 I've got the Ethics Committee again. Maybe, okay, there we go, now I've got the agenda. This is Senate Finance. Today is April 6th, and today we are going to do a week primarily devoted to broadband. We can really focus in the field of possible things we can do seems to keep expanding, and I think we're going to work our way through it, and this is just so technical. I want to work our way through this one. We may take a break and see if we can get some other bills that we can get out in a hurry. I am still communicating with the House, trying to see if we couldn't put that insurance bill we did Friday, if House healthcare is not taking testimony until Thursday. They have jurisdiction over health insurance in the other body. The insurance bill we passed out, as far as I know, is still sitting in commerce, and I've been encouraging them to think about maybe if they agree, or even if they don't agree with us, to attach something to that insurance bill, because that's an S and it's over there, and it will probably make it through the system, whereas if we have to get an S bill there and get it taken up, it may well not make it in time as of the essence in this one. I've also requested a hearing before rules, which is where our committee bill got sent today, and hopefully we can get it out of there ASAP and get it on its way to the other body in whatever form. So that said, Maria, that's right, you were going to give us, we have H360 and S118, and you were going to kind of walk us through a side-by-side of these, okay. Yes, exactly. So I'm going to share my screen, if that's okay, because I have a document that I think will help us keep things organized. Okay, can everybody see that pretty well? By the way, is it on our website at this point? I believe it is posted under my name for today. Okay. And so in order to see all of this, I'm going to have to make you all go away. So if you have a question, just holler. Okay, Maria. Great. So this is basically a section-by-section summary of both bills. H360 has passed the House, so the House Broadband Bill, and S118 has introduced Senator Brock's Broadband Bill. So you had a section-by-section summary of H360, so that's basically in the left-hand column. And then I basically added on the right column kind of the corresponding provisions of S118. And I've highlighted in yellow kind of some key areas, you know, that I really wanted to focus on. So we'll just start going through, and things will, I think, also become clearer as they get fleshed out in the specific provisions. But a couple of things to state at the outside. So the House proposes creation of a new authority, the Vermont Community Broadband Authority, whereas S118 creates a new entity, basically reconstitutes the Vermont Telecommunications Authority. But two of the key distinctions are, one, the VTA under S118 is charged with promoting not just fixed broadband service, but mobile telecommunications, which was not addressed in H360. But also, in the House proposal, there's the real focus on community broadband solutions, meaning CUDs. I think all of the funding, all of the programs are designed to give funds specifically to CUDs, either alone, jointly or in partnership with other entities. Whereas S118, the scope is a little bit broader. You'll see in the eligibility provisions, you know, specific requirements. But if you kind of make those two distinctions, one, the House side is just broadband fixed broadband, the money goes to CUDs essentially. And then on the S118 side, it includes mobile services. And it's also much broader in terms of where that money can go. In terms of the organization of these two entities, the first kind of distinction has to do with the number of members of the Board of Directors. On the House side, there's seven. On the Senate S118 side, there are nine. Both have the Commissioner of Public Service. Selected by Vicuda, that's the Vermont CUD Association that represents all the CUDs. You'll just notice that on the House side, there are two members selected by Vicuda under S118, one member. The House proposes one member appointed by the Governor. S118 has two members appointed by the Governor. And in terms of the members appointed by the Speaker and the Committee on Committees, the House says not legislators, whereas S118 specifies that they are legislators, one representative, one senator. In terms of where there's no overlap, the House proposes that the Secretary of Commerce and Community Development is a member of this Board. And on the Senate side, there's one member appointed by the Telephone Association of Vermont. This is the entity that represents the independent telephone companies. There's also a place for the CEO, the new authority, the Chief Administrative Officer, serves on the Board, and also a place for the Treasurer. So that's just with respect to the organization of the Board of Directors. In terms of the qualifications of the public members, the House added very specific language to ensure that there is at least one public member with expertise in finance. Whereas S118 lists finance as something to be considered when looking at the qualifications of the various members. The House has a kind of a conflict of interest provision that excludes any owner employee member of an ISP or a CUD from being appointed a member. There's not a similar conflict provision in S118. Both bills specify that the Board members serve three year terms. And with respect to who serves as the Chair and the Vice Chair of the Board, on the House side, the Chair and Vice Chair are elected from among the public members. In S118, the Governor appoints the Chair with the advice and consent of the Senate. And then also, with respect to the Chair, who serves on the Board, who serves as a CEO, some specific requirements. The Chair is a state employee. The Chair is exempt from the classified system and receives compensation equal to a superior judge. So a little more prescriptive on the role of the Chair and how it fits in with the state employee system. So both on the House and the Senate that Chair or the Executive Director is the Chief Administrative Officer. And both have provisions for retaining or employing other technical experts and employees. Both bills create a special fund to be the repository of any funds received to support the programs. The big distinction here is what we talked about last week that existing 0.4% of the universal service charge, which currently goes to the Department of Public Service under the House proposal that money is transferred to the new authority to pay for its operational expenses and any remaining funds to support the programs that are authorized under the new chapter. Then in terms of kind of the general powers and duties of the two entities, again, you know, just highlighting that on the House side it's really focused around getting resources and support to the CUDs. On the S118, it's resources to both mobile and fixed broadband providers. A lot of similarity in terms of coordination, providing those resources to eligible entities, facilitating partnerships, applying for grants with eligible entities or on behalf of eligible entities. Consulting with VEDA and the Municipal Bond Bank, consulting with state agencies on existing taxes and fees applicable. Assisting with fiber route identification and poll surveys, identifying funding opportunities. All of those provisions are pretty much identical, with the exception that some of the House is geared toward CUDs and the S118 is much broader. In terms of the provisions that are unique and with respect to general powers and duties under the House proposal, the new authority provides input to the department on the tenure telecom plan. Whereas you can see on S118, the new VTA would be responsible for developing the state's telecom plan. Back to the House side on the left, there's a provision that requires the new authority to assist the CUDs with business plans and also to do some advocating at the federal level for programs and support to assist Vermont projects. But then on the, in S118, much broader charge. Well, first of all, there's reference to the existing high cost program. This is the subsidy program for the incumbent telephone providers who are the carriers of last resort that have build out requirements for providing basic phone service to Vermonters. The new VTA would take over administration of that program. Also, the new VTA, like the dormant VTA would be able to construct, install, own infrastructure. And then what's new vis-a-vis the dormant VTA, this new entity would be responsible for creating and maintaining service availability maps. A lot of that mapping is done now through the Department of Public Service. Also creating and maintaining an inventory of poll data. And some of that data is collected by the department and VTGIS. And then the VTA would have responsibility for ensuring that the existing networks are secure and resilient, kind of a able reinforcing emergency preparedness and you'll see a number of things that are listed there that the VTA would review and oversee. And the VTA has rulemaking authority. Both bills exempt any trade secrets that the authority comes in possession of from the Public Records Act. And then in terms of the allocation of funds under H360, you'll see a list of basically funding priorities. So for all of the programs that are funded through this new entity, there's a list of priorities that should be considered. Everything from getting serving unserved and underserved, supporting service of at least 100 megabits per second symmetrical, leveraging federal and public-private partnership resources, supporting low income, disadvantaged communities, geographic diversity, affordable service, and kind of an open access, not requirement, but looking at whether or not the infrastructure supports open access. In S118, they're not listed as priorities, but there are some requirements related to eligibility for funding under the new VTA. So specifically for broadband projects whose eligible CUDs, the small independent telephone companies, electric cooperatives, and any other ISP, internet service provider, if the proposed project is consistent with policies and purposes of the chapter and otherwise in the best interests of the state, and that would be as determined by the new VTA. Projects eligible for funding must provide a minimum of 25-3 service and be capable of being upgraded to 100 symmetrical service. And then for any project, whether it's a mobile or a fixed broadband project, that that infrastructure is available for multiple service providers on a non-discriminatory basis and at rates deemed reasonable by the authority. So then on the House has a new preconstruction grant program, so this would be anything from feasibility studies, business planning, engineering, and design, make ready work. There is not a similar program under S118. I did put in italics there just as kind of a, as a refresher to keep in mind, you did allocate or you're proposing to allocate some federal money for CUD preconstruction costs and that's in H315, which I know from the House to the Senate, you made your revisions, it went back to the House. I think the House has some additional clarifications with respect to this program, but I wanted to keep it out there that there is some additional clarifications for preconstruction costs under consideration right now. Then in terms of construction money, whether it's grants or debt, the House has a construction grant and subordinated debt program. With S118, the new authority or the VTA, the reconstituted VTA would again be responsible for the existing high cost program and the existing grant program, construction grant program, the connectivity initiative. With the use of debt, the new VTA would be responsible for creating a new communications infrastructure revolving loan program. And this would provide a continuous source of capital for both mobile and fixed broadband projects consistent with the eligibility requirements that we reviewed in the previous section. With S118 has the establishment of a broadband core to assist with the infrastructure and service deployment outreach and technical support to Vermonters and specifically low income Vermonters who may be eligible for subsidies. And this particular program with Sunset in 2024. There's a specific language about interagency cooperation and assistance. This is very similar to what the dormant VTA language included what's a little bit broader though in S118 and that it also includes specifically the E911 board. In terms of reporting requirements. There are very similar provisions with respect to an annual reporting requirement. S118 also has quarterly reporting requirements. And where the house proposes looking at, you know, reporting on in the annual report progress towards meeting the state's goal of 100 symmetrical service by 2024. In S118, there's a specific requirement that the authority make a recommendation about a reasonable timeframe for achieving the state's goal. In other words, if 2024 is not reasonable to make a recommendation in 2022 about what might be reasonable. The bills have a sunset. Excuse me, that was the state's goals from that last one. Yeah, reasonable timeframe. The state's existing goal of 100 symmetrical service by 2024. Okay, I understand. Okay. So both under both proposals there's a sunset. For the new authority in the house, they propose sunsetting the Vermont Community Robin Authority in 2029. Under S118, the sunset is 2026. And both proposals, you know, suggest that the authority can submit a recommendation for its continued existence. If that's appropriate. In terms of its initial organization and office space allocation, the provisions, the bills are very similar. A couple of exceptions under S118, the Commissioner of Public Service initially serves as the chair until the CEO is hired. The governor appoints the chair with the advice and consent of the Senate. Then also with respect to transferring any positions, the S118 is a bit broader in the scope. The request that the commissioner come up with a plan for transferring any relevant positions, programs, assets, liabilities, etc. And that plan is reviewed at the initial, it's initial organizational meeting, the VTA's initial organizational meeting, and then by the joint fiscal committee submitted to the joint fiscal committee for its approval. That repeals the innovation grant program. There's about $60,000 left in that program. That repeal is in 2022. So the department could get the remaining funds out the door. There's a specific provision in the House for transferring the Robert Rodban technical assistance specialist. Again, in S118, there's a more general request for a transfer plan. As we went over, I think it was last week. And as I just highlighted at the beginning of the discussion, there's the provision relating to the .4% of the universal service charge going to the new authority. Also in the House bill, there's a provision relating to existing fiber assets that the department currently owns that came to the department from the VTA in 2015. That those assets are transferred to the CUDs where they're located, if they want them. The House made some amendments to the existing connectivity initiative, the existing grant program. And as I mentioned earlier, S118 proposes that the new VTA would take over administration of that existing connectivity initiative on passage. The Senate repeals the telecommunications and connectivity advisory board because this is a board that advises the department on grants and planning and so on. And the department would no longer be doing those performing those functions under the Senate proposal or S118 proposal. There are no amendments in S118 or revisions to the existing broadband expansion loan program. This is the program that you created a couple of years ago that's administered by VTA. There's a clarification regarding CUD trade secrets that they're exempt under the Public Records Act. Property tax exemption. There's not a corresponding provision in S118, although you've looked at another proposal and Senator Brace, Bill. And I know you're going to hear more greater detail about that from Abby and Mark later in the week. And then finally, well, not, not finally. Some of the provision has three kind of communications workforce provisions we've gone over them already. So they're out there for your consideration. In S118 a provision that's not also in the house is a study on potential bonding authority use of the VTAs bonding authority which is now dormant and whether that's an opportunity that should be pursued in Vermont. That's a report that would be submitted by the VTA in 2022 and then any findings and recommendations would be updated annually thereafter. In terms of the appropriations. The house was very specific I know in S118 at the time it was introduced there wasn't nobody really knew what was going to happen at the federal level. In S118, it really kind of mirrors the governor's recommendation for about $20 million of general fund dollars I know that's now open for discussion. The house looked more specifically at the available federal funds under ARPA the American Rescue Plan. And so, no, I won't go through detail I know we're getting close to two o'clock here, but basically allocates $150 million. To the new authority, 30 million for the pre construction grant program 120 million for the construction grant program, and then 100,000 for the communications workforce provisions. Some other transfer of existing grants and allow some authority to expend anticipated receipts as referenced there. The house basically said for any federal funds available to the state to align those allocations consistent with what's been described in this in the house bill for the VCBA its programs and purposes, and then just the effective date. Both are effective on passage, some exceptions in the house specific to their programs. So that's a broad overview of the proposals that you have in front of you today. Okay, so this, they both envision. It sounds like spending federal money one is general fund but I assume that might be being supplanted by some ARPA funds that are freeing up general fund but it basically is federal money. In the 4% that's in the connectivity fund that's all the state money so we're going to go through in whatever form we choose. $150, $200 million, whatever we choose there of ARPA funds and when that's done, we're done, except the S bill has a revolving loan fund. So we're evolving loan fund says that the money's not going to go away the bulk of it should come back. So that we should think about who's going to decide how the rounds after that go out. I think that's an excellent point. Yeah, I'm glad you mentioned that there may be some federal parameters about loans and to what extent they can revolve or if they can be repaid to the Treasury and I think Senator Brock mentioned that to there might be an opportunity for having some kind of revolving lending, but then before the deadline or before it has to go back to the Treasury maybe to give it out in the form of grants if that makes sense. So I think that's an excellent issue, something that might depend a little bit more on Treasury guidance about what you can do with federal funds. Another thing that I added to that is also the potential of using equity as opposed to lending as another way of prolonging the use of funds so that we have a window in which we can look at options. The White Fiscal has been working, you know, running the kind of contact to find out what we can and can't do. So maybe as we work through this, my preference would be, A, we have a committee discussion about our goals and where we want to go. The last thing on my list would be setting up the structure, the structure to me should reflect where we want to go. So, Senator Sorotkin and Senator Pearson and then we do have a witness waiting so. You're muted Senator. Very general. Is this approach to set up a brand new or reconstituted authority. Is this supported fully by the administration, or do they have some hope of keeping the power within the public service department. Give a quick answer. I have had discussions, extensive discussions with the administration and have participated in discussions with them about about this concept in general, including having with the public service commissioner my sense is that there is support for this provided that we don't create a monstrous bureaucracy in the process. And that's why we've included things such as as as dates suspense dates to review where we are. But I do get a sense there is concern generally about the potential conflict of interest between the advocacy role and the regulatory role which is one of the things that's that's driving the notion of creating a separate entity to do this. The distinction that jumps out at me between the house and the senate version is the house seems to be directed towards publicly supported entities versus the private sector, and is this model. Is there anything to be drawn from other states or are they all grappling with the same issue right now have they set up separate authorities for broadband and maybe mobile, and do they go in one to the majority go in one direction versus the other. I think we're going to this is getting really into a discussion about what is out there what are our options I'm trying to, we've got another witness waiting that I think has other options for us. I want to make sure we have enough time there so I got really quick center Pearson send a hearty and then we're going to move along. Thank you ma'am chair I will be quick. This tension or you know the dueling ideas of grants versus loans relates to Sarah Brock's comments about a capitalization. I hope we'll end up spending quite a bit of time in there but one idea I've wondered about is because the loan idea lens to accountability, and we've seen other times when the grants don't right. So, could we explore an option and I guess the question for you Maria is from what we're learning about ARPA and from the timeline. Is it even realistic to consider, you know, this is a loan, but ARPA doesn't allow us to do loans, but it could become a grant if you hit some threshold in the next. I think we have three years right do we have three years to get the money out the door, or to have it, you know, spent and and built or what and. Yeah, I'll have to check on whether it's incurred or spent, but I think you're right on three years and. Yeah, I will explore that and see what I can find out in terms of how much discretion you have and lending and then grants a threshold or met so. And I do have Senator Strzok and I have I can send you a link that NCSL prepared a list of what other states are doing with respect to creating entities authorities or offices or whatever and I think you'll find that it's. It's there are many models. Some states are, you know, giving money predominantly to electric coops to do broadband some states are giving it all to you know the private sector some states are just auctioned off to the best proposal so. I don't know if there are any themes but then again I haven't studied them and I haven't studied them recently but I will send that link because it may be helpful to give you some ideas great. Okay, send a hearty. Let's be really quick. I just want to be careful that I appreciate the side by side comparison to the H 360 and s 118, but s 118 is not the Senate's position. Well, it's been introduced by one. Senator by others and we have not passed it not even in committee so with all due respect to Senator Brock I just want to make sure that people listening are aware that it's just a bill it's not something that's been passed by the full Senate right so thank you. There are some proposals that have been brought to us and I'm quite sure we're going to hear more. So, and then we're going to sit down and decide what we want to do and then we will figure out the best way to do it. So at this point. Next on the agenda is Tom Epsilon. And Tom I, there you are. You have popped up. You're the former Vermont chief recovery officer and co founder broadband equity now. So, I think you've got a longer history than that. If that's what you've given us that's it. But the floor is yours welcome. I know last time we worked on broadband and telecommunications, both you and Mary were here a lot. So welcome back and the floor is yours. Thank you very much and vice chair and senators thank you very much for having me. Madam chair I do speak for Mary in this case is as well that you remember we are a team. Faith is it possible for me to share my screen and share the presentation. It is your now co host. Okay, great. Okay, so I think you now see my screen. Dr Brock said very forcefully yesterday, all the infrastructure and technology in the world doesn't do any good, unless people are able to unless people can actually access. And when Vermont kids have to drive to the parking lots and McDonald's to try to do their homework. It's not only those kids that lose it's our whole educational network that loses that can't reach its complete potential. When an elderly person who can't get to the doctor also can't do telehealth. It's not only that elderly person who loses, but our whole health system that loses are when people can't work from home in Vermont, it's not only the people who can't work from home that lose, but it's Vermont's opportunity for economic development, which loses as well. Right now, we really have an opportunity I think to close the broadband gap that's been doubling us for so long. Now, with new technology affordability is really the main obstacle to every Vermont family having access to broadband. If we look at the current status of broadband availability, about 50% of Vermont families live in places where there's both good broadband available and where the ISPs have low income programs. So those 50% of families which are poor have access and can use that access. Another 35% of Vermont families live in places where broadband is available, some of it where it's become recently available territory like EC fiber for example with very good broadband availability but it's expensive. With the low income families that live in those neighborhoods, the broadband might as well not be there. They can afford $100 a month for an EC fiber plant, even though there's very, very good broadband in their neighborhood. Then there's another 15% of Vermonters who live in the area that until the beginning of this year, we consider there to be no broadband available at all. 60,000 families that are on 60,000 addresses that are on the DPS map and shown as on surf. With new technology, actually broadband is available there, but also very, very expensive. So even though wealthy Vermonters in that area are arranging for broadband access, that other 15% of Vermonters can't afford broadband access either. So I think with the new technology and with the rescue funds, we can close that gap. So what we're asking for very specifically is $6 million, these would come from ARPA funds, and I don't know the exact right. I sympathize with you when I was chief recovery officer we got the money before we got the rules as well. We're all going to be figuring out what pots can be used for what. But $6 million for initial service grants to low income families. So it often costs $100 $200 up to $600 to get service started to qualify low income families. The state would cover that for two years. This is all a temporary program it's a program that sunsets when they are rescue money is gone. Also during this period, we pick continuing service subsidies to the very neediest families to the families who not only can't afford to get hooked up, but can't afford to pay the monthly bills either. And we'd require a 20 were proposing to be a $25 copay, but that none of those very low income families have to pay more than $25 a month to get service. The people who are in the area with are already low income programs don't have that problem. For example, Comcast program is a little over $10 a month, so no call for subsidies to those families. Also, I just could I'm sorry to interrupt. I'm chair piercing you have a question. Yeah, Tom, you said what we're asking for is $6 million. Could could you help me understand who we is and and I was thinking you were somebody with I gather vast expertise but it sounds like you have a proposal so. Yes, around me and that I'd be grateful and perhaps I and perhaps the way I should say this. Um, I'm speaking for for an organization which just set itself up called broadband equity now which does not intend to operate anything. But just to advocate for this program and try to get it off to a running start. So when I say we're asking for what I really should be saying is I'm asking that the legislature appropriate these amounts for these purposes. The amounts that are appropriated to give families a directly would go on behalf of those families to the providers that were servicing them. The amounts that are allocated for what we're calling the broadband core would go to whichever part of state government or designated agencies or other organizations were providing these services. On Senator Pearson, I'll state that better we're really asking that this be appropriated, rather than it be given to some organization that I represent the thanks for the question. The purpose of having the broadband core is to help families who need to help get access. Senator McDonald you have a question. We got a broadband expert who hasn't defined broadband for the purposes of his testimony. Coming up in a slider to send McDonald perhaps I'll perhaps you could tell us what you mean and what your organization means that you are representing when you use the term broadband that let's wait, let's wait until we get to the slide. We've been told it's there about a chair. Okay. I will get to that in just a second. The reason for having a broadband core is that we can expect families who haven't been connected to just Google how do I get connected and then watch the YouTube. And the ones that have been on the wrong side of the broadband gap need help in getting connected and may need help in accessing the aid that's available to them. The families that would be eligible for the financial help. The majority of them 70% of them the ones in the orange are in the areas that are served by our current high cost providers that is those are would be customers of the fiber are some of the smaller telephone companies who live in areas where there's no currently no carrier low income plan. They would get a subsidy that would be good for the period of subsidy for those providers because they get new customers in their existing footprint, and of course most important it's good for those families because they could get online. And in the teal are about 30% of the subsidies would go to families in the areas that we've been considering on served in those 60,000 addresses that are unreachable. We've been thinking a lot and this goes directly to Senator McDonald's family of Senator McDonald's question of what should we be considering as broadband. We don't want to let the perfect to be the enemy of the good. On the other hand, we don't want people to have a service in that substandard, even in the short term. So, if you look at the things that people need to be able to do, they need to be able to teleconference telehealth remote education work from home all that depends on teleconference. If you have a very high definition, television or computer, you'd need about four megs, a little less than that needs direction for each teleconference that you're doing. Most people are teleconferencing at 0.8 meg or 2.6 meg. And if they're going to do a couple of teleconferences parents are working from home kids are doing their homework, then they're going to need twice that watching video you don't really need any uplink capability to speak up if you were watching high definition need about five megs down for extreme that you're watching ultra high definition, which is unlikely that low income people looking at right now because you need an expensive television expensive computer to get it can use as much as 25 minutes. So what we're saying is that we should that the minimum and this minimum has to change over time, but the minimum service to qualify for these subsidies in the beginning should be 50 megabits down five megabits up and with a latency of less than 150 milliseconds as it currently says in the state law. And that's higher than the standard that state was using as an interim standard before 25 three, because that was really a pre pandemic standard, and I think was as much as people have come online now. We have to move that up. Will that be enough forever. Absolutely not. But it's enough to get started. And then near after year there has to be authority in the state to keep ratcheting that standard. If we look at accessibility. The current department maps show that the 60,000 one addresses without a qualified provider, meaning somebody who provides more than 25 three in the state's case. It'll take a minimum of five years to get to all of those addresses with a fiber buildup, not suggesting that we don't do the fiber build out we want to do it. What I am saying is we can ask people to wait five years to get connected. We can serve people at the end of the road, the ones to fiber build out isn't going to get to for a long time, almost immediately, not quite immediately but almost immediately by giving them access to wireless services, primarily right now Starlink, but there's also actually coming along their competitors to Starlink that are in the pipeline. The good thing about the wireless connectivity obviously is we don't have to provide the middle mile before we can get to the end of the road that with wireless particularly with satellite, a remote location can be brought online as easily as a location that's near an urban area. Once we have these technical alternatives, the problem of accessibility has really become a problem of affordability. All right, what we're recommending. Because again this, we don't want to fund a perpetual program with one time funds is that we use the allocation of funds for construction which of course you'll be doing alongside this this isn't the construction program this is to get people connected We use that program as a way to make sure that low income plans are available throughout the state. And I would suggest doing that by requiring that any ISP that accepts funds under these programs be required to offer a low income program immediately in new territories that are built out with these funds. So the low income program would have to cost not more than $25 a month and would have to meet those minimum standards we talked about after and that certainly justified because their cost of construction is being partly offset by the ARPA funds that you're allocating to them or the authority is allocating to them that actually buys down their interest rate or it actually buys down their amount of capital. The return that state gets for that investment is that there's a part of the return is that there is a low income plan available. And then after two years, we'd require if they had an existing territory that they also also offer a low income plan in that territory. There's peace gained by that the state gains by that and it gives us a way to sunset the state subsidies without taking the money away from the people who needed to be subsidized somebody who had a low income plan. One year because the state was paying the rest of the bill beyond $25 will have a low income plan in the next year. Because that low income plan has been offered by a provider and they qualify for it. And where we see this happening, if we look back to the pre pandemic days to March 1 to 2020 just before everything hit us or we realize what was hitting us, which, again, we had carrier low income plans available for the area in blue. People were looking now just at low income families and those low income families that say there were 60,000 of them in blue really had no problem with access as long as they knew how to get it. We had no service available for the areas and orange and the broadband gap the affordability gap was the area in red. From January 1 to this year, we've had the virus. Let's say the number of low income families went up from 60,000 to 70,000 broadband gap got even larger, because there were less people who could afford to pay for the services that were available to come to April. And the good news is, it looks like the Starlink beta works very well. The Starlink is an alternative, not perfect, not as good as Fiverr. I'm on Starlink today and you may see a branch goes, a satellite goes past a branch in my yard, but it's there, and it's a lot better than nothing. So we have that alternative, but all that alternative does as far as low income people are concerned is make the broadband gap even greater. There are more people now who could get service, but they can't afford to get that service. We've heard that as many as 10,000 Vermonters have signed up for Starlink, those are the people who can afford it, but certainly not low income people. If we put this plan in effect, and then we go to July 1 of this year, and we say that a state subsidy is available, then that green of state subsidy replaces the red of the broadband gap. Then wherever you are, wherever a family is in Vermont, that family will have a way to get access. The broadband core will help them get that access. As time goes on, and the ISPs build out with the ARPA money that you've allocated to them, then low income plans from the providers begin to replace the state subsidy. To the end of the period, everybody's connected or everybody wants to be connected to be realistic, and we have no further need for state subsidies. The program has subset, has sunset, but it's achieved its goal. It's closed the broadband gap. It's made our network more valuable because a network value really depends on the number of people who are connected to it. If we look at the state expenditures, there's going to be a brief on this. You can see that what we're proposing in fiscal year 22 is about 8 million. This is from ARPA funds and CARES funds, about 14,000 in 2023 because we've gotten a lot of families signed up now and they're getting the monthly subsidy. And then it goes down over the next two years because more and more low income plans are available from ISPs. And we've really talked about that timeline. You know, we've been promising universal broadband for years, and I've been part of doing that. And this time it really can work. The reason it can work, one, is we have new technology so we really can get to everywhere. Secondly, we have lots of federal money. We're not going to get an opportunity like that again. And we have state control, which is very important. In the last stimulus, as Madam Chair will remember, most of the money that went to broadband providers went right around the state. We really had no say in who got that money or what they used it for. Matter of fact, the Fed's kept us very much at arms length in that process. And of course, we don't have any direct regulatory control over broadband providers because of federal preemption. So the state has been somewhat helpless in governing the way that broadband providers act. But if we're the ones who are giving the money for broadband build out, then we have a way to set conditions on what broadband providers do. Set quality conditions and also make sure that an affordable program is a part of what they build out. I haven't talked a lot about the broadband core, but as I said in response to your question, it's really a virtual core. Mary has been doing a lot of work talking to community action agencies, CCB 211, Equal Access Broadband, which is an EC private territory and others about ways to set up the broadband core. What we're trying to do is front run it. We're gambling that you will appropriate money for there to be a broadband core. We want that to be able to hit the road running on August 1. So trying to say what education needed what procedures are needed, what agencies are best equipped to offer the service. If you don't appropriate the money then there will be a broadband core. But we're because it's so important that it get going quickly. We're working on that now. As we work with community action agencies, they tell us how much there's a need for universal broadband in Vermont. They really can't help people with their health problems, education problems, other problems that can't help families unless those families have access to broadband. So it's not just about broadband, but really universal broadband is foundational to the new, better Vermont that we want to build. We have an opportunity now comes technology comes from the federal money comes from understanding what we need to do that we're not likely to see again. And I think because we can do it, we have to do it. We can close the broadband gap now. Thank you very much. Okay, so Tom your basic proposal is that you are not supplanting the, the expansion or the construction of more broadband you're saying once it's out there the problem it's going by the house but the folks can't afford to hook up. Every month. I think we'll have to have some of the CUDs and folks in to talk to us about how that fits into their business model and Holly goes there is on the line but I believe last time she was here there is an organization out there working with people so if you're available. I don't want to talk to Holly that there might already be something to plug into. I did mention and by the way I just went over that very quickly on the slide, people access broadband and Holly can tell you much more. Okay. If you could then put all the money into construction this would reserve 150. This would reserve money to go into that moving, getting people hooked up. I've always wondered how you did your homework in the parking lot at sub zero. Yeah, didn't sound ideal to me. And then eventually have it all go to the private sector that would or whatever. Yeah, it would provide our subsidy rather than once we run out of state money. Nothing precludes that money going to the cuts or whoever can build out quickly. It just says in the meantime, people are connected. I've started a couple of network businesses. You always invest at least as much in customer acquisition to look at it from a business point of view as you're doing actually building the network. Facebook doesn't have a network, a physical network. And so what I'm saying is, even though this is one time money, even though we're spending it on subsidies, those are really the cost of closing the broadband gap. It's really the cost of making sure all the monitors are part of our network and having all the monitors as part of our network makes the network much more valuable to all of us. Okay, maybe we'll find those. I forget how many thousands of kids who have not been seen any year, because they don't have broadband and they have disappeared the school hasn't seen them. Alrighty, you have a question. Yeah, thank you, Madam Chair. Tom, thanks for being here today. I'm just I'm just trying to understand your proposal. It's, it's about $26 million that we would put mostly toward subsidies, a broadband core that I, I think is supposed to be like technical assistance and help. Only 5 million would be for the technical assistance. Right, right. And then some for grants for equipment and setup. But the subsidy and my understanding is you think that we should require anybody who has gotten state money for the build out to then provide a subsidized service to people who are lower income. Is that correct? That does require a state subsidy. Okay, but until we get there until we get everything built out, you're proposing this $15 million subsidies for people to basically get the satellite service? Oh, most of it would not go to the satellite service. It would when there was nothing else available. But for example, there are people living in EC fiber territory for whom $100 a month or $90 a month is a lot of money. And so during those, during that time, subsidies would go to those people so they could buy the service that's available to them now. In this case, it would be EC fiber. More families are in that circumstance than in the circumstance where there's no other alternative except satellite. Okay. All right. All right. I was under the impression that you were trying to say that we should just subsidize everybody who doesn't currently have the internet to have to get the satellite. Link up. Okay. Absolutely not. I'm sorry if I wasn't clear about that center. We do get them whatever services available to them now. And obviously within that is the cheapest service that meets the minimum standards. But in most cases, that's not going to be settled. That's the last resort. So what happens for the programs, the ISPs who don't get, don't ever provide a low income plan? Are you assuming that all of them eventually will because they will have gotten some kind of state funding or out of the goodness of their heart or what? Well, I'm assuming that the very big ones will continue to Comcast, for example, will continue to offer their low income plan. And that's good economics for them because once you built out over a neighborhood, you know, it's like an airline selling standby seats. It might as well sell to the low income people as well. So I'm assuming that the national carriers will probably not participate in our programs. I don't know that, but that's what I'm assuming. But that they will continue their substance and then other ISPs who don't take subsidies either will find themselves out competed by those who did or that they'll find a reason, their own marketing reason to to offer low income plans. There's also pressure from the feds and no money that's coming from the feds for there to be low income plans. There's FCC money that may offset some of what I've recommended appropriating. And I'm leaving that out of the equation because we don't know the rules yet, but if we have it, we have it. Okay. All right. Thank you for that clarification. Thank you, Senator. Sorry. Okay. Are there other questions at this point? All right. We have at this point a 10 minute break and then we're going to come back and Chris Campbell was the former director of the VTA and Holly Grosner, who is the legal counsel for the former VTA. We're going to talk to us about lessons learned. So as we move forward mistakes, we can perhaps avoid going through their experience. Faith, if you can take us off live, everybody can stretch for a few minutes and then