Legislature(2021 - 2022)ADAMS 519
02/01/2022 01:30 PM 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 | |
| Presentation: Governor's Task Force on Broadband: Overview and Recommendations by Alaska Telcom | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
HOUSE FINANCE COMMITTEE
February 1, 2022
1:37 p.m.
1:37:13 PM
CALL TO ORDER
Co-Chair Foster called the House Finance Committee meeting
to order at 1:37 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Neal Foster, Co-Chair
Representative Kelly Merrick, Co-Chair (via teleconference)
Representative Dan Ortiz, Vice-Chair
Representative Ben Carpenter (via teleconference)
Representative Bryce Edgmon
Representative DeLena Johnson
Representative Andy Josephson
Representative Bart LeBon (via teleconference)
Representative Sara Rasmussen (via teleconference)
Representative Steve Thompson
Representative Adam Wool
MEMBERS ABSENT
None
ALSO PRESENT
Christine O'Connor, Executive Director, Alaska Telcom;
Hallie Bissett, Executive Director, Alaska Native Village
Corporation Association.
SUMMARY
PRESENTATION: GOVERNOR'S TASK FORCE ON BROADBAND: OVERVIEW
AND RECOMMENDATIONS BY ALASKA TELCOM
Co-Chair Foster reviewed the meeting agenda.
^PRESENTATION: GOVERNOR'S TASK FORCE ON BROADBAND: OVERVIEW
AND RECOMMENDATIONS BY ALASKA TELCOM
1:39:02 PM
CHRISTINE O'CONNOR, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, ALASKA TELCOM,
introduced herself and noted she had been the chair of the
technical subgroup of the Governor's Taskforce on
Broadband.
HALLIE BISSETT, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, ALASKA NATIVE VILLAGE
CORPORATION ASSOCIATION, shared that the Alaska Native
Village Corporation Association (ANVCA) represented 177
village corporations created under Alaska Native Claims
Settlement Act (ANCSA). She relayed she had been the chair
of the full taskforce and the policy chair of the Taskforce
on Broadband.
Ms. Bissett provided a PowerPoint Presentation titled
"Governor's Task Force on Broadband: Overview and
Recommendation" dated February 1, 2022 (copy on file). She
began on slide 2 and discussed the final report, which came
out of Administrative Order 322. She detailed that the
governor had created the special taskforce on broadband
comprised of 11 voting members and 2 ex officio members.
The taskforce had two subgroups and was assigned eight
tasks. The taskforce held 32 public meetings in a short
amount of time. She noted the full report was available
online at gov.alaska.gov/broadband. She listed the members
on the taskforce on slide 3 and thanked them for their
service.
1:42:25 PM
Ms. O'Connor noted the other half of the participants were
in the policy subgroup and would be discussed later in the
presentation. She highlighted that three of the taskforce's
tasks had been assigned to the technical subgroup (slide
4):
1. Identify and complete a needs assessment of the gaps
in the current broadband network deployment. Identify
communities most in need of upgraded or new
infrastructure.
2. Evaluate all technologies that are used to provision
broadband, identify and assess the pros and cons of
each as they pertain to connecting all Alaskans with
high speed connectivity.
3. Assess the hurdles to broadband investment and
deployment. Make recommendations on how the state can
play a role to eliminate them.
Ms. O'Connor elaborated that Alaska's broadband networks
were likely composed of all the existing technologies used
to deliver broadband. She turned to slide 5 and discussed
defining gaps. First it was necessary to define what the
specific gap was. Broadly, a gap was defined by what speed
was or was not there, middle-mile infrastructure,
affordability, workforce development, and evolving
capability.
Ms. O'Connor turned to slide 6 and relayed the taskforce
set a target of 100/20Mbps minimum speed. The taskforce
determined that locations with service below 25/3Mbps were
classified as unserved and should be given top priority.
Locations with speeds below the minimum target of
100/120Mbps were considered underserved and had the next
level of priority. She stated it was important because
there was a lack of broadband in rural areas in addition to
areas adjacent to larger areas. She stated that adopting
the metric of defining a gap by speed enabled the capturing
of all of the various areas. She highlighted that the speed
target aligned with the federal infrastructure bill. The
taskforce had adopted a latency target of less than 100
milliseconds. She explained that a lag-time of under 100
milliseconds made service sufficient for live video,
allowing access to telehealth, remote education, and any
other things sensitive to delay.
Ms. O'Connor continued to address slide 6. The taskforce
had looked at data usage. She explained that a very fast
connection that only allowed a small amount of usage was
not very helpful. The target was usage comparable to
Anchorage or Fairbanks. She highlighted the importance of
reliability with minimal downtime. She stated that
broadband had become almost as essential as electric and
water utilities.
Representative Rasmussen thanked the presenters. She
referenced the 100 megabit goal for underserved
communities. She asked if the state could lose federal
funding match if districts were brought up to a certain
level.
Ms. O'Connor referenced BAG [Broadband Assistance Grant]
regulations and reported there would need to be some
adjustments to avoid losing the federal matching funds. She
stated the bar was currently 25/3Mbps. She believed that if
a community was brought up to 100/20Mbps, the BAG
regulations (possibly statute) would need to be adjusted.
She would have to review the requirements to be certain.
Ms. Bissett added that technology moved at a lightning fast
speed in terms of capacity and capability. She pointed out
that by the time the state deployed 100/20Mpbs the metric
would already be underserved again.
1:47:26 PM
Ms. O'Connor turned to slide 7 and addressed the first
taskforce recommendation to identify middle-mile
infrastructure needs. She explained that middle-mile was
often a constraining element where there may be a fiber
cable to a home network in a small community but without a
middle-mile pipe connecting the community to the internet,
it would be very limited. Included in the recommendation
was the need to recognize that standards were evolving and
to implement infrastructure that was "future proof" (that
did not become outdated in 5 to 20 years).
Ms. O'Connor moved to the next recommendation on slide 8 to
identify where to install a robust fiber-optic backbone.
She elaborated that every hub in Alaska and smaller
communities needed a fiber backbone. She noted service
could be pushed farther out to very small communities with
microwave and satellite.
Representative Edgmon thanked the presenters. He remarked
on the once in a lifetime opportunity with federal money
coming in to make meaningful and significant change related
to middle-mile and final-mile opportunities in Alaska. He
asked for a summary of the detail.
Ms. Bissett answered that the sheer amount of incoming
federal money had never been seen before in Alaska. She
detailed that the taskforce was focused on the $1.5 billion
the state would receive to deploy broadband. She informed
the committee that money was also set aside for tribal
entities. The first round of funding was $1 billion, and
the second round was $2.5 billion.
1:50:21 PM
Ms. O'Connor shared that in 2010 federal policy makers
tried to reform their mechanisms supporting broadband in
extremely high cost rural areas like Alaska. She explained
the reforms that had been adopted did not fit Alaska and
broadband buildout had been delayed for about six years.
She relayed the issue had been fixed in 2017 through work
with the state's congressional delegation. She furthered
there had been a real acceleration of broadband already,
but the infrastructure bill had informed the taskforce's
thinking when it had considered what networks were needed
to serve the state for the next 20 to 50 years. She
explained the consideration played into the taskforce
recommendations for a fiber-optic backbone and the
inclusion of all Alaskans. The taskforce had not held back
from the goals because of the opportunity afforded by the
infrastructure bill.
Representative Edgmon appreciated the explanation. He
stated the situation was significant beyond comprehension.
He was excited about the opportunity and the ability for
the legislature and executive branch to play a meaningful
role.
Representative Rasmussen referenced the need for fiber
across the state. She asked if permitting for laying fiber
and other infrastructure would be challenging. She asked if
any of the land was federal.
Ms. O'Connor answered it would be a hurdle. She detailed
that for permitting a project the best case scenario was 12
months and was often much longer. She elaborated there
would be a combination of state, federal land, tribal, and
Native corporation land to cross. The taskforce recommended
that anything the legislature and Congress could to do
streamline the processes would be very helpful.
Representative Rasmussen asked if it seemed like a tribal
compact with the state and federal government would be
beneficial when it came to navigating permitting and land
use issues. She believed there was broad consensus that
committee members were excited about expanding broadband
and maximizing the opportunity.
Ms. Bissett answered there were certain things the tribal
monies allowed in terms of expediting permitting. She
believed exploring partnerships would be in the state's
best interest in order to ensure funding went to places it
was most needed. She pointed out that 25/3Mbps was
considered unserved and there were over 200 communities
that fell within the category. She emphasized the
importance of states and tribes working together.
1:54:15 PM
Representative Wool saw the need for a fiber-optic
backbone. He asked if there could be a scenario where there
was a satellite environment making fiber-optic less
necessary.
Ms. O'Connor replied that the fiber-optic backbone would be
needed for a couple of reasons. The first was capacity. She
explained there was new satellite technology coming, but it
had very small capacity compared to fiber. Second, fiber-
optic had almost unlimited upgrade capability. She
explained it merely involved changing boxes. Third, fiber-
optic had a relatively much lower operating expense. She
explained that once the cable was put in place it would
run. She noted that satellite would be complimentary, but a
fiber-optic backbone was needed.
Ms. Bissett expounded that the taskforce recognized fiber-
optic was the preferable technology due to the reasons
mentioned by Ms. O'Connor; however, it would take five to
ten years to deploy the needed fiber. In the interim,
satellite would play an important role in filling the gap.
She relayed the taskforce had talked a lot about being
technology neutral. The taskforce was excited about LEO
[low Earth orbit] satellites and was keeping an eye on how
they were working. She stated that hopefully both options
[fiber-optic and satellite] could thrive and move forward
as the state determined how to deploy the broadband.
Representative Rasmussen asked if there was any difference
between a phone line and fiber for internet.
Ms. O'Connor answered that it depended. For example, she
personally received internet via a traditional copper
phoneline resulting in good speed. She explained that homes
could also have a fiber line if the area had been
modernized up to fiber. She stated that either way it was
about what kind of service a home was getting and whether
it was getting the speed, latency, and needed service
characteristics. She stated if the technology worked, it
was not necessary to worry about it.
1:57:57 PM
Vice-Chair Ortiz asked if the existing provider network was
a hurdle. He had heard there was a lack of competition over
the past several years. He asked if it would be a continued
issue as the state worked to make the best economical use
of the incoming federal funds.
Ms. O'Connor responded that the existing providers had been
plowing hundreds of millions of dollars into the networks.
She elaborated that since the programs were reformed
correctly in 2017, there had been over $172 million
invested in capital expenditures by existing providers.
Examples included providing fiber to the home and building
middle-mile connections. She relayed that $100 million in
reconnect grants had been awarded in the past two years for
things like middle-mile projects. She expounded that in
many ways the work was providing the baseline to accelerate
forward on the infrastructure bill. She addressed provider
competition and relayed there were new providers entering
the market. There were some providers providing service
over fixed wireless and everything from small startups to
LEOs entering the market. She stated the momentum and
energy in the broadband space was incredible at the moment.
Ms. Bissett added that with less than 1 million people in
Alaska there was only so much competition that could be had
to target the market. The ANVCA saw the situation as a
major opportunity for Native corporations and tribes to be
partnering with existing and new providers that cared about
Alaska and had proved Alaska was home.
2:00:23 PM
Ms. O'Connor looked at the next recommendation on slide 9
focusing efforts on all Alaskans. She discussed the need
for maps defining unserved and underserved areas around
Alaska on slide 10. She reported that as part of the
infrastructure bill, the maps were being created by the
Federal Communications Commission (FCC) and would be
granular. The maps would identify the broadband capability
(or absence thereof) in every serviceable location in the
state. The maps were expected to be available in early
2023. Slide 11 showed a map of existing middle-mile
infrastructure as of 2021.
Representative Wool asked for a definition of first-mile.
Ms. O'Connor answered that last-mile was from the broadband
provider to a house or business and middle-mile was between
communities and required the piece connected to the
internet in Seattle or Portland.
Representative Wool asked about first-mile.
Ms. O'Connor answered there was a first-mile concept, but
she tended to talk about it all as middle-mile.
2:02:51 PM
Ms. Bissett shared that the taskforce had talked about the
aging infrastructure in the first mile; therefore, the
state should focus on that as well.
Ms. O'Connor moved to the next recommendation on slide 12
on affordability. Some of the costs, especially in rural
Alaska, were incredibly high. She elaborated that creating,
operating, replacing, and maintaining infrastructure in
remote Alaska was very expensive, which drove high rates to
consumers. The taskforce recommended recognition that [lack
of] affordability created a gap. She turned to slide 13 and
identified workforce development as another gap. She spoke
to the need for local technicians and experts operating,
maintaining, and repairing networks in communities in
remote Alaska. She stated it should be a priority of future
projects.
2:04:00 PM
Ms. O'Connor discussed a recommendation on evolving
capability on slide 14. The recommendation advised against
letting progress widen the digital divide. She stated there
had been great rural representation on the taskforce. The
goal was to be very mindful of bringing the entire state
along with funding received from the infrastructure bill.
Vice-Chair Ortiz asked if there were roadblocks in making
it happen rural Alaska. He asked if there was a real chance
the primary gain could be in metropolitan areas instead of
rural Alaska.
Ms. O'Connor replied that it would depend on how the
infrastructure was implemented. The infrastructure language
called for each state to create a deployment plan to reach
every location within the state. Under the guidance, a gap
would not be created. She cautioned that the state should
not get pulled away by technology, it was necessary to look
at the service the technology could deliver. She stressed
the need for creating a backbone. She highlighted that if
the backbone could not deliver the "future proof" service,
the state would end up with a disparity; however, she did
not expect the situation to happen. She believed policy
makers understood the need to create an evolving capacity.
Ms. Bissett added there was some risk in the way many of
the bills were being written. For example, grants to be
awarded under the legislation required projects to impact
the most amount of people. She explained the requirement
hurt the smaller villages that were unserved. She confirmed
there were things to be mindful of when drafting state or
federal legislation. She explained that ANVCA had been
watching for things that may steer money more into urban
centers. She relayed that the taskforce members were
aligned in prioritizing unserved and underserved
communities.
Representative Edgmon asked if it was possible to address a
question to a Mr. Noonkesser online.
Co-Chair Foster noted the individual was not online.
2:07:50 PM
Ms. O'Connor moved to slide 15 and addressed the taskforce
recommendation to maximize federal partnerships. She
highlighted that when the taskforce had written its
recommendations it had hoped there would be an
infrastructure bill, but it had not yet been certain. She
pointed out the recommendation was becoming increasingly
important. She stressed that the Department of Commerce,
Community and Economic Development, FCC, and the United
States Department of Agriculture were heavily in the
broadband space currently, focused on rural America. She
stated it was a great opportunity for Alaska.
Ms. O'Connor turned to slide 16 and discussed the task of
evaluating all technologies for the technical subgroup. One
recommendation was to give preference to fiber middle-mile
because of its capabilities.
2:08:36 PM
Ms. O'Connor turned to evaluating technologies on slide 17
and relayed that middle-mile was a great technology for
areas beyond the current reach of fiber. She stated that
because of the substantial infusion of resources, the state
would be able to build fiber in locations that were
previously thought to be not possible. She briefly
highlighted LEO and geostationary (GEO) satellite
technologies on slide 18. She moved to slide 19 and
discussed last-mile technologies. She referenced an earlier
question by Representative Rasmussen and relayed it was
possible to have all of the technologies listed on the
slide [fiber, DSL (copper), coaxial cable, fixed wireless,
satellite (LEO)] delivering service to a home; if the
service qualifications were appropriate to the user's need,
the user was served.
2:09:30 PM
Ms. O'Connor spoke about the need for a balanced focus on
slide 20. She elaborated there were different deficits
depending on the location. The deficits needed to be
identified (i.e., middle-mile and/or last-mile) and funded.
She moved to the hurdles section of the technology subgroup
on slide 21. Capital expenditures included the resource
needed to build the systems. Operating expenditures were
required to maintain, repair, and operate systems. She
moved to a recommendation on slide 22 to support the Alaska
Universal Service Fund. The fund provided long-term
baseline stability to telecommunications operations in
Alaska. Slide 23 included a recommendation to establish a
federal grant matching fund. She relayed that the USDA
ReConnect Grant Program required a 25 percent match. She
stated that sometimes the size of a project was very large
and a company wanting to tackle the project was small,
making the 25 percent match prohibitive. She noted it was
something to look at.
Ms. O'Connor addressed the recommendation to streamline
state and federal permitting on slides 24 and 25. She noted
the concept had been discussed earlier in the meeting. She
highlighted the complexity and importance of the issue at
the state and federal level.
2:11:19 PM
Ms. Bissett highlighted individuals on the policy subgroup
on slide 26. She turned to slide 27 and discussed tasks
assigned to the policy subgroup. The first task was to
provide recommendations for a state repository of broadband
information and expertise that did not increase the state
budget. She elaborated there were many places to get data
about broadband including how it was deployed and how rates
were determined, but the information was not in one
centralized location. The taskforce recommended
establishing a repository where an average citizen could
access the data. The second task assigned to the policy
subgroup was to identify and lay out recommendations of
policies and guidelines for state participation in
broadband infrastructure development and ongoing
operations. She used a PCE-type [Power Cost Equalization]
fund that would help fund rural subsidies going forward as
one possible option. She reported the subgroup had spent
many hours debating the issues and she was extremely happy
with the outcome. She noted the report issued by the
taskforce built off of past reports.
2:13:31 PM
Ms. Bissett turned to slide 28 and discussed the
recommendation to prioritize accurate and efficiently
obtained data. She elaborated that the Office of Broadband
Deployment should commit to the utilization of the world-
class data and mapping analytics. She referenced Ms.
O'Connor's testimony that the FCC was about to begin a
mapping project. She noted that the process would slow the
state down as it would have to wait until the maps were
completed in order to start deploying the funds. She
explained that the FCC would create a map and the state
would have to take an active role in challenging any of the
data in the maps. For example, if the map indicated a rural
community had 100/20Mbps, the state would need to challenge
it. She stressed that the state broadband office needed to
be laser focused on ensuring the data was accurate.
Ms. Bissett moved to slide 29 and highlighted the second
recommendation to establish an Office of Broadband
Deployment. The [federal] bipartisan infrastructure bill
required the state to establish a broadband office in some
way. The taskforce believed it should be established to
provide leadership and direction rather than oversight. She
suggested the possibility of an advisory board that would
work in concert with the broadband office to provide
direction to the state's efforts. She stressed the
importance of ensuring the expansion of broadband access
and digital equity for all Alaskans.
2:15:07 PM
Ms. Bissett addressed the third recommendation on slide 30
to establish a state broadband advisory board (SBAB). The
board would not have regulatory authority, it would take
input from the public and would have representation from
local, tribal, education, health, business, and the general
public's interests.
Representative Edgmon observed that the broadband office
was an important feature. He believed it was the "linchpin"
to much of what could find its way to the legislature and
appropriation process. He remarked that other states had
their broadband office located within a state agency,
regulatory body, or other. He asked if the taskforce had
discussed where the broadband office may be best placed.
Ms. Bissett answered that the topic had been discussed in
great detail. She highlighted that a couple of the
locations the taskforce had considered included the
governor's office and the Department of Commerce, Community
and Economic Development. She relayed that the taskforce
had not landed on a solid recommendation. The taskforce had
agreed that the office should sunset in five years when the
[federal] money was deployed. She explained the sunset
would avoid setting up another agency the state would have
to fund in perpetuity.
Representative Edgmon had listened to the last three
taskforce meetings when the report had been issued. He
recalled hearing the taskforce discuss the need for
employees for the broadband office. He remembered hearing
the taskforce did not want to make it too prescriptive and
wanted to give latitude to build the office up as the
situation called for. He asked for additional detail on
staffing and cost.
2:17:46 PM
Ms. Bissett answered that the state was allowed to use part
of the $1.5 billion for the use of administrative
functions. She deferred to Ms. O'Connor for additional
detail.
Ms. O'Connor expounded that the task force had assumed
there would be an office with an executive director who
would implement the taskforce suggestions. The taskforce
was not sure where the office would land. The taskforce
knew the office would be funded by the infrastructure bill,
which allowed the state to pull down planning money and had
to be applied for with a letter of intent in May. The
National Telecommunications and Information Administration
(NTIA) was currently writing the rules for the program and
would work closely with states in reviewing deployment
plans and to begin dispersing the bulk of the money largely
for deployment grants. She noted there were some other
available uses. The taskforce language recommended a sunset
in five years or a sunset review if the work had not yet
been completed.
Representative Edgmon thought it would be fair to assume
that the office would likely not come together in the
current session. He considered it would take time to get
the maps in place. He thought the state would likely be
waiting for federal guidelines. He referenced the $111
million in American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) funding the
legislature had appropriated the previous year. He asked if
the funds would flow through the broadband taskforce
mechanism.
Ms. O'Connor answered that the taskforce discussions did
not address ARPA funding and had been focused on the
infrastructure funding. She believed Representative Edgmon
was correct that the infrastructure funding would likely
not flow during the current session. The state was required
to submit a letter of interest by May 14 to begin with
administrative funding. The bulk of the funding was between
$1 billion and $1.5 billion. The precise number was not yet
known because it was dependent on the maps. She elaborated
that the infrastructure bill specified that funding had to
wait on the FCC's Broadband Data Act. The federal
government had selected a contractor to conduct the
mapping, but there had been a challenge to the contract.
She explained the challenge pushed the deliverable
timeframe out to early 2023. She reiterated the precise
funding amount would not be determined until the maps were
complete.
2:21:24 PM
Representative Edgmon referenced the Renewable Energy Grant
Fund with $15 million to $16 million per year. He stated
the support mechanism providing a list of beneficiaries to
be funded took several months. He considered the broadband
funds were possibly 100 times the amount. He underscored
the process would take time prior to getting to the
legislature.
Ms. Bissett referenced the ARPA funding and how it may be
used. She remarked that the state would need to take an
active role in the map making. She suggested the state may
consider being proactive about verifying the level of
service available in communities. The information would be
a very valuable thing to have ready to go. She emphasized
that the maps were needed to deploy the money and the state
needed to be pushing back and forth on the data.
Ms. O'Connor added that the legislation for the
infrastructure bill was specific about the FCC's maps
governing. She explained it was the reason for the language
in the taskforce report about not duplicating efforts. She
had heard suggestions that the state should conduct the
mapping at present in order to accelerate the process. She
countered it would not accelerate the process because the
federal statute was specific to the FCC's maps. She
explained that the state could be preparing to work through
the FCC's challenge process, but it would not speed the
process up for the state to create its own maps. She
stressed the expensive nature of such a project. She was
cautious about diverting resources that could be used for
deployment. The providers would be providing their data as
soon as the FCC furnished its format. She noted the FCC
would give the state a 60-day window to gather and format
it. The state was currently waiting on the FCC's technical
request.
Ms. Bissett stated the FCC mapping would establish whether
an area was unserved or underserved. She believed there was
a way for tribes to self-determine that they were
underserved. She suggested it may be worth looking into to
make deployment happen more quickly. She believed tribal
governments were able to self-certify that they were
unserved.
2:24:20 PM
Representative Edgmon stated that the taskforce had
finished its work and submitted its report. He asked for
verification that the actual work on the issue currently
resided in the governor's office.
Ms. Bissett agreed.
Representative Edgmon asked what would happen during the
[legislative] interim while the state was waiting for
everything to happen to get the money out to the state.
Ms. Bissett answered that she did not know.
Ms. O'Connor replied that she had remained in contact with
the taskforce facilitator, Tyler Sachtleben. She reported
he had done a phenomenal job and was currently tracking all
of the deadlines for the infrastructure funding to keep the
state on track. She did not know if there was planning for
staffing or what it looked like. She was confident the
administration was on track to keep the state in play with
the infrastructure funding.
Ms. Bissett shared that she, Ms. O'Connor, and Gerad [Gerad
Godfrey, President, Alutiiq Professional Consulting and
Director, FirstNet Tribal] had met with the governor a
couple of weeks back. At the time, the governor's office
had still been working to determine where to house the
[broadband] office. She explained the administration was
actively moving the effort along.
Representative Edgmon thought the committee could
potentially see a budget amendment from the governor's
office related to the broadband office. He spoke to the
importance of the endeavor.
2:26:39 PM
Vice-Chair Ortiz asked for verification that the
administration would determine the location of the
broadband office.
Ms. Bissett thought the location could happen through
executive order or through legislation from the
legislature. She did not believe anyone had determined
which method was better.
Vice-Chair Ortiz referenced the five-year window in which
to expend the [federal] funds. He asked if the presenters
saw the timeframe as problematic based on the situation in
Alaska. He asked if the timeline would be difficult to
meet.
Ms. O'Connor answered in the affirmative; however, the
statute provided flexibility. She explained that NTIA
(working in an oversight role with the state) would allow
extensions of the deadline. She highlighted that the first
deadline was four years. She remarked on Alaska's short
construction season. She reported there was currently an
extreme shortage of telecommunication supplies. She shared
that companies trying to order fiber-optic cable were
getting quoted lead times of as long as 77 weeks. She
informed committee members that manufacturers were spooling
up their supplies. She expected things would catch up, but
if that was not the case, there was flexibility allowed [in
the federal legislation].
Ms. Bissett stated that the task force had talked about
that a five-year timeframe was too short. She elaborated
there was no way the state would be able to deploy fiber or
satellite in a five-year timeframe. She estimated the time
was more like ten years. The state would keep a watch on
the situation and would work through the regulations when
possible to increase the timeline.
Vice-Chair Ortiz asked if the task force addressed that the
federal funding amount was finite. He surmised that 100
percent of the needs in Alaska would not be met. He asked
if there had been discussion about priorities (e.g.,
education needs, industry needs, or other).
2:29:39 PM
Ms. O'Connor replied that the task force had restricted its
prioritizing to location and had not considered education
versus healthcare versus consumers. She stated that because
broadband was needed by everyone, it almost did not matter
what endeavor a person was doing. The taskforce had
determined that locations without 25/3Mbps were the top
priority and locations with 100/20Mbps were the second
priority. She highlighted that one-time funding eventually
ran out regardless of its size. She explained that parallel
complimentary programs (especially FCC universal service
programs) were focused on operating expenditures (i.e.,
operating, maintenance, repair) and the programs would be
more important than ever. She stressed it was not possible
to build the infrastructure and walk away. The programs
would have to be run in parallel.
Ms. Bissett shared that during the pandemic, broadband
bills had increased to $900 on Kodiak. She believed
programs had existed for a long time that had delivered
needs to industry and clinics, and the needs were still not
met. She relayed that for the Native citizens she
represented on the taskforce, the goal was a focus on
broadband access to individual homes. She stated that the
anchor tenant model did not help the people it was intended
to help.
2:31:35 PM
Representative Josephson asked for verification that along
with the $1 billion to $1.5 billion there was $1 billion
for tribes nationwide.
Ms. Bissett answered in the affirmative. She detailed there
was $1 billion in the first program that the NTIA
specifically set up for tribes. She noted Alaska Native
corporations were also included in the ability to apply for
the funding. Indian country was currently described as the
entire State of Alaska. There were 229 tribes in Alaska.
She detailed that $2 billion more had been appropriated for
tribes through the infrastructure bill. She stated that
AFN, ANVCA, and the regional association had been focused
on trying get as many of their communities connected as
possible.
Representative Josephson referenced a statement that the
advisory board would be disbanded in five years. He asked
for verification it was the board the federal government
was requiring the state to create.
Ms. O'Connor replied that the taskforce had envisioned the
broadband office have a sunset review at a minimum. The
structure the taskforce put together was the office with a
statewide advisory board and regional boards underneath.
The taskforce indicated the office should have a sunset
review in five years. She explained that the taskforce did
not want to recommend standing up a new department in
perpetuity.
Representative Josephson asked who would regulate office.
He asked if it would be considered a public utility
regulated by the APUC [Alaska Public Utilities Commission
predecessor to the Regulatory Commission of Alaska (RCA)].
He wondered where people would take complaints related to
service and rates.
Ms. O'Connor answered that the broadband office, regardless
of where it existed, would likely consist of an executive
director, engineer, and possibly a finance person. In
essence, the office would be administering a very large
grant program. She elaborated that the rates and service
complaints should be addressed in the rules in the grant
program set up through the office of broadband. She did not
believe there would be a role for the RCA.
Ms. Bissett added that the task force recognized the need
for public input on all of the topics under discussion
during the current meeting. She noted that a participant
from Fairbanks had recommended modeling the work on the
Department of Transportation and Public Facilities (DOT)
process. She looked at slide 31 and explained that regional
broadband planning committees would meet at the local level
with the engagement of local government, Native leaders,
and the general public and would provide the detail to the
broadband office. The goal was to have feedback from the
entire state. She reported taskforce members had heard that
some people did not like the method, but one of the biggest
things the taskforce had heard from the public was there
had been a lack of opportunity to provide comment.
2:35:33 PM
Ms. O'Connor added that the infrastructure bill language
required a large amount of community engagement from the
office of broadband. Regardless of the taskforce
recommendation, it was required by statute.
Co-Chair Foster requested a high level summary of available
funding to be provided to his office. He referenced various
forms of incoming federal funding.
Representative Rasmussen asked if there were currently any
apprentice programs or formal training programs for
technicians who would lay fiber. She asked how long
installation would take for each mile of fiber.
Ms. O'Connor confirmed there were training programs, but
the state likely needed more and more technicians joining
the programs. The IBEW [International Brotherhood of
Electrical Workers] represented many of the companies
providing broadband service and had a wonderful
apprenticeship program. She noted that [Department of
Education and Early Development] Commissioner Johnson, as a
member of the taskforce, was a strong advocate for
increasing workforce development. She mentioned the
University of Alaska Anchorage and others involved to help
develop more workforce. She pointed out that the beauty of
the jobs was they were in the local communities. She
reported the technical workgroup had discussed multiple
times that a benefit of the Alaska-based providers was
employing local communities to do the work.
Ms. Bissett added there was significant opportunity created
in the infrastructure bill and former funding for workforce
development. She informed the committee there would be a
shortage of available workforce. She elaborated that the
state would need to be training people. She shared that
ANVCA and the ARDORs were currently working together as a
team to apply for a grant of approximately $40 million for
training in various areas. She remarked that economic
development agencies, including the chamber, were working
together to bring more money in. She reiterated there would
be a need for training.
2:39:19 PM
Ms. O'Connor highlighted that Alaska would be in
competition with the Lower 48. She did not know the
technical details Representative Rasmussen had asked about
and would follow up with the information.
Representative Rasmussen thought it would be helpful to
understand the number of people that would be needed. She
wondered if they should be targeting high school seniors
for the next five years to try to get graduates into the
training programs. She wondered what type of capacity there
would be in terms of needs and seats for training. She was
excited to hear Commissioner Johnson was willing to work
with the legislature on the education side.
Ms. Bissett stated there would be need for technicians. She
highlighted the remote location of the service towers and
the logistics associated with setting up microwave systems.
There was a need for technical training in programs like
Alaska Vocational Technical Center (AVTEC) and IBEW, but
there was also a need for understanding how
telecommunications businesses work at the corporate level.
2:41:30 PM
Representative Thompson referenced the May 14 deadline
mentioned by the presenters. He asked if the deadline was
for applying.
Ms. O'Connor answered it was the application deadline to
submit a letter of intent.
Representative Thompson asked for verification the state
did not have to provide a breakdown. He surmised the letter
of intent served as notification that the state would
apply.
Ms. O'Connor agreed. She clarified that until the state
received the maps from the FCC, the state would not know
the funding amount. She explained that some planning could
be done ahead of time, but until the funding amount was
known, a full deployment plan could not be devised.
Representative Thompson observed that May 14 was not far
off.
Representative Edgmon referenced an announcement made the
previous day by the federal Department of Commerce about
$980 million for a tribal broadband connectivity program.
He noted that $500,000 would go to Clark's Point in his
district and Selawik would also receive $500,000. He stated
it was almost another $1 billion to be dispersed
nationwide, hopefully with significant emphasis on Alaska.
He pointed out that the FCC under the former Trump
administration had been actively involved in Alaska in
2016. He thought the agency should have some working
understanding of Alaska.
Ms. O'Connor answered it was great news for Clark's Point
and Selawik. She confirmed the FCC was very familiar with
Alaska. She shared that the state had worked very hard
beginning in 2014 to educate the FCC on Alaska. She added
that the FCC had a real commitment to people who were not
served at present. The state was working close with the FCC
and she was very optimistic.
Ms. Bissett added that she could not be prouder of the
collective work done by AFN on behalf of its tribes to get
the applications in for the $500,000 minimum available to
every tribe. She believed all of the tribe applications had
been submitted. She relayed it was a guaranteed $500,000
for the tribal government to start deploying some of the
resources.
2:45:19 PM
Representative Carpenter asked what the taskforce had
discussed in terms of how to come to an agreement between
the administrators (i.e., tribes, the state, and others) of
the pots of money.
Ms. Bissett answered that it could not be a better time for
the state to have a close relationship with tribes and
Native corporations that were eligible for the funding. She
relayed there were a couple of groups currently trying to
figure out how it would all come together in terms of
pooling resources and deploying assets that would be owned
and operated by tribal entities. She did not know enough
about them to report precisely what was going on, but she
knew the conversations were happening. Additionally, there
would be numerous local entities that already had a plan
and knew how to apply for the grants to bring
infrastructure to their communities. She referred to AFN as
the "mother ship" and primary think tank.
Ms. O'Connor added there were multiple federal agencies
with multiple programs happening simultaneously. The
infrastructure bill required federal agencies to
coordinate. She stated one of the primary concerns was
duplicating projects and doubling up in some areas where
other areas were completely unserved. The infrastructure
bill called for interagency coordination. She relayed
Alaska's congressional delegation was focused on
encouraging the coordination. Additionally, the FCC (the
expert agency on Alaska) was cited to be the expert agency
for NTIA and USDA. She highlighted the USDA had done a
great job with its ReConnect Program and was very
knowledgeable about Alaska.
Ms. Bissett believed Representative Carpenter was asking
who would coordinate the incoming funds. She asked the
committee to consider that if there was coordination
between Native and tribal entities, funding should not go
to non-Native and non-tribal entities to coordinate. She
stated that, "We are sick of paternalistic relationships,
we all went to business school, and we are all very
intelligent." She relayed that AFN, ANVCA, and [inaudible]
were perfectly capable of coordinating for the better of
the entire state.
Ms. O'Connor highlighted that the taskforce included
several participants representing Native entities including
Ms. Bissett with ANVCA. She explained that the participants
had all coordinated well together without intermediaries.
She believed the taskforce had envisioned that the state
office of broadband would continue to deal with "these"
stakeholders directly through the state advisory board.
Representative Carpenter remarked that he and the
presenters had slightly different perspectives. He was
thinking about the issue along the lines of identifying the
authority. He understood the legislature had authority over
the federal and state funds, although it did not have
authority over money others had control of; however, the
parties were at the table trying to solve the picture
together. He asked how the partners would reach a final
investment decision. He asked if it was up to the office of
broadband or a state agency. He recognized the state could
not force any corporation or Native entity to make a
decision in a particular direction; therefore, it would
have to be an agreement. He highlighted the presenters'
testimony it would be a complex process involving multiple
federal agencies, tribal entities, and the state. He was
unclear on how the end financial decisions would be made.
He did not believe it would be entirely up to the
legislature.
2:50:59 PM
Ms. Bissett answered the process for her had been as
Representative Carpenter described. She elaborated that
"there is so much out there and so much to do." She
referenced an earlier question about tribal compacting and
relayed it would be necessary to work together with
everyone at the table. She explained that the Native
community did not want to be told what it should do.
Representative Carpenter clarified that he had not been
telling anyone what to do. He stated he was merely trying
to get clarification.
Ms. Bissett apologized if her answer sounded that way. She
clarified that she was trying to say that tribal compacting
was a good tool to bring everyone together in the way
Representative Carpenter was describing. She stated, "I
just would love for some other entity to call my
organization and ask us to do some work for them to bring
our people to the table without any funding has been one of
the things that's been really irritating for us." She
agreed that everyone needed to work together, and she
believed tribal compacting was a good way to get there.
Ms. O'Connor added that the infrastructure specified that
NTIA would write the rules, the state's office of broadband
would submit a plan according to NTIA's rules, and NTIA
would review and approve or ask for changes. It was her
understanding that that the legislature had to appropriate
any funding coming to the state, but she did not know how
it would work specifically.
2:53:37 PM
Ms. Bissett moved to recommendation 4.5 on slide 32 to
create broadband development planning areas. She
highlighted that everything in the report matched up with
the infrastructure bill requirements for receiving the
money. She stated the broadband development planning areas
were defined by the Office of Broadband Development. She
pointed out that the NTIA telling the state whether its
plan was good was a paternalistic relationship, which no
one liked. She stated it was the reason the taskforce
outlined that the office of broadband "wouldn't have this
government thing over it." The point was to deploy the
money and infrastructure and not spend a lot of time
talking about it and writing reports to put on a shelf. The
idea was to collaboratively address the gaps together as
one people in Alaska to ensure equitable development in
terms of prices and availability at a minimum of 25/3Mbps.
She stated that many communities in Alaska did not
currently have any service.
Ms. Bissett moved to slide 34 and discussed recommendation
4.7: write a digital equity plan. She detailed the endeavor
would be led by the broadband office and would be focused
on speed test comparisons, pricing data, and physical
network gap details broken down by location. The
recommendation specified the plan should indicate locations
and methods to improve broadband equity. She explained it
meant bringing everyone up to the 100/20 level identified
by the government as good service.
Representative Edgmon shared that when he had listened to
some of the taskforce meetings, he had detected competition
between satellites and other providers. There were many
outside investors that wanted to come to Alaska to get at
the funding. He thought the state's broadband office would
need to have technical expertise in-house to sort through
business plans and proposals.
2:57:14 PM
Ms. Bissett replied that the taskforce recognized the need
for technical expertise and knowledge. She highlighted a
couple of individuals on the taskforce with knowledge of
telecommunications. She remarked that she personally had a
little experience but did not know about everything that
was involved. She relayed that the taskforce had
recommended a subcommittee to the advisory board on
broadband development to be comprised of subject matter
experts that could play an advisory role. She stated that
people like herself were not writing the regulations, not
knowing about how everything involved worked.
Ms. O'Connor added that the technical subgroup had
witnessed there was a lot of competition. She elaborated
that the large amount of funding involved was perceived to
be up for grabs. She stressed the importance of
establishing "good rules of the road" looking at whether
participants would to be good players with sustainability.
She highlighted that fiber could exist for 50 years, which
needed to be factored into the rules established through
the office of broadband (as specified in statute). She
relayed that the technical subgroup had gotten a little
wrapped up in the competition. The subgroup had resolved
the issue by looking at the service the end user was
getting. She considered a user in Dillingham needing
100Mbps service as an example. She explained that the focus
should be on whether the technology would be able to
provide the service. She elaborated that there should not
be a given amount [of funding] for satellite, microwave,
and other. She explained the money should go to the service
level.
Ms. Bissett added that it had not been difficult to pick up
on the competition between the two technologies. She spoke
to the importance of neutrality. She remarked that fiber
would take substantial time to deploy. She agreed with Ms.
O'Connor and the rest of the taskforce that fiber had to
take priority as the tried and true tested technology with
the most capacity. She highlighted there were villages
currently suffering and perhaps LEO satellite could help
them get to the needed speed; however, it was new
technology. She expounded it was nice providers wanted to
test the technology in Alaska's communities, but she
wondered what would happen if it failed. She supported that
whatever could bring needed broadband to a community should
be the focus. She stated it was not the job of the advisory
board to tell communities what that technology was; the
regional councils would communicate what they needed.
Ms. O'Connor communicated that taskforce members from rural
Alaska had urged against relegating rural Alaska to
technology that could not deliver in five years. She
believed the term "second rate" technology had been used.
She explained that rural communities had the experience in
the past where someone had told them they were getting
great connectivity that would last, but in five years' time
it became obsolete.
3:01:07 PM
Ms. Bissett advanced to slides 35 and 36. Recommendation
4.8 addressed community level engagement that would feed up
to the broadband office and advisory board. Recommendation
5.1 was to establish a vision for state broadband policy.
She stated that every Alaskan needed to be able to
participate and be competitive in the global community. The
taskforce recommended opportunity for everyone, not only
private entities. She moved to slide 37 and addressed
recommendation 5.2 to set long-term goals. The immediate
goal was the need for Alaska homes and businesses to have
access speeds of at least 25/3Mbps. Within five years,
Alaska homes and businesses should all have speeds of at
least 100Mbps. She highlighted the need to consider that
the rates for the broadband service needed to be
transparent, offset, and otherwise adjusted to ensure
equitable affordability. She noted that once the state
deployed all of the broadband infrastructure it would still
not pen economically for companies managing the service.
She explained it meant the state would still be looking at
going to the federal government to explain the dynamics of
Alaska and the expense it required to operate.
Ms. Bissett addressed recommendation 5.3 to establish a
broadband parity adjustment on slide 38. She explained it
took a huge amount of investment to bring adequate
broadband infrastructure to every community and house.
Broadband parity adjustment supported equitable broadband
cost across Alaska's high rate areas. She stated it meant
supporting the Alaska Power Cost Equalization program and
the FCC's Emergency Broadband Benefit Program. She pointed
to the need for the programs going forward.
Ms. Bissett moved to slide 39 and the recommendation 5.4 to
enhance public safety and cybersecurity. She relayed the
taskforce had discussed the concept numerous times and it
had been important to taskforce member Senator Shelley
Hughes. The recommendation specified the state should work
to enhance broadband services for first responders and
coordinate with the FirstNet Network Authority. She noted
the concept was not exactly broadband, but it fit within
the space. Recommendation 5.5 was to improve infrastructure
processes on slide 40. The recommendation addressed the
importance of streamlining the permitting process, making
smart policies like "dig once" and the designation of
rights of way as public assets, and partnerships with
Canadian telecom networks. She cited a project MTA was
doing as an example. She noted the items would expedite
deployment.
3:04:39 PM
Ms. Bissett turned to recommendation 5.6 on slide 41 to
strengthen Alaska's broadband capacity and competency. The
recommendation addressed the creation or augmentation of
existing training program to build workforce development.
She addressed tasks assigned to the full taskforce on slide
42. The first was to recommend program-based guidelines or
rules for equitable use of state funding in broadband
infrastructure development. The second item on slide 42 was
to provide recommendations for a buildout plan to close
remaining gaps and bring high-speed broadband to all
Alaskans.
Ms. Bissett turned to slide 43 and addressed the taskforce
recommendations based on the two directives listed on the
previous slide. She stated that areas without speeds of at
least 25/3Mbps were unserved. Areas with speeds under
100/20Mbps were underserved. Recommendation 6.2 on slide 44
was to balance middle- and last-mile investment. She
elaborated that broadband investment should be balanced
between establishing a robust fiber backbone to serve all
parts of Alaska and the utilization of appropriate
technologies (e.g., satellite and wireless internet
provider systems) for improved last-mile service delivery.
Ms. Bissett advanced to recommendation 6.3 on slide 45 for
the state to develop a cohesive investment strategy. She
specified the Office of Broadband Deployment, the State
Broadband Advisory Board, and the Regional Broadband
Planning Committees should carefully and methodically
consider eligibility rules and limitations for federal
broadband funding programs to ensure that adequate funding
was directed appropriately toward both middle-mile and
last-mile infrastructure needs. She highlighted the need
for a focused, strategic approach to ensure the most
effective use of the funds.
Ms. Bissett addressed recommendation 6.4 on slide 46 to
prioritize public-private partnerships. She detailed that
grant programs and state broadband processes should be
structured to incentivize providers to invest private
capital and to establish ways in which public investment
could be leveraged alongside private sector activity with
outcomes that were in the public interest. From the
perspective of a private Native corporation that may have
land and other equity positions in one of the companies,
the corporation liked the concept because it was a utility-
grade durable asset that lasted for a long time with
guaranteed revenue. She suggested that state investment and
participation may make some sense.
3:08:14 PM
Representative Edgmon addressed private capital that was
North American or European generated. He thought there was
a current effort with Korea to get fiber-optic cable into
Alaska. He stated it could be fairly broad in scope in
terms of Alaska's location on the map and the ability to
have fiber-optic cables connecting to diverse places
leading into Alaska.
Ms. Bissett replied it was an excellent observation. She
reasoned that Alaska was likely not the target market for
the infrastructure. She spoke to the importance of being
vigilant on the entire business opportunity instead of
focusing only on the small village the state served.
Ms. Bissett addressed recommendation 6.5 on slide 47 to
create a fair grant application process for broadband
service providers and other eligible entities. She stated
that the taskforce walked through how the grant programs
could be set up, but it would require public input. The
point was a fair grant application that was technology
neutral and provided opportunities for satellite,
microwave, fiber, and other technology. Recommendation 6.6
on slide 48 was to ensure ongoing funding. The taskforce
had been asked to look at a program similar to PCE for the
office of broadband operations. She noted there was funding
set aside in the infrastructure bill; therefore, she did
not believe the state would need to appropriate funding for
the office. The taskforce recommended using the grant
funding to establish the broadband office and holding a
sunset review when the funds had been extinguished.
3:10:28 PM
Ms. O'Connor elaborated that the infrastructure bill had
not passed until November [2021]. She stated it was clear
the infrastructure bill would fund the office of broadband.
Ms. Bissett turned to recommendation 6.7 on slide 49 to
engage Alaskans. The taskforce had received comment from
the industry and public that it was setting up a large
bureaucratic system of public input. She thought it was a
positive thing. She highlighted that the process worked for
DOT. She stated it was not possible to do projects of this
nature without public input or the public would shut down
the projects. She spoke to the importance of pursuing
viable projects. Additionally, a website needed to be
established for access to incoming input. The state needed
to be actively seeking input and communicating the progress
transparently toward the goal of achieving universal,
affordable access across Alaska.
Ms. Bissett concluded the presentation on slide 50. She
detailed that in the short-term, the buildout plan needed
to address closing the gaps, technology solutions,
overcoming hurdles, Alaska broadband policy, equitable
funding strategy, and office of broadband deployment.
3:11:56 PM
Co-Chair Foster thanked the presenters for coming in. He
could see a substantial amount of work had gone into the
process. He stated a lot of resources would be put toward
broadband and there was significant interest in-state and
out-of-state in different groups (e.g., industry, tribal,
community, and other). He noted there was substantial need,
and the work would take much coordination. He believed the
work was a very good start. He found the presentation
educational and observed there was a lot that would have to
go into the process that he had not been previously aware
of.
3:13:07 PM
Representative LeBon thanked the presenters. He stated that
during the 911-dispatch consolidation working group in
2020, rural telecom providers had stated one of the reasons
they could not deploy enhanced 911 and pushed back against
consolidation for dispatch-911 was due to a lack of
bandwidth and insufficient broadband infrastructure. He
asked if the expectation of the distribution of the
millions of infrastructure dollars would finally work
toward overcoming the obstacle and improve 911 service for
rural Alaska.
Ms. O'Connor replied in the affirmative. She stated that
the talk surrounding 911 issues and work was about next
generation based on broadband networks. She relayed that
the systems required robust, ubiquitous broadband
connectivity. She informed the committee that building out
broadband would bring a leap forward in 911 capability.
Vice-Chair Ortiz highlighted specific needs in rural areas
related to reliable, affordable energy. He shared that a
community in his district had been looking for a way to
create a fiber-optic network to deliver improved broadband
service and more reliable, affordable power. He asked if
the incoming money would preclude a combined effort
approach to serving both of the needs. Alternatively, he
wondered if the money could only go toward broadband
development.
Ms. Bissett answered that she had been asked the question
when presenting to the Department of Energy the previous
week. She replied that the state's biggest hurdle was
logistics. She elaborated that 80 percent of the state was
inaccessible by road and it was difficult to get economical
energy projects without road access. She had told the
department that there was a once in a decade or 100-year
opportunity to combine the two things. She agreed that
where fiber was laid there may be opportunities to put in
other infrastructure to bring down cost in other places.
She clarified she was not advocating for roads everywhere.
She stated that community input was important, and it was
one the number one issue.
Representative Edgmon thanked the presenters for the
presentation. He spoke to the importance of the topic and
high speed internet would change everything in rural areas
in Alaska including the quality of education, healthcare,
job opportunities, the ability to recruit and retain people
who wanted to keep in touch with loved ones, and other. He
was very excited about the opportunity. He hoped the two
presenters would continue to be involved in the process.
Co-Chair Foster reviewed the schedule for the following
day.
ADJOURNMENT
3:18:00 PM
The meeting was adjourned at 3:18 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| Governor's Task Force on Broadband H FIN 02-01-2022.pdf |
HFIN 2/1/2022 1:30:00 PM |