 get on mute. Yeah I was hoping to just have a short discussion about the short-term plan released by Clay today. It has some significant impacts on CUDs and one one of the questions is to what extent did we participate in the development of that? Okay so that that was on the agenda so we will we will be talking about that. That was that was added I think Michael you added that right? Yeah okay. I still have been unable to to drag and drop onto that okay and that so let's give you the file. All right if you why don't you this is important enough that um if you wait for me I think I will I have it okay yeah just stand by it's a long URL if you want me to actually download that and post the PDF I can do that too otherwise that was submitted today by Clay Purvis to the Senate Finance Committee. That's some very interesting stuff there I think we'll probably put that towards the end just you have a chance to read it over and digest it a bit. Alan can you please go on mute. All right I will mute Alan actually Alan while while while you are not muted just yet would you just introduce yourself briefly we're going to go alphabetically by first name by attendees just let Trev know who's who. Sure I'm Alan Gilbert I'm from Worcester I'm the alternate. Andy. Yep Andy Gilbert the delegate from Cabot. Chuck Burt delegate from Moretown. Really from Calis. Frank Moore from Williamstown Chief Information Officer at Norwich University. Jared. Uh excuse me Jared Thomas, Alton from Calis. I'm Jeremy Henson I'm the chair from Berlin. The other Jeremy. Hi I'm Jeremy Matt alternate from Plainfield and Clark here. Jerry. Jerry DM and TDs alternate from Berlin also Business Development Committee. All right John. Jonathan Williams from Marshfield. You want to share with us your news? Yes I'm very sorry to say that my wife and I are moving to Berry City from Marshfield and so I will have to step down as Marshfield's representative but I hope to continue to support CV fiber as it seeks to bring high-speed internet to all of central Vermont. Very much appreciate your work Jonathan. Congratulations on the move. Thank you. All right and the other John. He's muted. John Russell you want oh I I muted him that's right I'm going to there you go go ahead John. Once again it's John Russell from Worcester. Very good. Josh. We're on Josh Jarvis I'm the delegate from Berry Town. Ken Jones Montpelier and Business Development Committee. Okay Lucas. Lucas Herring alternate from Berry City. I'm also the IT director for the Department of Corrections and the mayor for the city. John just to know as the alternate I probably will not be re-upping as the alternate so if you're moving to Berry City and would like to be an alternate from Berry City just consider that. I'll definitely consider it. Thank you. Appreciate that Lucas. Go on in for the kill there. Michael. So I'm Michael Bernbaum delegate from Plainfield. Phil Hayek delegate from Middlesex and Vice Chair. All right I'm muting John again. Sorry. Let's see Ray. Yeah so nice try Jonathan trying to get off the committee he had to move huh. Okay Ray Pelletier from Northfield. Tom. Tom Fisher our delegate for East Montpelier. Wonderful. Thank you everybody. I have a feeling we may be doing that again in the next couple months as we get some other some other appointees from other places as well. So let's move on to talking about Duxbury and Washington. Oh go ahead David. You're on mute. Are we reappointing every April? Yeah April or May. I mean if the appointments haven't changed I mean ideally each town is going to be reappointing right around now but in the absence of specific reappointments our previous appointments do stand. So that's a good question it would be it would be worth reaching out to each of your individual communities and just asking them to go through the go through the motions of reappointing you as necessary or if you know that there's somebody else who wants to get involved and we can you know get them ramped up as an alternate that would be that would be amazing. Or if you feel like you need to be replaced that's that's okay too. Anything else on on this with the turnover in the board? Okay. So this next one the conversations are still happening mostly outside of this committee. Duxbury showed some interest some residents approached me somebody on the planning commission and I was actually on the Duxbury select board's agenda last night and they're actually I was really straightforward with them I said you're not part of our feasibility study we're not really going to be thinking about you this first pass was kind of too late for the game. That said they're still interested and what they chose to do is they're actually looks like they're actually going to try to do a feasibility study of their own to answer a slightly different question whether getting broadband to Duxbury is going to be best done by them joining us creating their own with Waterbury or other neighboring towns or contracting in some other way so they're going after the broadband innovation grant the third round of them. So I just want to let you know that that request for them to join is probably not super imminent but will let may likely come down the road. I've also given them a lot of advice and a lot of documentation explaining the process and everything and everybody's super friendly and amenable. Siobhan was also if she was here I let her tell this but Siobhan was approached by some more folks in Washington again when we hear this over and over someone in Washington wants to have better internet and they gone to the select board or something and then everything just falls off. So I'm honestly not completely sure what the story is there but there is some interest over in Washington and then if you look at the actually there was a map that was put out by Clay today too. Let me I'll actually go and grab that as well. It's actually it's pretty neat if you haven't seen it already. Let me put this right in here. It's just a map of all of the CUDs at present and he said he's updating that map apparently day to day so you can see some of the southern CUDs filling out a bit but the thing that struck me as I was looking at this is poor Washington Corinth, Topsom, Bradford and such kind of pinched without a CUD to call their own. So knowing that yeah. I was speaking to somebody who is well placed yesterday. I can't reveal who I'm talking to. He said that EC is talking to a number of towns about expanding. Good. Good. I don't know if it's true or not but he seemed to think it was very true and he also mentioned that our town Roxbury might switch over to them. Okay. All right. Well, I mean I guess that will have to wait and see if they really happen but it's good to know it's possible. Yeah. I mean that would still fulfill, you know, our mission of getting people broadband. I mean, if EC fiber builds it first, you know, why not, right? Thank you for that, Michael. I appreciate the towns that were mentioned were those ones you just referred to like Corinth and West Verily and Bradford and those ones in the corner there. Okay. So hopefully we'll see some movement one way or the other. I'm not sure that that they're going to rise to the top of our, you know, feasibility studies. Although as I understand it, some of the work that Fred did over in Orange did lead into Washington somewhat. Okay. Any other thoughts or commentary on other towns, Duxbury, Washington or otherwise? Let's go on to Treasure Update and Accounts Payable. So I sent out an email not terribly long ago with an invoice from Fred in the amount of, I can pop back into my own email here, the total amount of $14,736.47. And what I wanted to do is I will move that we pay our accounts payable in the amount of $14,736.47 per the contract that we signed with InterIsle. Seconded. Okay. So I saw a second from David. Any further discussion? One thing that I will add is that we will likely be able to take, get a good portion of this in reimbursement from our USDA grant. I will need some additional documentation. I will need to put together some additional documentation. That's a me job and possibly a future treasurer job as well. Two different people. I'm still in sort of grading mode at the moment. Once I come up for air, I have meetings with, or have conversations to have with two different treasurer candidates. One lives in Orange. One lives in Moretown. So I'm going to have these conversations probably Thursday, Friday. I also have a meeting with Nathan to sort of wrap things up and sort of talk about transition plans for the fundraising platform for the VCCU bank account and such. Jeremy, did you get a chance to follow up with the candidate I sent you from Berry City? Okay. So I said, I said Moretown. Yes. So I, Oh, okay. Okay. That was the more time for you. Yeah. Yes. Yes. I was, that's, yeah. That's what I was thinking. Okay. Yes. From Berry City instead. So no, yeah, I was exchanging some messages and I do have a meeting, phone meeting with her whenever I call her again on Thursday, I think it is. Real quick question. What is Nathan's last name? Hoke, H-O-C-K. So the motion on the floor was to essentially pay our bills for our consultants. Any further discussion on that? Okay. Hearing none so that we don't have to do the, and I'm going to unmute, I'm going to unmute John for a moment here. And John, John, is it possible for you to mute yourself so I don't have to force meet you? Yes, of course. If you're speaking to me. Yeah. They're just getting a lot of background noise from your line. All right. So I'm going to assume that we have consensus on paying the bill and the amount of $14,736.47 unless I hear otherwise. Okay. Hearing no objections, I will take that as unanimous consent and the motion passes. Any other discussion about accounts payable or otherwise? All right. Let's move on to the joint CUD letter to the, to RUS and the federal delegation. This is something that I've been working on with Evan Carlson from the Northeast Kingdom and some of the folks up there. And we, in addition to Laura Sabilia from the House Energy and Technology Committee, have been talking about the wisdom of essentially all lining up together and essentially presenting a unified front and saying we want to kind of defend our, we want to defend the funding. We want it to go in a sensible direction and we want to make sure that people actually get broadband out of it. So the, the title that we have on the kind of the working copy that we're going through right now is the letter of support for prioritization of funding for CUDs. And this is, you know, talking about some of the past funding decisions that have been made at the federal level, some of the upcoming funding that's coming. And the idea is to at least get out there and be almost like, almost a statewide push to say, here's, here's why we think our model is going to work and what and why we think that, you know, certain funding should be preserved for us, not for parties who will remain nameless, but who previously not essentially, it's not paid off. I mean, the federal investment has, you know, made some moderate moves forward, but if not, kind of scraps that itch of universal coverage. So I'm, I'm happy to send that to everybody when we're done with it. We're still kind of plowing through bits and pieces here. And I don't know that I necessarily need a motion from everybody. If you are willing to, to trust me with the wording and put the power of the board behind it, I would happily hear a motion to that. Otherwise, I will write it as just simply as chair as myself as a position statement, which is something that you, the board has previously authorized the chair to do. If there's something that you think needs to be mentioned in there, let me know. I'm not, I'm not terribly interested. Sorry, I'm not terribly interested in having 100 cooks in the kitchen and giving you access and having you wordsmith this with me. I haven't worked on enough academic projects to know that that just doesn't work. If you have suggestions, ideas, please send them my way. I will do my best to incorporate them. And I will send you the final product, which I'm sure will be horribly terribly flawed and just miserable and, you know, not meeting anybody's requirements or whatever. But if you have things that you think that we need to mention, let me know. What's your preference? Would you like the board to sort of endorse this, this letter or get behind it? I mean, again, I would like to go ahead and make a motion that the board stand by this letter. Okay, I hear a motion. I would like to see the letter before we endorse it. Okay, well, that's why I'm unfortunately, I was working on a little bit more today. And again, if you did see the letter, it would not be changeable because what we're trying to do is we're trying to get a letter that's going in front of the kingdom, that's going to the other CUDs, EC fiber, and getting everyone to say, yes, we're going to co-sign this. So I'm going to either sign it as chair, or I will sign it as the whole board. So I think I thought I heard David seconding this. Is that right, David? Okay. I'm sorry. It's seconded. Can we have discussion now? Yep, that's what I'm hoping to have right now. Okay. Remind me again, who is it addressed to? It is addressed to RUS and our federal delegation. And I presume it's going to be passed along to the FCC as well. So essentially the various funding speeds are broadband. Jeremy, what is RUS? Rural Utility Service, which I believe there, I mean, so that was, that was just what I happened to put this on the agenda as, because that was the subject line of an email that Laura Sebelia had sent. But there's, yeah, there's kind of a broader audience here as well. What's the... Go ahead, Ray, if you want. Yeah. So, Jared, let's just say we need $100 million and CV5, we need $15 million, everybody needs whatever, and the timing of the flow of the money. What's the purpose of the letter? No, the purpose of the letter is, hey, there's all of this federal funding. There's all this various sort of funding out there. We want you to think real hard about where you're putting it and think about previous actual performance. And even though we're an untested entity, we're going to follow this pattern of actually delivering on 100% coverage in the footsteps of EC Fiber. So this is Ken. You know, we have to recognize that a reason for this letter is to make it harder for RUS to give VTEL money. VTEL is applied for money through RUS. Laura Stabilia hates VTEL with a passion, and so that's a reason she's behind it. So hey, I'm not sure how effective it is. This is a program that RUS runs. I just, I wish there was a better way of understanding the role of VTEL, but let's be clear that that is the intent of the letter. Is there any other, any other groups that are going to be cut out of this that we want to make sure are cut out of it, like Comcasts and others? We're not, we're not naming anyone. The idea here is that we're saying we have this model that's, you know, here to for worked, that we're trying to duplicate and we think is going to get to 100% coverage more cheaply and with better governance and better accountability than any other solution out there. We are explicitly not saying don't go here. We are writing as a positive. We have this, we are doing this the right way. Fund us instead. And again, and I think Ken's right, does this actually change anything? I don't know. I mean, it's a, it's, Evan did an incredible amount of work on it over the weekend. I'm going and sort of doing more polishing and adding some parts that he kind of left blank. But yeah, I mean, I think it's a, it's, it's an opportunity to essentially be a unified front. I mean, with I think a combination with all the CDs 88 towns, which is a non trivial number of mods. It's that process and objectives work for me. Okay, Andy, you had something. Yeah, I was just going to get at the, you know, what's, does it matter whether you're doing it as the chair or as the board? I don't, I don't, you know, I'm comfortable either way. And I, you know, what you just said with having, having put a lot of work into it and knowing Evan too. So I, yeah, and the general outline you gave it, I'm good. So I, but I don't know if it matters semantically that you sign it as chair or as the board, I don't know. So could I make another comment? Jeremy, could I make another comment? Yeah, go ahead, Michael, my internet connection. Of course. So this leads into a long term conflict at the federal level between municipals and the private sector. It's the lobbyists have been fighting about it for a long time. And I don't have a position on it. I think it's great that I think the unified front is a really good thing. I think we should do a lot of things together. I think, I think addressing our congressional delegation is a really good idea. I'm not sure addressing USDA and FCC and NTIA of the Department of Commerce, those are the entities that don't allow money for broadband. I don't know that that will be productive because they work on it in a different way than accepting letters from interested parties. They, they, they have notices of proposed rulemaking and then there's ex parte discussions that all have to be posted publicly. And this whole legal process, I'm not, I'm not understanding how this works into that. But I, I think telling our congressional delegation that we want you to prioritize CUDs, I think that's a great idea. And I think everyone being together, it's a great idea. And particularly since Peter Welch is one of the principals on the rural broadband caucus in the, in the house, he has, he can use that to great effect, I think. So I, I, I like the idea in general. I'm not sure the targeted audience is exactly right. So that's my comment. And I haven't seen what it says. I'm sure it's well done, but it's always good to see something we're endorsing. Yeah. And I'm, I'm aware at a very high level of the sort of flunky mechanisms of those large federal bureaucracies. And I have no interest right now and have no ability to engage in that process at all. So, you know, is it just a, you know, is it the right way to engage in that, you know, in that bureaucracy? Yeah, almost certainly not. But on the other hand, I will set, we'll send it out, you know, do the open letter sort of thing and, you know, get it to, you know, Welch, Sanderson, Leitey, and if they have a way to sort of press buttons in a more effective way, that's, that's fine. They can go through the back door at RUS and talk, but, but for us to address it directly, I'm not sure that's effective. Okay, well, it's, but it's going to go to everyone. It's going to be a statement of like, Hey, here's, here's us, you know, this, and it's going to the delegation and to those places. And if it just gets, you know, circular bin, that's fine. That's whatever. So, Michael, do you think that it is going to be in any way counterproductive to send it to those entities? It's, I don't, I don't, I wouldn't assert that, but it's possible. Yeah, because, because there's a legal process for talking to those, those entities, and we just have to know how we're doing it. Usually, there's a lot of lawyers and lobbyists involved, and we're trying to do something sort of an end run around it, which, which is always cool. It's just, you need to know the game there. It's really different there than the Vermont legislature and departments in Vermont. And I, I, I have a bit of experience with it. And it's, it's, you have to have, you have to have organization behind you to follow up and, and make things work there. You know, send it. I'm not, I'm not against sending it. I'm just questioning how effective it might be, other than urging our congressional delegation to do good work for us. Jeremy, could I raise a question? Of course. Have you talked to Phil Seussman and at all about this? No, I haven't gotten on Phil's radar. I have a, honestly, almost as direct of a connection to, to Leahy as Phil. Okay, but that's what you're getting at. No, but the thing I'm thinking about, I, this is the third institution in which I've been a CIO and I can't believe the millions and federal dollars we've gotten from the feds. I've never been at an institution that's done that before. And Phil walks out the door and he rolls in with checks. I don't know how he does it. And, and it may be just worth five minutes to bend his ear. You may not get anything, but you may be surprised. Okay. Yeah, I would like to, if we could maybe set up a time in the next, next few days to have an offline conversation about this. It wouldn't be a waste of time. We may get nothing, but we may be surprised. I mean, I would personally like to talk to you, just you and me. All right, we could do that at first. I think that would be helpful. Jeremy, does this have any value with the state legislature? Yes, the state legislature. I mean, so at least the, the House committee that's, that's part of this conversation, they're, they're aware of this effort. So yes, very much so. Okay. So there remains a motion to, for the entire board to support this, this letter to RUS and the federal delegation. Any further discussion hearing none, I will assume that we have unanimous consent unless I hear otherwise. Okay. Hearing no objections. I'm assuming that the motion passes unanimously. Thank you all very much. I appreciate it. Once I finish that letter with Evan in the next few days, he's going to get it in front of his board. We have it in, we'll have it in front of the other CUDs by the end of the week. And I expect that they'll be approving it in some capacity by next week. We're, we're kind of shooting for Monday, I believe was the, was what, what our target date was. Okay. Moving on. We will see this letter. Oh yeah. Yeah. Yeah. What it's, what, when I'm, when it's done, when it's not being drafted and all that, every, everybody's going to see it. It's going to be an open letter. All right. Let's move on to the approval of the minutes as everyone had a chance to review Jeremy's minutes that were, he sent out today and quite a bit earlier last week, I believe. So if you're, if whatever reason you don't feel comfortable reviewing this just yet we, we are not obliged to approve it necessarily right now. If you wanted to hold off, we can do that. Otherwise, if you want to do a quick eyeballs over it, could these be approved on the ninth? Of course. Yeah. I'd like to read them over carefully first. Okay. I hear that as a motion from Frank to table that table this item until the ninth. Is there a second? Second. Okay. I heard a second from Michael. Any further discussion on tabling this to the ninth or would folks just rather vote it out now? Okay. Not everybody wants to choose. Okay. So I'm going, I'm going to assume we have unanimous consent to postpone this to the ninth minutes to May 9th. I will assume that we have unanimous consent unless I hear otherwise. Hearing no objections. I believe that we have unanimous approval on this and the motion passes. The approval of the minutes will be, we'll handle that at our regularly scheduled meeting on May 9th. Okay. That done. Michael, David, do you know if Fred is joining us? Actually, sorry. Just to call something out. I think our next regularly scheduled meeting is going to be May 12th. May 9th is a Saturday. Oh, yeah. I don't want to meet on a Saturday. Nor do I. Okay. So I'm going to just exert executive privilege and sort of retroactively change that motion to say the 12th. So, I mean, unless you want to do a Saturday, Saturdays can be nice. Maybe it'll be sunny. We can do this outdoors. Yeah. No. No. That's silly. Okay. That's done. May 12th. Attention to detail, Chuck. That's what I love about you. All right. So the question again to David or Michael or Business Development Project Committee folks, any knowledge about whether we are going to have Fred? Oh, I see. Greg just joined us. Let me add him as a panelist. Is Fred going to join us to talk about the feasibility study? You made the request and I don't remember seeing a reply. Okay. So, I mean, I thought he had the information and I, yeah, I didn't see a reply either. Okay. So what I'm going to do is I'm actually going to go back and hold on a second. What I would like to do is to keep possibly fall victim to the same hyperlink issue that was in the first email. It's possible, but I didn't see any sort of cries for help. Okay. What I want to do, though, is I'm going to send a copy. Now, this is all something that would have been sent out as part of the contract with Interisle. I'm just going to post this here for our own review in the chat. Oh, wow. Okay. That's not going to work. Let me put it as a text file. Let's go. So there's been some discussions about what Interisle ought to or ought not to be doing. Okay. So I saved it and then it disappeared. Lovely. All right. Stand by. There we go. Contract scope. And so what I'm hoping that we can do is if we're talking about the work that they're doing, okay. So you can't put a text file. They don't like text files. Okay. Can we put it in the Word documents? Or maybe print it. Yeah. That's possible. I'm going to try the Word doc first. There was some discussion about what they should be doing and what we should be seeing. And unfortunately, there was a lot of it that was just not part of what we asked them to do. So I just want to make sure that we're all working from the same place and contract scope. Can we get it there? So when we talk about what was supposed to be in the feasibility study, we asked for a certain specific set of things. And that's in that contract scope right there. That's literally just copied and pasted out of the contract. There's a lot of stuff that would be nice to have, of course, but it is simply not in there. The questions about money, for example, like what were the financial projections? Financial projections are not, at least at any sort of detail level, are not part of the feasibility study. Those come in as part of the business plan that they will work on once the feasibility study is done. That's a more detailed dive that is the second chunk of the broadband innovation grant funds. So the copy of the feasibility study that I sent you, and I think I explained this, I think I explained this, that it was very preliminary that the current process right now was for that draft to then go to the project committee, business development committee for them to review and give some feedback to Fred and for Fred to incorporate those changes and then make the final touches and include some data and things that were simply not in there. That meeting happened. That review was done. That feedback was sent to Fred. Fred will be putting the feasibility study, the final feasibility study together in the next, David, help me on the timeline, week? The next week, yes. That's what he told me. Okay. So we will have a feasibility study in front. Go ahead. He was finishing up the remote area analysis that he had done at all in the previous version. Okay. So while we could say it would be nice to see this or that in there realistically, I think we contracted for some work already and while there is a bit of Q&A back and forth that we can add to this, we can't really ask them to do any sort of substantially different work than what we contracted for. So I just want everybody to be clear about that. Go ahead, David. We did the committee, you know, when we met with them and we met separately without we all had our comments and we consolidated all our comments and sent it back to Fred. So they're pretty extensive comments for those who had already looked at the preliminary draft there. I mean, he left out some significant chunks that we're expecting to see and added more than we didn't expect to see. But any event, he did get a lot of comments from us and hopefully they'll be addressed in the version we get back. You know, just on the topic of financials, the scope did include to perform a financial projections as the third to last item. And so, you know, obviously that can be left up to interpretation as to just how detailed that expectation might be since it doesn't explicitly call out. Does this include, you know, three years worth of potential OPEX responding specifically to Andy's comments that he passed around? And so, you know, I do think we're going to get to three years worth of projection to show cash flow positive. There does have to be some amount of that that's done at the feasibility phase ahead of even a much more detailed business plan where you likely would get into, well, what aspect of it is marketing spend versus OPEX? More down to like a P&L level detail. The Chuck just said exactly what I was going to say. And we do have an understanding with Fred that that will be done. So there are financials coming. It's just not going to be, you know, deeply detailed. But enough to, I mean, we have to assert to the Department of Public Service that this project is feasible and they have to look at it and feel comfortable with that report and say, yep, you can proceed. And so, it's a requirement. He has to get performers in there that show three-year feasibility. Well, actually, the three years was for Vita was for the Department. So that's the way I said it the first time. Yeah, so I think the question there is level of comfort around financial modeling done from a top down perspective versus a bottom up perspective. Obviously, when you're getting to a business plan, you want more bottom up modeling. But for pro forma, we probably need to be comfortable with top down and live with the fact that once bottom up is done, there's likely going to be differences and things that were missed and so far. Yeah, I'd also like to point out that we still have a stand on the hook from Valley Net who's agreed to do a lot of that work for us when we get to that point. So when the feasibility study is done, I'm expecting that, you know, we're going to have some of those more realistic specific costs. You know, what are what are EC fibers operating expenses? He can tell you exactly down to the scent. So, yeah, we should have a pretty good we should have a pretty good answer after we kind of big picture know what's possible. So, David or Michael, would you would you be willing to kind of tell the rest of the board what our next steps are? I mean, in terms of the feasibility study business plan, Fred and such? Well, we were hoping that tonight would be the presentation of Fred's board of the plan based on our review. So we obviously still have to do that. I saw, you know, the next meeting will have Fred formally present the feasibility study. And, you know, from our work with him thus far, it looks, you know, we basically came up here for those who have read the preliminary feasibility study, you saw that he's come up with what he thought was the best pilot area and then he's had five other routes that he's developed. And one of the major things we asked him to change was the name of the routes. So right now they're all going to be called colors. There's going to be a blue route, an orange route, a yellow route, green route, and a salmon colored route, because all the routes go through multiple towns in some degree or another. So we decided that was easiest way to to refute the who's getting what first, not quite anyway. And he based the pilot project pretty much on the density of structures, premises on a road, and not on, I mean, if you're saying not on not on cable. And so that's how those routes were developed. And we sort of went along with that. We were giving him a, you know, the leeway to make those recommendations because we certainly weren't capable of doing that. In terms of what else we hope to see, he's supposedly doing a radio study on where the areas that he can't reach, I just think are easy to reach because of the slow densities. And then come back with I know he's doing numbers. I'm taking take rates is one of the things was missing in the preliminary version was I mean, he had all the survey data and he had, you know, that's, you know, not perfect survey. There's some good sense of what what we thought people were willing to pay for. So he's going to do multiple, I think a 50 or 60% take rate over time on the routes these he's proposing to see whether they work out the cash flow piece. Michael, what else is he going to come back with? You remember? Um, nothing's jumping up right now pretty well. The other thing I've done for those who didn't weren't on the committee. I have taken the routes and put them into my software made them a lot more pretty. Plus I've done some work that they didn't I mean they may have been doing it but I've been the junkie that I am. I've summarized all the structures of premises by this the current level of service offered. And that'll be in hopefully they'll put that in the report. David, what is the data source on that? Is that self reported by the current ISPs? Because you know, I have consolidated and they're supposed to be doing 10-1 and three three down 768 kilobits the best I can buy. Well, we have to use whatever data the department put out. And yeah, in this case, I mean the the more town little sex was to root. There's a lot of underserved under 33% of the properties are underserved on that route, which means they're only in that 4-1. So I'm feeling like I probably did a pretty good job of taking it root. And I think when we get down to it, you can't I mean the department was very low to release that data. And you know right now it's sort of a critical piece of how we work. And so I was happy that they did that. They did that in the course. Actually they did it under a little bit of pressure from CB fiber because we didn't know where to go. And so I'm feeling good about that. Fred, if you have a question, yes, that's that's speeds as reported by providers, not verified by the department. However, they did put out a map that you can click on each residence and you can actually complete a survey by address. So that's shock if you if they're reporting a particular speed, you can click on your address and you can say nope. I just pasted a link to that in the chat. Oh, thank you. Jeremy, I'm going to I'm going to make sure that that's visible to the entire audience. As a survey method, this is Tom Fisher. I would have very little expectation of lots of people being able to find their way through that and get to the survey and fill it out. It was not straightforward at all. I agree. So yeah, so in Senate Finance Committee today, they actually folks from DPS were actually, you know, imploring the legislature, the individual legislators to say, if you're hearing from a constituent that doesn't have service or you want to advertise this, have them click on their house here and take that survey because that's information then that DPS can then take and give to us. And that we could, you know, we or other CUDs can then act upon that if we know somebody isn't happy, if we know somebody doesn't have service when there is service reported, that's, you know, that's an opportunity for CUDs to fix that, I think. It is. I'm just saying that we may end up with a bit of a bias on the results we get back. Oh, sure. Sure. I'm sure that's the case. So I have a question about the timeline with the project and whatever in terms of going from the feasibility study to the business plan. There's there's some point where we should probably decide where our pilot is going to be so that when we go and do the business plan, we actually have a concrete number of, well, how many polls, you know, not the engineering level, but so that we have an understanding that if we do choose the the westerly route or the maroon route or the green route or whatever it happens to be, that we have some a lot more concrete numbers to put in front of Vita. When are we as the board going to be making that decision in your in your eyes, David? In my eyes or in the teams, I sure whatever the consensus, at least my point of view was they did their, you know, the nitty gritty of their work is done on the pilot that they thought was the best pilot. If we want to, you know, take issue with that, that's fine, I think, but the data that they did all their financial work so far on those on that route, based on the polls and the train and the need for whatever hardware they need to put for, I don't know, the technical terms on any of these things where they have to connect to the velco fiber to another box and put in a cabinet someplace. I assume they could probably, you know, quickly redo that for some, well, I mean, not quickly, but could do it for another route. My one, I mean, and we're going to get to this today, we may be ending up doing more than one route anyway. That was my follow up. And my feeling is that they've picked six pretty good routes. They probably, you know, probably could use some input more from the board on what I'll say, I'll look at maybe a seventh route, there's some middle mile, middle areas in there that didn't get too much coverage. But from the most part, you know, I was pretty happy with what they could come up with in terms of coverage and connectivity. Michael? Yeah, I'd like to add to that. So they actually did not do all the data for the middle sex, Worcester, more town route. What they did was they did a little a section of it that they could do in depth. And then they extrapolated from that what it might might cost to do. And they use the same data for all the other areas as well. So there's a proposed pilot. And there was also the sample area that they used as a quick way to extrapolate costs everywhere. And I think the final report will have a comparison of them all. I hope so. I would think they've done enough work to do that. And one other thing about the cost in the draft, the partial draft that got circulated, you saw some numbers like 1.6 million or 1.7 million. Those were not complete figures. Those were figures for a certain portion of the cost of doing that. They left out such things as make ready and engineering. And then there's OPEX. So there's a number of other things that will appear in the completed feasibility study that will really change what we saw. And we told them to make their best guess as to what would be the best choice to meet the objectives the department and VEDA put out for us. And we told them, don't choose the ones where we live, choose the ones you think are the best. We as a board can overrule them. We can say, no, we'd rather it goes to orange than it goes to Worcester. We can do that. But we hired them to give us their best judgment. And so we'll have to have pretty good reasons, I would think, to overrule their suggestion. But I agree with Jeremy and David. It's possible to be able to do two or one and a half of them. And then when we get around to this other discussion of what came up today from the department, there may be other money. So we may be able to do a VEDA funded thing and a grant funded thing and an ARDA funded. There's all these different possibilities. We may be able to get further than we expected earlier than we expected. This is Jerry, if I could just add to that a little bit. Can you all hear me? Yes. Okay, great. Thanks. Yeah, I, you know, my takeaway from this, regardless of where the first implementation takes place is that we do have a feasible situation. You know, the numbers aren't finalized and we don't know exactly what the take rates are. But if you take a 20,000 foot perspective on what InterIsle has done and what David's surveys are telling us, it looks like we have something that's implementable. And a lot of what we do next is going to depend on whether the money that we're using are grants or loans. And I think we need to be prepared for the bigger picture. You know, it's, it's when we were looking at figuring that we needed a loan and we, you know, we needed three years to be able to cover expenses, et cetera. But I think it would be a very good thing if we were also, on the other hand, feeling ready to take all of what they've presented as phase one under the possibility of getting, you know, big grant money. It may be out there. Which I think is, it's probably a logical place now to segue to the DPS proposal that just, that came out today that was in front of Senate Finance. Because if I can boil it down, one of the major suggestions there was that the state of Vermont take various pools of money, one of them, you know, the stimulus funding that came directly to the states and essentially establish something like a reverse auction, an Ardolf style reverse auction for every town in Vermont and giving the CUD's authority over any towns in their district. So they would essentially establish subsidies for all of those places and all of those towns where Ardolf doesn't have a footprint. So it would not conflict with Ardolf funding. So any place on the map that you saw that there was an Ardolf shaded area, we would be able to go after potentially, we'd be able to go after state of Vermont reverse auction funding in the same sort of way. There was also talk in there about providing, having the Vermont provide that letter of credit required for CUD's and such to go after the Ardolf money as well, which is super, super exciting because that really opens up a lot of doors for us. And something I communicated to folks on the committee separate from that meeting, as I said, there was a question about, well, are the CUDs able to go at bigger projects? Are they able to take a bigger bite? And my response was, we're looking at a four million dollar pilot because that's the size of the pot of money that was offered from VEDA. Now, what if we had a 20 million dollar pot to work from? Could we make it? Could we have a pilot project that's five times larger? I said, yes. Is it going to take longer to physically build out? Sure. Is it going to be more complicated to engineer? Sure. But I think there's a lot of value to building that bigger project. Your network design, I think, is going to be better. I think it's going to be cheaper overall rather than taking five separate bites at the Apple. So, I mean, I think there's some interesting things afoot. And the Senate Finance Committee and the folks from DPS who are in that meeting were thinking like not whether this is a good idea, but how we can move forward, how we can make this work. I mean, obviously, devils and details and such, and they acknowledge that. But this was like, it was kind of strange because this was one of the first times that it sounded like people at the state were willing to actually write checks and actually subsidize the construction of broadband in Vermont, which has happened in drips and drabs, but not like this. I mean, if you look at the, if you look at that link that I posted, Clay is talking about $90 million to $200 million and changed million dollars of subsidies to build 100, 100 symmetric broadband everywhere in Vermont where there's not already 253. So, anywhere we have cable and better, we're essentially just going to forget about those areas right now. Anywhere that's not cabled, we're going to talk about building fiber. That was their thrust. That was the pitch. And to me, that was super exciting. What do you got, Ray? My question is, do we lock up ValiNet early before somebody else perhaps gets them as a partner to possibly get started earlier and build something this big? Is there any other partner we could have in which we could take on $10 million project? Wait, so there's others. So, I sent out the request this week to five ISPs, ValiNet, Telco, Waitfield, Champlain Telecom, and RV Technologies, Cloud Alliance, and Vito. What's our timeline for all of that, Dave? Pardon me? What's our timeline for all of that? I told them May 10th, I wanted to get a reply back to an interest by May 10th. So far, I get a reply from Vito, an email from Vito. So, another element in that proposal today was I thought was a little scary. And that is they also want to establish a fund for cable line extension. And so, that sets up a competition. It's not clear. Certainly, it was a very brief proposal, but that's also opens the door for Comcast in our area to say, okay, if you're going to put up a fund there, and I just don't know how we consider competition. Yeah, that was interesting. If I understood that correctly, Ken, that was only to accelerate cable line extensions that Comcast is already required to do under agreements regarding some penalties they sustain. And so, that's going to happen. It's just going to happen faster if they can make it happen. I read it as they were establishing a fund to do that. It was to help Comcast meet its obligations early. So, they would subsidize Comcast to some extent to meet that obligation early. Yeah, but then Clay gave you an example of there are citizens who want an extension, a connection to Comcast or a thousand feet away, and Comcast wants to charge a lot of money. This fund would fund that individual to get the money to pay Comcast to extend it to them. That's what I heard Clay say later in the meeting. Anyway, we should probably keep going. There was a map that Clay showed distributing all the money to all the towns, and did you send that out to everybody? I'll put it up right now. Hold on. Anyway, the money ranged in CV5's territory. Calis was 2.29 million. Worcester was a million. Middlesex was 1.8 million. Motown was 0.84 million. Northfield was 2.38 million. Orange was 2 million. Plainfield was 1.25 million. So, they're tired of a lot of money. If we lump some of those together, couldn't we theoretically fund a lot of the portions of those routes that we're looking at? Absolutely, but you need to understand this is still just a theory. They don't have the cash. The plan is that maybe they almost set it in the meeting. Maybe they'll get the governor and the legislature to agree to use some of the 1.25 billion they're sitting on right now. But of course, the state colleges are looking for that money. Everybody's looking for that money. So, it's going to be a big battle. So, some of that money may come from there. Some of that money may come from FEMA when they do disaster relief later. Some of it may come from a broadband infrastructure bill from the feds. They don't know where the money is coming from yet. But this is a merely fleshed out plan. It'll be out on 5th of May, I guess, so very soon. So, when the money is available, they know exactly what to do with it. But they can't, they're not giving us anything yet. They're giving us a really good plan and let's hope it works out. Where do they come up with the estimates? Where do the numbers come from? From the Magellan report to the utilities. Magellan studied what it would cost to get fiber to every underserved location in the state and they're using those numbers and they're high. And so, the reverse auction will end up reducing these numbers. So, the total for the state is 293 million bucks. And, you know, there'll be a competition. Will bid, you know, the CD5 or might bid, there's R18 towns and consolidated or someone else might bid against this and then it's going to go to the lowest bidder. And so, the number will go lower. That's a reverse auction. That's the way it works. It's the same way our adopter has worked. But again, that it would require 100-100 symmetric and then there would be the, I mean, if it's run the same way as our adopter, fiber is essentially top tier and if consolidated or whoever is not offering to build fiber, then that's not going to be, it won't even be competed with. They won't be allowed to bid because this plan only talks about 100-100. There's no 25-3 category. Right. Out of curiosity, what do they mean by the CUDs will have authority over their areas? That seemed like an odd phrase to me. So, let's see. It's in 1F under long-term broadband deployment measures, grants, communications, union districts, decision-making authority over grants made within their borders. So, right of first refusal perhaps or, you know, if or we get or they delegate authority for us to decide who gets the grants in our district, which seems kind of silly conflict of interest in Sustuous or something like that, if that's what they mean. But yeah, it would be good to have a bit of clarity of what that exactly means. My interpretation of that, and this certainly could be mistaken, was that if towns tried to roll out their own program and existing CUD that covers that town would be granted authority over that town's individual attempts. But again, it's a little bit loose. I don't know. I was wondering if the money has to be spent in that town or if a CUD has money from six different towns or more, they can say, oh, I'm actually going to not spend it all necessarily in those towns as allocated or if that's actually required. It's no. This is paying for service in those towns. There's an expectation that if you take that money, you're going to provide service to everybody that fills that requirement. Please, if RDOF is something different, Michael, they did say they wanted to mirror that. So, somebody please correct me if I'm misinterpreting that. The only difference is in RDOF, it's census block groups, but you can't spread it to some other census block groups. Whatever you bid on, you have to build in that area and you have to serve in RDOF. You have to serve every location, even the ones that are underserved. The state wasn't saying that. They were saying you only have to serve the underserved, which is more liberal. However, since they're scattered all over the place, you tend to have to overbuild some other stuff to get there. And so, there will be a bunch of overbuilding involved. And one thing I was thinking about during the hearing was I can't wait for the Comcast attorneys to get ahold of this. Okay. Anything else that folks want to talk about with this DPS proposal? I'll just take the last word then. I think it's exciting, terrible that it took something like the pandemic to kind of push this forward, but at least everybody's taking it seriously and seeing actual real broadband as something that's as important as electricity or water nowadays. So good to finally see some movement on that. So I apologize to move back to the prior topic, but just in terms of the next steps on that topic, I was coming away a little bit unclear as to what we intend to do about the feasibility state. Are we simply just going to invite Fred to come to the May 12th meeting instead and hope the presentation happens then? Well, we'll tell them we expect the presentation to happen then. I mean, he's a week or so behind at this point. I mean, kind of makes sense with everything in topsy-turvy. And the folks that are funding our broadband innovation grant have already said we understand that you need more flexibility with your timeline. So just be, you know, we'll be flexible with you. So I'm happy to be a bit flexible with Fred as well in this case, but I think, yeah, I think we're expecting to see final feasibility on the 12th then. I'm hoping the Business Development Committee sees it sooner than that so we can... Well, you better. Because that was part of the process. That was part of the expected sequence. Okay. So I think we're out of agenda items then. Does anybody else have... David, anything else on this? Yeah, I have a conversation today. I've been working on the Northern Border Regional Commission application, learning lots of things that we have to submit to get that money. And one of the things was making sure that the application was consistent with the regional plan. So I talked to Bonnie Warniger today pretty long. That was the reason I talked to her, but in the course of the conversation and some of the discussion that happened and sent it finance over the last week or two, the whole idea of funding of manager and executive director for the CUDS came up. And in the course of conversation, I said, do you have, you know, when the Regional Commission is being, you know, quite active in the CUDS in Southern Vermont, you have not been very active here and not that you need to have a role in it, but it'd be interesting to see what kind of, you know, relationship we could have with the Regional Planning Commission. And then that led into the discussion that she has office space. And they have typically, they have typically let, they can actually do payroll for another organization. So I said, huh, this is all kind of interesting. So I just thought, I'd let everybody know that's not, and a mailing address. It's in Montpelier, whether for good or for bad. So that was good. And then she said also they'd be willing to help do a grant rating. So it's a really great conversation and need to follow up with her. And she said more than, and she's really happy to give us a letter of recommendation for our proposal. And she also mentioned that she'd been talking to the guy at the Central Vermont Economic Development Corporation, whatever his name is, what's his name? And there's a lot of money out of EDA coming out in the next two years, like a lot of money. She said it's pretty loosey-goosey in terms of what you can fund. And, but they were thinking there was a big opportunity for Central Vermont and using that kind of money to do projects. And she was encouraging us to look at that. And I said, well, how much paperwork do they require? And she says, well, if you thought USDA was a lot of paperwork, EDA has more. I said, well, let's talk about it later. Anyway, so I was encouraged there with that conversation about, you know, finding some resources to help us, maybe also finding some money to move things more administratively for us. So, David, I heard there was executive director. Was there any expansion on that discussion? Well, I don't know. You know, this is all spurred on by Andy. Good. And Andy put a great letter to the committee. It was the Senate House, was the House Energy and Technology Committee. And so there was some really good discussion about, yeah, you can't run these things on a shoestring. And the department was pretty much agreeing on that. And then today, I didn't hear them exactly say they were going to provide money to help CUDs work, but it seems to me you can't, you can't expect to spend money, that kind of money without providing money to operate. So I don't know. There was no committee on committals. Well, no, it was in the proposal. It's number three, number three A, provide direct support to communications union districts through the state's broadband innovation grant program for administrative and grant writing support. That was, they put that in there at that request that we made. So thank you, Andy. It was the wife puppy dog that wrote the letter. Yeah, he didn't throw it across the room. No, she's, yeah, it's good. All right. Okay. So, all right. So I'm seeing a round table on the agenda next. David, do you want to add anything else? You kind of had the round table there. Done. Done. All right. Allen Gilbert, anything you'd like to add? No, I'm good. Thanks. Good meeting. All right. Andy? I'm pretty good. I'm still a little, I'll wait until we see the feasibility study. Yeah, I'm good. Okay. Chuck? Almost there. Thank you, everyone. Sure. Frank? I'm like Andy waiting for the feasibility study. All righty. Great. Yeah, I'm good. Okay. Jared? Uh, nothing to add. Thanks. Okey-dokey. Jeremy? I just thanks everyone for your work and really hope that we can get fiber to my house very soon. Jeremy, I have a question. Yeah, go for it. Are we limited to six webcams on this form of go-to-meeting? Because every time I tried to activate my webcam, it said we were already at our maximum. Yeah, same here. Yep. Oh, I had no idea. I wanted you all to see my pretty face. Okay. Oh, just let me on. All right. I will look at this at the settings and we'll see if we can do this better next time. Or maybe if I do this as I go to meeting and just lock it down, maybe that will work better when I go to webinar. The reason I do that is it sort of defends against the zoom bombing garbage where people who you don't know can essentially seize the, seize the meeting. Apparently that's been corrected with new versions. Yeah, except I was on the Duxbury select board meeting last night. They did not have it set up right. Somebody accidentally, you know, shared their desktop and they were looking through their Gmail and it took them about a minute to tell the guy we don't need to see your emails. Lucky that's all it was. Yes, that is exactly right. That would be horribly embarrassing. All right. Jerry. Nothing more for me. Thank you all. All right. John Russell. Good meeting. I have nothing to add. All right. Thanks, John. Jonathan, dearly departed, Jonathan. Already departed. No, he's still here. He just unmuted. So, Josh. I just want to say thank you for everyone's hard work that they've put in and I'm really looking forward to the final feasibility study and can't wait to start moving forward. Thank you. Yeah, I'm going to be a bit of a wet blanket. I'm really concerned about all the emergency actions that are going on with a particular subset about the fixed wireless discussions and, you know, establishing these emergency connections. And if indeed next September, our kids don't go back to school, there will be a very, very significant push to provide them connections and it's not going to be through fiber. And so I'm concerned about that. It's going to cut and also I'm, you know, pretty strong believer we're going to see a very, very significant economic challenge as a result of high, very, you know, 20%, 25% unemployment. So, anyway, I don't know the path, but again, I just want to express my pretty deep concern that I'm not sure where the fixed wireless fits into any of these discussions. And then the other positive of that also is, they, you know, they put there as a separate number on today's proposal, but it's the mobile wireless, which again could use some of the same infrastructure that we're talking about in terms of providing service along roads. And that could be a revenue stream. So, I just, I want more, more of the thinking to take place and largely it's the state, it's not our responsibility, but I need more of that thinking to take place so that we, as we move forward, we have a much more certain terrain that we're working under, rather than, you know, stringing up a lot of fiber and then finding a lot of poor folks that can't subscribe and they're served by other folks. Ken, is this something that you're concerned about the fixed wireless? Is this something that we could piggyback in that letter that I'm putting together? Would you be able, willing to put some notes together that I can kind of tack in there, because that's something that's going to impact not just us here in Central Vermont, certainly folks elsewhere as well. I can try. Yeah, I'll send language and I'll leave it to you to, to see if it can weave in. Yeah, I mean, you know, even if there's kind of some bullet points of where there's the most important things that we need to make sure we mention, even if it's not fully full blown narrative, I'm reasonably good at, you know, spinning that out and incorporating it. So, but I would, I would love to have your concerns addressed in that because I, I think, I think in terms of DPS is that they're probably not fully seeing that. And while these, this letter is not to them necessarily, they're definitely going to be reading it. Hey, do my best. Thank you, Ken. Michael. I share Ken's concerns. As a matter of fact, right now, June Tierney and Belko and others are urging emergency wisps to be built right away. And now they're proposing fiber everywhere instead. And it's curious. I'm working with another whisk to build something in Eastern part of the Northeast Kingdom from birth down to Concord and Moonenburg, a whole new whisk. And it's at their instigation. And yet today in the meeting, they never mentioned fixed wireless at all, but they, they understood that fixed wireless is the quickest way to get a lot of people good service. So I, I agree with Ken that and, and especially in the context that, so this is an aspirational thing, 293 million or less for fiber all over the place. I can't imagine Phil Scott releasing all of that. I can imagine possibly getting it from broadband infrastructure bill, but who knows what restrictions will be on that. It's possible that the only way we serve everybody is a mixture. And that's why we've always been looking at that. That's why Brett is studying that. And to just leave fixed wireless out is, is risky. So I really agree with what Ken said. So on the, on the same, on the same notes to Ken, then if there are things related to that that you would like to see in the multi-CUD letter, please, you know, please forward that to me. Next 24 hours would be ideal because I expect to be finishing my edits to that by tomorrow noon or one, probably. And just to throw in, and Evan Carlson is very much behind this project that we're trying to put together. So that's interesting too. Sure is. There's a lot of moving parts here, obviously. I'm excited to hear about all the different possibilities for additional funding. Some of it we might be able to access, although I think, you know, there's a lot more for us to know as we move forward. I'm anxious to see that final feasibility study and then think about moving on to the, to the business plan. But, and again, David, you know, thanks again for all of your work and good meeting. Thanks, Phil. Right. So I don't think financial sustainability is going to be the barrier. I think there's going to be a lot of grant money. I think the sooner that we can get to engineering, the sooner we can get to a scalable, the sooner we can be shovel ready, we're going to get the money. And if we can get to engineering as quickly as possible, because that's the money's going to start flowing then. This again, I don't think that financial sustainability is going to be the issue. We're going to get there. But they're going to give us millions of dollars of grant money to plan for it. Okay. Sounds good. Thanks, Ray. Tom. Echo Ray's thoughts there. Also, I had an interesting email come through work yesterday from, I work for Efficiency Vermont. And the director of emerging technologies kind of reached out and said that they're going to be meeting with the state this week to talk about broadband connectivity issues in Vermont and how Efficiency Vermont can aid in that. Of course, the connection is not an immediately obvious one. And so she was kind of reaching out to me and being, okay, so what are your thoughts on this? And I thought I would just throw it out to solicit the group here and see if anybody has any immediate thoughts. Some of the initial thoughts I had were that there wasn't the feasibility study, a comment about how home run lines are less energy efficient than the PON structure. I didn't know how much energy is involved there or if that's not much. But then also I know that we do a lot of like weatherization programs and smart thermostats, flexible load management work and that sort of thing, fleet management, all that, it requires connectivity to work. And so I was suggesting maybe we could look at how could we incentivize some of the connections to faster internet speeds as being part of the incentive programs that we're allowed. It's just kind of an idea to throw up. I just want to throw that up to the European states and other thoughts. Yeah, this is Ken. So it is another one of the topics. I work on rate design with the public service department. And it is so it is very clear that both heat pumps and electric vehicle charging stations require communication with the grid so that their utilization doesn't lead to extreme peaks. They look at models and now the way electric vehicles, if run by default, people will charge them at home when they get home and that's exactly the wrong time. So they need to be internet connected. And so this has been a topic to make sure that homes for those particular appliances, heat pumps and electric vehicle charging, make sure they have sufficient internet connections so that the utility can communicate and not lead us to real significant peak issues. The House Energy and Technology Committee, if you haven't talked to Brian Aughtley from Green Mount Power, he has a great line of thought about why utilities need to be doing fiber to every house to manage loads. So he is, I've known him for a long time, he's a very smart person and I'm sure efficiency from others probably dealt with him in the past. He was really towing a great line of thought about energy justice as well, which I thought was an interesting comment to come from somebody in a utility. David, would you put Tom in touch with him? Like do like an introduction? Yep, cool. Thank you. Anything else, Tom? No, that was primary. If anybody has any other ideas that come through, feel free to send me an email. I'll pass them along. Great. Thank you very much. All right, Trev, our new board member, any thoughts or last additions? No, good meeting so far, appreciate it. I echo a lot of folks' comments, Phil, Ray, et cetera, with regards to the revenue streams and wanting to see the feasibility status. And again, I got some catch up to do here, so thank you. That sounds good. All right, I don't have anything else really to add. Thanks all for entertaining this additional meeting two weeks after we had the previous one, and I guess we will see you all again in two weeks, then. Thank you, everyone. That was good. Thanks. See you then. Bye-bye.