 I want to welcome everybody to the January 13th meeting of the House Energy and Technology Committee. I want to welcome Commissioner Tierney and Director of Telecommunications Clay Purvis to our committee. I really appreciate you both being here this morning and walking us through some of this information. So thanks for joining us. What I'm hopeful that we can get through this morning and I know it's a significant amount of information, but last year through Act 137 and Act 154, the legislature appropriated a fair amount of coronavirus relief funds to support expanding connectivity in the state of Vermont. And looking forward, Commissioner and Clay to getting an update on the expenditure of those funds and where they've gone and the good work that's been done there. That's one section, if you will, of the discussion I'd like to go through this morning. Secondly, the ARDOF auction, which occurred in the late fall, or at least the first phase of it, potentially is going to have a significant effect on connectivity rollout in our state and how our CUDs are working around the state to accelerate broadband connectivity. And looking forward to an update from you as to some of the effects of that program. And then finally, I'm hopeful that we can have a discussion on the connectivity initiative, which is a program that has been in statute for several years now. And just as kind of foundational education for our committee, and frankly an update for me as well, what the, you know, what the status of the connectivity initiative is some of the programs that operate within that program would be a helpful kind of refresher I think for the for the committee and for me as well. My expectation is that we'll be having this discussion for at least a couple of hours this morning. And I think at a time when there's an obvious break point, you know, sometime between 10 and 1030 I'd like to take a 15 minute break for our committee just to get a breath of fresh air and stretch your legs. So I just want to give folks who are listening online, as well as Junie Clay heads up as to my intention to take a break at that time. So welcome commissioner welcome clay. I know that the Department of Public Service has been doing herculean work in the last six months. You know, a great personal cost I've, I've been in touch with you and other members of the department in recent months and you know it sounds like there's been a lot of 18 hour days put in by people in the Department of Public Service. I know that you're working in the community and I know other members of your staff and want to express my appreciation for that and appreciation for your being with us this morning. So welcome. Thank you so much, Chair Briglin, and I just have to say, I so appreciate you're taking a moment to say that because I know from past times when you've said words like that it's meant a great deal to my staff. I do this because we love public service as much as all of you do. And nobody's looking for reward, but that kind of acknowledgement is worth its weight and gold. Indeed, there have been a very long days for a very long sustained period throughout the, the coronavirus emergency and just to put a flag in it, it's not over. It's still underway and we, none of us have an idea as to when it's going to conclude. And so with with all of that it's been enormously gratifying to at least be able to be working on behalf of her mentors to help them through it. And it's been very gratifying to have you folks as partners in that process so I don't know that it's appropriate but I'm going to say it anyway, thank you for your service as well. Thank you to the new members of the committee. I look forward to getting to know you. A couple of you I know I've had dealings with representative Rogers and representative Sims representative a key is it. Actually, it helped me out so I don't I only blow it once you're on mute. There we go. It rhymes with hockey hockey very good representative. Well, it's a pleasure to meet you this way in other times I would sit down with you but you'll get to know us all. And I think without further ado, I'm going to say, let me introduce clay purpose to you, because we all know that he's the keeper of the the big ideas that he then filters through this commissioner. But I can't say enough about the hard work plays done and I know I'm embarrassing him in underscoring that. But yes, indeed. I have to explain he's resolved not to cut his beard until the covert emergency is over. And in that regard he's shown greater fortitude than your chair, who was mesmerizing us with his year last year. But frankly, Tim, I'm glad to see you've got it. The only comment I'm going to make as we enter into this discussion today before I turn over to clay is this. There are two things that have happened in the realm of connectivity. This is the last met one is the art of auction, as you pointed out chair Brigham. And secondly, the, the award to star link in the art of auction star link being a low orbiting satellite system that is promising to bring bring high speed broadband to areas of the United States that just have no prospect of it anytime soon. The only reason I underscore this two events is these are things that are wholly outside the control of the state. These are events that can happen as we plan our policies and execute on them. And so it's important to get used to how the picture forever shifts under us as we do our best to serve her monitors in this in this very important area of public policy. So with that clay, why don't you start the briefing for the committee. And you're on mute clay figures. Yes. For the record, I'm clay purpose with the Department of Public Service. Just talk to Matthew real quick to make sure I can share my screen. Here we go. For a second here. So I'll start with an overview of the CRF programs that we initiated in the summer of 2020. You all enacted act 137 that included several broadband and telecom related provisions. And I'm going to start by apologizing for the dense material. This is not a fun presentation, but what money we've received and what we did with it. There were several programs that Yeah. Pardon me play. Could you increase the magnification of that a bit absolutely yes and I did send this to Matthew so if you don't have it I'm happy to send it directly to you now so you can Look at it on your screen. We started Five programs under section 13 to do this. We've received a little over $17 million. The line extension customer assistance program to get Vermonters connected now initiative. The COVID response temporary broadband lifeline program. We were able to spend money on the connectivity initiative, which we'll talk about in detail later and then the Wi-Fi hotspot project. In addition, we received 800,000 for the connected community resiliency program. This is a grant program for CDs that appropriation was later expanded under act 154 to 2.3 million. In section 15 appropriated 500,000 for a COVID response telecommunications recovery plan. We completed that project with $475,000. And I think many of you were in attendance at the several the couple of hearings that we be held in December but that plan is published on our website. There's a link here on this document to that plan. You can take a look at and then lastly $466,500 is appropriated to us to provide assistance to public access television stations and we've done that talk about a little bit about the line extension program. We were allowed to spend up to 2 million on this. We did put 2 million into the line extension program. Under the line extension program, any location that does not have internet service of 25 three would be eligible. The residents applied for the program. We would provide them up to $3,000 to afford a line extension. The vast majority of line extensions were done through cable companies. We did quite a few also through EC fiber and weights field Champlain telecom and a couple of other smaller providers as well but many of them were done through Comcast and charter. We ended up doing line extensions to about 260 consumers we spent about 545,000 dollars in total. The biggest limitation that we found in rolling out this program was the timeframe. We issued our guidelines at the end of July started taking applications received well over 400 applications. The cable companies could not promise to do all of the qualifying applicants by December 30. So as a first come first serve basis but for for about half of the applicants we had to tell them we can't do your line extension by December 30 and as you know the cares act money disappears December 30. And of course didn't turn out to be true on December 27. The president enacted legislation to extend the cares act. But up until then we had to assume that December 30 was was the end of the line. So we're able to do 260 consumers. We have another at least 200 consumers that we would love to be able to go back and do their line extension 2021. Assuming we have the authority to spend that cares act money. This is Tim, just to be clear, the roughly 140 applications that were not awarded those were for timing reasons that that work couldn't get done. By large timing reasons some applicants were not eligible for one reason or the other. I think Vermont saw an influx of people moving here. Residency also proved to be a difficult hurdle. It's fine if you do live here but we didn't want to wire second homes ski chalets and that kind of thing. So we limited the program to your, to your primary residence and. Yep. And is it clear that the 260 grants that were funded. Do we have a sense is the number of addresses that were essentially crossed off the list of unserved. 260 addresses. Yeah. So you get one line extension for one property. It had to be on our list of eligible locations so these are, these are primary resident residences that lack broadband of 25 three today. So they're not business addresses, some people, you know, wanted to get internet for their business. But, you know, they didn't actually live there we had some businesses that we had initially rejected and then we came to find out they lived at the address. And, and otherwise qualified so. You know, it was, it was a lot of case by case. A lot of administrative work. Going into administering this program. By and large, you know, we, we got information from the cable companies or from the fiber provider saying, look, we can't, we can't reasonably do this by 1230. This is not, this is not doable for us. So, okay, thank you for that without, without that guarantee. Yeah. Two hands up on this on this program first representative Sims then representative and touch. And yet definitely just want to start with a deep appreciation for DPS and the incredible amount of time and energy put into this and all the other programs over the last month, what what a heavy left. So it's awesome to see that 260 customers were connected through this program do you have a sense of geographic distribution I'm understanding that you know you had to be an unserved address in order to be eligible but has any mapping happened to understand maybe if certain regions were better able to take advantage of this program than others. So as we think about potential extension of this program, understand maybe what some of the barriers are to ensure that this program is working in all parts of Vermont. Sure. I think that's a great question so section 13 did require us to map the locations that we serve through the program. So we have an interactive map on our website. I hope you can see this. I switched windows here so if you can't see it, see the map, let me know back in it. And I believe that we have color coded. I'm not seeing a map, you're not seeing a map. Alright, I guess I will. Let's go to the next screen and see. So we did create this map I'm just looking to see if we put line extensions on here or if we have simply done it by company. It looks like we've just broken down things by companies so we can do that information and break out line extensions versus, you know, the other programs. There is a map on our website that shows line extensions I'm pretty sure because I was looking at the other night I just don't think we've provided it to the committee this morning. So while you're giving the presentation I'm going to check on that and if I'm right I'll provide a link to it. Maybe a sort of related follow up I guess I'd love to hear a little bit about any thoughts that you all had about why some providers did not participate and again, you know, was that just about timing and, you know, capacity within the organization and access to materials in order to do the work or whether other barriers that we could alleviate if this were extended. So to answer your first question about what areas were able to take advantage of it. The most rural areas were least likely to take advantage of it line extensions work best when you're in close proximity to the end of the line. As much as $3,000 is perhaps to you and I it doesn't go very far when you're building broadband. So what where I think this program succeeded was in gap filling places that were close to the cable plant that, you know, a large scale fiber build from say your CUD is probably not going to reach in the near future because they're not going to want to do compete directly with the cable company. A lot of long driveways and other kind of weird situations like undergrounding where people were technically, you know, on on the cable route, but you know, they weren't served because the line didn't go up their driveway. Those kinds of issues private drives that kind of thing. But you know where cities or towns where there's no cable plant. So those residents were not able to take advantage of of the program. As far as carriers, choosing not to participate. There were a variety of reasons for some of the smaller carriers, smaller cable companies. It was difficult for them to do this by the 30th. We have at least two cable companies that are sole proprietors in the state so they are basically doing everything themselves. And so that became, you know, a heavy lift for them. Supply chain issues did delay many of our projects, both connectivity initiative and Lee cap. Winter storm in December, for instance, took a lot of line workers out of the state. Supply chain issues and just getting contractors available. You know, we're doing a lot of broadband in a very short amount of time. And I just don't think that companies and contractors were scaled up to do the amount of broadband that we were asking them to do on such short notice. No one saw this coming. Thank you. Thank you. See if I can go back. Can everyone see this now. That depends what this is. This. Yes, thank you. I've gone back to a PDF description of the programs. Yeah, Clay. Thank you for the presentation and good to see you in June here again. I realize it's a huge challenge to get connectivity out folks to need it. I'm wondering about the accuracy of the broadband map that you use. I know it's there are there are several areas in my community shallot that indicate that there's broadband going down a road and it turns out there isn't. And I'm wondering what the source of the information is being used to produce that map. That's a good question. I think that no one would be able to say with a straight face that their broadband availability map is 100% accurate. I think that producing 100% accurate map is a great goal but we're talking about 308,000 data points. And we're also talking about data that's voluntarily supplied to us. So there are mistakes we have found mistakes through the years. We try to correct those when we find them so if there are roads in Charlotte. Please, please let us know and we'll look into it. We have, we have done this in a couple of areas will go on spot check as time permits to see what's what's out there. The data comes from providers in a couple of different ways. We ask providers to supply information on locations that are served and unserved at various speeds through an annual data request. We also use data that is required to be provided to us from the cable company so as you know we have regulatory authority over cable video service. One requirement is that with their annual report every April they provide us with a cable plant map showing where where the cable plant goes and we assume that any location within 400 feet of the cable plant is is serviceable by the cable company. That's our most accurate data. DSL providers. The data is less accurate wireless is is a crap shoe. And so, you know, when we're looking at who has 25 three and who doesn't. The cable plant is generally the best data we have. I doubt it's 100% accurate in fact we have found stakes for that we've had to correct. But it's, it's the most accurate we have so happy to look into it if there's a specific set of addresses and Charlotte that they would like us to review. I'll be happy to get that information to you. I'm happy to get that information to you but I'm also wondering whether the map had any influence over who was getting the line extensions. It did in that you had to be at an eligible address. There were, for instance, a few line extension applicants that wanted fiber from a fiber provider. And when we looked at their address, we realized that they were served by a Comcast already so they had cable available. They were served at 25 three so they were ineligible for the program. So that's happened a couple times. But by and large, if they're not served with cable video or a fiber to the home solution already, they were eligible for the program. Thank you. Representative Rogers has a question. Good morning, Clay. Good to see you coming in. I just was wondering of the roughly 150 applicants that were not accepted. Would you say the major reason for that was that the service for the cable the whatever provider wasn't willing to do the line extension or that it was too expensive or was it more the kind of second home. I'm just trying to get a sense of the relative. I really think that the majority is due to the 1230 deadline. Oh, yeah. This is applicant driven so if the applicant is going forward with their line extension. The cost makes sense. It doesn't include people who would have liked to have a line extension but the cost of a line extension was $40,000. So that wasn't going to happen. And was the applicant, the consumers or the applicant would be the company applicant was in this program the applicant is the consumer. Which is nice because we know that it's the broadband is going to get used by that consumer. They have a reason for having it and So we know that it's a it's a good investment. Okay, so that number 400 plus that's already weeded out the instances in which the price was prohibitive. I believe so. Yes, I can verify that but I believe so. Thank you. Sorry, I just didn't know if there was another question or no other hands in the queue. So, oh, I do have one more. So that's all right. Um, Clay, I believe my understanding is that households had to apply individually even if the household and their neighbor were both seeking a line extension. Can you talk about How that went and if that's how you would recommend initiatives like this move forward or whether with more time, it might be, you know, the sort of efficiency of allowing a road to apply together as one application. Yeah. Yeah, this I would put that in the lessons learned category. I think that there was From our standpoint, there was quite a bit of herding cats. We did have several projects where the whole road, a group of neighbors wanted to apply did apply we were successful and some of those others, the projects got big enough where the cable company said this is, this is a big project we're probably not going to be able to do this by But I think we're success there required Someone in the neighborhood motivated to go knock on doors, get applications filled out, you know, encourage participation and I think that that was probably challenging for quite a few people. I think if we had more time. And I think we have a second go at it, finding some way to do some outreach. When when someone applies if we could do some outreach to neighbors to see if they would also be willing to apply I think would be a good thing. You know, I think some people worked really, really hard to get their line extension and, you know, I don't think it would have happened if it hadn't been for a cheerleader in the neighborhood so I'm not sure what that would look like, but I think if if we had, I say a year to do line extensions that some kind of structure around building line extensions would be really helpful. I could add to that. Clay, please correct me if I'm wrong, but my memory of the line extension the cable line extension rule that the PUC has is that there comes a certain point where if you have enough numbers of neighbors who want to do a build, then an obligation kicks in for the company to build a line. And so that too becomes a data point that we need to keep an eye on, because now you're talking about neighborhoods exercising a right to draw on the company to do a build that is separate and apart from any subsidy that's been offered via the CARES money. What jumps out at me and I think is also something that jumped out from the emergency telecom plan is there's a great deal of consumer education that needs to happen. So that folks better understand what the lay of the land is that they're traversing here in dealing with the service providers. They're just between people not knowing a lot about the technology they're using, and people not knowing a lot about the applicable rules. I think there are some gains that could be made just through consumer education. Back to you, Clay. Thank you. I'm happy to move on or if there are more questions about line extension. Yeah, I have one. Go ahead quickly Mike. Yeah, so Jim. It's interesting to hear you say that because a number of people on in one of these sections in Charlotte that put tried to apply together to Comcast. Because they weren't served by wastefield Champlain Valley telecom on that particular part of the road. They did get together and Comcast told them they just weren't interested in doing it. So what is the threshold that that. The number of people on the same road would would want to subscribe to a service where the cable company would have to do it. So Mike, let me get back to you separately on that, not because it's a state secret but I'm mindful of the time for chair Brooklyn and I don't want to tell you off the top of my head that's always dangerous, but it will get you an answer on that. Okay, thank you. They get Vermonters connected now initiative, GBC and I was programmed that you established, I think in this committee to bring fiber to the premises. Locations that had unique circumstances that prevented carriers from from serving. I guess characterize it best it's program that was was helpful to mobile home parks where underground wiring is required. And it's very expensive. We actually combine this program with the connectivity initiative. As far as addresses that were in the get Vermonters connected now bucket, they're about 322 addresses that we characterized as GBC and I. Most of them in EC fiber territory so this were EC fiber grants, the few in Mansfield community fiber as well. And then we have the connectivity initiative. The programs that the total money we put into the program is 12 million. And talk a little bit about how we went to through the program. Before the appropriation was made, we had collected information on addresses that were a high priority. These are addresses that had students at them, or there was a bona fide telehealth need, or remote work need. And as we were going through the survey, we reached out to schools, all in all we located 7402 priority locations that lacked 253. And in our RFP we gave say bonus points preference to projects that served a priority address. I'm just skip down to the table. That's the good stuff. This is a table of winning bidders under the program. Actually, let's get down to this table. As far as what technology got to which addresses. 2175 addresses were served with fiber at a cost of about 8 million. That's a great data point for saying what the cost of fiber to the premises is per address 300,000 cable, we did just under 200 addresses, and then fixed wireless. It's cool enough to expressly allow fixed wireless in the program. So we we did that about 4 million fixed wireless locations, actually $4 million for 7,000 fixed wireless locations. And then I'll switch back to the map. Here's where the locations are that we've served. So the southern part of the state. You can take a look at this map and greater detail. The providers are all color coded here in the legend. Clay, this is Tim, I just want to make sure I understand some of the numbers that you just laid out in terms of the eligible addresses and the ones that were actually ultimately served on this program. And I'm just going to go over a couple of these play them back to you and make sure I understand. The department had obtained a number of addresses over 27,000 that would qualify potentially because they were households that had remote education needs or telehealth needs or remote work needs. And of those 27,000 roughly 7400 were identified as being underserved or unserved locations is that correct so roughly a quarter. Okay, and, and, and then we married, we married our. Yeah, we married our broadband eligibility data with the information that we got through the surveys and schools. Got it. And then to the table that you share with us on page three, the eligible locations that were ultimately served. And I think you total up that column to be roughly 9400 addresses. Does that mean we're actually able to serve more than well obviously 7400 is, but what does that 9400 represent relative to those are simply I have failed to put the number of priority addresses we've we've actually served here that number is actually a little bit lower. This is the total number of eligible locations are simply locations that lack 253. And I now realize that I have not given you the number of priority addresses that we've served so I'm going to get that number right now and I will let you know when I have it. So the question is, it was, it was about 1500 priority addresses and the priority addresses you're defining as those 7400 addresses. Yes. Okay, so those are the priority addresses, and the 9400 that were ultimately served to this connectivity initiative program those were 9400 addresses that lacks 253. So that priority address pool, but they're clearly addresses that lack connectivity. So, right, that's correct. Yep, got it. I see representative Sibelius hands up Laura. Thank you and I'm having connectivity issues this morning which is why I keep going off camera so hopefully you can hear me. And June I know we've talked about this but the detail, which was funded previously to provide connectivity to virtually every unserved address in Vermont through that 2009 era stimulus grants appears here now, and think it would be helpful to explain why that is. I'm going to go into kind of the history a little bit. VTEL received a grant during the aura stimulus years. So around 2011 received a grant. I believe a little over 33 million dollars to deploy a wireless network throughout the state of Vermont. The coverage area of that network was about two thirds of the land mass of the state, the geographic area of the state. As I think we found out. Not everyone who was in that that quote era service territory was able to purchase broadband from VTEL. Despite this discrepancy, you know the USDA which gave them the grant closed the program out. It was considered a success by the USDA. And I think it. Many people still could not get service as a result of that the requirement on VTEL was that it would provide 728 kilobits per second down 200 up in that era service territory. And we had initially when we started the connectivity initiative we had initially excluded locations in the era service territory. But as the program requirement required less than the minimum for one that we ended up requiring those addresses were put back on the on the table. In the latest round, we were seeking broadband service of at least 25 three to these locations, which requires VTEL to upgrade its system. And so they are using new radios and new spectrum that to ensure that we don't have a repeat of that. We required all wireless carriers to do speed testing at each individual location that they propose to serve and produce those results to us in order to close out the grant. So VTEL is doing that now the other wireless carriers are doing that now requires them to go around with specialized equipment and sit in the yard of each address and do speed tests. They have to test all the locations. If they if the speed speed test fail at 15% or more of the locations they forfeit the grant. So we're not going to pay out if the wireless company does 84% and we're not we're not going to close that grant out for failed speed test between 100% and 85% we reduce the grant award by the pro rata share of a failed speed test. So if 10% of the test failed then they get 90% of the award. Okay, thank you. Just wanted to follow up just for clarity. So the wireless providers are self certifying if they self certify that they are not providing service to these addresses then their award will be diminished. If we go forward in the future in two or three years so so addresses that they are reporting to have served will now show up on state maps as covered. Yes. Yes, assuming that they have they have proven. So I would say it's more than self sort of I mean they're doing the speed test themselves but they're providing the underlying data to us to show that there's a speed test. Our plan is once all projects are closed out. We will be sending mailers to these addresses notifying residents and businesses at these locations that broadband has been provided to your location and we'll provide information to go to our website to see which provider how you can sign up. And if there are any issues please let us know. I think this is an important way to to make sure that customers who want this service who've been guaranteed the service can actually get the service and if that yields problems. We'll look into it. So in the future. If we have Vermonters who are identified as having received this service and they're unable to access this but the payment has already been made. What is the state's remedy for that. Is there any is their ability to fall back. There is so that the grant requires the ones constructed. The grant requires that the company provision service to that address for five years. So that would be a breach of of the obligation to provide continuous service to that location for five years so that would I would think be grounds for clawback. Okay. I should have also prefaced by saying to both you and Commissioner Tierney. Thank you as well for all of your work as you know I have a lot of passion around this I you know it is not around your work. I have some concerns which about these wireless reward awards that were made. Would you say in an area where we've seen like a CUD area like for instance one of the CUD areas in southern Vermont where we've seen these new awards put in place for wireless addresses. Would you see that that will be helpful for reducing costs for the for getting to the last mile throughout that CUD territory or will that increase costs for getting to the last mile. I think as far as technologies that a fiber to the home CUD is competing against wireless is probably the easiest to compete against. I think that most consumers, if they can afford the wired option being offered through the fiber to the home provider, they'll take it. It depends on the wireless carrier to you know what the what the cost of the services and what consumers are doing with the product. Wireless, you know, they one way they manage their network is through data caps. And we we ranked data caps in the in the RFP. Even with the kind of strikes against wireless, as you can see from this chart, it is so much cheaper to wireless then then fiber to the home. So, there, I think there, there's an argument for an against wireless the four is it's a cheap way to get everyone something. But you know in the short term the argument against wireless is if your long term goal is fiber to the home, you are undercutting that long term goal because you will have some people who are fine with keeping it away. They're just they just want the cheapest product they don't care about what what the fiber can do they just want to pay the least amount of money for broadband. Okay, and so if you want to roll out fiber, you are somewhat undercutting yourself in the long term by doing a short term wireless fix. The second thing I would say is that this time last year we really didn't know what this was going to do. We now know SpaceX is coming in 2021. And that is wireless. It's low earth orbiting satellite but we may find that six months from now the entire state is blanketed with usable wireless and so why invest in in future terrestrial fixed wireless if if it is already covering it. That might be a good reason to shift to commercial mobile wireless AT&T Verizon and T mobile service which you know a lot of these fixed providers aren't expanding cell service in any way it's just it's just home residential broadband. Wow. Okay, well, I guess I gave you the opening for that, which I find to be a fairly alarming statement, and I guess we can talk about private versus public telecommunications infrastructure and Elon Musk's means of funding his travel to Mars at a later date. Mr chair I have two more questions, and I will make them brief if I may. So, I do want to just go back to the issue of and I, this is not a trick question we've talked about this I think it's important to get it out there publicly. I think it's no surprise to hear me say that I was quite distraught to see VTEL receive public funds, given their past history of performance and cooperation in the state of Vermont. And I think it's important to understand why they were not able to be prohibited from accessing these public funds. This is my question. Could you have prohibited them from accessing these public funds. I think with the way the statute was written. That would have been a very that the statute did not foreclose the participation of wireless in the program for the department to have prohibited that I think would have required a basis that is founded in the public record that goes beyond perception. And it's important to keep in mind that VTEL, at least in the eyes of the agency that was administering the grant that from many people's perspective failed Vermont, the USDA grant. From the perspective of that agency VTEL actually successfully met the terms of that grant, and therefore is a company in good standing. As far as the USDA is concerned, and the record in Vermont is that VTEL is also a company in good standing if you go to the Secretary of State's office and the like. If you check their record in front of the Public Utilities Commission and the like. So, I think the state would have been open to possible claims of disc, undue discrimination in foreclosing VTEL. That would have been an objective scoring methodology. That was open to all. And there, it would have, I would not have been comfortable and administering the program in foreclosing VTEL simply because it was VTEL to answer your question directly. Thank you. So, I would add to that. I think VTEL, as June pointed out, is not in default of their USDA grant. I'm not aware of any other grant that they are currently default of. Wireless. This is the wireless industry. I mean, over subscription is a business model that they employ across the board. RF is an inaccurate and imprecise tool. They're doing speed tests in the winter right now. Who knows what is actually going to happen in the summer. So, I think they have a lot of communication maps, I think, are inaccurate. I have an experience of sitting in the Craftsbury library. I showed everyone maps of wireless service and everyone's looking at their phone and looking at their map and realize that their phone is lying to them, actually sell service there. Before this COVID-19 connectivity initiative, we never funded a wireless project to my knowledge. We may have once or twice as limited. I should think of one grant that we didn't actually execute on we made an award, but it was never executed. In large, we haven't done wireless. This is our first foray into doing fixed wireless. And I think it's important to emphasize that that's where the emergency nature of these endeavors comes back into play. It's, you know, we talk about it now almost as if it's in the rear view mirror and it's not. We still have a need to get people the option of service as best as we can given that public health policy militates in favor of people staying home and, you know, self isolating. Yeah, so nothing we're doing here is what you would do under more temperate conditions with better resources. But what we have done under the circumstances and I do appreciate the point representatives ability that you're not taking issue with us per se. What we have done here in my opinion is monumental. It could not have been done, but for the extraordinary collaboration that Vermont has seen between its legislative leaders by which I mean all of you, not just the individuals who occupy positions of leadership, and the the agencies, the industry and the contractors themselves. So, and again, where we're clay is pointed to the Starlink thing as frightening as that may be to some people. It is a reality that needs to factor into our thinking as well. They are actually marketing a product called better than nothing service or better than nothing broadband. You know, for many people that is going to hold some appeal, and it will necessarily be disruptive to the strategic plans that our CDs for instance are making. I think something that sometimes gets lost in our conversation is that there is, there is a scenario under which wireless actually compliments what the CDs are doing. Because the CDs are looking at a longer term, we hope that it will be done in a fairly short amount of time, but they are still, you know, going to need time to deploy and get their projects built. And in the interim, there is a solution available then if wireless is part of the picture. And it also has the added benefit of being equipment that can be redeployed for other purposes, if and when the business case for the wireless disintegrates because the city has successfully built out. Thank you commissioner. I'm sorry, I'm getting off topic. That's okay that successfully leads me to my final question. I think you've, to my mind, appropriately brought in the CUDs here, certainly, you know wireless deployed in conjunction with the hundreds of volunteer vermonters who have stepped forward to ensure that every vermonter has a broadband connection. Wireless deployed in conjunction with those folks. It is less is less disturbing to me, because I expect that those folks will have accountability for the last mile. Can you tell us was there, you know, as you know we we asked for we and put into law the ability for CUDs to object to you. We gave you, you know, for any awards that were being made and we gave you the ability to overrule those objections. In writing, I'm looking for a general answer about the level of objection to any of the awards that were made was it was there no objection was there some objection, or was there a lot of objection. So my memory is and clay will correct me my memory is that, in no instance did I overrule an objection. When objections were made. My memory is that I honored those objections, and there were objections. Okay, thank you very much commissioner and I want to stop and say, again. Thank you. I know how hard you and your staff have worked, and it is very significant what you have done in torrent in terms of short term access my concerns are around the long term consequences of some of those it does not take anything away from the heroic efforts and time that you all have put in. So thank you. It was a pleasure and think it also bears it there's a nuance here in the conversation that we need to be very clear about because some folks may lose sight of this. All of the work that we've done has been about making the Internet available accessible to people. It has not necessarily been ensuring that they personally take the service and are connected. It has not necessarily been ensuring that people understand that there there is an element here of choice people at the end have to decide to take the service or not. Representative Sims that you have a question. You have a few thank you. And appreciate the commissioners comments there at the end I would also maybe add to that not only choose to take advantage of it but also have it be affordable so that they are able to do the image of it. I just really appreciate the discussion on this tension around, you know, long term network building short term wireless and, you know, share some of the concerns around that tension. I think that's always been there and it feels like the CRF funding in the short timeline added a layer to that because it was much easier to deploy wireless than to do fiber to the premise in such a short amount of time. You know, and appreciated the flexibility in the awards of the funding to help some projects happen up here to serve more for monitors who, you know, and it seemed like in many cases wireless was the only option that could be completed in that short amount of time but share those concerns. I think that reminds the long term build of the network. My question is around open access in this case so you know this is the distribution of federal through dollars through the state to for profit providers. I would love to hear some reflections on any discussion around whether to have an open access requirement for for profit private companies who are utilizing federal and state resources to build networks. So, the, the, the idea there is that if you take our money, you have to make what you build with it open access and that available on a non discriminatory basis to two competitors. This has been an idea I think that's been bounced around in the past. I think my personal opinion of open access requirements is that it greatly diminishes the number of projects that you're that that you're going to get from providers I don't think that providers, even CDs will be excited to take a significant business risk to deploy broadband in an area where the business case is already at best marginal only to have competitors be able to come in and compete with them using their, their facilities. The objective is to get, you know, projects out there as quickly as possible. I think that that would have been something that would have would have cut against us. It would be interesting. I think to hear. Perhaps Valley net or consolidate it's kind of view on on what they would do with such a requirement. I believe that we would, we would probably lose some bidders with such a requirement and I don't know that I just don't know how successful the program would be. I think I would add to that something different. Given you a perspective that's informed by the significant tenure that he's had in the field. And I think he's right the thing to do would be to have representative folks from the industry in and also from the CDs to have that conversation about what the public policy stakes are around open access. That said, again, for purposes of dealing with an emergency. The priority from my point of view had to be on getting as much connectivity out there as possible in a very short period of time. And that did not permit for the debate that should be had about whether one should attach open access requirements to public funding that the state controls. There's a legal issue there that I think bears investigation which is the degree to which the state can impose conditions on federal funding sitting here today I honestly don't know the answer to that question. But certainly if you are talking about the use of state funds. I have to think that the legislature has greater than always power to determine how it's money is going to be spent. And then there really ought to be a robust discussion about what it is it's being achieved by having an open access requirement, because it certainly is intuitive to have that requirement. If you are viewing the network as a public act at, excuse me asset. It's a counter to this infrastructure being deployed and managed in a competitive market environment. And it's significant that the federal government, which at least for now super intends that competitive market environment has not seen fit to impose that requirement. That's really the rub how much can a state countermand in an area where the federal government has preempted. Also, there's also a history of open access with the 1996 telecom act. It imposed wholesale requirements I open access requirements on on the largest telephone companies. I've heard of the concept of unbundled network elements so companies like consolidated or Verizon or Winstry the the old our box were required to hold out facilities on an open access basis and allow their competitors to buy them. And a lot of a few broadband providers bought, you know, the last mile loop, or other other network elements, or at least them from the telephone company at all wholesale rates. And these rates were regulated by the PUC and by the FCC PUC in every state and FCC, but competition that died on its own. And competition really became between different technologies. So different facilities based providers were providing competing services cable companies were competing using cable plant wireless companies using their own wireless networks, and you didn't really see startup companies leasing last mile loops to to provide competitor DSL in the incumbents network. Thank you for all that just went one final just want to confirm my understanding that all of the connectivity grants have been completed because of the timeline of that funding. There's still a phase of ensuring that the level of service expected is being offered and then there's an ongoing commitment to continue to serve those addresses for five years. No, several of the projects are still undergoing. There is an exception to the CARES Act for supply chain issues so you could continue incurring costs in 2021 due to supply chain issues with the federal extension that's no longer an issue. But several companies were experiencing those kinds of supply chain issues. And we're not finished with their projects. Many of them have finished. Many of them are very near completion as of 1230. So we're working on putting together a list of where we're each provider is just to name a few that are done deploying. VTEL is done deploying. They are doing their verification. Watesfield Champlain Valley is the most of their projects. They had different projects that they finished. Charters finished. Wireless partners is finished. EC Fiber and Franklin are finished. That leaves the remainder of these companies are still in progress. The timeline did prove to be an incredible challenge and thankfully the federal government has extended the timeline. We're just now dealing with the state sunset provision. So we fully expect all the projects to be completed by that revised timeline. Absolutely. Yeah. I think most of them are going to be finished this month or next month. Why don't we get through the remainder of your memo? I think you've got another page or so to go and a couple of programs. And one data point I think I'd like you to share with us at the conclusion of this is how much money remains unspent, unexpended out of this. Out of the appropriation from these programs and what the status of that is and then we'll take a break before we move to the second half of the testimony. Absolutely. Broadband subsidies, someone mentioned affordability. We created a temporary broadband subsidy program. And I'll just, I'll be quick about this. Given that the department was doing in a rearage program for electricity and gas and other utilities. We decided to piggyback on that program. And offer a subsidy more or less in the same format. Unlike the rearage program, you didn't actually have to have a broadband rearage. We just provided a $40 a month credit to eligible applicants. Eligibility depended on having a COVID-19 related hardship such as loss of income due to the COVID pandemic. We ended up giving subsidies to 2,935 applicants and spent $921,000 so far in the program. I believe there are still a few applications that have been awarded but not processed yet. So I imagine that that number is going to increase a little bit, but that is the spent to date amount for the broadband subsidy. We had devoted 3 million to this program so there was 2 million left. But so in our eyes, I think it was underutilized. With that said, there's now going to be a national broadband subsidy program and Congress has devoted 3.2 billion to that so that is supposed to take effect in March. And that's going to be where what the rules are for that and where that will take Vermont but I liked this program I thought it was a good program. It held 3000 people. Many of them express their gratitude. It kept service on for a lot of people. So, I think it was a good first attempt at a broadband subsidy program I think if we got to do it over again we would do it differently but it was, I think it was a good first take. This is the COVID connected community resiliency program. These were grants made to the obligated just under $1.4 million. You can see what we gave out the CUDs here. I think this would be more appropriate if Rob Fish went over this material tomorrow. He can tell you exactly what each CUD did with their grant. So there's about 1.3 appropriated for this so there's still about 800,000 more than about a million left on the table for that program. And then Wi-Fi hotspots. I know this is not the legislature's favorite but we did continue with that program. Here's the map of the Wi-Fi hotspots we ended up deploying so can take a look at that. What's left, I don't have the specific numbers available. It's about 3.9 million though. I can get you those numbers. Mike, did you have a question? Sorry. Going back to the broadband subsidy, Clay. That's not a program that was specifically called out in the appropriations we made with CRF funds, right? It was. We were allowed to do a COVID response temporary broadband lifeline program. We took lifeline out of it because that's trademark FCC program. We didn't want to confuse people. So you said it was underutilized. I was wondering how did you get the information out that people could apply for this? Several ways. We advertised it. The carriers reached out to folks who they had in a rearage. We worked with the CAP agencies. We had material on the state's main COVID response page. We did front porch form ads as well. And was this a case where you had to be at least 60 days over doing your payments? That would be the electric gas rearage program. You don't have to have in a rearage of any kind to take advantage of this program. Just meet the eligibility requirements, such as an economic hardship due to the COVID-19 emergency. Okay, so when this new federal program rolls out, you said it was 3.2 million? Billion. Oh, billion. Okay. I don't think that there's going to be, it's not going to be divvied up by states. It's going to be run by the FCC through its contractor USAC. And USAC will in all likelihood run it the way they run the current lifeline program. State providers will have to agree to provide the service and the provider will sign up the provider and take a credit on their bill and the provider will receive that credit from USAC. Just the way, I imagine it will work the same way the lifeline program works today. The reason I say imagine is because the FCC hasn't written rules on the program yet. So there are a lot of open questions as to who's going to be eligible, how they're going to verify eligibility, how they're going to verify provider participation of the program and issues around auditing. With the traditional lifeline program, the state has a role in designating eligible telecommunication carriers. So that means designating the carriers who can participate in the program. It's unclear at this time whether the state PUCs will have that same authority responsibility for this particular program. So I guess I'm wondering how people are going to know that they could take advantage of this or you said the eligibility requirements still have to be defined. Is that going to be a function of the whatever that federal government agency is that you mentioned or is that going to be a state responsibility or it'll be it's an appropriation directly to the Federal Communications Commission. So the FCC will determine eligibility based on the appropriation. They've issued a notice of proposed rulemaking already issued it last week so we plan to comment on that in that proceeding. But it'll be ultimately up to the FCC how it's rolled out. And that'll get pushed out through customary channels. The lifeline program that exists now at the federal level Mike that gets pushed out through the carriers and also through agencies like mine in their consumer education channels. So that's how you can expect to see that out there. Right. Right. So the FCC services has a role. Yeah. Carriers have advertising obligations that they have to meet to maintain their designation. So it'll light in all likelihood. Kind of follow that same path that the lifeline programs follow. Mike, I would suggest that you bookmark that question. We're going to have consolidated in on Friday this week. I know that those folks are thinking about this program even though it hasn't been fully rolled out yet and other providers that will be speaking with in the coming weeks. I'm sure also we're going to have views on the utility of this program how easy it's going to be for them to use and so I again I would say that you should bookmark that that question. Clay, you had presented. I think to the joint information. Technology oversight committee a document back in December. That basically was a table that showed of all these programs you've talked about today, which ones had unexpended money totaled up to I think about 3.8 3.9 million dollars. That might be a document that we quickly refer to when we come back after our break. Matthew, I'm going to suggest we take a break right now until 1035. If if members and guests want to mute their mute their zoom rooms and turn off their cameras and I don't know how you put us on pause Matthew but why don't we reconvene at 1035 and we're on break right now. We're going to start up again it's now 1035 and just in the last five seconds, I was asking a question of the commissioner with regard to the 3.9 million dollars of unexpended funds from Act 137 and Act 154. The bulk of those monies were in the line extension program, the broadband subsidy program. And there was also some money in the pool of funds that was dedicated towards CUD infrastructure and planning. But I wanted to get clarity on what the path is for those funds now do they come back to the state to potentially be reappropriated. And anyway, I'll give June you and Claire a chance to answer that. Yeah, so that falls into my bailiwick and I'm afraid I don't have all the answers I can only give you the insight into what I put the part that I'm able to see within the administration, I am certainly advocating for this money to be left for its intended purpose. The only reason why it hasn't been expended is the main reason it hasn't been expended is because of the time cliff that has since gone away. The, I hedge on that just a little bit because when it comes to the broadband subsidy that was a bit of a surprise to me that we didn't have the uptake I anticipated. And now with the federal program coming through via the FCC. I think that may be right for reconsideration. It's not clear to me though that I'm actually going to be able to keep that money. Because the administration is looking at its options. And of course, as you know, you folks are having a discussion as well. And I really don't have any visibility into that except to say that to my knowledge the the folks I've been dealing with on cares act money who were proponents of these appropriations both in the house and the senate remains supportive of seeing this money dedicated to that purpose. But you know better than I, what the vagaries are that attend the reappropriation process. So, long way of saying it's entirely possible that the money will revert for completely different purposes, and remains available for expenditure by the state through December of 2021. Thank you for that. So we're, I would like to shift the discussion now to to art off. I just want to confirm with you commissioner and clay or other members of the committee if there are any questions final questions we want to cover before we move away from act 137 and act 154. And if not, the only question I have is, as you know we've been talking about the sunset provision in section 13 of act 137. And I had some emails that I traded with Maria last night about proposed language but I've lost the thread as to what the status of that is, if you know that would be great. Yes, so that's not something that our committee has discussed yet there was some kind of back and forth amongst the committee chairs of jurisdiction about the sunset provisions on that connectivity initiative program. And how to how to deal with that that is still kind of a work in progress. And, you know, it'll probably take 10 or 15 minutes to go through some of those issues right now and I'd prefer not to take the time to do that, as important as that issue is. But I think between the Joint Fiscal Office and some of the Senate committees and House committees involved with that I'm hopeful we have a path to make sure we're on terra firma on that. So let's move to the art off program right now. And I don't know if if clay or or June, you're going to take the lead on that but I'll hand it back over to you. I would ask clay to brief the committee on it. And I think we have a map for it, don't we clay. We do and I'll share my screen again, we'll put the map on. And there's just one thing I want to say about this again to reiterate the rural digital opportunity fund was set up by the, the Federal Communications Commission, the federal agency of jurisdiction over telecommunications matter. And this is something that is wholly outside of state control. They set the rules. They make the decisions about how to disperse the funding that's available for rural digital deployment, meaning connectivity. And we at the department have taken every opportunity we've had to advocate on this front and to impress upon the FCC, the need to better partner with the states in order to make sure that these resources go where we think they're needed. And as the FCC has been very gracious in making itself available to be heard by me, or better said, for me to make myself heard, but it's important for you to understand that we are reporting a state of facts to you here. We are not reporting to you policy preferences that the department has, or that the Vermont legislature has this is a reality of federal preemption, and we need to work with it. So go ahead, click. Thank you. So as June said the world digital opportunity fund is a is a program established by the Federal Communications Commission. It's funded through the National Universal Service Fund. So if you look at your telephone, you'll see a charge levied by your provider for the USF, and that money gets spent on several programs. This is one of them. So the commission set set up art off into two phases. Phase one. They are proposing to serve uncontaminated census blocks. I'll talk about what that means in a minute. And then phase two will be the contaminated census blocks. The contaminated census block is a census block that has one location served by a provider at 253. So the way the FCC does mapping, little different from the way we do mapping. These individual locations buildings they don't look at individual locations. They look at these things called census blocks, which are these geographic territories established by the Census Bureau for taking the census. They don't, they don't look the same. They look like what you see here blobs. How the Census Bureau determines what the blobs look like I don't know but they're about 15,000 census blocks in Vermont. And providers were encouraged to bid on individual census blocks to provide service. Phase one or the census blocks where there's no provider doing 253 whatsoever. Because they're mapping at the FCC is so bad. They've decided to punt on how to serve the contaminated census blocks until they figure out mapping. The recent COVID relief bill passed by Congress this past December provides the FCC with $65 million to fix their mapping. So they, they now have the money to implement a program to do a better job mapping. And once they finish that then they will. They will attempt to serve the contaminated census blocks. The phase two will take place in year six through 10 of the program. So we're going to be in phase one for the first six years. So this auction that happened this past October was just for uncontaminated census blocks across the country. And here are the results scroll down. So you can see the legend provided this map to Matthew as well so we should have a copy of it before companies. CCO is charter or spectrum. Consolidated communications took the lion share and then NRTC phase one is a consortium of electric co-ops along with our CUDs so there's there's a see a successful CUD bid here and then Brown is the SpaceX. So you can see that SpaceX got little bits and pieces of the state and if you look at the national map, they got little bits and pieces of the biggest winners across America with about $800 million in correct support. SpaceX is going to be doing satellite so sorry, it's telling me that the nation is unstable. The DCK prints to companies that would provide gigabit service so both consolidated and the NRTC consortium bid in the in the gigabit tier. So they're going to be providing fiber to the home to these areas so the blue and the green areas you see here are going to be fiber to the home. Scroll down to Southern Vermont so you can see what Southern Vermont looks like. The middle area between Brattleboro and Bennington is going to steal a lot of fiber at home. And the Northeast Kingdom, things are interesting because both consolidated in the consortium were bit heavily and were winners so it'll be interesting to see how these networks are deployed to meet the requirements of the program. So the bidders have six years to deploy service so this will be likely rolled out in the next obviously six years. Hopefully we get it before then consolidated when it did calf to did complete the projects ahead of schedule so we may have that to look forward to. As noted, I guess also put this in the category of things we don't really control consolidated is making a substantial private investment in fiber to the home they're going to upgrade 200,000 locations across the state with fiber to the premises. So outside of this program that'll probably be largely an over build of the cable network, so they'll be competing directly with cable companies. But that is going to occur over the next five years and will dramatically increase the number of locations in Vermont, but have access to fiber the home. Between those two things. We're going to see an incredible amount of fiber being deployed in Vermont over the next six years. Also wanted to point out that. Let me go back to. I'll share, I go back to my document. Go to this one. I'll talk about the connectivity initiative in a minute. But it did want to point out one important. facet of art off. Just share my screen here. As you know this time last year we had mapped 69,899 locations that lacked broadband service of 253. We served about, you know, 9000 of those locations. Art off is proposing to serve 19,000 locations. There is some overlap, but when you take the two together, we're going from 69,000 locations unserved at 253 down to 46,558 locations. I'll act 253 so just in the past year. We're seeing funded solutions in place that take care of about 20,000 locations, which is a significant dent in the number of locations that lack 253. Clay just to be clear on that the art off addresses that you're including in that will the funding and the building requirements for those go out to what is it 2026 or 2028 so it's it's not as if those addresses are going to be served in the next 18 months. That is correct. Yes. And certainly that's going to leave people waiting for for many years to get fiber to the home. However, with 46,000 locations. We're looking for a place to park scarce resources. It may want to consider that there is a federal, federally funded solution for those addresses and focus on the ones that these 46,000 at best will see something from the federal government in 2010 of that program. So their their horizon is a lot farther away than than art off. And then the other is, you know, SpaceX is not gigabit service so to the extent that consumers remain unsatisfied with wireless. Those locations might be right for a review of under our mapping program. So clay that this is more of a this is more of a rhetorical question, because I know the answer to it, but the art off award art off awards that Vermont has received or that the providers have received to service these. Many of these are quite remote areas. It's to say the least seems to be a double edged sword. You know, these are areas that will, you know, benefit probably much more quickly than they would have left to kind of, you know, dangle at the end of the line. So, so I think that's very helpful for these specific areas in the next five years. You know the challenge is overlaying a map of our CDs and the work that they're trying to do is a parallel process to how some of these art off awards have rolled out is the real challenge that there is either, you know, parallel work going on at the same time, or some of these census blocks are going to make the work that these have in front of them, less economical and make the business model that they're trying to unroll that much more challenging. And so the rhetorical question I have is, you know, what ability we have as a state to coordinate the work between these private enterprises and partnerships with the work that we're really trying to support and accelerate through the CUDs who have the, the mission of universal access to broadband connectivity. So the challenge is we have different programs going on here without coordination. And, you know, is there a role for for the state, whether it's DPS or another entity and policymakers to, you know, to roll some of this, some of these resources together to try and get to the end goal, which in my mind is universal connectivity, as opposed to a patchwork program. I think that's a good question that has a complicated answer. I think at the very least, the state should continue to recognize the locations that don't have federal funding coming at them, there will be people left behind. There's a map and I am a person who's left behind so please do focus on that 46,000 because I need service to where I live. So, you know, that is that is one thing to focus on because state resources could be used to fill in that gap. The other is when you talk about providers, you're really talking about consolidated is consolidated here is the largest winner. They are getting kind of the largest amount of CUD territory outside the Northeast Kingdom, and even in the Northeast Kingdom. So if you look at, for instance, Southern Vermont, you know, that's a good portion of the valley. I think the question is, is there a way for the CUD to work with consolidated to fill in those gaps and create a single network that is beneficial for both the CUD and for consolidated. Or is there room for another provider to infill. I think when you look at consolidates private investment. You know that it's going to make the business case for CUDs to eventually get cities such as Brownboro, Wellington, Rockier, even more difficult, because you're not just talking about rebuilding cable which is a prospect but they've already now they've got fiber to the premises there. So you're providing a redundant fiber connection, not redundant but a second fiber connection, which is great for competition but I think the question is there is there enough room in these towns for for the two of us is there enough room for both consolidated and the CUD. And I think that CUDs may want to explore, you know, the kinds of partnerships that, for instance, New Hampshire is as undertaken to make sure the entire town is served. And looking at for instance Stamford. It's still a question so whether the rest of Stamford will get fiber to the home or not. Or Poundall for instance. I would hope so but we don't know. And CUDs you know will be in a good position to work with consolidated to work with or against consolidated to ensure that those locations are best served. I think this is a useful moment to note that we're not talking about coordinating in the sense of giving an individual a mandate to go out and make these people work together. We're talking about coordinating in the sense of diplomacy. Getting people to work together and collaborate because you have to recognize that the market players here don't have an obligation to take their cue from state officials. And this is a free marketplace that is not subject to the state's regulation. So the art is to influence it is to foster collaboration and communication. And one of the things that I start thinking about as I look at the results of this auction is the role of CUDs which, you know, six months ago, eight months ago. And very much as these are the people who are devoting enormous amounts of time and resources, all voluntarily by the way, to plan to survey their communities, plan how to help their communities, and to prepare to build to help their communities, and to organize the operation of what they build they effectively were going to be small EC fibers. Another theory or way of thinking about it is those CUDs do most of that and partner with a consolidated, for instance, to where the executive pieces of that the building and the operation are perhaps with the market entity as, as opposed to the this is the model that for instance has worked in Massachusetts I'm told, though we can have a discussion about whether what Massachusetts achieved by way of its broadband vision is necessarily what Vermont wants in Massachusetts in many parts. The state was satisfied to offer 25 three cable connection, which is how they got to their near universality in Massachusetts. That is not what Vermont has been aiming for. But, you know, my larger point here is that whatever our goals are and our conceived idea of how we're going to get there with CUDs. It has to be done in recognition that we're relying on persuasion, not direction, if we're going to partner with these entities. Thank you. I think we've got three hands up. I want to first go to Representative Rogers and then Yan Tachka and then Sebelia. So Lucy, go ahead. Thanks. I have a few questions about art off with full understanding that the public service department did not create the program or roll it out but but may have answers. The first one is just more generally, is it possible to help me understand a little bit better how the census blocks are made what, why are the boundaries the way they are and approximately how many people might be in one or another. I can speak a little bit to that I don't know exactly how they're made. They are small. I think what you're seeing on the map or some of these blobs are likely multiple census blocks, but together. So providers bid on contiguous census blocks. They are generally have. They lived in a census block with four other homes. Census blocks in Burlington could be, you know, two blocks large and have, you know, 5000 people living in them. You know, they kind of they're all over the place I really don't know how they decide it with the FCC has done is use these. These are two blocks to map broadband so it's, it's an easy thing for them to be able to take this to every provider and say, either do you have service in this or not. I think where we as a rural state have been harmed is that the FCC is traditionally considered if the census block has one address served in it the entire block is considered served. Before address the contaminated census block issue. And now they're being asked to buy federal legislation, the broadband data act that was passed last year requires them to fix this. So they're they're trying to figure out other ways to map with with the long term goal of getting away from census blocks. So they've taken comments on another state programs such as ours, and how we've done that June has met with them. The FCC commissioners to talk about broadband mapping. But these, how these things are made is as anyone's guess. Okay, let's be clear. The word census block is what it means. This is a methodology that originated with the federal census. And this is why the federal government conducts a census because it becomes an analytical tool that's used across many agencies. For example, for instance, or education to administer funding and the like. So here you see the census block methodology of literally drawing a grid on the United States and breaking it into little tiny blocks, which as you know because this is an exercise was underway this year, people go knocking on doors then to take an inventory of who resides there and a variety of other information. And so the FCC borrows from that from the census block maps to create this kind of fun of lens through which to administer a program like art off. June, I think the word block misrepresents what they are though, they're census blocks. And by that, what you mean is it's not a geometric square or rectangle. They didn't do it. They didn't do a grid, as you said, they, they did something else. I think the practical effect is that you could have, you know, one street in St. Johnsbury, you know, it's some like fang post out into one street St. Johnsbury, but the rest of the census block is out in the middle of nowhere. And, you know, provider has 25 three service and that little tip, but not in the rest of the census block and that's where Vermont is really. And I think most other world states have really been harmed by the census methodology that the FCC is using. Lucy did you follow up. Yeah, I do. I have two follow ups. I think that that's helpful just, you know, looking at the towns I have local knowledge of, and the way it would make sense to build out broadband in those towns is definitely in no way. You know, I think that's kind of linked up with with the, the geometries of the census block so that's, that's helpful background there. You kind of led into my next question was about the mapping money that the federal government has appropriated and, and you you led into it a little bit, but I was just wondering to what extent you expect outreach and partnerships with the states, particularly, given that Vermont has done so much good work in this area would be ashamed to see that. The state has worked to not have the federal government have the highest quality mapping that the state has worked to get so do you. I think that the, my hope is that the FCC does do that. To that point of federal and state partnership as true to fashion the federal government they not only decided to do one broadband mapping effort but to broadband mapping efforts at two different agencies, and so they have one at the FCC and then they have another one at the National Telecommunications and Information Administration, and that has gotten that second one has gotten continuous $7 million a year appropriations for the past three or four years now. That that effort is taking advantage of state broadband data and we've signed an agreement with the NTIA to share our mapping resources. And so our map, our mapping data will be put into the national broadband map that they are building. And I think it opened questions to whether the FCC will use that map in any of its future programs right now it's not. And we are not clear yet on where the FCC is going to fall on on its effort to reform its own mapping products. That's where the politics of appointments really matters. The outgoing chair was not very receptive to that kind of reform. It's not clear who the chair is going to be. It's an appointment that President Biden will need to make. And, meanwhile, the acting chair, chair, Commissioner Rosemarsle is very friendly to Vermont and in fact has a property in southern Vermont, and has been very commendatory of Vermont's mapping work as has the Congress itself which modeled some of its legislation on the work we did. So I think the move to the NTIA in part reflects prior years of uncertainty about whether the FCC would get with the program and fix its mapping problems. Now we suddenly had a sea change with the federal election. That's why there's some mystery about what comes next. Thank you. That's helpful. My last question was just do we do we know where can you reiterate the timeline for for phase two of the art off. Yeah, it's going to be in years six through 10 of the program. So that's 2027 to 2031. Oh, we don't we don't know yet who's eligible and phase two and I do not believe we know what amount of money will be available for phase two they said, we'll just spend the balance of whatever we didn't spend in phase one on phase two. Okay, that's helpful. Thank you. That's it. Go ahead, Mike. Yeah, so first of all shed a little light on census blocks because I was a worker and under 2010 census, but a census block is essentially defined by is it's an island of land that's bounded by either roads, or road and a municipal boundary, or a physical boundary like a stream or a lake or something like that so you should be able to circumnavigate a census block. Unless it's intersected by a boundary like that. The city block is one example in a rural area you can have a very large census block with some additional roads going into it, which, which don't actually intersect with another road. And if you you definitely if you've got a census block, people on one side of the road would be in one census block. On the other side of the road, they'd be in a completely different census block. So, it's, it's really complicated but it's, it's got some logic to it. The. I do have, I'm glad to hear June talking about the new administration coming in, and I would recommend that we get with our congressional delegation and try to try to coordinate the the our dog program under the Department of Agriculture with local or state efforts to get broadband out. I'm in regular contact with the federal delegation. Thank you. And of course with my colleagues in the cabinet so your instincts very well directed representative civilian and then representative Pat. Yes. Thank you just a couple of points of clarification from a little ways back. I think the commissioner's point about our need to understand we have to persuade our private sector. Our private sector partners in order to, to, to get them to work with the CUDs is really important for us to understand. And I would note that it is our complete lack of ability to persuade them to to cover to cover all of our monitors that has actually led to the legislation that we passed in the last biennium and will fuel the legislation that we pass in this biennium so always hopeful for persuasion, but I don't think we can count on being able to persuade. And then, you know, again with with the New Hampshire model that we have seen and which we talked about last year in our committee. So, you know, some pretty innovative public private partnerships. Mr chair I hope that's something that we'll be able to talk about and kind of think about with with both the CUDs and the providers and whether or not those types of models are helpful to getting service in a complete CUD area or if they don't have a contract and if there's ways to and send or encourage those types of partnerships to be done in a way that helps get all of the areas in a CUD as opposed to, you know, further exacerbates the problem. So, I just want to book that map, Mr chair for further discussion during this session. Thank you. Yes. Am I muted or can you hear no. No, we can hear you. Okay. Okay. Yeah, I just want to, I fully understand the, the limit the limitations and the sort of very bizarre patchwork way that that this works out and the limitations that we have in Vermont to control or direct how this federal program works. I just need to register that when I look at this map. And particularly in the parts of the state that I'm most familiar with. It feels like it perpetuates the problem and makes it even harder to, to, there will be people served by it but it makes it even harder to get to get to everyone I'm looking at towns where the, the, the, regardless of which provider it is. There's a location where they're going to do where something will happen. It appears to be close to the main roads. You know, maybe a little bit further out than they are now in other cases, towns are basically unserved in the next town, almost all of all of it is served and I just, this is. It's frustrating to look at this map it's like upside down and backwards to me this is it's it's all wrong and I hope that with new leadership week, we can figure out ways to do, to do this better. I'm done. It sounds like you were a bug on the wall in my conversations with the FCC everyone. So we've, we've had a number of conversations on art off. I want to leave this open clay and June for you to. If there's any concluding remarks you want to make about art off it's certainly something that we're going to be picking away at with different witnesses in the coming weeks but if there's, if there's any concluding remarks you want to make on this before we turn to the committee initiative. The only observation I would offer is that when the department was visiting with you last spring with the emergency broadband access plan. And we had the second part of that plan that envisioned our own reverse auction at the state level should we get considerable federal funding. So art off was an acronym that featured quite prominently in that plan. And back in April and May, it was an acronym with very limited content. Now we have that content here, and that suggests that there's a further need to refine our thinking around what could be done with federal funding. And that's some which is more likely now than say before the election. So this just is another reminder of how fluid the situation is, which is why open communication and, you know, working together in good faith and collaboration is so very important, so you know, make the optimal decisions here. So, I just wanted to give the committee members who were here last spring comfort that the department isn't dug into any one perspective. And for the new members to tee that up a little bit for you so that you're aware that there is this emergency broadband action plan out there that the department's been working on it's a work in progress. We now have a vital piece of information. The other observation I would make is that I'm very proud of those blue blobs on this map. I know they complicate life to a certain extent but that represents team Vermont having put its best best foot forward in the art off and a consortium of our CDs, electric utilities and others came together and made that and that to me is a promising sign of what Vermont can do when it puts its mind to it. Mr chair. I can't see who has their hands up. You have your hand up. Okay. So, you know, I think that I love the commissioners, citing, you know, of the team Vermont approach. Really important, I think, and different than some of the other approaches that we see the places where we try to persuade. You know, in this team Vermont, the blue, the CUDs were a part of this. So the CUDs who have stepped forward to say we will figure out how to get to the last mile, we're a part of this. That is important. Catherine, did you have a comment or question. Yeah, or maybe just a clarification as a member of the any case CD. We, we were not a member of the NRTC consortium. So, you know, deliberate decision, not not to sort of wait to see how the results of art off played out and I think gets to some of the other points about, you know, how as we move forward, can we work with CDs to think about the multiple different roles that CDs can play to hopefully ensure last mile service. So just wanted to clarify that, as I think others have mentioned the any came up has gotten pretty complicated with all of these different partners and the art off awards and what that means for the long term is in this model and viability for the any case CD, but I think we're speaking for myself, not the CD, you know, excited about how hopefully that creates more opportunities and, you know, it's complicated map but looking forward to our continued conversations about how we make this all happen. It's really great to have you here, Catherine, as a somebody who brings the perspective of one of those entities to the policy work that your committee is going to have to do. So it's things are just in such a state of flux that we, I think, I know I benefit from the experience and perspective you bring to bear. Clay and June, why don't we turn to the connectivity initiative this is obviously something it's, it's quite related, but it's a program that's been in, in place in Vermont for a number of years now. Again, for the kind of foundational education of the committee, especially as we embark on some of the work, we're going to be doing the coming months hopefully to accelerate broadband deployment. I think it's important for the committee to have a refresher on that program, what it can and can't do, you know where the funding come from it comes from. Just to just to lay a foundation of knowledge for the committee on that on that particular program. So I'm going to ask clay to go through that. But the prefertory remark I want to make for the committee is that this thing was established I think in 2014. And it's now 2021. That seems like a century ago. This in terms of telecommunications policy this is already an old program. And so it's a good moment now to relook it and to say, does this still fit our needs or does it need some revision in light of the material developments principally the cut deployments that have happened in just the last year. Go ahead, Clay. Thank you. Before I start talking about the connectivity initiative just wanted to share this map. This map is what you get when you take out art off served areas and areas and locations certified by our grant connectivity initiative, using the CRF money. We have the 46,000 locations that don't have 25 three after those programs are accounted for, we've broken it down by town so I know the past. We've shown you a map of blobs, not blob dots little tiny dots that are almost unreadable at the state we're trying to make it a little more readable by quantifying number of locations that are unserved by town. So obviously towns with more locations. You know, look more dire but they are more sometimes more populated like feel like it more feel for instance. So, here's the legends number of unserved locations at 25 three. And you can kind of get a sense of where the hotspots are going to be for future connectivity initiative. So let me switch to this. Again, this is a write up less short memo on the connectivity initiative. It's a grant program. It requires us to do the kind of mapping we do so figure out where broadband is where it's not technically the statute requires us to do that by census block. We do publish what census block each location is in but we've unlike the FCC we've abandoned the census block approach. For various reasons, the biggest being that census blocks bear no relationship to the way networks are designed and deployed. So we've had more than one instance where the carrier is going to serve an entire census block. They have to somehow figure out how to get over a mountain where there is no road to go outside of their exchange and come back in something like that it just makes no sense from the standpoint of deploying a broadband network. So we do it based on location we publish a list of eligible locations. We did the summer program that was 69,000 locations that were eligible when we do the next round of connectivity initiative will publish the 46,000 locations. We are then required to issue an RFP that six bids to serve these locations. And when we review those bids, we are to give priority to proposals that reflect the lowest costs of providing services to unserved or underserved locations. So, you can understand why wireless farewell cheaper than fibers at home. We also consider these other items proposed data transfer rates. So we prefer fiber over other technologies where we can. And in the last round we gave a multiplier fiber project. We try to stick consumers costs to consumers of any new construction equipment or installation, whether the proposal would use the best available technology that is economically feasible. That could mean lots of different things to different people, the availability of service of comparable quality and speed and the objectives of the state's telecommunications plan. When we do these projects, we typically give grantees one year from the execution of a grant agreement to complete construction. We asked them, not ask them but obligate them to provide continuous service for five years. We pay actual costs of construction so it's not, you know, the profit built into the grants. That's pretty much is very straightforward program. It's very much in line with what programs in other states. As you mentioned Massachusetts had programs very similar main has a program that works a lot like this Wisconsin, Tennessee. That's the predominant way that states address brought in. I've provided tables for the last rounds. These are the state funded connectivity initiatives so we are not talking about CRF here. As you can see, at the time, 2016, we were funding projects at 10 megabits per second. There are a few DSL projects in there. There's a lot of fiber though. Again, fiber some cable cables have a role in our connectivity initiative. So even though it doesn't technically meet the 100-100, it gets pretty close and we've done some good projects with cable companies. And again, again, we're doing fiber to the home. DSL plus two is 25 tube service. It's not quite 25-3, but it was, it's pretty close. We've done a couple of those projects. So overall, fiber to the premises where we can, but it's open to any provider where technology agnostic as long as it meets the required service metrics. As I pointed out earlier, wireless is something that we've traditionally not done through the connectivity initiative. So this latest round using CRF money was our first for aid to doing large scale wireless projects. Did the work done in 2020 through the connectivity initiative? There's no 2020 awards here. Was that essentially because the work of the department and the connectivity initiative was directed towards the CRF? Yes. So we did have a connectivity initiative in 2020, but it was funded through CRF. So I have it on the other memo and not this one. This is only using state money. The program is funded through the Vermont universal service fund. So that's a 2.4% charge on your telephone service. So we're taking telephone subscriber money and applying it to broadband. The universal service fund also funds E911, which takes the lion share of the fund. Telecommunications Relay Service, that's a service for deaf, hard of hearing folks to use telephone service. And then we have a state lifeline subsidy for telephone service as well. And the fund funds all of those programs. In 2019, the legislature dedicated a portion of the state USF to specifically to broadband. And that has been building up and we now have a little over 2 million. And so we are, we have a draft RFP ready to go in the next couple of weeks. We'd like to put that out and continue doing connectivity initiative projects using that state money. Yeah, thanks for this sort of similar to my question around the line extension program. I assume there's some mapping of this so that you can see the, you know, where the connectivity initiative has made the biggest dent in reaching underserved folks. And do we find it similar to what I think I heard you say about the line extension program that sort of where there's already service, this is extending that existing service, or is through the criteria and authorization are we, you know, making a significant dent in the sort of farthest out most underserved areas. Certainly, the connectivity initiative contemplates the expansion of existing networks so that has typically meant that if you already have a network and you have a participating ISP, you're going to see those bids. So if there's no participating ISP and a town, we're not going to see a proposal from them, we're going to leave that town behind. The only difference between Lee Cap and connectivity initiative is that Lee Cap is consumer driven, the consumer files and application under this program is the ISP. So there's more leeway for the ISP to say where do we want to go. So it's validated has a presence everywhere in its territory, because it has to offer telephone service. So that's where DSL has had a role is in reaching is really hard to reach areas that project and Barnett, for instance. This one here. You know, there was no other providers, even close, you know, in that area. And that was actually a project where consolidated had worked with the neighborhood, the neighborhood and it's a lot of its own money and to drive down that per location cost. And so that, you know, that's, that's an example of kind of a far out area, but, you know, when you when you talk about favoring fiber, that really limits the number of providers that they can take advantage and so you'll see we've given a lot of money to you see fiber, because they are fiber provider. They have a presence in the upper valley so we're seeing a lot of these grants go to the upper valley area. And here, in fact, I believe everything, but maybe Cavendish is considered upper valley. In this in this award so you know that we are left to choosing between projects that, you know, we get bits for. We like to see more done in the Northeast Kingdom, but we have to have a provider up there willing to do it. Paranetworks is an example, you know, with the Craftsbury project. I think you're a Paranetworks customer. You know, his network is largely state funded in that there's utilization of the state fiber network and his ticket advantage of grants that we've provided. So, about having a provider there to do the work. That certainly seems like an important piece of this. So thanks for that clarification. I think it would be helpful to see a visual summary. So, I earlier I put a link in the chat for the line extension depiction and I'm about to put a link in the chat for the connectivity initiative that was funded through the CRF as well. Is that what you're looking for representative Sims. Yeah, thank you. Okay, we'll get that for you. One additional follow up. Claire commissioner to me. Could you just speak a little bit to the role of the T cab in the connectivity grant initiative and any reflections on the. Yes, I can speak to that. I would like the connectivity initiative program is a relatively new institution and I first began working with it when I came on board in 2017. And I think if you listen to testimony it was given last September in Senate finance by your colleague, Evan Carlson, I think. There's a recognition all around that the institution is growing and coming into its own. And speaking for myself through the connectivity initiative program and the CRF period. I think you froze up commissioner. Can you hear us commissioner tyranny. All right. Why don't we put that question on ice Catherine until the commissioner can can rejoin us or clicks back in. The internet in this state, you know, exactly. He has EC fiber. Catherine why don't you hold on to that question. And Lucy, I think you were next. If you've got a question and maybe Clay can address it. I just had one question if I'm reading the memos correctly, it's giving me the impression that the department is considering addresses that have been the recipient of the art off money as served when it looks at how to pay. How to allocate grants going forward and that concerns me on two reasons. The first is that if the build out timeline is six years I think we in the state have a pretty strong understanding that these locations need broadband faster than six years. The second is that there's a pretty strong history of federal grant money for serving addresses not coming through in the way that it's been allocated so I guess I just want to clarify am I reading correctly in understanding that the going forward, it's the intent of the department to consider those unserved or underserved addresses that have been the recipient of recipient of art off money to be served, as far as allocating grants. I think that's the best approach at this time. And here's why you still have 46,000 addresses that do not have a funded solution in place. And the, the amount of funding that we have to 2 million. So, you know, we can do so every three occasions with that amount of money. So, you know, if we had the money to do 46,000 locations and then some, I take your point. We would be better to get them broadband today then we leave it to art off to serve them but you know the the needs just so greatly a ways with the resources that we have at this time that it's been our focus to really hone in our resources on areas that we know won't see any funding whatsoever. I'm fortunate because six years is a long time. But you've got 46,000 addresses that might never see anything. At least that we're aware of at this point. You know, if you just give us $284 million, we'll do everyone. That's all we need. So, Mr chair. It is. May I I don't know. Do you have a question. I just want to comment on the $280 million that we just need it given to us. I don't. I was, I'm sorry. I was being a bit sarcastic. I just. I think, yeah, I understand. And I just want to, you know, that that can be really disheartening and feel overwhelming. I think that there is a real opportunity here based on the work that hundreds of Vermont talented Vermont volunteers are doing to actually put together the plans to get to the last mile and the and the Vermonters that live in those places. And I think that there's a tremendous opportunity that we have to leverage existing funding and to bring in funds to get this done now that we are actually, you know, creating these plans on how to do it. So, and 280 million is a lot less than what we were hearing, you know, two and three years ago. So, you know, I'm not, I am not intimidated by that number in any way. I, yeah, I take your point. It gets better every year. I think it's just a matter of where you spend state resources. I mean, it would be great if we could use, you know, state resources to hit those. But I think that there are areas that are not funded by art off. It might that are next to those areas that are funded by art off and might help accelerate art off deployment. It might. It might help make art off more feasible for some of those art off recipients. But the funding, say a fiber to the premises solution. In an art off eligible area, I guess the concern from our end is, are you providing two fiber connections or are you subsidizing what should be paid for through art off to the detriment of people who have a solution through art off or some other federal or state program or private solution. That's our, that's our biggest concern. I think one point that should be made about art off that we haven't said yet is that it's, it's not really. It's not really a capital programs. It's not really paying for construction. The companies are receiving ongoing support for a 10 year period to maintain service of those locations. So how they build it, how they pay for it is their problem. They're getting a subsidy to maintain and operate service in those areas. So they have a, they have a requirement to do it. So they're getting paid to keep that service going. So it's not, it's, it's not just a matter of providing them with the money to build it. It's more than that. Whereas our program is simply a capital construction program. We're just paying people to, to construct facilities to, to provide the service. And then we have a grant program as opposed to dollars that could be leveraged by recipients. And again, on the smallest scale, that might not be an efficient way to use these dollars, but. You know, another concept that at least is floating around my head. How can we turn $2 million into $8 million of project financing costs, but that's a longer discussion. We've got 17 minutes left. Okay. Commissioner Tierney, you are in the middle of answering a question from Representative Sims and we lost you. I'm sorry to say it, but you're back. Not at all. And it's given me time to distill my thoughts. It's a helpful. And I think useful institution, representative Sims. It has some growing pains and happily CRF required us to do some work. I don't know if that's what we work yet with VCAB and the department, but it gets stronger every day. If that's. Of any comfort to you. I just, I just want to mention very quickly. I'm sorry. Is that to representative civilians point. I continue to ask the federal delegation at every opportunity. My most recent one came in. January this month, actually. And I think it's been a long time since we last met. To make, to make the ask for the $300 million that will solve all our problems. So never fear the ask is being made representative Sims. I'm sorry. You and I've overlapped there. Yeah, thanks. And totally understand new things. Take, take time to. To get the flow down. I guess I'm curious if there's anything specific that you'd point to about opportunities for growth or development. I'm not sure. I'm not sure. Usefulness of TCAB and how it relates with the department and provides feedback on grants and other components of the work. Would you mind terribly if I thought about that a little bit, and maybe we had an offline conversation about it. Of course. Or as the chair prefers. I, it's an important issue because it goes to. Before the, the CDs became so robust. TCAB was really the only place where the department got. Input from outside the department. As to what it was doing with the connectivity initiative grants. And I especially, I can think of one meeting in particular this past summer. That was very, very. Instructive for how the model can work. And I think that was a good point. I think that the department had certain ideas. We talked with the cab. It was very clear that TCAB saw it differently. And persuasively sell. And that was a very helpful redirection. But I wouldn't be prepared to say much more beyond that right now. Representative yen touch cap. Yeah. On the connectivity initiative, if there is a neighborhood that is connected to the, to the broadband build out. Can they apply to the connectivity initiative for a subsidy to help them fund that. I'm going to take a shot at that because I don't see clay anywhere. It's. I, there you are. I'll take a pass at it and use way in as you see fit clay. It's a grant program. So we put out a request for proposal. And so those proposals need to be responsive to the RFP. And what you've described is a particular entity that has identified a need it has. Of its, you know, that is organic to where its situation is. So it would need to squeeze itself into the demands of the RFP. In order to be able to apply to the connectivity initiative. So that would be a good fit for a grant. And I'm guessing Mike, that that's not a good fit, but maybe a clay would know more. The connectivity initiative is open to. To internet service providers. So they have to be the applicant. If you're not an internet service provider, we can't technically accept your application where things have worked. I would say two examples. One was in Cavendish where the town worked with Comcast. To provide service. And. Comcast was the applicant, but they worked hand in hand with the town Barnett with consolidated. That neighborhood I was discussing earlier. I think there have been a few other examples. West, Craftsbury, West Craftsbury again. Where the town. Worked with para networks and. And we were able to contribute to a larger project. I think those are examples where. A partnership between a neighborhood in a. A carrier has worked out well. You know, there's no formal process to that. We've, we've tried best as we can to parent. Providers with interested folks. And so, I think that the Lee camp project was different in that, that was applicant driven. And so that, that is where we had neighborhoods applying. And getting line extensions. So the neighborhood would have to basically work with their provider. And convince them to put in. To put in a proposal under the RFP. Okay. I think, you know, certainly a lot of the smaller carriers. I think have done. Are able to do that as well. So weight, skills, chain, value and EC fiber. Two examples of. Providers that have. Worked. With the town or with the neighborhood. To do a project. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Representative chase. Quick one clay. I haven't heard any updates on Starlink since your team took over. And they started dealing with you guys directly. I was wondering if you could give us like a quick snapshot of. What's going on with that and how that might dovetail in with some of these conversations. Please. Sure. We've had a few conversations with Starlink. We've had a few conversations with Starlink. They've shared some data with us. Under NDA. So things are moving along. Nothing definitive to report. I don't have much to say to you today, but we are having continued conversations. And I'm hopeful we can do something with Starlink this year. I think we can do something with Starlink. I think we can do something with Starlink this year. I think we can do something with Starlink this year. Cautiously optimistic. Thank you. I don't see any other hands up, but we've got a few more minutes here. What. What I want to use this conversation in the background and the updates that we've gotten from. From Clay and the commissioner today on really as a springboard into the discussion we're having tomorrow morning. We're having a discussion with the city council. I'm hoping we can talk to some of the folks. Representing. CUDs from around the state. I'm hopeful that. Rob fish is going to open our discussion with. Some background on. What the department of public service has been doing in supporting and accelerating the work of CUDs in the last. 12 to 18 months. Rob's position is one that. session to fund through Act 79, my sense and understanding is that it's been a very productive resource for CUDs and I don't have the final headcount yet, but in addition to Rob, I'm hoping we're going to have a representative from some, if not all of the CUDs from around the state to hear what they've been working on in the last year and what their outlook is for let's say the next 12 months in terms of the work that they have in front of them, how they've been using some of the strategic resources that we have appropriated for their utility in the last, I guess the last year, maybe it's 18 months. And also want to hear some of the things that policymakers, including the members on this committee can do to accelerate their work. We have put a lot of eggs in the CUD basket to help our state overcome some of the seemingly insurmountable connectivity issues that we have in certain pockets of the state, but they are really in all parts of the state. And you know, as has been said several times today, we are putting a lot of weight on the backs of volunteers to do this work and how can we better support them both in terms of strategic resources, but then also in terms of financial resources to leverage the very limited resources that they currently have. So that is going to be the backdrop of tomorrow's discussion again with representatives from the Department of Public Service and CUDs from around the state. Mr. Sebelia, I see your hands up. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I just wanted to check in. I see on our agenda tomorrow that we are starting with the CUDs at nine and I just wanted to clarify how long we will be going with them and we'll be going straight through noon with them. Is that being done? Yeah, so yeah. So similar to our hearing this morning, I'm anticipating that that tomorrow's discussion will probably be broken into three parts. I've asked Rob Fish to give the committee some background on the work that he has been doing in the last year to 18 months. And essentially the money that we appropriated through Act 79, what that money is doing in supporting the work of the Department. So that's kind of the introduction. The meet, if you will, is going to be hearing from our CUDs. And I've asked each CUD representative that can be here to give us, again, there's nine CUDs. So we can't take 20 minutes with each, but I'm hoping we can take five or so minutes to get a little background on what they've been doing, some of the challenges they face and what their outlook is for the coming year. And again, I think there's a real variety of the different levels of evolution of these different CUDs. So that's going to be kind of the meat of the sandwich, if you will. And then the other, I think the final discussion piece is going to be hearing from a couple of the CUD leaders from the Vermont CUD Association, which are going to be people in the room, to hear about what are the things that the CUDs have collectively consulted on our priorities. Our policy priorities, how we can support their work, whether it's financially, whether it's from a policy or regulatory standpoint, and this is their opportunity when they'll certainly have others. But tomorrow is an opportunity for them in front of the microphone to talk to some of those things. So it's really going to be a three-part session, great. So I'm going to bring our hearing this morning to a close. I want to, again, thank the commissioner and Clay, again, not only for your time today, but for your work in the last six months. Again, acknowledging it's been a herculean task and that the task in front of us is also herculean, but really appreciate the overview and the advice you give to this committee. We're going to be calling on you not only tomorrow, but in the weeks ahead and really appreciate your time this morning. So members of the committee, we'll see you at 1.15 on the floor.