Legislature(2023 - 2024)SENATE FINANCE 532
02/24/2023 09:00 AM Senate FINANCE
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| Presentation: Update on Broadband Equity, Access, and Deployment (bead) in Alaska | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
SENATE FINANCE COMMITTEE
February 24, 2023
9:01 a.m.
9:01:41 AM
CALL TO ORDER
Co-Chair Hoffman called the Senate Finance Committee
meeting to order at 9:01 a.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Senator Lyman Hoffman, Co-Chair
Senator Donny Olson, Co-Chair
Senator Bert Stedman, Co-Chair
Senator Click Bishop
Senator Jesse Kiehl
Senator Kelly Merrick
Senator David Wilson
MEMBERS ABSENT
None
ALSO PRESENT
Thomas Lochner, Director, Alaska Broadband Office,
Department of Commerce, Community and Economic Development;
Senator Cathy Giessel.
SUMMARY
PRESENTATION: UPDATE ON BROADBAND EQUITY, ACCESS, AND
DEPLOYMENT (BEAD) IN ALASKA
Co-Chair Hoffman discussed the agenda.
^PRESENTATION: UPDATE ON BROADBAND EQUITY, ACCESS, AND
DEPLOYMENT (BEAD) IN ALASKA
9:02:36 AM
THOMAS LOCHNER, DIRECTOR, ALASKA BROADBAND OFFICE,
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE, COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT,
introduced himself and discussed his background. He relayed
that he had 24 years' experience in telecommunications,
including work with the Anchorage Telephone Utility, Alaska
Communications, and the Arctic Slope Telephone Association
Cooperative. He had experience in engineering, finance,
marketing aspects of telecommunications, as well as urban
and rural areas. He had been selected to be the director of
the Alaska Broadband Office (ABO) the previous September.
He discussed a presentation entitled "Alaska Broadband
Office Update," (copy on file).
Mr. Lochner looked at slide 2, which showed an
organizational chart of ABO, including the Division of
Community and Regional Affairs (DCRA) grants staff. The
office was made up of himself, an administrative
specialist, and a tribal liaison. There was an affiliated
senior project manager from the Department of Commerce,
Community and Economic Development (DCCED). He noted that
the office was looking for a connectivity manager and would
also have the opportunity to take advantage of DCRA grant
staff.
9:04:25 AM
Mr. Lochner spoke to slide 3, which showed a list of the
Broadband Advisory Board members. He mentioned the passage
of HB 363 sponsored by Representative Bryce Edgmon, which
established ABO and created the Broadband Parity Adjustment
Fund, and established the statewide Broadband Advisory
Board. He noted that the board was diverse and experienced,
and would be solicited to help with some aspects of
projects in development related to labor and equipment
costs.
Mr. Lochner referenced slide 4, "Infrastructure Investment
and Jobs Act
NATIONAL TELECOMMUNICATIONS AND I NFORMATION
ADMINISTRATION (NTIA) PROGRAMS
Digital Equity (DE): $640,000,000
Broadband Equity, Access and Deployment (BEAD):
$42,000,000,000
Mr. Lochner relayed that the funding for ABO would be
passed through with the exception of a small administrative
costs and came from the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs
Act (IIJA). There were small administrative fees that would
come to the state, and the rest of the funding would be a
pass-through to entities to administer grants.
Mr. Lochner turned to slide 5, "Infrastructure Investment
and Jobs Act So Far
NTIA PLANNING GRANT AWARDS TO ALASKA
DE Planning Grant: $567,800
Develop the DE Plan due September 30, 2023
BEAD Planning Grant: $5,000,000
Develop the BEAD Program
Mr. Lochner explained that the state had already received
two of the small administrative fees, which were listed. He
detailed that the state was working with partners,
primarily with the Rasmuson Foundation, to write the plan.
9:07:01 AM
Mr. Lochner considered slide 6, "Digital Equity Digital
Inclusion Digital Literacy
COVERED POPULATIONS
• Households at/or below 150% of the Poverty Level
• Aging Individuals
• Incarcerated Individuals
• Veterans
Individuals with Disabilities
• Individuals with a Language Barrier
• Individuals who are Members of a Racial or Ethnic
Minority
• Individuals who Reside in Rural Areas
FUNDING
• Planning Grants: $60 Million Alaska Awarded
$567,800
• Capacity Grants: $240 Million Alaska's Award: TBD
• Competitive Grants: $1.25 Billion Alaska's Award:
TBD
Mr. Lochner detailed that the competitive grants were for
anyone in the state or nation to apply. He anticipated that
various state agencies would apply for the grant funding to
engage in digital equity training.
Co-Chair Hoffman asked if Mr. Lochner would be covering
other funds that had been awarded directly and not going to
the state in order to get a better picture of the funds
available for broadband construction.
Mr. Lochner answered in the affirmative. He relayed that he
would provide a sum total number of funding and would
identify projects. He noted that he would not be listing
the projects in his presentation.
Co-Chair Hoffman asked Mr. Lochner to provide his office
with the information at a later time for dissemination to
members. He thought it was important for the committee to
have a high-level view of what was happening with
broadband, and not just what was happening with state
funding.
Mr. Lochner displayed slide 7, "Broadband Equity, Access
and Deployment
ALLOCATED $42 BILLION FOR ALL STATES AND TERRITORIES
• $100 Million Minimum Allocation per state
• High-Cost Allocation (10% of $42B) = High-Cost in
Alaska / High-Cost total for US
• Remaining Funds = Unserved in Alaska / Unserved
total US
DISBURSEMENTS OF ALASKA'S ALLOCATION
Grants will be based on percentage of locations that
are:
• Unserved - less than 25Mbps/3Mbps
• Underserved - less than 100Mbps/20Mbps and
• Unserved Community Anchor Institutions - less than
1Gbps/1Gbps
Co-Chair Hoffman asked if when discussing high costs in
Alaska, Mr. Lochner was referring to the high cost of
construction, the high cost of operations, or the high cost
of subscriptions.
Mr. Lochner related that the high-cost allocation formula
had not been determined yet. He thought the high cost was
for the building and the service. He was not privy to how
the calculation was being developed. The National
Telecommunication and Information Administration (NTIA) had
selected a company called Cost Quest to work on the
formula, and the office had been working with the
Congressional delegation to ensure the proper cost factors
were accounted for in Alaska.
9:11:07 AM
Senator Bishop mentioned 184 unserved and underserved
communities and mentioned that the previous year there were
individuals testifying about internet bills that were $400
to $900 dollars per month during the Covid-19 pandemic. He
asked if there was a goal to drive down the cost of
household internet.
Mr. Locher affirmed that affordability was one of the key
functions of the program.
Mr. Lochner continued to address slide 7. He relayed that
disbursements would go first to unserved locations which
had less than 25 megabits per second (MBPS) download speed
and less than 3 MBPS upload speed. He noted that home usage
generally had more usage downloading from the internet as
opposed to uploading. The second level of disbursements
would go to under-served locations, which reached 100 MBPS
of download speed. If there was leftover funding, it would
go to underserved anchor institutions.
Mr. Lochner referenced a term called "donut holes," and
mentioned the Rabbit Creek area as an example of an area
that was unserved within Anchorage. The area would be
addressed fourth after the three groups previously
discussed.
Co-Chair Hoffman asked if Mr. Lochner had a map or list of
communities in the state that fell within the category of
unserved.
Mr. Lochner affirmed that he had a list of unserved
communities in a forthcoming slide.
9:14:33 AM
Mr. Lochner spoke to slide 8, "NTIA Milestone Dates & ABO
Timeline," and explained that the dark grey arrows denoted
benchmarks from NTIA. The first item was the awarding of
the grant. He relayed that after receiving the grant in
November 2022, the broadband office had 270 days to come up
with a five-year action plan. The plan did not describe
what would be done with the funding, but rather what it
would take to build out all of the state. He continued that
the process was underway and there was a goal to submit the
plan to NTIA by June 15, prior to NTIA funding being
released on June 30.
Co-Chair Hoffman asked what involvement the advisory board
had in developing the plan.
Mr. Lochner shared that the advisory boards primary role
would be to review the plan before submission. The board
would have a larger in the initial proposal that kicked off
on June 30.
Senator Kiehl asked about the timeline for mapping who was
served and at what speed.
Mr. Lochner cited that the process was called "fabric
mapping," and had been ongoing. The first iteration of the
fabric mapping was dropped by the Federal Communications
Commission (FCC) on June 30, 2022. The telecommunications
providers and the state had an opportunity to challenge the
results, and had done so. The second iteration of the
fabric mapping had been released on December 30, and there
had been a significant outcry. He explained that it looked
like NTIA was going to be making funding decisions using an
FCC map that had a little bit of a disconnect. He
continued that the FCC map was a beta map and would still
be revised over time. He had heard that NTIA was going to
make a decision based on the map, which had known issues.
He cited that the broadband office continued to work with
both agencies to ensure that all the broadband serviceable
locations (houses and small businesses) that were valid
were on the map to be included in the funding allocation.
9:18:44 AM
Senator Kiehl thought it would not make a difference if an
entire community was unserved. He asked how much a delay of
the correct map would affect the rest of the plan.
Mr. Lochner relayed that the delay in the map would not
affect the plan but would affect the funding.
Co-Chair Hoffman asked Mr. Lochner to expand.
Mr. Lochner discussed the allocation based on percentage of
unserved areas or houses. He asserted that the office was
working closely to ensure that every single unserved
broadband-serviceable location was recognized by the FCC to
fairly optimize the funding allocated on June 30.
Mr. Lochner continued to address slide 8. He related that
once the allocation was made, ABO had 180 days to submit
the initial proposal, which would indicate how the grant
funds would pass through to subgrantees to build, operate,
and maintain the systems. He continued that the broadband
office was agnostic to the applicants and was not just
focused on telecommunications. He asserted that anyone that
could show longevity, sustainability, and affordability
into the future to apply for the grants. He noted that the
office was on a very aggressive schedule to submit the
proposal to NTIA on July 31, which was 149 days early.
Mr. Lochner related that once the plan was approved, NTIA
would release at least 20 percent of the funds so that the
ABO could release the funds to the subgrantees. The
subgrantees would have to be in communities that were 80
percent unserved in total. Additionally, the communities as
a whole would need to be at 150 percent of the poverty
line. Once the approval was done, the final proposal for
running the grant program would start, and would include
the process for selecting subgrantees. After the final
proposal was submitted, NTIA would release the rest of the
funding. He shared that he was not aware of the timeline
for the final proposal, but estimated it would be early the
following year.
9:22:53 AM
Mr. Lochner looked at slide 9, "Required Broadband Service
Level for BEAD Funding
Unserved:
• 25 Mbps Download Bandwidth (Watching a video)
• 3 Mbps Upload Bandwidth (Posting a picture)
Underserved:
• 25 Mbps Download Bandwidth, but cannot reach 100
Mbps
• 3 Mbps Upload Bandwidth, but cannot reach 20 Mbps
Served:
• 100 Mbps Download Bandwidth
• 20 Mbps Upload Bandwidth
Mr. Lochner addressed slide 10, "Evaluation of Current
Status of Broadband," which showed a map of Alaska that was
based on telecommunication providers rates in communities.
In every single case, the locations were on fiber systems.
Mr. Lochner advanced to slide 11, "Evaluation of Current
Status of Broadband," which showed the same map of Alaska
as the previous slide, and noted that the orange lines on
the map showed the fiber systems in the state.
Co-Chair Hoffman considered the orange line going to Nome
and asked about Quintillion, which he did not think was a
provider.
Mr. Lochner realized that Quintillion was a retailer and
wholesaler.
Mr. Lochner looked at slide 12, Evaluation of Current
Status of Broadband," which showed the same map of Alaska
as the previous slide with the addition of light blue lines
on the map that showed microwave systems, which offered
some broadband. The systems were robust and did not meet
NTIAs threshold of 100/20, so the locations were
considered unserved.
Co-Chair Stedman asked about the four fiber optic lines and
asked if there were any pigtails off the lines that were
not attached so that they could be run into Southeast
Alaska. He noted that the Southeast part of the map was
hard to see. He commented that there were a lot of
microwave present in Southeast. He commented on the
complexity of Prince of Wales Island.
Co-Chair Hoffman agreed. He thought a map of the
communities that were unserved and underserved would be
important for the community. He asked Mr. Lochner for the
information.
Mr. Lochner did not have a list included in the
presentation, but affirmed that the list was posted on a
website and he could send the information to the committee.
Co-Chair Stedman asked for the list in Excel.
Mr. Lochner affirmed that the list was in Excel.
9:26:25 AM
Mr. Lochner showed slide 13, "Evaluation of Current Status
of Broadband," which showed the same map of Alaska as the
previous slide but for blue pins that indicated federal
projects. The projects were primarily through NTIA through
the Tribal Broadband Connectivity Program, and through the
U.S. Department of Agricultures Reconnect and Community
Connect programs. The sum total of projects identified by
the blue pins was about $750 million. He mentioned various
projects in different parts of the state. He thought it was
good to see the programs in partnership with Native
organizations as well as telecommunication providers.
Co-Chair Hoffman asked if the projects in blue were both
unserved and underserved communities.
Mr. Lochner answered affirmatively and noted that the
communities would be considered served once the projects
were completed.
Mr. Lochner referenced slide 14, "Evaluation of Current
Status of Broadband," which showed the same map of Alaska
as the previous slide, with the addition of another blue
line showing the fiber and microwave that would be added
once the projects were complete.
Co-Chair Hoffman asked if Mr. Lochner could provide a list
of projects mentioned earlier, including when the contracts
would be completed.
Mr. Lochner relayed that he had access to the list of
programs but did not completion data from the Native
organizations or telecommunications providers.
Co-Chair Hoffman thought it was important to have
information about when the state would be connected.
Mr. Lochner agreed that the information was important for
the state. He noted that each of the programs had a fixed
timeline that could provide an estimate of a completion
date.
Mr. Lochner turned to slide 15, "Evaluation of Current
Status of Broadband," which showed the same map of Alaska
as the previous slide, with unserved areas.
9:29:56 AM
Co-Chair Olson asked about the status of working
relationships between smaller tribal entities and big
corporations such as GCI.
Mr. Lochner could only speak to the grants that would be
coming out of the Broadband Equity Access and Deployment
(BEAD) Program.
Co-Chair Olson had been made aware that there had been some
attempt to make it so some smaller entities did not have
the access to access the funds being discussed.
Mr. Lochner stated "that is not true." He emphasized the
importance of ensuring that were not just capital up front
without economics to continue. He had worked with tribal
broadband connectivity with other Native organization
programs. He mentioned a project in the Interior with an
operational cost of -2400 percent margin. He discussed cost
negotiations and small communities banding together for an
economy of scale.
Co-Chair Olson thought what Mr. Lochner described involved
an area with more affluence in comparison to less
advantaged areas such as in the Yukon-Kuskokwim area.
9:33:18 AM
Co-Chair Olson asked if Mr. Lochner was familiar with
Alaska Tribal Spectrum.
Mr. Lochner answered yes.
Co-Chair Olson understood that the Alaska Tribal Spectrum
was trying to access some federal funding to try and
provide smaller communities with internet systems.
Mr. Lochner relayed that the office encouraged Alaska
Tribal Spectrum to submit grant opportunities within BEAD
funding. He relayed that the office would encourage all
comers to submit a proposal.
Mr. Lochner considered slide 16, Evaluation of Current
Status of Broadband," which showed the same map of Alaska
as the previous slide. He discussed the charter of the
broadband office.
Mr. Lochner displayed slide 17, "Network Ideas for
Underserved/Unserved Locations," which showed the same map
of Alaska as the previous slide.
Co-Chair Hoffman asked how many villages were listed on the
map.
Mr. Lochner answered that there were 196 villages listed,
with 184 unserved and 12 underserved.
Mr. Lochne r relayed that part of the notice of funding
opportunity that was received stated that in as much as
possible the state had to (in its grant program) leverage
the infrastructure that was already in place.
Mr. Lochner highlighted slide 18, "Network Ideas for
Underserved/Unserved Locations," which showed the same map
of Alaska as the previous slide with the addition of
microwave and fiber infrastructure.
9:35:38 AM
Mr. Lochner looked at slide 19, "Network Ideas for
Underserved/Unserved Locations," which showed the same map
of Alaska as the previous slide with the addition of pink
marks denoting ABO network ideas. He did not want to call
it a network design but thought the proposed system to
serve all the unserved and underserved locations was
reasonable. The office had posted the map and a list of
projects (a capital model) with the ability for individuals
to change inputs.
Co-Chair Hoffman mentioned that NTIA grants to Native
entities, and asked if the grants were taken off the list,
if there was map illustrating communities still not being
provided service.
Mr. Locher affirmed that slide 19 was the map with the
information being discussed. The communities were not on
the map after being awarded from NTIA. He pointed out the
villages of the North Slope had been removed due to being
served. Additionally, Point Lay, Kaktovik, and Anaktuvuk
Pass had also been removed.
Co-Chair Hoffman asked if there were 196 communities on the
map.
Mr. Lochner answered affirmatively.
Co-Chair Stedman asked for an idea of how much faster the
communities would be than if they went with Starlink. He
asked for a comparison.
Mr. Lochner relayed that an upcoming slide would address
the topic. He shared that one of the primary grading
categories for the grants was affordability. The grading
category defined affordable as one gigabyte over one
gigabyte, and NTIA had indicated affordable one gigabyte
over one gigabyte service was no more than $150. He
addressed Starlink, which was a solid service in Southeast.
He thought there were fewer satellites in Alaska.
Co-Chair Hoffman mentioned that satellites went over
Southeast Alaska much more frequently than over Barrow.
Mr. Lochner clarified that he had meant there were fewer
Starlink satellites in the Interior.
9:39:42 AM
Co-Chair Hoffman asked Mr. Lochner to explain why Southeast
received microwave services while other areas had
intermittent Starlink service and were looking forward to
fiber, which was most likely much faster.
Mr. Lochner relayed that the primary band of Starlink
satellites went up to the 60th parallel.
Co-Chair Hoffman asked which community was at the 60th
parallel.
Mr. Locher specified that Adak was well covered, and some
of the southern parts of Southeast. The reason the
remainder of Southeast was served well, there was enough
view of the satellites.
Co-Chair Hoffman asked if it was fair to say that more
satellites were planned for communities farther North to be
added by Starlink.
Mr. Lochner relayed that he had met with Starlink two weeks
previously, and had learned the company planned for more
group 2 satellites over the Interior and northern Alaska.
Co-Chair Hoffman asked about the timeframe for the
additional Starlink satellites.
Mr. Lochner had not learned about the timeline but would
endeavor to learn the information.
Co-Chair Hoffman asked Mr. Lochner to provide a comparison
between microwave and fiber services, understanding that
Starlink was microwave.
Mr. Lochner used the analogy that Starlink was a fast
helicopter with a limited capacity. He described space
lasers which connected the satellites to make the system
fiber-like. He discussed the lower orbit of 3,000 miles
high of satellites versus geo-synchronous satellite orbits
about 34,000 miles up. At lower speeds satellites had a
fiber-like performance if they were numerous enough for
continuous service. Fiber was more like a bullet train with
unlimited length. Fiber had low latency and could grow on a
single fiber. He summarized that fiber had an ability to
grow in a way that satellite and microwave currently did
not. He offered the caveat that ten years previously,
satellites were slower.
9:44:00 AM
Co-Chair Hoffman used the analogy of a snow machine
compared to a dogsled, and then compared to a car on the
road system. He thought many people saw Starlink as
something much improved over current services, but
eventually when fiber was available it would be a much
improved option for many people that wanted faster speeds,
particularly in medical and educational fields.
Mr. Locher thought Co-Chair Hoffman used a great analogy.
He thought Starlink was a good product. He mentioned
satellitemap.space, which showed the position of every
Starlink and Oneweb satellite over Alaska in real time.
Mr. Lochner addressed slide 20, "BEAD Next Steps Five-
Year Action Plan
Work with Communities, Tribes, Village & Regional
Corporations, AFN, AML, Industry, and others to
develop and submit a Five-Year Action Plan.
Outreach:
• Digital Equity Inclusion and External Engagement
Process
• Alignment with Other Statewide Social / Economic /
Infrastructure Plans
Network:
• Broadband Service Needs
• Asset Inventory
• Deployment Barriers & Obstacle Identification
• Comprehensive High-Speed Internet Plan
Logistical:
• Outline of Broadband Office, Employees, Consultants
& Contractors, Program Work, and Anticipated Technical
Assistance & Capacity Needs
• Broadband Funding Identification (Federal, State,
Local & Tribal Providers) and Broadband Affordability
Data
Mr. Lochner explained that the notice of funding
opportunity had required 13 items, which ABO had
categorized and combined into 8 items to reduce repetition.
He referenced boxes with a green mark that showed the
completion progress for each category. He referenced
increasing outreach and ensuring tribal consultation
regarding digital equity for the five-year action plan. He
noted that the five-year action plan was based upon the
digital equity outcomes. He commented on the importance of
digital equity in the BEAD exercise.
9:47:06 AM
Senator Bishop asked if there were enough people to meet
the deadlines.
Mr. Lochner answered "yes." and detailed that in addition
to sufficient staff, ABO had engaged consultants.
Senator Bishop acknowledged a potential eight years of work
for the five years of funding due to supply constraints and
workforce issues, which could slow projects down. He
mentioned that federal highways had a true-up each year, by
which funding that was not allocated by other states was
put in a pot and redistributed annually. Alaska had
historically been at the forefront of being able to capture
unspent federal highway dollars. He pondered that such a
redistribution could happen if other states did not
allocate all of their funding.
Co-Chair Hoffman mentioned the five-year plan, and asked if
the state would be providing updates or reports on progress
on an annual or semi-annual basis. He thoguht five years
could pass quickly.
Mr. Lochner relayed that there was a reporting
functionality to the NTIA that was very robust.
Co-Chair Hoffman asked about the timeframe for the
reporting.
Mr. Lochner said "semi-annual."
Co-Chair Hoffman asked for the dates of the reports.
Mr. Lochner thought the dates were based on the start date
and would be every six months.
Mr. Lochner commented on the map on slide 19. He relayed
that there were several applications out to different
agencies. He mentioned the Tribal Broadband Connectivity
Program (phase 3), the Middle Mile Infrastructure Fund, and
the United States Department of Agriculture Reconnect
(round 4 and round 5). He thought there may be several
communities on the map that would become connected. He
cited the price of $1.88 billion for the idea ABO had come
up with.
9:50:43 AM
Mr. Lochner advanced to slide 21, "BEAD Next Steps - Grant
Criteria - Initial Proposal
Primary Criteria: Fixed 75% of Scoring from Notice of
Funding Opportunity:
• Efficient Use of BEAD Funding How big is the
match?
• Affordability 1Gbps/1Gbps affordable consumer
product
• Fair Labor Practices Can and will Subgrantees
comply with Federal labor and employment laws?
Secondary Criteria: Will the work be completed by a
set date?
All Other Criteria:
• Network Design
• Operating Costs Sustainable, Affordable and
Scalable
• Native Bidders
• Carrier Neutral and Fair Pricing Practices
Mr. Lochner discussed the work completion criteria, which
was required but not specified. He explained that the
office would get advice from the advisory board. He
reiterated Senator Bishop's point that projects in Alaska
could experience challenges with supply chains or weather.
He did not anticipate the timing being a large criteria. He
explained that there were scoring items and gating items.
Mr. Lochner showed slide 22, "Contact Information
Thomas Lochner
Director
thomas.lochner@alaska.gov
(907) 269-4048
Lisa Von Bargen
Sr. Project Manager
lisa.vonbargen@alaska.gov
(907) 660-7877
Melissa M. Kookesh
Tribal Liaison
melissa.kookesh@alaska.gov
(907) 465-6466
Anessa Feero
Administrative Specialist
anessa.feero@alaska.gov
(907) 269-8159
9:53:09 AM
Senator Bishop asked Mr. Locher to repeat his statement
related to concurrence.
Mr. Lochner relayed that it was important to ensure that an
affected village believed in and supported projects.
Co-Chair Hoffman mentioned the Broadband Advisory Board,
which he thought seemed large. He asked if the board had a
meeting schedule for the following year.
Mr. Lochner relayed that the organizational meeting would
st
take place the week of March 21. The board was currently
working to establish a meeting time.
Co-Chair Hoffman asked if a meeting location had been
identified.
Mr. Lochner thought the meeting would be held virtually.
Co-Chair Hoffman commented on the complexity of the subject
matter. He thought the goal was to get every Alaskan
connected with the desired service. He mentioned the issue
brought up by Co-Chair Olson and used the example of
building a car and then having to pay for gas. He commented
on the broad spectrum of users and the many reasons the
state had unserved and underserved communities. He
commented high energy costs in the communities and pondered
how the communities would afford ongoing costs.
Mr. Lochner cited that there were two ways; as part of its
evaluation, ABO would have a target affordable number
that would be between $75 and $150. He mentioned the
Affordable Connectivity Program, which offered a $75
subsidy for every internet household depending on the
bandwidth/speed. He discussed criteria for the program.
Co-Chair Hoffman thought the affordability was a critical
component, and hoped that areas of the state with low
population density would be connected.
9:57:32 AM
Co-Chair Olson considered the board of directors and
observed that there was only one name of a person not on
the road system. He asked about the length of the term for
board members.
Mr. Lochner relayed that members were appointed by the
governors Office of Boards and Commissions and would serve
a three-year term.
Mr. Lochner relayed that the Affordable Connectivity
Program was available currently, and ABO encouraged
everyone to take advantage of the program.
Co-Chair Hoffman thought the committee would be interested
in an update from ABO on at least an annual basis.
Co-Chair Hoffman discussed the agenda for the following
Monday. He noted that the three committee co-chairs had met
the previous day, and noted that there was a marked
increase in Covid-19 in the building. Starting the
following week, the committee members and staff would be
required to test weekly. He commented on the importance of
the committee to the legislative process.
Co-Chair Stedman noted that the co-chairs would like the
tests to be completed by 9 o'clock in the morning on
Mondays.
Co-Chair Hoffman relayed that there had been concern by the
support staff and members' staff, and thought the increased
testing was an important step for the committee.
ADJOURNMENT
10:01:22 AM
The meeting was adjourned at 10:01 a.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| 022423 AK Broadband Office Presentation S FIN 02-24-23.pdf |
SFIN 2/24/2023 9:00:00 AM |
|
| 022423 DCCED-ABO Response to 02-24-23 S FIN 03-16-23.pdf |
SFIN 2/24/2023 9:00:00 AM |