"Why Montana should include internet connectivity and communications in our "shovel ready" projects for President-elect Barack Obama’s economic stimulus program."

Attached is a transcript of the commentary I will be giving on KUFM http://kufm.org/ Wednesday (12/17) evening (5:30 – 6:00) on the subject of planning for telecommunications projects in anticipation of the Obama stimulus package.

Paul DeWolfe, PE

Access Consulting, PC

265 West Front Street

Missoula, MT 59802

Voice: 406-327-0629

Fax: 406-541-9881

[email protected]

http://www.access-consulting.net

***

This is Paul DeWolfe of Access Consulting http://www.access-consulting.net , a Missoula-based professional engineering firm focused on developing broadband internet solutions for unserved and underserved rural communities. I am speaking tonight in response to a recent MTPR commentary on the availability of affordable internet service in rural Montana. First, let me review the events that convinced me that an objective view point on these issues is required:

1. Earlier this year, a representative of the Montana Telecommunications Association spoke on MTPR lobbying for restriction of federal Universal Service Fund subsidies of cellular providers. It seems cellular providers were using USF subsidies in part to compete with them. In many areas, the cellular providers were also installing wireless broadband internet services, providing further competition to the wireline providers.

2. On November 7, 2008, the Missoulian reported that Qwest had reached a settlement with the Public Service Commission to resolve consumer complaints that Qwest had earned almost twice the profit allowed by law. As part of that settlement, Qwest has agreed to reduce consumer telephone rates and install digital subscriber line (DSL) broadband internet service in 27 communities over three years.

3. On November 26, 2008, Common Cause Montana released a study conducted by MSU’s Dr. Richard Wolff that concluded that many rural Montana residents still can not get broadband services and that those residents who can pay up to 40% more than in other states.

4. Also on November 26, 2008, the Montana Telecommunications Association presented a Commentary on the Common Cause Study on MTPR. MTA disputed the study’s claim that rural Montanans do not have, or pay too much for, broadband internet service, at least in the MTA territories.

5. On 12/5/2008, President-elect Barack Obama announced that his economic stimulus plan would include broadband internet access for every child, school, hospital, and doctor in America. The stimulus package would only fund projects that are ready to go.

6. On 12/10/2008, the Great Falls Tribune reported that the Montana Department of Transportation has a list of projects ready for the stimulus plan. No mention was made of any broadband internet related projects.

7. On December 12, 2008, the Idaho Falls Times News reported that Idaho’s Governor has included a $6.7 million fiber optic broadband connection between Riggins and Grangeville on Idaho’s list of ready projects.

So, what do all these events mean when viewed together, and why should they concern us? Well, here is what my colleagues and I think:

1. Internet access for any consumer or business regardless of location is critical for our rural economy to survive in the digital world. The criticality of internet access has led our neighboring states to study the problem, identify the communities and residents in need, and develop implementation plans that may now qualify for the Obama stimulus plan. Such efforts in North Central Idaho led to the inclusion of the Riggins – Grangeville fiber project on Governor Otter’s list and to the successful deployment of community owned and operated broadband internet in Elk River. We Montanans can not even agree if broadband access is necessary. Our neighbors in Idaho are years past that discussion.

2. The rural telecommunications providers would like us to believe that there is no issue with broadband availability and affordability. They have done a good job of deploying DSL services in rural communities. However, DSL is distance limited. The presence of DSL equipment in a community does not help if you live as little as three miles outside of town. And broadband internet access is evidently also a problem in at least 27 communities served by Qwest. Until we develop independent assessments of broadband availability, such as those developed in Idaho and by the MSU study, we stand to miss out on the opportunities that will be presented by the President-elect’s stimulus plan.

3. When we finally get down to the business of those independent assessments, we must do so with an open mind. While telephone companies like to tout their DSL service, and cable companies prefer their cable modem service, the truth is that neither may be the answer for rural last mile internet service. We also need to be wary of incumbent provider’s actions to limit the growth of competitive services. Cellular companies are now providing wireless broadband services throughout much of Montana. Our firm relies on these services to keep our engineers productive despite the many hours and miles of windshield time that working in Montana requires. We have to be aware of incumbent efforts to restrict competition that will also result in no service, poor service or expensive service to some Montana consumers and businesses.

What should we do?

1. On a state, regional or county basis, we must develop internet access master plans for improving such access where it is missing, expensive or unreliable. We must do this quickly so that we can take advantage of any funding opportunities that may arise out of President-elect Obama’s stimulus plan.

2. At the Federal level, Senators Baucus and Tester and Congressman Rehberg should be working to insure that funding for rural internet access for all is included in any public works economic stimulus package. Fixing unsafe bridges is important, but improving roads to communities whose schools and businesses are struggling on the wrong side of the digital divide may not be our best investment.

3. Our Congressional delegation should also team with their counterparts from other rural states to insure that our unique needs for telecommunications services are not drowned out by the larger delegations of the more urban States.

4. And finally, call or write your City Councilpersons, County Commissioners, State Legislator, Governor, Senators and Congressman. Tell them that rural residents and businesses need the kind of action our neighbors in Idaho have gotten for over three years.

Thank you for listening, and best wishes for the Holiday Season.

***

Investing in the Invisible Infrastructure http://matr.net/article-32043.html