 Welcome to Senate Finance on our end of the year marathon. And we're gonna push this through. We haven't till four o'clock this afternoon to come up with a broadband recommendations for the Appropriations Committee, which actually has possession of 966. I think everyone is trying to get out by Friday. I don't know how long we'll be on the floor at four. I might ask you to come back afterwards if we're don't quite get this wrapped up and I'm not seeing how we are going to, but we'll try. So commissioner, you're here. I see the clay is here. Couple questions came up yesterday. Fine, my notes. First, any general comments you have? And then we wanted to talk about that. We've been told that the education department, and I know we've asked them, have been collecting some data on areas where they have a cluster of students they can't reach. Just trying to get a sense as to what that looks like. We've been told that you have it and it's going on your maps. So that might be helpful. And then any comments you wanna make and Lifeline came up yesterday. You know, we go to all this work, we hitch folks up and they can't afford the monthly fee. And just wondering, I got online with something Maria sent, but other than it's only for people under 135% of poverty, which is not that high. But what that looks like, because we're gonna run all this out and then we know that the providers have been doing some special deals, but there's no guarantee those are going to continue. And so if we get shut back down in November or January, how do we avoid having to start all over? So I think those are the questions. Yeah, those are, I think the base questions I had. And at present, I don't have a quorum. I have one letter sweater, one campaign photo. I'm here, I'm just making, I'll stay right here, I'm just making a little lunch. You can make lunch, I just need to see you. Okay. Here I am. All right. So I know I have a quorum listening. So I have one, two, three, four. All right. Okay, commissioner, the floor such as it is is yours. Thank you, Madam Chair. I appreciate the invitation to come in. And if it's at all helpful to you in the committee, I'm happy to spend the afternoon with you, just hanging out on the bench in case you have an additional question later, because I know how pressed you all are for time. That might be very helpful if you can do that. I'm glad to do that. I did that for House Energy Technology as well. So I know we're all pulling together here. In terms of general comments, I would only observe that H966 was done, was done quickly and with as much stakeholder involvement as I have seen in my time, working with the legislature over the last 20 years, I think it's impressive. And I've seen your committee do similar work at a similar pace with similar breadth. And I really think the people of Vermont can be proud of what they're seeing in their legislature. This is not a perfect bill. I think House Energy Technology would be the first to tell you that. And we are not in perfect circumstances. From my point of view, we are dealing with an emergency and while the season has changed, the virus has not. And Vermont has been very fortunate and also I think very intelligent and strategic in dealing with the virus. But the fact remains that we don't know everything we would like to know in order to make more targeted decisions about how to use this money. So what remains on my mind is that some people say we're out of the first phase. Some people say we're winding down. Some people say we have a second phase coming. This commissioner has been proceeding on these policy questions from the point of view that we have an open-ended threat that this public health emergency represents. But we have federal funding that very unfortunately has constraints around it that are not helpful. And so we have to do what we can to make the best possible of it. And I think 966 for all of its questions and whatnot is exactly that. Considering that this money was not sent to the states expressly to deal with broadband infrastructure construction. I think your colleagues in the house have done a fine job of navigating those limitations to come up with something that will help people and specifically the people who you can help under the bill which are principally students who are doing remote learning and folks who are in need of telehealth and also to a limited extent government workers who are doing telecommuting. To your concerns about data for locating those students I have included here today the two most recent versions of the maps that the department has generated. I don't know whether faith is able to put them out. Commissioner Tierney Clay is gonna bring those up for you. Excellent, thank you so much. Then Clay, if you would do that, please. Yeah, I'm working on it. Thank you. Thank you. The two maps depict in the first instance the entirety of the survey results that the department has pulled together. And then secondly, the specific locations of students who are in need of a connectivity solution. The survey results are a function of data requests that the department sent out to the supervisory unions and schools. Data requests that the agency of education sent out to all schools and followed up with personal outreach to the superintendents. Some house members have also sent out data requests to their constituents. I also did, as you may recall, a public appeal statewide on statewide television at one of the governor's press conferences asking remonters who are in need of a connectivity solution to police contact the department. And we also have included the agency of education's data that it receives in answer to its annual tech survey results of serving of schools. So what you see here in front of you right now is the combined, Clay, I can't tell what the top caption is. Can you briefly show that? Okay, so this is the map that shows you where the students are located in the state. And the legend below tells you in a color coded basis which of the respondents have what kind of access. And of course, what's of most interest under H966 are the folks who are underserved or unserved. And so the legislation is targeted at helping those kids. There is of course some interest or some provision in the legislation for helping low income folks in particular. But the emphasis is very much on students and telehealth folks because those are the constraints under the COVID, the CARES Act basically. Telehealth information. We do have some telehealth information but we did not get a lot of that, Madam Chair. We're collecting. I think they've been busy. I'm sorry, Clay, go ahead. Yes, they've been busy. And several issues including privacy have cropped up which I think have limited the response. So most of our telehealth is through the survey that we've issued people self identifying. But we've also gotten a little bit of pushback that, hey, everybody is a patient and certainly someone in my family is a patient at any given day, especially if you have children. And so that the idea that patients, being a patient, it's not in a mutable trade. It's something that people kind of go in and out of is something that I think that we're grappling with. But I wanted to also point out that the tech survey is something that will be going out in a couple of weeks. So we anticipate getting more data directly from schools than we have now. As I'm looking at my notes here right now, Madam Chair, we had approximately 1,100. Specific K through 12 student responses as opposed to 14 individuals who contacted us for telehealth purposes and 13 providers who contacted us for telepurposes. So what the H96 does is it makes it possible to bring connectivity solutions to either population but it is quite clear that we have more granular data about students than we do about patients. And Clay is absolutely right. There is that challenge of what do you do about the the mutability of folks needing care? Shall I move on or did you want me to? Well, I'm looking at this. This is easier to read than when I brought it up, I think in an email before, but I still have trouble differentiating between the green circles and the green circles with the black around it. It looks, the one thing that's surprising is we seem to have a large cluster of served by 253 up. I can't see what town. It's north of St. Albans, it must be Swanton. It's north of St. Albans, up around the county. We're getting a lot of data from people that are within a cable or fiber plant. And to that, that signals that the issue there is affordability and not physical access. Okay, I mean, it's just that there's a cluster there, but there isn't a similar cluster in Burlington or Shelburne. So I'm not surprised by the unserved but I'm, I think I'm, yeah, the four one, I just found it interesting that there was a very large cluster in an area I might not have expected there to be, but something's going right up there. We have a lot of towns that don't have any dots. Are there no students there or just no data? I would be very hesitant to speculate about that. From our point of view, we don't have any data to register here. As Clay said, though, we are expecting more data from the annual tech surveys when they come back that the school districts do, but this is what we have to date. We could find a couple of areas almost in a straight line. There's probably a mountain in there somewhere. Of red and orange dots that we could target. Yeah, well, for instance, to your point, Madam Chair, if you go to the right side of the state in the Northeast Kingdom area, this is where in the Kingdom East School District where they have 1,800 students, there are 150 who've been identified as not having good connectivity. And that's the home of the project that I think I've mentioned to you before, where a consortium of Northeast, of New England's wireless and cloud alliance and Velco and others, as I recall, are able to put together a wireless solution very quickly, I think, that is estimated to cost between $200,000 and $300,000. That would be, and this kind of mapping has helped us find that kind of project. We're hopeful with funding that others could be found as well. And those would all fit under the $11 million bucket, we think, in the H966 bill. And then, of course, there's also the line extension program that the bill includes that would help with some of these more dispersed locations that you see. That's not a CUD, is it? It is not. But I should add, you know, EC5, or for instance, who is a CUD has been doing work in this area, meaning extending its lines and the like throughout the emergency. And they've also been giving breaks to the students in those homes in terms of subscriptions and the like. So we do have a model for that. And I would fully expect that EC5 or would seek to avail itself of the H966 funding and can produce good results. Madam Chair. Yes. Could I ask the commissioner a question? Yes. The commissioner, the house bill has, I don't know, in total, 14 and a half or 15 and a half million. Would you say that's the most you think you can get out the door? Or if we found more money, do you think there's utility in trying to give you a bigger pot? That's a very good question, Senator Pearson. These amounts are not targeted at what we think we can do within the time period as much as from my end, I was asked to plan for a $20 million appropriation. That's the guidance I received from the administration. And I did that. And then the house followed its guidance. I'm afraid we're in the position where we're not able to assess granularly how much can be done in the period of time available. The assumption has to be instead, how much money are we willing to take from the 1.25 billion and put it toward this particular purpose, recognizing that this has to be done before December 20, I think, for state government purposes in December 31st. So if you gave us more money, we would certainly do our level best. But I think it's fair to say, as a matter of common sense, that the more dollars you're putting out there or the bigger the project with dollars, the more the planning lead time is and the like. And we're probably stretching things to spend much more. Okay, that's helpful. And I think this Senate is considering a number closer to 20 million. So you may get brightened up yet. The other question I have, I happen to think that these investments, if done well and that's not an easy task, are some of the smartest responses we can do because it does build resilience across our communities as we are sadly recognizing the pandemic is not going to neatly tie itself up by the end of summer. On the affordability of service question, that is a big question and it is a real problem to Vermonters and perhaps your map is suggesting some of the locations where it's a particularly a problem. But I'm worried that there are monies in the house proposal to basically subsidize the costs of connection. And I guess I'd be curious on your feedback. This sounds sort of cold, but helping somebody get internet for four months doesn't exactly seem like much of a solution to me. In fact, it only highlights a cruelty when that funding goes away in January. And I'm just wondering if you have thoughts on that and if you're convinced that that is a wise use of these dollars. Oh, Senator, I think all of us who are working in this area are having to deal with is that there are far too few resources and the need is great. And I'm not talking just about connectivity. Frankly, what hurts me regularly is when I see those food lines and see that we have people in our state, as I understood at one in three, who are not secure with food. So there are very difficult decisions that have to be made. And I think it is wise to take some portion of this money and put it toward this problem for one, because it can serve as a block among several in solving our long-term connectivity issues, but also because we have to confront the immediate problem of knowing that there are kids who are at home who need to be able to access school. And we've seen there are too many who are not able to. What our data investigation has shown us is that you have competing problems the affordability issue and the infrastructure issue. They both are worthy and there are resources that have been put toward the affordability issue, but they're not adequate. And what's deeply troubling to me is that they're voluntary. We're depending entirely on the good graces of major companies who are under the jurisdiction of the FCC to keep America connected during the pandemic. Now I'm pleased to observe that they have twice now. In the first instance, they took the pledge and in the second instance, they agreed to extend it. But this is no way to run a necessary public service. At the end of the day though, I've spent many years in my career making difficult decisions based on laws. You've spent many years making difficult decisions based on your judgment as a legislator where I come from the way I resolve this is we've got to get the infrastructure built. We can find other ways to deal with the affordability issue but it's the cost of infrastructure that proves prohibitive. And it's not to say it's the only problem and the only expenditure you could make but I think it's a wise one with these resources. Thank you for not saying I've spent years making difficult laws. I appreciate it. I wouldn't do that. I have an agreement with your assessment there. Thank you. Yes. Madam Chair. Yes. Do we talk to us a little bit about the... I'm losing the not the connectivity fund, the lifeline. Yes, what can I tell you about that? For broadband. Do we know how many people do we have on that? Do we know? Did we pick up new ones during this crisis? Are we reaching out to the folks that are getting, the three, the freebies from the providers so that they know there are options when the providers go away? So let me take the first piece of that. We are reaching out. We have been maintaining the webpage at the department and trying to keep that current. And when we take calls from people and the overwhelming preponderance of public contacts that we've had during the pandemic have been from people about broadband service and the like, this is the kind of thing that we discuss with them. But Clay will correct me if I'm wrong but I don't believe we have good data about who is on broadband lifeline. There is a federal lifeline program for broadband but I don't know that we have good data. Clay, perhaps you could add to that. We do have some data on lifeline generally. As you know, there's a state and federal lifeline program. I'm sorry, I'm sitting low so you're just. Yeah, that's okay, there you go. So there's a state and federal lifeline program. The state program covers telephone service only so it doesn't do internet. That's what I thought and I heard it was broadband. It piggybacks on the federal program. The federal program has a voice or a broadband component. So you can pick, you want voice or broadband. Voice is being sunset in 2021. So after 2021, it'll only be broadband. Most consumers are opting these days for a wireless lifeline product which comes with a cell phone and voice and data. And that's all done federally. The state has no involvement in that. Recently, the FCC instituted a couple of new measures. One's called the National Verifier and the other one's called NLAD, the National Lifeline, sorry, I can't remember what the acronym is but both of these programs are designed to ensure that lifeline recipients meet the qualifications and that they're not taking multiple lifeline accounts. Unfortunately, it has had the effect of administratively choking the program. So we've actually seen a decline in people qualifying for lifeline service because of the National Verifier. And so Vermont last year was pushed into the National Verifier program. We were able to get a slight delay but now we're in it. We have a few lifeline providers that do broadband in Vermont. Most notable is Burlington Telecom. The ILX also do lifeline for both voice and broadband. So if you're a consolidated customer or Franklin Telephone customer or a Waitfield Champlain customer, you should be able to get that. The credit is for $10. So it doesn't go very far in buying a broadband subscription. You get $10 off the subscription. The wireless though, those prices are usually set at $10. So if you opt for the wireless lifeline package, it's generally free. Madam Chair, just a question for Commissioner Tierney. To what extent have you been able to survey the various providers in terms of what their capability is to be able to extend broadband in their various ways by December 30? Do you have any feel for that? I do have a feel for it. I can't say that we have done a survey. I typically meet with companies and keep a finger on the pulse of things. My feel of it is that they're going to be challenged. There's a supply issue that I mentioned to the committee, I think in late April, early May. Where is this a fiber? Yes, indeed. This is what Kim Gates of Franklin Telephone has highlighted more than once. The back orders are such now to where fiber is generally available or thought to be available in September. But Velco I know has acquired quite a bit of fiber for its purposes. And I am having discussions with them as well about what they might be able to do in the connectivity realm, but that isn't anything that fits into H966. So we've been in touch with GMP and GMP is amenable to accelerating poll make ready work with the understanding that it will mean giving that priority over other things that it needs to be doing as well. But everybody's sort of in that mode right now of let's deal with the emergency and let's do what we can for Vermonters and addressing this need. But I'm not able to give you a systematic company by company assessment of what they could do. The approach here is very much make resources available and see who is going to use them. And I have a higher degree of confidence that we will have takers. But I'm afraid we don't have the more granular view that you're looking for, Senator. Should we on a more immediate basis seek at least informal information from providers as to what they're able to accomplish and wouldn't that help guide us in terms of which buckets of money we need? I think for legislative purposes, I can understand why you would want that. From my point of view as their supervisory regulator, these are ongoing businesses that are doing the work that they have to do anyway. And so there's a limit to my ability to take them away from that to say, what could you do when? And these folks are as serious businesses and operatives in their industry, they're not going to give me a casual answer. They're going to want to take time to study and give a more precise assessment. So I can do that, but I'm afraid you're not going to have that in time to make the decisions that you want. Or a clock. Yeah, these are judgment points. Go ahead. Suppliers and people that you have in your universe to look at, is it fair to say that you are agnostic in terms of technology or are you focused on specific technologies? From how you prioritize funds, particularly if you're given more freedom to do that? Well, Senator, from my point of view, there are two, there are my views as a substantive expert in the field. And then there is the view I hold as a regulator who is charged with implementing the laws that the legislature has adopted. The legislature has voiced a very clear preference for fiber and certain speeds. And so I am absolutely mindful of my obligation to ensure that I'm supporting projects of that nature. As a substantive expert, I am agnostic. I think the point here is to get connectivity to remotors or a point. I would add to that though, that the state has also expressed a very clear commitment to communications union districts who overwhelmingly favor fiber solutions and are not technology agnostic. And from my point of view as a substantive expert, the CUNs are filling the role of what we call a carrier of last resort in the telephone world. They are who we have turned to to fill a gap that the market's not going to fill for an essential service. And what the CUNs are telling you across the board is, fiber is their answer. Now, this conversation that we've been having since April when we first started on the emergency broadband action plan discussion has shown that people are working very hard to find common ground recognizing that we're not going to get fiber to the premises a hundred symmetrical tomorrow or by the end of the year. So I think there has been some recognition that there can be wireless solutions that can serve and that can be complimentary to a communication union districts plans in the longterm to have fiber. And there also I think as a matter of intellectual integrity has to be recognition that there are some locations in the state where a fiber solution is just not economic and there would need to be some willingness to entertain something other than that. But by and large, I think the consensus amongst stakeholders is pulling toward seeing that we get to robustly supported communications union districts who will perform the role of carry of last resort which means to ensure that everybody has a connectivity access solution. There's a preference and recognition of our terrain and the like that we ought to have fiber that that is the investment that would most likely give us the most bang for the buck over the next 20, 30 years. And there also may be a need to employ on a short-term basis. And in this case, we're talking, probably a five-year timeframe. We would need to, on a short-term basis, adopt interim solutions such as wireless coverage. So I apologize if I've gone on too long but that would be how I'd answer your question. Well, I know I have additional question but I see the center champion has been anxiously awaiting so perhaps let him in first and maybe I'll come back later. Okay, thank you, Senator Brock. Madam Chair, may I have the floor? Madam Chair, we cannot hear you very well, Madam Chair. Yes, okay, can have the floor. So I guess my question, one is for the chair and then following that with the commissioner. And my question regarding the letter that we're drafting or the recommendations, Madam Chair, we could write that we support what the house is doing and leave it at that. That's one of the things that's one of the possibility. Okay. And so Madam, so commissioner, good afternoon. Good to see you. Likewise. I don't see any Munich or I- Oh no, this is Munich. This is my everyday picture. So would your recommendation be to us to do exactly that? It sounds like from earlier on today you were mentioning your support for the house's efforts and you're feeling good that it's a good bill. And so would you look for any changes at this point that you might point us into in terms of what we would put forward as a recommendation to appropriations? I would be hesitant to recommend changes because at this point I'm very respectful of the difficulty of the decisions you're facing as legislators. I would note that H966 is largely consistent with phase one of the emergency broadband action plan that my department continues to refine and work with stakeholders on because don't forget, I'm very much focused on having a plan that the state can get behind for the eventuality of federal funding should we be able to get that. So everything in phase one of that plan is pretty much in H966. I do listen to your deliberations just as I listened to those of house appropriations, joint fiscal, Senate economic, and then the like. So I try to follow your conversations so that I can be as responsive as possible when you have me in like this. That's been for me one of the benefits of Zoom, frankly. And I have heard concern in your committee about establishing guidance and the like for how the department or if you, I think there was some conversation yesterday about having somebody other than the department do these functions. So I could recommend to you as a matter of clinical guidance as opposed to a member of the Scott administration that you pursue that if that will give you greater comfort in getting behind H966. If there are priorities that you want to ensure or met through a specific guidance to the authorities that would wind up dispersing this money. But beyond that, you know, push come to shove. I think that's what you're asking me, Senator. I would recommend that you adopt this bill. The bill, Vermont was faster out of the gate than most states in recognizing the very narrow grounds on which this money could be used for broadband purposes. And you know, we've done a lot of work since then as a state to come up with what's now embodied in that bill. I keep an eye on what's going on in other states. And when I have seen other states doing other things and please don't ask me to come up with details because there's a limit to what I can remember. But my impression is that when I see them doing other things it's because they're being more aggressive in their willingness to challenge the treasury guidance on the use of the money. And my understanding is that we're facing a substantial revenue shortfall already for the coming year. And so our margin to be wrong and have this money clawed back simply is not very, very broad. So I think H966 is probably the safest way and frankly, a very shrewd way to make progress on your policies. Thank you. And if I may just one quick follow-up before returning to Senator Brock. So one of the things that I think we're all interested in is supporting our CUDs. We received some emails over the past 24 hours since we last met yesterday from our various CUDs talking about what they've accomplished, their goals. It seems to me that a number have accomplished a lot in a very short period of time. Do you feel as though we are sufficiently supporting them as is written at this point? I think you are supporting them as much as you can given the very short timeframe and the constraints on the uses of the money. The CUDs that can participate have an open door to participate in what's available under H966. The unfortunate fact is that pandemic has hit at a time when so many of the CUDs are still in their form to stage. But phase two of the emergency plan that the department is working on carves out a significant role for the CUDs. And in addition to that, in my conversations with the federal delegation, I have also been stressing that if the project that is outlined in the emergency plan isn't one that can be funded by the federal government for whatever reasons, that another concept the federal government should very carefully consider is looking at what Vermont's doing with CUDs because it is a model that lends itself to export to other states. And that is frequently what becomes decisive in pulling down federal funding for a pilot project. So I don't think every decision that this body makes is a referendum on whether we're helping the CUDs to the max. I think the decision facing you this afternoon is how can you best make use of these emergency funds? And for the CUDs, in addition to their ability to participate, I think the operative principle has to be do no harm. And that is at the purpose fundamentally, I think behind the provision that has the CUDs providing a letter of approval for projects that are proposed in their service territories. It's giving them a say. Great. Thank you very much. And thank you, Senator Brown. A veto power though, isn't it? Unless they say okay. My reading of it is that they have 30 days to get a recommendation in and after 30 days, we're able to act. And maybe I need to read it more closely. I can do that if you like. I'm still working my way through the full bill. I didn't see it as an absolute bar, but maybe I'll go through it. My question was, we've got a formative CUD. We've got the ability through another provider to provide 50 people with broadband within, you know, in 25, three, not fiber, but, you know, within two months, we could get 50 homes and 50 kids hooked up. And the CUD is still formative. It might never get off the ground. It might not be able to get anything out there for two years. And so on the other hand, if that provider is taking off the one straight road with the densest mileage in the district, it's going to impact their ability in the future. And so I'm wondering how do we balance that? Or how do we give you guidance so you can balance that? And where does it, because I'm not sure, I'm comfortable saying to a bunch of kids, you can't get hooked up. You've got to drive down to the local Walmart at seven in the morning to download your email and say hi to your teacher, you know, at the local hotspot and then go home and have no connectivity if we get shut down again for a couple of months in the winter. So I, you know, it's current versus future and how do we balance that? You know, I think it's a very, very apt scenario in terms of capturing the tensions. And what I would encourage you to do is focus on probabilities. We have at this point a window of six months. We're going to tell you to focus on probabilities. And we will faithfully execute. I think there needs to be some trust here that I have been having some very serious and frank conversations with industry, Comcast in particular, where I have told them repeatedly in very place book and English, you need to make friends with the CUDs. And they have an example of having had success in working cooperatively with municipalities in Massachusetts. My understanding is that the individual who spearheaded that is relatively new to Comcast. She is a former regulator. She's a former me in another state. And she has been quite candid with me about recognizing that the CUDs aren't going away. They don't quite know what to make of the CUDs, which is why I have been doing some serious thinking and come to the conclusion that they are best characterized as the carrier of last resort. And the carrier of last resort doesn't go away. The carrier of last resort is a fact that needs to be dealt with. And industry through its market dynamics has picked those places that now need help and they can either be part of the solution or not be part of the solution. And I think that I wouldn't foreclose the possibility that there can be constructive dialogue between a CUD that is nascent, but that otherwise we'd have that carrier of last resort mission and an industry participant who can deliver that 50-person solution you're talking about if it's out there. So the CUD, the CUDs are- But that's Senator Pearson and- Let me ask you, I'm just, you- I can't see who's talking. I'm just trying to- I've got Senator Pearson and then Senator McDonough. No, Senator- I didn't understand what the commissioner meant, that's all. What is a CUD? It's a communications union district. Is that the commission, the last resort or is- The last resort. Yes, I see the CUDs as the provider of last resort. They are the old local telephones that have to provide the service, the lifeline service out into the mountains, whether or not it is cost-effective. I- It's not a CUD. I don't want to talk if I'm in the- No, yeah. But I'd like to be in the CUD. Pardon? I defer to Senator Brock, but I'd like to be somewhere in the CUD. Okay, you're next. Senator Brock? Commissioner, let's talk about timeline a little bit. Based on what you see in this bill, how do you envision the timeline working vis-a-vis carrier selection and the beginning of work? Well, we, in my department, at least, assuming that we're the ones interested with the mission, we met on Monday to discuss this very issue and to inventory our assets. It will mean a redirection, immediate redirection of our work for the time being. We have at least 10 very experienced grant administrators and administrators on staff and attorneys as well. So we would need to be pushing out a number of practices and regulations and the like envisioned in H9-66 in very short order. We would then need to be standing up a request for proposal process for the Connect for Moders and Now part, I think, of H9-66. That would proceed in tandem with our preparing the rules and regulations to the extent that it can, but I would envision that that would need to get out probably by, at the latest, the third week of July, maybe the end of July, with your standard 30-day response time and then state contracting and the like. It is a heavy lift, there's no question, but assuming that all those things were to fall into place, you're probably looking at having those projects in the connectivity initiative piece of the bill starting construction in August, September, well, in September. The line extensions probably could proceed more quickly. That also would be another practice and procedure, drafting tasks that we would have to achieve. Also, our target July 15. That is a question of folks applying to the department for that aid and the company's moving at pace and coming up with their construction schedules, which I would expect to carry them through the end of the year. Well, as you have experience with doing all of these kinds of things or having all of these things done, is it realistic to assume that once you make a decision, sometime in September, to award a contract to a vendor to lay cable, given the delay in getting cable in the first place, is it reasonable that any construction would actually start, much less be finished by the end of November? Because it's a practical matter of wintertime, you're not putting in polls. Senator, I can't argue with what you're pointing out. I think this bill is very much about what is possible, not what is predictable, is certain. I mean, the safest thing to do would be, frankly, to not award any of this money and to just use it for something else. But I don't think that is what Vermonters are asking for, frankly, they want us to try. And I think we can do more than just try here. I think we have a pretty good prospect of succeeding for some Vermonters at least, but I will be the first to concede to you that there are heavy lifts ahead as you've just identified. Is it realistic? I think it is within the realm of realism. I'm just a little concerned that we're first gonna learn about what the capabilities are of the vendors once we receive their proposals, as opposed to having sought what their capabilities are in a less formal process to begin with before we get down this road of committing this time expense and so on. I guess the second question that I have is as far as the relevant technologies, and although we certainly want fiber to the home as an ultimate solution, if that's not a practical solution, given the construction and also the component issues, delays is more of a focus on wireless, does that make more sense? Because it evidently is something that can be done more quickly. Have you examined that as an issue? I have given it some thought. Yes, I think that is precisely why I backed the Northeast Kingdom project. It was the very first one that was drawn up in response to my call to action among the utilities in April 10. So yes, I have given it some thought, a lot of thought, but I also think that it's clear that wireless solutions are not optimal for the state. And so to the extent that good solutions can be had in the timeframe using fiber, I think this is an opportunity to do that, especially if you're talking about a situation where the fiber is in the neighborhood, but somebody has not been able to afford the capital investment of $3,000 to get the line extended, but with it extended, can afford the $100 a month subscription or the lesser subscription that's available. So I think the thing to do is to put money on both. And I hope I've been clear about that. Would it make more sense in our president in this bill to break down the separation between the two uses of funds and put them in a single pool, but give the department discretion as to how to allocate them based on the availability of vendors to be able to meet the need and also to evaluate the need, because right now it looks like you don't really know what the need is. I, these are not judgments I am prepared to make, Senator. I know that I've had the conversations with the industry players. And I know that the industry players have said to a person that I've talked to that they want to do for Ramam what they can do. And what has been stymied me at this point in my conversations is I've had no resources to assure them with. If I've been able to say I've got money, please go out and do this. I could have things done, but I've not been able to do that. And until I have money, I can't justify asking those folks to spend the time with their drawing boards and their pencils to come up with projects. So that's the way. Would you prefer flexibility that I mentioned? Frankly, if you give us that flexibility, I'm going to wind up using the standards that are in the bill right now for a line extension. I'll be looking at that PUC rule and for a project like the Northeast Kingdom, we'll be looking at the merits of that project. I honestly, I don't have a good way to say to you that 13 million combined is better than 11 and 2 million. That's a judgment I would defer to you on. In terms of accomplishing the goals of this bill, are you adequately resourced in terms of staffing and the types of staff that need to be able to do this in a time effective manner? What I am prepared to do is marshal the resources of my agency and I have full confidence in my agency. They are a very high performing cast of individuals who have done this kind of work over and over to the benefit of remonters for many years. Are they, are we adequately staffed? This is not, you know better than I do, this entire committee that this is not what the department was set up to do, but we are going to be responsive to remonters and I think we will deliver a performance that you can be proud of. Let me yield to Senator Pearson. Thank you. Thank you, ma'am chair. Just so you know, at the very beginning when you speak, it's hard to hear you and then somehow your computer comes. Come in. All right, I haven't moved anything. I've got the volume up. No, no, it's just a quirk of remote work, I guess. Commissioner, I want to go back to the CUDs and something the chair mentioned that I agree with and that is a concern around this so-called sort of veto power and you're saying it's not, as I read the language, it does seem like it is. I want to support the CUDs and I definitely don't want to undermine them, but I am concerned that this maybe goes a little too far. And so I've been trying to think about just writing some kind of condition into the grant program that we're asking you to structure. That would make it clear that line extensions can't jeopardize a CUD. In other words, and especially if we hope that there are significant federal dollars coming in, let's say in March, we don't want to have, we've invested in ourselves, we all agree in the extreme value of a CUD. And then just in March, we get the money to fund them in a way that will be hugely beneficial. And then we turn around and say, well, actually, this town, we just stripped out 200 of its potential customers because of the line extension work we hurried through to in October. So my question is, I've been trying to wrestle with some language that would say line extensions are fine, except in the events that they could be seen to be competitive with CUDs. Now we enter the problem that the chair identified, which is some CUDs are on paper. Some have had a formalizing, but haven't put a single pole in the ground. There's a whole range of where they are and some are up and running, obviously. Is there a distinction that you could think of or maybe, Mr. Purvis, where we could say, as long as it's not competing with a CUD that is at least that point X in the iteration of the CUD development? Does my question make sense? If you have any idea? Yes, it does. It makes the world a sense. So what you're trying to do is solve the problem on the fly. And since I've been doing that now for several months, welcome aboard. Except I know you've been on your own flight, so I guess I'm waving to you as our planes meet in the air. Just to give you comfort, I've had a chance to look at the language about the veto and I can see why you're seeing it that way. I was focused on the fact that there's an either or provision in there. It says we can't make the award unless after having provided notice to the project, the CUD provides their support or having provided the notice, there's been nothing coming back from them. So it's not exactly a veto, but you're quite right if they do choose to express themselves affirmatively about the project and it's anything other than support, then this language would foreclose us from making that award, that's correct. So turning to your question about how to reconcile things, if we had more time, we could be thinking about language going in here that for instance requires the, if it's an entity other than the CUD that has built the line, there could be language in there that requires them to transfer the line to the CUD after a certain point, that would be an idea that I would have for instance. But I really think I beg your pardon, Madam Chair. Can do that? Because that was the thing that I had thought of and then said, well, I mean, I assume there'd be money that would change hands to transfer the line. And I would assume we might be able to put a fence around the money, so it's... Well, it is a state grant and state can impose its obligations. Okay, so we can do that. All right. I mean, I guess my point would be it's well worth examining. I hope you recall that in this position I'm not practicing law. So I wouldn't want to be giving you a legal opinion right now, but it's those kinds of things perhaps could have been thought about. But again, we've got a six month window here and I think it is very clear to me is this commissioner understands absolutely clearly that the CUDs are a serious public policy initiative that we want to see prosper. And so I don't envision making decisions that would be harmful to CUDs. I mean, that would pose an existential threat to them. And I seriously doubt that there is something like that that is going to materialize in the next six months. And that really is all we're talking about. What I would strongly suggest, Senator Pearson, is that as we continue to work through devising a proposal for eventual federal funding, that these be issues that we tease out and make sure that we're comfortable with. So I'm happy to discuss that with you anytime you choose. I was thinking about the lines and not, you can put them in as long as if and when the CUD gets up and running, they can purchase them or use them or whatever. You could have a right of first refusal in there for instance. Yeah, which would be probably easier to administer than saying you have a right to veto as long as you can provide the service in a reasonable amount of time because what's reasonable, if schools shut down in January and February and you're snowed in and can't get to the hotspot, those parents are not gonna be very happy with us if we stopped a reasonable thing. I had Senator Campion, okay, I got Clay, then Campion, then Brock. Just chime in on that issue. And June, my apologies in advance, I'm gonna disagree there. I just don't think knowing the carriers that are probably most able to take advantage of this money, I just don't see them doing that if there's the possibility that they'll lose control of the line in five years or two years. So I worry about carriers participating. I appreciate what you're saying, Clay. I do. The second issue, I appreciate what the house is trying to do with this notice to the CUDs. The six months that we have, I think as Senator Brock has already pointed out, is incredibly tight as it is, losing an additional 30 days there, I think it makes it from extremely difficult to impossible. So to the extent that that notice could be just reduced to something like 10 days, and I'm sure I've upset the entire CUD community just now, but time is in very short supply and losing a month waiting for a response from the CUDs, I think could be very problematic. So as you can see, Madam Chair, we have robust conversations in my department and my telecom director is not a shrinking violet. So I would distinguish though between the two things he and I are saying, because what Clay has told you is his assessment of what is likely to happen with the carriers. What I was telling you is what you could do. And it is entirely possible that there comes a point when you put so many restrictions or conditions on funding that a carrier says no, thanks, that's possible. But I think that's how I would harmonize the two things you just heard. Yeah, they're not gonna do it out of the goodness of their heart, especially if cable is hard to get and they could use that cable more profitably. So... Madam Chairman, I'm raising point of information. Now I've got, I think Senator Campion, then Pearson, then Brock, I think that's it. I don't have Pearson, Campion, then Brock, it's an auction. Commissioner, my comments really, it's a bit of a reiteration from yesterday if you didn't hear them. And that's, I do feel like the current providers have failed to really bridge this divide, this technology divide that we have. I feel as though their plans are not supporting rural Vermont. So I just, I don't want you all to see the long-term interests of Vermont or Vermonters to the current providers. So I just, it's something I said several times yesterday. I just wanna repeat it. I'm afraid that if we do, we're gonna be right back in this same position in the next pandemic. And so that's the big key. Yeah, I hear you Senator. And I hope I can give you some reassurance on that point. I heard you very loudly yesterday when you were saying you felt the CUDs are under attack. And I almost called you last night to say, can you tell me a little more about what's behind that statement so I can understand it? But to be sure, I don't think that anything's going to happen in the next six months that's going to pose an existential threat to the CUDs. If nothing else, this commissioner is a backstop to that. If I thought something was gonna be proposed that would have that impact, I have been a very strong advocate for the CUDs. So that's not what I'm looking at, but I would urge all of us here to consider that the priority right now, from my point of view, is the Vermater who has no access, the Vermater who has no internet, who's going to go to one of those wifi spots that I know Senator Cummings is not enamored of, but at least we got him out there. It's better than nothing. It's telemedicine that I'm having problems with from your automobile, but probably it happens. I hear you. It happens. But what I think H966 is directed at is the kind of constituent contact that you had, Senator Cummings, and that I received as well from the individual in Worcester whose two kids have been going to a hotspot. And they've been idling in their car for hours at end because their connectivity at home just doesn't cut it. And H966, I think- I've got the same thing from- I was wondering, Peely or I believe I've got the same thing from Waterbury. There are people we could help. There are people we could help and they aren't all in the kingdom. And they probably have the resources to come up with the rest of the capital and to pay for the system. And we have some short-term gifts which are targeted at short-term returns. And in the short run, this money is meant to get as many students or people that use telemedicine, which is much harder because of all the confidentiality to map than possible, really. Here are the top search results to just, we're threading the needle. How do we get the most service out to the most people doing the least amount of harm to where we want to go? Because a lot of this money in the house bill is targeted towards fiber. But if you can't get the fiber, then I think we need to say, where is that money going to go? If fiber is in short supply, do we just say, okay, that money's gonna go to the unemployment insurance fund, which I believe is the receiver of last resort of all of these funds. Well, judging by what I've heard, yes. That's right. No doubt they need the extra funds. So, is that what's gonna happen on December 20th? If we're still sitting on top of $20 or $30 million because we couldn't get the cable and we couldn't use the money or we couldn't get the fiber, then we couldn't use the money to do wireless or we put so many restrictions up looking for the perfect. I don't think those school kids that are still trying to work on four one are going to thank us and neither are their parents. And so, I'm trying to find that balance. And right now I have 14 minutes because our next speakers are starting to arrive. So... Well, I continue, I think, to disagree with my telecom director is that I have greater confidence that industry will do what it can within the parameters that you've prescribed and Clay may well prove me wrong. But the point is you have to make a qualitative judgment here about what to do and... Madam Chair. I think the failure would be if you made no resources available. Okay, I'm gonna do center ballot and Senator Brock, you've had a couple bites of the apple here. So, I just wanna get something clear in my own head, Commissioner. There is nothing currently correct that's stopping the CUDs, or rather stopping providers for collaborating with the CUDs right now, correct? That is correct. So there's no impediment. And I just wanna, so they haven't done it yet. They've been able to. And so I think this is our distrust, frankly. Understood. Now, you're absolutely right. There's no impediment. The only thing I can say to you is that as a reason this last week, I was on the phone with their very capable lobbyist once again, driving home the point that you must make friends with the CUDs. So I guess my point is this, given the tradition, the professional tradition I come from of being an adjudicator, being a hearing officer, it does not come easy to me to make suppositions about people's character. And so I resist drawing policy on the basis of whether I think somebody's a good guy or a bad guy, unless they have a background, a record that tells me, you know, once burned, whatever the saying is, I forget. Once full, shame on me, twice full, shame on you, twice full, shame on me. Exactly. But I have to agree with you that they could have been collaborating. That is the nature of the call that I put out in April. And to my knowledge, that has not happened in the manner that would get things built as we speak. But I also know that a great impediment has been the absence of resources, the absence of assurance that there's a means of recoupment. They're building dollar companies, they have resources. They also have shareholders and they also have responsibilities within their organization. I can't account for that and I'm not going to defend it. I'm just going to give you my solemn assurance that I'm not going to see the CUDs hurt as best as I can. You will forgive me though if my first priority is the kid who doesn't have anything. And that's true for us too, commissioner, absolutely. And frankly, I think it's the priority for the CUDs as well. That's why they exist. If I could, Madam Chair, just one more thing. Just I think, I appreciate where you're coming from, commissioner. I think what we're struggling with is, I'll speak for me. I think I can speak for me and Senator Campion but since he's not here, I think we do have a track record. I mean, next to me, I can't read your body language. You see, we're sitting right next to each other. Ryan, I miss you. Okay, what I want to say is this. Your perspective is that we don't have the history of a track record with some of these providers and my perspective is actually we do. And I feel like even the fact that they haven't collaborated up until this point is kind of a track record. So I just wanted to be clear that that's my frustration. I think that may be partly where you and I agree and why the proposal that we've been looking at for eventual federal funding gives the CUDs the primacy of role that we've been giving them a serious, or that's our proposal, is to give them a serious role in deciding what happens with the auction. I don't mean to say that I'm not cognizant that the industry has clearly left a problem, but I just think we don't help ourselves intellectually if we don't take in the full picture. And my full picture requires that I look at federal law and that I acknowledge that in 1996, a terribly bad decision in my view was made in Congress to go strictly with market dynamics and to not give any thought to what's gonna happen when you have an entire swaths of the country that don't have somebody to meet their needs. That's what we gave up when we walked away from the regulated framework that we had until then. It was a good decision in that it brought you a very robust internet and cell service and the like, all of the innovation that was not happening under the old regimen, but it has come at a terrible price for us in rural America. And so I think this state has taken enormous strides and to good effect, if you look at the progress as Senator Campion was pointing out of the formation of the CUDs, what we're talking about today, I think is a comparatively small sliver that has to, if we're gonna take advantage of it, it has to happen now. And we have to make a judgment about how much we're willing to risk for what end. The end is to get kids connected who we know are out there and don't have solutions. And what we were risking is that some of those connections are going to detract from the business case of the CUDs that we are all trying to help. And I think we are able to find a solution that can meet those interests without doing lasting harm to CUDs. And I hope I've conveyed to you, Senator Ballant, that you and I are in full agreement about the need to support CUDs. And I do understand your reservations about industry. Yeah. And I am there with you, but I am also talking to these people and teaching them chapter and verse, Vermont has changed and you need to deal with it. Thank you. To their benefit, they will. I think what may be holding us back than other than EC fiber, the CUDs haven't reached the point of development where they're a threat. So you need to talk to them because they haven't impacted the providers yet. Well, another way to look at it, Madam Chair, is that the inaction that Senator Campion and Senator Ballant have pointed to, to me suggests that the CUDs are very much a threat. And industry would like to see them die on a vine. There's that interpretation too. But you have before you, I think a witness today, Mr. Goldstein is going to speak to some of this. And he may be able to give you some additional insights into how you balance these things. I just would want to leave the committee with two messages or three really, please do something with this money that furthers connectivity. Please gamble on what is possible, recognizing that we're not going to have a perfect success. And thirdly, just realize that if the money isn't spent by December 20, it's back to you and you have many other needs for it. Senator Pearson. Thank you really quickly because we're running out of time. Well, no, Senator Brock, it's true. You've been run over a few times. You go. Thank you, Senator Pearson. What I wanted to do was remind the committee. Oh, he's got a blue hand up. I'm not looking for blue hands. Well, they were both up for quite some time, Madam Chair. Just to remind the committee that at 6.31 this morning, Senator Kitchell wrote us, indicating that she wanted these numbers by mid-afternoon and I just want to make sure we didn't forget that. Senator Pearson. Oh, I'm not forgetting it. Maria, to draft a proposed amendment that does reallocate some of the money and we haven't had a chance to discuss that at all. No, we were going to listen to our two speakers who I believe you brought to us, our two experts. And then we are going back. I've told Senator Kitchell that we got this bill yesterday and I'm going to do my best but to try and get something of this magnitude out in two and a half hours, which is what we've got this afternoon, I think is somewhat an unreasonable expectation. I agree, but the one thing that I wanted to ask for clarification is, were we to agree on the blocks of money so that the Appropriations Committee could do its work, presumably we would still have time, the remainder of the day today and into tomorrow to discuss some of the content or the wording of the two sections of the bill. I will email the Chair of Appropes and ask her if that would work. Okay, Senator Pearson, have you got a? Yeah, a couple of really quick questions. In this area where we're worried about line extensions that could compete with CUDs, is there any reality to the idea that you might give it to Comcast under the condition that it be open access? Would they ever go for that? As I said, at this point, I think we need to gamble and if they won't go for it, then they don't get it. That's basically it. Mr. Purvis. Yeah, I just want to say a couple of things about the line extension program, one that it models an existing PUC rule for cable video service. And what we're doing is paying the customer's portion of that cost so that there's a formula there that divvies up costs to the carrier and costs to the consumer. And we're simply just trying to cover the cost that the consumer would feel under that formula. And two, as far as it hurting the CUDs, I think the way it's written right now and the amount of money that's in it, I don't see it having a lasting long-term negative effect on CUDs. We're talking about five homes there, two homes here, and it's completely consumer driven. So it's the consumer coming to us saying, I want this service now. I don't see it as a mechanism for doing a widespread build. It's really just to help consumers who are reaching out to us asking for help with something they're already trying to buy. Okay. Do you think that if we made it open access, if that was the solution, I hear you say you don't think there's a problem, but. No, I think that would be problematic. I think that cable companies would not want to provide or participate, and I'm sorry, my children have just walked in, so I apologize. No problem. I may ask one other quick question, and that is sort of around the CUD veto. I worry about the 30 days, that seems really long, given the absurd schedule we're on. If we sort of set it up where it's five days, people are gonna be watching this closely. So I don't think that there's too much risk there. And then you guys have to, in my mind, you would give anyone five days or some short term to comment, then do the analysis of whether or not it was gonna be detrimental to broader last mile effort we're making and use your judgment. Does that seem like a smarter way to go compared to the veto or is that workable from your point of view? Yeah, I think that that is probably a better way to go, especially with the shorter timeframe. I think it puts CUDs in a difficult position, frankly, of basically telling their own constituents, you can't have this broadband now. And I don't know that they necessarily are gonna wanna do that. So I think that they would probably invoke the objection in very limited circumstances. One where they really are going to do something near term. Certainly if they think they can do this in six months or 12 months, maybe they have a good case. But as you pointed out, many of these CUDs were formed this past March. They've just put their governing boards together. They don't have any service yet. So for them, I don't know that they're gonna be put in a very good position vis-a-vis their customers, their future customers. But also competition isn't a bad thing and CUDs are going to have to learn to compete. I just don't think that $2 million investment in incumbent carriers, including EC fiber, is going to mean that much of a difference to new CUDs. Thank you. Okay, thank you everybody. I'm gonna move us on because our next witnesses are here and I'm going back and find my agenda. Okay, no, that's the agenda. Let me, here we go. We have, and in no particular order, Senator Brock, do you wanna do any kind of an introduction? I know you brought these folks to us. No, you're muted. I do not have each gentleman's bio with me. We have Fred Goldstein and also we have Larry Thomas here, both of whom are experts and as we define, as a foreign expert witness, I would always define an expert as someone from more than 50 miles away who has a dark suit. These gentlemen though do have superb backgrounds and broadband and I asked them to come after having discussions with them last week as we're wrestling with this decision of how, what kinds of technologies to use, what are the pros and cons, what can we realistically expect to do in the timeframe and just to get some perspective and also to determine whether or not at some point the legislature might want to hire an additional consultant to help us in our oversight role, but certainly there've been no commitments made in either way, but I'm very grateful to both of them to be here today and I would ask each of them before they speak to at least quickly outline what their background is in this to help put that in perspective to us. Okay, first point I have is Mr. Goldstein, are you there? Yes, I am here. Okay, there you are. The way the Zoom works, your picture bounces around. Okay, did my video pop up okay? Your video is working just fine, yeah. All right. Welcome to the Senate Finance Committee and thank you for being willing to be here and help us. Well, thank you for inviting me. My name is Fred Goldstein and I'm a principal of Inter-Rile Consulting Group. I've worked in the telecommunications field for over 40 years and have done substantial amounts of work in Vermont. I've been an expert witness for the Department of Public Service in several cases, including Fairpoint and Consolidated Service Quality Issues, the 9-1-1 Failure Investigations and the regulatory status of Comcast's Telephone Service. I'm working now with the Central Vermont CUD, CV-Fiber on their feasibility study and business plan. I've also been the engineering designer for the Wireless Broadband Network being constructed now in four towns in Northwestern Massachusetts bordering Vermont and I'm also the FCC Technical Consultant to the Wireless ISP Association. In Inter-Rile, we're independent consultants. We don't favor a technology or a vendor. We work with public sector and private clients on telecommunications and network-related projects and my own practice has often focused on rural broadband. That's basically my background and I've been working for many years in related fields and worked on fiber as well as cable and wireless matters. Anything you think we should know? Yes, now, basically what I've been proposing, I'm not gonna read my statement because that would be... I think we all have that. That would be a waste of time and take too long. The basic problem is that it's hard to get service to the rural areas of Vermont and wireless is the only way you can do something in the six months remaining for certain tranches of money. You can't realistically pull fiber in that amount of time, new fiber, given the time it takes to do pole attachments and engineering and ordering and everything. That's a very good long-term solution. It might be possible to do some cable extensions quickly but again, that only will reach limited areas. So to reach other areas, the fastest way to bring service is wireless. Now, that's not going to get you gigabit service but it will get you pretty good service. There are two different kinds of wireless network and I wanna clarify, there's fixed and there's mobile and they're not really the same thing. A fixed network has an antenna and it's called a CPE customer premise equipment radio that's mounted outdoors at the customer's house. It usually belongs to the network provider. It's part of the network. So it's not like a cell phone you buy at the store. The CPE is like a dish when you go to dish network and they have to have a professional install and then align it. In fact, many of the same people, that's where we get a lot of the labor force. So you put up an outdoor antenna and align it on one of the base stations of the fixed provider. These operate usually on unlicensed bands. The power level on unlicensed frequencies is relatively low but the larger CPE antennas often make up for so we can get a range of several miles depending on the frequency. Even in some cases, 15 miles on some of the likely licensed frequencies we use. So that's basically the approach for fixed. Mobile is different because it has to reach inside the car handheld device. Mobility itself is complex. And so mobile requires a licensed frequency. These are auctioned, they're expensive. So in terms of capital, mobile is literally orders of magnitude more expensive than fixed to create in general. Now, there's an interesting hybrid of the two where a mobile network has capacity that can be used for fixed. And one of the places that's most used in the country is in fact, Vermont. VTEL has a few thousand fixed customers on a network that it built about nine years ago using mobile technology, a very high budget mobile network and it does support mobile traffic. It also supports fixed. I'm not proposing that VTEL be the service provider to all the unserved people but they have resources that we can work with. They have licensed spectrum, very good licensed spectrum that they will be using in some places for mobile and some places for their own fixed but that in places that aren't even economical for them that they haven't considered for their relatively high capacity fixed network. I have spoken to Dr. Gite and we can make arrangements to lease the use of their spectrum and even lease the parts of their network core that are needed to support it. Where there's fiber, we could build small cells on existing fiber and where there isn't, which will be most locations, we could build microwave back wall very quickly. And so basically the idea would be we would locate and I've already begun to do this using the department's lists of unserved areas in VTEL study where they can reach and where some, I know some of the existing providers are, we can put up some number, order of magnitude 100 would be the total we probably need for all of the significant gaps in coverage, places that would reach a dozen to several dozen unserved users in hollows and valleys that don't even get cell phone service today. And this would be an addition to what VTEL was planning on doing with high capacity cells that they would also make available on a wholesale basis to use. So, and those would be in the more populated areas. So really that and the combination working with existing wireless ISPs where they have service and where they can build out their service in purely fixed networks, that's the fastest way to get something. And I say something, we're talking usually 25, the 25 and three or 25 and five class of service. In some cases with the VTEL licensed called band 12 700 megahertz license, which is what most of their current rural services, we're not gonna get 25 out of that. The total capacity of the cell isn't big enough just because of the size of your license will get at least 10 megabits to customers. And again, to people who have nothing now 10 megabits is better than most DSL. It's a considerable improvement. And then over time, you know, the CUDs can build out to there. The CUDs can build out fiber. The CUDs, I'm working with CV fiber and really the plan is to pull fiber to the majority of places, but there are those isolated houses where it would cost well more than average to reach those houses. And given the economics of CUDs, it doesn't make sense to spending $15,000, $20,000 to reach a property when you can reach it wirelessly at a much, much lower cost. Wireless is much less expensive technology. So really it would be primarily the CUDs would be primarily fiber, but in the short term, we could fill the gaps with wireless. And even then as fiber builds out and as cable builds out, if it does, there'll be fewer people using the wireless, but it would still be there. If it's tied to the VTEL network, it could still be used for roaming for mobility so that cell phone gaps in coverage in these remote areas could be filled in by that network. Still be there for mobility and it would still be there with less load on it for the relatively smaller number of people that still need that because they're in remote locations. So it kind of works as a short-term palliative. And then as a long-term, it'll still have some residual use even as we build out fiber. It's relatively inexpensive. The small cells we're talking about, the basic cell transceiver for band 12 is about $16,000. So put up a pole, put up a transceiver and antenna. We're talking in the $20,000 to $25,000 range with a microwave back wall. Add a BRS higher capacity radio to that for another $10,000. And that way we'll have for the area served by that small cell, these fill-in gaps that are not served today, these most remote locations will have high capacity, those who can see the BRS at high speed and lower speed, but still adequate connectivity to the people who can only see the band 12, the 700 megahertz. So that's sort of a hybrid approach. The tricky part is an organization because VTEL and does not want to repeat some of the bad relations it's had in the past. It would be happy to sell wholesale to a sort of a neutral body. And then that body would deal with retail. VTEL doesn't want to be selling the retail either. And there'd be other providers as well. We're not trying to give VTEL an exclusive. It's just they have these very unusual licenses that are very valuable for bands 12 and especially band 41, the BRS band that has very high capacity. So we'd really be taking advantage of their licenses as well as the unlicensed CBRS band that others like Cloud Alliance are using to really round out coverage. That would be the short-term answer. It would require some engineering, quite a bit to locate places to put the poles. It would require make sure that section 248A doesn't prevent the planting of utility poles for the purpose of supporting these antennas. There'd be no huts. The small cell concept is it's a pole. Wouldn't utility pole, cabinet on the side, holds the batteries and what little equipment goes there. The radios themselves are actually mounted on the antennas on the top of the pole. And it's literally just another utility pole, 50 to 70 feet, maybe 80 feet up, but it's wood. So it can go on a roadside right of way. We're doing that now in Massachusetts. The network in Florida, Holly, Monroe and Savoy, just south of Samford and Reedsboro, is being built using over 30 roadside poles in the roadside way that will be the property of the towns. So that's just a way to build this. It's not towers and it has to not go through the tower siding process, but through the utility pole siding process, which is presumably a little easier. So that's sort of the fastest way. If we can make all that work and have an organization, it might be one of the power companies. It might be some, maybe the old VTA could have done this, but they're not active. So someone has to come in and be this neutral body that doesn't have any negative relations with any major parties. And then that body would coordinate and make this happen. That's really to me, it's not easy. It's almost a moonshot, but it can get service to thousands of homes that today otherwise don't have broadband and wouldn't have broadband any other way within the six months. That makes it eligible to use the COVID funding while it's there that otherwise, I don't see how much of it could be put to use within the available timeframe. It's the capability of the up and down. Well, okay, on the band 12, the idea would be in the worst case, if someone's deep in the woods blocked by trees, band 12 penetrates trees. And so really that would be a 10 and two type service. It might go faster, but I would characterize it and market it as a 10 and two. If it's the BRS band on a small cell, I'd marketed it as a 25 and five. So, but it probably can go faster. BRS, Dr. Gite's forecasts are that the vast majority of the homes that he can reach, and that's a majority of homes. He's got the ability to reach most homes in Vermont at over 75 megabits per second and potentially well over 100 on his BRS network. So I'm talking about the ones that don't reach the hundred odd sites he's on. And those would be small cells and because they wouldn't have the expensive equipment, I'd like to be modest and say it's a 25 and be happy when you get 50. But, and you often will, but it does depend on the quality of the path, the distance, how many trees are in the way where there aren't trees in the way you fall back to band 12 and, you know, it's still better than most DSL. Okay, so this is the system I remember talking about actually, I think it was Mary Epsilon, Mary and Tom who were pushing this when we, the last time we were gonna become the connectivity state. And it's where there's a transmitter put up in somebody's barn and then the houses down the road have an antenna on the roof and they get wireless broadband that way. Is that? Exactly how it's done. In fact, I say poles because, you know, if you're in the woods, It could be poles. But in fact, in the wireless ISP association, the classic site in the middle parts of the US is the grain leg, which is the, I never heard of one before working with them, the grain leg being the thing in the middle of three silos that pumps, it's taller than the silos that feeds them. So these are over a hundred feet high. And basically you give the farm free service, put the tower on the grain leg over the silos. There are VTEL towers on silos, they're cloud alliance of towers, VTEL antennas on silos, they're cloud alliance antennas on silos. So yes, barn silos, steeples, it could go inside a steeple with a, you know, plastic, fake, you know. Yeah. They've been rent and put in cell towers in church steeples for a while. Right. And that's the idea. And we fall back in Massachusetts. Since we're in the woods in a very sparsely populated area, we just use utility poles that don't have, it's not farm country. It's, you know, it's woods country. But yes, certainly it's exactly the idea. In fact, Tom's name has come up as someone who could play, if he were interested in coming out of retirement, he might be a person who could play a role in this. Madam chair. Yes. I thought VTEL had, correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought they had really failed in this state. I mean, I thought VTEL, it sounds like you're advocating for possibly a return to VTEL, but unless I'm misunderstanding something from other folks, VTEL is, I don't know, I wanna say persona non grata, but has not really stood by its commitments. Am I missing something? What I was suggesting is not that VTEL would build this. VTEL does wanna build some extend its network in the high capacity areas. That's their plan. They've asked, they're talking about RUS money to upgrade their network, but that's not for reaching the most remote areas. What I'm talking about is having the state purchase and own the small cells. VTEL would just lease. We have a lot of small cells. So, I mean. We have a warehouse full of small cells. I don't mean the ones that you have left over from Vanu. Those were, those were kind of. One problem is going into this is we are not ending up with another warehouse. The ones that I'm looking at actually are ones that are commercial. I'm looking at for Band 12, they're made by Redline. They're a standard product. It's a standard cellular product. And it's compared. They're a big small cell. It's, I mean, it's not a big box. It's mounted on the pole, but it's a box that's been in production for years. It's an actual product. It's 4G. It's a 4G LTE. It's not old GSM. There's no, you know, experimental technology. This is just good. 5G starts to give us public problems. Yeah, 5G. And that's the funny thing, cause this 5G is a minor change from 4G that somehow people have gotten carried away. Silly. I have a provider who tells me it's all, it's part of the Russian interference in the internet. And it's a Russian story. But, you know, we're not going there. It is problematic publicly. It gets a very emotional response here. That's right. And that's why what we're really doing here is to say, the state will be in charge of this. The state would work with an entity that would run this network. The state would own the small cells. They would lease them back to VTEL for VTEL roaming, but VTEL would be in effect a wholesale customer on these cells in exchange of potentially, cause VTEL has the radio licenses, the spectrum licenses. So this would go... VTEL hasn't stood up to, or fulfilled its mission, its priorities in this state already. Why would we do something with VTEL? I mean, it just doesn't seem to make any sense. They hold the band 41 license. The reason is they're sitting on spectrum and that's FCC exclusive licensed mobile spectrum. And the idea is to make use of it more than they were able to themselves. It's very much to avoid having to deal with VTEL. I do work with Dr. Geetay a little bit. I like sometimes I think of myself as the only person on good terms with the department of public service and VTEL. I try to work with everybody and I do know there have been some issues significant, many issues between the two parties. And so this would not be trusting VTEL to do anything. This would be using VTEL's licenses that we can't have, their licenses. And also using their network on really an open, what we call the neutral host basis. They'd be a neutral host. It would be not just supporting VTEL. It would be just making use of their facilities with a whole civil contract that again doesn't trust them to do deployment. It would be bringing things to them essentially and we could rebuild the core ourselves. The core was, they spent a few million dollars on a core 10 years ago. I can buy a core today for $10,000 plus $30 per customer. The price has come down, the entry level. It's used to be a very expensive package. Now it's available as a piece of software you run on a server. So Fred, you're not talking about giving public funding to VTEL. Not too, only in the sense that VTEL sells service, not to give the money as the provider. We'd probably be bartering spectrum, quite honestly, bartering potentially spectrum for letting them roam on it. But it wouldn't be to give VTEL necessarily direct money. They probably wouldn't mind if a deal could be made but they're trying to get our US money for their big build. If it could be state money, they'd be happy but I understand their issues there and I can't overcome that. I just know that they do have resources, they do have spectrum and they're willing to work through a third party that every, as long as we can create a third party relationship. I think, yeah, there's differences. I believe that VTEL used federal or RUS money the last time. They didn't have any connection with the state but I don't think that what got delivered was what a lot of people expected and I think that's 15%, I think. Well, they overestimated, yeah, they overestimated. Anyway, I've got Senator Brock, we've got one more speaker and we're running out of time and then I'll get Senator Ballant. Brandy, you're muted. That was my point, Madam Chair. I think it would be useful to move to the next speaker so that we have an adequate time with him and then perhaps hold any additional questions from Mr. Goldstein until the next speaker has spoken. Okay, Senator Ballant, do you have one last wrap up? You're okay, okay. I'll wait until we discuss as a group. Okay, then we're on to Larry Thompson. Welcome, thank you for joining us. All right, thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you, Senators. Can everybody hear me okay? Perfectly. Okay, good. I have a couple of slides to share and as part of those slides, I'm going to give you my introduction as well so let me just share those with you now. Are you able to see my screen? Perfectly, yeah. Okay, good. Just to give you a little background on who I am, I work for Vantage Point Solutions, I'm the founder and CEO. We started in 2002. I got a physics degree initially and then went on for my master's in electrical engineering. I've been in telecom over 30 years, do a lot of satellite, wireless, wire line engineering. I'm one of the 29 members that FCC Chairman Pi appointed to the Broadband Deployment Advisory Committee, the BDAC, I'm also on various mini industry groups for NECA, NTCA and various other things. Vantage Point, by way of a little bit of background, we've got over 350 on staff, over 500 clients. We do work for a lot of small telephone companies. We work for cable TV companies, a lot of rural work, although we do work for some of the larger companies like Google and things like that also, but primarily small rural broadband providers. We do both wireless and wire line engineering. We manage about 10,000 miles a year of outside plant fiber construction. We deal a lot with regulatory issues, cyber security, do a lot of business analysis. I've got cost analysts on staff and like Mr. Goldstein said earlier, we're also vendor and technology agnostic. We don't resell equipment, just to let you know, I'm not being paid by anybody to be here today. I'm not lobbying for any business or anything like that. I'm here because I just believe in broadband and I think that everybody, better broadband means better life and I think that people in Vermont deserve that as well. I think we're on the same wavelength there. Okay, good. Thank you for being with us. Yeah, and we do work, like I said, wireless and wire line. I'm here to answer any type of questions. I'm a professional licensed professional engineer in over 20 states. So I deal with these kinds of things on a daily basis. I've seen, because we have such a large client base, I've seen what works and what doesn't work from the state government as well as federal government perspective. As you know, there's a big urban rural digital divide and we see that in Vermont as well. Right now, somewhere between 20 million and 40 million people in the US lack access to 25 meg down and three meg up, depending upon who's doing the counting and how you count. And a lot of the reason is just because, just like Vermont, it's because a lot of the areas are not economical to serve. The problem that Vermont has of getting broadband out there is not a technical problem, it's an economic problem. Well, along that line, may I ask a quick question? Sure, yep. So if a CUD came in with a million bucks, how quickly could you get fiber put down? That's a very good question. I do have some short and long-term strategies I'm gonna end up with. Now there are providers, established providers. You know, I know Mr. Goldstein mentioned VTEL, there's several others. Most of them have long-term plans that are able to move plans forward to be able to accelerate them. A lot of them have materials and inventory. So there's a lot of varied conditions. Vermont is not an easy place to construct in, as you know, which is part of your problem as well. But I would think when you're talking about the type of dollars you're talking about 10 to 15 million, there's probably quite a bit of pretty decent long-term solutions for that amount. Now if you said it's 50 million, that would probably be another choice. Can you give me a sense of timing? That was sort of key to the question. If a CUD comes to you and says I've got, you know, I've got a couple million bucks, how quickly can you build out, construct that infrastructure? Months? Generally speaking, if you were starting from scratch, it can't be done. So like it would take a month or two of planning to figure out how am I going to route the cable? There's permitting processes that have to be gone through. There's vendors you have to award the contract with. There's right now a couple of months lead time on fibers and then all of the installation. But there's enough providers out there that I believe, you know, have materials, they have a five year plan. It's, I don't want to call it necessarily shovel ready, but it's not too far from being shovel ready where they could get out and do those quickly. I don't know every provider well enough in the state of Vermont. You know, Mr. Goldstein's much more tied into your particular providers and particular state issues. So it's difficult for me to say one way or the other on that specific of a question. In your experience doing this for other groups, are we talking like two months, four months? No, I would say if you're starting from scratch, like if you went out to an existing, and I'm saying established provider, not somebody who's trying to get into the business, but established provider. So it'd be one of the small telephone, it's Watesfield Champlain Valley or somebody like that. If they were starting from scratch, like I was saying, it would take a month or two of planning to design the network and get permits, a couple of months to order materials, get contractors in place, and then a few months to actually do the construction. So if you're starting from scratch, six months is not going to be enough. But let's say for example, that same telephone company or cable company or whoever it might be has a project plan for next year. It's already engineered. They've already been working on the permits and environmental issues and things like that. So they've already got a running head start. That's what I mean by shovel ready. And if they have the materials in, and they can start construction within the next few weeks, then it could actually be accomplished by the end of the year. Thank you. The average broadband speed in the United States is over 140 mag nowadays. The National Cable Television Association believes that more than 80% of the US can get one gigabit if they were to order it. They have access to one gig, more than 80%. Vermont has less than 20% of the population that's capable of 100 mag. If you've seen the broadband now statistics, and I'm sure you have what they published this year, Vermont is ranked 47 out of 51 when we include Washington, DC. Wireless and satellite is not going to solve the user's speed and capacity needs long term. I think it can provide, it's gonna be great. Like Mr. Goldstein said, if there's somebody who doesn't have broadband, 25 mag is going to be great. But long term, it's not gonna satisfy their needs. I speak a lot when it comes to 5G wireless and things like this at national conferences, and I can certainly come back and talk more about that some other time if you want. A good broadband infrastructure lasts 30 or more years, but it does take a lot of planning and effort to do it right. All networks nowadays are based on a broadband backbone. If it's wireless or a wire line, everybody is in the process of pushing fiber closer to the customer and everything's fiber rich nowadays. When we talk about wireless networks, it's really that last little piece that's wireless, everything else is fiber. But all aspects of American life nowadays, and we've seen it mostly recently with COVID, but communication, education, health care, entertainment, agriculture, a smart farm, smart cities, all of that rely on broadband. Broadband increases property values, higher tax base, Mitchell, South Dakota here, where I live, our headquarters is at. We actually were voted in the top seven most intelligent communities of the world, and a lot of it was because of the jobs we've created in the broadband network that we have in place. Vantage Point, by the way, we did more than half of the successful grants for the New York, the $500 million that New York did and did most of the engineering work as well. So the problem is Vermont's got significant areas that lack broadband, your terrain, topography, your environment make broadband deployment difficult with your hills, mountains, even wireless, wireless and wire line, your state parks and forests. There's a short construction season, so you don't have a very friendly environment to be building these broadband networks and you lack of a real well-defined broadband strategy, but not to say that's unusual, most states don't have a good broadband strategy as well. And normal market forces, as you've realized, they've listened to you talk the last hour, normal market forces haven't closed that gap, and I don't see any technology on the horizon that's going to close that broadband gap because of the economics. Like I said, all broadband networks rely on fiber. It's time-consuming, you design an engineer permitting in right-of-way, both for buried in aerial construction, environmental studies are often required. Doing wireless even takes time getting licensed spectrum. Mr. Goldstein mentioned the spectrum that VTEL has. One thing to keep in mind, that's one spectrum, one piece of the pie, there's hundreds of licenses out there that other entities own as well. You need to permit for towers and radios, and we're currently experiencing some material shortages. Everybody realizes how important broadband is and a lot of people are doing it. So let me talk a little, I've got two slides left, one on short-term considerations and one on long-term, and then I'm happy to answer any questions, but you can use your short-term, your CARES money for some short-term, fill in the gaps, it would be band-aids. The timing is just terrible for good long-term solutions as I was just talking about earlier. The money spent quickly though is probably going to be spent less efficiently. It's going to be invested in things that maybe are not good long-term solutions, but maybe that's still acceptable. You're going to take more risks and they may not fit into the big picture later. You may probably need to focus on existing broadband providers because they have the experience and you're probably not going to be able to do too many startups in this short of a time. Some long-term considerations, you know, being good at identifying areas that lack broadband and other digital needs. It sounds like you've done a fair amount of that already, developing a state comprehensive broadband plan. Now, one thing I see that's probably the most successful is not necessarily the state owning everything and designing everything to the last bolt in fiber, but at a minimum, you know, focusing on goals, principles, areas, and not so much focused on technologies or specific network types. Kind of like the FCC has been doing, you look at what they've done in cap phase two or the RDOF and things like that. They've set established goals on speeds and capacities and latencies and letting market forces after they solve the economic problem, letting the market creativity figure out the best solution. Having a strong state broadband office seems to be successful in the states that have done a good job in deploying broadband. Encourage shovel-ready projects. When money falls out of the sky like it has for the CARES program, being ready to have projects that are quick and easy to get done. And I think once you've established these goals and principles, that's probably a logical follow on from a lot of the private companies. They'll be ready because they know that the next time an opportunity comes along, they wanna be ready. And then continue to raise the bar. 25-3 might be adequate for you today. I think a lot of people would argue it's not, but next year it's gonna be 100 and then it's going to be a gigabit and then 10 gigabit. The cable TV companies now are working on DOCSIS 4.0. They actually have the standards done that's going to allow 10 gigabit services rather than one gigabit. And that's the way the trend is. So set your bar high. That was my last slide. I know I hit a lot of things. What kind of questions might you have? Committee. Senator Brock, you're quiet. May I, Madam Chair? Yes. I can't see you. Yeah, it's just, it's Brian. So it sounds like what you're saying is the CUDs, which will lay fiber, not cable internet, that'll raise property values. Every time, you know, when you look at businesses and residential, one of the, well, I'm sorry, one of the common things they ask is what kind of broadband do you have? Houses and businesses that have broadband capable networks that are attached self or more. Here in Mitchell, where we've have two different providers that you can get gigabit services from. The first fiber of the home network went in in 2005. It's been a huge recruiting tool for the economic development to get new businesses to the town. Thank you. Thank you very much. I think he also said, if you're a startup, there's no way you're gonna meet that six month deadline. And that's not even caught, you know, since we had snow in May, the possibility that it's 90 or we have a blizzard in October is hanging out there. The weather is more erratic than usual and you don't build a lot in December in Vermont, so. But Madam Chair, put a CUD, and I'm not sure, could they subcontract to get people on a network by the end of the year? That seems possible. I think that's, if they are at a stage where they're ready to do that, I don't think there's anything that prohibits them. They do that? Yeah, it's just hit at a time where most of the CUDs are a couple months old and they just haven't gotten, they aren't developed enough to do all of this work we need done. So we're kind of walking between the world we'd like to see in the future, but the need to improve things now and quickly. I think what I meant, when I talked about short term, I think you're gonna have to make compromises this year because of those timing constraints and not do everything that you really would like to do. I think that's a great idea for next year when you have more time to plan. But it's like going out and telling GM to build your car or to have a new startup come up and build a car. You've got to hire employees. You've got to do all sorts of stuff that an established provider doesn't have to do. And when the timing is this tight, you don't have time for all of those other things to get over that learning curve. I think our challenge is to get as many people hooked up with as high a capacity as we can get them without doing harm to the future, which envisions the CUDs as the provider of last resort. What we lack is money. Senator Brock and then Senator McDonald, I think that's what I've seen. Okay, you're muted. Larry, you've listened to a lot of this discussion today about the dilemma that we're in, trying to make some decisions on how best to deploy funds between now and the end of the year, recognizing that what we deploy has to be up and running by the end of the year. And based on what you've heard, if you were in charge of this in Vermont, what would you do? Well, there's no doubt, like Mr. Goldstein mentioned earlier, that wireless can be deployed faster than fiber. It's generally, though I will say, even for wireless, like he mentioned towers and things need to be installed, generally those are fed by fiber facilities, not always, but generally you need fiber facilities to get out there. So it's not that it's completely devoid of fiber, it's less. So generally you can deploy it faster, it's generally a lower cap X, but you also have to remember the life expectancy is a lot shorter as well. So you're putting in a network that might last five years if you're lucky, if you put in a fiber network, it's gonna last 30. So if you look at maybe a wireless network where you're gonna have to replace it four or five times over a 30 year timeframe, oftentimes when you're looking long term, fiber is oftentimes less expensive, wireless is less expensive in the short term is what we normally find out. Some of the spectrum, you look at 700 megahertz or even BRS, maybe not so much as BRS, this is very small slice of spectrum and you're only going to get a small amount through. And I think Mr. Goldstein did a good job saying plan on 10 meg for the 700 megahertz and maybe 25 for the BRS. That's still well below what the national averages are, but like I said, somebody may be doing back flips if they can't get anything today. I would probably though to answer your question, what would I do today? And it's one thing you can't sit and study it very long because the more you look at it, the shorter the amount of time. And that's why I said this year, you're going to kick yourself next year for some of the things you did because maybe they weren't the most efficient, but it's still got more broadband out there. I think you've got some time to do it right next year. You can do it 70% of the way right this year. I would probably start by paying some of the established providers and see how many of them could potentially move some projects from next year into this year and get some more people connected. Maybe their cap exit this year was $2 million, but they could do $4 million. And it might also be a way that you could multiply the benefit of the 11 or $12 million that you're planning on using for this is maybe it's not, you don't buy the whole thing, but it's a dollar for dollar match or something. Like I said, it's an economic problem. If you can take those providers and solve that economic hurdle for them, the problem is in these rural areas, the end user revenues, even over a 30 year life expectancy of the fiber is not enough to pay for that investment generally. I know it was mentioned earlier about the regulatory changes and part of the problem was in 96, it was great that we got competition, but all of these providers, the low cost customers in town were subsidizing all those high cost rule. And now that there's competition and they lost their town customers, they can't afford to do the rule anymore. And so you need to get those providers over that economic hurdle where they can afford to make those rural guys essentially look like a town, which means you've got to get the cost per subscriber or per location down to somewhere around $5,000 or so, which was what it cost to build out a town customer. Right now it's 10 or $15,000. So if you can essentially buy them down and look like it's a town customer, I think you could get the existing providers very interested in serving them themselves, which may be a good option for you. Okay, that's helpful. Okay, Senator McDonald. Have you run across arrangements where public money has been used to us? Have you run across arrangements where public money has been used to go to private operators, cable companies to put up fiber and exchange? The cable company has left half of that, half those fibers available for CUDs or local cooperatives. Sure, one thing you're going to run into, and I heard your discussion earlier about these line extensions. Cable systems do not adapt very well to open networks where it's usually a small portion of their network, nobody wants to access their network at that point. And so when you do these line extensions and you're putting these, you're pushing essentially fiber deeper into the network and you're asking them to shorten that last coax drop from maybe 500 customers down to 200 customers or 100 customers. And so they would push fiber closer like all providers are doing. And you say, we'll put in a 144 cable at that point and I want you to dedicate half of it. Normally it's a small run, it's not in an area, it's in a neighborhood where probably nobody's going to be able to leverage it very easily and stuff. So some of these things sound good in theory. In reality, if it's practical, it's probably sometimes more difficult to leverage. Now, if you're talking about an entire town where you're overbuilding where maybe you can put in some extra conduit or some extra fibers or let's say you're running along one of your interstates and it's going to be a long run, those can certainly be leveraged by others. But if you're talking about small jobs where small line extensions, I don't know that's gonna be very valuable to other people. The puzzle, do you have another question? I'm skiming, I don't chair for the moment. That is a first. Okay, any other questions? I think we're overwhelmed. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you for being with us. Thank you. I think this I think helped us step back and get the 2000 foot view from a national perspective. And I think we were inclining to get into the weeds. So committee, we have 11 minutes. And I think Vanessa wanted us to sign on five minutes ago. I don't know how much we have on the floor. So I don't know if we can come back afterwards. Other than that, I have not gotten an answer back. I did email appropriations and told them if we could come up with the tranches, the big buckets for where we want to put it, could we have more time to come up with the criteria for awarding grants? Senator Pearson. Madam chair, if Maria has sent Randy and I, and we haven't had the chance to look at it, I assume, some of the concepts we've been working on with her. Okay. That if we have time after the floor, maybe it would be helpful. It's- Walk through- Questions you've heard Randy and I ask, I think we're trying to poke at whether or not we had any good ideas here. So I don't know if that's helpful, but if we have the chance, he and I do have something we could work off of. Right, and we can also have additional money that Senator Kitzel has suggested that we could use if we could effectively deploy it. Okay. And I think the first question is, do we agree with the tranches that the house bill has? One of the big ones is dedicated exclusive to wireless. I think- No, no, it's not. One of the men, is that the one that mentioned wireless? It's both fiber to the premise and wireless is- And wireless. Okay. The largest piece. And one of the things that Senator Pearson and I have talked about is providing a little bit more flexibility there to the department to make decisions based on the reality. It's that whole decision of not knowing what people can in fact deploy within the timeframe we have will actually dictate to some extent what we do. And we wanted to give them a little bit more flexibility than they have within the narrow confines of the house bill to be able to do that. And if it sounds like wireless can provide better than nothing, better than DSL, but it's fairly easy to put up and fairly easy to take down. So it, and it lasts five years, if you're lucky. So- Well, last more than that, because for one thing what we're talking about also as part of that is the cave, the feed that goes to the wireless providers. And that feed may very well be cable, ideally. Now, one of the real questions is can we use existing feed and then replace it by fibers. You gradually deal with increasing the capability of the network and then ultimately at the end points disconnect the wireless and then move with that same feed to wireless to the home. In other words- Well, that's- Yeah. To get us down the line of where we want to go. We're not going to do that strategy this afternoon, but conceptually that's something that doesn't seem to be beyond the realm of possibility. Yeah, I think that's what I was thinking is that if we put up some wireless, it does not preclude three years down the road if your local CUD is ready to run the fiber because the fiber, you know, people are now used to broadband. The fiber is now more attractive because it'll give you better broadband and it's easier to dismantle. Unlike if we let a private provider go out and run cable or broadband, that would be a challenge to the future of the CUD unless they couldn't buy it. So are we agreed that we'll try to come back if it's not a ridiculous hour? Yeah, if it's four, five, do you want to come back? I'm free in the morning. I don't know about other committees. I can do very early morning. We don't usually start until 10, but I have something at 5.30 that I could change. All right, well, I wasn't going to go too late. People have families in dinner time. I was planning lunch at five. Yeah. I'd lunch at two, so I don't need dinner until about seven. I mean, we could just... Senator Sirachin, you're the one that's probably meeting. Okay. So I just want to second your idea of trying to decide the tranches and deal with language and guardrails tomorrow because as Senator Brock knows, that's exactly what our committee did. We ran up against the deadline. We decided the money and said, we're coming back tomorrow to deal with the language because we can't do it. Okay. Well, let's try, because we're going to about be ready. Let's hope the Senate doesn't go more than a half an hour. We can get back here and maybe work till 5.30. Does that work? Fine. Unless, if we all roll up our sleeves and... Okay, that sounds good. All right.