 And we are live. So I will call this joint meeting together. And this is for the purpose of receiving a presentation on the 10 year telecom plan long awaited. And also answer questions from both the committee members and then members of the public. And so I'm going to start out. Commissioner Tierney, this is your section. I don't know how you've. Line this up, but I will leave it to you to. Kick it off. Thank you very much. Chair Cummings for the record, June Tierney commissioner department of public service. And it's good to see so many very familiar faces here today. I am delighted to be presenting this plan to you for your consideration. I'm very pleased to be here today. And thank you for joining me with me today are clay purpose, the director for telecommunications at the department. Matt Dunn, who is the founder and executive director of rural innovations. Joanne Hovis, the president of CTC technologies. As well as Alex Kelly, who's been working with both of them. I believe as part of rural services, innovation services on the plan. It has been a real privilege to work with these three organizations. And I'm very happy to be here today. I'm very pleased to be here today. And practices for putting together a plan of this nature. And also because we've had the benefit of national talent and experience in the form of what Ms. Hovis brings to the table. And also homegrown state based talent. In the form of Matt Dunn and his outfit. The combination of the two have ensured that we've developed a fulsome plan. That it looks forward 10 years. And I'm very happy to be here today. And I'm very happy to be here today. And I'm very happy to be here today. I also want to thank this team for the availability it had during the legislative session. Some of you recall that at different points, when you were trying to figure out what you wanted to do with ARPA money. And what you wanted to do with H 360. That we were able to make these people available to you. To discuss how your thoughts were matching up against what they were thinking in the plan. And so that said, I'm going to turn the presentation over now to Clay and the three experts who were the authors of the plan. And hopefully they will first walk you through the plan. And then secondly, we will have as much time available as you need to ask questions followed by commentary and questions from the public. So with no further ado, Clay, please proceed. Thank you. Thank you for having us today. I had no further comments than what June added. So we'll just go straight to Matt and his team. To begin an overview of the 10 year plan and give you a sense of what the plan covers. Great. Thank you, Clay. And, uh, and members of the joint committee, thank you for taking the time to, uh, to meet with us and to have this conversation. I'm going to share my screen. Uh, and attempt to have a presentation. There we are. Uh, so first of all, I just want to say, uh, what an honor it was to work with the department. Uh, and with so many people across the state on this 10 year telecommunications plan. Uh, as you all know, we are in a unique moment. Uh, there is a moment where much of the work that, uh, the folks on this zoom call have been undertaking for, uh, the past two decades are actually coming to fruition as resources are becoming available to actually solve some of the vexing telecommunication challenges that we have, uh, faced as a state, uh, uh, uh, Kelly and, uh, Joanne Hovis and her team from CPC, uh, have been deep in the weeds, uh, in putting this together, uh, between this plan and the previous plan that we worked on which was, uh, focused explicitly on a COVID response. Uh, there's been hundreds of hours of interviews, uh, their outreach. We have done multiple, uh, sessions for getting input from the public and received comments, uh, both, uh, by requesting them on the site as well as, uh, proactively seeking them, uh, through surveys. Uh, a telecommunication plan is, you know, limited at some level, even though as you see it's 300 plus pages, uh, with appendices, uh, so we, you know, made sure that we were covering all the elements, uh, required, um, but obviously emphasized, uh, and went deeper in some areas than others, uh, based on the feedback that we received, uh, from the department, but also from what we've heard from stakeholders and, and legislators, uh, as we were trying to make sure that we had a usable plan. The final thing I'll mention is that a, uh, 10-year telecommunications plan is an interesting beast, uh, in a time when technology is accelerating, uh, at a very rapid speed, trying to look out a full decade is not the simplest thing. Uh, but we were able to take the experiences that we are, uh, we've seen for the past 10 years and the experiences that we are seeing right now in order to be able to do, uh, some projecting of understanding the technology as it's unfolding and trying to do, uh, a bit of looking around the corner to be able to provide a framework for, uh, for this, um, uh, group for legislators for the, uh, administration to, uh, have as you're making additional binding, uh, policy decisions moving forward. So this is the, uh, table of contents for our presentation today. Um, I'm going to be walking through the first section, uh, and then having Alex Kelly, uh, speak to the, uh, public safety, uh, provisions, uh, and then I'll wrap up with, uh, a quick overview of the, um, uh, pegged up television area. Uh, this is obviously going to be a, a significant summary of the, uh, work that went into the full plan. Uh, I highly recommend if you haven't had the chance to, to make your way through it, to do so. Uh, it has a lot of information, uh, and much more context than we're going to be able to, you know, share in this presentation just by design. Uh, but happy to give you an overview, uh, as well as you. So the, the opportunity that we zeroed in on, uh, with this plan, uh, the moment where we could actually move our state, uh, to a place where, uh, all, uh, Vermont residents have, uh, have, have service at least at the 23 over three megabits per second. Uh, standard, which is what the FCC currently has. Uh, and this is, uh, this, it was a chance for us to take a step back. Uh, really zero in on the number of premises that we're, you know, talking about, which is, uh, 51,000, uh, uh, premises, uh, in the state, um, uh, that are lacking 25 free or an obvious and clear path to getting to 25 and three because of committed funding. Uh, we then re, uh, Calculated the estimate for getting, uh, those premises to a hundred over a hundred, uh, megabits per second service with fiber, likely with fiber to the home. Uh, and we did that because, uh, previous estimates were done, you know, with, uh, more, more limited data and, and frankly without the, uh, the urgency of there being the resources available to actually make a true dent, if not solve this problem. And so we have created, uh, an estimate, a new estimate for how much it would take to get, uh, those 51,000 premises, um, uh, up to future proof broadband. And the, the range just in case people are wondering why there's a range from 360 million to 440 million. Uh, we can get into more detail on this, but basically it's, uh, what constitutes a camp. Which I think is a uniquely Vermont, uh, kind of discussion. Uh, if you include, uh, everything that's called a, a camp, uh, uh, Ian, uh, that need to be served. Um, it's obviously higher costs because of the location of the camps, the numbers of the camps, like, uh, if you eliminate all entities that are defined as camps, uh, you would get to the lower costs. Um, but we wanted to make sure that we gave you this range, um, because I know there's some discussion of whether those are areas that need to hit service. But the real, uh, focus of this is to zero in and we'll get, we'll come back to this a few more times. On getting those. Un-served locations. That currently are experiencing essentially a market failure. Where the marketplace is not bringing, uh, high speed internet to those locations. To a place where they are in a future proof position. Where they leap frog and are actually able to get, uh, a hundred over the over a hundred fiber to the home connectivity, which would allow them to scale. Uh, as a technology scales and that would be done in the most efficient way, uh, possible. Um, so the investment here has much more, uh, lasting value over a period of time. So when we did this plan, we, you know, looked very clearly to the statute, uh, to make sure that the values that we brought to this, uh, plan, were in line with what the, uh, legislator legislature, uh, had asked for, um, uh, in the, in the statute itself. Uh, so we looked at, uh, efficiency, uh, in making sure that we were targeting the households that both needed the most help in the short term and will continue to need the most help in the longterm to make sure that there is equity and access to broadband. We were focused on longevity to make sure that we were making sure that there was equity and access to broadband, uh, in the longterm needs. I mean, we're already looking at a, uh, a 10 year plan, but, you know, clearly the legislature has stated a goal of getting to a hundred over a hundred, um, to ensure future proof capacity. Uh, we also believe that local control is a value that has been, uh, uh, uh, been in Vermont for a long time, but we believe that the plan is in this, uh, a communication union districts in this particular case. Um, and also equity, uh, to make sure that the, uh, plan that we provide, uh, allows for, uh, equity of access to broadband over this 10 year horizon, uh, regardless of geography, income race or any other factor. So the, uh, we're going to get this into a number of different areas of building, uh, fiber to the home, including some of the, uh, activities that have happened, uh, over the course of just the last six months. Um, the RDOF, uh, reverse auction, uh, which, you know, was, was taking place when we were working on the, uh, COVID plan and has, uh, continued, uh, to evolve over time, uh, because of where the funding went and what it, uh, provided, uh, for resources, uh, to various providers across the state. Um, the stimulus money, uh, that's coming out nationally has created and will, uh, only increasingly create, uh, intense labor and materials demand, uh, which makes, uh, construction, uh, pricing, uh, and the other piece that we just want to make sure everyone is aware of is that not all CUDs are in the same place. Uh, you know, some have been, uh, operating a, an ISP and delivering, uh, uh, fiber to the home for, uh, a number of years now and, uh, gotten quite sophisticated on the financial as well as delivery side. Some have just recently formed and actually become their own entity. And so it's going to, uh, require, uh, ongoing, uh, support to those enterprises, uh, if they are going to be on the front lines of, uh, building out the telecommunications infrastructure that reflects, uh, their community's values. Uh, and the values of the state. We couldn't write this plan without, uh, also, uh, watching legislation and action. Uh, at the end of the day, uh, is the creator of policy for the state of Vermont. Uh, and we, um, may wanted to make sure that we were delivering a, an independent set of frameworks. Um, but also, uh, doing it within the context of, of the, the work that you all were undertaking this session. Um, we have, uh, said a few, uh, recommendations here, which we think are aligned, uh, with the work of age three, 60, um, that funding should be prioritized for, uh, CUDs. Uh, and that, uh, those, uh, uh, plans need to be achieving universal coverage. Uh, this, the second is that, uh, the receipt of funding should obligate those CUDs, uh, to pass every on grid premise. Uh, the CUD phase approach for funding, uh, because there is going to be various steps along the way that CUDs need to take. And we're not saying that this should like slow things down to a glacier pace. Um, but it is important to have accountability and the right level of support for CUDs at the right time in their process of developing, uh, for bringing, uh, 100 over 100. Uh, megabit per second capacity to their regions. Um, we had, uh, some areas that we felt, you know, needed to be requirements with that funding that you can see here on the left, uh, as well as areas that we felt needed to be priorities, uh, and allow the CUDs to negotiate, uh, on those priorities. Uh, again, it's much more than what was, uh, articulated in, uh, in H360, but we believe is very much a lot. Uh, and in how you articulated what were values that should be conveyed with this funding, uh, as well as, uh, you know, are getting a little more in the details into what we think need to actually be requirements. There are, however, a number of considerations that, we want to make sure everyone is aware of as H360 becomes an active. Uh, and these are, I'm sure questions that came up in a committee, um, but are important to, uh, to be thinking about, uh, as the new board, uh, is created and convened. Uh, and there is a request for additional, uh, thoughts and, and recommendations as to what the ultimate intent would be. Uh, that includes making sure that there are really granular and precise rules for awarding funding. Uh, so that there isn't ambiguity or, or contention. As you know, there's sometimes debate, uh, in the space of telecommunication. Uh, the second is that you would want to make sure you had a clear definition of what would be a conflict with a CUD's universal service plan. And then because that is the best way to avoid, uh, unnecessary antagonism or fights between various, uh, groups that are trying to access those resources and achieve the goals. Uh, there is a number of items on, uh, on compliance and making sure that the, that the resources are distributed, uh, uh, are distributed to the public. And then there's a, uh, a long term view, uh, which we know we, we want all of these CUDs to be. Epically successful. Uh, but it is incumbent on the, uh, board and, and probably the, the legislature and the department to also think about. What happens if it doesn't work? Uh, what happens if one of these plans is not as successful as, as a long term view? Uh, is not as successful as, as, uh, the, the early, uh, CUDs effort is CUD efforts. Um, so that there is a clear pathway, um, and an appropriate one. Uh, if things do not go as smoothly, uh, as we all hope. Uh, we do recommend, uh, that some technical standards are adhered to, uh, when, uh, subsidized network deployments take place. Uh, these are not, uh, new, new necessarily. Uh, but they are not always adhered to. And the, uh, danger, uh, of not having these, uh, specifically addressed, uh, is that some proposals could try to, you know, cut corners. Uh, that can put the ultimate success, uh, as well of the, of the system as well as interoperability. Uh, in the, uh, in the build, uh, compromise. Um, and there are some specific pieces and including making sure that, uh, extra stands are available for public uses. Um, that there is additional capacity for, uh, growth in customers. If we continue to see the population increase, we don't want to suddenly go, oh, we didn't provide enough, uh, uh, capacity to those particular areas. Um, super important to avoid host remote isolation. Uh, which means a certain amount of redundancy, uh, uh, you know, multiple paths of egress are really, really important in, in this actual design. Uh, and these other, uh, issues, uh, including, uh, around, uh, cybersecurity audits and focus, um, given what's been in the news, uh, that this couldn't be more, uh, timely a recommendation. It does, uh, provide a, a, an outline for the kinds of support and expertise that CUDs, uh, are likely need in order to be, you know, successful. Uh, and we get into that into a lot of detail, but what we want to leave you with is that it's, it's going to take some fun. Um, it's going to be important that there is professional capacity, uh, with these largely volunteer organizations as they are either deciding to, uh, build their, their own, uh, projects, uh, and, uh, or in, uh, many scenarios, the decision to, to negotiate with an existing ISP, uh, to be able to deliver. Um, those are not simple, uh, conversations, contracts, uh, in negotiations. Um, and they need to be able to do them with all of the pre-development information, uh, also in hand, uh, so that they can build efficiently, uh, and have appropriate, uh, negotiation knowledge, uh, in working with potential partners. There is a longer term view, uh, to this, uh, plan as well, uh, that gets to the heart of equity. Uh, there, and we certainly talk about the urgency of now, of being able to actually make sure that all Vermonters have access to the core infrastructure that you need to have first in order to be able to get to equity. Um, but that doesn't mean that everyone can afford it. And as we've seen in the pandemic, when you can't afford broadband, that puts you at a major, uh, disadvantage in education, uh, in, uh, the ability to stay in a job, uh, as well as healthcare, particularly as the rate of using, uh, telehealth is continuing to increase. So as we have, uh, suggested in the plan, uh, there is a, uh, a, a series of steps, uh, that, uh, can be taken by CUDs, uh, working in partnership with, uh, partners like the peg access stations to be able to, uh, deliver, uh, both the outreach to allow for subsidy programs to be utilized, some of which are available, some that, uh, could be enhanced, um, but also access to devices and even the digital skills, uh, to make sure that they can use those tools, uh, effectively and efficiently to improve their lives, uh, and in a way that is safe. So that's the conversation of, of terrestrial broadband, which again was front and center, uh, given the moment we're in, given the priorities set out by the legislature, uh, and the resources that were available. But, uh, the survey results and the information we got back made very clear that mobile broadband is also of high need in the state. Uh, and, you know, we could not do a telecommunication plan without getting into the issues of, of mobile. Um, this is a, uh, a new set of, uh, propagation analysis, uh, that was completed, uh, by CTC in combination with information that was, uh, made available by the department and volunteers who literally drove in to be able to show where there was, where there was connectivity in a truly Vermont scrappy kind of way. Uh, and the results for those who have been, you know, trying to use cell phones across the state outside of our larger communities is there, there are gaps. Um, and, uh, this is the, uh, the percentages, uh, on the right-hand side, we did separate out, uh, the numbers, uh, from addresses covered, uh, outdoors because they are, are different walls make, make a difference in, um, the ability for cell service to be able to reach. Uh, and, you know, and looking at the number of addresses that are, are just not covered, uh, in the state, uh, at all. Uh, this is another way of looking at it, uh, which is the, uh, types of roads. Uh, and this is particularly important for, uh, the populations. Again, we, we use the, uh, the, both the analysis that was done, uh, by the department and volunteers as well as a propagation analysis. Uh, and it shows that on, on class, uh, one roads, um, there is pretty good coverage. Uh, but to be clear, that's less than 1% of the total road miles in the state. Right. So it's not, uh, it would, uh, would actually bring service to those locations where there is, uh, a lot of concentrated activity, but it's a significant subset of the, of the road miles in our state. And you can see the numbers, uh, decline, uh, as you get to class two, class three and class four roads. Uh, so there is significant work to be done, uh, on this front. Um, and it's, I think it's healthy to take a look at what those, uh, uh, uh, those, those coverage numbers look like. We do have, uh, some, uh, recommendations for how funding, uh, were to be appropriated, could be used, uh, to accelerate cell coverage. Uh, and there is, uh, some examples in other parts of the country where, uh, the public has gotten involved in, in this process. Uh, what we think that things can be, uh, done in a way that is, uh, you know, effective in getting out, uh, more mobile broadband. Uh, and we would encourage, uh, the, uh, legislature or the board or whoever would be, uh, utilizing or deploying these funds, uh, to create some clear parameters. Um, that the, uh, work plan is actually doable, uh, given the, uh, current and its views towards, uh, towers, uh, and such things. Uh, uh, and that it actually is, uh, prioritizing, uh, the kinds of infrastructure that could, uh, provide, um, uh, multiple carriers, uh, the capacity to be able to deliver mobile broadband. Uh, but making sure that you're creating also, you know, flexibility. There has not been a lot of examples of this kind of funding available to accelerate, uh, uh, mobile, uh, service, uh, in this kind of way. Uh, and you want to make sure that there is, uh, some, some parameters, some priorities that could be scored against, but still to allow that creativity in what would be, uh, uh, uh, brought to the table, uh, in order to be able to provide greater. Mobile service. With that, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, through some of the public safety provisions in the plan. Thank you, Matt. Thank you, everyone. So, uh, we've done extensive stakeholder discussions around public safety, uh, telecommunication systems in Vermont. And here are some of the main findings that we report in the plan. Uh, first of all, last fall in October, um, all six public safety answering points in Vermont, uh, that have been launched by the Vermont State Department of Public Safety System. This is well worth noting because it's one of the ways in which Vermont is ahead of most of its peers. This is quite an achievement. And, uh, wanted to call this out as a, as a success in the state. Um. We also, talking to the department of public safety, um, found that their land mobile radio system, uh, which was upgraded to, uh, and it has enabled access to enhanced voice capabilities and interoperability. That said, we received a lot of feedback after publishing the draft version of the plan about some local and mobile radio systems. So in the final draft, we incorporated some of that feedback and conversations have been ongoing since then because in certain circumstances, local public safety authorities have land mobile radio systems that are aging and in need of upgrade. And the challenge here is that FirstNet and other commercial carriers are not sufficiently mature or reliable enough for first responders to feel that they can abandon or move away from their old land mobile radio systems. So also included in the plan are potential funding sources from a range of agencies that can be used to maintain and upgrade public safety equipment. Some of these are dedicated to public safety to public safety purposes. Others are dedicated to telecommunications writ large and can have public safety applications or in fact, if a broadband deployment applies for this work for these funding sources and includes public safety on the application, they will score higher and that can be a win-win. Next slide. Another thing that we heard loud and clear from public input and in fact, I know has been talked about in the YouTube chat today on the stream is the issue of in-home battery backup to enable access to 911. So many Vermonters are concerned about the vulnerability that comes with relying on grid power for 911 access, especially using boy phone systems and to some extent because you have to charge your cell phone. So the plan goes through several mitigation strategies that can be used to decrease these vulnerabilities. First and foremost, providers can be encouraged to and should go above and beyond compliance regarding their battery backup systems. This means allowing people to procure more than the minimum amount of battery backup they need to keep their systems running by law. There's an education component to this as well where vulnerable or concerned Vermonters should be shown how to adopt alternative communication means to decrease their vulnerabilities or alternative power supplies, again, to decrease this reliance on grid power for 911 access. And then lastly, it's important to make sure that we are continuing to minimize power outages in the first place. And so that means targeting electrical power network improvements to the vulnerable areas where these outages are most likely to happen. Back to you, Matt. Thank you, Alex. So the final section that we will highlight is one that was called out in the plan, which was looking at our peg access television stations and sustainability in the long term. Just to be clear, the feedback we got was that peg channels are a critical part of Vermont's civic sector that in the pandemic were particularly helpful in allowing for communities to pivot to be able to still access important information to allow for select boards and in some cases, town information meetings to be done online and to do education around how to use video conferencing and other kinds of content delivery systems. There was a study that was done last year that was in the Berkshire report that highlighted the challenges of traditional funding sources for peg and created some recommendations. These recommendations that, in fact, in our conversations with the authors of the report, clearly said there was legal risk and as well as some other impacts that the variety of recommendations could have on the overall telecommunications efforts in the state. So we did not opine on those legal risks in depth. We did talk about them in the plan to give some context as to what is happening in other states and some possible implications of some of the choices. And obviously it's going to be a decision that the legislature needs to make on whether or not to have dedicated taxes or fees to be able to support peg in the long term. We do, however, in the plan, make it clear that it is important enough to our state's civic infrastructure that the legislature should consider using general fund dollars in the interim as the landscape legally as well as economically play out. And as the legislature is evaluating various options for using different taxing or fee mechanisms to have a dedicated funding stream to support peg access stations in the long term. And we would like to also say how much we appreciated the work in collaboration with Lauren Glendividian and others in getting the word out about the feedback sessions that we had as part of our process with this plan. So Madam Chair, I think that brings us to the end of our presentation. We can, I'll stop sharing, but we can pull back up any of those images or data points. We can also go to specific places in the plan, as is helpful. Okay, and we're ahead of time, so that works well. So committees, questions. I see you represent Sebelia's hand. Great, I have a number of questions. I'm happy to defer to Tim who wants to go first. Okay, Representative Bricklin, your hand blends in with the wall behind you. So I did not see it, so. I have one very high level plan or question and it's really about section 11 in the plan with regard to expanding mobile service and a plan that looks like it's evolving, but it's laid out here, particularly in section 11.1, which is the request for proposal strategy. And I believe that is something that perhaps the governor has outlined at a high level, but I'd like to understand more about how that will work in terms of a $25 million request for proposal and what that would look like in action, if you will. And I'm not sure who that question should go to, if that's the department or if that's the folks that they've worked with on putting this plan together. I'll take first crack at that, Representative Bricklin. Thank you for the question. It's an excellent question, and I thank you for noting the governor's proposal that $25 million of ARPA money be set aside to work on self-service issues in the state. At the time when we were sketching out those ideas for how to use the money, I spoke with our consultants here and asked them, if you had $25 million, how would you recommend that it be used? And what you see in the plan here is an outline of that. I think that this type of action is going to require more than just an RFP process because in some respects, this is a repeat of the struggles we've had with broadband deployment and that once again, you're talking about critical public services, if you will, that are not subject to state jurisdiction. So it's once again, a question of diplomacy and finding partnership to go forward. There are states where different attempts are being made to legislate in this area, that tends to be the carrot not stick out of recognition of the jurisdictional limitations we're talking about. One fundamental conflict that the state is going to have to try to use persuasive powers to address is that the FCC auctions spectrum. And the FCC has different reasons at different times depending on who is chairing it for why they do that. Some chairs will auction spectrum in order to maximize value of return, meaning what the federal government gets for the spectrum. Other chairs will have a more public purpose oriented approach. Right now the FCC is a little bit in limbo. So we'll have to see how that plays out once there's a permanent chair appointed in any event. I think a combination of the governor sitting down with the principal players in this area who own this infrastructure and saying to them, we need to solve this problem just as we've been addressing universal broadband in the state, how can you help? Is certainly a step in that in the right direction. The 25 million would be helpful to see if there's some form of a reprise of the connectivity initiative that could be attempted that will require legislation from you folks if we do that. And then the other ideas also outlined in the plan but that's about as much detail as I can give you at this time. Representative Briglin, any follow up? That's it for now. Thank you, June. Okay, we'll go back to representative Sebelia and then I have representative Sims. I don't have a last name on there. Okay. Thank you very much. And representative Briglin touched on one of the areas that I have questions about. First, I wanted to ask, I think the commissioner, perhaps Matt, did I hear reference to FirstNet being a commercial provider? I'll let Matt speak to that but I heard something similar as well. Yes. Oh, sorry. Or is it Alex? I'm sorry. Yeah, I said that I meant to say, and so not no FirstNet and commercial carriers not including FirstNet, commercial carriers which public safety authority, or first responders sometimes use for public safety communication purposes. Sorry. Great. I was concerned that we were talking about that massive amount of public dollars as a commercial project. Okay, great. And so how the strategy of diplomacy and cajoling I would say has worked pretty poorly in Vermont. And so if we think about this massive amount of federal dollars that have come in for FirstNet, that project, how do we see an interplay potentially here with this RFP strategy and waiting for FirstNet? Well, in my mind, Representative Sevillea, this is not unlike the dance we've been doing with the Ardolf auction process in the broadband area where we don't control what the federal government decides to do with Ardolf, the Rural Digital Opportunity Fund auctioning that it's been doing. And we've seen our CUDs having to react to those decisions as they become public. So FirstNet is an entity unto itself and has a contractual approach to what it is doing. And I think that to the extent we're going to do the cajoling or the diplomacy that you were just referencing, it will have to be with a mindfulness of where FirstNet is going and the like. I won't sugarcoat this. It's not, it is not a problem that lends itself to a facile solution. But that fundamentally it comes down to recognizing that we have to cooperate and coordinate. And that begs the question of the who? Because just as the broadband is not a mission that is legally embedded in the department's work or to put it in a less complicated way, we weren't created or funded and we don't have the jurisdiction in broadband. We have similar limitations with respect to self-service which doesn't mean we can't do anything at all. It's just recognizing this posture we're in of once again, trying to be effective and thoughtful in an area that is dominated by the federal government and decisions that are made there, coupled with the governor's decision to opt into the FirstNet agreement. So the department can continue to do what it can in this area in coordination with public safety which I think has a huge role to play. One of the benefits or the silver linings of the work that we're doing in the universal broadband coverage endeavor is that it will have a beneficial impact on wireless coverage as well. It won't be the complete solution, but it does represent an incremental improvement that the modders are going to benefit from. And so I'm noting your use of the word cooperation. Can you tell me the partners, the parties that need to be cooperating? Frankly, I can't tell you all of them right now, but I'm happy that you're first. Yeah, the types of entities. Yeah, as usual, we're talking about public actors, whether it's state government or entities like FirstNet, and then of course the owners of the infrastructure, the sole service companies. And if anybody else would add anything to that Clay or Joanne or Matt or Alex, I think I accounted for everybody, please do. I'd like to share just on behalf of the project team, and good afternoon, I'm Joanne Hovis and I'm honored to be with all of you today. The idea here in terms of the RFP process is given the limited hammer type approaches available for addressing mobile coverage issues that an effort to use the entrepreneurial competitive process to solicit competing requests and applications from private entities, both cell service companies themselves and the infrastructure companies that frequently support them with the underlying infrastructure of fiber and wireless facilities to use that competitive process to try to achieve the best results, allow the private sector to define the best that it can do for a certain dollar figure and offer those proposals that those can be compared to each other with the best one or ones potentially then funded. That was what we were trying to get at. Those companies will take into account what might be coming with regard to FirstNet, for example, or other commercial opportunities for those companies. So if they believe that there could be a revenue stream coming from FirstNet or another entity, their design and their business case analysis would presumably incorporate that. And they might offer that much more in the way of infrastructure with a finite set of state dollars because they know that those other revenue streams are not coming, but rather than us try to design a network for the private sector that it might always decline to build, decline to operate, have no interest in and not have alignment with their business incentives. And that is always the risk when we design for private entities rather to let them design in a competitive process and review. That was the idea behind that recommendation. I appreciate that, Joanna. And Senator Cummings, I see that a number of my colleagues have their hands up. So I just have one final question for now. And that is, I'm losing the question with regards, yes, I have got it. So along this same issue, we have seen in the past that actually public funds put out can actually cause harm. They can cause pretty significant delay in this endeavor. And so what safeguards do we have in place to ensure that we're doing no harm? I shouldn't say that we have in place. So I recognize this is a plan and we're talking about an RFP proposal. What safeguards have been contemplated as part of this plan to ensure that we are not funding projects that may be harmful, that may impede other projects that are necessary and that actually will be accountable to the public. So I said a lot of words. What has anything been contemplated to ensure that these mobile RFPs and the projects that are secured to them are not doing short or long-term harm to Vermonters? Representative, when you say harm, do you mean by precluding additional funding? There are many ways that this could go badly, as you can imagine. Is it that it would then mean that other funding isn't available because supposedly it's covering an area? That's one actually very prominent example that is in my head. I would hate to see funding go to an entity that had done that in Vermont again to provide additional wireless, fixed wireless service or mobile service. And I certainly could envision that happening. So have we thought about how we might try to prevent harm from these unaccountable private providers whose motivation is profit, period. It's not public safety. This is the USDA problem. No, that's a problem. I certainly think it could be additional problems. Let me share just my perspective on this, that that has to always be part of any kind of program design. We don't ever want to distort functioning markets or punish entities that are doing the things they're supposed to be doing, but we don't have a real functioning market in the areas where there is not currently mobile service. The market's not working because there's not sufficient market incentive to fill those gaps. So an RFP process like this needs to be extremely carefully crafted to make sure, number one, that it's not funding anything that someone else would build anyway with their own dollars, right? It's going to the places only where private dollars will not go. Number two, that it's perhaps ideally going to attract additional private dollars because the public funding will make this investment opportunity that much more attractive than the investment opportunity in another state or just across state lines. Number three, that the entities that are funded are robustly contractually bound to meeting the obligations for which they sign up and for which they get funded and that there are enforcement mechanisms in place to make sure that that happens. And that is frequently the biggest weakness of federal grant making and federal funding programs in that there are all kinds of promises made in return for the funding that six years down the road, the FCC may or may not be enforcing those obligations. These are very difficult things to do because it's hard to craft public funding in a way that we have any kind of guarantee about outcomes but I think that very careful design and expeditious execution are ways to do it as well as, and this is the critical piece, follow up and follow through in oversight, measurement and enforcement. Thank you. Thanks for all your work on this. All of you. Okay. I've got representative Sims next then representative Yantushka and Sandra Pearson. I think that's my list. Thank you so much, Senator Cummings. The first question is around data. So, Vermont certainly has some of the best data about broadband access in our country but we also all know that there are a lot of inaccuracies and I'm curious how the plan or the team might recommend addressing the issue of inaccuracies and data if unserved and underserved is the basis for distributing funding moving forward. And I'm happy to take a first stab at this and then move through. The, I think what's exciting in Vermont is that there are so many approaches to trying to get to this. There was not a belief that somehow the FCC was going to mend their ways overnight and start producing useful data sets that you could actually predict where broadband can go. And there is very accurate data right now that we actually were able to verify using a survey because we looked at the premise level data that the department had put together. A couple of years had passed, there had been some line extensions, there had been some other things that happened. And then we did a survey and found a sort of confidence interval which to be able to match the survey to the actual locations to get a sense of how accurate that data remained over a period of time. I think there is also some lessons to be learned by some of the programs at the federal level that are better than others that are actually willing to have someone demonstrate that there isn't connectivity someplace rather than relying on a data set that is proven to be inaccurate over a period of time. So I think given our size and our scale, as we're going along, not only do we recommend that the department or other entities be vigilant at updating especially as these programs continue over a period of time to get that premise level data which is so valuable in making planning processes but also offering the opportunity for someone to say, hey, my road isn't served and here's how I know it isn't served and to be able to in a Vermont scale kind of way adjust and adapt, especially when funding is in question. It is interesting to note that some places don't think they have service because the service has only been put in very recently. They hadn't heard about it for whatever reason. So there's definitely education that goes on in both directions, but again, it's just going to be focus and vigilance to make sure that we're standing up as a model for accurate data in that kind of deployment. Alex, do you have anything to add to that? You've been on the ground with the data more than. Yeah, I can add a little more color to that. So the department has a fantastic mechanism for collecting premise level data on broadband. And one of the things we were able to do when we did the COVID emergency plan was come up with an estimate, as Matt mentioned, about how up-to-date that is, given that the last time they published that data was, I believe, 2019. And we found that that data, based on a phone survey targeting premises that were supposedly on and underserved, was accurate with maybe 12% margin of error with 12% of the premises we called, actually did have better service than the data indicated. And interestingly enough, those premises were clustered very clearly in regions that had seen a lot of deployment recently. So for example, the Watesfield Champlain Valley Telecom region, the EC Fiber region. And so I maintain a very high level of confidence in the department's data. And the regular updates that they are planning to do will capture a significant amount of those new deployments because of the mechanism they've set up to get that data from providers. So it remains fantastic data to use for planning purposes and we're very confident about it. Yeah, thank you so much. Glad to hear how you feel about the sort of confidence of the data. I think some of my concern comes around where it says that there's service and there isn't more than folks don't realize that there is service. So great to hear you articulating a possible sort of challenge process where if someone is on a map is covered but their experience is different that there's an opportunity to appeal that and certainly something that would support. So thanks for that additional context. Another question is around sort of levels of prescription about network design. I'd be curious to hear reflections about how prescriptive the VCBB, the broadband board needs to or should be around network design. Certainly some component parts of the plan have pretty prescriptive recommendations around splicing and kind of high level of detail around network specifications. And I would like to kind of better understand how we balance that with the need for flexibility and CUDs to make technology choices that are the best for their own network. The plan, we were very cautious and deliberate in addressing that issue to make sure that this was a plan rather than a detailed design imposed on other entities who obviously need to have considerable flexibility. The way we approached it was through specifications and high level specifications around key and critical goals that were articulated by the state for things like resiliency, efficiency and longevity of the investment and so on. And the design parameters offered here are not designed in any way to box a CUD or if it decides to partner, it's partner to box them in, rather it's designed to set a framework to ensure that state funds are used in a responsible way and in a way that the network investments made now will have a lifetime of decades and that you won't be back having to fund the same thing seven or 10 or 12 years from now, which has been the federal model by the way is not having sufficient framework parameters for design and then having to start funding again just a few years later. And the design was also or the parameters I should say were developed by the engineering team at CTC in order to create as much flexibility as possible around other key state goals. So for example, a framework offered around the fiber network is consistent with an open access environment. It is consistent with net neutrality. It is consistent with a selection of electronics that would allow for either active ethernet or passive optical networking. I won't go into detail about what those are because I'm not entirely sure it's all that important other than that wherever decisions could be made by the CUD and their partners in order to meet local needs, we tried to make sure those decisions could be made there so long as the framework about efficient effective use of public resources to secure all of these goals in the long-term, not just the short-term format and that the networks would be resilient and could support the public interest and public safety. I certainly appreciate those goals around resiliency and public access to resources that we have invested in. Certainly be curious to hear from CVs and their partners about how they feel about the level of prescription and recommendation here and whether that enhances or limits their ability to do this work in our communities. I think that's all I got for now. Representative Yantatchka. Okay, thank you for presenting this plan in this manner. Appreciate it. I have a couple of questions. One is in section seven and Matt voices in his presentation that there's a concern that non-grant entities like private providers might preclude effective implementation of communication union district efforts. And my question is what leverage does the state have maybe through the PUC to encourage good faith and negotiations between the CUDs and private carriers? I'm happy to just speak to the recommendations that we made and why we made them. And I think this gets to the core of our emphasis on needing to resource the CUDs. Because at the end of the day, if the decision is to empower CUDs as a local representation of the needs of a particular region, you just need to make sure that they have the capacity to understand the context of the contracts, negotiation, the current assets that they have in place, what reasonable conditions are and the like. There is definitely a role for the department and the new board that's being created to provide additional support in those negotiations, especially on being able to have expertise that's available. But at the end of the day, that's given the direction that the legislature and the state has taken of having CUDs be the delivery vehicles and reflections of the values of Vermonters in their regions. It is critical to have those entities resourced to be effective in their work. Yeah, I understand that. And I guess my question really is what leverage does the state have over the private carriers? And in order to, if a private carrier says we're gonna do it this way, and it doesn't include the CUDs, can the state require the private carriers to work with the CUDs? Representative, we recommended was that the CUDs be the conduit and the mechanism for distribution of funding so that the private carriers are incented to work with them. I'll share that in another state where I work, the way the funding has been set up is that public entities can apply for it to the state and so can the private entities. The private entities have very little insight to work with public entities because they can go directly to the state and they are, if they get funded, they get 100% of the benefit based on their own needs rather than having to negotiate with the public entity and build some kind of a collaboration in which some of the value was shared. And obviously value can be defined in lots of different ways and many CUDs are defining value other than monetary but the need for a collaboration and negotiation between a CUD and a private entity results in some of that sharing of value inevitably. So I think the funding structure itself, the incentives that the companies need to work with CUDs in order to access the state funds is the biggest point of leverage. And then to Matt's point about making sure that the CUDs have the capacity and the resources and the tools at their disposal and guidance from the state if necessary as they go through the negotiations, the importance there is that they should enter into partnerships with those private entities that are in their best interests, that are enforceable but in the long run will be something that meet the needs of the CUDs have articulated for exactly the purpose that you have stated here. I don't know of a mechanism to force private companies to work with the CUDs but I certainly think they can be incented to do so. I would add to that too, that to the extent that you're able to create that kind of incentive, H360 has done exactly that by striking the balance the way that you folks did. The PUC to your point representative, Jan Tachka to my knowledge would not have leverage here because recall that the underlying subject matter is broadband. And I neither I nor the PUC would have recourse to go to a private carrier like consolidated and to say, hey, you had better or else that's just something that's not open to us. And I was thinking that consolidated has announced their own plans to build up broadband in their territory and I'm not sure whether they're expecting to take advantage of our performance or not, but. One point and I think the consolidated examples is one of a number is what I was articulating our concern over external forces. It was the art off auction that really threw a wrench into things because the way that that was done it did not take into account the larger regions that would need to be built out to. So there was an ability to pick certain areas and not bid on others. And those resources went directly to carriers which put them in a position where they can just use those funds to be able to execute obviously staying within general compliance. But I think the leverage is in the ability to access the state funds. The state ARPA dollars is where going through the CUDs as the mechanism puts them in some position of leverage if that ISP or other carrier wants to be able to participate or deliver services using infrastructure that's funded by the state. And if I could just add representative both federal policy and state policy in 202C highlights that this is a competitive market and that we should be fostering competition among broadband providers that competition is supposed to be a good thing. So to the extent that carriers are not partnering with the CUDs we fully expect them to compete against the CUDs and like I said, that's considered a good thing for the market. Okay, I do have another- Okay, just to clarify, can I step in? Is what I'm hearing, the state stick is the money that if you want to access the state money you have to pay by our rules but consolidated just went through my backyard with fiber. If they want to string it on wherever any private company we don't have control there is, yeah, okay. That is correct, Madam Chair. The state money is not the only broadband money out there. Right. The federal government has a slew of new broadband programs with lots of money in them. So we fully expect to see public money competing with one another as well. Okay, I also wanted to bring up another thing in CUDs play a central role in Act 71 but we also have small communications carriers defined as eligible providers. And they may be shovel ready because they've been building out fiber in their territory for years already. And if they're working with a town that's not in a CUD and they create a plan that qualifies for providing universal service I would hope that there wouldn't be any impediment to them accessing ARPA money to begin work as soon as possible. And I wonder if you have any comments on that? Yeah, I'll take that question. So to be clear, Representative Yantuchka very important issue. I think this is why it was so important that the legislature included a proviso on H360 that allowed small telcos to access ARPA. That's a discussion that belongs I think with Act H360 and whatever tweaks or improvements the legislature may see as being necessary in the coming session. Whereas the telecom plan is a visionary document that looks forward 10 years and tries to give us a state of the state so to speak and as well as a comprehensive view of policies, competitive industries and the like. So what I would suggest to you is that the question you're asking is one that the legislature needs to continue to monitor in the context of tweaking Act H360 or Act 71 going forward. But for now you should have confidence that under the scenario that you gave H360 very squarely contemplates that the Vermont Community Broadband Board would take those things into consideration when weighing the application on its merits. So you've left that door open is my point. Yep, and that's what I wanted to specify. Thank you. I had Senator Pearson and then Senator Hardy. Thank you, Madam Chair. The preceding discussion really hits close to my question which is that the plan to the extent I've digested it seems to really mirror H360 very closely. And I suppose we could take that as a compliment. Obviously you've had a month now to digest the final text of that bill. But I'm curious, are there places that I've missed? I mean, you highlighted questions and concerns. I think we were attempting to address in 360 including expertise of these volunteer entities particularly. But I'm curious if there are places where you think you would anticipate we will want to come back next year, make some changes, concerns of things that we've missed. Obviously we didn't deal with mobile service but setting that aside, if you could just sort of reflect on your analysis and the work that we all, most of us, well, in one way or another put into 360 and is now law. Matt, I think that might be a good one for you to take. You hit on some of this in the overview that you gave. Sure, Senator, having been in your role of trying to put together complicated policy as a legislature, you can't solve for all of those considerations. And I think the framework that you all arrived at was it was not complete coincidence that we were heading in a similar direction, right? I think there is a certain number of solutions once you understand the real goals of the state of Vermont and the trajectory that people are trying to get to. There are a few things that I think you really want to be able to hammer out. And it's in the details that would be, sorry, is there feedback? Yeah, I hear somebody's got a radio on or something. Okay. Anyhow, so the first one is really about what would be considered a conflict with the CUD's universal plan? Like we see that as a flashpoint that's going to come up especially as other funds become available that might make options viable and that kind of thing. It's going to be in that territory as CUD's are trying to figure out what is a viable plan to being able to execute across their entire district since some locations are going to be inherently less economical than other locations. And so really thinking through how that works, which I think the board, my assumption is going to take the first stab at that you're going to want to review that. And then there are the, what happens if one piece of this and these different CUD's doesn't end up working. How do you make sure, I think this gets a bit to representatives Cud's questions on, like it was about mobile, but it's true in all these cases, how do you make sure that there is a level of accountability or you can see something coming and take it into a different direction? So those are certainly things that you're going to want to consider as this is being deployed. There is also then, of course, the great question of camps, which I said in a kind of funny way, but it makes a big impact on what does it mean for a CUD to provide universal connections, particularly in some of the more rural parts of the state where there are areas with lots of camps that would love to be considered served, the cost factor that's associated with that. If you are, as we recommend saying that a CUD, if in receiving those funds has to have a plan to get to their entire territory, that can be complicated. So I think there's going to be a bunch of those things that you're going to want to come back to, especially as the board starts to get into the weeds of various scenarios, and you're going to want to revisit final piece that I will mention is that there is an assumption that we put in here that the places that already are receiving solid broadband, not awesome broadband, but solid broadband because the market forces show that there's enough demand for that to happen will migrate its way to 100 just because the demand is there, which is why we're really strongly suggesting taking those that are clearly in market failure places, leapfrogging them, making them future proof. That may not happen in all the places that are currently cabled. And it's going to be important if this is the same set of priorities that are utilized, that you keep an eye on that and make sure that there aren't outliers or decisions to make investments in cities, many states over, as opposed to making sure that all of our monitors are able to access that kind of future proof connectivity as demands require. Thank you. Senator Hardy. Thank you, Madam Chair. It's great to see everybody. Thank you, Matt, Joanne, June, Clay, Alex, everybody. My question was pretty much the same as Senator Pearson's question. And I was also really heartened and happy to see that the plan was very similar to what we had done in H360. It makes me even more proud of our work as torturous as it was that we came out with a really good bill. One quick, one question that sort of comes off the question that Senator Pearson asked is for the commissioner, commissioner Tierney. This, the 10-year telecom plan, as you know, has gotten lots of opinions in our committee in particular and probably the whole legislature. I'm wondering, Matt, you said at the beginning in your overview that it's hard to do a 10-year telecom plan when the technology is changing so much. So commissioner, do you see this as a living document as something that's going to change over the next 10 years or a singular document that we have and then 10 years from now, we do a different plan and you're muted. Okay, my reflexes have gotten a little fossilized here. That is a great question. I'm really glad you brought it up because I think it was something that Representative Sims said a little while back that got me thinking on this. First off, if you've got constituents out there who take issue with our data, please, you do not need to wait for a challenge process or authority of permission to let us know that, hey, what's on your plan or what's in your map is just not my reality. We are all ears. Secondly, statutorily, there's a three-year period in which the plan renews. So you have comfort right there that this is not a 10-year plan that's etched in stone today and that is not going to be revised or re-looked for that matter until 10 years from now. That happens on an ongoing basis. And finally, what you said really brings home the point that the plan is that it's a plan. It's something for us to orient ourselves to, but it does not displace on the ground initiative or policy as the opportunity or the need or the desirability becomes apparent. There are some legal proceedings in which the plan is a point of reference. For instance, in looking at incentive regulation plans, if the PUC is going to prove one, they need to look at this plan if it's duly adopted to make sure it's consistent. It would be inadvisable and certainly nothing I would undertake as commissioner to pursue a policy that's inconsistent with this plan because we've just put time and treasure into thinking very hard on putting this plan together. But I'm quite certain there are things out there that will occur two years from now, three, four years from now that are not necessarily expressly called out in this plan today that would be advisable policy. And that's where the relationship that the department has with the committees of jurisdiction in the legislature really comes in because that's an excellent mechanism then to address these things. So I hope that gives you comfort. This is a living document because there are thinking feeling people who are using it constantly and looking to do the public good here. And I hope you see in the plan that we've been responsive to the discourses been happening in the public space. And I have to tell you that while the governor never took a position on H360 while it was being debated in the legislature his posture of being undecided was a gesture of respect because that is how intense this conversation has been for the state and with right. And so to have had these experts come in, Joanne and Matt and Alex and many others you do not know to come in and to with integrity be able to validate that strategy while also giving us some very clear medicine about needing to plan for the downside that was a very gratifying thing. And I think it should give you great confidence that Vermont has taken a direction that is the right direction to be taking given our makeup and given the resources available. So we're all ears for new input as well. Great, thank you. Thank you very much to everyone involved. I think the plan, I haven't memorized it, read the whole thing yet, but based on what I've read I'm really pleased with it and especially happy that it aligns so well with our work. And it seems like given that we have this new board that will be a lot of ample input to changes that might be necessary for the next draft. It's almost like it needs to be a wiki. Thank you. Okay, Representative Sabilia and then Representative Yantosca. Thank you. Question on, I heard a number of times discussion about the CUD's needing support that they're gonna need support. And I think we all would agree with you and are hopeful that we've put in place enough of a framework for those tools to be able to be put in place. My question is around, I expect there to be confusion about, who is to do what with this plan that will probably last until we do it again. And so when we're thinking about, we've just rolled out this one big strategy which is CUDs deploying fiber. How do we see, is there a place that you can point to in the bill that would help remonters or interested parties understand the difference between what VCBB should be working on should be focusing on and what the department or managing expectations. I don't know if it should be working on so much as managing the expectations one might expect to see. For instance, I might expect to see VCBB working on the CUD strategy and not other things. So, and the department perhaps working with VCBB, of course, on the CUD strategy but also other things. Is there a place that we could point to in this document where that might, where we might see or help people understand what to expect with this document, how this document is used and who uses it. I'll take it back to that. I'll take it back to that. And Matt and Joanne, please jump in as you see fit. I don't think this document is quite that clear because the document was prepared for pursuant to a statutory mandate that squarely belonged to the department. And what the document reflects is the desirability of having a legislative mandate such as H360 that created the VCBB. That entity is now being stood up. We don't have experience with it road tested yet. But I think the legislation itself squarely delineates the scope of the VCBB's duties. The plan touches on different areas of substantive expertise and responsibility that belong to different agencies in the throughout state government. But I think it's pretty clear that the department retains its central role in this planning process. And with that, the convening responsibilities that it has as well to ensure that everything that's not being done by the VCBB is either being done as statutorily outlined now. But is there a Q and A frequently asked questions for the public as to when do I go to the VCBB and when do I go to the department or somebody else know? We don't have that. Commissioner. Just because I know we're getting low on time and I know you and I both share an interest in having this question answered well. I probably have asked it poorly. So who would the public expect will be using this plan? So will it just be the department? Will it just be VCBB? I mean, I think you just referenced other departments and agencies. So can you just talk for a minute about who would use this and for what? Well, let me do it in 30 seconds if I can. Anybody who wants to be active in the connectivity telecommunications space in the state of Vermont is well advised to have a look at this plan, whether it is a private entity, whether it's a citizen group, whether it is the legislature, I highly recommend the legislature consult the plan, the Public Utility Commission, the department itself, other state agencies, and with any luck the FCC as well, because this is a definitive statement of how Vermont sees its telecommunications issues both today and evolving. And it has a trove of information that will help people craft policy proposals. So that's who I would expect to use this plan. There are some things that are mandated by statute where the PUC, for instance, has to look at it, but it's a tool that is available, it's an archive, it's a encyclopedia, if you will, that's available to anyone who wants to be active in the space. And I think, in fact, I will say outright, people should rely on this document. It is a well-tested, well-researched document. So it's not necessarily a plan that the department is going to implement. Now, it's a plan in the sense of a policy document that spells out much-needed data and also vision for where we need to go and also tells us a little bit about the gaps. But this is not, this is why we called the Emergency Broadband Action Plan, an action plan, because that was a more specific, nuanced recipe, if you will, for what to do during an emergency. H360, for instance, is a specific, nuanced detail plan for what to do with federal funding via the Vermont Community Broadband Board. But this plan itself, no, and I would also say that such plans are not intended to be recipe books of that nature, any more than the Comprehensive Energy Plan is, that was more than 30 seconds, I apologize. It was good, that's what I was looking for, thank you. Okay, representing you and Tatchka, and then we are running into the public sector and I think given how we've run over our sectors that we started a half hour early, we are probably going to have to give some additional time to the public. So, Representative Yantatchka and... I hope my question can be answered quickly. My question is, how long or how soon can the money be available for ARPA in order to begin work by the CUDs or any eligible provider? Does it have to, do we have to wait until the VCBB is set up or can the department start allocating some funds at this point? Well, in starting in January or July 1st. So in H360 and I think also in the, I don't recall if it's the budget bill or not, the bottom line is you've provided the department with interim powers and a limited amount of money, I think $20 million to do some work in this area and that hopefully will flow quickly but you also put the formation of the VCBB on a very tight shot clock, I mean 60 days. So, we're keeping an eye on all of that and really the best I can tell you at this point is as soon as possible. Thank you. Final questions for many members of the committees. All right, so we're going to move into- I have a question, Madam Chair. Senator Brock, sorry. Thank you. I'd like to climb out of the detail of what's in the plan per se and ask a couple of broader questions. A lot of this plan is dependent upon what's in 202C and 202D. And my question for, particularly for the consultants is were those the right standards that we ought to be looking at? Is there anything wrong with any of those standards or should they have been modified or should we think about modifying them for the next plan or update? Who wants to take that? Joanne? If I'm understanding the question correctly, Senator, was this statutory basis for writing the plan? Correct. Right one, was that guidance correct? Yes, was it correct? Or if you were us writing that guidance, would you change it? Well, Senator, I'm a consultant from the state of Maryland and my job is to take the direction given to me by the state of Vermont and write a plan accordingly. We presume that the statute and the framework guidance around it reflect Vermont values and Vermont principles and we designed and wrote and collected data based on that Vermont values and principles as reflected by statute. So, you know- And so it did not apply any thought to what others may be doing in terms of standards that may be different from ours that might potentially result in different or better outcomes. No, to the contrary, I mean, I think one of the areas of value of having us as consultants is that we have national and international views and we are involved in many states and with many cities and counties and tribal governments. And I think we bring all of that perspective. But if you're asking me to say that you had the wrong values and the wrong ideas as legislators, I wasn't charged with doing that, nor would I say that we can today predict what you should put into a statute to write a plan 10 years from now. I do hope that we were able to take the values and the framework that you provided us and in light of our knowledge of the industry, in light of techniques and strategies that have been tried in other states, best practices as well as lessons learned from failures, we hopefully were able to give you the best strategy possible. One of the things that we've talked about and quite frequently is the notion of going to 100, 100 by 2024, which is in our documents. Is that realistic? It is entirely realistic for anywhere that you fund new infrastructure with public dollars. And in fact, this is the emerging standard coming from the federal government in the current moment. The guidance, for example, for the American Rescue Plan Act dollars for the fiscal recovery dollars is that where they're spent on broadband, they should go toward 100 by 100, other than in areas where it's extremely impractical, where it would be 100 by 20. The more challenging element of getting to 100 by 100 everywhere is where you already have existing networks that are meeting broadband needs that are accommodating today's needs. But that are not capable of doing the 100 up. They can do 100 down, but not 100 up. And then the question is, does the state want to provide funding for upgrade of those networks, assuming that companies are willing where they're already meeting broadband needs, but they may not be at 100 by 100. And that is more complex. Our analysis is that the market is likely to take care of a lot of that because we know that the cable industries upgrade path and migration path is towards symmetrical speeds and toward faster speeds. So our recommendation in the plan is put the public dollars toward the areas where there's not currently any broadband, put it toward the best in-class broadband that will have a lifetime of many decades and will future-proof those parts of Vermont. So that will deliver 100 by 100. And that is exactly what you would wanna do with public funds. And then monitor and watch the areas that can currently get 100 by 20, even a gigabit down and 20 or 40 up and see how that develops. That is currently meeting consumer needs. And in future years, you may want to reassess, but we think that over the course of the next decade, the market will likely upgrade those networks as well without the state having to invest. And there's insufficient funding currently to get to 100 by 100 everywhere in the state if that were to be done with public funds. Senator, were you referring to the date of 2024 as opposed to the 100 over 100? I was referred to the date of 2024, which is in two of two. I see. So look, I think there are many reasons to be optimistic that if the state can move quickly and getting funds out there that deployment can get rolling. I think it is on a practical basis, given the labor shortage and the competition that's going to be happening with other states that are all trying to do things at the same time, that hitting that date will be incredibly challenging. And just to be clear, it does not at all though change our belief that the public dollars that are used should go towards future proof, most efficient uses, which is 100 over 100 to make sure that we're looking in the long term for the speed acceleration that will be happening, especially as in targeting those locations where the market has clearly failed. I understand. And what my question was really directed at and it goes to the issue of what's in 202 C is are we creating a plan that we are going to follow to achieve an objective that is not realizable within the timeframe that's in the plan? Was that it? I'm not sure. Is that a follow-up question? I mean, if there is, look, what we outlined was what we felt on a tenure plan was going to be the right parameters, focus and priorities for the state in order to have a robust world-class telecommunications infrastructure in the state of Vermont. We articulate in it the challenges in this particular and immediate environment on deployment speed. We did not get into commenting on that timeline one way or the another. Just like if we said, we think this can all be done by 2025 in April. I think it would be hard to predict as well, especially given the decision that the legislature has made and we actually believe is right, which is to empower local entities to advocate for their communities, which means that there's more deliberation and time necessary to do that right. I'm gonna have to move us along because we are now significantly cutting into the public time. And so I've got first to my list is Lauren Glendvidian, Lauren, I know, there you are. Okay. Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you for the work on the legislative plan. I mean, on the telecommunications plan, sorry, I've been listening to this for- And Lauren, just a reminder for everyone. Just state your name, who's anyone you represent. So on the record. Yeah, sorry. I'm Lauren Glendvidian. I'm the executive director of CCTV Center for Media and Democracy. And I'm representing also Vermont Access Network, which is a statewide network of community media centers, 25 community media centers, as I think you all know, that provide essential services and weave our communities together with coverage of public meetings, media education and archiving of community history, just to name a few of the things that we provide. I think you also know that public educational and government access known as PEG is facing an acute funding shortage. It's projected to be about 5% a year over the next five years nationally. And we're seeing that trend playing out in the state. And as a result, the legislature did allocate funds for a PEG study to look at alternative funding opportunities and possibly reformation of telecommunications tax structure in the state. The 10 year telecommunications plan admittedly is focused on the state's priority of getting broadband to all. And I think as a result of that gave the PEG analysis short shrift and didn't fully comply with the statute which requires an analysis of available options to support the state's access media organizations. There was an analysis of the PEG study. I would say it was cursory at best and really risks putting PEG funding and I think the basket of public benefits beyond PEG funding, including Universal Service and E911 potentially pits us against broadband consumers by saying that there will be rate increases as a result of restructuring PEG funding and also pits us potentially against the goals of the CUDs which is to say that if for example, one of the proposals in the PEG study which is a pole attachment could potentially cost the CUDs a half a million extra dollars. Now, while this may be true, I don't think a full analysis was conducted to draw these conclusions. And I think that we need to be very careful to work together during this time of broadband expansion and during this time of rapid technological change and during this time that requires us to rethink how our public benefits vis-a-vis telecommunications and communications are structured. So I think that we missed an opportunity with this plan. I think it perhaps can be remedied as we move forward and we look at legislation in the year ahead that could support PEG and community media services in a legislative context. But I do think that given the expense of the plan and given the statutory requirement that there really was not the effort or the meaningful analysis that I would have expected conducted on behalf of PEG. So rather than this to be a just a straight out complaint about the study, I would say that we do think it is important for the department and for our policy makers in the legislature to think generatively about the options ahead of us and not to be daunted by the legal complexity of which we got no legal advice on this plan to add to whatever thinking we could potentially have done within the context of this plan. So I guess I am complaining about that. But I do think that we should not be daunted by the comments in the plan that say that really raise the specter that Vermont should not lead in the rethinking of PEG funding. I think Vermont has always been a leader in public access, community media and that Vermont can continue to be that if we could obtain some additional legal analysis on top of the PEG study to create a piece of legislation that will stand up under scrutiny. I also would just like to say is that I think that the public process which was very specifically laid out in this plan given that this is not the department specialty which was evidenced in the last plan. I think the PEGs that we were included in those we were supposed to be part of the planning of the public process and the public hearings and we were informed a week before these already scheduled events were to take place and asked to alert our lists but we were in no way a partner in the design or the implementation of a public process. And I think that that shows by really the very few people that are here today and the very few people that participated in the public hearings throughout this whole public plan. So those are my concerns. That said, I would just repeat we hope to be partners as we move forward with the legislature. We have been very well supported by the legislature and I think that it's too bad that this plan is not more explicit in its recommendations and more fulfilling of its statutory requirements vis-a-vis PEG and I felt it was important that we brought this to your attention. Thank you very much. Thank you. I am not seeing Mr. Whitaker. So we have Cliff Duncan. Thank you, Madam Chair. There you are. Hope everyone can hear me. You can. I appreciate this opportunity today. I'm Cliff Duncan from Duncan Cable TV. I'm the owner and operator of one of the few remaining independent cable companies and broadband providers in the state of Vermont. We started in 1972 with 57 customers and we now serve the towns of Wilmington and Dover, Vermont with certificates of public good to go into some of our neighboring towns if we chose to. We have in a little bit of Marlboro, but anyway, I'm here today to try to focus on what I think are two key parts of the plan that I don't believe were fully addressed. And it is my recommendation today that this body in its review process not move this forward to the department where it could potentially be approved as written. I think it needs to go back to each chamber of the legislature. And I think it needs to address the concerns that I'm going to raise here today and hopefully convince some of you listening to that end. Generally speaking, as a provider, we take a lot of pride in what we do. I serve a community where I was born and raised. I'm a bit different, I guess, than the average cable guy, if you will, in Vermont, especially. But we have in the last five to six years been constructing first our backbone. And now we are currently constructing a full bone overbuild of our entire 100 miles of broadband coaxial plant with a fiber to the home network. We have about 670 fiber to the home customers currently. We estimate by the end of the year, we will be close to 1,000 in number. We currently serve about 3,000 broadband customers in the Valley, and that's including our fiber-thome customers as well. So to me, our handwriting was on the wall a number of years ago, instead of trying to continue to advance and upgrade the hybrid fiber coax plant that we had built about 20 years ago, that the real delivery promise of the future was going to be with fiber. And so we built the backbone first, and now we're building the distribution piece of that. And I'm here today to make everyone aware of the fact, you're probably not, but I think it's something we can hang our head on. We actually have four public-private partnerships that we have engaged in with both the towns of Dover and Wilmington, the Department of Public Service, through grant opportunities, and in all four of those instances, we've delivered our product and the areas to be built on time, on schedule, and at the cost as proposed. So those were areas where we took some folks from, if you can believe it or not, a dial-up situation, where they had 56K to a fiber-thome state-of-the-art gigabit ethernet network. So rock stars we were that particular summer, and very proud of that fact. I think it stands as an example of the success that private entities, given the opportunity to do so with good histories of service provisioning and in good standing with the department, can partner with public funding for the purpose of getting a last mile built in Vermont. I wanted to comment to Ms. Hove's point about the funding and the guarantees of that funding being spent that any grants we might receive as a private entity go where it's intended. And that is really kind of all arranged on the front end of any grant application I've participated in so far. So what I mean is here that we have to pledge that when we apply for the money, the money's gonna be spent in a certain way. And it's up to the department or the Vermont Telecommunications Authority previously to assure that indeed that was the case and all four of our instances with those public funds that we've had access to, that is how it played out. So it can happen and does happen that public funds can be distributed successfully and achieve their goals with private entities like ours. I have written a couple of pages of comments of what I intend to submit, but I framed most of my two areas that I wanna talk about today around the premise of 30 VSA 202, state statute 202 telecommunications plan, particularly as it relates to the provisioning and plans for meeting emerging trends and related to telecommunications technology, markets, financing, and competition. A couple of things when it comes to meeting those goals that stand out to me are access to PULT attachments at a reasonable cost, as well as the property taxation policy that this plan I feel does not adequately address. And this is one of the two reasons I think principally it should go back to each chamber for further review. I believe that the... Chris, let me interrupt you for a minute. Christine, I've got you twice on my screen. Have you logged in with your iPad? One, I just have a picture and one, I have you live. And I think you're setting yourself up for feedback. So just check that for us. Okay, thank you, Mr. Duncan. It's always technical skills. Yes, that's fine. That's fine, I understand. Deal with it every day. So, in framing it around that premise of what this plan should address, a couple of key things that I believe languishing, one I'll talk about first is access to PULT attachments. Well, the process has improved. The cost of access to PULT has increased. And that's unfortunate, particularly at a time when we're trying to deploy services in unserved areas. We have to place our cables on the poles where we currently don't have authorizations to do so. And that costs money. Well, what happened here not too long ago was there was a bit of a fit being pitched, if you will, by some providers who are offering telephony and there is under rule 3.700, which is the framework by which Vermont regulates poles in our state, was included what's called the two-foot rule. And I was around when that rule was enacted. Didn't pay too much attention to it because what it says is that if you offer telephony service as well as cable television service, you will pay for two-foot of space on a pole even though you may only occupy one. So some of the larger entities Comcast and others spectrum were offering telephony service or own branded telephony service but they refused to pay the additional one-foot charge. So the bills were mounting up and some of the pole and utilities were getting a little bit upset about that. So the department of the board decided to take the task at hand and adjudicate the matter. Well, the resolve was that their choice was to keep in a framework here the pole and utilities in a place called revenue neutral. And what that meant was they wanted to see them continue to make all this money that they should have been making from the two-foot rule. And the only way they could do that and not require those that were supposed to be paying the two-foot rule from having to do so was to make those of us who weren't paying for two feet increase our rates by over 30%. I felt that was completely contrary to what this process should be about. If anything, we should be going the other direction. Vermont does not stand with a very economical pole attachment rate to begin with and this just exacerbated that situation. And so the consequence of that for us is it raises our cost to do business. And that's unfortunate because we're trying to reach areas where we've never economically been able to overcome those fundamental financial hurdles previously. And this is a significant expense. When you go down a street and you have to go five or six poles for one or two customers it matters what your pole attachment rates are. And many of the areas this measure is trying to accomplish building out in the last mile and particularly H360 is we have to have access to pole plant and at reasonable rates. So I think this needs to go back. I think it needs to be re-reviewed. I think the department and the board need to come to a planning process which gets us back to those of us who are only using one foot of space should only pay for one foot of space. I don't have any interest in carrying a telephony product. However, our fiber to the home offers more telephony products options than a traditional telephone company would because we have all kinds of IP telephony that we don't filter. We don't care what our customers use. In fact, we leave it wide open to their choice. And so I think this is one area that needs to go back for review. I also want to mention here that in that review process I just want to read something here if I may. In the poll analysis, if there is one and this is sent back it must include full disclosure as in agreement between Green Mountain Power and consolidated communications where Green Mountain Power recently purchased CCIs half of their jointly owned polls. May you may or may not be aware of that. Only through full disclosure can it be determined if that sale included any level of sweetheart deal from Green Mountain Power to CCI where CCI does not pay the same per foot attachment rates which any other attachee must pay. And I'm not sure that's clear. I have not seen any evidence that it spells it out that they are paying the same rate that Duncan Cable is because they're a subordinate user just like we are as of this day. This is particularly important because field analysis in Vermont's utility poll plant of which I'm intimately familiar will clearly show that CCI often occupies three to five feet of usable space on each poll in our state. So that's a huge number. And if we're subsidizing their space consumption much in excess of our own, that's a clear impediment if we're going to be a direct competitor should CCI for example partner with the Deerfield Valley CUD. And I think we're trying to consider a future that holds enough competition still out there that people don't have just one choice being a CUD. I'm hopeful that the goal is to foster competition through not boxing out opportunities that Duncan Cable might be able to begin may be able to begin in a competitive sense to our market by increasing costs of taxes and poll attachment rates unnecessarily and unfairly. On that point, I'd like to get one more area more of the touch on, does anybody have any questions on that particular area that they'd like to throw it in? I think Mr. Duncan asked you to do your next point and... Okay, thank you, thank you. Move it along. The next area is when we talk about reasonable rates we must have reasonable taxation policies. And right now there's a huge disparity that has been mentioned over 20 years in previous telecommunications plans rewrites. And that is where the personal property of some telecom providers in Vermont is required, like Duncan Cable, that we pay and after 49 years personal property tax on all of our personal property that being cables, our technology on the polls and our distribution network. Now I understand that H... Join the meeting. I know H360 to some extent decided to look at this but then decided to move that ball down the court if you will have been in the address at a time in the future. I don't think that's a fair assessment. And I say that because I'm looking at a copy here of the broadband deployment and taxation policy in Vermont pursuant to Act 143 written in 2000 which clearly highlights on page 31 if anyone cares to read it that overviews and says that this policy as it still is in existence today is unfair and inhibits fair and equitable treatment of players in the telecommunications space through unfair personal property taxation. Mr. Duck and I am starting to lose committee members who have another meeting at two o'clock. I think I can say that the tax commission has brought us back some recommendations on poll taxation and that we will understand finance may be having some sessions in the fall and we will be looking at those recommendations. I just think it's a shame to let this plan move forward Madam Chair with all due respect after decades of this policy being noted duly noted by the department of taxes that it's unfair it's unjust and it actually inhibits competition. This is particularly important because if I wind up being direct competition with consolidated communications who not only is already tax exempt but now H360 grants tax exempt status to the CUD in my area as well as Washington Electric for a wholesale network opportunity on their strand I think that's completely counter to what this plan should include and that's a fostering of competition by providers like us. And I'm happy to field any other questions about our place in all of this. We are here for the long haul I have been here for 49 years I'm not going anywhere and all I want is a fair opportunity to these issues be addressed and the access to the monies that hopefully we can get that final build out done here in our area as well. Okay, thank you and we will be in touch with you when we take up poll taxation. Does anybody have any questions? Any other questions from the committee? I'm going to move us along to Christine Hallquist. Hi, can you hear me? Yes. Okay, excellent. I shut the camera off. I only got one of you this time too but it's a picture, all right. Yeah, I'm trying to restrict my bandwidth here to audio purposes only. So my name is Christine Hallquist. I'm the administrator for NEK Broadband Memorial Fiber and I'll be speaking on their behalf. The Vermont communication unit district is actually preparing written comments that we'll be discussing tomorrow and submit after that. But thanks for the opportunity to speak on what I think is a very well thought out 10-year plan. Overall, we're very happy with the plans focused on community-driven fiber-based networks. The top-level findings are sound. The CUDs are able to take on that developer role that you've envisioned. We strongly agree with the finding that our ability to access the municipal bond market to create puts us in a place that we're going to be integral to making the stimulus money go as far as it can. Some other points of agreement. We certainly agree that the next work should be resilient. We're done it and capable of meeting 911 standards and goals. We agree that public ownership of networks with private operation is likely the best model moving forward and should be highly encouraged. The allocation of stimulus funds as delineated in H360 is appropriate and will ensure that state meets its goals. And the focus of spending on these funds should be in reaching these underserved and unserved addresses, which has been pointed out by CPC. Some of our requests, we request that we be engaged, the CUDs be engaged in any discussion on expansion of cellular network and public safety network in order to ensure maximum collaboration, cooperation, really to make the dollars go as far as possible. We strongly agree that the legislature needs to go further in addressing that and clarifying that communication tax attachments are allowed under electric utility pole easements. We're in a situation today where one or two people that opposed telecom could stop it for anybody down the road from their poles. So that's really think with some clarification on that is important. Some of our points of concern, which we'll elaborate further in written comments. The phasing of grant, the grant funding phasing the way it's somewhat proposed is that it will slow down network construction. Many of the CUDs are already underway. For example, the Moil Fibernet and NEC Broadband have engaged in a three-month process to identify partners. We're ready to kind of pull the trigger on that and we're ready to move to design, but we really don't want to wait for the Vermont Community Broadband Board to come together in order to get that design funding. We're really moving at this point and then any delay in funding would be an interruption to that movement. While the networks, we strongly believe that networks should be compatible throughout the state and where there should be a set of agreed upon design standards. And you don't want to be careful not to over specify such as the cabinet location or splice types. I think more importantly is to focus on the performance standards that the network needs to move. And I would, we would recommend that, maybe you put a technical advisory group as part of the VCBB and that advisory group focuses on what the difference, these three different categories, requirements, recommendation and best practices. I do think, we've already done some work. We're already working with two other CUDs and we're finding ourselves pretty much in unanimous agreement on technical specifications anyhow, but at the same time, we want to be careful to give people flexibility. Affordability is very important and it's part of the CUD planning. In fact, it's a critical part for NEC Broadband because we serve some of the poorest, although the lowest income areas of the state. So, but actually putting requirements in place for low income residents is kind of a kind, works counter to the fact that we probably a large percentage of residents, I know a large percentage of our residents are low income already. And our goal is to have the lowest rates possible for those folks to enter the market. You'll get into the strange situation and then any, any, any CAG at least there where you'll have low income residents subsett is another low income residents. We think that there's a, there's a more sustainable forward maybe as to look at designated state or a federally funded program. The public educational governance access channels are extremely important. As said earlier, they should not be subsidized in a way that makes expanding the broadband networks more expensive. And, you know, poll tax, raising poll tax fees will attend to do that, which means we end up having to raise rates for some of it from that act, that lowest rate that we set for access will have to go higher, which again puts a burden on low income. So again, those are the statements and we'll follow them up in written comments and thanks for the opportunity to speak. Okay, thank you. Any questions? Okay. I think I'm hearing that the cost of poll attachments is still an issue. Gonna move on to Greg Elperwood. Excuse me, Elperwood? Hello. Looks like my audio is working fine. Yeah, Greg Eplerwood. And thank you, Senator Cummings. Because you're running so far over time, I'm gonna attempt not to take too much time and put some comments in writing via email before the deadline this month. I'm Greg Eplerwood. I have been in public access at first avocationally in 1979 and then vocationally in the 1990s. And I'm retired. I worked for the Vermont Access Network for some time. And prior to that, I taught at American University and I kept my hands in public. I actually helped start up the Access Center in Washington, D.C. And also Catamount Access TV in Bennington as its first executive director. As I mentioned, I've been around in public access since 1979 and in Vermont since 1989, 1990, when the decision was made to divert the franchise fee funds as allowed by the Telecommunications Act to peg access rather than to general funds of the state. And it showed and proved at that time that the state of Vermont was very, very, or held peg access in very, very high regard. And I'm happy to see in the report in the department's telecommunication plan that it not only paid attention to public comments, but also the Berkshire report that peg access is an essential part of Vermont's infrastructure. It's a first amendment free speech unfettered, unfiltered form of communication. Even front porch forum is monitored and not as free as peg access channels are or I should say public access portion of the peg access channels. So I think the department should take a look back at 89 and 90 and what the state of Vermont's emphasis and concern about peg access, where it was, the importance that it applied and continue. And as Lauren Glendavidian said, don't necessarily be inhibited by the legal challenges that this poses. I've been well aware for 10 years or more of the threat that peg access faces because it's major funding by just the cable TV customers. I saw the, in my view, degradation is at the right word of the idea that internet is just an internet information service and then is immune to the cost of carrying that information over lines. All video and audio television entertainment is carried over the same fiber to the home. So it should be regarded as such and I know this is a very difficult topic and it's very difficult for one state to fight that at this point. However, what I do believe is that moving forward, the state, the entities in the state that are working on this, legislature and the department, that peg access should be an inherent part of broadband deployment. So whenever the importance of broadband is discussed, the importance of peg access must be discussed as well and a way to maintain the funding and the support of peg access centers around the state, there are 25 of them. And be expanded to serve those underserved areas of the state, not just those people that can get the cable TV and not just those folks who can, has high enough bandwidth to carry video signal from these access centers. But the most rural of areas, when they get broadband service, they are the towns that need peg access the most at this point. The two thirds of the state that's covered, the population that's covered by peg access right now, is very fortunate to have it. So we have to concentrate on those that are underserved and unserved and allow them to be served by either the existing peg access centers or other ones that could be developed through funding. So thank you very much for your time. I will put my other comments in email. Thank you. I believe we have one witness who has joined us, which is Steve Whitaker. And Steve, are you there on the phone? I am. Okay. We are significantly over time. The witnesses before you have taken about 10 minutes. So I'm gonna ask you to hold your comments to about that long because we're starting to lose committee members who have two o'clock commitments. And I understand that some of the consultants also are starting to move back their whole time. I hope that means if, Madam Chair, I hope that means if we've lost the quorum that this doesn't count meet the statutory requirement. No, it does meet the statutory requirements. We've had a quorum for about two and a half hours. So, don't waste your time. Just give us your testimony, please. Okay. The final draft before you of the 10-year telecommunications plan does not meet the requirements. Wait, Mr. Whitaker, we need you to identify yourself for the record first, your name and who you represent. Steven Whitaker from Montpelier. The final draft of the 10-year telecommunications plan does not meet the requirements of statute by any stretch of the imagination or sleight of hand. In fact, it can't be called a plan, but a background paper. I have provided one of your members and will provide to other Senator Brock a matrix which lays out the specific statutory sections in a table in a cell format. In column three, it lays out the requirements of a contract between CTC and the department. And in eight or nine out of 10 cases, the requirements are not met either of the contract. This is something that the state auditor of account is now looking at and it would behoove this committee to pass a resolution in the veto session, disapproving of an incomplete plan because it in no way, most absurdly, the plan proposes to make negotiable among the CUDs and their private sector partners important provisions of Vermont law, such as net neutrality and numerous statutory goals and policies such as competitive choice, open access, and the priority of mobile wireless. These are laws and they are not negotiable absent a notwithstanding clause which was not inserted in H360. It's important to reference the role of the plan in Vermont law. The plan was first enacted in 1987 by Act 87. And the first plan was due in 1990. In 1991, we discovered that the first plan had not been completed while there was now a regulatory clock ticking, a pending contract regulation proposal that was required to be found consistent with the plan were it to be approved by the public service board. That contract regulation proposal under 30 BSA 226A was jointly proposed by the Department of Public Service and New England Telephone. The legislature wisely stepped in, formed a special joint study committee on the telecommunications plan, co-chaired at the time by Senator Mary Jessica and Representative Michael Oboski, which analyzed the draft plan and made strong sweeping findings and recommendations some of which were implemented, others not. The contract was withdrawn by New England Tele because it could not meet their requirements of their revised plan. I encourage you to look at the 1994 bill, which also did not pass sponsored by Senator Shumlin, the purpose of which was to enact into law the recommendations of that joint committee. Those recommendations are still relevant today and I would encourage you to look at the report of that special committee in 92 along with the bill to revive and enact it. The statutory role of the telecommunications plan is to elaborate upon and support implementation of the goals and policies of 30 BSA 202C. Those are the statutory goals and policies that have evolved since 87. And this is where, for instance, the goal to provide fiber speed broadband to every E-911 address in Vermont by 2024 is located. Also notable in 202C are the requirements to support competitive choice for consumers and open access for competitors to facilities owned by other carriers. Another goal of 202C is ubiquitous mobile wireless. The telecom plan, once it's duly adopted, will be used to measure first consistency the new incentive regulation plan expected to be proposed by consolidated communication in next July, July 2022. Or prior to that expiration to provide sufficient time for the Public Utilities Commission to review. PUC is required to find that the proposed incentive regulation plan is consistent with a 10-year telecommunication plan. That is the importance of having a complete and thorough and statutorily compliant plan because if we do not establish a fair competitive playing field, including open access to fiber, we will not accomplish the goal of with the available money in the available time. Unfortunately, Vermont has not had a duly adopted telecommunications plan since 2004. For seven years, the plan was entirely skipped under the Douglas administration and part of the Shumlin administration. In 2014, the department was ordered to complete a plan and proceeded to not conduct hearings on a final draft. A step explicitly required by statute. In 2018, the department resorted to calling the first draft the final draft attempting to get that through. That failed because these committees, unlike this year, wisely elected not to meet jointly, thereby precluding the department from adopting the 2018 plan. This 2021 plan fails about nine out of 10 of the statutory requirements. It would be laughable if it weren't so serious. In context, we're about to start spending $100 to $200 million for a broadband rollout. We have public safety needs for mobile cellular coverage and broadband for first responder. We've got needs for hardened public safety grade radio communications infrastructure for regional dispatch, peace apps and the ability to interoperate and failover to state system. Much or most of this necessitates disaster repair and this recovery planning, and the draft before you of the 10-year telecommunications plan is oblivious to these urgent imperatives. Notably, H360 has just passed and enacted. There's an optional funded task, but not a requirement for a statewide engineered fiber design. That design once completed would relieve the communications union districts of the obligation to design region-wide resilient and hardened public safety grade networks. These are specialized highly technical skills and which are beyond the capacity of the CUDs by insisting that the new community broadband board contracts for that service sooner than later that statewide engineered fiber design becomes a touchstone, if you will, or a foundation or a complete telecommunications plan which could be completed in time for next summer. The summer review of the PUC. The recommended path at this point would be for the legislature during this veto session to disapprove the 10-year plan draft as presented. That can be done with a joint resolution as specified in 30VSA 202D in the last sentence. Encourage the administration to move forward as quickly as possible with convening the broadband board and getting that contract underway for the statewide engineered fiber design. The department has for years resisted mapping of cellular dead zones, mapping of available fiber, mapping of any type of resiliency capacity between and among networks. Yet this is fundamental to building affordable and reliable networks which are both statutory goals found in 202C. So by completing that design first, but possibly by the end of this year, it'll be much more achievable to achieve the real-time telecommunications plan statutorily compliant by late spring of next year in time for the comparison of the incentive reg plan accepted from Consolidating, expected from Consolidating. I will, I'll provide as much answers to questions as you have. I have provided this to several members ahead of time and to the, I said, the auditor of accounts office. I believe, Madam Chair, that you directed your ledge council to assess the compliance with statutory requirements of the work product been delivered. I would be interested in knowing the report back from council on that. Thank you. Madam Chair, you're on mute. Okay. I have not seen the thing, the testimony you just gave. I did send your most, your emails, the ones that I had to ledge council. But at this point, I wanna know are, is that the extent of your testimony? Madam Chair, with the forthcoming attachments unless Senator Brock would like to, or Representative Pat would like to supply those copies. Okay. I think if you wanna supply us with written, that's fine. Does anyone in the committee or anyone else, the consultants have any questions for Mr. Whitaker? Okay. I am not seeing any. So Mr. Whitaker, if you will send us a copy, perhaps send it to Mike Farrett and he'd get it out to all of us. We will all be working from the same page as we go forward. Okay. Any, I'm not seeing any other witnesses. I'm not seeing any questions. So thank you everyone. Thank you, Mike, for stepping in and setting up this different committee. And yes, if you send any written comments or anything else to Mike, he will make sure they get out to all the three committees and anyone that would like to consider something once you've read that. And I mentioned early, but I don't know that we were online. We did have a couple of communications on the issue around backup when the grid is down and batteries. I know we did a lot of work and the issue came down to inside and outside. I believe if batteries are outside the home we required that Representative Sibelio, I'm looking at you that the provider fixed those batteries, but if the batteries are inside the home, they're kind of the homeowners, but we can look at that again. And those emails are out there. I think you all got them. If you didn't let me know and I will forward them for consideration going forward. Okay. Any last comments? If not, I think we can go off live stream and this committee can adjourn.