Low Cost Strategy and the Internet by dwg79480

VIEWS: 25 PAGES: 56

More Info
									             FINAL REPORT



        High-Speed Internet
Deployment and Adoption Strategy
          Recommendations
                   for the
        State of Washington


                 Prepared by:
           CBG Communications, Inc.
                     for the
       Department of Information Services
               in consultation with
   the High-Speed Internet Strategy Work Group




               December 1, 2008
High-Speed Internet Strategy Final Report                                                                     December 1, 2008

                                                      Table of Contents
                                                                                                                           Page No.
Executive Summary......................................................................................................... iv

Introduction and Background.........................................................................................1

Recommendations .............................................................................................................4

Summary of HSIS Deployment and Adoption Strategy .........................................40

Implementation Plan and Timeline ..............................................................................42

Attachments ......................................................................................................................48


A. Synopsis of the UTC Broadband Disparity Study
B. Enabling Legislation
C. Open Records in Washington State
     C.1 Presentation on Public Records Act Chapter 42.56 RCW
D. Other States’ Protection of Proprietary and Competitively Sensitive Information
     D.1 Presentation on Other States’ Protection of Proprietary and Competitively Sensitive
     Information
E. Synopsis of Electricity, Telephone and Cable Television Deployment and Adoption History
F. Other States’ Broadband Mapping Initiatives
G. Vermont Telecommunications Authority
H. Possible Federal Funding for State Mapping Initiatives
I. Proposed High-Speed Internet Service Definition
J. Mapping and Inventory Features
     J.1 Revised Mapping and Inventory Features
K. Potential Public Infrastructure to Map and Inventory
     K.1 Revised Potential Public Infrastructure to Map and Inventory
L. Third Party and In-House GIS Mapping Considerations
M. Local Technology Planning Teams (LTPTs)
N. Presentation - Connected Nation - LTPT
O. Presentation - Connect Communities Network - LTPT
P. Costs of Other States’ Initiatives



                                                                     i
High-Speed Internet Strategy Final Report                                     December 1, 2008

Q. Status Report to the Legislature
R. Briefing by Washington State University Extension on Community Technology Opportunity
      Program - Low-Cost Computer and Technology Programs
      R.1 Presentation on Community Technology Opportunity Program
S. Infrastructure and Service Mapping and Inventory Features
T. Best Practices Concerning High-Speed Internet Metrics
U. Current Barriers to High-Speed Internet Adoption and Approaches Needed to Overcome
      these Barriers
V. Examples of Ordinances Requiring Placement of Additional Conduit During Construction
W. Offered and Realized Internet Service Speeds
X. Outcomes of State Mapping Efforts and Impact on High-Speed Internet Adoption
Y. Western Climate Initiative
Z. Comparison of “High-Speed Internet” Definitions
AA.      Comparison of Federal and State Legislation
BB.      High-Speed Internet Service and Infrastructure Information Collected by Other States
CC.      High-Speed Internet and Network Connections Needed for Telehealth and Telemedicine
         Applications
DD.      Indiana’s High-Speed Internet Initiative
EE.      Additional Information on Local Technology Planning Teams
FF.      Telecommunications and High-Speed Internet Glossary
GG.      Federal Public Law 110-385 - Broadband Data Improvement Legislation
HH.      Compilation of information provided by Work Group Members in response to a wide
         variety of questions and issues including:
         HH.a Responses to Questions from High-Speed Internet Strategy Work Group from
         August 7, 2008
         1.   The definition of high-speed internet;
         2.   The key elements that should be included in high-speed internet maps and
              inventories;
         3.   How these maps and inventories should be kept, displayed and utilized;
         4.   What data is and isn’t proprietary and confidential;
         5.   Who should have access to proprietary and confidential data and for what purpose;
         6.   The best mechanisms for shielding proprietary and confidential data;



                                                    ii
High-Speed Internet Strategy Final Report                                      December 1, 2008

      7.    The most important attributes of residential and business high-speed internet
            adoption;
      8.    The best way to track adoption;
      9.    The best way to make such information available;
      10.   How best to use such information to enhance high-speed internet deployment and
            adoption
      HH.b Responses to Questions from High-Speed Internet Strategy Work Group from
      October 8, 2008
      1.    The definition of local as it applies to local technology planning teams;
      2.    The makeup of such teams and whether such teams already exist;
      3.    How they should be funded;
      4.    The best way to facilitate such teams;
      5.    How such teams would conduct a needs assessment;
      6.    How they would work collaboratively with providers; and
      7.    The key indicators of successful efforts of such teams.




                                                 iii
High-Speed Internet Strategy Final Report                             December 1, 2008

                               Executive Summary
During the 2008 legislative session, the Legislature enacted and the Governor signed
Second Engrossed Substitute Senate Bill 6438 (E2SSB 6438) that required the
development of a statewide High-Speed Internet Deployment and Adoption Strategy.
The Department of Information Services (DIS) was charged with the responsibility of
developing this strategy in consultation with a High-Speed Internet Strategy Work Group
(Work Group).       The Work Group was a diverse cross-section of government,
community, education, business, non-profit, economic development, health care,
technology, union, public utility, and service provider interests. CBG Communications,
Inc. (CBG) assisted DIS in facilitating the Work Group meetings and in developing the
strategy, as well as the associated report.

Between July 2008 and November 2008, the Work Group met, reviewed, and discussed
a wide variety of information, perspectives, and opinions concerning six major topic
areas specified by E2SSB 6438 as part of its role in advising DIS. These major topic
areas included:

   •   Develop geographic information system maps and inventories, of public and
       private high-speed internet infrastructure

   •   Address management of proprietary and competitively sensitive data

   •   Spur development of high-speed internet (HSI) resources across the state

   •   Track residential and business adoption of high-speed internet, computers, and
       related information technology

   •   Build, facilitate, and use local technology planning teams to help with internet
       deployment to disenfranchised areas or areas not currently served

   •   Work with Washington State University Extension to establish low-cost programs
       to improve computer ownership, technology literacy, and high-speed internet
       access for populations not currently served in the state

Many documents and materials, including the attachments to the report, were
developed to assist the Work Group in its activities and to help facilitate discussion.

DIS arrived at the following major recommendations related to the high-speed internet
deployment and adoption strategy, with concurrence from the Work Group:

   •   The state should adopt a definition of high-speed internet service (HSIS) that is
       consistent with the Federal Communications Commission’s (FCC’s) “broadband”
       speed tiers in the download and upload direction; except the state’s definition
       should not include the bottom FCC tier in either the download or upload direction
       because the Work Group believes this tier cannot be characterized as “high-
       speed” internet.




                                            iv
High-Speed Internet Strategy Final Report                                December 1, 2008

   •   High-speed internet should also be defined by the applications that it can enable,
       instead of just by upload and download speed; including applications that range
       from basic e-mail and YouTube video, to the more robust telecommuting, high-
       definition video, telemedicine, and supercomputing applications.

   •   The state desires HSIS mapping at the census block level, but this would require
       significant time and expense on the part of the service providers and the state.
       Alternatively, the state should consider mapping at the census tract level, where
       data will be more readily available based on the new FCC requirements, be less
       costly for service providers and the state, while ensuring consistency between
       state and federal reporting requirements.

   •   The map itself should be produced by a third-party entity that signs Non-
       Disclosure Agreements (NDAs) with service providers and provides only a
       finished product to the state; thereby ensuring the confidentiality of proprietary,
       competitively sensitive, and security sensitive data.

   •   This map should provide adoption information, availability information, the HSIS
       technology used, and available speed tiers. It should link to providers’ websites
       to obtain pricing data. The map should also allow for an interactive, web-based
       version that receives queries and inputs from consumers.

   •   Local technology planning teams (LTPTs) should be coordinated by DIS at the
       state level; along with a facilitator, designated by and working in conjunction with
       DIS, that will assist the LTPTs in conducting a local needs assessment,
       developing a strategic technology plan, identifying funding sources, and helping
       to implement the plan.

   •   LTPTs should be organized at the county level.

   •   Washington State University (WSU) Extension should be considered as the
       facilitator based on:

          o Existing presence in each local area

          o Current involvement in technology programs

          o Synergistic organizational characteristics

   •   LTPTs should work to leverage existing grassroots community technology efforts.




                                             v
High-Speed Internet Strategy Final Report                            December 1, 2008

   •   DIS should oversee benchmarking and tracking residential, business, non-profit,
       and institutional high-speed internet adoption on a statewide basis. This should
       be accomplished by using a variety of information including: updated mapping,
       FCC and other federal agency data, consumer input, localized surveys, and
       national tracking surveys.

   •   In order to spur development of high-speed internet, the state should undertake a
       variety of initiatives, including:

          o Expanding the Community Technology Opportunities Program (CTOP)

          o Soliciting funding in the form of grants and donations from a variety of
            entities

          o Establishing a variety of low cost hardware/software programs aimed at
            residential and business consumers

          o Establishing a variety of low cost hardware/software programs aimed at
            existing public access locations, such as community technology centers
            and libraries

          o Supporting loan programs for small businesses in order to enhance
            workforce training and business technology acquisition efforts

          o Other initiatives aimed at boosting economic development

   •   A variety of metrics and benchmarks should be employed in order to measure
       the level of success of the HSI deployment and adoption strategy including:

          o A continual increase in basic high-speed internet availability such that
            99+% availability is determined in targeted areas by 2012

          o A continual expansion in the HSI speed tier level provided and
            applications enabled

          o A continual increase in high-speed internet adoption and usage

          o A continual expansion in technology literacy and access to HSI technology

          o A continual increase in service provider participation in the deployment
            and adoption initiative

          o A continual increase in end user satisfaction

   •   Two major legislative initiatives are needed. First, DIS should be authorized to
       coordinate the entire deployment and adoption strategy implementation,
       including seeking federal funding to support such an initiative. Second, initial
       funding needed should be authorized to begin implementation, at least for a
       staged effort.



                                            vi
High-Speed Internet Strategy Final Report                             December 1, 2008

   •   The funding needed will range from a minimum staged effort on all fronts
       (mapping, LTPT implementation, updating mapping, and support for internet
       resource development) estimated at an initial $532,250 beginning in FY 2010, to
       a comprehensive statewide effort on all fronts estimated at a total of $3,979,000
       over 2 years (FY2010 - FY2011).

   •   Specific funding levels for spurring HSIS deployment in Washington cannot be
       accurately estimated at this time until: priority needs are identified through the
       initial mapping process, and goals are developed by the LTPTs based on an
       analysis of gaps found in high-speed internet availability and adoption.

   •   The deployment and adoption initiative should be pursued in a phased manner,
       based on the most efficient and effective use of available funding.

DIS and the Work Group believe that the recommendations in the following report will
provide for significant HSIS infrastructure, service expansion, and increased adoption.
This will have the capability to improve the quality of life statewide by enhancing
economic development, healthcare, educational services, and the amount of valuable
and beneficial information available to residents, business, and institutions.




                                            vii
High-Speed Internet Strategy Final Report                              December 1, 2008


Introduction and Background
During the 2008 legislative session, the Legislature enacted and the Governor signed
Second Engrossed Substitute Senate Bill 6438 (E2SSB 6438) concerning a statewide
High-Speed Internet Deployment and Adoption initiative. The legislation charged the
Department of Information Services (DIS) with the responsibility of developing a high-
speed internet (HSI) deployment and adoption strategy, in consultation with the High-
Speed Internet Strategy Work Group (Work Group).

The Work Group was comprised of a diverse cross-section of government, educational,
community, business, non-profit, economic development, health care, technology,
union, public utility, and service provider interests. DIS also included tribal government
and public safety representatives. Over twenty-five representatives from these diverse
sectors were invited by DIS to participate in the Work Group. Nearly all responded
favorably and the resulting membership is detailed below.

Seven meetings were scheduled for the Work Group between July 9, 2008 and
November 19, 2008. DIS also developed a detailed Work Plan in order to meet the
legislation’s requirement that the High-Speed Internet Deployment and Adoption
Strategy, and associated Report, be delivered to the Legislature by December 1, 2008.
After a competitive bidding process, DIS retained CBG Communications, Inc. (CBG), to
assist in facilitating the Work Group meetings, in developing the strategy, and in
assembling the associated report.

Work Group Composition
The Work Group was made up of a broad representation of the entities and
organizations specified by E2SSB 6438. This diversity provided a vast range of
opinions and information related to a wide range of High-Speed Internet Deployment
and Adoption Strategy elements. Specifically, the Work Group was comprised of the
members listed on the next page.




                                            1
High-Speed Internet Strategy Final Report                                  December 1, 2008


Table 1: Work Group Members
Representative                      Organization Represented
Twyla Barnes                        Educational Services District 112
Jim Broman                          Lacey Fire District #3
Betty Buckley                       Communities Connect Network
Milt Doumit/Johan Hellman           Verizon
Michael Gaffney/Matthew Mitchell    Washington State University Extension
Earl Heister                        Information Services Board Member
Phil Jones                          Utilities and Transportation Commission
David Keyes                         City of Seattle
John Klein                          King County
Gail Love                           Communication Workers of America
Ron Lucas                           Rainier Communications Commission/Washington
                                    Association of Telecommunications Officers and
                                    Advisors
Gary Mallon                         Greater Spokane Incorporated
Ron Main                            Broadband Cable Association of Washington
Susie Mason                         Confederated Tribes of the Colville Reservation
Alison McCaffree                    NPower
Lew McMurran                        Washington Technology Industry Association
Jeff Mero                           Association of Washington Public Hospital Districts
Matt Newbry                         Department of Community, Trade and Economic
                                    Development
Joe Poire                           Port of Whitman County
Gary Robinson                       Department of Information Services
David Siburg                        Kitsap Public Utilities District
Ed Stern                            Association of Washington Cities/City of Poulsbo
Mary Taylor                         CenturyTel
Michael Tracy                       Grays Harbor Economic Development Council
Dan Youmans                         AT&T

Work Group Activities
Between July 2008 and November 2008, the Work Group met, reviewed, and discussed
a wide variety of information, perspectives, and opinions concerning the six major topic
areas specified by E2SSB 6438 in carrying out its role to advise DIS in its development
of a statewide strategy to increase deployment and adoption of high-speed internet
service (HSIS). These major topic areas included:

   •   Develop geographic information system maps and inventories of public and
       private high-speed internet infrastructure
   •   Address management of proprietary and competitively sensitive data
   •   Spur development of high-speed internet resources across the state
   •   Track residential and business adoption of high-speed internet, computers, and
       related information technology
   •   Build, facilitate, and use local technology planning teams to help with internet
       deployment to disenfranchised areas or areas not served
   •   Work with Washington State University Extension to establish low-cost programs
       to improve computer ownership, technology literacy, and high-speed internet
       access for populations not served in the state



                                            2
High-Speed Internet Strategy Final Report                             December 1, 2008

The activities of the Work Group included development and review of a number of
materials designed to facilitate discussion in these major subject areas. These
documents and materials are included as attachments to this report.

The findings and recommendations contained in this report are based on the Work
Group’s review and discussions. The report provides strategic direction to the state in
order achieve the goal of high-speed internet infrastructure and service expansion, and
increased adoption statewide.       Such infrastructure and service expansion, and
increased adoption, has the capability to improve quality of life statewide – by
enhancing economic development, healthcare, educational services and the amount of
valuable and beneficial information available to residents, businesses, and institutions.




                                            3
High-Speed Internet Strategy Final Report                             December 1, 2008


Recommendations
The following recommendations are based on the discussions, activities, and
conclusions of the Work Group. Described are a number of key high-speed internet
strategy elements and issues, as well as recommended approaches and strategies to
address these issues.


Element: High-Speed Internet Service Definition
The Work Group determined that it was extremely important to define the term “high-
speed internet” in order to establish a baseline understanding for all concerned of what
was to be mapped. Definitions adopted in a number of other states were reviewed.
(Although all of the other states reviewed defined the term “broadband”, and not high-
speed internet, the Work Group determined that for these purposes the two terms are
interchangeable.)     The Work Group also reviewed the Federal Communication
Commission’s (FCC) recent redefinition of broadband related to Form 477 reporting
requirements. Work Group members also provided information concerning their
respective organization’s definition of HSIS. The Work Group deliberated the definition
at multiple meetings.

Recommendation: The Work Group recommends Washington adopt a definition of
HSIS that is:
  • Consistent with the FCC broadband speed tiers in the download and upload
      directions. However, the Work Group’s definition will not include the bottom FCC
      tier in the download or upload direction. The first tier then is ≥ 768 kilobits per
      second (kbps) download and > 200 kbps upload
  • Consistent with realistic asymmetrical operation in the upload direction, but sets
      a symmetrical operation goal for each tier, which is consistent with the top end of
      each of the FCC’s speed tiers, and is consistent with required categories
      contained in Form 477

The following comparison shows the Work Group’s suggested speed tiers in white. The
FCC’s speed tiers are consistent with the Work Group’s suggested speed tiers, but also
include some lower speed pairings that are shaded. The Work Group did not believe
these lower speed pairings could be characterized as “high-speed” internet.




                                            4
High-Speed Internet Strategy Final Report                                               December 1, 2008


Table 2: FCC Broadband/HSIS Speed Tier Comparison

                                                          Download Speeds
                 > 200 kbps   ≥ 768 kbps   ≥ 1.5 mbps   ≥ 3 mbps     ≥ 6 mbps    ≥ 10 mbps    ≥ 25 mbps   ≥ 100
                    and           and          and         and          and         and          and      mbps
                 < 768 kbps   < 1.5 mbps    < 3 mbps    < 6 mbps     < 10 mbps   < 25 mbps   < 100 mbps
 Upload Speeds
≤ 200 kbps

> 200 kbps and
< 768 kbps
(First
Generation)
≥ 768 kbps and
< 1.5 mbps
Tier 1
≥ 1.5 mbps and
< 3 mbps
Tier 2
≥ 3 mbps and
< 6 mbps
Tier 3
≥ 6 mbps and
< 10 mbps
Tier 4
≥ 10 mbps and
< 25 mbps
Tier 5
≥ 25 mbps and
< 100 mbps
Tier 6
≥ 100 mbps
Tier 7




For the state’s purposes, the HSIS definition balances the data gathering needed to
provide a realistic assessment of high-speed internet service within the state, coupled
with the requirements already placed on providers by the FCC. The definition does not
place an additional requirement on service providers because the data that would be
categorized as broadband under the FCC’s definition is information that would be
characterized as high-speed internet under the state’s definition.

Besides defining high-speed internet in terms of speed tiers (upload and download
speed pairings), the Work Group indicated that various levels of high-speed internet
should be defined by the applications that can be enabled by different tiers.
Specifically, the Work Group believed the majority of high-speed internet users (and
potential users) are much more cognizant of the applications that HSI can enable, rather
than the speed capability of the upload and download direction. Therefore, the Work
Group believed that it was critically important to define the various levels of HSIS in
terms of applications that would be recognizable to HSIS users.




                                                        5
High-Speed Internet Strategy Final Report                               December 1, 2008

Consistent with this determination, the chart on the following pages shows various
applications ranging from basic e-mail, to high capacity high-speed remote
supercomputing, and how these applications can or cannot be enabled at various
speeds. A review of the chart also indicates that the level of interactivity for a number of
these applications is significantly affected, based on the specific speed pair available
related to either the upload or download direction.




                                             6
        High-Speed Internet Strategy Final Report                                                                                           December 1, 2008


                                                           Table 3: HSIS Speed Tiers/Applications
             Download Speeds
                ≥ 768 kbps              ≥ 1.5 mbps                 ≥ 3 mbps                 ≥ 6 mbps             ≥ 10 mbps             ≥ 25 mbps            ≥ 100 mbps
                    and                    And                        and                      and                  and                    and
                < 1.5 mbps               < 3 mbps                  < 6 mbps                 < 10 mbps            < 25 mbps             < 100 mbps
 Upload
  Speeds
> 200 kbps      Basic E-Mail          Telecommuting         Multi channel Internet     Remote diagnostics       Telemedicine        Smart/Intelligent           NA
   and        (upload small files     (upload limited)        Protocol Television       (download only)       (download only)      building monitoring
< 768 kbps        download          Standard def video –             (IPTV)              Online Internet      Remote one way       (Vid, Audio & data)
                medium files)       Broadcast quality 1    File sharing medium files   gaming (low upload        education           (upload limited)
               You Tube Video             channel               (download only)          enabled games)       (download only)
                                      (download only)
≥ 768 kbps       Basic E-Mail          Telecommuting        Multi channel Internet     Remote diagnostics       Telemedicine        Smart/Intelligent           NA
    and         (medium files)      Standard def Video –      Protocol Television       (download only)       (download only)      building monitoring
< 1.5 mbps     You Tube Video         Broadcast quality              (IPTV)              Online Internet      Remote one way       (Vid, Audio & data)
                                          1 channel        File sharing medium files   gaming (low upload        education           (upload limited)
                                      (download only)                                    enabled games)       (upload limited)

≥ 1.5 mbps       Basic E-Mail          Telecommuting       Multi channel Internet      Remote diagnostics      Telemedicine         Smart/Intelligent           NA
    and         (medium files)      Standard def Video –    Protocol Television         (download only)       (upload limited)     building monitoring
 < 3 mbps      You Tube Video         Broadcast quality            (IPTV)              Online interactive     Remote one way       (Vid, Audio & data)
                                          1 channel         File sharing (upload           gaming                education           (upload limited)
                                                           medium files, download                             (upload limited)
                                                                 large files)
≥ 3 mbps        Basic E-Mail           Telecommuting        Multi channel Internet     Remote diagnostics      Telemedicine         Smart/Intelligent     Technology and
   and        (upload large files   Standard def Video –     Protocol Television        (limited upload)    (medium upload apps)   building monitoring     business parks
< 6 mbps          download            Broadcast quality             (IPTV)             Online interactive    Remote Interactive    (Vid, Audio & data)    (upload limited)
                medium files)             1 channel         File sharing large files        gaming               education           (upload limited)
               You Tube Video                                                                                 (upload limited)        Campus wide
                                                                                                                                   educational services
                                                                                                                                     (upload limited)


≥ 6 mbps        Basic E-Mail           Telecommuting        Multi channel Internet     Remote diagnostics      Telemedicine         Smart/Intelligent     Technology and
   and        (upload large files   Standard def Video –     Protocol Television        Online Internet     (medium upload apps)   building monitoring     business parks
< 10 mbps         download            Broadcast quality             (IPTV)                 gaming            Remote Interactive    (Vid, Audio & data)    (upload limited)
                medium files)             1 channel         File sharing large files                             education           (upload limited)
               You Tube Video                                                                                 (upload limited)        Campus wide
                                                                                                                                   educational services
                                                                                                                                     (upload limited)




                                                                                        7
        High-Speed Internet Strategy Final Report                                                                                       December 1, 2008



                                                   Table 3 (continued.): HSIS Speed Tiers/Applications
             Download Speeds
                ≥ 768 kbps            ≥ 1.5 mbps                ≥ 3 mbps                  ≥ 6 mbps            ≥ 10 mbps            ≥ 25 mbps
                    and                  And                       and                       and                 and                   and
                < 1.5 mbps             < 3 mbps                 < 6 mbps                  < 10 mbps           < 25 mbps            < 100 mbps
 Upload
 Speeds
 10 mbps       Basic E-Mail          Telecommuting        Multi channel Internet     Remote diagnostics   Telemedicine 2-way    Smart/Intelligent
   and       Upload large files   Standard def Video –      Protocol Television      Online interactive   Remote interactive   building monitoring
< 25 mbps    Download Medium        Broadcast quality              (IPTV)                gaming               education        (Vid, Audio & data)
                   files                1 channel        File sharing medium files                                              (medium upload)
              You Tube Video                                (large files upload)                                                  Campus wide
                                                                                                                               educational services
                                                                                                                                (medium upload)

≥ 25 mbps      Basic E-Mail          Telecommuting         Multi channel Internet    Remote diagnostics   Telemedicine 2-way    Smart/Intelligent      Technology and
    and      Upload large files   Standard def Video –      Protocol Television      Online interactive   Remote interactive   building monitoring      business parks
< 100 mbps   Download Medium        Broadcast quality              (IPTV)                gaming               education        (Vid, Audio & data)         Remote
                   files                1 channel        File sharing medium files                                                Campus wide         Supercomputing
              You Tube Video                                (large files upload)                                               educational services   (medium upload)

≥ 100 mbps     Basic E-Mail          Telecommuting        Multi channel Internet     Remote diagnostics   Telemedicine 2-way    Smart/Intelligent     Technology and
             Upload Large files   Standard def Video –      Protocol Television      Online interactive   Remote interactive   building monitoring     business parks
             Download Medium        Broadcast quality              (IPTV)                gaming               education        (Vid, Audio & data)        Remote
                   files                1 channel        File sharing medium files                                                Campus wide         Supercomputing
              You Tube Video                                (large files upload)                                               educational services




                                                                                      8
High-Speed Internet Strategy Final Report                               December 1, 2008

Two specific examples further illustrate how the capabilities enabled by different levels
of high-speed internet significantly affect the types of uses for any given application
category, and how they increase and expand based on the speed capabilities in both
the upload and download direction. First, as described in Attachment CC, the types of
specific activities that occur under the telehealth/telemedicine category vary significantly
– from basic monitoring of telemetry and doctor consults, to high-definition video
needed for remote surgical applications.                Attachment CC indicates that
telehealth/telemedicine encompasses a wide range of applications that require
associated and varied speeds of high-speed internet connections in order to be
successful. For example: remote monitoring of a patient’s vital signs or basic
consultation between medical staff can occur through connections providing transfer
rates from 700 kbps to 1.7 megabits per second (mbps) in the download direction, and
from 500 kbps to 1.2 mbps in the upload direction. Video conferencing, at its minimum,
can provide low definition video using as little as 384 kbps in each direction. However,
when a variety of applications run concurrently – such as broadcast quality video,
microscopes, digital camera ultrasounds, and x-rays or other diagnostic test results – 10
mbps or more will be needed for high quality video and ancillary services operating
simultaneously. This is similar to the range needed for remote training and education,
based on the amount of information transmitted and the type of video definition
required. At the high end, telesurgery requiring high-definition video and the use of
robotics that are connected via a robust, fully reliable network will need significantly
higher than 10 mbps in both directions to perform adequately.

Telecommuting is another application where specific uses are dependent on the level of
high-speed internet availability. As with telemedicine, telecommuting has many levels
of functionality dependent on the needs of the telecommuter. For instance: some
applications, such as the transfer of small files and electronic mail (e-mail), can be
accomplished over a high-speed network with speeds on the lower end of the tier chart
in both the download and upload direction. Speeds beginning at 768 kbps download
and 200 kbps upload will offer sufficient functionality for these low bandwidth
applications. However, as applications become more bandwidth intensive, the network
must offer higher speeds in order to allow the telecommuter to effectively perform their
work functions. Some applications will merely operate at a slower rate, and thus reduce
productivity, while others will only be enabled via a higher speed network. For instance:
transfer of large files can be accomplished on a network with slower speeds, but it will
take significantly longer to accomplish the task and therefore lower the productivity of
the telecommuter. Depending on this delay, slower speeds may make telecommuting
an ineffective proposition. Furthermore, applications needing real-time connectivity will
function poorly, if at all. Examples include real-time video (for example, video
conferencing and video monitoring) and multi-tasking, such as transferring files between
locations during a video conference. These applications will require higher bandwidths
beginning in the range of 3 mbps symmetrical, and significantly higher requirements for
high-quality high-definition video with other applications running concurrently. (This
example would require symmetrical speeds of 10 mbps or greater).




                                             9
High-Speed Internet Strategy Final Report                              December 1, 2008


Element: FCC Form 477 Data
In June 2008, the FCC amended the data submission requirements of Form 477 to
collect additional and more granular data on broadband service subscriptions1. The
new requirements state that information gathered shall be at the census tract level,
rather than by zip code as previously required. In addition, the requirements regarding
Form 477 include:
    • Delineation of the number of broadband connections in service located in
       individual census tracts
    • Provision of broadband service speed data in conjunction with subscriber counts
       in the new categories for download and upload speeds2
    • Amended reporting requirements for mobile wireless broadband providers to
       include reporting numbers of subscribers whose plans allow them to browse the
       internet and access internet content of their choice3
    • Providers of interconnected voice over internet protocol (VoIP) service must
       report subscribership information4

The FCC also proposed additional methods to gather data including:
   • A voluntary household self-reporting system5
   • A recommendation to the Census Bureau that the American Community Survey
      questionnaire be modified to gather information about broadband availability and
      subscriptions in households6

Some of the FCC’s proposals related to broadband availability mapping, information
gathering of delivered speeds, and broadband customer surveys are new requirements
included in the recently passed federal legislation, Public Law 110-385, “The Broadband
Data Improvement Act”.

Providers can request the FCC to hold provider-specific data contained on its Form 477
filing as confidential. The FCC makes all decisions related to confidentiality, except that
the Chief of the Wireline Competition Bureau may release information to a state
commission if protections are in place to preclude disclosure of confidential data7. The
FCC will make certain aggregated information publicly available, while holding
information they deem confidential from public disclosure. Under Public Law 110-385,
the FCC must also now provide each state’s designated eligible entities with aggregate
data collected from broadband service providers. Eligible entities must protect such
data from public disclosure, unless there is another federal or state law to the contrary.




1
  WC Docket No. 07-38
2
  WC Docket No. 07-38 Para 19 - 20, Figure 1
3
  WC Docket No. 07-38 Para 23 - 24
4
  WC Docket No. 07-38 Para 25 - 31
5
  WC Docket No. 07-38 Para 17 - 18
6
  WC Docket No. 07-38 Para 17 - 18
7
  WC Docket No. 07-38 Appendix A § 43.11 (c)


                                               10
High-Speed Internet Strategy Final Report                               December 1, 2008

Public Law 110-385, Section 106(i) (2) defines “eligible entities” as:
       (i) an agency or instrumentality of a state, or a municipality or other subdivision
            (or agency or instrumentality of a municipality or other subdivision) of a state
       (ii) a nonprofit organization that is described in section 501(c)(3) of the Internal
            Revenue Code of 1986 and that is exempt from taxation under section 501(a)
            of such Code
       (iii) an independent agency or commission in which an office of a state is a
            member on behalf of the state


Element: Geographic Information System (GIS) Mapping Criteria
Once the Work Group determined a definition of high-speed internet, a review began of
how information could be gathered, compiled, and displayed in a format that provides
for easy understanding of the current state of high-speed internet infrastructure and
service deployment. Enabling residential, business, and institutional consumer adoption
to be easily displayed and understood is also a goal for the compiled information.

Consistent with a number of other state initiatives, E2SSB 6438 stipulates this be done
in a Geographic Information System (GIS) based map. This type of map allows for the
display of data using various information layers and color keys to help the viewer
understand which areas of the state have a high degree of HSIS deployment, and which
areas have lower or no HSIS deployment. A GIS based map also allows the viewer to
understand the variations in adoption rates across the state. The Local Technology
Planning Teams (LTPTs) can also use GIS based maps to help target their efforts to the
areas of highest need within their purview, as further described below.

In the legislation, the state requested that a strategy be developed to map deployment
and adoption information by census block area. Additionally, the requirements of
E2SSB 6438 make it essential that service providers maintain a database by address of
their installed service (availability), in addition to their customer file (adoption). When
reviewing high-speed internet service data fields, the specific elements needed to
develop availability and adoption maps at the census block level are the following
shaded data fields:

Table 4: HSIS Data Fields

Serviceable Type of           Levels of       Costs of        Is Address  If Yes, What
Address     Service           Service         Levels          Served      type?
(Street)    Available         Available                       (Served
                                                              Addresses)?
If Yes, What If Yes, What     Franchise       Wire Center     Census Tract Census
Level?       Price?           Area (for       Area (For                    Block
                              Cable)          Telco)




                                            11
High-Speed Internet Strategy Final Report                              December 1, 2008



While E2SSB 6438 stipulated that the Work Group explore collecting high-speed
internet availability and adoption data at the census block level, the FCC will require HSI
service providers, beginning in March of 2009, to provide adoption rate data at the
census tract level. (A census tract is larger than a census block.)

The new federal law, Public Law 110-385, requires the FCC to begin acquiring
availability data from HSI service providers at the census tract level. Members of the
Work Group, who are also service providers, stated that to meet the new federal
requirements, all service providers must have the ability by March of 2009 to provide
adoption information at the census tract level. Service providers also indicated they will
provide census tract level availability information as soon as the FCC issues rules,
pursuant to its requirement under the new federal law, that detail how such information
is to be provided. There was significant discussion in the Work Group concerning what
benefits could be realized if adoption and availability information was mapped at the
census tract level, rather than the census block level.

First, the Work Group noted that FCC Form 477 adoption information at the census tract
level would be readily available soon after March of 2009, and could conceivably enable
the state to map and utilize such information in a quicker timeframe than if service
providers were to develop a specific database designed and implemented for the
census block level.

Second, service provider members of the Work Group indicated that FCC requirements
enable efficiencies in the provision of prepared data, but customization at a different
level of such data for the state of Washington would require significant effort and
expense. In other words, it was important to try to achieve consistency between state
and federal reporting requirements.

Third, the Work Group discussed the significant cost that providers would incur by
developing a database that was more granular than the census tract level (the number
of census blocks in Washington is more than 100 times higher than the number of
census tracts). One review of such costs suggests the following: Concerning adding
census block level information to a service provider’s database, the providers could
perform this function as an in-house cost if they have GIS software such as ESRI’s
ArcGIS, which supports geocoding addresses to the map. An alternative to performing
this function in-house is to engage a third party vendor. The U.S. Census Bureau
maintains a list of vendors that perform this service.

The cost for geocoding service is generally based on the number of records in the
provider’s database, and can range from $350 to approximately $50,000. An example
of a geocoding service fee schedule is listed below:




                                            12
High-Speed Internet Strategy Final Report                               December 1, 2008


Table 5: Geocoding Service Fees

                  No. of Records                          Total Cost
               Low             High                 Low                High
                       1          10,000                  0.00             $350
                  10,001          50,000                 $350            $1,270
                  50,001         100,000               $1,270            $2,170
                 100,001         250,000               $2,170            $3,970
                 250,000         500,000               $3,970            $6,470
                 500,000       1,000,000               $6,470           $10,970
               1,000,001       5,000,000              $10,970           $46,970


As noted further herein, a range of cost has been delineated for statewide mapping of
availability and adoption information. The cost for mapping such information at the
census block level would be toward the high end of the range, while mapping at the
census tract level would be toward the low end of the range.

The Work Group discussed the fact that gathering and mapping high-speed internet
availability and adoption information at the census tract level would not provide the
same level of detail and granularity as it would if mapped at the census block level. The
Work Group determined that it may be beneficial to begin the mapping exercise at the
census tract level, and consider moving to the census block level in the future when a
higher level of granularity is required by the federal government.

It is important to note that the state should work with the third party mapping entity to
ensure their database is designed with fields to accommodate census block groups and
census blocks to avoid incurring additional cost to add census blocks in the future.

Concern was also raised during a Work Group discussion that if census tract level data
from FCC Form 477 was used, while adoption information will be available relatively
soon, the FCC has not yet determined a timeframe for the provision of service
availability information. Service availability information is a critical component in order
for the state and the LTPTs to understand where high-speed internet adoption is not a
demand-side issue, but rather a supply-side issue. Accordingly, service availability
information showing service gaps will function as early indicators to show where initial
supply-side efforts should be focused. Without such service availability information from
the state, LTPTs will need to work to gather such information at the local level.

The mapping criteria and mapping examples shown below are discussed at both the
census tract and census block level. If the census tract level information as reported to
the FCC is used for the initial mapping effort, then the criteria and maps detailed below
at the census block level would still apply, but would be developed at a higher, less
granular level.




                                            13
High-Speed Internet Strategy Final Report                                          December 1, 2008

As further discussed below, private service providers have significant concerns about
the public availability of proprietary and competitively sensitive data, and security
information.     Public service providers and government network infrastructure
administrators also raised security concerns. Both groups recognize the importance of
this information being provided to develop a useful map. As stipulated by E2SSB 6438,
the Work Group spent time at most of the meetings addressing the protection of this
information. The recommended strategy for keeping this information confidential is
discussed below in detail.

The Work Group reviewed a detailed set of mapping criteria. The set of criteria
centered on:
   • both public and private provider infrastructure and services
   • included a description of the elements that could be mapped
   • the functionality the maps need in order to support both deployment and adoption
      expansion efforts

A base set of criteria was developed to cover mapping elements that need to be
included pursuant to E2SSB 6438. An expanded set of elements, which could also be
included, was derived from the Best Practices observed in the mapping initiatives and
efforts of other states. A chart of some of the best practices is provided below.

Table 6: High-Speed Internet Service and Infrastructure Information Gathered for
Mapping and Assessment Purposes in Other States8

State                Purpose           Level                  Provider Data Gathered
California           GIS Map           Census block           Latitude and longitude
                                                              coordinates of customer location
                                                              in GIS or CADD file formats, 15
                                                              digit census block code, address
                                                              ranges, highest upload and
                                                              download speeds.

Maine                Assessment Town                          Broadband availability (no details
                     Survey                                   indicated).
Nebraska             Assessment Provider                      Service level speeds, types of
                     Survey     boundaries, zip               transmission facilities, price,
                                code or                       number of households that can
                                population                    be served, and number of
                                center.                       subscribers.
Iowa                 Assessment Not specified                 Type of service available, price,
                     Survey                                   broadband availability, planned
                                                              deployment in next 12 months.


8
 Sources: Oregon PUC Broadband Mapping Report, June 18, 2008, California Broadband Task Force Appendix,
January 2008 and other research.


                                                   14
High-Speed Internet Strategy Final Report                                                 December 1, 2008


Table 6 (continued): High-Speed Internet Service and Infrastructure Information
Gathered for Mapping and Assessment Purposes in Other States9

State                  Purpose            Level                    Provider Data Gathered
Massachusetts          GIS Map            Town                     Overall broadband availability,
                                                                   wireless coverage areas, DSL,
                                                                   and cable modem.
Vermont                GIS Map            Sub-Town                 ILEC, CLEC, wireless coverage,
                                                                   DSL and cable modem.
Pennsylvania           GIS Map            County or zip            Type of service e.g., DSL or
                                          code                     wireless10.
Illinois               GIS Map            Not specified            HSI services and adoption.
                       (Proposed)
Kentucky,              GIS Map            County and               Provider, provider’s website,
Tennessee,                                census                   type of service, e.g., DSL, cable
Ohio, South                               block                    modem, wireless, cell towers,
Carolina and                                                       water tanks, percentage of
West Virginia                                                      broadband adoption, proposed
                                                                   water and sewer and road
                                                                   construction.

The mapping criteria were revised slightly, for additional review by the Work Group, to
indicate the cost of performing conduit audits needed to be factored into the
requirement to identify vacant and excess conduit capacity; as well as including a
notation that all tower sites, both those currently occupied and those pre-approved for
occupation, should be incorporated on the maps. A detailed description of these criteria
can be found in Attachments J, K, L, and S. It was also noted in subsequent documents
that a representation of private provider high-speed internet infrastructure must also be
incorporated in the base map requirements for private providers as stipulated by E2SSB
6438 (although the legislation does not stipulate that the physical location of private
infrastructure be detailed). The Work Group discussed the necessity and viability of the
various mapping criteria that had been proposed, including which criteria should be
protected from public disclosure, but provided to a third party mapping entity through an
agreed-upon Non-Disclosure Agreement (NDA). The recommended procedures related
to the third party mapping entity are also described in detail below.

Recommendation: Based on all of the information that has been provided, and the
discussion and deliberations of the Work Group, it is recommended that the list of
criteria below comprise the data set to be mapped during the eighteen month effort
stipulated by the legislation.



9
  Sources: Oregon PUC Broadband Mapping Report, June 18, 2008, California Broadband Task Force Appendix,
January 2008 and other research.
10
   More detailed HSIS infrastructure data is collected but is only available through a $5,000 subscription fee.


                                                       15
High-Speed Internet Strategy Final Report                                                     December 1, 2008


Recommended Public and Privately Owned HSIS Mapping Features
and Functionality

Publicly Owned and Leased HSIS Infrastructure
      Base and Expanded Mapping Features
      • Service areas polygons based on US Census Bureau TIGER files
      • Identify service/infrastructure provider
      • X,Y Coordinates of HSIS infrastructure (both active and inactive)*
      • Number of vacant ducts (empty conduit)*
      • Amount of dark fiber*
      • Availability of capacity on towers*
      • Data updated in conjunction with updates for private providers
*This degree of detail will only be mapped at the street level in areas where actual “gaps” are identified on the map.

Privately Owned HSIS Infrastructure
      Base Mapping Features
      • Service areas polygons based on US Census Bureau TIGER files
      • Identify service providers in the census tract or at the level specified by the
          federal government
      • Identify types of service, and range of speeds, provided in the census tract or
          at the level specified by the federal government
      • Specific download and upload speeds as reported on Form 477
      • Specific adoption levels as reported on Form 477
      • Data updated in conjunction with Form 477 filings
      • Types of infrastructure at the census tract level (method used to deliver HSIS)

Publicly and Privately Owned HSIS Infrastructure
      Base Mapping Functionality
      • Interactive map
      • Map displays HSIS Infrastructure aggregate census tract availability and
          “gaps”
      • Ability to pan, zoom, and identify available specific HSIS service types and
          levels
      • Ability to display aggregate adoption rates

         Expanded Mapping Functionality
         • Interactive map for consumer use
         • Ability to hyperlink to service provider website
         • Ability to display specific adoption rates by service types and service levels




                                                          16
High-Speed Internet Strategy Final Report                                December 1, 2008

As discussed further below, a number of these elements would be shielded from public
disclosure based on their proprietary, competitively sensitive, or security sensitive
nature. Many of these base mapping features are required by E2SSB 6438. Some are
expanded mapping features that are fruitful to include based on their successful use in
other jurisdictions. They would also enhance the state’s current initiative, and help
better meet the goals of the initiative. These expanded elements include the following:

   •   Provide an interactive map for consumer use. This map could be combined with
       “Wiki”–type inputs from consumers to both add to, and verify information from,
       other sources; and also help identify variations in offered versus realized
       services, including determination of an average service level in any given census
       area (this would further help determine the viability of applications that are
       dependent upon certain guaranteed service levels within any given census area)
   •   Provide links to high-speed internet information from available websites of
       providers in the census tract, including service type and pricing

The Work Group discussed whether pricing information should be shown on the maps.
The conclusion from the discussion was that pricing from providers varies greatly over
short periods of time, based on service promotions and reactions to competitive
influences. Accordingly, it was determined that the best way to provide pricing
information would be to link to providers’ websites so that consumers, planning teams,
researchers, etc., could gather the information directly from the providers in those
census tracts.

The Work Group recommends that the map should not be limited to high-speed internet
service and availability information, but that an application layer be developed to
illustrate what level of various applications could be facilitated in different census areas.
In addition to the required high-speed internet inventory, application attributes can be
appended to the GIS mapping database so that “choropleth” (or color-coded) maps
could display the uppermost high-speed application available in each census area. As
illustrated below, census areas could display various levels of application classes
ranging from basic email and You Tube video, to telecommuting, telemedicine, and
smart/intelligent building monitoring.

The outlined criteria could provide a highly functional map for state, service providers,
consumer, and local technology planning team use. The benefits are already
demonstrated in other situations, and offer a great level and depth of information. This
in turn, facilitates greater and more targeted high-speed internet expansion efforts, and
higher levels of adoption.

As an example, maps utilizing the types of information detailed above and developed
with the features and functionality described above could look like the following:




                                             17
High-Speed Internet Strategy Final Report                           December 1, 2008


Figure 1:




Figure 1 - Table a: Aggregate Information for Census Block # 2010 (Information
that could be available by clicking on specific census blocks when reviewing the
map)

                            Service Levels
             Service Type   Upload           Download Adopt %
             DSL            256 Kbps         768 Kbps    10%
             DSL            768 Kbps         3 Mbps      15%
             DSL            1 Mbps           6 Mbps      10%
             Cable Modem    1 Mbps           8 Mbps      30%
             Wireless       1.5 Mbps         1.5 Mbps     5%

Figure 1 - Table b: Aggregate Information for Census Block # 2024

                           Service Levels
            Service Type Upload                  Download Adopt %
            DSL            256 Kbps              768 Kbps    10%
            DSL            768 Kbps              1.5 Mbps     5%
            Fixed Wireless 1.5 Mbps              1.5 Mbps    15%


                                            18
High-Speed Internet Strategy Final Report                              December 1, 2008


Figure 2:




Figure 2 – Table a.: Aggregate Information for Census Block # 3003

Service Type     Infrastructure                Service Level Available               Avail. %
DSL              Copper; Fiber                 Up to 1 Mbps upload & 6 Mbps download    70%
Cable Modem      Hybrid Fiber Coax (HFC)       Up to 1 Mbps upload & 8 Mbps download    90%
Fixed Wireless   Towers; Prop. Mesh; 2.4 GHz   Up to 1.5 Mbps symmetrical               40%

Figure 2 – Table b: Aggregate Information for Census Block # 1012

Service Type Infrastructure                Service Level Available                   Avail. %
DSL            Copper                      Up to 768 Kbps upload & 1.5 Mbps download    30%
Fixed Wireless Towers; Prop. Mesh; 2.4 GHz Up to 1.5 Mbps symmetrical                   40%




                                               19
High-Speed Internet Strategy Final Report        December 1, 2008


Figure 3:




                                            20
High-Speed Internet Strategy Final Report        December 1, 2008


Figure 4:




                                            21
High-Speed Internet Strategy Final Report                              December 1, 2008


Element: Protection of Proprietary and Competitively Sensitive Data
Based on the information provided to the Work Group in several presentations, as well
as ensuing discussions from a variety of public and private representatives’
perspectives, it is recommended that the following initiatives be pursued to protect
proprietary, competitively sensitive, and security sensitive information.

Recommendation: First, DIS should be directed to purchase only the finished, non-
proprietary High Speed Internet Service Map from an independent third-party
organization. The map could also be publicly available. The underlying proprietary
information used to create the map would not be provided to DIS, or any other state
agency. Therefore, the private proprietary and competitively sensitive information
submitted for the purpose of mapping would not be used by any state agency in any
way, and thus would not be subject to the Public Records Act. Purchasing a completed
map would be similar to the state purchasing a software product. The state purchases
the final product. The code behind the product is not a public record.

The Work Group discussed security concerns related to the public disclosure of public
networks and infrastructure. RCW 42.456.420 addresses the disclosure of Information
regarding the infrastructure, and security, of computer and telecommunications
networks. It is believed that the security concerns raised by public service providers are
addressed by this provision. The Work Group believes that this information would be
exempted from public disclosure by an existing exemption (RCW 42.56.420 (4)).

Also, the entity that receives information related to the mapping initiative should sign
Non-Disclosure Agreements (NDA) with the service providers (public and private)
supplying information.


Element: Responsibility for Mapping
Other states have granted authority through various entities. These entities include
commercial organizations, non-profits, public/private partnerships, and state agencies.

Recommendation: DIS should be authorized to coordinate the mapping initiative. DIS
would contract with an independent third-party organization that would collect the
information and provide a completed map to DIS. The third party should have an
established competency in working on a statewide basis directly with providers of
telecommunications or high speed internet services in the handling, storage, and use of
proprietary and competitively sensitive data. Prior to requesting any information from a
provider, the independent third party organization must enter into a mutually acceptable
non-disclosure agreement with the provider. Some key characteristics of a mapping
entity capable of comprehensive statewide mapping are:

   •   A GIS unit needed to create the high-speed internet inventory database should
       be staffed with personnel as indicated in the chart below.




                                            22
High-Speed Internet Strategy Final Report                              December 1, 2008


   •   The GIS manager should be able to direct the activities of subordinate GIS
       specialists, trainees, and interns (where feasible) engaged in creating and editing
       geographic databases, and generating resultant map and other relevant
       geographic information for analysis, management, publication, and presentation
       needs.
   •   GIS specialists should have the ability to create and edit geographic databases,
       and generate resultant mapping and other relevant geographic information
       including: performing related spatial analysis, data query and display, and
       database management.
   •   It would be preferable if the GIS specialists have prior experience in
       comprehension, and conversion, of service provider inventory mapping and data.
   •   The GIS trainees and interns should understand the fundamental principles,
       practices, and techniques required to perform designing, maintaining, and
       producing geographic data and graphics.

Consistent with a concept put forth in E2SSB 6438: interns could be recruited from
Washington’s various universities, colleges, and community colleges, if they can be
feasibly integrated into the work plan of the third-party mapping entity; especially
considering the requirements for NDAs with the providers. If not feasible, their
projected tasks would be assumed by additional specialists and/or trainees.

Such an entity should also have the following capacity:

Table 7: GIS Mapping Staff (Cost for a Statewide Mapping Effort at the Census
Block Level)

                     Job Title       Salary      No.      18 Months
                 GIS Manager         $80,000     .33             $39,600
                 GIS Specialists     $60,000     2.0            $180,000
                 GIS Trainee         $40,000     1.0             $60,000
                 Interns*            $10,000     9.0            $135,000
                 Expenses                                        $85,000
                                                                $499,600
                 *Where feasible, 6 month
                 internships are forecast

Staging the mapping effort would reduce the above cost commensurately.


Element: Local Technology Planning Teams
The Work Group received, reviewed, and heard presentations concerning various
functions of local technology planning teams (LTPTs). E2SSB 6438 stipulates that the
LTPT will consist of members representing cross-sections of the community, which may
include participation from the following organizations: representatives of business,
telecommunications unions, K-12 education, community colleges, local economic
development organizations, health care, libraries, universities, community technology


                                            23
High-Speed Internet Strategy Final Report                                December 1, 2008

organizations, local governments, tourism, parks and recreation, and agriculture. This
list is not exhaustive and each local community might have other representatives at
work in the high-speed internet access arena that can aid with idea generation and
problem solving. For example: K-20 Educational network is charged with establishing
high-speed internet services for schools throughout the state. The K-20 Educational
network staff is often found working with school districts and Educational Service
Districts (ESDs) on last mile connectivity issues. Accordingly, in some areas of the
state, having the K-20 Educational network staff included in the strategic planning
discussion would be highly valued. Overall, each LTPT should be designed to be most
effective at the local level.

These teams are then given the charge to: (i) conduct a needs assessment; and (ii)
develop a strategic plan based on their findings. The strategic plan calls on the LTPT to
work collaboratively with high-speed internet providers and technology companies
across the state to encourage deployment and use, especially in areas not served,
through use of local demand aggregation, mapping analysis, and creation of market
intelligence to improve the investment rationale and business case. (Based on
discussions with the Work Group, LTPTs should also work collaboratively with public
utility districts and public entities with network infrastructure).

After considering the best practices among successful LTPTs in other parts of the
country, the following was determined:

          i. The LTPTs are organized by an umbrella organization that works to
               ensure local processes are streamlined across the state. The umbrella
               organization has staff dedicated to facilitating the local process and
               connecting the LTPT to statewide and federal resources, market
               intelligence, experts, and funding.
          ii. The LTPT members are typically volunteers from the representative
               groups that are reimbursed for travel, but not paid to serve on the team.
          iii. The LTPT are supported by a facilitator from the umbrella organization
               described below that spends the first meeting training the members of the
               team on how to accomplish their goals, connecting the team to resources
               to complete their tasks, assisting with drafting the local technology plan,
               and working to identify funding sources. Once the plan is in place, the
               facilitator assists in, and supervises: grant writing to secure funds, reports
               on progress related to meeting identified benchmarks, and calls the LTPT
               meetings as needed.
          iv. The LTPT utilizes a set of metrics (or market intelligence) to monitor their
               own success. These metrics typically include:
                   a. Availability of HSIS
                   b. Adoption of HSIS
                   c. The goals and levels of achievement of grassroots efforts often
                        related to demand side goals – such as technology literacy,
                        personal computer hardware supply programs, and workforce/job
                        training.



                                            24
High-Speed Internet Strategy Final Report                             December 1, 2008

                d. Unique goals established based on local community planning.
          v. The work of the LTPT is typically six to eighteen months, and then on an
             as-needed basis to monitor that established goals are being met.

Accordingly, while there are aspects to the above elements of local technology planning
teams that would need further refinement, the primary questions that required
determination were:
   • What is the definition of “local” for technology planning team purposes?
   • How will existing efforts be incorporated into the planning team process?
   • Who will coordinate and facilitate the efforts of the teams?
   • What are the key characteristics of the facilitator?
   • What are the capacities needed by the facilitator?

Based on the information provided to the Work Group and the ensuing discussions, the
state should consider the following.

Recommendation: The definition of local should be tied to a definition already in use
by the state. Various options were identified and discussed by the Work Group that
have potential for enabling the LTPT to have successful outcomes because the entities
associated with the local area are already well tied into the community. Two examples
to illustrate how an LTPT might be established include: regions in use by Washington
State University Extension, and the state Department of Community, Trade and
Economic Development.

a) The Department of Community, Trade and Economic Development (CTED) has
seven planning regions. These seven regions were developed based on the common
interests of those within the regions. HSIS availability and use is one of the common
topic areas that are discussed at this level. Dedicated staff are assigned to work
specifically with each region. Using these regions for the focus of LTPT activities would
also tie HSIS deployment and adoption-spurring efforts with one of the state’s goals: to
foster economic development.




                                            25
High-Speed Internet Strategy Final Report                           December 1, 2008


Figure 5: CTED’s Economic Development Regions




b) Washington State University (WSU) has two established footprints across the state.
One footprint is county by county, and the other is via ten learning centers across the
state (see Figures 6, 7). The offices/learning centers that support these areas also
have dedicated staff working on local initiatives. These staff members are well
connected and have established relationships within the local communities.




                                            26
High-Speed Internet Strategy Final Report        December 1, 2008


      Figure 6: WSU Extension County Offices




                                            27
High-Speed Internet Strategy Final Report                             December 1, 2008


      Figure 7: WSU Extension Learning Centers




Other suggested local designations – such as neighborhood, city, or regions larger than
those utilized by CTED, seem to be either too narrow or too broad to facilitate effective
local planning that would benefit the entire local community, as well as achieve
statewide goals and objectives.

The Work Group indicated that a county level (working sometimes in tandem with
neighboring counties) would be viable as the local area. As indicated above, WSU
Extension maintains support services at the county level because it has determined that
the needs of the populations that it supports can best be served at that level. Also,
other types of planning – such as transportation, zoning and economic development,
occur at the county level in order to best support those functions. (In some cases,
based on common interests, this occurs at a multi-county level. An example would be
the Tri-County Economic Development organization which services Stevens, Ferry and
Pend Oreille Counties, based on the common interests concerning the business
environment in those three counties).

Recommendation: Existing grassroots efforts should be leveraged. Many local high-
speed internet availability and adoption-spurring efforts are already underway in
Washington State through the efforts of Communities Connect Network (CCN) and
other groups. Efforts are being made to identify and coordinate these interest groups at



                                            28
High-Speed Internet Strategy Final Report                            December 1, 2008

a statewide level. The LTPT should embrace these local, grassroots efforts by having
them represented as part of the LTPT process.

Section 6 (1) (b) of E2SSB 6438 indicates:
      Establish a competitive grant program and provide grants to community
      technology programs to provide training and skill-building opportunities; access
      to hardware and software; internet connectivity; assistance in the adoption of
      information and communication technologies in low-income and underserved
      areas of the state; and development of locally relevant content and delivery of
      vital services through technology.

Under this provision, $1.2 million in capacity building grant requests were made. Three-
hundred and fifty-thousand dollars ($350,000) in grant funding has been awarded,
based on available funding. These grants are administered by CCN through a contract
with the Washington State University Extension service.

Since the grant funds became available in the spring of 2008, thirty-five (35) proposals
were received. Ten of these proposals were funded. Additionally, CCN conducted
twelve seminars instructing grant recipients in how to measure outcomes and evaluate
the success of their programs. CCN also provides continued support for the grant
recipient.

The HSIS demand-side programs underway only reflect a portion of the grassroots
efforts already in progress in the state of Washington. In fact, over 200 community-
organized demand-side programs are currently underway. Two examples include:
Stone Soup in northeastern Washington and the TechREACH Alliance Project (TAP).

Stone Soup assists rural women and families through organizational, individual and
community capacity building by focusing on the development and support of rural
entrepreneurs. Specifically, Stone Soup helps enhance the abilities of residents to earn
a living by training youth and adults in entrepreneurship and applied information
technology. Stone Soup offers workshops and opportunities to learn by assisting
people in making the leap from a fear of computers and computing, to an understanding
of how information technology can transform their lives.

TAP is a partnership between the Puget Sound Center for Teaching, Learning and
Technology (PSCTLT), Wilderness Technology Alliance, DSHS, and the
TEConnections program to increase technology access and literacy in underserved
communities in Washington State. Certified TAP teachers from middle and high
schools are trained to lead after school clubs in which students refurbish computers for
distribution to low-income families. Low-income families receive a refurbished computer
and are encouraged to attend follow up technology training through an incentive of
internet access. Training is offered in partnership with community based organizations,
libraries, and colleges. The TechREACH Alliance Project is currently serving Brewster,
Bridgeport, Manson, East Wenatchee, Newport, Everett, Burlington, Lynnwood, and
Whidbey Island. This two-year project is funded by the Greater Everett Community



                                            29
High-Speed Internet Strategy Final Report                              December 1, 2008

Foundation through funding from the Verizon/MCI Merger Public Purpose Fund.
Computer recipients commented that the most valuable thing they learned was overall
basic computer use, Internet safety, how to connect to the Internet, and specific skills
about how to use the computer.

One of the objectives of the local technology planning teams will be to identify, and then
build upon, efforts already in progress, such that each of the local regions could move in
a coordinated direction much faster than if starting from scratch.

Recommendation: DIS should work as the statewide coordinator – in conjunction with
an umbrella organization to be determined based on the organizational characteristics
needed, existing presence in each local region, and significant involvement already in
technology programs – to facilitate the LTPT. (The umbrella organization could also be
a part of DIS, similar to the facilitation unit established by Virginia’s Department of
Housing and Community Development). When establishing the staff, or identifying the
organization to support the LTPT, the following organizational characteristics and
associated capacities should be sought:
          a. The ability to identify and establish the local high-speed internet
             stakeholders at the county level in the state of Washington
          b. The ability to conduct effective and comprehensive needs assessments
             that drive decision-making
          c. A proven record of successful strategic planning with measurable
             outcomes
          d. The ability to negotiate consensus among local stakeholders to problem
             solve and make decisions
          e. Strong writing and presentation abilities
          f. A record of data collection and benchmark metrics reporting
          g. A comprehensive understanding of grassroots and other broadband
             initiatives throughout the state

Staff support will be needed to guide the LTPT. Workload estimates indicate that one
full-time administrative person (1 FTE) working at the statewide level, with two full-time
persons (2 FTEs) working as facilitators in the field, will be needed for a comprehensive
statewide effort. While it is possible for an existing state entity to employ one or more
additional staff members to work with several regions, it will likely be more effective to
expand the role of staff already working on local initiatives.

For example: existing state organizations, such as CTED or WSU, could serve as the
facilitator for the local technology planning teams.         These organizations have
regional/local staff programs on the ground, in the state, and close relationships with
organizations that provide research assistance for strategic planning and benchmarking
progress. Regarding WSU, such a role is consistent with the legislative directives that
WSU be the focal point for establishment of low cost programs to improve computer
ownership, technology literacy, and HSI access for populations that are not served in
the state.




                                            30
High-Speed Internet Strategy Final Report                                 December 1, 2008



Element: Tracking Residential and Business High-Speed Internet Adoption
Questions concerning tracking residential and business adoption of high-speed internet,
computers, and related information technology arose as the Work Group addressed
related issues including: GIS mapping criteria, local technology planning teams, and
high-speed internet deployment and adoption metrics.

Recommendation: Based on the discussions that have occurred, and the information
that has been provided, the state should utilize the information developed as part of the
initial mapping efforts (including Form 477 data) to establish initial statewide, residential,
and business adoption; and take rate baselines and benchmarks. DIS should then
provide such data to the LTPT facilitator, local technology planning teams, and high-
speed internet service providers to target areas for adoption-spurring efforts. The state
will be able to determine the level, and pace, at which increases are occurring in both
basic and higher tiers of high-speed internet service over time through a combination of:

   •   Updated mapping
   •   FCC data and other federal agency data being collected
   •   Consumer input through, web-based, interactive Wiki capabilities
   •   Localized surveys done in LTPT areas
   •   Broadband adoption information that is to be tracked by the US Census as part
       of their requirements under Public Law 110-385
   •   Pew Internet and American Life tracking studies for national comparisons

Additionally, it will be possible to determine increases utilizing baseline information in
these categories: computer adoption, basic internet access adoption, and information
technology adoption. DIS can also monitor how well Washington is performing
compared to other initiatives underway in the United States.

Once this information is determined, the map should be updated to reflect new adoption
statistics. Although quarterly data would be preferred from a planning and response
perspective, updating twice annually to be consistent with FCC reporting is reasonable.


Element: Spurring Development of High-Speed Internet
The Work Group discussed and received information on spurring on the development of
high-speed internet resources in the state. It is notable that a preponderance of this
information focused on the critical positive impact that HSIS adoption and deployment-
spurring efforts have on economic development. As noted below, demand-side
initiatives can build technology literacy for employees, as part of workforce training and
related efforts; and foster technology use and applications which can mean
commensurate enhancements in the business climate, especially for small and medium
sized businesses.




                                             31
High-Speed Internet Strategy Final Report                               December 1, 2008

Recommendation: Regarding the methods described in E2SSB 6438, the state should
consider the following:

   •   Soliciting Funding in the Form of Grants or Donations

       DIS and designated third party entities should pursue federal funding for state
       deployment and adoption efforts, as described in the recently signed Public Law
       110-385. Additionally, it is notable that providers have donated funding in a
       number of states to support the initial mapping efforts. Such funding should be
       solicited for Washington’s initiative.

       It is important to note that the success of grant applications is typically connected
       to the nature, extent, and quality of the data provided by the applicant to the
       funding entity. In other words, such grants are “data driven” and will be
       dependent upon successful use of the metrics listed in the next section below.

   •   Continue to Support the Efforts Begun as a Result of E2SSB 6438 by Further
       Supporting Technology Literacy Programs Identified by the Local Technology
       Planning Teams

       The Community Technology Opportunities Program (CTOP) should be expanded
       to stimulate HSIS demand in underserved and low-demand areas of Washington,
       and to strengthen the capacity of community technology programs across the
       state. Technology literacy programs should strive to understand local barriers to
       adoption, and how programmatic enhancements can address those barriers.
       Programs should also have a significant focus on workforce training and
       development. Local demand-side programs should work to identify local issues
       and concerns among populations vulnerable to digital inclusion inhibitors.

   •   Establishing Low Cost Hardware and Software Purchasing Programs

       DIS should administer a program to:
          o Provide additional hardware and software for public access to internet
            locations such as public libraries and other outlets defined by the local
            technology planning team, including working with local businesses as they
            upgrade their computers and technology.
          o Provide lowest cost (including no cost) hardware and software to
            individual households that would qualify based on existing public
            assistance criteria.
          o Establish public/private partnerships and other programs to address
            demand side issues related to hardware and software availability. One
            such program would develop options to extend state Information
            Technology contracts and services to community technology centers, in
            order to lower their barriers to providing community access and training.



                                            32
High-Speed Internet Strategy Final Report                            December 1, 2008


   •   Exploring Other Demand Side Programs to Create HSIS Value

       The Work Group discussed other best practices in states that generate value for
       high-speed internet services. These programs combat a perception among non-
       adopters of computers and the internet that they “don’t need” such services.
       These more content-based programs are an important element of the overall
       strategy to spur HSIS internet adoption. For example: in some communities, the
       state works with local governments to generate e-based initiatives to create
       efficiencies in local government and provide valuable content online. The LTPT
       will likely embrace a variety of creative programs that generate value related to
       HSIS use, and as a result, stimulate demand.

   •   Developing Loan Programs Targeting Small Businesses or Businesses Located
       in Underserved Areas

       In order to help spur adoption, increase the capabilities of small businesses,
       increase the capabilities of businesses in underserved areas, increase adoption
       and use, and also help spur development to eliminate underserved areas, DIS
       should work with CTED and others to develop loan programs that may be
       supported by both public and private funding sources designed to benefit small
       businesses and their use of high-speed internet. Such a loan program would be
       consistent with others already in existence at CTED, such as the Rural
       Washington Loan Fund. These types of programs are also critical to boosting
       economic development in underserved areas.


Element: Metrics, Benchmarks and Levels of Success
E2SSB 6438 requires that “benchmarks, performance measures, milestones,
deliverables, timelines and other such indicators of performance and progress as are
necessary to guide development and implementation of the high-speed internet
deployment and adoption strategy, both short term and long term” be developed. DIS
should work with state research entities to implement the metrics discussed below and
evaluate the performance of state strategies.

Recommendation: While the LTPTs will have their specific set of metrics (mentioned
above) based on localized goals and strategies, the state of Washington will also want
to benchmark the success of the overall effort. DIS should serve as the state monitor of
the success of the HSI initiative, and require that all LTPTs report on their
implementation plans at six month intervals to DIS.

Information, pertaining to the best practices developed by other states concerning
measuring and evaluating the success of high-speed internet deployment and adoption
initiatives, was provided to the Work Group. Ensuing discussion indicated that the state
should consider the following metrics, for measuring the success of the efforts, be put
into place based on the ultimate strategies adopted:




                                            33
High-Speed Internet Strategy Final Report                            December 1, 2008

   1. A continual increase in basic high-speed internet availability, once the eighteen
      (18) months mapping effort is completed, to set a goal of universal or near
      universal (99+ %) availability in, at a minimum, targeted areas by 2012. This will
      require a baseline study of residential and business adoption be conducted at the
      onset of the project, and then updated annually to ensure that satisfactory
      progress is being made.

   2. A continual increase in the level of high-speed internet service provided such
      that:
         a. each area would be provided with a minimum level that equals or exceeds
            the minimum HSIS tier as part of an initial expansion of higher levels of
            service
         b. efforts would be focused on “digital equity” where robust expansion would
            be stimulated. Metrics should be established to evaluate the robustness
            of any given area based on:
                  i. number of service providers active in the community
                 ii. infrastructure investment in dollars by service providers
                iii. number of service offerings
               iv. level and speed of service offerings
                 v. price of services
               vi. user service satisfaction (residential and business)
               vii. adoption rates

   3. A continual increase in high-speed internet adoption and usage at all levels. This
      should be evaluated based on:
         a. initial overall service adoption and basic usage
         b. adoption among targeted, at-risk, communities where historically digital
             inclusion issues are present (i.e., elderly, fixed income households,
             minority populations, disabled)
         c. expansion in applications
         d. expansion in higher service level adoption to facilitate more advanced
             applications (where higher service levels are available)

      Overall adoption would increase over a period of years until rural areas equal
      suburban/urban adoption levels.

   4. A continual expansion in technology literacy and access to HSI technology –
      including computers, other access devices, and software – through increased
      computer ownership and community access to such technology. This should be
      evaluated based on:
          a. expansion in computer software and other HSI technology ownership over
             baseline levels established
          b. expansion in community access to computers, software, and other HSIS
             technology, over baseline levels established



                                            34
High-Speed Internet Strategy Final Report                                December 1, 2008

          c. high-speed internet adoption once HSI technology access and high-speed
             internet availability are verified
          d. expansion in technology literacy and applications utilized
          e. increase and enhancement in the reported value of HSIS (residential and
             business)

   5. A continual increase in service provider participation in the deployment and
      adoption initiative (unless universal participation is achieved at the outset). Initial
      efforts should involve all of the major providers, and providers from different
      types of service and technology sectors. There should be a continual increase in
      the number of providers participating in the mapping initiative if it is successfully
      driving demand, deployment, and market feasibility.

   6. End user satisfaction. Stakeholder (i.e. residents, businesses, educational
      organizations, providers) satisfaction concerning availability and adoption are the
      best benchmarks for the state of Washington when determining level of effective
      progress regarding the HSI initiative. An evaluation of continual improvements
      for the end user (business, residential, institution) relating to the high-speed
      internet experience should be measured to provide this information, and
      measured in a variety of categories including:
          a. satisfaction with numbers, type, and level of service available
          b. satisfaction that available service levels are enabling needed applications
          c. satisfaction with ability to utilize the applications effectively
          d. increases in productivity and associated economic health for businesses
          e. positive price/value and cost/benefit perspective

The Work Group further recommends that DIS tracking studies be developed, in
cooperation with the LTPT, to ensure that both state and local goals are measured and
tracked as LTPT work to benchmark their own progress.

Additionally, federal data collection as part of Public Law 110-385 will provide
comparative benchmarks for the state of Washington to utilize as DIS monitors HSIS
progress. The chart on the next page illustrates key benchmark data to be collected as
part of state and federal initiatives.




                                            35
High-Speed Internet Strategy Final Report                            December 1, 2008


Table 8: Benchmark Data Collection

Data                      E2SSB 6438 &    Federal Form              Public Law 110-
Collected/Tracked         Recommendations 477                       385
                          by Work Group
Broadband Adoption        X               X                         X (U.S. Census
Rates                                                               beginning in 2010,
                                                                    all households)
Computer Adoption         X                                         X (U.S. Census
                                                                    beginning in 2010,
                                                                    all households)
Digital Inclusion         X
Adoption Benchmarks
Broadband                 X                                         X
Availability
Residential End User      X                                         X (National Level)
Satisfaction/Value of
Services
Business End User         X                                         X
Satisfaction/Value of
Services
Speed of Services         X                      X                  X
Pricing Schematics –      X                                         X
Cost per megabit per
second
Expansion of Service      X
Availability


Element: Legislation Needed
E2SSB 6438 specifies that any legislation needed to implement the high-speed internet
deployment and adoption strategy, including a range of potential funding requests, also
be developed.

Recommendation: Based on the information discussed with and provided to the Work
Group, the state should consider the following legislative provisions that would need to
be pursued in order to implement the HSI strategy:
   •   Authorize DIS to coordinate the entire deployment and adoption strategy effort,
       including seeking federal funding to support such an effort
   •   Authorize DIS to enter into a contract with a third party that will: receive
       information from both public and private providers (including proprietary,
       competitively sensitive, and security sensitive information), perform mapping
       functions consistent with federal government data reporting requirements, and
       provide DIS with a map that displays all required information



                                            36
High-Speed Internet Strategy Final Report                               December 1, 2008


   •   Authorize DIS, in conjunction with an entity to be designated, to lead the LTPT
       effort; as well as coordinate the establishment of low cost programs revolving
       around improvements in computer ownership, technology literacy, and high-
       speed internet access to disenfranchised populations or populations that are not
       served
   •   Authorize DIS, in conjunction with CTED and others, to develop a loan program
       targeting small businesses or businesses in underserved areas
   •   Authorize the funding needed (taking into account federal grant funding, other
       grant funding, and provider contributions) to support all efforts delineated as part
       of a phased, high-speed internet deployment and adoption strategy, including
       deployment assistance funding based on the metrics established

Element: Funding Needed

Recommendation: As learned from the information provided and discussions at the
Work Group meetings, the funding needed to support the activities proposed for the
high-speed internet deployment and adoption strategy is not insignificant. Accordingly,
it is recommended that the state consider the following categories of funding needed:
   •   If funds for the complete mapping initiative are not available at one time, initial
       mapping could be performed in stages (as described in the implementation plan).
       For example: mapping the five counties studied in the 2007 Broadband Disparity
       Study could be performed for approximately $75,000, including funding for the
       third party contract. A preliminary statewide adoption map based on information
       developed by the FCC would likely cost less than a third party study. The initial
       mapping cost for a comprehensive statewide mapping effort is estimated at
       $300,000 - $550,000.
   •   Support of the LTPTs (including administration, development, facilitation and
       operation) is based on the following: Overall LTPT administrative cost of
       $45,000 per year, and a base field facilitation cost of $30,000 for a part-time
       facilitator. This would increase to two full-time field facilitators (plus expenses),
       as LTPTs are created across the state. An additional cost to support LTPT
       planning and assessment activities is approximately $13,000 per LTPT. If the
       entire LTPT effort was performed statewide at one-time, the cost is estimated at
       $700,000.
   •   The cost for twice annual updates of the map is scalable based on the portion of
       the state that is initially mapped. For example: if the five counties reviewed as
       part of the 2007 Broadband Disparity Study were initially mapped, the twice
       annual updating cost is projected to be $15,000. Twice annual updates of a
       comprehensive statewide map are estimated at $85,000 - $100,000.
   •   The Work Group suggests that $50,000 per planning team, up to the number of
       planning teams initially developed, should also be allocated to facilitate initial
       implementation of technology literacy, computer ownership, and similar
       programs, until additional funds can be sought and acquired for their


                                            37
High-Speed Internet Strategy Final Report                              December 1, 2008

       continuation. Full initial support of high-speed internet resource development to
       continue funding the CTOP program, and then fund initiatives as identified by the
       LTPTs, is estimated at an initial expenditure of approximately $2,500,000.
   •   DIS’s HSI deployment and adoption strategy coordination cost would scale from
       $39,500 per year (1/3 FTE plus travel expenses and equipment) for a staged
       mapping, LTPT implementation, and internet resources development effort; to
       $114,500 per year for a comprehensive, statewide initiative on all fronts (1 FTE
       plus travel expenses and equipment).
   •   Supporting deployment efforts once the areas of highest need are identified will
       require funding for a significant amount of high-speed internet infrastructure.
       Such infrastructure includes:        backbone fiber, distribution cables, towers,
       antennas, signal transport equipment, and other system electronics. Consistent
       with this, funding is also needed for construction and installation of the
       infrastructure including: trenching and boring operations, overhead (pole line)
       installation, erecting towers, obtaining necessary easements, and permits.
       Specific funding levels for spurring deployment in Washington cannot be
       accurately estimated at this time. Such estimates will be based on the needs
       identified during the initial mapping process, as well as goals developed based
       on gaps found in high-speed internet availability. This figure is difficult to scale
       until the number and nature of projects stemming from the planning efforts are
       known. Other such projects have already required up to $1,450 per household in
       denser sections, and an average of $30,000 per infrastructure mile in
       suburban/rural sections developed.
       Some states have allocated annual amounts of up to $5 million per year, $25
       million over 3 years, and similar allotments for this activity. Other states have
       allocated as much as $40,000,000 to $60,000,000 for the entire deployment
       initiative. These funds are most typically provided to service providers in the
       form of grants, loans, and return on investment support. Service providers are
       then anticipated to make the bulk of the investment needed to complete HSIS
       deployment.

Taking into account the range of funding needed to support the initiatives described
above, the total initial funding needed for a minimum phased effort would be $532,250,
and the total cost if all initiatives were pursued at maximum levels to perform a
comprehensive, statewide mapping, planning, and adoption-spurring effort would be
$3,979,000 over a two year period. (Note that this does not include the cost of
deployment activities, since they cannot be accurately projected at this time.)

Overall, funding for this initiative is available from multiple sources. The state should
explore funding opportunities through grants, service provider contributions, federal
appropriations, and state appropriations.

Public Law 110-385 created the opportunity for federal appropriations to support the
development of broadband infrastructure.     At this time, funds have not been


                                            38
High-Speed Internet Strategy Final Report                             December 1, 2008

appropriated, but it is expected that they may be made available during the next federal
budget year (2010). During the 2009 legislative session, Washington has the
opportunity to establish the ability to receive federal funds, should funds be made
available. The state should position itself to obtain these funds as soon as they are
available.

Additionally, the federal government is considering changes under its intercarrier
compensation docket that would require broadband commitments in exchange for
continuation of universal service funding. Also, the state should look for public/private
partnership funding as opportunities arise.




                                            39
High-Speed Internet Strategy Final Report                              December 1, 2008


          Summary of HSIS Deployment and Adoption Strategy
In summary, there are several critical elements of the HSIS Deployment and Adoption
Strategy:
   •   Key mapping criteria, with service and infrastructure levels based on the
       definition of high-speed internet service, aggregated at a census tract level
   •   Implementation through an RFP process of a third party mapping entity which
       would enter into Non-Disclosure Agreements with participating providers, and
       then provide a finished map with all required information to DIS
   •   The development of local technology planning teams coordinated by DIS, in
       conjunction with a facilitation entity to be designated
   •   Implementation of a variety of adoption-spurring and adoption tracking methods,
       monitored at the state level by DIS. Such demand-side related efforts are a
       critical catalyst for subsequent supply-side initiatives
   •   A variety of legislative proposals to implement the deployment and adoption
       strategy
   •   A variety of funding needed to support implementation
   •   Staging of the effort, based on available funding and funding sources
          o The first priority is to pass necessary legislation and seek associated
            funding.
          o The second stage is to designate the funding to contract with the third
            party, complete the mapping effort, and establish an availability and
            adoption baseline.
          o The third stage, occurring simultaneously with the second stage, is to
            provide the funding necessary to coordinate the development of the local
            technology planning teams, and completion of activities including a local
            strategic technology plan with timeline.
          o The fourth stage is to target and designate funding, to support coordinated
            adoption-spurring and deployment efforts, that would have the greatest
            return for both service providers and end users.
          o The fifth stage is to benchmark and monitor progress.

       There could also be phasing within the stages, such as developing a map based
       on information published by the FCC, or by focusing initial mapping and LTPT
       efforts on the five counties already reviewed under the 2007 Broadband Disparity
       Study commissioned by the Utilities and Transportation Commission.

The following implementation plan and chart describe the plan and timeline for
implementation of the strategy, including the best case scenario where all funding is
available. If all funding isn’t available, and the efforts have to be staged based on when


                                            40
High-Speed Internet Strategy Final Report                               December 1, 2008

funding is available for each of the priorities, the elapsed timelines for each activity and
the actual date of implementation would be shifted to be consistent with available
funding.




                                            41
High-Speed Internet Strategy Final Report                                December 1, 2008


                       Implementation Plan and Timeline

Stages of Implementation and Timeline
Based on all of the high-speed internet and adoption deployment information
researched, developed, reviewed, and discussed; the deliberations, findings, and
recommendations of the Work Group; and the ensuing high-speed internet deployment
and adoption strategy developed; the following is a staged or phased implementation
plan designed to meet the goals and objectives of the strategy. The plan is primarily
presented sequentially. (However, some steps and activities run concurrently and are
so noted below.) Where available funding, lack of completion of prior tasks, activities
and the results of the activities under prior tasks dictate that additional phasing should
occur, sub-steps are provided to illustrate how a planned task could proceed based on
such occurrences.

The timing and the comprehensiveness of the initiative will be determined by the policy
direction and funding provided by the Governor and the Legislature.


Stage 1: Development and Passage of Legislation and Associated Funding
Requests
In this report, DIS has identified legislation necessary to expand high-speed internet
service availability and adoption. In order for this process to move forward, legislation
will need to be enacted and funding provided. The start (S) date for the following
timeline will be determined by the authorization to proceed and the availability of funds.
As indicated previously, DIS will incur a cost for overseeing and coordinating all the
stages below equal to approximately $114,500 per year. If each of the activities below
is further staged, this cost would fall to approximately $39,500 per year.


Stage 2: Conduct GIS Mapping and Establish Baseline

   2.1 Search for and Choose GIS Mapping Entity
       If provided the authorization and appropriate funding, DIS should develop a
       Request for Proposals (RFP) outlining the project goals, as outlined in DIS’
       Report to the Governor and Legislature, to create a baseline assessment and
       multi-layered GIS map of high-speed internet service, both public and private,
       over an eighteen month period. Development of the RFP, dissemination, receipt,
       and review of proposals from third party firms, as well as selection of the firm, will
       end by S+3 months.

   2.2 Development of Non-Disclosure Agreements (NDAs) with Providers
       Research of all high-speed internet service providers by DIS should start by S+3
       months, and be continued by the third-party mapping entity once chosen. Based
       on the contact list developed, discussions should begin with the various providers
       in order to discuss the goals and objectives of the mapping effort. In light of
       concerns by providers related to the confidentiality of proprietary and


                                            42
High-Speed Internet Strategy Final Report                           December 1, 2008

      competitively sensitive information provided, NDAs will need to be developed
      with each specific provider and the third party (once chosen), and should be
      completed by S+6 months in order for the mapping effort to proceed on schedule.

   2.3 HSIS Mapping
       Based on the time necessary for the mapping firm search, and completion of
       NDAs with the providers, mapping efforts should begin by S+4 months. The
       process of gathering information from the providers, inputting the data into the
       mapping program, and producing the final maps, should take eighteen months
       and should conclude by S+22 months, if all necessary funding and information is
       available. A comprehensive, statewide mapping effort would cost between
       $300,000 and $550,000.       Updating the maps twice annually after initial
       development would cost between $85,000 and $100,000.

      2.3.1 If all necessary funding and information is not available, we recommend
            that the actual mapping effort should be phased, based on the most
            efficient and effective utilization of available funds and information in
            relation to the following considerations:

                  a. Mapping the areas with the highest levels of provider
                     participation, up to the level of available funding
                  b. Mapping the five counties already reviewed under the UTC
                     Broadband Disparity Study, where a significant amount of
                     information is already available
                  c. Mapping targeted areas, where it is anticipated that adoption-
                     spurring and deployment efforts could result in a high return on
                     investment, and help meet the goal of 99+ % availability within
                     those areas by 2012

             The initial cost for one of the further staged mapping scenarios above
             would be approximately $75,000. The twice annual updating cost for this
             level of mapping would be approximately $15,000.

   2.4 DIS Establishes HSIS Availability and Adoption Baselines
       DIS will use the information from the mapping effort – a s well as feedback from
       consumers and the LTPTs, and its own verification studies – to establish a
       baseline on HSI residential and business availability and adoption. These
       baselines should be fully developed by S+23 months.




                                            43
High-Speed Internet Strategy Final Report                             December 1, 2008


Stage 3: Conduct Local Technology Strategic Planning

   3.1 Designation and Implementation of a Local Technology Planning Teams
       (LTPT) Facilitator
       DIS will produce solicitation materials to begin a search for a Facilitator to
       oversee the development and activities of Local Technology Planning Teams in
       Washington’s thirty-nine counties (or combinations of counties where existing
       planning activities are already occurring on a multi-county level). DIS will select
       the Facilitator by S+3 months.

   3.2 Establishment of Local Technology Planning Teams
       Once the LTPT Facilitator is in place, DIS and the Facilitator can begin to
       develop LTPTs in each of the designated local areas. Feedback will be critical to
       forming teams that can fulfill the role of overseeing broadband adoption-spurring
       and deployment activities in underserved areas, and within areas not served in
       the respective local delineation. The state designated LTPT Facilitator works
       with local leaders to identify high-speed internet stakeholders that are in
       accordance with the list indicated in E2SSB 6438 and Public Law 110-385 to
       create the LTPT. Once identified, the state Facilitator provides decision-making
       training to the group, assists with assembling materials needed to begin the
       strategic technology planning process, and works to create assessment
       benchmarks for the LTPTs’ work in coordination with state level benchmarks.
       These teams should be in development by S+3 months. The cost for
       comprehensive, statewide LTPT activities under Stages 3.2 and 3.3 is estimated
       to be approximately $700,000.

      3.2.1 If funding is not available to establish LTPT teams in all local areas, then
            available funding should be utilized to create teams that are consistent
            with the manner in which the map effort is staged (i.e., by area where the
            most information has been provided; by UTC Study area or subset
            thereof; by targeted area; etc.).         The initial cost for a phased
            implementation of LTPTs would be approximately $152,750.

   3.3 LTPTs Develop and Implement Technology Plans
       The LTPTs will begin work on technology plans as the teams are developed by
       S+4 months. The LTPT utilizes baseline high-speed internet asset inventory
       (availability, capacity, costs), and local demand aggregation information
       (adoption rate, adoption barriers), to create a local plan to enhance high-speed
       internet opportunities. The local plan embraces technology as an asset to
       strengthen and empower local communities. The plan also prepares local
       communities to utilize and capitalize on high-speed internet infrastructure, by
       offering local applications that empower local entrepreneurs, provide educational
       opportunities, create more robust health care provision, and facilitate high-speed
       internet use at the residential level.




                                            44
High-Speed Internet Strategy Final Report                              December 1, 2008

      During planning, the LTPT reviews the data and identifies weaknesses. Working
      with the asset inventory and members on the team representing the local high-
      speed internet service providers, the LTPT identifies opportunities to provision
      high-speed internet, and create demand in the community.

      This process should be technology neutral, and embrace a variety of means for
      problem-solving. At the same time, the LTPT should work to create a strongly
      supported strategic/business plan for the provision of high-speed internet in its
      community, and to focus on opportunities for public/private partnerships.

      The strategic plan developed should be: future driven with measurable
      benchmarks; stakeholder driven, in that problems with high-speed internet in the
      community are identified from the bottom up; a collaborative/inclusive process;
      and outcome-oriented, in that the plan becomes a tool for the local community to
      overcome high-speed internet hurdles.

      The high-speed internet deployment and adoption implementation plan
      developed by the LTPT becomes the basis for state and federal funding
      opportunities.

      All LTPT plans should include: a committed and representative local planning
      team; a high-speed internet asset inventory and baseline data on high-speed
      internet demand in the community; plans for community education and training;
      technology-neutral based high-speed internet infrastructure options and
      discussion; funding strategies that include a strong business case for local high-
      speed internet investment; and a plan to market the improvements to the high-
      speed internet infrastructure, once realized. The plan should also include
      benchmark intervals of every six months for measuring its success.

      Once the strategic technology plan is developed, the team meets monthly to
      monitor deployment. Once deployment goals are reached, the LTPT works in
      the second phase to promote the new high-speed internet infrastructure, and to
      enhance and spur local demand.

      In the final phase, the LTPT meets every six months to ensure the realization of
      the initial goals of the strategic plan, and participation in state evaluation of the
      process.

      The strategic plans will be completed and issued by S+10 months.


Stage 4: Implement Coordinated Adoption Spurring and Deployment Programs

   4.1 DIS Coordinates Adoption Spurring and Deployment
       Based on all the information developed under the previous three stages, DIS will
       be in a position to coordinate adoption-spurring programs designed in



                                            45
High-Speed Internet Strategy Final Report                             December 1, 2008

      conjunction with the LTPTs, the Facilitator, and other interested parties that will
      result in increased demand. Concurrent with this, DIS will work with the service
      providers to target deployment efforts to meet existing and increased demand.
      The initial funding needed to support full-scale HSI resource development
      programs is estimated to be $2,500,000.

      4.1.1 Based on available funding for such programs developed both under
            Stage 1 and Stage 4.2 below, DIS may need to further stage adoption-
            spurring and deployment efforts. (This staging will be consistent with the
            staging previously discussed for mapping and planning efforts under
            Stages 2 and 3. Funding for such a staged effort is estimated at an initial
            cost of $250,000.)

   4.2 Seeking Funding and Investment as Determined
       Based on identified needs and potentially available funding (identified by DIS and
       the LTPTs), DIS in coordination with the LTPTs and service providers can seek
       additional budget appropriations, grants, provider investments, and other funding
       and development requests as needed. This process should begin by S+11
       months.


Stage 5: Service Provider Deployment and User Adoption Progress

   5.1 Coordinate and Benchmark HSIS Deployment and Adoption Initiatives
       Every six months, the LTPTs will develop adoption-spurring and deployment
       benchmarks to evaluate at the end of the six month period. At this time, the
       LTPTs will develop new goals to be evaluated at the next six month interval.
       These benchmarks, successes, and shortcomings, will be presented to the
       Facilitator overseeing the LTPTs, who in turn will coordinate necessary follow-on
       actions with DIS and service providers. Providers will also report their progress
       on deployment in order to meet existing and increased demand. DIS, with
       coordination and oversight of the whole HSIS deployment and adoption strategy,
       will work with providers to increase availability based on demand. These
       benchmarks and outcomes will be reported on an annual basis.




                                            46
High-Speed Internet Strategy Final Report            December 1, 2008


Table 9: Deployment and Adoption Strategy Timeline




                                                47
High-Speed Internet Strategy Final Report        December 1, 2008




                                   Attachments




                                            48

								
To top