 We've got all the broadband decisions to make and if the Senate starts meeting in the afternoon, I'm not sure how we're getting through all of it, but we're going to have to so I'm going to need you here. I want to see your faces, not your letter sweaters or campaign photos. I need everybody here and focused. We may have to eat lunch and dinner to get through it but we're going to do it. The big bill that it's gone to a probes, but we have been asked to come back with our recommendations for using broadband funding, or funding for broadband to the appropriations committee. This is the house's commit bill in which they put all the, all the CRF money so Maria has re you going through the bill as a whole or just sections. Okay, so I can do whatever your preferences, both. There's a section by section summary posted on your website as well as each 966 is past the house, and I can pull up and walk through either of those documents. So, it's a committee I think section by section might be the easiest thing to get through. We can talk and if we need to go into the. Yeah, okay. My notebook. Okay. Is that document now visible to you. Yeah, I've got a. As the chair mentioned, this is h966 is past the house it's in appropriations, it does contain many other CRF appropriations related to issues, such as housing. But what I'm going to walk through, and what this section by section summary applies to are the broadband connectivity provisions, the it provisions, and there's one utility rate payer assistance program in here. There's also some general standard provisions that apply to all of the CRF provisions there, administrative provisions, they're included in this document as well just so you have an idea of some of the reporting requirements document retention and so on, for again, and this this is for all CRF appropriations. But those are at the very end of the document. So, I don't know to the extent you want to go through the findings. Happy to read. Yeah, I think just walk through. Okay. If they set the tone and we may want to. Okay, subtract. I'm going to summarize them there, they're eight findings altogether. And the two that are before you on the screen right now, give a snapshot of broadband availability, based on the department's most current mapping data. So this gives you a sense of how many addresses. We're talking about. So, in terms of those Vermonters that do not have access to at least for one service, and that's the download upload speed about 6.8% of Vermonters and that's about almost 21,000 addresses. And then about another 50,000 Vermonters do not have access to what is the FCC's benchmark for high speed broadband of 25 three. And then finally, and that 25 three is significant throughout this bill you'll see that referenced for some of the programs that are created. So in terms of the state's long term goal of meeting 100 symmetrical service right now that 82.5 82.5% of Vermonters that 254,000 addresses do not have 100 symmetrical service. And it is the state's goal that everybody in Vermont has that level of service by the year 2024. And the other findings in the bill that are not represented he represented represented here. Really just a recognition of how the coven 19 public health emergency and the required social distancing. It has engendered has served as an accelerant to the socio economic disparities between the connected and the unconnected in Vermont. And that's about the challenges that are those who do not have broadband connectivity with respect to distance learning remote working accessing telehealth services accessing government programs and services, including our institutions of democracy such as the court system, and otherwise trying to maintain some form of social connection and civic engagement in these trying times. We also specify that the emergency has highlighted the extent to which robust and resilient broadband networks are critical to our economic future as a whole, and provide a foundation for educational healthcare public health and safety and democratic institutions. The findings also references the work that you did last year and act 79 and specifies that the proposals here are meant to basically accelerate and build upon that work. And that's pretty much it. The final finding is the faster and more thoroughly we react to the sooner and more completely we will recover. Yeah, are you. It seems like you're reading from not on the screen and I just wonder if you could track. Correct. No, I just so the summary just has the two findings. And those are the two findings that are bulleted in front of you. I did not include the actual all eight findings so I was reading from the actual bill. Okay, thank you. I'm happy to pull that up. If you want to actually look at the language I know I just saw you were reading from the page below. Nope, that's it I was reading exactly from the findings. I'm getting somebody tapping to so if you've not muted. Can you check in mute. And if someone's tapping or typing, but there's a woodpecker sound. Okay. So there's the intent section is up on your screen now, and it specifies that in response to the COVID-19 public health emergency and the critical need for access to broadband connectivity. The intent of the general assembly to support rapid response recovery planning and broadband solutions that will significantly increase rural broadband capacity for distance learning remote working telehealth and other critical services during the public health emergency. And to do so in a manner that is consistent with the cares act requirements. And I'll just mention that that tying the broadband solutions to that intent of significantly increasing capacity. That's really a reference to the Treasury guidance. With respect to rural broadband that that's those are the expenditures on broadband that are eligible. That that's the purpose of specifying that intent. And I'll just for instance, we're on the subject but not only increasing the intent but doing it in a manner that directly responds to the public health emergency. And as you know, all of the expenditures of Sierra funds need to be incurred this calendar year. There's obviously some ambiguity about how long the actual public health emergency will exist. But this is so far the guidance we have. And that's what these proposals are intended to comply with. Having said that the total appropriation for all of the provisions that I'm going to be walking through is $43,068,500. Section three of the act is basically an itemization of all of those appropriations, because some of the appropriations are to new programs. They have corresponding draft language in subsequent sections of the bill. So this section by section will refer to the actual appropriation in section three, as well as any substantive section of the bill that corresponds with that probably made that sound more confusing than I needed to. But nonetheless, so you'll see that in terms of the money that would be that is going to be distributed or proposed to be distributed through the Department of Public Service it's about $35 and a half million. And that's itemized again, further in the section and we'll go through each of those proposals now. So, first, and as you can see in that far left column, the reference to section four, that's where you'll find the conditions and requirements for this particular program but it's summarized here. So this is for what's called the COVID response connected community resilience program. This is a program that's administered by the department, and its purpose is to fund recovery planning efforts of communications union districts. As you know, there are five already established CUDs in Vermont. EC fiber being the oldest. And there are believe another three that are looking to form within the next couple of months. But this money recognizes as stated here that the public health emergency has caused CUDs to reassess their connectivity connectivity needs to reevaluate their deployment objectives, either independently or collaboratively, and to accelerate their deployment schedules. This is a grant program that would be available to just the CUDs the eligible expenses that the grant could be used for include consultant fees and any other administrative expenses. And the award is capped at $100,000. This is already for the commissioner to develop policies and practices for program implementation that is consistent with the CARES Act requirements, including ensuring that there is appropriate expense verification and records retention. The next program that I'm going to talk about. This is a new program. It's called the COVID response line extension customer assistance program. And that's going into this new program or proposed to go into the program is $2 million. And it's a program administered by the department. Basically to provide financial assistance for the customer costs associated with line extensions into unserved areas. So an unserved location means any location that does not have access to 25 three service. And any extension that's funded under this program must be capable of at least 25 three service. There. So again, this is a program designed specifically for customers. So Vermonters can apply to give you an example. Just to make this a little more real. There are some instances where, for example, a cable company could potentially extend their line to serve customers that are maybe a mile outside of town. A customer can request that service. There are less than I believe right now under the cable rule rules, less than 15 households. On that proposed line extension, the customers would be required to pay for the, the costs of that build out and they would share that if there's only one person. If they're just going to be a mile out, that one person would be required to pay the customer costs of the extension. So the proposal here is to basically support the expenses that existing customers have right now to potentially get service right away. Yep. I'm chair, can I just ask a question. Yes, you can. Thanks. I don't understand existing customer you just said this helps existing customers get extensions but if they're existing. I'm sorry I may have misspoke if I said existing customers. The customers that might be in the service territory of for example cable company that right now the cable company is not required to build out to and that the, the customers can't afford to pay their share of the construction to build out so they're not existing customers if I said that I misspoke. But this is money for them to help pay for that extension. It sort of pays what I would have to pay normally, if I'm at the end of the long road. Okay, thank you. Yeah. Yeah, sorry. You'll see under the, there's a cap of $3,000 per award, I believe the department, the commissioner testified that on average the customer costs for such line extensions is between one and $3,000. Is there some distance away that a customer would have to be or a potential customer would have to be from a cable line in order to qualify. Is there some, some guidelines around that. But when you say that they're required to be doing, they have to be within a certain distance or. Yeah, in other words, you couldn't have a someone who was sitting in Bradford say they want the line to be extended from said all of us. I mean there has to be some. Well, guidance. So, so first of all, the, the, the wired providers are only going to extend their own networks, they're not going to build out the other to the other side of the state and the customer cap of the award is $3,000. If there, so I suppose that would be the determining factor. If you only get $3,000, if you're willing to pay for two miles and you're the only customer, you'll get $3,000 under this program, but the cost may exceed that. If you're willing to pay for that and the provider can extend their existing network. If you're willing to pay for that. Well, is there any guidance as far as the providers are concerned as to what their pricing ought to be for example could they increase the price by 20% at this point. What you'll see referenced, if you look down just a couple of bullets where it says, the commissioner shall publish guidelines and procedures on or before July 15, and may incorporate relevant provisions of cable rule 8.313, including the formula for addressing contributions in aid of construction. So there is an existing formula that talks about what the per household charge is per mile. And based on the number of households. So, I don't know, I don't know off the top of my head. I don't know if all of the factors are in that formula, but the proposal is to base it on that formula, and that gives some guidance as to what the costs are, and how they're portioned. Thank you. So then just going back a little bit further after the 3000 award a CUD letter of support is required for line extensions in a CUD service territory. Yeah, here, yeah. Is the idea that Vermonters would apply directly to the department for this. Yes. And you'll notice that a couple of bullets down healthcare providers and schools. They also apply on behalf of their patients and students so they know of students in need who might not be aware of this program, or patients. They can submit an application on their behalf. But yes, this is money that goes directly to the customer, not to the broadband provider. So maybe I'm getting ahead of where you are and it's probably addressed later, but this provides the functionality to the customer's house for someone who doesn't have the ability to pay for it. Is there later on some provision to deal with that. In addition to this section. Yes. There is. There's another program. They get it. So this is really just line extensions and this could be, you know, cable line extensions, fiber. So any of the existing providers. Maybe DSL V DSL if they can meet the 25 three threshold. But this is really for the wired providers building out their networks. So Maria, these are the whatever's going up the street. Yes. All right, then there's the wire to the house, which could be a two mile driveway. So we got to set some places is wire at the street, but not to the house. Well, that's a good question and I so I would want to look at that cable rule. Okay. Okay. So I'm just wondering if there's any contribution in aid of construction. I'm not sure if that I think that Matt. Might also factor in the installation costs, not just the line, but the actual service trial. Yeah. Okay. Let's. Okay. So I'm going to. I'll have to just double check that. Can I ask a corollary question. I'm just wondering, is there anything. Any kind of contribution from the providers to make this happen if we're putting tens of millions of dollars into customers hands to give business over to the providers. Are they giving any kind of discount or support to that or is it all on us and on the customer. So there on this particular program, there's no requirement that the providers give any kind of discounted program, or in any way, lower what they would normally charge for building out the cost of construction. So. I know they've had programs to help people. Get the service turned on, but not. But that was, you know, short, most of those were like three months for the duration of the. Emergency. So I've, I've got them on list. Oh yeah. Commission attorney come in and talk about, you know, the cost controls that are in place. And then if we can find time to have the providers come in. Yeah. Talk to us about what programs they have or what they. That's right. Thank you, Senator Cummings for bringing that up. So many providers under the federal keep. Keep Americans connected pledge have volunteer, terribly agreed. Not disconnect service. There are various programs for low income subscribers during the public health emergency. So there are existing programs. That are being offered separate from this. They're not required. But many, I think over 700, close to 800 providers have signed to that pledge. So there are providers. Providing discounts and uninterrupted service regardless of. Yeah, but after. Right. I know if it's federal or state probably state after the emergency is over. There's no guarantee that that will go on. There's no real discussion about how. Yeah, how, how that will get funded for broadband providers. That's correct. Once the pledge expires, then there's no requirement. But they keep people connected. Recently. I don't know if the CUD, the letter of support. I don't know if we, how much we went into that. But basically this is to address cable. So as I mentioned, there are a number of CUDs that in the earlier stages of formation. Looking to potentially build out broadband networks. The concern is if existing providers. Build out to some of the more lucrative. Customers or build out their line extensions in enough into a CUD service territory. That it might negatively impact their ability to come up with a sustainable broadband plan. So they're assuming that they can provide a service based on the current landscape in their service territory. If under this program, the existing companies then start to serve, you know, cherry pick for lack of a better word within their territory. That could have a significant consequences on the feasibility of their networks. So the house proposed that any award or any extension that's funded under this program. But then notice of that award will be given to the affected potentially affected CUD and they'll be given an opportunity to respond. If they don't respond, the award can be given. But if they don't provide a letter of support, if they don't support the extension, then the award is not available. Are there any time constraints regarding that response. Yes, let me just look exactly the document. There with me one second so I'm just going to read to you from the draft language. So if the extension is in the service territory of the CUD financial assistance under this program shall not be awarded. Unless notice of the proposed line extension is provided to the CUD and the department receives a written letter of support for the project from the governing board or board designate of the affected CUD or 30 days have elapsed since notice was provided and no communication was delivered to the department, whichever is sooner. Now, as far as the CUD, if the CUD declined to provide the letter because it was concerned about competitive pressure, the existing provider could provide that customer with the service within 30 days and the CUD might provided in say 18 months. Would that still be okay as far as this language is concerned. So this language. So you're saying if the customer wants it but the CUD says no. Yes. And the CUD, the customer is able to get it from an existing provider right now to use for telehealth or whatever, but the CUD is uncertain as to when, if at all, it will build it. Yes. So, I think the customer could get it, but could not get the financial assistance under this program. Yeah, anything built under this program has to be done by the end of December. So, if the CUD can't do it for two years, or if they say, we can do it before December 30. The provider says, well, I can do it September 1, and the CUD says it'll be November, but can they just say no. And, you know, it might be three years before I get out there. Yeah, so under this proposal, the CUD can say no. You can do an award under this program and you're absolutely right. Some of the CUDs might not be building out their networks for some time. And some of them might not ever, depending on, you know, how, you know, what that's something to like. Yep. But again, it would so that they can't prohibit the build out to a customer by an existing provider. But they can block the financial assistance under this program that a customer might otherwise be able to entitle to so. I think then there's a requirement that any of the locations that are seeking assistance under this program that they provide data to the department related to their telehealth remote learning and telework needs. And this just gets back to the conditions of CRF broadband funding. In response to the public health emergency, the real need is to meet, you know, all of these needs, telehealth remote working remote learning. So it's just to ensure that the department collects that information and has that information to share if the department is or this program is audited and needs to verify that the program is significantly increasing the capacity needs during that emergency. There's a specification that an award may be retained until the expenses are incurred or properly documented. And then I think we already went over that, you know, the authority to the commissioner to publish more specific guidelines and procedures for this program. And a reference to the existing cable rule. One of the constraints on the program is that funds are available only for the most cost effective and site appropriate line extension. I think what the concern here was if somebody wanted underground conduit built to their house. And then an aerial above ground service drop would suffice, suffice that they're, they're not going to use the limited dollars to support underground condo in that instance. The funds under this program are dispersed on a rolling basis until all funds are expended or December 20 whichever occurs first. You probably know this already but any of the appropriations under the cares act or under the states appropriations. The expended funds are asked or required to go back to the states coronavirus relief fund by December 20 so that they can potentially be reallocated to other programs before the December 30 cut off date. Any questions on this section. All right. More. There's more. This program sunsets December 31. Okay. And then just the guidance must be guidelines consistent with the cares act requirements. So then the next program broadband program is the get Vermonters connected now initiative. There's $11 million that would go into this new program. Also administered by the department. This money goes to the provider internet service providers for basically three purposes which are bulleted there to offset the customer costs of fiber to the premises. Installations, which include underground conduit installations where required and service drops. There's a little bit more about that in a moment. But in addition to this fiber to the premises customer costs. Basically, the money can be used to expand fixed wireless coverage to unserved and underserved locations. The amount of money up to $50,000 that can be set aside to reimburse the department for its wifi hotspot deployments. Most of that 75% of their costs are covered by FEMA. So that's what that small appropriation from this program is for. With respect to the projects for the fiber to the premises installations, you'll see in that next bullet. Priority is given to projects involving instant installation of underground conduit where required. To develop and broadband access to low income households with remote learning, telehealth and telework needs. Some of the testimony just to get a little more context to what this provision, one of the things it's intended to address. For example, house energy and technology, her testimony. This is a similar from easy fiber about how their networks. In some instances pass mobile home parks. That are required to have underground. Conduit installed and the costs of doing so is prohibitive. So all of those units in those parks. Do not have access to broadband. In addition, you know, there are households. By which a fiber line may run where just the service drop to that household. Maybe too expensive for based on that households income. The interest of, you know, getting to broadband to those as quickly as possible to households that do not currently have service. But for which a line is maybe maybe directly passing. That is really what is intended here. And again, you know, it's the goal is to prioritize where there is the greatest financial need to be able to pay for this service. There is further down just because we're on the subject of kind of prioritizing low income households or where there might be a financial need and scroll down for a moment. And you'll see that the department may also under this program, provide temporary subsidies for base, basically the subscription the monthly subscription costs for broadband service, and that's to get people connected, get them using the access to increase the option for the provider, but of course, this would only be a temporary subsidy. Obviously, it can extend beyond the calendar year. But also just in terms of some of the other conditions with respect to the fiber and fixed wireless installations, just a reference to the department's ongoing efforts with the agency of education and the Vermont program for quality and infrastructure to really identify students or clusters of students or vulnerable or high risk for monitors who do not have access to broadband. So really working to the extent possible of specifically identifying those locations and focusing the limited resources there. There's also a similar provision. Yep. I'm just curious the, the, I worry that we're trying to do too much here with the small pot of money. And so the desire to connect low income families is a good one, but our ability to do that in any sustained way. I think that subsidy is suspect me. Can you just remind us, don't, don't internet providers have an obligation to have some kind of lower income student rate for based on the, I don't know, maybe I'm misremembering but I thought there was like, it was a piece of their education equality, something where kind of like we have electric rates for low income families. Is there anything like that or am I completely misremembering. No, I don't know you mean irrespective of the public health emergency is there some other requirement on broadband providers. Yeah, the level. I don't know the answer to that. But I can find out. Okay, I'd be grateful because it would certainly help me as we look at this particular priority. Yep. Absolutely. Yeah, if I could just add to that, I mean it's, it's, it's low income folks that we're really trying to help here right I mean it's easier. If you are, you know, I have communities here which might need some kind of build out, but they tend to be, you know, more affluent communities it's easier for cable company or someone else to sort of go in and, and link them I'm interested in seeing you know we saw a map at one point of of where folks are and I think it's the low end community income communities that we're really trying to to help the most in this situation. I will just mention, not specific to students, but there is both a federal and a state lifeline program. Okay, that provides a subsidy for the costs of broadband and service. There are federal programs that help to reduce some of the subscription costs. But I, I don't know of anything other than that specific to students so I will look, I will look into that. We know we've got a problem with it with particularly targeting low income people it's not just the cost of getting hooked up it is the cost of the ongoing service. Temporarily, temporarily, it can't be beyond because of the CARES Act required that relief fund requirements it can't extend beyond this calendar year. So, we need to know I think a little bit more about the lifeline program and who gets covered with that. So, that is, in terms of it was a couple of years ago, you may recall. There was a modernization effort of the lifeline program to make it easier to administer to create a national registry of persons who are eligible. In terms of just to give you an idea of who could apply and be eligible. There are, there's an income threshold I believe it's 135% of the federal poverty level. And then there's categorical eligibility so individuals, for example, that are enrolled in SNAP. In the nutrition assistance program I think I believe it's three squares in Vermont. Then you are eligible for the lifeline program the amount. I believe it's $9 and 25 cents. So, the lifeline program is an additional, which is a supplement to that is an additional, I think, about $4 and 25 cents. Yeah. Maria, do you have that information just somewhere you can send it to us. Yep, you can find it. Yep. I can pull something together or just or find it and that's so summarized for you. Maria. You and you're, I assume that every state is looking at broadband expansions, at least from what I've read have you come across any kind of creative ideas from these other states as to how they may tap into the resources of these cable companies, sort of incentivize the companies to partner with our money to get some help to low income people, or to get more low income people connected. Well, I'm not aware of what other states have done around broadband specific to low income. I don't even know if they have a similar kind of temporary subsidy. There may be other programs with other sources of federal revenue. I'm not sure that for purposes again of the CRF funding that's going to be limited to this calendar year. So, other than like a supplement, supplemental lifeline program. That's really the subsidy to any broadband service that's available currently and I don't know if other states have higher subsidy. I'm asking more, not so much the ongoing subsidy program. We're talking about a short term period of time where we can possibly hook some folks up and I think I've heard in this committee over and over again. How the cable companies really want to get to the last mile. They can't do it because it's too expensive. And here we are putting using this as an opportunity to get them get customers who at the last mile on to broadband. And it would just seem like there may be some resources out there from the private sector to help. Maybe I mean I think this probably you know I think this envisions that, you know that it's not going to be all public dollars, you know that there are provider costs. This is just going to help them to build out where they otherwise don't have a business plan to build out so I. So I assume that they're the whatever state dollars they receive under this program is going to be is going to leverage their existing capital but I don't actually know to what extent or what what the proposals are and how much of it. This is a competitive, what I haven't said yet but what I think is on the very bottom of the page. These funds are going to go through the existing connectivity initiative. So there are some criteria which I'll go through but. Can I ask you a quick question. Yeah, is that all right. Is that all right madam chair. Yes. So, are we talking here about giving dollars to the cable companies and helping and having them help or are we just talking about providing the CUDs with funds, or is it both. So, first of all, this is does not. This is for fiber. Right, exactly. And this is also for fixed wireless. And it's for any company that can build out, you know, a minimum speed of 25 three. The money goes to the provider, and it's to offset some of their costs, and the providers are going to bid for whatever existing dollars there are in this program so it's a competitive bill bidding process. So some sample providers just to help me understand this better would be. So it could be a CD and existing CD, it could be a cable company. It could be any of the fixed wireless providers. You know the real constraints are can you deliver 25 three. And can you do it within the calendar year. But it's not. Yeah, that would say that we would ask them to show us where they would be providing. I mean, is there any requirement. Again, back to my initial point, there are some towns where you know it's well to do enough or there's they're almost there and it's just a little bit of a tweak but then there are some areas that you know really might be struck you know have real issues of poverty that we really need to have those addressed. Yeah, and you may want to, you know, not in there now. Well, there's a, there's a priority with respect to at least with fiber of trying to prioritize the low income households. Okay. The state doesn't currently do that for grants under the connectivity initiative it doesn't look at the income of the households that would be served under the program but under this program, that is a factor. Whether that's enough. Or you want to, you know, look at that more closely to to kind of target more specifically that maybe is something that can be explored further. Thank you. Can I ask Maria question. So, Maria. Is there back to Senator Pearson's question about or statement about this being seems like there's a little bit of money here there's a little buddy there. Is there any way to put guardrails within the language to say that any money not used in one particular stream can then get dedicated to another stream. I'm I'm worried that we're not going to use the money by the end of December but the need is great. Absolutely. That is a significant issue and yes, for all of the programs that I'm talking about and for any program that's funded with CRF monies. There's no requirement that any unexpended funds. As of December 20, you return to the state. And at that point, there's an opportunity for the state to reallocate those monies to other programs where there is a need and to do that before the December 30. 10 days in which to do that. Yep. And you know that they can if it's. I'll also just mention now there are reporting requirements associated with these programs and all programs funded with CARES Act funding or CRF funding more specifically to the legislature and on the program implementation. So I think the first one is the end of July, July 31 and then there's another reporting requirement maybe in September. So you'll be getting updates along the way, and it may become apparent to you that there's no way all of this money can go out consistent with the requirements of the CARES Act. And I think that's what the purpose of that reporting is, is to really monitor. Or is the money able to go out in the time constraints that you're faced with. And should it be reallocated. Madam chair. A question for Maria. If I recall their recent PUC. Ruling around Comcast was a requirement of line extensions. You know, I think, I think, I don't know, it's murky, but I, I feel like we were frustrated that they were dragging their feet and there was some condition place on them. And so judging by your expression. You're not remembering that or I'm misremembering. No, no, I'm, I'm remembering about as much as you just said. Well, so is there any. I mean, if the PUC has put that on Comcast as an example, we shouldn't be now paying for those extensions. So how, how is there a cross reference or some reason to believe that this will be in addition to that. Well, I wouldn't say, you know, so, so first of all, it's hard for me to say without recalling the details of what was at stake there. And I just do not have a good enough memory. That's fine. Can we ask you to check in with the PUC for tomorrow. And then I guess just a statement for the committee as we think about this. I'm really worried that the emphasis and it's my surprise you coming from me on low income families. I think that is a very real challenge and a very real challenge for our, our mandate to provide equal educational communities in a remote setting. But we, there's nothing in the cares universe that allows us to solve that in more than the shortest term way. And, and so just for instance, somebody has been watching has this essentials Internet essentials program which is something to apply for sort of like we do for low income electric rates. So I don't know if, if consolidated has something similar. I just, I think the problem I would have thought we were trying to get at is not the disparity between household incomes and what kind of service they can afford but the disparity between more remote families, no ability to get broadband, compared to the people who've already built out. I think they're really distinct. And I hope excuse me for interrupting whoever's dog is parking. Could you mute yourself. Yeah. So that's my dog. If you'll excuse me. Okay, you can't mute yourself. All right. I'm going to my clock will go off shortly too. I, you know, the idea of, of helping a mobile home park where the cable is already there and there's an underground thing that that strikes me as interesting and something we should consider. But it's that's a very discreet kind of scenario where as I understand the cares money and the opportunity we have that we ought to take advantage of is trying to move out to communities that are so far not able to get broadband as opposed to thinking this will be some kind of long term solution for lower income families. I think that's really misguided. I think you're right. I think the criteria could be there are some very wealthy communities, and there are some very unwealthy ones and if there's a choice between the two, we might want to say, that deference will be given to, but I think, you know, and we can read these and fine tune them we probably have to read the text as a whole to understand what's going on here. I just asked. So, thank you. So, I guess. So if we were in center Pearson will correct me if I'm misunderstanding what he's saying but if we were to use these dollars and give certain communities. Some level of access, which I know there are a lot of groups out there that have no access and would like something. Now, rather than perhaps waiting for something else. Are we preventing them from getting something else in the future and I guess I nobody can really I don't think anybody can answer that but if we're giving a community. We're not giving them will someday we all hope to have everybody have which would be fiber to the home by doing what we're doing is this precluding us from allowing giving them that in the future that's all. Um, Senator campion are you. You know the only in terms of potentially precluding other broadband opportunities, unless it's through the state. I think what you'd be maybe concerned about is, there are federal programs, for example the rural digital opportunity fund, which believe the application the short form application is the middle of July. But I think you're raising an interesting issue. The federal program. And I think that's also in part why the CDs are asked to weigh in here because if there's build out, although, you know, if there's build out in an area eligible for our dog funding that area would no longer be eligible under the federal program. The question is going to be perhaps one of timing. But I, and I, these are just things I'm sort of thinking a lot. I mean, if Senator Pearson's point is just sort of build out or not build out but let's get some of these dollars out by someone like I think he mentioned Comcast. Are those groups going to some way be overlooked as then we are looking at fiber to the home because they already have something they already have something. So that's kind of what I'm just sort of pulling trying to figure out. I think that's definitely I don't know if that's that's a policy or philosophical question that I think we just, you know, again, sort of have to ask ourselves so thank you. Again, with these timelines, because we've got to have this out of here. I believe by Thursday, no one has corrected me when I've asked that. It's Tuesday, and we may be on the floor tomorrow, all afternoon or for, you know, one time and then back at 430. What we've been charged to do is bring recommendations to the appropriations committee who will dispense the dollars. Realistically, the most we're going to be able to do is come up with some set of criteria, some groups. And this is, this is the houses version, you know, different ways to get money out big groups, and then some criteria. And then this seems to have the department administering it. I think, you know, but we need who's in charge of putting the money out there. But and one of those questions is what's going to be the impact of, you know, these lines on our future goal of having the CUDs be some of the main providers so I think the most we're going to get to do though is put that in as a criteria. That it will not. If, if we're too strict, we are in a fact saying, well, you can't have anything now, because it might impact your ability to get something later. I'm not sure how, you know, depending on the definition of later. I'm not sure how well that would go over, but something for us to consider. One of the big questions. Senator Pearson and I had a conversation with several senior members of the administration regarding this and in particular regarding the speed with which we've got to get this out and the likelihood that a large amount of administration would be left the department, and we at least representing ourselves and sort of two thirds of the Senate. Jai talk committee expressed some concerns of whether the department is able to do this or whether or not there needs to be someone appointed from the administration really oversee this and bring it all together and so they're thinking about all of those things now. That question has come up does, I mean we keep telling the department they're going to do this. But the impression I've gotten is that clay is the department that we don't seem to have a particularly deep bench when it comes to broadband. The question is, do they have the personnel to get this out the door in the timeframe. That's the message that we passed on. And I think that they're considering considering that. Yeah, we also raised the issue of whether or not, because of the speed with which we've got to get this out. And also that we can't wait until late August or early September to say whether or not it's working or whether any tweaks are needed, whether or not to have J talks somehow involved actively during the period in which we're in recession, so that the joint fiscal committee could make some changes if necessary in order to get things back on track. So we just raised that without saying this is what we're going to recommend by any means but it's on the table. Any other questions from Maria at this point. I just have a question she was talking about the reallocation provision. That seems like a very tight timeframe. Is the reallocation limited to broadband issues within the section or the allocation for anything at that point for anything, any eligible expense. Madam chair. So would this allow sort of us to turbo charge financially the CUDs if that's what they wanted to do. I mean right now. I just continue to have this concern that, you know, I suspect that folks are going to go to the easiest spots where they can use these dollars, get the biggest bang for their buck. But then we're going to really be harming the CUDs ability to get fiber to low income folks for build out because we're going to be using these dollars. And again, this is sort of subsidized this billion dollar company that should sort of should, I think was already committed to doing this kind of work. They're going to take these dollars and in essence they're taking them from the CUDs. Perhaps I'm missing something, but I'd be that's that's one of the base issues we're going to have to deal with. And if I am. Yep. No, I was just going to say with respect to CUDs. So, there's the $800,000 for their accelerated recovery planning. Right. Other than that the two broadband programs, the line extension program that I previously discussed, and this program, any existing CUDs that are already up and running, because if they're not up and running, they're not going to be able to get a network up. They can apply December 30, presumably, any of the existing CUDs, and I'm just going to say EC fiber because it's the most familiar, they can apply for money under these programs for any other funding under these programs that would go to projects within the CUD of the CUD, they have an opportunity to basically stop the expenditure of public dollars in their service territory. I think there was some attempt to protect their service territories to ensure that they have an economically viable opportunity to build out a network. I don't know if that sufficiently addresses your concerns. But I just wanted to clarify, there are two different levels there the CUDs that are going to be applying for money to build out their networks under these programs. And then there are CUDs who might not have networks but want to protect their service territories from getting public dollars to build out and encroaching on their service territory in a way that will negatively impact what they're hoping to provide in the future. So for clarity's sake, let's just use a couple of practical examples. Certainly, if you have an EC fiber that wants to extend its network further than it extends right now to meet COVID eligible clients needs, it can certainly apply for that and do so. Yes. On the other hand, let's say you have a fledgling CUD that is not up and running. Can it do a build out in the jet begin to do a build out including the engineering and planning for it that may extend the line at least partially to one of these places to be served but not be able to reach it to serve it before the time runs out. Can they expend money to at least do that much. So if they can do that. If they're able to do that. Then they may be eligible. Reach that customer, the phone may not the line may not be all the way there, but they're headed in that direction. The engineering to do that. Really the question. Okay, I'm sorry I misunderstood the question. So I think that the problem, the potential problem with that scenario is because under the Treasury guidance for building out rural broadband capacity. You have to significantly increase the capacity to meet the need for remote learning, telehealth, telework during the public health emergency. So if you just build out some wires on polls, but don't actually get anybody connected. You may run afoul of the Treasury guidance. I think that's right. I think that clarifies it much better. Thank you. You know you raised what I thought you were going and there are a lot of gray areas. Let's just think about the guidance that has come down to date. We have the planning work of the CUDs. There is that money that is set aside for their administrative expenses. So they can kind of recalibrate and be able to respond, for example, under these programs just to give some input on whether they should approve or disapprove. You know they need to be able to move further enough along in a process to participate. But kind of the next step is, you know, in terms of planning, engineering costs of build out that will not happen this year. That is a big gray area, I think. There is some recovery planning that is specifically authorized by the Treasury guidance. But whether you can actually do engineering, design, or data, data collection, there was a lot of talk about poll surveys, things that are very expensive. There is a lot of very helpful work to have done now, but that won't actually support broadband build out until next year. You know that is a problematic area in terms of clarity and whether that's allowed. I think most of what we've heard is that that type of investment that doesn't bear fruit in terms of connecting people. But it is absolutely, to me, that's the gray area between the recovery planning and the actual build out, both of which are authorized. You know, to what extent can you really do some of the design and engineering work now. But it's, yeah. It remains a gray area. So may I also just ask, if it's a Comcast, or anyone, are they required, and I'm sorry, I know we've sort of been going back and forth in this and I just need it to be clarified. Will they be forced in any way or will they have to address those who are on the wrong side, if you will, the digital divide, those that just have nothing. In terms of the subscription, like actually having a low income. In terms of giving money in terms of supporting it financially. Yeah, so this, there's just the condition here that the build out the public dollars that go through this program is to intent, intended to prioritize getting service to low income households. It's not a requirement. But that is one of the conditions is to the extent you can. And again, it's a competitive process. So that's something that the department is going to way more heavily because it's consistent. And so they would take into consideration what Comcast may have already done or the department could look at plans that they might have or require plans to actually help with that. To the extent that it will, it will, they'll connect low income households that otherwise are not connected. You know, and again, because of the short timeframe, this, these may be, you know, households that Comcast or any other provider, you know, runs a line right by the house, but they just can't afford to pay for the service drop or the installation. Yeah, I mean, yeah. And again, back to your comment about there's a lot of gray area. I agree with you. I would just rather err on the side of giving the service to those who are on the other side of this. Yeah. And in some ways, I'm having difficulty because we're doing this backwards. We are at least hopefully ramping down out of this COVID virus. It looks like the kids are going to go back to the classroom in September. It looks like most workers are going back to the office in September. So the need for broadband for telehealth may still stay there just because people that are sick are still leery of going out, but we're setting this up with money to fix the COVID virus crisis at a time when we don't, you know, when that that crisis is ramping down, it may come storming back. And the kids will be home and this will be fine. But if it doesn't, then the question is, where are we if we've run up a lot and spend a lot of money to run cable up a street. And the folks we still have, you know, folks still don't have the money to hook up, or even if they can get to the first program, the money and get themselves hooked up. They can't afford the service. So we may be here. We're needing to talk about getting the infrastructure out there and, you know, and having the service hooked up until December 30th, or, you know, some day. But it seems like we also need to have a plan. So the wires are all there, but the folks haven't been hooked up for two years because we haven't had a crisis. What's our plan for getting them re hooked up very quickly. We don't want to be in the same spot we are in a year from now. Yeah, we want to make sure that even if folks choose not to stay connected. Once, once the crisis is over, the kids have gone back to school or whatever, if they choose not to stay. How do we yeah how do we have them plug in ready for the next time and the next time might be a flood or, you know, could be another virus, it might never happen again at this level, which would be wonderful. Let me ask a quick question. I mean, I'm wondering, and I know we'll probably hear from folks like Comcast, but what's preventing them from doing this work right now, you know, from extending wires. I mean, I think what they've said to us is they need is it 10 people per mile to hook up to make it cost effective to serve them. Right, so they're going to make enough money off of those 10 folks to pay for the cost. We're saying, we're going to help you pay for the cost. But this is about a return for their investors is what we're saying. I mean, honestly, I just want to be. It seems they have I'm sure yes they they're not a regulated utility. They're folks are investing in them. Yeah. It is a return for their, their investors how much that is, I don't know. That's why we've set up the CUDs unfortunately, most of them are not ready to string wire in the next six months, maybe some of them are. Backed in with the gentleman over what we had him in earlier. And I think before we went home, no, I saw him on the Brady bunch. And I think his testimony was that most of the CUDs are still informative stages they don't have the equipment they don't, you know, they're not ready to run wires. So we kind of get a foot in both worlds and we're going to have to, I mean, we can forego all this money and say we're not ready for it. But I don't think we'd want to do that. So the question is, how do we get the most out there. I think it's like building a highway, you know, you may not get any driveways off it right now but it's there. For the next time you need to build housing. I can't see who's talking. It's ready. Yeah, okay. Yeah, I just think among the things I know that I've heard from talking with representative Brigham on the house side and also from some of the consultants that I've been speaking with over the past week that one of the biggest concerns in all of this is regardless of what we have in this particular is the ability of the carriers providers whether they be wire line whether they be fixed wireless are actually able to perform and deliver these connections by the end of the year because this is such an incredibly tight timeline. One of the things I heard yesterday for example is even the availability of fiber is in question because they're now delays of a couple months just get fiber in the first place. So that means that whatever we pass with me. We need to I think during the course of our discussions these next several days is talk with the department to see what they've done and what they know about the ability to deliver and then also talk to some of these providers as to what they can deliver within this time frame based on what they know right now because I'm I'm really uncomfortable about what you know this this whole plan quote unquote, as to whether it's a real plan. Senator Brock, you mean the time frame the money out the door the project completed by December 30 money out the door money out the door gotta be completed. It's got me turned on project turned on to somebody's house. Can't just run the wires up the road. We have to have somebody's house or preferably more than somebody's. And that's the language in. Well I think the way this is going to be is it's a competitive bid so if you come in and you say for $10,000 I can hook up five houses and get them 25 three or better. And the next guy comes in and says well for 6000. I can hook up 25 houses. You know that, and that's where the department or whoever ends up in charge of this will have to make a decision based on the criteria we give them. And I don't know. You know, it'll depend on how heavily we wait things. I think is to who gets it. And madam chair. When things don't get delivered on time. In other words, that's that's one of the questions for Maria is in the bill, we may push the money out the door to these various providers to do things, and to have them done because for our purposes of clawing money back it's got to be finished by December 30. What happens if they don't deliver. And what's our get clawed back. So that's a question. Okay, I got that my question list. Senator Pearson. I, I'm trying to help us forward here. And I think we basically have until tomorrow evening. More or less to maybe mid midday Thursday to send appropriations. I think that's a recommendation because that then has to move. Really Thursday, I would guess if, if there's any shot. That's what I've said and no one has. Corrected me. We're not the plain fact of the matter is, we're either not going to meet that timeline, or more likely we will not be able to have broad range of testimony that this issue deserves. I guess I'm wondering what people think. Senator Brock and I have been banting ideas around trying to hone in a more specifics and as we do that, I think we come closer to the idea that we maybe need some principles and fewer specifics and we kind of hand the money over as we've done with some of the previous relief and other issues and we've been discussing ideas of how to have check ins that keeps the legislature involved and keeps the administration's feet to the fire. Does it make sense to you, madam chair that basically Senator Brock and I try to our best to be ready with a proposal tomorrow. And I don't know if that's terribly realistic with Maria schedule but I'm not sure we have better options. If we're, it's good to understand what the house is done. But we're just not. We just don't have the chance that we would normally have where we vet things and understand what people think about things and then come up with our own plan so I'm wondering if we should just, if that's an appropriate, given everything. And I don't know that rock and I can do that. And I don't know about Maria's time but it does seem so. Okay, thank you. It seems like our best shot. I guess I wonder if that's satisfied people. This is not. This isn't a bill that we're going to amend and send it back to the house. This is, we don't have a bill. This is a recommendation that we are going to send to appropriations as to this is. And I know they want blocks this is how we're going to spend the money. Barring a better suggestion. And that would probably involve funds for a personnel. This is how who's going to make the decisions. And this is the criteria and probably some waiting to that that we want considered I think we've been going through what the house is kind of waiting and much more detailed process than we're going to do. And I'm, I think you I don't think you have to get it done by tomorrow but if you could start just thinking about we've talked about the impact on the CUDs going forward. The future of the ability of people to stay connected once, you know, if we get them out there and they're only going to stay connected for a week. I mean, how does that balance. Madam chair. Yes, I think our camp and I are on the same page here in our concern, making sure that we are not sending mixed messages to the CUDs. So we basically directed the CUDs and our work last year for monitors the money isn't going to come from on high. We've tried to get you connected. You guys have to get yourselves organized. You've got to come with a plan and they have been doing that and I just want to make sure anything that we push out and I understand we're not going to be tingering with the language of the bill. But I want to make sure we're building on that and we're not disadvantaged. I think I just want to. And I think that's a major, that's a major issue, because if you get somebody who comes in and says, the houses said the CUD has to give permission. They are going to make the decision, but if somebody comes in and says, I can hook up, you know, this entire neighborhood by December. And the CUDs are the local CUD is just getting formed. And it might be two years and they can send in a letter and say, no. They are making some enemies in those 50 houses, they're going to need. And maybe something could be put in that you run it. You get these customers while you never get them guaranteed because they can switch providers. So, but that's, I think that that's going to be an interesting balance. I just want to make sure we are following through on our commitment to this. He and I both have quite a few townspeople that have really put so many hundreds of volunteer out. I have two. And I'm not. Yeah. I'm not interested in seeing them undercut. The other one is going to be our goal of fiber. Well, if there's a cable there. I don't, I don't think you can extend that cable. If there's some cable you could put fiber in, or it can be converted, but we're, we may have to compromise on that a little bit in order to get any service out to folks, or any service better than for one. Senator Pearson. So people have Maria, just really high level. I, I wish I had, well, we don't have the document in front of us right at the minute, but how many buckets did the house create in their bill in terms of just broadband. I think it was three. I believe that's right. The CUD money, the line extension program, and this program get from honors connected. Those are the kind of the broad program programs. But there was also the, the, the CUD planning. Right. That's the CUD. That's what I just called the CUD, the 800,000. So if that one, then there's the sort of line extension, the bulk of the money, right? No, that's $2 million. The bulk of the program we just talked about the get from honors connected now. That goes to individuals, right. That's $11 million. The get from honors connected now that's goes to providers through a competitive bidding product process. Those providers are not exclusive to any particular kind of provider. So it can be cable. It can be fiber. It can be fixed wireless. Yeah. Yep. Well, it's fiber. It's fiber and it's fixed wireless. Okay. I believe is how it reads now. I thought it was. Well, maybe, and maybe that should be clarified. But so the purpose of the program is provide grants to internet service providers to offset the customer costs of fiber to the premises for installations and service drops to expand fixed wireless. And to reimburse the department for their wifi hotspots. So the cable companies do have fiber within their networks, and they may be building they may apply for money to build out their fiber. But coaxial cable or DSL, even if it met the 25 three, I don't think would be eligible under this program. The money money available for them right now is a grant to a couple of my constituents who the cable comes within a mile of their house for the line extension program as long as line extension. So that's all hired service that meets 25 three. They get three, up to 3000. If it costs 10,000 to get there, because they're more than a mile out. They have to make up the difference or get four or five other neighbors to apply for the 3000 and put it all together. The customer, the $3,000 limit customer. So if they're 10 households on a mile, they'll all share and it might not be three. But it would depend on all somebody organizing all of those neighbors. Correct to apply. And yeah, that would that would take some organizational ability to get that done. But isn't it correct that in order to get that 3000 per customer, there may be lots of customers, but there's no money unless each one of them qualifies for either the schooling, the telehealth or the telework criteria. Is that correct? Well, that's a really good question. Certainly, that is the intent is to increase broadband capacity for those categories and that it's definitely a goal of the CRF dollars. But I think what is, you know, there, there's some aspects to that, for example, if you might not have a healthcare need right now. But, you know, almost any household may want to take advantage of telehealth services during the public health emergency. So, you know, I think some have had a very narrow interpretation of whether you can actually go to a house if there is a house that even exists that doesn't have a telehealth telework or a student. And you provide service. You know, I think that that is, because of all of the other kind of critical services that are accessible only through broadband, I think you can make through these line extensions. But again, it's telehealth is the big one that all of us are potentially patients and may want to avail ourselves, you know, of that ability during the emergency. So, you know, I think there may be some, you know, there's some ambiguity but there may be some discretion to build out the folks even if they can't document that they have a specific telehealth need. I'm going to have to go back and find the consultants report, but I thought that's what they were laying out for us. And I think you're right, Senator Cummings, I think that they were very specific that you can only bring service if you can show a need. I think the question is, is there a house that doesn't potentially have a telehealth need, for example. Right. You just have to, and again, this is the kind of documentation. I mean, it snows and you can't get out to the doctors and an emergency in Vermont. I mean, telehealth would be really good at that point. But if you don't cream it narrowly, then you can almost say that you can expand broadband anywhere in Vermont because there is the possibility that there could be a trial there at some point. There's the possibility there could be a health need. And I just can't see that flying. I think you're absolutely right about that. But if you're talking about one household out of 10 on a line extension that doesn't have a demonstrable verifiable health care need. Well, can you not build out or factor them in and provide some of the public dollars to include them in the customer costs. If the actual extension is significantly increasing the capacity for all of the other households for their remote learning their telework and their. So I think that I think that's a gray area I think you're right you can't just say well those criteria are meaningless because they're so broad I think you're 100% right about that. But can you significantly increase the capacities consistent with the coronavirus relief on parameters. And in doing so also have other people connected that might not be able to verify that they have a specific need right now. To me that's a great area. Absolutely all of these programs are designed to address the education healthcare and working remote working needs. That's their primary goal and that's significant and important to be eligible expenditures. But in the process if there are folks who can't show that. I think that's a gray area. That may be, I think we need to go back and check the consultants report. And if it doesn't because it, it seems like to find, you know, a road up a mountain and you've got three kids at the end and, you know, a couple of elderly people. You've got to go to get to them you've got to go past five houses that drove off to work every day. I don't know, you can't get to one without going by the other but you probably couldn't pay to hook them up. You know to run the wire in, but the administration and I'm trying to think of the name it's something. I don't remember it wasn't Stargate, but it was different is supposed to be helping us know what kind of documentation that has to be kept. I've got Senator Pearson and then Senator Brock and then Senator camp. Thank you. A couple of questions. Maria. Most of the money in the house proposal is geared to the CUDs teams. I'm not sure. I thought you said the 11 million was to extend fiber. Right of any provider. Yep. Or fix while, or fix while as well. Any wired provider that's building out fiber. And I think all of it, all of the incumbent film companies have some fiber and are building out fiber V tells entire service territories of fiber network. There are a lot of fiber providers beyond CUDs. Okay, that's comforting because I don't think too many CUDs are equipped to to expand rapidly before the end of the year. Does the committee. I, for one, I'm not compelled by the idea that CUDs need a little extra planning money between now and the end of the year to to just doesn't seem like a highest use. And I'm curious as we're trying to formulate our program, I would rather just put it straight into connect connectivity of some kind. Do you think that that's, is that a problem? Do people think that is important? I think it's important. I mean, that's what we're hearing from the house, right? That they, and they're the ones that took a lot of this testimony. I mean, unless you want to ask the CUDs that, but I think they're they're going to continue to need the planning. I mean, I think they sure they need planning. I think they are more an art, you know, sort of rural sort of semi rural districts. I'm not sure if it's worth. I don't know my impression was planning is ineligible. This is the planning is eligible. It is eligible. So the CUD planning money in this proposal is $800,000. About $100,000 if they're eight CUDs. They can use for their planning their purposes. But that's not going to. So that's got to deliver a plan by the end of the year. Yeah. My point, Sarah Campion, is they do need planning for sure. And they that is a big part of building a network. But what has changed based on a pandemic that alters the plan that they had in February? That's where I'm struggling to see a strong need. Well, I think you and I might both be speculating. I think we should talk to our CUDs and see if they actually I suspect they do. I suspect that the house has talked to them and taken some testimony and hearing back that they do indeed need some planning funds. So I think it's just worth touching base with them to see. Senator, I think I'm going to charge you with checking with your locals because we don't have time to hear from all of them. Yeah, I'm happy to. But you know, I just continue to be concerned that the taxpayer is going to pay for the expensive part of fiber. And then groups like Comcast are going to walk away with the profit. I'm not sure why we keep sort of focusing away from the CUDs on this. I think we're trying to the fact is that most CUDs are not ready to string fiber and have service to somebody's house by December 30. So if we say, I mean, we basically maybe Central Vermont is ready to string Roxbury because they've been working with EC fiber on that for a year. But most of them aren't ready. So, and I, I'm going to have to be convinced that, you know, how what this planning is for because just planning for how we're going to extend broadband isn't eligible. The question is, if the CUDs aren't ready, then do we send the money back? Or do we give it to the providers and get a couple thousand people? Or maybe just a couple hundred. That's the question we've got. Colerate their planning. And that's something I'm happy to talk to my CUD about. Well, I think we need to know it's not. I think we, they all need planning money. But to get it out of this pot. We, it needs to be very specific planning, not just this is how we're going to, you know, not a business plan, not an engineering plan. I mean, Maria, you, what, what kind of planning does this. Well, I mean, Senator Cummings, you're absolutely right to push back a little bit on this because the guidance is not very clear. Really isn't on what kind of recovery planning is permissible. I think that part of the thinking on the house side was, they might not get the money to build out, they might not be in a position to do that. But if they are, they may be in a position and they may need to quickly reassess what they're going to be capable of doing, and be able to, and want to be able to provide input on other public dollars that are going to go out, and whether or not they should support those public expenditures. It might be something that they need to coalesce around and fully understand what the needs are in their community, in their communities, what their realistic deployment schedules are. And then to be able to in provide input on public dollars going out through line extensions, or through grants in their service territories, and participate in that process to be better positioned to participate in that process. And I think that that is the thinking that that will that's part of their response to the pandemic and the needs of their communities and the needs of broadband right now, and opportunities that might be available under these programs, even if it's not coming to them, whether or not they want to support them. It's, yeah. I'm going to send a campy into a follow up and then I've got Senator Brock. I don't know if this is possible but can, can these dollars be used to hire work. I don't know clay purposes and this Mr fish that's been involved in this to actually help these CUDs, you know, advance I don't think six months is I don't. I think that's too much time actually I think if we incentivize and get them money they're going to be able to do a lot more a lot faster. Remember all these folks are volunteering but they need the support so if these dollars can be used to get people like clay and I think it's Rob fish and others, you know, involved I think we're going to, you know, find that we're going to have a lot more success, a lot faster. And there's, there is no workforce funding in this House proposal but that is certainly something you could consider in terms of implementation of these programs. So those dollars, so they could be used for that kind of believe there is. I'm referring to the guidance that if it's if the employee. And dedicate and dedicated to implementation of programs that are designed to be implemented immediately and in that way assisting with the recovery efforts and I think you can justify the workforce for a limited time. That's not general planning that's like the engineering hiring engineer to figure out how to get the lineup. Yeah, well, two different things one is assisting the department with program implementation right now with these programs. Okay, so that the department can hire someone. Different positions positions more bodies to help with them implementing these programs right now. The engineering and design know I think that's a little bit more problematic because you don't get the broadband yield this year. I think that's that's not at all clear that the planning that's permissible under the guidance with support that kind of investment. And what planning means if you go back to the consultants report. I think it's set out reasonably clearly. It's to provide funds to support the CUD COVID-19 response planning. And why does this qualify under the cares act because COVID-19 response planning is specifically supported on the cares act guidance. Why is this achievable by December 30. And so on and then the steps of the invitation. So this isn't to do their overall plan. This is to construct something that is supposed to be their response planning for COVID-19 going forward. That's the kind of planning that that's involved here, not broad planning not engineering and so on and so forth. And that's where it gets really strange because how do you plan for a response to a pandemic that's winding down. And hopefully won't come back. I mean, it may be back in October and or may come back in January and we could try that as a rationale. Well, I think that planning would be based on the belief that exists in public health services sources that the pandemic is not over that has a high likelihood of resurfacing with additional cases and they're doing planning to prepare for that. Okay. At least that would be the justification used for for doing the work that they would do. And some of it might just happen to overlap with some of the engineering planning they need to do anyway, but Mike, but that's truly accident. Of course. Oh, of course. Okay. Senator Pearson. I just, you know, I saw yesterday in the paper report that the world set a record for the most new cases in a day so far from out of this, but to your point man chair. Maria, how many CUDs are delivering services to customers right now. Is it to I'm, I'm not sure. Let me see if I can quickly find out. I was going to say maybe two or three. Yeah. All over the rock fish. Yeah. Well, it's a small number and to Senator Campion, I would put all the money to the CUDs. If I thought they could pull it off by the end of the year, I absolutely would. But that is the challenge that we're facing here and and these are, you know, there was talk of $100 million. Now we'll be glad to have 20 million. I think we want to be careful about trying to spread it too thin. I would rather us give it our best shot in terms of deploying as much service as possible, but I do take to heart the comments about not undermining our investments, particularly in CUDs. I think that makes it. I appreciate this new sort of democracy where CUDs are, you know, working with people and we've created this thing and I don't, it does feel a little bit not from any of us here, but it does seem like they're a little bit under attack. And we created them. We want to incentivize, you know, we want to work with them. We want them to have the tools that they need in order to be successful. And that is people power and money. But, you know, one of the issues is, are we devoting enough money to the broader installation. And I asked Representative Briglet of where they came up with the number, such as this 11 million dollar number. And, you know, was it a factor that this is all that the providers and so on felt they could do within this particular timeframe. And his answer was that it was a department that asked for this. They came up initially with a $6 million number. And then through discussion when they added fixed wireless that added another 5 billion. And that's how they got to 11 million in the first place. So, you know, one of the questions to be asking, I think of providers and others is if you got more money, could you actually do anything more within the timeframe that we have and I'm not sure the answer to that. I think that's a great point, Senator. And I think CUDs have done a lot in a short period of time. And I think, you know, I don't think there's any reason not to anticipate that given just a little bit more time, they wouldn't be able to accomplish a lot more. I mean, they have really, when you think about, since the governor signed the bill, their creation and what a lot of them have done, it's pretty incredible compared to some of the actual promises. Senator, I apologize for cutting you off. We're half hour behind. And we've got at least two bills we need to get out of here today and then we can come back to this discussion for the rest of the week. But Farrell swine are waiting our attention. And I don't want to keep a feral swine waiting. And this, we are not ending this discussion. That's no way to refer to Mr. O'Grady. No, anytime. Well, we're going to have to finish it soon. And actually, yeah, we've got 301. And yes, we did not put anything on the miscellaneous tax bill about current use in the little mini farm houses, which leaves us now with a decision to make, but I know the farmers were very much concerned about that. We have three bills, one of them is a house bill. And it is the houses bill, and the only one that the tax department supports. So it may not go as far as the sponsors. Senator is Senator star, and one is Senator Clarkson, as far as they might like to go but we could get somewhere so that's on there as far as I know those are the bills that we need to get out of here. And then we have just broadband. I wonder Maria just so we knew what the house had done. We can read the entire bill we can read the consultants reports. I know Senator Brock has sent us some folks and we're trying to get them in for a short discussion with us but I'm going to move us on to 656.