 Good evening. My name is Clay Purvis. I am the director for telecommunications and connectivity with the state of Vermont. We're here tonight to discuss the final draft of the 10-year telecom plan. This is the second draft earlier last month. We issued the public comments draft and held hearings and accepted comments on the public comments draft. We've now made changes based on those comments and also incorporated the comments into the final draft. So this hearing tonight is to discuss the final draft. I have with me Alex Kelly from Rural Innovations. What's the S stand for? I'm sorry. Strategies. Thank you. Rural Innovations Strategies Incorporated. Thank you business buzzword. Yes. And he's here tonight to give a very brief, much more brief than the public comments version of to go over the plan. And then we'll open it up to public comment. We have received questions from the public about whether we'll consider these comments. Statutorily, we're not obligated to incorporate these comments that we received on the final draft from the plan, but we're interested in hearing from you what comments you have and what changes, if any, should be made to the plan. And we'll certainly take them under consideration. So with that, I will turn it over to Alex. And then at the conclusion of Alex's presentation, we will open it up to comment. I think I'll start first with folks who joined online. Then we'll go to anyone who might be on the phone who wants to comment, and then we will end the evening with comments from the member of the public in this room. So we'll do it that way. So with that, Alex, take it away. Great. Can you all see this deck on the screen? Yes. Fantastic. Well, thank you all so much for attending this input session. I just want to reiterate what Clay said, which is that we received a lot of feedback on the public input draft version of the report, which was fantastic. We are here again to listen to your feedback on the draft version of the report. I will move through this rather quickly because we are assuming that everyone who is commenting on the final draft version has read that version, and so does not need this reminder. But nonetheless, I will move through this and outline what is included in the final draft to prompt comments. So without any further ado, it's worth noting at the outset that we're in a very unique position as a state with a large number of premises still lacking good wired 25 over 3 service, but significant resources from the American Rescue Plan and other sources, perhaps, to serve a number of these premises. So our mission with this plan is to document how kind of new wireline broadband deployments can be done efficiently with accountability in a way that achieves secondary goals as well, or really other goals besides wireline broadband deployment, namely mobile voice coverage, enhanced public safety, and advance all of the statutory goals in 30 VSA 202C. So another thing I wanted to call out at the outset is that this plan was informed by core values that we as Vermonters have, and those values also are informed by a statute. And so in accordance with 30 VSA 202E, B5, and 9, for example, the plan illustrates how these new deployments can be done efficiently, targeting households that currently lack infrastructure capable of 253. You know, other goals were longevity. We want to fix broadband for good and not have to deal with this again in five years. We want future proof solutions. In accordance with 30 VSA chapter 82, the plan prioritizes local control and local input over the process. There are perhaps faster ways to deploy broadband that don't involve as much local control and local input, but that is a core Vermont value and that value informs the plan. And lastly, we wanted to do so with equity in mind to ensure that the benefits of expanded broadband access are not out of reach to Vermonters for any reason. So we'll start with a quick recap of the section of the plan that addresses the 100 over 100 broadband, wireline broadband. The plan documents where the state is in terms of its current deployment and current challenges. And, you know, the past year outside of the pandemic has been very impactful on our broadband deployment. Not only has the Ardolf subsidy been awarded and locations across Vermont have been awarded resources to build broadband, and that is complicated CUD planning in many regards. But the Ardolf subsidy and stimulus money is creating intense labor and materials demand. So for all of these reasons, you know, we need to keep being strategic and supporting the vehicles that we've empowered to address the broadband gaps in our state with technical assistance as complexity grows. So the plan endorses the framework laid out in H360. And the plan also suggests frameworks and mechanisms for what the Vermont Community Broadband Board should be thinking about as they enact H360. And our recommendations in the plan align with, again, the goals laid out in statute. I think the main questions we have, and I'll pause longer on this slide because it's new from the draft plan, is some of the following. So, you know, we talk about how can the Vermont Community Broadband Board establish more granular and precise rules for awarding funding? So there's no ambiguity about who should be winning subsidy, what their metrics are for grading applications, and so forth. In H360, there is language about ensuring that eligible applicants who are not CUDs don't conflict with the CUD's universal service plan. And so we talk about making sure the rules that the VCBB establishes don't cause undue antagonism between entities that otherwise would be great partners. We talk a little bit about accountability and making sure that resources are being spent responsibly and monitored closely. And we talk about, you know, the idea that the VCBB should be very concerned with the long-term sustainability of new networks of any kind. And a little bit about what the VCBB may have to think about in instances where the economics are really tough in our very rural areas. Can you go full screen and just use your arrow keys to move through them? Yeah, tell me if this continues to share screen and hold on. Is he still seeing the screen? Yeah, it's good. Yeah, just like that. I think your arrow keys will get you through it. Thank you so much. Yeah, good idea. So the plan also recommends technical standards for networks that are subsidized by funding from the VCBF. Those standards include a number of things. I would point you to the plan to see them fully fleshed out, but scalability, extra strands, and capacity to accommodate public safety and expansion of cell service, avoidance of host remote isolation, multiple paths of egress, appropriate resiliency and redundancy, and of course, regular third-party audits for cybersecurity and other measures. The plan also talks about the path of the CUDs ahead of them. And I think it's just important to reiterate that now is a pivotal moment to make sure our CUDs are successful in achieving their mission, and we want to set them up for success for decades. So we recommend in the plan specific capacity and expertise the CUDs might need to be successful, including what you see on the page here and what is in the plan. And then lastly, as we mentioned, equity is a focus of the plan and a goal of the state. So we discuss in the plan ways to ensure and strategies for ensuring that all vermonitors can take advantage of our telecommunications networks. When it comes to mobile, you can see in the plan a propagation analysis and an assessment based on our modeling of both addresses that are covered indoors and outdoors or not covered at all. And again, because signal strength diminishes as you go through walls, there's a difference between the addresses covered outdoors and indoors. The one thing I have note here is that we did the analysis based on Vermont-based towers. So there are some border towns that perhaps have service from across the river, across the lake. The plan also includes an assessment of coverage along roadways, because that is in statute as a goal of the state. As you can see, Class 1 roads are covered. We estimate it over 90%. That drops off as you go to Class 2, 3, 4, and other roads. So the plan recommends a mechanism for increasing mobile coverage based on an RFP process that welcomes a variety of infrastructure types and solutions. I think we can all agree that especially with mobile deployment, different towns have different appetites for different types of deployment, whether that be small cell deployments, 4G, 5G towers, and so forth. And so our mechanism here that we propose does not prescribe a type of infrastructure, but focuses on ensuring that the community has vetted and validated the proposal, as well as suggests scoring mechanisms along state priorities. Public safety is critical and we received a lot of good feedback on the public safety section of the plan. There are some bright spots in the state. For example, during the pandemic, Vermont migrated to a next Gen 9-1-1 system and that migration went very well. Related to public safety, obviously, is that the broadband expansion needs to adhere to best practices for resiliency and security. And mobile broadband, obviously, is a big part of that. We received a lot of feedback on land mobile radio systems. There are some local land mobile radio systems that are aging. And local areas and local first responders don't yet feel that FirstNet is sufficiently mature, reliable to abandon the land mobile radio systems, and we would agree with that. And lastly, we noted that public safety communications increasingly rely on private networks. That's networks from AT&T and Verizon and others. And so we recommend specific applications and technical considerations around that fact. Lastly, the plan addresses PEG-TV, public educational and governmental TV. We want to reiterate that PEG-TV channels are an incredible asset to the state. They were during the pandemic, they were before the pandemic, and they will be long into the future. And what we heard from them is that they are seeking funding predictability and stability as their traditional funding sources are jeopardized by changes in the way we interact with technology. So we certainly endorsed the premises in the Berkshire report, which was just written last year to address changes in PEG business models. They also recommended some alternate sources of funding that PEG could use instead of their current mechanisms. And I think we would really reiterate what they note, which is that any significant change in funding source does require extensive legal tax analysis and may carry some legal risk. And so it should be vetted extensively and appropriately before adoption. Of course, I think PEG-TV has demonstrated their extreme value in the state. And so, if there is a funding shortfall, of course, the general fund is an option before a long-term funding source can be established. So with that, let me see if I can give you a screen share, and then I'm excited to listen to your input and take notes. Great. Thank you very much, Alex. I appreciate it. So if you're online and you'd like to participate, please use the raise hand feature on the Microsoft Teams. And we'll begin calling on you. So first, I see Tom Lepolt. Sorry, Tom, if I butchered your last name. No, you got that right, actually. I just want to say thank you for everything that you're going to do and are doing for Public Access. I won't rehash what Alex went over. My name's Tom Lepolt. I'm the executive director of Public Access. I'm the executive director of Public Access. I've gone on six years now. I've actually been part of that organization since 1993. During the pandemic, we actually served our community greatly. We teamed up with the Rulan Regional Medical Center and did six live updates with doctors. So folks actually could call in and speak to a doctor locally and ask questions. And the hospital was very thankful for that. I'm very happy to be here. Thank you very much. Very thankful for that, as was the public. We teamed up with Catmout Radio and they simulcasted that, all of those broadcast. We also have a strong relationship with Brock. So during the pandemic, we helped them promote their food drives and let public know where they could get food and supplies, folks that really needed it. Currently, we're in the midst of graduation season and we've covered every major graduation in the county. Anyone that has asked us to do so, we've gladly sent someone to the school to cover graduation. We even helped some schools stream our signal. So when we're there recording it, we offer the video and audio out to our camera to their website so folks can see it live once they can't go. And as you know, I believe a loss in our services due to a funding cut would be very detrimental to the area. Thank you for supporting some of the recommendations in the Berkshire study. And I do believe that public access television does add to a strong democracy in the community. And I appreciate that the state of Vermont does everything it can to continue to support PECTV over the next 10 years and beyond. Thank you for your time. Thank you, Tom. How do we have anyone else online who would like to make a comment? All right. David Jones. David, take it away. Yes. Thank you, Clay. This is David Jones. I'm with DV Fiber. I have one technical question and one general point, which is a which I'm not prepared to provide a specific recommendation for. Technical question. Figure 16, page 89, PDF page 96 suggests that the cumulative cost per passing for a fiber optic network would be about $10,000 in year one and somewhere in the range of $17,000 by year two and then be stable at that level. It would seem to me that a cost per passing of $17,000 would be an insanely high amount. And I believe that there's either a calculation error or a labeling error. And I think it should be corrected in the report. I don't believe that your overall estimate of cost to deploy for the entire state assumes a fiber cost per passing of $17,000 per location. So that's the technical point. I would suggest taking a look at that. Again, that's figure 16, page 89, PDF, page 96. Thank you. Okay. Thank you, Clay. And then a topic I'm wrestling with but don't have a specific solution to provide is that as we go to deployment, time is going to be of the essence because the marketplace does not wait for us. And so the degree of oversight to be applied by the broadband board is going to need to balance the necessity for a rapid deployment with the other objectives of trying to make the deployment plan as good as possible. So again, I think that's something that the board is going to have to wrestle with and to the extent that the plan gives the broadband board discretion, I think that will be helpful. Thank you very much. Thank you, David. Do we have Larry Lackey next? Hi, Larry. Nice to see you again. Likewise, Clay. Yeah, just for the record, I'm Larry Lackey, resident of Stowe, just appearing here on my own behalf, not as an on behalf of Stowe Electric Department of which I'm a commissioner or the oil fiber net of which I am the treasurer, just my own thoughts. First, I wanted to mention pole attachment fees. I know that few years ago, the PUC amended rule 3.7 to both to clarify and expedite the process for licensing and make ready. And the PUC also reduced the pole attachment rates or the formula at the time. But I feel that there's more work left to be done on the pole attachment rate, which as you probably know, established as a presumption that the rate would be set for the communication space on the assumption that the attached cable would require one and a quarter feet of vertical space on the pole. And the electric safety codes that dictate the amount of space needed on the pole only require one foot. And while that may sound like a small amount, but it means that the pole rates are 25% higher than they ought to be if they were based on a fully allocated cost formula. So I'd recommend that the department take another look at that issue and advocate for an amendment to the rule or at a minimum allow the attaching entities to demonstrate that they don't need that much space on the pole. And I think this is especially important in a time when so many new providers are attaching cables to poles to bring broadband to everyone in the state. And those recurring costs for pole rent are a significant operating expense for all of those carriers. Second thing I wanted to mention was railroad crossings and the difficulty to any wireline communications provider or even an electric utility in trying to obtain access to cross a railroad, whether underground or aerial. VTrans, as you know, owns a lot of the rail beds in the state and they're good to deal with, they're very fair. The private rail operators seem to view any communication, any wire that would cross their right of way as a complication and that the best way to deter it is to charge such a high fee that people just go away. In fact, I once had a rail operator told me that was how they set their exorbitant fee. And I'm not sure what the remedy is given their property rights or what they believe their property rights are, but it's just it's like a landmine for any any wireline carrier that's trying to design a network and sometimes they just have to be on the other side of the track and there's no way around it. So it would be, it might be helpful for the department to look at remedies for that and maybe some guidance on what are reasonable reasonable access policies would be. The next comment I had before you was about cellular coverage and it's good to see that the draft plan recognizes that there's a great deficiency of cellular coverage in the state. My own view is that the root cause of the gaps in coverage stem from weak bill out requirements in the radio frequency licenses issued by the FCC. They typically talk about a carrier serving maybe x percent say 95 percent of the the potential population within a certain number of years. And unfortunately, Vermont always seems to be in the last five percent. And that's at the same time the FCC is auctioning spectrum and getting billions of dollars for it. And it just seems to me that the FCC ought to raise the bar for coverage and presumably accept a little less than auction revenue that just goes into the federal coffers. And so there may be a role for the department to play in advocating for for the interests of Vermont in having more stringent radio frequency coverage licenses. Next item I wanted to touch on was this idea of mobile backhaul over fiber. And I do agree there's an opportunity for or some synergy. But I think that whatever financial assistance that the state offers would need to recognize there's an additional cost to that. And that the resources of that any carrier, including a CUD that's looking to to provide universal coverage are going to be stretched. And I think there's a possibility that the money spent that the state might require a CUD to invest in spare strands would just go unused. And so I guess you just need to be mindful of adding an additional cost burden to not any district that's already seeing just the provision of basic broadband service as a as a stretch. I don't think you want to make it add so much to their responsibilities that they can't really aren't viable. The plan mentioned this idea of issuing RFPs for solutions that would bring improved cellular coverage to communities. And I think it's appropriate that they are the processes is very general. But I think you're probably aware of the experience with coverage code, which had a solution that may have been technically feasible, but commercially the major cell carriers had wanted nothing to do with it. And so I just think whatever the state does, they need to be mindful not just of the they really have to have the commercial feasibility foremost in their mind, not just what's technically feasible. So that's it for now. I don't want to dominate your hearing, but thanks for the opportunity to comment. Thank you, Larry. Appreciate it. Would anyone else who is on the team's meeting like to provide a comment? Okay, going once, going twice. If you have anyone on the phone, going once, going twice. All right. Are you going to ask if you're recording who it is five, seven or seven? Yeah, I just asked if anyone on the phone wants to participate and I'm not hearing anything. So it's fine to come to a meeting and listen. So we'll open it up to people in here. Who would like to go first? Steve Whitaker. I have studied the I commented in 2018 extensively. I commented in 2014 extensively. Most of those comments were never incorporated into the plan. The law changed since 2018 and requires that the department respond to all public comments in the public, in the final draft for all comments that were made in the public comment draft. Either incorporate those into the plan or provide a detailed explanation of why they were not incorporated. What I find in the final draft is an appendix G wherein one of the department staff, not CTC engineers who have the capability to see the merit in those voluminous detailed comments, but a department staff basically dismissed and trivialized most of the precise public comments, especially relating to a network to support the public access channels, resiliency and route diversity to protect cell coverage as a last resort when a lot of aerial fiber gets blown down or power outages disabled systems over fiber or coax and public safety radio. The the pretense to not know what I was talking about when I referred to the microwave network. The state has a multimillion dollar state microwave network, which is mission critical backed up with generators and diverse routes in most cases. That has an OC three capable capacity right now, and it could be upgraded to an OC 12 or OC 48 if needed, and be our first line of recovery and resilience in the event of a major hurricane coming through. We could get the microwave system back up and running and access it from most of the remote areas weeks before we would be able to restore fiber backhaul in such a disaster scenario. So for that to be dismissed and the Department of Public Safety be considered to be a closed island that we don't have the right to look in, the statute requires that the department analyze all state systems, including the state microwave system and propose I'll quote from that one. Well, let me let me back up a minute. Let me just start with a generalized statement. The final draft of the 10-year telecommunication plan falls dramatically short of 90%, approximately 90% of the statutory requirements. Among them, the final draft plan proposes to allow the CUDs when negotiating with consolidated communications or other internet service providers to negotiate a way crucial and hard won Vermont laws and statutory goals and policies such as net neutrality, open access to shared infrastructure, a competitive choice for consumers. Those are not negotiable. Those are foundation elements. And I'm troubled understand not from Matt's but Alex pointed to your reliance on chapter 82 of title 30 is only the CUD chapter and that came much later only past in recent years. But the 202C goals and policies have been in effect since 1987 with limited exception, open access and competitive choice were added in 10 years ago. But this idea of shifting and waiving the rights and the obligations of state for net neutrality, competitive choice and open access in favor of local control, which only relates to CUDs is absolutely absurd. It's an abuse of the statutory framework for this telecommunications plan. The legal analysis section, despite the statutory requirement fails to address the public comments or provide analysis on proposals for revising the tax structure for telecommunications infrastructure and services to support public benefits such as 911, telecommunication services for the deaf, funding for access media organizations and whether CUDs might unwillingly be forfeiting sovereign immunity from liability in favor of claiming trade secret protection for publicly funded fiber optic plants. Those are the issues that were raised in public comments were not addressed in this final draft and are required to be have been addressed in this final draft by statute. That's what we're paying the legal analysis bill for and those issues you were supposed to build on and provide analysis of alternatives for funding the AMOs above and beyond the Berkshire report, not just refer to it and say that's outside of our scope. The detailed responses to the public comments made on the plan were provided by the department amount to a haphazard dismissive trivializing of public safety broadband, land mobile radio communications, issues such as 911 call delivery assurance, interoperability with state systems such as the microwave and the VCOM channels, failover network resiliency, diverse protected fiber routes and new network and funding options for regional dispatch consolidation efforts. Analysis of funding alternatives for AMOs is likewise missing from the draft plan. Several important comments raising prerequisite design issues relating to active optical network were not responded to at all and are not even included in appendix G for some reason. I noticed that VTEL had provided comments through survey monkey comment number 95 and is not responded to related to active optical network. But the reason I raise active optical network is because the statutory goal of 202c requires that the state support infrastructure support the application of broadband infrastructure that does not negatively affect the ability of Vermont to take advantage of future improvements in broadband technology. If we in the interest of saving a few dollars now deploy networks such as consolidated is deploying, EC fiber is deploying, others are planning to deploy, we forfeit the option with all those splitters in the field we forfeit the option to allow competitive choice another statutory goal of 202c to come in and reach a customer directly over top. By putting those splitters in place we are foregoing our undermining our option for both competitive choice and modern infrastructure. Some customers, some neighborhoods will only want to be happy with gigabit service. Some few customers may need 10 gigabit or or higher and that will not be possible through a splitter of passive optical architecture. You would need the active architecture to accommodate that especially from another competitor. This is what I had hoped was the capacity in the skills of CTC engineering but I fear that this was compromised by the department's view of a political spin and told CTC and Ricci not to focus on certain items, not to fully expand and elaborate. That is what I fear happened here. In statute 202d per end C in developing the plans the department shall address each of the state telecommunications policies and goals of section 202c of this title and shall assess initiatives designed to advance and make measurable progress with respect to each of those policies and goals. This assessment shall include identification of the resources required and potential sources of funding for plan implementation. This draft plan does none of that and that is the most specific statutory obligation and requirement and I believe that the CTC contract specifies that they will be held accountable to accomplishing that. I have not yet to see the receipt contract with CTC but I will. Instead of surveys, well I could go on but I think you're sufficiently bored. I want to leave some time for Donna. Plan requirements, a geographically specific assessment of status coverage. There's no mention of completing the cellular coverage surveys that were done in 19 in 2010 and 13. Carrier specific every road so that we know where we would get the most bang from the buck by using a neutral host small cell of all carriers and where we could actually calculate the economics of other carriers sharing small cells possibly owned by the communication union districts. That is the best coverage. We do not want to create a state that only AT&T customers are welcome to visit and that's really the concept of RFP because VTEL as a potential neutral host carrier cannot compete against AT&T in an RFP scenario. It would destroy their relationship with their prime partner in roaming. So the first statutory goal is to strengthen the state's role in telecommunications planning and this plan does nothing of the sort. It kicks the can down the road and says that would be nice and this would be nice and intelligent vehicle highway systems would be nice but maybe in 10 years we'll think about that again. This plan is an abject failure to meet the statutory requirements. It should not be adopted and I plan to continue to go to the wall to make that point. Thank you. Thank you Stephen. So would you like to make a comment? Yes I do and you're who? I am Clay Purvis with the Department of Public Service. We also have the Commissioner June Tierney on the line and Alex Kelly is our consultant. We have a couple of one other department staff Michael DeHart as well and we're here to take public comment so everyone online is already commented so. I gathered that. So if you could please state your name. Yes I will. I'm Donna Bate. I live in Montpelier. I'm here as Central Vermont Public Safety Authority chair of the board and we have comments we want to make which we've already submitted some written comments to you directly or to the public service and that's another thing just to find out where I send all these attachments that go with this letter. So that what our concern is that we are writing dealing with this preliminary draft that we request that local and state can anyone see me? Yes this camera here you should look at this. This camera moves around the room. If you talk it'll you see in the lower right hand corner I'm talking so it's showing me enough you talk. Okay all right so once I talk it'll pay attention. Thank you it's helpful that we're requesting that state local and regional public safety entities become partners active partners as we all struggle with limited resources challenging geography and obsolete telecommunication equipment. We need land mobile radios LMRs to be included in the definition of telecommunication and broadband devices. We need local and regional public safety systems to be included in the state's 10-year telecommunication plan and if the state chooses to not include these essential elements in its 10-year plan then we need another mechanism for statewide planning to improve local FAR and EMS services that depend on land mobile radios. We would like to have a partnership with you this particular letter that I'm giving you a copy of went out to Anne Cummings she is the chair of the finance committee I'll also send June a copy and anyone else you should have one and that we're really wanting to reach out to both the public service department public safety department we've already reached out to the medical center to Washington Electric co-op to CV fiber and other stakeholders because we feel that we all need to be interoperable and that throughout the public safety trans telecommunication in Vermont need to be on that scale of the interoperability to interface with one another and that the local and regional public safety providers which provide the police far and EMS are the first responders when there's a severe storm when there's flooding when there's a health crisis it's the local people that are the backbone of the reality of public safety in Vermont and in the telecommunication and they depend on radios we have been told by state officials that the and I have an email here from Terry LaValley and Corey Chase that's I've included that says that it's the 10-year plan is all about state-owned and state-managed public safety services and that when we feel we need a more holistic planning just as the federal and the state and local governments are expanding their investments in dependability and interoperable telecommunication systems now is the time to be inclusive of all the public safety providers and then I talk a bit about the definition of interoperability which you probably are familiar with not everybody I think in some of the legislators people were reaching out to are is that it really is the ability of different telecommunication systems to readily connect exchange and make use of information between different organizations but also between different manufacturers and it's really crucial for the dependable timely effective communication I've included a chart is a five page brochure from homeland security about their interoperability continuum and that's a piece that all public safety entities need to function with and we would like the state support to fulfill that that reach central vermont public safety authority hard a consultant elevate to do a central vermont telecommunication need assessment their preliminary findings show that our current land mobile system for the fire departments is seriously flawed and they ranked us on the lowest of the low tier on the interoperability continuum quite embarrassing and they they are going to be presenting their report July 8th and I will forward it to the public safety commissioner public service commissioner all these yes oh they're all going to get it but I actually want you to have it so we feel the preliminary findings of a report that has been paid for through the taxpayers very in Montpelier but it is a regional report because we work together regionally is really going to be important to be included in someone's awareness here of just where we are that things are not okay in telecommunication on the ground level of the first responders I've also attached letters from the city of berry montelier and capital farm mutual aid system as well as central vermont medical center and their support to join together under the umbrella central vermont public safety authority to reach out to the federal earmark application both with lehi and sanders because we really need to work together to maximize our resources we serve over 70 000 residents and some 23 towns and our members have seen the benefit of working together regionally to resolve current communication problems and to join together to maximize cast capital investments we want to share revenue share expenses and to do the planning together holistically I feel that the statute of which 30 vsa 202 d telecommunication plan we feel that under there that talks about telecommunication network servicing all service areas in the state it mentions a need to seek information from the public safety sector to determine what is needed now and in 10 years and it also refers to the emergency communication and homeland security communication interoperability plan we have a letter here from one of our board members kim cheney who's a past vermont attorney general that has written his own opinion as why the term telecommunication should include land mobile radios and that's attached and this attached also is the email between terry valley the radio technology service of the department of public safety i'll get the right word there and cori chase department of public service and there's a letter that i sent about broadband there was a bill in the house h360 this past year we sent a letter again to andcomings as the head of the finance committee there that they need to understand them the use of broadband services to enhance radios is very important and there are many other ways that public safety uses wireless an example medical records from the ambulances to the hospital and sometimes they can't doesn't reach it it's really a matter of the patient may be going to the wrong place because the records don't come through and they don't put them to the right hospital or when they get there they don't know what's the stats of the patients and they're not nearly as prepared as they like and hence that's why we have a letter included here from the medical center and so in conclusion we need land mobile radios to be included in the definition of telecommunication and broadband devices we need local and regional public safety systems to be included in the 10-year plan for telecommunication and we would prefer the plan have accurate information on the current needs and vision of center remote public safety telecommunications we appreciate an opportunity to meet with you to join with you to improve public safety services through planning thank you for your time thank you thank you sorry i'm a terrible reader it's much better than i tried to read it to catch all the details very very good and well well stated comments so thank you very much for that um so in order to be in the record do you want a copy of everything uh you can email us a copy of everything and after the conclusion of this hearing um i can i can help you with that okay um but this is being recorded all right and alex here from uh rizzi uh is taking notes as um as is our staff so um we will um we will have that comment um it's reported okay so we can go back and watch it and um and um and uh think about and then address it so uh thank you very much um would anyone else like to make a comment before um we uh go to the end of the session all right we'll think thank you everyone for attending uh really appreciate it a couple more we've still got a few minutes are you gonna come to the the uh to all of them depends depends if you uh i want to raise one because five minutes even public safety uh the host remote isolation and for the folks listening i'll explain what that is a telephone central office switch it normally runs processing and call switching not only for its own telephone exchange but it also supports what are called remote switches which could be basically like a series of hubs in rural communities and that connection between the host and the remote if there's not a diverse connection a protected diverse routed uh connection to that between that host and remote that a car accident or a tree limb falling can isolate that remote exchange so that no one can call outside of their local exchange can't call any other exchanges and most importantly can't call 911 and this has been studied for a decade or two by the public service department and public utilities commission the department has not made it resolution of that problem uh a priority in negotiating instead of regulation plans it is uh likely cost prohibitive for consolidated to build a diverse route just to protect a single remote presuming they were building and owning all that fiber and all on their cost on their balance sheet however when a c ud is building fiber in those areas the c ud could prioritize routes which would enable uh consolidated to build a diverse route back to that host switch and thereby resolve that host remote vulnerability but that necessitates transparency with the information the the public utilities commission opened an investigation and it pretty much stagnated because everything was secret we don't want to tell I think it's reckless endangerment to refuse to tell the customers who are in a frequently isolated exchange Montgomery for instance that they should plan on not having another way to call 911 and many of these areas also don't have cell coverage so if there's no cell coverage and they're isolated between the host and the remote you've left people seriously in danger and prioritizing this requires transparency and notice to the consumers that they are vulnerable and therefore they can engage in prioritizing fiber routes being built by the communications union districts and the incentive reg plan coming up next summer can require consolidated to close those host remote isolation vulnerabilities but this again was raised in public comments it was swept off the rug and not incorporated into the final draft and I think it's it's a travesty um okay that's three minutes or is that five did I use all five you should submit written comments to us Steven at just point after the treatment all my written comments four sets of written comments got in the public comment draft the treatment they got uh you have a lot of nerve asking me for written comments all right well with that uh we will end the session thank you all for your attendance really appreciate it and if you'd like to follow up with written comments you can email us at psd.telecom at vermont.gov or you can visit our website we have a page on the telecom plan that gives instructions for providing feedback as well if you have any questions please feel free to give me a call or email me clay.pervispurvis at vermont.gov I will say it again after uh but and and someone maybe michael can put that in the chat too uh for the folks online all right will you be posting transcripts of these uh Steven will post the the recording online all right thank you very much for your time have a good night