HSISWG - DRAFT Report - 21Nov08 doc

DRAFT REPORT

High-Speed Internet

Deployment and Adoption Strategy

Recommendations

for the

State of Washington

Submitted by the:

Department of Information Services

in consultation with

the High-Speed Internet Strategy Work Group

and with assistance from

CBG Communications, Inc.

November 21, 2008

High-Speed Internet Strategy Final Report November 21, 2008

Table of Contents

Page No.

Introduction and Background 1

Recommendations 4

Summary of HSIS Deployment and Adoption Strategy 42

Implementation Plan and Timeline 44

Attachments 50

ATTACHMENTS

A. Summary 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

K. 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


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:

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


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. The definition of local as it applies to local technology planning teams;

11. The makeup of such teams and whether such teams already exist;

12. How they should be funded;

13. The best way to facilitate such teams;

14. How such teams would conduct a needs assessment;

15. How they would work collaboratively with providers; and

16. The key indicators of successful efforts of such teams.

iii

High-Speed Internet Strategy Work Group Meeting November 19, 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), 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 representatives from a tribal government and public safety. DIS invited over twenty-five representatives from these sectors to participate in the Work Group. Nearly all responded favorably and the resulting membership is detailed below. DIS then scheduled seven meetings of the Work Group between July 9, 2008 and November 19, 2008. It 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 and to assist in developing the strategy and associated report.

Work Group CompositionThe Work Group was made up of a broad representation of the entities and organizations specified by E2SSB 6438 and has provided a diversity of opinion and information related to a wide range of High-Speed Internet Deployment and Adoption Strategy elements. Specifically, the Work Group was comprised of:

(Remainder of page intentionally left blank)

1


Table 1: Work Group MembersRepresentative Organization RepresentedTwyla Barnes Educational Services District 112Jim Broman Lacey Fire District #3Betty Buckley Communities Connect NetworkEarl Heister Information Services Board MemberJohan Hellman VerizonPhil Jones Utilities and Transportation CommissionDavid Keyes City of SeattleJohn Klein King CountyGail Love Communication Workers of AmericaRon Lucas Rainier Communications Commission/Washington

Association of Telecommunications Officers and Advisors

Gary Mallon Greater Spokane IncorporatedRon Main Broadband Cable Association of WashingtonSusie Mason Confederated Tribes of the Colville ReservationAlison McCaffree NPowerLew McMurran Washington Technology Industry AssociationJeff Mero Association of Washington Public Hospital DistrictsMatt Mitchell Washington State University ExtensionMatt Newbry Department of Community, Trade and Economic

DevelopmentJoe Poire Port of Whitman CountyGary Robinson Department of Information ServicesDavid Siburg Kitsap Public Utilities DistrictEd Stern Association of Washington Cities/City of PoulsboMary Taylor CenturyTelMichael Tracy Grays Harbor Economic Development CouncilDan Youmans AT&T

Work Group ActivitiesBetween 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 the 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, and 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


The activities of the Work Group included development and review of a number of documents and other 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 is to provide strategic direction to the state to assist in achieving 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


Recommendations

The following findings and 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, and 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. The 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), as well as the Federal Communication Commission’s (FCC) recent redefinition of broadband related to Form 477 reporting requirements. Work Group members provided information concerning their organization’s perspective on the 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, but 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 as a goal symmetrical operation 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, which the Work Group did not believe could be characterized as “high-speed” internet.

4


Table 2: FCC Broadband/HSIS Speed Tier Comparison

Upload Speeds

Download Speeds> 200 kbps

and< 768 kbps

≥ 768 kbps and

< 1.5 mbps

≥ 1.5 mbps and

< 3 mbps

≥ 3 mbps and

< 6 mbps

≥ 6 mbpsand

< 10 mbps

≥ 10 mbpsand

< 25 mbps

≥ 25 mbpsand

< 100 mbps

≥ 100 mbps

≤ 200 kbps

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

Accordingly, the HSIS definition for the state’s purposes balances the data gathering needed to provide a realistic assessment of high-speed internet service within the state 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 that the majority of high-speed internet users and potential users are much more cognizant of the applications that HSI can enable than the speeds at which these applications operate in 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.

Consistent with this determination, below is a chart that shows various applications ranging from basic e-mail to high capacity, high-speed, remote super computing and how these 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 related to either

5


the upload or download direction is significantly affected based on the specific speed pair available.


6


Table 3: HSIS Speed Tiers/Applications

Upload Speeds

Download Speeds ≥ 768 kbps

and < 1.5 mbps

≥ 1.5 mbps And

< 3 mbps

≥ 3 mbps and

< 6 mbps

≥ 6 mbps and

< 10 mbps

≥ 10 mbps and

< 25 mbps

≥ 25 mbps and

< 100 mbps

≥ 100 mbps

> 200 kbpsand

< 768 kbps

Basic E-Mail(upload small files

download medium files)

You Tube Video

Telecommuting (upload limited)

Standard def video – Broadcast quality 1

channel (download only)

Multi channel Internet Protocol Television

(IPTV)File sharing medium files

(download only)

Remote diagnostics (download only)Online Internet

gaming (low upload enabled games)

Telemedicine (download only)Remote one way

education(download only)

Smart/Intelligent building monitoring (Vid, Audio & data)

(upload limited)

NA

≥ 768 kbpsand

< 1.5 mbps

Basic E-Mail(medium files)

You Tube Video

TelecommutingStandard def Video –

Broadcast quality1 channel

(download only)



Remote diagnostics (download only)Online Internet

gaming (low upload enabled games)

Telemedicine(download only)Remote one way

education(upload limited)


(upload limited)

NA

≥ 1.5 mbps and

< 3 mbps

Basic E-Mail(medium files)

You Tube Video




(IPTV)File sharing (upload

medium files, download large files)

Remote diagnostics (download only)

Online interactive gaming

Telemedicine(upload limited)Remote one way

education (upload limited)

Smart/Intelligent building monitoring(Vid, Audio & data)

(upload limited)

NA

≥ 3 mbps and

< 6 mbps

Basic E-Mail(upload large files


You Tube Video




(IPTV)File sharing large files

Remote diagnostics (limited upload)

Online interactive gaming

Telemedicine(medium upload apps)

Remote Interactive education

(upload limited)


(upload limited)Campus wide

educational services (upload limited)

Technology and business parks

(upload limited)

≥ 6 mbps and

< 10 mbps

Basic E-Mail(upload large files


You Tube Video




(IPTV)File sharing large files

Remote diagnostics Online Internet

gaming

Telemedicine(medium upload apps)

Remote Interactive education

(upload limited)


(upload limited)Campus wide

educational services (upload limited)


(upload limited)

7


Table 3 (continued.): HSIS Speed Tiers/Applications

Upload Speeds

Download Speeds ≥ 768 kbps

and < 1.5 mbps

≥ 1.5 mbps And

< 3 mbps

≥ 3 mbps and

< 6 mbps

≥ 6 mbps and

< 10 mbps

≥ 10 mbps and

< 25 mbps

≥ 25 mbps and

< 100 mbps

10 mbps and

< 25 mbps

Basic E-MailUpload large files

Download Medium files

You Tube Video





(large files upload)

Remote diagnostics Online interactive

gaming

Telemedicine 2-wayRemote interactive

education


(medium upload)Campus wide

educational services (medium upload)

≥ 25 mbps and

< 100 mbps

Basic E-MailUpload large files

Download Medium files

You Tube Video







gaming


education


Campus wide educational services


Remote Supercomputing(medium upload)

≥ 100 mbps Basic E-MailUpload Large filesDownload Medium

filesYou Tube Video







gaming


education


Campus wide educational services


Remote Supercomputing

8


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 direction as well as the 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 that the commuter can effectively perform their work functions. Some applications will merely operate slower, 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, lower speeds may make telecommuting an ineffective proposition. Furthermore, applications needing real-time connectivity will function poorly, if at all. Such applications include real-time video (for example, video conferencing and video monitoring) as well as multitasking, 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 for high quality high definition video with other applications running concurrently (this will require speeds of 10 mbps symmetrical or greater).

9


Element - FCC Form 477 DataIn 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 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 that require reporting of 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, delivered speed information gathering, 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. 07-382 WC Docket No. 07-38 Para 19 - 20, Figure 13 WC Docket No. 07-38 Para 23 - 244 WC Docket No. 07-38 Para 25 - 315 WC Docket No. 07-38 Para 17 - 186 WC Docket No. 07-38 Para 17 - 187 WC Docket No. 07-38 Appendix A § 43.11 (c)

10


Public Law 110-135, 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; or(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 CriteriaOnce the Work Group determined a definition of high-speed internet, it then reviewed how information could be gathered, compiled and displayed in a format that provides easy understanding of the current state of high-speed internet infrastructure and service deployment and that enables residential, business, and institutional consumer adoption to be easily displayed and understood. Consistent with a number of other state initiatives, E2SSB 6438 stipulates that 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 quite readily which areas of the state have a high degree of HSIS deployment and which areas have lower or no HSIS deployment. Similarly, it allows the viewer to understand the variations in adoption rates across the state. As further described below, it also will enable the Local Technology Planning Teams (LTPTs) to help target their efforts to the areas of highest need within their purview.

In the legislation, the state indicated 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). Specifically, 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 Address (Street)

Type of Service Available

Levels of Service Available

Costs of Levels

Is Address Served (Served Addresses)?

If Yes, What type?

If Yes, What Level?

If Yes, What Price?

Franchise Area (for Cable)

Wire Center Area (For Telco)

Census Tract Census Block

11


While E2SSB 6438 stipulated that the Work Group explore collecting high-speed internet availability and adoption data at the census block level, beginning in March of 2009, the FCC will require HSI service providers to provide data related to adoption rates at the census tract level. (A census tract is larger than a census block.) Additionally, 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. The service providers on the Work Group stated that to meet the new federal requirements, by March of 2009 all service providers will have the ability to provide adoption information at the census tract level. Service providers also indicated that they will provide availability information at the census tract level 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.

Based on this, 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, it was noted by members of the Work Group 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 a specific database needed to be designed and implemented at the census block level.

Second, service provider members of the Work Group indicated that it was highly efficient for them to prepare and provide such data because of the FCC requirements, but would require significant effort and expense to prepare such data at a different level for the State of Washington, and conceivably and other types of levels for other states. In other words, it was important to try to achieve consistency between state and federal reporting requirements.

Third, regarding cost, it was discussed with the Work Group that 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) would incur a significant cost for providers. 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


Table 5: Geocoding Service Fees

No. of Records Total CostLow High Low High

1 10,000 0.00 $35010,001 50,000 $350 $1,27050,001 100,000 $1,270 $2,170

100,001 250,000 $2,170 $3,970250,000 500,000 $3,970 $6,470500,000 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 that range, while mapping at the census tract level would be toward the low end of that range.

The Work Group discussed that gathering and mapping high-speed internet availability and adoption information at the census tract level will not provide the same level of detail and granularity as it would be 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 critical to the success of deployment and adoption efforts.

It’s important to note that if a provider is currently planning to collect data by census tract as required by the FCC, they should design their database 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 only FCC Form 477 census tract level data was used, while adoption information will be available relatively soon, the FCC has not yet determined a timeframe for the provision of availability information. Availability information is a critical component to be provided and mapped 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, availability information showing service gaps will serve as early indicators where initial supply-side efforts should be focused. Without such availability information from the state, LTPTs will need to work much more extensively on gathering such information at the local level, which will inhibit the time and resources that could be spent on demand-side efforts.

Consistent with the stipulations in E2SSB 6438, the mapping criteria and mapping examples shown below are discussed at the census block level. If the census tract level is used for the initial mapping effort, then the criteria and maps detailed below would still apply, but would be developed at a higher, less granular level.

13


Also, as further discussed below, private service providers have significant concerns about the public availability of proprietary and competitively sensitive data and security sensitive information, which is shared by government network infrastructure and service providers. Both 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 and included a description of the elements that could be mapped, as well as the functionality that the maps need to have in order to support both deployment and adoption expansion efforts. A base set of criteria was developed that covers 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 Survey

Town Broadband availability (no details indicated).

Nebraska Assessment Survey

Provider boundaries, zip code or population center.

Service level speeds, types of transmission facilities, price, number of households that can be served, and number of subscribers.

Iowa Assessment Survey

Not specified Type of service available, price, broadband availability, planned deployment in next 12 months.

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

14


State Purpose Level Provider Data Gathered

code wireless9.Illinois GIS Map

(Proposed)Not specified HSI services and adoption.

Kentucky, Tennessee, Ohio, South Carolina and West Virginia

GIS Map County and census block

Provider, provider’s website, type of service, e.g., DSL, cable modem, wireless, cell towers, water tanks, percentage of broadband adoption, proposed water and sewer and road construction.

The mapping criteria were revised slightly for additional review by the Work Group to indicate that the cost of performing conduit audits needed to be factored into the requirement to identify vacant and excess conduit capacity, as well as include 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. Additionally, it was 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 (as described in further detail below) 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 set to be mapped during the eighteen month effort stipulated by the legislation.


9 More detailed HSIS infrastructure data is collected but is only available through a $5,000 subscription fee.

15


Recommended Public and Privately Owned HSIS Mapping Features and Functionality

Publicly Owned and Leased HSIS InfrastructureBase 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 InfrastructureBase Mapping Features Service areas polygons based on US Census Bureau TIGER files Identify service providers in the census block Identify types of service and range of speeds provided in the census block Specific downstream and upstream speeds as reported on Form 477,

augmented to further supply census block level data Specific adoption levels as reported on Form 477, augmented to further

supply census block level data Data updated in conjunction with Form 477 filings, augmented to further

supply census block level data Types of infrastructure in the census block (copper, fiber, coaxial, etc.)

Expanded Mapping Features Physical location of HSIS backbone infrastructure

Publicly and Privately Owned HSIS InfrastructureBase Mapping Functionality Interactive map for state use only Ability to query by address Map displays HSIS Infrastructure aggregate census block 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


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 are base mapping features 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);

Add the physical location of private provider, HSI backbone infrastructure; Add available capacity on private provider towers; and Provide links to high-speed internet information from providers in the census

area, 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 blocks.

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 which will facilitate 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


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)

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

Service LevelsService 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%

Service LevelsService 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


Figure 2:

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

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

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%

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


Figure 3:

20


Figure 4:

21


Element - Identification and Protection of Proprietary and Competitively Sensitive DataThe Work Group also discussed concerns regarding both the public entity and private service provider infrastructure and service data to be gathered, mapped, disseminated, and utilized by local technology planning teams and others for deployment and adoption enhancement efforts and how to keep such data that is proprietary and competitively sensitive from not being publicly disclosed. The two critical components of this issue are first identifying what elements of the data set described above should be deemed proprietary and confidential and kept from public disclosure and second how to best keep such data from public disclosure. Regarding the first issue, the Work Group was asked to review the entire set of base and expanded mapping criteria, and determine from their perspective what is proprietary, what is not proprietary, why and, if it is proprietary, is there a level at which it is no longer proprietary (for example, a data element that might be proprietary at the census block level may not be proprietary at the census tract level). The Work Group members then provided feedback on these questions.

Recommendation: One basic recommendation is that data that is already publicly available (through marketing materials, information provided on web-sites, information disclosed in public filings, and through public processes such as permitting, etc.) be considered not proprietary and not competitively sensitive. On the other side, information that would either pose a security risk, is internal provider information that would create a competitive disadvantage or information provided to the mapping entity that is identifiable to a specific service provider, all be considered proprietary. Applying these criteria results in the following delineation:

Table 7: Publicly and Privately Owned HSIS Mapping Features and Functionality

Recommended as Public or as Proprietary and Confidential Information

Publicly Owned and Leased HSIS Infrastructure Shield as Proprietary

Base and Expanded Mapping Features Yes No

Service areas polygons based on US Census Bureau TIGER Files X

Identify service/infrastructure provider X

X,Y coordinates of HSIS infrastructure (both active and inactive)* X

Number of vacant ducts (empty conduit)* X

Amount of dark fiber* X

Availability of capacity on towers* X

Data updated in conjunction with updates for private providers X

*This degree of detail will only be mapped at the street level in areas where actual service “gaps” are identified on the map.

22


Privately Owned HSIS Infrastructure Shield as Proprietary

Base Mapping Features Yes No

Service areas polygons based on US Census Bureau TIGER Files X

Identify service providers in the census block X

Identify types of service and range of speeds provided in the census block

X

Specific downstream and upstream speeds as reported on Form 477, augmented to further supply census block level data**

X

Specific adoption levels as reported on Form 477, augmented to further supply census block level data**

X

Data updated in conjunction with Form 477 filings, augmented to further supply census block level data**

X

Type of Infrastructure in the census block (copper, fiber, coaxial, etc.) X

Expanded Mapping Features Shield as Proprietary

Physical location of HSIS backbone infrastructure X

** Aggregate data from Form 477 as reported by the FCC would be publicly available.

Publicly and Privately Owned HSIS Infrastructure Shield as Proprietary

Base Mapping Functionality Yes No

Interactive map for state use only X

Ability to query by address X

Map displays HSIS Infrastructure aggregate census block availability and “gaps”

X

Ability to pan, zoom, and identify available specific HSIS service types and levels

X

Ability to display aggregate adoption rates X

Expanded Mapping Functionality

Interactive map for consumer use X

Ability to hyperlink to service provider website X

Ability to display specific adoption rates by service type and service level

X

Notes:

Any information provided to the mapping entity that is specifically identifiable to an individual company that is for the purpose of creating the HSIS inventory map should be exempt from public disclosure and disclosed only under a Non-Disclosure Agreement.

Information that is already publicly available (such as through the Internet, through permits, etc.) should not be exempted from public disclosure.

Any mapping feature not already publicly available and that is deemed to have security implications such as individual runs to public safety locations would be protected from public disclosure.

23


Recommendation: The above determination can now be utilized for application to the second, associated issue related to the best way to protect proprietary and competitively sensitive data from exposure. 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.

First, if legally viable and established to provide DIS with the level of information it needs for its overarching role in the HSIS deployment and adoption initiative, DIS should purchase only the finished, publicly available high-speed internet service map from an independent third-party organization. The underlying proprietary and competitively sensitive information used to create the map would not be provided to DIS or any other state agency. In this case, a new exemption in the Washington State Public Disclosure Act (PDA) would not be needed, but the information would still be protected from disclosure by utilizing the independent third party.

The Work Group discussed security concerns related to the public disclosure of public network services and infrastructure. It believes that this information would be exempted from public disclosure by an existing exemption (RCW 42.56.420 (4)).

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

Element - Responsibility for MappingOther 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 as follows. A GIS unit needed to create the high-speed internet inventory database should be staffed with personnel as indicated in the chart below. The GIS manager should be able to direct the activities of subordinate GIS specialists, trainees and, where feasible, interns 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

24


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, their projected tasks would be assumed by additional specialists and/or trainees.

Such an entity should also have the following capacity:

Table 8: GIS Mapping Staff (Cost for a Statewide Mapping Effort at the Census Block Level)

Job Title Salary No. 18 MonthsGIS Manager $80,000 .33 $39,600GIS Specialists $60,000 2.0 $180,000GIS Trainee $40,000 1.0 $60,000Interns* $10,000 9.0 $135,000Expenses $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 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, for 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 the most effective at the local level.

25


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 (based on discussions with the Work Group, this category should also include public utility districts and public entities with network infrastructure) 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.

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

i. The LTPTs are organized by an umbrella organization that works to ensure that 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, 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 or two training the members of the team on how to accomplish their goals, connects the team to resources to complete their tasks, and assists 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 to meet as needed.

iv. The LTPT utilizes a set of metrics (or market intelligence) to monitor their own success. These metrics, as explained later in this report, typically include:

a. Availability of HSISb. Adoption of HSISc. 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.

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.

.

26


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, and HSIS availability and use is one of the common topic areas that are discussed at this level. Dedicated staff 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.


27


Figure 5: CTED’s Economic Development Regions

b) Washington State University (WSU) has two established footprints across the state; one 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 that are well connected and have established relationships within the local communities.


28


Figure 6: WSU Extension County Offices


29


Figure 7: WSU Extension Learning Centers

Other suggested local designations, such as neighborhood, city or regions larger than those utilized by CTED, based on Work Group input, 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.

Most commonly, the Work Group indicated that a County level (working sometimes in tandem with neighboring counties) would be viable as the local area and this is the recommendation of the Work Group. 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 occurs 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 (3) counties).

30


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 others and efforts are being made to identify and coordinate such efforts at a statewide level. The LTPT should embrace these local, grassroots efforts by having them represented as part of the LTPT process.

For example, 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.

Specifically, since the grant funds became available in the spring of 2008, thirty-five (35) proposals were received of which ten were able to be funded. Additionally, CCN conducted twelve seminars instructing grant recipients in how to measure outcomes and evaluate the success of their programs, and provides continued support for the grant recipient in meeting goals.

The HSIS demand side programs underway related to the latest round of grants only reflects a portion of the grassroots efforts already in progress in the state of Washington. In fact, over 200 community organization, demand-side programs are currently underway. Just 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 be 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 doing to assist 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 the 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

31


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 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 quicker than starting from scratch.

Recommendation: Regarding statewide coordination, 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 they should seek the following organizational characteristics and stipulated associated capacities:

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. We estimate, at a minimum, 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.

32


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. Further, 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.

Element - Tracking Residential and Business High-Speed Internet Adoption As the Work Group addressed related issues, including GIS mapping criteria, local technology planning teams, and high-speed internet deployment and adoption metrics, it discussed and responded to questions concerning tracking residential and business adoption of high-speed internet, computers and related information technology.

Recommendation: Based on all 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. Then, 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, and

Pew Internet and American Life tracking studies for national comparisons

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. Additionally, utilizing baseline information related to computer adoption, basic internet access adoption, and information technology adoption, increases in these categories could be determined. 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 consistent with the FCC reporting timetable (twice annually) is reasonable.

33


Element - Spurring Development of High-Speed InternetThe Work Group discussed and received information on how the development of high-speed internet resources could be spurred 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 for especially small and medium sized businesses.

Recommendation: Regarding the methods described in E2SSB 6438, we recommend that 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 as well.

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. They should also have a significant focus on workforce training and development. Local demand-side programs should also 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 the internet locations such as public libraries and other outlets defined by the local technology planning team, such as working with local businesses as they upgrade their computers and technology.

34


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 should be developing options to extend state Information Technology contracts and services, to community technology centers to lower their barriers to providing community access and training.

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 typically 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. We anticipate the LTPT will 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 and businesses in underserved areas and, through increasing adoption and use, also help spur competition so that such areas are no longer underserved, DIS should work with CTED and others to developing 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.

Elements - Metrics, Benchmarks and Levels of SuccessE2SSB 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.

Recommendations: 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.

35


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, to be put into place based on the ultimate strategies adopted:

1. A continual increase in basic high-speed internet availability, once the eighteen (18) months mapping effort is completed, to achieve 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. then, efforts would be focused on “digital equity” where robust competition 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 communityii. infrastructure investment in dollars by service providersiii. number of service offeringsiv. level and speed of service offeringsv. price of servicesvi. 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. then, expansion in applications

d. subsequently, 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.

36


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

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. Then, 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 how effective progress is concerning 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 enable 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 following chart illustrates key benchmark data to be collected as part of state and federal initiatives.

37


Table 9: Benchmark Data Collection

Data Collected/Tracked

E2SSB 6438 & Recommendations by Work Group

Federal Form 477

Public Law 110-385

Broadband Adoption Rates at the Census Block Level

X X (Census Tract) X (U.S. Census beginning in 2010, all households)

Computer Adoption X X (U.S. Census beginning in 2010, all households)

Digital Inclusion Adoption Benchmarks

X

Broadband Availability

X X

Residential End User Satisfaction/Value of Services

X X (National Level)

Business End User Satisfaction/Value of Services

X X

Speed of Services X X XPricing Schematics – Cost per megabit per second

X X

Investment by Service Providers

X

Element - Legislation NeededE2SSB 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.


38


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 all the mapping functions described herein and provide DIS with a map that displays all required information;

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; and

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 the Work Group 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, we recommend 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 using only Form 477 data would also likely be in this cost range. The initial mapping cost for a comprehensive statewide mapping effort is estimated at $300,000 - $550,000.

Support of the LTPTs, including coordination, development, facilitation and operation is based on the following: coordination cost of $45,000 per year and a base facilitation cost of $30,000 for a part-time facilitator that would increase to up 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 for each LTPT. If the entire LTPT effort was performed statewide at one-time, the cost is estimated at $700,000.

39


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.

It is expected that a state coordinator for high-speed internet resource development would cost approximately $50,000. Then, the Work Group suggests that $50,000 per planning team, up to the number of planning teams initially developed, should be allocated to facilitate initial implementation of technology literacy, computer ownership and similar programs until additional funds can be sought and acquired for their 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.

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 and obtaining necessary easements and permits.

Specific funding levels for spurring deployment in Washington cannot be accurately estimated at this time. Such estimates will need to 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 it is known what the number and nature of the projects are stemming from the planning efforts that would be initiated. Other such projects, though, have 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 $542,750 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 $3,850,000 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.

40


Overall, funding for this initiative is available from multiple sources. The state should explore funding opportunities through grants, service provider contributions, and federal 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 appropriated, but it is expected that they may be made available during the next federal budget year (2010). Additionally, the federal government is considering making universal service-like funding available for broadband deployment. 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 state should look for public/private partnership funding as opportunities arise. Specific funding amounts are delineated on a fiscal note accompanying the Report.


41


Summary of HSIS Deployment and Adoption Strategy

In summary, the HSIS Deployment and Adoption Strategy has several critical elements:

Key mapping criteria, with service and infrastructure levels based on the definition of high-speed internet service

Implementation through an RFP process, of a third party mapping entity which would enter into Non-Disclosure Agreements with participating providers

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 Specifically, 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, and completion of activities including a local strategic technology plan with timeline by, the local technology planning teams.

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, and

o The fifth stage is to benchmark and monitor progress.

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

42


The following implementation plan and chart describes the plan and timeline for implementation of the strategy, based on 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 funding is available for each of the priorities, the elapsed timelines for each activity would the same as above, but the actual date of implementation would be shifted to be consistent with available funding.


43


Implementation Plan and Timeline

Stages of Implementation and TimelineBased 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, and 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 RequestsIn 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.

Stage 2: Conduct GIS Mapping and Establish Baseline

2.1Search for and Choose GIS Mapping EntityIf provided the authorization and appropriate funding, DIS should develop a Request for Proposals (RFP) outlining the goals, as determined by and outlined in DIS’ Report to the Governor and Legislature, of a project to create a baseline assessment and multi-layered GIS map of high-speed internet infrastructure and services owned and provided by public and private entities in the state. The RFP will require milestones throughout the project to ensure completion of the mapping exercise within the eighteen month period dictated by E2SSB 6438. 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.


44


2.2Development of Non-Disclosure Agreements (NDAs) with ProvidersResearch 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 and determine the availability of information needed from the providers. In light of concerns by providers related to the confidentiality of proprietary and competitively sensitive information they will provide, NDAs will need to be developed with each specific provider and should be completed by S+6 months in order for the mapping effort to proceed on schedule.

2.3HSIS MappingBased on the timing of the search for a mapping firm 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 final maps should take eighteen months and should conclude by S+22 months, if all necessary funding and information is available.

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

a. Mapping HSIS infrastructure and services where the most information has been provided by private and public entities, 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 would result in a high return on investment and help meet the goals of 99+ % availability within those areas by 2012.

2.4DIS Establishes HSIS Availability and Adoption BaselinesDIS will use the information from the mapping effort as 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.

45


Stage 3: Conduct Local Technology Strategic Planning

3.1Designation and Implementation of a Local Technology Planning Teams (LTPT) FacilitatorDIS 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.

3.2Establishment of Local Technology Planning TeamsOnce 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 areas not served in the respective local areas. 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.

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.).

3.3LTPTs Develop and Implement Technology PlansThe LTPTs will begin to 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 as it prepares them to utilize and then 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.

During planning, the LTPT reviews the data and identifies weaknesses. Then, 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.

46


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 and the potential 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 it 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 for measuring its success of every six months.

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 initial goals of the strategic plan are being realized and participates 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

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

47


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.

4.2Seeking Funding and Investment as DeterminedBased on identified needs as well as 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

5.1Coordinate and Benchmark HSIS Deployment and Adoption InitiativesEvery 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 and report these benchmarks and outcomes on an annual basis.


48


Table 11: Deployment and Adoption Strategy Timeline

49


Attachments

50

HSISWG - DRAFT Report - 21Nov08 doc

Documents