Legislature(2017 - 2018)ADAMS ROOM 519
04/18/2018 09:00 AM House FINANCE
Note: the audio ![]()
and video ![]()
recordings are distinct records and are obtained from different sources. As such there may be key differences between the two. The audio recordings are captured by our records offices as the official record of the meeting and will have more accurate timestamps. Use the icons to switch between them.
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| SB216 | |
| SB102 | |
| SB104 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | HB 383 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | SB 102 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | SB 216 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | SB 104 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
SENATE BILL NO. 102
"An Act relating to funding for Internet services for
school districts; and relating to the Alaska higher
education investment fund."
2:08:18 PM
SENATOR ANNA MCKINNON, SPONSOR, explained that SB 102 was a
mirror image of a bill that was passed in 2014 to create
better equity among school districts and being able to
provide and communicate over an internet system. In 2004,
the legislature created the Broadband Assistance Grant
(BAG) program and chose a speed of 10 megabits per second.
The bill before the committee moved the speed from 10
megabits to 25 megabits. She chose the number because she
had been told that school districts around Alaska had the
infrastructure, the hard units, available. The nationally
and federally recommended speed was 100 megabits. She was
shooting for that number but was a long ways off. She
relayed that SB 102 was written to provide educational
equity to rural schools. She wanted to provide rural access
with similar abilities to virtual education or
communication as urban schools currently had. She argued
that the best thing the bill did presently was that for
every dollar the state contributed, it leveraged $8 from
the federal government to try to create equal access
opportunities for Americans.
Senator MacKinnon surmised that the most contentious issue
relating to SB 102 was the funding source from the Alaska
Higher Education Fund. There was concern that, because the
legislature had reduced the interest rate, the risk level,
and the return plans for the Higher Education Fund, the
bill would somehow erode the value of the Higher Education
Fund specifically as it paid out to the Alaska Performance
Scholarship. There was another bill that sat in the House
Education Committee that she did not think would move. It
tried to streamline the fund so that it only paid out to
the top tier. The committee chairman, who had the bill, was
a huge advocate of education. The Senate had offered a
suite of bills, and SB 102 was a part of that. It was the
Senate's belief that the Alaska Performance Scholarship
needed retooling. She reported that the Higher Education
Fund was earning interest that would meet the current call
on cash that was anticipated. For the following 10 years
there should not be a problem in providing access. She
referenced the Kivalina School as an example. She had
blamed adults about fighting over the location or structure
of the building while students were sitting with buckets
and water dripping through their ceilings. As adults were
arguing about such things, students were put in very
different positions. She relayed that the state had
designated general funds that had been spent to improve
education that were sitting in the Higher Education Fund -
the reason the Senate Finance Committee recommended the use
of those dollars for the project in SB 102. It leveraged $1
to $8 for the state's students at a time they currently
needed it.
Senator MacKinnon reported that she could not ask for a
general fund spend. She relayed that if the bill was
changed to reflect a fund source of general funds, she was
doubtful there would be enough support for it. She
clarified that her comment was not meant as a threat, but
rather as a statement of fact. The state had some money set
aside for education, and the Senate chose the fund source
from the Higher Education Fund because the BAG was already
coming from that fund. The state did not have additional
general fund dollars to spend on increased internet speed.
She deferred to the committee.
2:13:32 PM
Co-Chair Foster listed individuals available for questions.
Representative Wilson asked, aside from the 191 schools,
who paid for the internet for the other schools.
BRITTANY HARTMANN, STAFF, SENATOR ANNA MCKINNON, asked
Representative Wilson to restate her question.
Representative Wilson indicated that the bill was
addressing 191 schools. The Senator had mentioned other
school districts making it equal. She asked about the other
schools that had a higher megabit speed. She wondered if
the schools with the higher speeds paid out of their BSA or
other grants. Ms. Hartmann answered that their funds came
from the federal E-rate program, the State Broadband
Assistance grant, and from the funding formula. She noted
that the federal E-rate program paid 70 percent to 90
percent of the internet bill.
Representative Wilson wondered if the difference was the
matching funds. She wondered if the matching funds paid by
the other schools outside of the 191 schools were paying it
out of their formula monies. The 191 schools would be given
additional funding outside of the BSA to make the increase
to 25 megabits.
Representative Grenn asked for verification there were 209
schools needing the upgrade. Ms. Hartmann replied that,
from research she had done with the Federal Communications
Commission, 197 schools would be upgraded.
Representative Grenn asked about an expected turnaround
time to get all of the schools upgraded. Ms. Hartmann would
have to direct his question to the telecom companies.
However, if the money was provided, the upgrades would be
purchased immediately or in the following year.
2:16:40 PM
Senator MacKinnon noted that each school would handle it
differently. The money was for the speed, not for
construction, hardwire, softwire, or building out a system.
That was what providers did on their own. The providers
could access other grants at the federal level to be able
to provide sources. The bill was about purchasing speed for
a school district. Currently, school districts were using
BSA money to provide whatever speed they deployed to their
students. She reported that buffering was occurring while
live streaming videos and other things. The bill provided a
way, if the legislature looked at virtual education or
classroom-to-classroom peers around the world, Alaska's
rural communities would have the needed speed to have a
conversation without latency and delay.
Representative Guttenberg asked if Department of Education
and Early Development could bring a spreadsheet showing
what the state was currently paying for what speeds, the E-
rate, the local contribution, and the amount of the
broadband Access Grant (BAG). Ms. Hartmann answered that
she had the information containing the current E-rate and
BAG per school district, and the total cost to each school
district. She would provide the information following the
meeting.
Senator MacKinnon noted there was information provided by
Co-Chair Hoffman in member packets titled "Alaska Schools
Under 25MBPS - Federal Communication Commission, Public
Reports, 2016" (copy on file) that showed the schools
listed with under 25 megabits under the federal program.
She could provide a copy if he did not have it in his
packet.
Representative Guttenberg noted that in statute speed would
increase to 25 megabits, which was not a standard by
itself. He conveyed that upload speed, download speed, and
latency were almost as critical as the download speeds. He
thought she had reported that the additional funds would
not be used to pay for upgrades. If they could pay for
upgrades currently, he wondered why they were not. The
state would not be paying for fiber or new equipment. He
wondered why they were not at a certain level.
2:19:57 PM
Senator MacKinnon answered that all communities had to make
choices about where they deployed their assets. Some of the
assets were being deployed in classrooms to support
teachers. They were making individual financial decisions
Some schools had 1000 megabits because the community had
taxing ability to raise revenues. She deferred to her
staff.
Representative Guttenberg asked why the ISP providers did
not offer the 1000 megabits presently. He stated that
everybody on fiber was capable of getting 1000 megabits
including Kenny Lake. He asked what was preventing the
providers from offering higher speeds since they were
available without needing any facility change outs or
additional capital projects.
Senator MacKinnon answered it was a business. Businesses
offered a suite and a package for a certain amount of
money. There was a contract established between the
district and the provider based on the cost to deploy the
resource at a particular location. There was fiber in some
areas, satellite in other areas, and microwave stations in
other areas. Each area had its own costs. There was a
relationship with someone selling something, internet at
various speeds. She felt personally that she overpaid for
her service, but it was an individual choice for her. One
of her family members had elected to discontinue cable
service due to the cost. It was up to the school districts
what they were willing to pay.
Senator MacKinnon furthered that there might not be 1000
megabits available at all of the schools. She believed
there was up to 25 megabits based on microwave, fiber, and
satellite systems that the state could raise the lowest
level to a group of districts and provide additional
funding to pay for the additional speed. She found that the
costs would go down because the fixed cost for a company to
try to recover the rate they were charging was spread over
more megabits. The costs would go down. She reported that
in 2014, multi-million dollars were fronted by the state.
Once the fixed costs were covered over time, the actual
speed rate dropped, and school districts' bills dropped.
She deferred to her aide.
2:23:33 PM
Ms. Hartmann replied that she had information from FY 15
through FY 18 regarding BAG statistics. In FY 15 the cost
was $3.6 million, in FY 16 the cost was $2.6, in FY 17 the
cost was $2.3 million, and in FY 18 the cost was $2.2
million. She reported that there was a decrease every year
of the BAG program.
Representative Ortiz applauded Senator MacKinnon for
bringing the bill forward. He spoke to the importance of
broadband. He was concerned about where the funding would
come from. He pointed to appropriation language in Section
3 of the bill. He asked about the current balance of the
Higher Education Fund. Senator MacKinnon replied $336
million.
Representative Ortiz asked if it had initially been
capitalized at $400 million. He queried if she had concerns
about the solvency of the fund and the continuation of the
Alaska Performance Scholarship Program.
Senator MacKinnon answered, not for 10 years. She stated
that Alaska needed to get its fiscal house in order. The
bill was a way to create equity over time. The interest
currently being earned on the Higher Education Fund out
into the future looked like it would cover the cost,
especially if the legislature deployed the resource to
receive matching funds and raised the megabits from 10 to
25. Past experience showed that when the legislature
invested money at the 10 megabits, the state paid a
significant amount up front. Over the years it started
sliding down and the school districts were getting the same
speeds. She believed the state would see a similar drop.
Senator MacKinnon noted that Senator Olson carried the bill
on the Senate Floor but was not able to address the issue
in House Finance because of the timing of the meeting. The
Senate saw the idea as emeritus. She copied his bill and
added the 15 megabit speed up to 25 megabits because she
saw the merit of the bill passed in 2014. She hoped that
the expenses would reduce over time and that the fund would
be whole. She emphasized that the finance committee had not
chosen to use the Higher Education Funds on other
proposals. However, the other BAG programs were funded from
the Higher Education Fund, which was the reason she chose
it as the source for her proposal.
2:27:39 PM
Representative Wilson referred to a handout that showed the
annual call for the internet, the E-rate, the BAG portion,
and the school portion. She noted that it was only for the
197 schools. She wondered if there was any information for
the other districts outside of those that serve the 197
schools. Ms. Hartmann answered she would follow up with the
information.
Representative Wilson wondered why the bill did not use the
Power Cost Equalization (PCE) Fund as opposed to the Higher
Education Fund. She suggested that the nature of the issue
had to do with a utility. The Power Cost Equalization fund
balance equaled $1 billion. She opined that the Higher
Education Fund had been robbed for several things. She was
concerned the state would have more problems within 10
years.
Senator MacKinnon answered that the PCE Fund had been
modified the preceding year to prioritize spending and
reduced interest earnings on it. It provided heating
assistance and applied to other items to reduce costs in
rural Alaska. In addition, the fund was being shared with
all communities including Fairbanks, Wrangel, Anchorage,
and other communities. All communities qualifying for
community revenue sharing were receiving funds from the PCE
Fund. A bill had been structured through Senate Finance
with her support in advancing it to provide energy use and
community assistance.
Representative Wilson stated that the Higher Education Fund
had not made enough interest to pay for the scholarship
program and the needs-based program. She was concerned
about taking more out of the fund. She relayed a personal
scenario about her internet service at home. She also spoke
about her son's internet service. She agreed with
Representative Guttenberg about the speed of service. Speed
was necessary. She thought the amount could go down, but a
commitment of more than $10 million was being discussed.
She was very concerned about fairness. She continued that
districts all over Alaska were paying for whatever speed
they had. She spoke about fairness. She was concerned the
bill only pertained to 197 schools. There were other
schools trying to do the right thing. She did not want to
jeopardize an important program. She thought the
scholarship programs were equally important for B and C
students. She did not want to negatively impact them.
2:31:35 PM
Senator MacKinnon spoke about a conversation pertaining to
equity for rural states and about equity in education
opportunities. She reported that 100 megabits per second
(mbps) was the national recommendation. However, because
Alaska's smaller communities in more rural locations did
not have the same advantage of fiber that could provide
lower cost service, the bill was only providing an
opportunity of 25 percent of the national recommendation.
She agreed there was consternation around the funding
source. The funds were set aside for higher education.
Should the legislature solve the state's fiscal challenges,
there was an opportunity to place more money back into the
fund to continue to provide resources for the Alaska
Performance Scholarship, the needs-based Alaska Education
Grant, and the BAG program. She understood there might be a
negative draw on the fund and that it might eat the corpus
of the money placed in the account. However, she felt that
providing equity for those presently in the system would be
helpful.
Representative Pruitt spoke about the funding source. He
mentioned a Legislative Finance Division analysis of the
impact of SB 102 on the fund. By 2023, the estimated
investment earnings would be just over $15 million while
the total appropriations would be $35 million, $20 million
being drawn down. He reported the total value at the end of
2023 would be $245 million. He had concerns about the
impact on the ability to earn with less in the account and
the residual effects of being able to provide various
services. He thought Senator McKinnon had said that the
earnings could be covered by what was being asked to be
drawn down. He thought it looked like in the estimate that
what was provided in the bill could fit within the amount.
However, there were other items still being drawn from the
fund including the Alaska Performance Scholarship (APS). He
asked how he could say it was fiscally responsible if the
goal was to be able to provide scholarships in the long
term.
2:35:03 PM
Senator MacKinnon answered that if students were not ready
to go to college, they had to take remedial courses. In the
Anchorage area there had been a newspaper report that
showed that reading and math were below the national
average. The bill provided an opportunity to help increase
the chances that those that were ready to go to college
would be prepared and not have to take remedial classes.
She believed the fund had been used as a funding source for
two years for items that were not education related. The
items had dwindled the fund and the fund had been used for
those items in response to Alaska not solving its fiscal
challenges. She reported that the state had better numbers
at the beginning of the year. But the fund had changed its
earnings estimation. She explained that when she had
originally started with the bill, the interest earnings
were meeting everything in the fund. The numbers had
dropped, and she had received them the previous day. She
was looking for equity for all Alaskans, mostly those in
small communities. She relayed that all of Alaska's school
districts could qualify for the E-rate. It was the
committee's decision whether it was the correct funding
source. The Senate chose to use the Higher Education Fund
as the funding source inside of a comprehensive look at
education with a suite of bills. The other legislation that
would affect this fund was not before the committee. She
admitted it was a bit out of sequence with what the
Senate's ideas were around the issues.
2:37:18 PM
Representative Pruitt mentioned remedial classes needed by
University of Alaska students. In Anchorage a large portion
of students likely came from the Anchorage and Mat-Su areas
with access to broadband. He thought it spoke to a larger
issue than whether there was access to broadband. He noted
a policy call about whether to continue with the
scholarship fund. He asked if Senator MacKinnon thought
going forward with the bill without another component was
appropriate. He reported having objected to using the fund.
He questioned whether the committee should go forward with
only one piece of a larger package.
Senator MacKinnon commented that each bill stood on its own
merits. She deferred to the deliberation of the House. She
thought she had made a fair case for smaller communities
that were paying high costs for providing educational
services. They received the same BSA as other communities
that had taxing authority to add to their schools. She
noted that all schools in Alaska qualified for E-rate. The
cost for internet speed in larger communities was less or
might be less than in rural Alaska. She indicated that she
was trying to benefit all students. The goal from the
Senate Finance Committee was to try to do what was possible
to support education. She would explain to people in her
district that equal was equal and being able to provide
broadband access without latency and buffering meant that
the state could deploy a state of the art teacher into
classrooms that might or might not currently have the
option.
2:41:03 PM
Vice-Chair Gara appreciated the rural equity goal the
senator was trying to achieve. He wondered if 25 mbps would
be enough to allow for a large classroom setting. Ms.
Hartmann thought the question would be better addressed to
the telecom companies or DEED. She had been told that it
took 4 mbps to have a face-to-face interactive video. The
bill would help increase the ability to livestream.
Vice-Chair Gara reported having spent a fair amount of time
in rural Alaska and watched the little circle on his
computer go around and around. He asked if all of the
school districts listed with less than 25 mbps worth of
broadband had enough infrastructure from the telecom
companies to provide the 25 mbps. He wondered if internet
access would slow down. He asked if the broadband available
to others would slow down or be eaten up. He also wondered
if the telecom infrastructure would have to be upgraded.
Ms. Hartmann responded that she had recently uploaded
letters from the telecom companies that currently provided
services to the 197 schools that they were capable to go up
to 25 mbps with current infrastructure. She also had a
letter from the Alaska Telecom Association confirming the
same thing. Regarding Vice-Chair Gara's other question, she
would have to research or defer the question to the telecom
companies. Vice-Chair Gara did not know the answer and did
not expect her to either.
2:44:24 PM
Representative Guttenberg asserted that providing broadband
across Alaska was likely the most important thing the state
could do for its students. He reported paying more than
$110 for 4 megabytes. He indicated that the GCI map was
inaccurate. He mentioned that 3 years prior, the FCC
adopted the industry written Alaska plan. Over the course
of 10 years GCI would receive $1.350 billion. He spoke
about the telecom companies building infrastructure, which
was supposed to increase coverage in remote locations. He
noted living 5 miles from the university and reported not
having access to service. He was interested in seeing the
cost associated with the schools.
Representative Guttenberg wondered if the Senator had
queried the telecom companies about where they intended to
build out in communities. The Alaska plan was looked at
critically by some. He indicated there would be a 5-year
look back in about 2 years. He thought $1.350 billion in
subsidies with a minimal amount of build out was way beyond
what was being considered in the bill ($15 million per
year). He asked if the senator had asked the telecom
companies about where the build outs would enhance
communities without additional costs.
Senator MacKinnon thought the providers that were
participating in the Alaska plan should be consulted. The
telecom companies participating in the Alaska Plan received
a benefit from the federal government, which came with
strings attached. She noted that for people concerned about
the price of internet service going up, the FCC who ran the
federal E-rate program, showed all of its data online. The
prices reflected the cost continuing to go down.
Senator MacKinnon reported that the FCC had a rule called
the "Lowest Corresponding Price Rule (LCP). She explained
that the LCP was defined as the lowest price that a service
provider charged to non-residential customers who were
similarly situated to a particular applicant, school,
library, or consortium for similar services. The rule also
stated that service providers could not charge applicants a
price above the LCP for E-rate program services. She
indicated that the state could not force people to build in
all rural communities in the state. There were active
choices occurring with how many individuals were in a
location to receive service. The federal government was
trying to extend the stretch and trying to regulate that
the lowest cost structure was still provided to those
receiving the services. She offered to reach out to the
providers on behalf of the House Finance Committee. She
thought their plan had investment in infrastructure costs
every year. However, the state did not direct where
providers built out.
2:48:16 PM
Representative Guttenberg relayed that the state was
providing $1.3 billion in subsidies which did not cover E-
rate, rural clinics, or FirstNet. He thought there was an
intangible public purpose for the legislature to see that
an infrastructure build-out happened. He frequently had
discussions with industry people in which he posed the
question about when infrastructure would be built. He
reported that there was no square answer from industry
folks. He reiterated the need for additional infrastructure
with the amount of money going into Alaska in subsidies. He
indicated that the chairman of the FCC criticized the lack
of infrastructure build-out in Alaska. He thought it was
untenable that, at the end of a 10-year period, there would
be no substantial infrastructure in place. He felt policy
makers would be faced with continued escalating costs. He
agreed with the bill sponsor that Alaska's kids and
businesses were owed an infrastructure to allow them to
function at their highest level. He reiterated that he
lived in sight of the University and the mappings were
inaccurate. He continued to criticize the telecom
companies. He appreciated the senator's efforts.
Senator MacKinnon clarified she was not representing
telecom companies. The bill represented students and school
districts in Alaska. She believed that the legislature had
reached out to telecom companies to understand how they
were providing service and some of their challenges. In no
way was she trying to direct a single dollar towards any
individual private sector person. However, private sector
companies were providing the services. She emphasized that
she was not in communication with telecom providers with
the exception of asking questions.
Representative Guttenberg clarified that he had not been
inferring anything.
Representative Wilson wanted to understand how the
calculation had been made for the figure of $13.4 million.
She suggested that $2.5 million applied to the 197 schools.
She had hoped to have a discussion about other options
after seeing how the calculation was applied. Senator
MacKinnon answered that the department was prepared to
address the fiscal note.
2:52:43 PM
Co-Chair Foster OPENED public testimony.
DAMON HARGRAVES, KODIAK ISLAND BOROUGH SCHOOL DISTRICT,
KODIAK (via teleconference), testified in support of the
bill. He relayed that in Kodiak bandwidth offered options
for its students. Many of the district's sights had one
high school teacher available locally. Bandwidth provided
access to high quality teachers and provided students in
the smaller schools with access to as many as a dozen or
more teachers. He continued that live video connections
between students and teachers for each distance class was
crucial. The Kodiak School District was currently limited
to 2 simultaneous video connections at most sites. An
increase to 25 mbps would help the district to deliver 4 or
more simultaneous connections to each of its sites. The
district, with increased bandwidth, would also be able to
offer more classes including welding. The course was taught
and facilitated by a teacher in Kodiak at the high school.
He continued he was able to offer a better experience. [The
testifier's call dropped off].
2:54:45 PM
LUKE MEINERT, YUKON-KOYUKUK SCHOOL DISTRICT, FAIRBANKS (via
teleconference), spoke in favor of the bill. He thanked
members for supporting the bandwidth assistance grant in
the past. The grant provided a positive impact on the
educational opportunities the district provided its
students. Because of this impact, he encouraged members to
support SB 102. The Yukon-Koyukuk School District had 10
rural schools in the interior of Alaska. 98 percent of the
students in the villages were Athabaskan and 8 of the 10
villages were only reachable via air service, with all
school internet being delivered by satellite or a microwave
connection. Very few homes in the area had internet
connections and there was no cell service. Each school's
internet costs for a 10-megabit circuit was $16,000 per
location or $160,000 for each of the district's 10 schools
prior to E-rate and the BAG contribution. The internet at
the school was a lifeline for their communities. Securing
more bandwidth for the district's students was not possible
without assistance, given the district's challenging budget
constraints. He relayed the estimated costs of expanding
the bandwidth without assistance. The district was more and
more reliant on internet service for education. He spoke to
the equitability of educating rural students through
distance learning with additional bandwidth being made
accessible. He indicated that to continue to improve
student outcomes additional bandwidth was necessary. He
asked that members consider supporting an increase to the
bandwidth from 10 megabits to 25 megabits. He thanked the
committee.
Representative Guttenberg asked who provided the district's
bandwidth. Mr. Meinert answered, "DRS Technologies is our
carrier."
2:57:47 PM
DAVID NEESE, SELF, ANCHORAGE (via teleconference), believed
increasing bandwidth was a good idea. However, internet
service was provided by 2 companies in Alaska, GCI and DRS.
He relayed that DRS had the ability to increase it but cost
much more. None of the letters included in the
documentation showed what the amount would be to go from 10
to 25 megabits. He reported that 4 megabits per device were
necessary to have video. If a school had 5 devices
streaming could occur on 4 of them. Other activities on the
internet such as accounting would likely drop off. He
referred to the last section of the bill that noted "any
amount" from the fund. He believed those words should be
removed or a cap should be included. He argued that the
legislature would be funding internet at the school for
elementary kids and taking it away from college kids. He
reported that at Dot Lake School, the cost per child was
$30,000 for internet at 10 megabits. He argued that "any
cost" would be difficult. He encouraged legislators to
consider that the state was helping to subsidize a
monopoly, GCI in most of the villages, instead of promoting
competition. He relayed that ACS had sent a letter to the
FCC complaining that GCI had a monopoly in rural Alaska.
The bill did nothing to break the monopoly up. He was
worried about the fund source to solve the problem. He did
not support the bill in its current from and recommended
looking at another funding source.
3:01:05 PM
AT EASE
3:01:44 PM
RECONVENED
Mr. Hargraves continued his earlier testimony. He shared
that the Kodiak Island Borough School District offered
Career Technical Education (CTE) courses including classes
in welding through distance, which were heavily reliant on
connectivity. The school was the best location for reliable
internet. He shared that many home school students came in
to use the internet. He noted a decline in enrollment in
rural schools. He attributed it partial to limited options.
Increased bandwidth would increase educational
opportunities for students. He also mentioned opportunities
for professional development was impacted by connectivity.
Kodiak had cut down on travel for professional development
and was now focused on videoconferencing capability for
training. He relayed that the bill would impact 8 schools
within his district. He anticipated that the Kodiak Island
School District would see a benefit of about $400,000. Upon
the passage of the bill, the school district would be ready
to implement immediately; it had the personnel, the
expertise, and the local hardware in place. He asked
members to support the bill.
Representative Guttenberg asked what the district was
paying for 10 megabits currently. Mr. Hargraves did not
have the numbers on hand.
3:04:59 PM
BILL BURR, DELTA/GREELY SCHOOL DISTRICT AND ALASKA SOCIETY
OF TECHNOLOGY IN EDUCATION, DELTA JUNCTION (via
teleconference), testified in support of the bill. He spoke
to the technical side of delivering broadband, going from
10 to 25 mmbps. The cost of increasing bandwidth in rural
areas was high. Flat funding did not afford the school
district to put money towards increased internet service
when other costs were higher. He pointed out the ratio of
5:8:1 federal dollars through the E-rate program. Every
dollar set aside to increase the bandwidth came with more
money from the federal government. He believed the bill was
an opportunity that should not be passed up. He talked
about the incredible opportunities that would come with
additional bandwidth. He needed bandwidth in order to reach
out and participate in the modern world. He stressed the
importance of the funding. He shared that the Delta/Greely
School District was not one of the BAG communities. The
district was in full support of rural communities that did
not have schools at 25 megabits.
Vice-Chair Gara indicated that his interest was that
students would be able to participate live in a classroom.
He thought Mr. Burr had stated that his district had this
level of internet. He asked if it worked well for the
district to provide live classroom participation. Mr. Burr
replied that the school district had 250 megabits of data.
It had the ability to do desktop video inside the school as
well as with other communities and other states and
countries. The district's level was higher than 25 megabits
and was very functional. Vice-Chair Gara would wait to
speak with a district that had 25 megabits. He thanked the
testifier.
3:09:40 PM
DR. LISA PARADY, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, ALASKA COUNCIL OF
SCHOOL ADMINISTRATORS, spoke in strong support of the bill
to increase the floor of megabit speed from 10 to 25. She
shared that she had previously worked for 6 years on the
North Slope bringing the original Broadband Assistance
Grant forward. At the time, there were villages with only 1
to 3 megabits which made it unrealistic to deliver certain
content. It was decided that 10 megabits would become the
new floor for rural Alaska. She thought it was appropriate
to continue to incrementally lift the floor. She agreed
with Senator MacKinnon that it was an equity issue. There
had been discussions about the shortage and recruitment of
teachers and educators. She thought that in rural Alaska
broadband played a role. She argued that Alaska had to
continue to deliver quality education to all of Alaska's
students. Teaching and learning through distance learning,
using video conferencing over broadband, was a viable
option to provide equity to students. She spoke to the
enhancement of many of the education applications that
needed broadband. She noted a number of applications
available to students that would be enhanced by lifting the
megabit floor. She emphasized that the state's investment
in its broadband infrastructure with a federal match was
8:1. The bill would expand access for students to take
University classes. She urged members to consider the bill.
She shared that members had expressed concern about the
funding mechanism.
3:14:31 PM
Representative Guttenberg stated there were other ways to
get less expensive internet. He invited her to come to his
office to review those options. He continued that the
charges for internet service in rural Alaska were
exorbitant. Dr. Parady replied that she would never engage
in a conversation about telecom companies or prices as it
was not her area of expertise. She relayed that having
tried to provide quality professional development across
89,000 square miles, she might be the only person in Alaska
who had a call from a provider saying that because
satellites were colliding she would not be able to provide
a district-wide professional development class. She had
lived the issue. She had talked to teachers that reported
they could not upload or download due to latency problems.
She would not consider speaking to the costs, but she could
definitely speak to the needs. It was a desperate time for
the districts to figure out how to best serve their
students going forward. She believed the technology piece
in the bill had to be part of the answer.
Representative Guttenberg noted that if someone compared
the charges with anything else anywhere in the world, they
would be dumbfounded.
Representative Ortiz noted that Ms. Parady had mentioned
her concern about the funding source at the end of her
testimony. He agreed that the state needed to upgrade
broadband, especially in his district, as there were
several rural areas that would be positively impacted. He
asked that if the question boiled down to having to leave
the funding source as is in order for the bill to move
forward, or not having the program, did she support the
funding source remaining. Dr. Parady answered that she saw
the megabit increase as a very high priority to education.
Representative Pruitt spoke about fiscal costs for items.
He asked if Ms. Parady's members would be okay with
removing other things that were drawing from the Higher
Education Fund in order to keep the fund stable. Ms. Parady
responded that she could not answer his question. She
thought that there were many worthwhile supports to
education. They had varying degrees of impact across
different school districts. She was unclear whether the
answer to his question would be uniform and was not
prepared to answer it. From a fiscal perspective, using
federal dollars appeared to be a wise investment. School
districts were being called upon to come up with creative
and innovative ways to serve students. Connectivity was
necessary to do so. She did not see the bill as a luxury,
but rather a necessity.
Representative Pruitt added that often times people
requested certain things that had fiscal costs. He
disagreed that it was up to the legislature to decide how
the state paid for things. He inherently disagreed and
argued that people had to recognize and determine
priorities. He agreed that better connectivity was
necessary in order to provide better education in Rural
communities. He thought it was good to discuss other areas
of savings. Dr. Parady thought it would cost about $2
billion to wire the school districts. From a fiscal
perspective, incrementally raising the megabit floor and
leveraging federal dollars seemed to be a wise investment.
3:22:31 PM
Representative Guttenberg clarified that the estimate for
wiring the entire state was between $1.2 billion and higher
based on the 2008 Broadband Taskforce calculations. He
compared it to buying a house: A total cash layout would
not be required. The investment would be paid off over
time. The cost for not doing things for Alaska's children
was higher than making the investment.
Co-Chair Foster CLOSED public testimony. He set an
amendment deadline for 5:00 PM Friday, April 20, 2018. He
appreciated the sponsor's work on the bill.
SB 102 was HEARD and HELD in committee for further
consideration.