier speed target in the state of 20 Mbps service down and 10 up would position the networks in the state to be upgradable to the faster speeds in the additional five years. It does however complicate the discussion of subsidies of services, methods of reaching ubiquity and the definition of what constitutes broadband service.

ARRA Broadband Stimulus ProgramsAs part of the broader American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, two programs were created to directly address the need for increased broadband availability in the country. The National Telecommunications and Information Administration and the Rural Utilities Service were given a total of $7.2 billion to provide both grants and loans to applicants that proposed building last mile or middle mile networks, public access sites or creating programs for increasing the take rate and use of broadband and Internet literacy. Minnesota applicants won over $238 million in grants and loans for projects that address all of these categories. Several multistate grants totaling $187 million also impact the state, including grants for further mapping and Internet2, bringing the total over $425 million.

These projects are a lively combination of public, nonprofit, private and a few public/private partnerships that will be beneficial to Minnesota and will offer us a view into what works and what doesn’t in the area of infrastructure builds and increasing penetration rates. There is a three year timeline for project completion which will provide for a full accounting by this task force within its life span. A further review of these projects is included elsewhere in the report.

Along with the federal money that will be spent here we will also see a negotiated increase in rural investment from the settlement of the CenturyLink/Qwest transaction. A third of the agreed upon amount of $50 million is earmarked for unserved rural areas.

2010 ElectionThere will be considerable change to the political environment that surrounds broadband policy at both the state and federal level following the resulting reorganization of priorities, committees and leadership posts. At the federal level, there may be wholesale changes made to the 2010 Healthcare Reform Act that have the potential to alter the current emphasis on electronic health records and other provisions that are in process within the healthcare community and which are discussed further in this report. We can anticipate a move to more market based policy decisions within Congressional committees whose job it will be to either implement or scrap parts of the National Broadband Plan. There has been a loss of some longtime telecommunications and technology boosters and experts, most notably the defeat Representative Rick Boucher who had been regarded as a very strong and insightful leader on the House subcommittee that oversees

telecom. It remains to be seen what priorities, if any, will arise from the new leadership regarding broadband issues.

At the state level, we will see new Chairs of committees with the switch to Republican majorities in both the Senate and the House. It remains to be seen what committee structure will be in the next session and we will want to confer with the next Commissioner of Commerce regarding our role and responsibilities.

Future IntentionsIt is the intention of this task force to continue to build upon the knowledge gained this year to increase the information available to the proper authorities and to the citizens of the state in future reports. We are hampered by the calendar in 2010, having not been appointed until August, which resulted in a lack of sufficient time to do more than provide an addendum or update to the comprehensive report published by the original task force. We fully anticipate a much fuller examination of the status of the state goals next year. Items on the list for investigation and exploration going forward include tracking the stimulus projects progress, the increased use of broadband in healthcare, the funding and support of broadband technology in our schools and digital literacy improvements.

VI. Work Plan/Future Direction

Work off the recommendations in original report (beginning at p. 51)

(From Shirley Walz)

o The task force recommendations – these are from the first report Policies and Actions Necessary to Achieve Ubiquitous Broadband Opportunities for Public and Private Sectors to Cooperate Evaluation of Strategies, Financing, and Financial Incentives Used in

Other States/Countries to Support Broadband Development and Cost Estimates

Minnesota should initiate a study to develop a wide ranging collaborative funding strategy to support the recommendations of this report. The study should be a creative exploration of a broad range of sources and uses of funds.

Minnesota should explore financial options such as tax incentives including property and sales tax credits and exemptions to further provide incentive for private capital investment. (See Appendix D.)

Minnesota should encourage and facilitate a variety of partnerships that increase the adoption and utilization of broadband. Partnerships may include local governments, education, health care, libraries, non-profits, providers and a wide variety of other institutions. Increased adoption will make

additional private investments possible. (See Appendix E for examples of existing and proposed programs.)

Minnesota should encourage minimizing any unreasonable barriers to right of way or easement access and facilitate efficient cooperation related to open trenches and development.

Minnesota should encourage appropriate utilization of available federal funding to support the deployment of broadband to unserved and underserved populations, as well as to encourage efforts to support broader public adoption of broadband services.

Evaluation of Security, Vulnerability, and Redundancy Actions Necessary to Ensure Reliability

Cyber security report from the feds Security of data from national bb report – Shirley

The Task Force recommends that the state undertake and fund a detailed study of this issue to determine the advisability and approach to addressing the following goals and the detailed suggestions contained below:

o Ensure that the middle-mile broadband infrastructure in the state has no “single points of failure” in the event of a disaster or attack.

o Ensure that there are multiple diverse high-capacity routes for “commodity” Internet traffic entering and leaving the state.

o Ensure redundancy for public safety. As high-speed broadband network becomes the medium for the communication and delivery of vital functions such as police, dispatch and ambulance services, phone service, and telemedicine services. Backup systems need to be available in the event of the failure of the primary broadband link. For example, in rural Minnesota the failure of the only fiber carrying these vital services to the remote and sparsely populated areas of the state, without a backup option, could result in major public safety concerns.

o Explore peering strategies and the degree to which they can contribute to our security and redundancy goals and reduce our vulnerability.

o Consider exchanging intra-state Internet traffic within the state. This may be a robust way to increase performance and reduce vulnerability by allowing the state to remain a fully functioning “island” in the event of attacks and disasters that happen elsewhere.

o Ensure that there are mechanisms to protect the confidentiality of sensitive information while still making it available to practitioners and policy-makers.

Economic Development Opportunities Evaluation of the Benefits of Broadband Access to Organizations and

Institutions Healthcare – David

VII. Appendix Glossary (From Shirley:)

Bandwidth: Used in common parlance as a measure of the speed of a network connection. It is measured in kbps (kilobits per second) or mbps (megabits per second). Typical modem speeds are 28.8 kbps and 56 kbps. Bandwidth should not be confused with latency, which refers to the amount of time it takes to transfer data from one point to another. Also see broadband and cable modem and DSL.

Broadband is an advanced communications systems capable of providing high-speed transmissions of services such as voice, video, and data over the Internet and other networks. Transmission is provided by a wide range of technologies including digital subscriber line and fiber optic cable, coaxial cable, wireless technology and satellite. Capable of delivering voice, video, and data simultaneously at rates of 1.544 Mbps or higher.

GIS data:

DSL: An acronym for Digital Subscriber Line, a relatively new form of broadband network connection for the home. Also see cable modem.

High-speed broadband: A broadband Internet connection that transmits data such as e-mail and Web pages much faster than so-called "dial-up" services. The most common high-speed access services are DSL; cable modems; T-1 and T-3 lines; DBS; and fixed wireless.

HTTP: Hypertext Transfer Protocol. HTTP is the way HTML Web pages are transferred from the Web server to the Web browser.

ISP: Internet Service Provider. Makes an Internet connection available to customers. Some ISPs provide cable modem access, DSL access, and modem access. Also called an access provider.

Last mile: The final leg of a cable TV, telephone or other telecommunications network that ends in the user's household. The last mile can be a copper wire, fiber-optic line or a wireless link.

Megabits per second:

Middle mile:

Peering: Voluntary interconnection of administratively separate Internet networks for the purpose of exchanging traffic between the customers of each network.

Protocol: In computer terms, a formal and precise definition of what kind of information is transferred and how it is transferred between two or more parties. HTTP is an example of a protocol.

Server: A centralized repository of information or other resources. Clients send requests to a server. The most common example of a server is the Web server.

T-1: Technically refers a piece of hardware needed for a network connection, commonly used to refer to a type of Internet connection provided by telephone companies. T-1 lines transfer data at 1.5 megabits per second, and are typically leased by ISPs and by businesses.

T-3: A very high-speed network connection in which data is transmitted at a speed of 45 mbps.

Underserved population is a demographic measurement which describes those consumers who are unable to subscribe to an Internet service because of factors such as the absence of computer ownership, lack of training, income limitations, employment issues or other demonstrable need.

Underserved – we struggle with what this means. Is an area that only has 768k mobile really to be considered as having broadband? Especially broadband sufficient to run a business?

Web server: A server that delivers Web pages upon request. Examples of Web servers include Apache and IIS.

Wi-fi or WiFi: Wireless Fidelity. WiFi enabled devices link together without cables to form wireless local area networks

Healthcare Additional Information Education Additional Information

(From John Schultz—on ARRA funding—not sure where in the above outline this should be placed.)

MN Broadband Taskforce Report-Stimulus and Partnerships.

Stimulus Overview

The American Reinvestment and Recovery Act was passed by Congress and signed into law by President Obama on February 17, 2009. Of the total $787 billion package over $7.2 billion was dedicated to broadband infrastructure. To distribute the $7.2 billion a competitive application was implemented with $4.7 billion to be distributed by the National Telecommunications and Information Adminstration (NTIA) under the Broadband Technology Opportunities Program (BTOP) and $2.5 billion to be distributed by the Rural Utility Service (RUS) under the Broadband Infrastructure Program (BIP). The programs were initially to have three rounds of funding that was condensed to two rounds to reach the goal having all dollars awarded by September 30, 2010. Funding was made available in five categories:

1. Last Mile Infrastructure2. Middle Mile Infrastructure3. Public Computer Centers4. Sustainability5. Mapping and Reporting

The round one Notice of Funds Availability (NOFA) was released by NTIA and RUS on July 1, 2009. Funds were available in three categories; Broadband Infrastructure (Last and Middle Mile), Public Computer Center and Sustainable Broadband Adoption. Applications were initially due on August 14, 2009 but due to technical difficulties the final submission date was extended to August 24, 2009. Over 2,200 applications were submitted requesting nearly $28 billion in funding. The applications then went through a review process by each governor and a public notice period where incumbent carriers could dispute the claims of the applications. After making it through these hurdles then applications that were deemed worth due diligence were notified and required to complete documentation for further review. The first successful application announcements were made in December of 2009 and continued until April, 2010. NTIA and RUS announced first round awards for 150 projects, totaling $2.275 billion in federal funding. For Minnesota six projects were awarded over $71 million of grant and loan funds, placing the state as the number thirteen in the nation in funds awarded. (Congressional Research Service, Distribution of Broadband Stimulus Grants and Loan: Applications and Awards, Lennard G. Kruger, April 28, 2010)The round two NOFA was released by NTIA and RUS on January 22nd, 2010 in the Federal Register. To better serve the needs of the program NTIA and RUS seperated their application processes with NTIA focusing on Middle Mile infrastructure, Computer Centers and Sustainability Programs. The RUS on the other hand focused on Last Mile Infrastructure, Rural Library Grants and Technical Assistance Grants for development of stratagies surrounding the continued deployment of broadband and Satellite programs to bring broadband to the most unserved and high-cost areas of the United States. The Technical Assistance, Rural Library and Satellite rules and application process was submitted under a separate Request for Proposal from the Infrastructure, Computer Center and Sustainability Programs. Applications were due March 15th 2010. Both NTIA and RUS completed the award of dollars before the September 30th, 2010 deadline. In round two NTIA applications were reviewed by the governor of each state. An additional eighteen Minnesota based projects were awarded for a total of $171 million dollars. A complete list of Minnesota Stimulus projects is available in the attached table. Need to still find total awarded and Minnesota Standing.

The following tables provide an overview of Minnesota awards by type, funding agency, technology, organization type and number of homes and businesses that will reach the Broadband Taskforce 2015 minimum speed goals:

Type of Award Number of Awards Total of Awards (million)

Last Mile 14 $148.9Middle Mile 4 $79.7Computer Center 2 $4.6Sustainability 3 $5.1Mapping 2 $4.4Total 25 $242.7

Type, Number and Award Totals

Awarding Agency Number of Awards Total of Awards (million)

Rural Utility Service 17 $192.6NTIA 8 $50.1Total 25 $242.7

Awards and Award Total by Federal Agency

Technology Number of Awards Total of Awards (million)

Fiber to the Premise (FTTP)

12 $135.3

FTTP and DSL 1 $7.4DSL 1 $5.0Wireless 1 $1.1MiddleMile Transport

4 $79.7

Total 19 $228.5Infrastructure Awards by Technology (Total Infrastructure Awards =19)

Type of Awardee Number of Organizations

Total of Awards (million)

Incumbent Phone and Carriers

12 $81.7

Incumbent Cable 1 $.9Cooperative (non-phone)

3 $44.8

Power Cooperative 1 $16.1Municipality 3 $85.2Tribal Government 2 $1.8Non-Profit & Education

3 $12.2

Total 25 $242.7Awards by Type of Organization

Technology Number of Homes and Businesses

FTTP Need to ADSL 2+ Complete Total Spreadsheet

Number of Homes and Businesses Passed that will meet 2015 Minimum Speed Goals

Top 10 States for BTOP and BIP Funding (Mapping not included)

Table Courtesy of the Congressional Research Service

Partnerships, Innovation and SustainabilityExamples of Partnerships and Collaboration surrounding stimulus applications in Minnesota include:Southwest Minnesota Broadband Services and City of Windom

Southwest Minnesota Broadband Services (SMBS) was awarded a $12.8 million loan/grant combination to bring fiber-to-the-premise (FTTP)technology to eight rural communities in southwestern Minnesota. The participating communities have created their own non-profit corporation to run the operation. In addition SMBS will partner with the City of Windom network who will provide wholesale voice, cable television and internet services. This

partnership allowed SMBS to save approximately $2.1 million in capital costs to build their own backbone infrastructure and SMBS will become the City of Windom’s biggest customer assisting Windom in paying off its debt for the fiber-to-the-premise system it built earlier in the decade.SMBS’s members include the cities of Bingham Lake, Brewster, Heron Lake, Jackson, Lakefield, Okabena, Round Lake and Wilder.

Lac qui Parle County and Farmer’s Mutual Telephone CompanyFarmer’s Mutual Telephone Company (FMTC) and Lac qui Parle County have partnered on a $9.6 million RUS loan/grant to build the remainder of Lac qui Parle County with FTTP technology. Currently FMTC already provides voice, video and internet services over an FTTP network to 40% of the landbase and 30% of the population of the county. The two parties partnered to create a feasibility study to determine the costs and their respective roles in the partnership and then leveraged that study to submit a RUS BIP application. Both parties have a 50% responsibility for the debt of the project, FMTC will build and operate the network and Lac qui Parle County will work on creating economic development platform to leverage the FTTP network. FMTC has also committed to building the only remaining town without FTTP technology, Madison, with its own dollars to complete the county-wide network.

Blandin Minnesota Intelligent Rural CommunitiesMinnesota Intelligent Rural Communities (MIRC) is a multisector, comprehensive approach to

sustainable broadband adoption. Spearheaded by the Blanidn Foundation and 19 partner

organizations, they received $4.7 million federal Broadband Technology Opportunities Program

(BTOP) grant on behalf of rural Minnesota communities.

The grant is being be used to leverage resources of coalition partners to extend small business

technical assistance and training, expand hours for access to workforce centers, distribute

refurbished computers, train individuals and business and create courses for knowledge workers.

Eleven communities throughout rural Minnesota received up to $100,000 each to develop and

demonstrate broadband projects through the grant. These “demonstration communities” are

Benton County, Cook County, Grand Rapids/Itasca County, Leech Lake Band of Ojibwe, Stevens

County, Upper Minnesota Valley region, Thief River Falls, Willmar/Kandiyohi County, Winona,

Windom and Worthington.

They are using the Intelligent Community Forum framework to instruct strategic planning and

inform local grant awards.