From: El-Beik, Essam
To: BOCrfc2015
Subject: Broadband Opportunity Council
Date: Wednesday, June 10, 2015 2:24:20 PM
Attachments: State of Illinois BOC RFC Response v1.1.docx
Cover letter - State of Illinois BOC RFC Response.pdf
Please find attached a cover letter and Broadband Opportunity Council Request for Comment
response from Hardik Bhatt, Chief Information Officer, State of Illinois.
regards,
Essam El-Beik
Illinois Century Network
Bureau of Communications & Computer Services
Central Management Services
214 792 9866
Dark Fiber and Lit service available throughout Illinois.
See www.illinois.net/provider or contact me for more details.
1
State of Illinois Request for Comments Response
The State of Illinois is pleased to submit the following response to the Request for Comments (RFC)
issued by the Broadband Opportunity Council. We recognize the importance of high speed broadband
for economic growth, education, health and safety and recognize in particular the broadband
connectivity gaps that exist in rural Illinois communities that we would like to address. We believe the
availability and adoption of high speed broadband for all Illinois citizens is of the utmost importance and
with this in mind we would like to submit the following comments to the RFC.
This response is specifically on behalf of all Illinois State agencies and represents a consolidated
response. To be clear, this response does not represent any other public or private entities in Illinois.
If there are any questions on this response, please contact
Hardik Bhatt
Chief Information Officer
State of Illinois
[email protected]
217 524 7083
The Illinois Century Network
The State of Illinois was an active participant in the Broadband Technology Opportunities Program
(BTOP) being awarded a federal grant of $61M with a State match of $34M to expand and upgrade the
Illinois Century Network (ICN), the statewide community anchor institution network providing
broadband connectivity to over 6000 institutions as well as commercial service providers via an open
access model. The grant award and State match enabled the construction of over 1000 miles of fiber and
the purchase of over 700 miles of fiber leases from other providers. Our experience in building this
network informs some of our response.
Following the construction of the ICN network we have sold a significant quantity of dark fiber to retail
last mile service providers. These providers complete the last mile connection to anchor institutions,
businesses, residences, cell towers or other premises. The provision of middle mile fiber in rural
communities enhances the business case for last mile providers and facilitates the build of high speed
broadband to end user premises. This has been our experience in Illinois and thus we support the
expansion of open access middle mile dark fiber, enabling fiber to be purchased by retail providers
supporting high speed broadband connections to end user premises.
We strongly believe in the importance of fiber based technology and the expansion of fiber connections
in Illinois. With the ability to lay hundreds of strands of fiber during one construction project, and the
virtually unlimited capacity of fiber optic cable, we promote and support the build of middle mile open
access dark fiber deeper and deeper into rural communities.
2
For very remote, rural communities, there is likely no business case possible for a fully funded private
provider without some level of support from either the municipality, state or at the federal level. When
support is provided mechanisms that increase the availability of middle mile open access dark fiber are
welcomed. This should help increase competition in certain areas, although we do recognize there are
areas where it will remain a challenge to have competition.
Focus on Open Access Middle Mile Dark Fiber versus Incremental Approach to Meeting Broadband
Definitions
We believe federal support of an incremental approach to providing broadband may cost more in the
long run than a federal support approach that focuses on laying open access middle mile dark fiber. By
incremental approach we mean that a federal agency provides a definition of broadband then provides
support for providers to meet this definition; then after a period of time, the definition of broadband
changes; then federal support is once again provided to support the new definition of broadband. If
instead, federal support is focused towards very high speed broadband, enabled by deployment of high
strand count open access middle mile dark fiber, a tremendously useful asset is now in place that can
serve the surrounding community for decades. We would be pleased to work with federal agencies
proposing where Illinois would benefit from middle mile open access dark fiber. This will be based on
the current availability of broadband in the area and the level of competition. In Illinois, the ICN would
be pleased to add additional open access middle mile dark fiber to its inventory to then sell this dark
fiber to retail Illinois providers.
Allow Deployment of Excess Fiber Strand Capacity
When broadband grants and loans from federal agencies support the construction of fiber optic cable
the deployment of additional excess fiber strands should be allowed. The incremental cost of the excess
strands should be borne by the awardee of the grant or loan. When a broadband construction project is
being supported by a grant or loan the ability of the awardee to pay for additional fiber strands provides
a cost effective investment for the future. This approach will enable other entities, not just the target
customers of the original broadband grant or loan, to benefit from high speed broadband. Requiring the
excess capacity to be open access middle mile dark fiber will further facilitate expansion of high speed
broadband throughout rural communities.
Clear Rules supporting Broadband Deployment from Federal Agencies to their State Counterparts
We would like there to be clear rules and guidelines that state and federal agencies can follow for the
use and availability of federally funded assets for the deployment of broadband. We have found
inconsistency and confusion regarding what assets can be used, by whom, and at what cost. For
example, the use of the rights of way within the fence line of federal interstate highways or controlled
access right of way is unclear. During the building of the ICN fiber network this was a cause of much
confusion and delays. The end result was ICN installing fiber in the right of way along federal highways;
however, the rules and guidance from federal agencies remain unclear, and today commercial providers
are discouraged from accessing this right of way.
3
The same confusion arose with utilizing federally funded assets of the Chicago Transit Authority. This
was eventually resolved via face to face meetings with federal officials in the US Department of
Transportation, but again, after much discussion and delays.
Delays Crossing Rail Lines
The length of time required to cross rail lines seems to be an industry wide problem and was faced by
ICN on a number of occasions. Obtaining the right permits and permissions from rail road companies
seems to take an inordinate amount of time, a time period we believe is unreasonable. We would
promote actions that ensure rail road companies respond in a timely manner to all broadband requests
for rail road crossings, while still ensuring the safety of all personnel and all appropriate procedures are
followed. Fees charged should also be reasonable and not exorbitant.
Competition in Rural Areas
By ensuring only one provider is funded for a federal loan or grant in a particular area certainly limits the
competition in that area, by definition. An approach that allows for one funding activity for middle mile
open access dark fiber, with that fiber then being made available to retail providers for the connection
to the end user premise may spur more competition in the last mile. We recognize that for very remote
rural areas, competition in the last mile, even with middle mile fiber available, will be a challenge, due to
the distances involved and the limited revenue potential.
Single Point of Contact for Federal Broadband Loans and Grants
The establishment of BroadbandUSA within NTIA facilitates understanding of the various broadband
funding opportunities available within other Executive branch agencies, and we welcome this effort.
Anything that can be done to simplify the process, and make it easier to navigate the different
broadband funding programs available and the process for applying to the funding programs is
welcome. We see this providing tremendous benefit to interested parties in the State that wish to apply
for broadband loans or grants. The offer of assistance that BroadbandUSA has extended to communities
in the US is welcome and supported.
Broadband Loans and Grants
We support the provision of broadband loans and grants by federal agencies to support high speed
broadband deployment. We have input related to federal agency broadband loans and grants
• Alignment of goals – although each federal agency has different responsibilities, we believe
alignment of goals between the broadband loans and grants will help accelerate broadband
deployment. For example, in a rural community a goal may be to bring very high speed
broadband to key community anchor institutions first versus high speed broadband to every
location within the community. The goal may dictate or strongly recommend fiber deployment
and may even specify how many fiber optic strands should be laid.
• Shift to grants from loans and encourage deployment of very
high speed broadband – for
remote rural areas we encourage the shift of funding from loans to grants, facilitating the
4
deployment of broadband. However, associated with this shift we believe it is imperative that
assets are put in place that will serve the community for decades. Hence, we believe a shift in
funding to grants should be associated with a step increase in the broadband speed
requirement to for example, at least 100Mb/s. And it should be associated with the deployment
of fiber based high speed connections. If a portion of the fiber can be specified as open access
this would be an ideal scenario.
• Reverse auction approach – associated with the availability of grant funds, we welcome the
reverse auction approach to determine the level of federal support needed for rural areas. A
reverse auction approach should ensure all parties have the opportunity to compete for grant
funds and to lay fiber. We are at an exciting time in the deployment of broadband technology,
with technology changing the landscape typically quicker than the regulatory environment can
keep up. The funding environment and funding programs need to adapt quicker to the changing
technology market place and recognize and leverage new business models and new ways of
working. Fiber based broadband has resulted in many new broadband business models. There
are a wide variety of service providers with many new local entrants that we believe should
have the opportunity to expand broadband in their communities. We believe a reverse auction
approach to provide broadband grants ensures both a cost effective method of grant
distribution while having maximum participation from interested parties.
• Encourage very high speed broadband deployment – rather than an incremental approach to
meeting broadband goals, we believe grants made available by reverse auction should state very
high speed broadband goals, that will mean the deployment of fiber technology and that will
last for decades.
• Provide additional federal funds matching state broadband funds – to promote broadband
deployment in key rural areas targeted by States, we welcome federal grant programs providing
an additional federal match to a State contribution. This recognizes State contributions and
ensures funds are targeted to areas prioritized by the State.
The response to the RFC is given by the introductory text above and by responses to the questions
below. For some of the questions, we felt it easier to provide the response in the introductory text.
Thus, if we have not explicitly answered a question below, the answer may be found in the introductory
text. If you have any questions on our response, please do not hesitate to contact us.
Response to the RFC Questions
A. Overarching Questions
1. How can the federal government promote best practices in broadband deployment and adoption?
What resources are most useful to communities? What actions would be most helpful to communities
seeking to improve broadband availability and use?
5
Response
[Include response here]
The National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) is ideally placed to be able to
assist communities with broadband network development. They have existing engineering and
regulatory expertise, and their engineering capability should be enhanced to be able to provide
technical assistance to communities who do not have this type of experience. The NTIA would be able to
bring lessons learned from network implementations around the US as examples of broadband
deployments.
Guidance on secure access and methodologies to reduce data breaches would be welcome by
communities and in particular anchor institutions within those communities.
2. How can the federal government best promote the coordination and use of federally-funded
broadband assets?
Response
[Include response here]
A single integrated unified approach. The coordination will only be effective if managed with a single
entity. Sharing among many agencies will cost time and money. Also, keeping the states and territories
well informed of progress, continually asking for input, and actively looking to better manage
expectations and incorporating the needs of the consumers. The coordination and use of federally-
funded broadband assets should also be done cost effectively.
3. What federal regulations and/or statutes could be modernized or adapted to promote broadband
deployment and adoption?
Response
[Include response here]
Again as discussed above, a single agency needs to coordinate all efforts around items that could be
modified with some ease. These items could be the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) as well as
issues around access to “Right of Way” areas for installing infrastructure (Fiber, etc.) around roads and
rails.
4. As the federal government transitions to delivering more services online, what should government do
to provide information and training to those who have not adopted broadband? What should the
federal government do to make reasonable accommodations to those without access to broadband?
Response
[Include response here]
6
Provide education, information and training via public resources like libraries and other groups willing to
provide the education. Also work with industry to lower access costs.
5. How can the federal government best collaborate with stakeholders (state, local, and tribal
governments, philanthropic entities, industry, trade associations, consumer organizations, etc.) to
promote broadband adoption and deployment?
Response
[Include response here]
B. Addressing Regulatory Barriers to Broadband Deployment, Competition, and Adoption
6. What regulatory barriers exist within the agencies of the Executive Branch to the deployment of
broadband infrastructure?
Response
[Include response here]
Focus should be on streamlining any laws and regulations that drive up costs and slow implementation,
while not sacrificing the protection of life and property.
7. What federal programs should allow the use of funding for the deployment of broadband
infrastructure or promotion of broadband adoption but do not do so now?
Response
[Include response here]
8. What inconsistences exist in federal interpretation and application of procedures, requirements, and
policies by Executive Branch agencies related to broadband deployment and/or adoption, and how
could these be reconciled? One example is the variance in broadband speed definitions.
Response
[Include response here]
9. Are there specific regulations within the agencies of the Executive Branch that impede or restrict
competition for broadband service, where residents have either no option or just one option? If so,
what modifications could agencies make to promote competition in the broadband marketplace?
Response
[Include response here]
When RUS funding supports a particular area for high speed broadband a second service provider is
prohibited from receiving RUS funding for that same area, thus limiting competition. If instead RUS
7
supported middle mile open access dark fiber and supported multiple last mile providers in an area this
would spur competition.
There should be fair and open competition so that all competitors have an equal opportunity to deploy
broadband. There should be no monopolies. There are several locations for which there is only one
internet provider available and not at the broadband speeds needed to be effective.
10. Are there federal policies or regulations within the Executive Branch that create barriers for
communities or entities to share federally-funded broadband assets or networks with other non
federally funded networks?
Response
[Include response here]
11. Should the federal government promote the implementation of federally-funded broadband
projects to coincide with other federally-funded infrastructure projects? For example, coordinating a
broadband construction project funded by USDA with a road excavation funded by DOT?
Response
[Include response here]
The federal government should absolutely promote cooperative projects for broadband
implementation. This is an excellent way to save both funding and time. The example of USDA and IDOT
is a perfect one, since adding a fiber optic cable installation to an existing roadway project is a fairly
minor incremental cost to the roadway project, and the cable installation component would be far less
expensive than starting an installation project on its own. Not to mention the coordination and design
efforts to install fiber optic cables in ways that they are not in the way for future road construction
projects. Roadway projects referenced here include for example building new roads or expanding
existing roads where the installation of empty conduit and/or fiber makes sense. We understand that
not every roadway project, for example road repairs, is amenable to placing empty conduit and/or fiber.
Another pairing would be to combine broadband installation projects with the upcoming FirstNet
implementation. In many cases, FirstNet will be installed in rural areas that have little to no fiber or
wireless cellular broadband services available. Combining these projects in some areas would again help
by saving time, and spreading costs among the different players, as opposed to each entity having to pay
for the same services over and over again.
C. Promoting Public and Private Investment in Broadband
12. How can communities/regions incentivize service providers to offer broadband services, either wired
or wireless, in rural and remote areas? What can the federal government do to help encourage
providers to serve rural areas?
Response
8
[Include response here]
If the federal government approaches this opportunity in the framework of an economic development
plan the rate of adoption in rural areas and the probability of cost competitiveness will greatly increase.
Offering “seed money” to begin construction in a region where providers would normally not serve
because of the low return on investment. Also eliminating obstacles that slow implementation and
increase cost for the project will be essential. The speed to market and amount of money required to
build in new markets will affect the cost of providing services to rural consumers.
13. What changes in Executive Branch agency regulations or program requirements could incentivize last
mile investments in rural areas and sparsely populated, remote parts of the country?
Response
[Include response here]
In many cases, complying with environmental requirements, including the various studies and other
regulations can add a significant cost to the installation of last mile services. These include trenching in
buried cables and/or building towers to provide the services. Both of these types of construction
projects can be significantly slowed by environmental regulations, in addition to incurring significant
costs. The federal government should streamline, or otherwise fast-track some of the approval
processes. Additionally, if there were to be consistent implementation standards for broadband
deployments, (see Item 21, below), regulatory agencies would know what work is being performed on a
consistent basis. Having a level of consistency between project implementations would speed the
approval process.
14. What changes in Executive Branch agency regulations or program requirements would improve
coordination of federal programs that help communities leverage the economic benefits offered by
broadband?
Response
[Include response here]
15. How can Executive Branch agencies incentivize new entrants into the market by lowering regulatory
or policy barriers?
Response
[Include response here]
D. Promoting Broadband Adoption
16. What federal programs within the Executive Branch should allow the use of funding for broadband
adoption, but do not do so now?
Response
9
[Include response here]
Any federal program that depends in any way on broadband services to fulfill its mission should be
allowed to use federal funding to enhance broadband adoption. Also, the federal government should
look for areas where vastly different federal programs have similar dependencies on broadband data
and allow / require them to combine and share funding for these projects. This would spread the
funding out and not cause too much of a burden to individual federal agencies.
Many community computer centers have had success with broadband adoption in rural communities.
There are also successful telehealth initiatives in place. We welcome BroadbandUSA helping facilitate
the duplication of best practices and success scenario’s.
17. Typical barriers to broadband adoption include cost, relevance, and training. How can these be
addressed by regulatory changes by Executive Branch agencies?
Response
[Include response here]
E. Issues Related to State, Local, and Tribal Governments
18. What barriers exist at the state, local, and/or tribal level to broadband deployment and adoption?
How can the federal government work with and incentivize state, local, and tribal governments to
remove these barriers?
Response
[Include response here]
19. What federal barriers do state, local, and tribal governments confront as they seek to promote
broadband deployment and adoption in their communities?
Response
[Include response here]
20. What can the federal government do to make it easier for state, local, and tribal governments or
organizations to access funding for broadband?
Response
[Include response here]
21. How can the federal government support state, local, and tribal efforts to promote and/or invest in
broadband networks and promote broadband adoption? For example, what type of capacity-building or
technical assistance is needed?
Response
10
[Include response here]
Ideally, the Federal Government, through NTIA, would provide a comprehensive guide to building
broadband networks. It would provide almost a step-by-step how to guide covering everything from
regulatory issues, planning, funding models, design, procurement, implementation, and operations, to
name a few. This provides consistent network implementation projects across the US. This consistency
would enhance economies of scale, where if most networks are built to a common standard,
understood by all suppliers and vendors, they can compete better, have lower risks in working with the
project, which all leads to lower costs to the individual projects. Also, providing in-depth technical and
project assistance reduces the need for each community to spend precious funding on design
consultants. The communities would be able to leverage the knowledge they received from NTIA
towards keeping design and project costs lower.
F. Issues Related to Vulnerable Communities and Communities With Limited or No Broadband
22. How can specific regulatory policies within the Executive Branch agencies be altered to remove or
reduce barriers that prevent vulnerable populations from accessing and using broadband technologies?
Vulnerable populations might include, but are not limited to, veterans, seniors, minorities, people with
disabilities, at-risk youth, low-income individuals and families, and the unemployed.
Response
[Include response here]
23. How can the federal government make broadband technologies more available and relevant for
vulnerable populations?
Response
[Include response here]
G. Issues Specific to Rural Areas
24. What federal regulatory barriers can Executive Branch agencies alter to improve broadband access
and adoption in rural areas?
Response
[Include response here]
25. Would spurring competition to offer broadband service in rural areas expand availability and, if so,
what specific actions could Executive Branch agencies take in furtherance of this goal?
Response
[Include response here]
11
26. Because the predominant areas with limited or no broadband service tend to be rural, what specific
provisions should Executive Branch agencies consider to facilitate broadband deployment and adoption
in such rural areas?
Response
[Include response here]
Unfortunately, because of the lack of infrastructure in rural areas, the cost to build in these areas is
much higher on both a per-person and a per-mile basis. This comes down to a simple question of
funding, and the way for the federal government to spur development is through funding, either
through grants or some other means of financial assistance. However, one way to help keep costs down,
and assess the progress and suitability of the grant projects, would be to require grantees to follow
consistent standards and guidelines of the type described in Item 21, above. If there is a consistent set
of standards, it is much easier to have consistent cost estimates, time estimates, and much easier
project tracking than if each grantee follows a different method.
H. Measuring Broadband Availability, Adoption, and Speeds
27. What information about existing broadband services should the Executive Branch collect to inform
decisions about broadband investment, deployment, and adoption? How often should this information
be updated?
Response
[Include response here]
Information we believe the Executive Branch should collect at least annually includes:
• Locations served with a fiber connection
• Anchor institutions served with a fiber connection
• Communities served with wireless connections and speed of those connections
• Availability of open access middle mile dark fiber
In addition to the collection of broadband data, we believe the data should be normalized between the
different Executive Branch agencies and then made available via API’s. Having consistency of data
definitions and location information between agencies will greatly help with data analysis and help
better assess the state of broadband deployment in Illinois.
28. Are there gaps in the level or reliability of broadband-related information gathered by other entities
that need to be filled by Executive Branch data collection efforts?
Response
[Include response here]
12
29. What additional research should the government conduct to promote broadband deployment,
adoption, and competition?
Response
[Include response here]
Funding. Create grants that vendors can apply for to better market and research product offerings.
The cost of fiber deployment in rural areas to first connect anchor institutions then residences. At what
point, based on both demographic and geographic attributes, in remote rural communities are non-fiber
and wireless technologies practical.
30. How might the federal government encourage innovation in broadband deployment, adoption, and
competition?
Response
[Include response here]
Conduct a vendor Summit where vendors can demonstrate new products, technologies and software.
Also conducting webinars with Vendors so they can demonstrate new products, technologies and
software. Discussions with other states that have best practices already in place and willing to share.
Introduce more widespread use of reverse auctions to distribute broadband grant funds to targeted
areas. Illinois would be pleased to provide input on target areas for high speed broadband deployment.
1
State of Illinois Request for Comments Response
The State of Illinois is pleased to submit the following response to the Request for Comments (RFC)
issued by the Broadband Opportunity Council. We recognize the importance of high speed broadband
for economic growth, education, health and safety and recognize in particular the broadband
connectivity gaps that exist in rural Illinois communities that we would like to address. We believe the
availability and adoption of high speed broadband for all Illinois citizens is of the utmost importance and
with this in mind we would like to submit the following comments to the RFC.
This response is specifically on behalf of all Illinois State agencies and represents a consolidated
response. To be clear, this response does not represent any other public or private entities in Illinois.
If there are any questions on this response, please contact
Hardik Bhatt
Chief Information Officer
State of Illinois
[email protected]
217 524 7083
The Illinois Century Network
The State of Illinois was an active participant in the Broadband Technology Opportunities Program
(BTOP) being awarded a federal grant of $61M with a State match of $34M to expand and upgrade the
Illinois Century Network (ICN), the statewide community anchor institution network providing
broadband connectivity to over 6000 institutions as well as commercial service providers via an open
access model. The grant award and State match enabled the construction of over 1000 miles of fiber and
the purchase of over 700 miles of fiber leases from other providers. Our experience in building this
network informs some of our response.
Following the construction of the ICN network we have sold a significant quantity of dark fiber to retail
last mile service providers. These providers complete the last mile connection to anchor institutions,
businesses, residences, cell towers or other premises. The provision of middle mile fiber in rural
communities enhances the business case for last mile providers and facilitates the build of high speed
broadband to end user premises. This has been our experience in Illinois and thus we support the
expansion of open access middle mile dark fiber, enabling fiber to be purchased by retail providers
supporting high speed broadband connections to end user premises.
We strongly believe in the importance of fiber based technology and the expansion of fiber connections
in Illinois. With the ability to lay hundreds of strands of fiber during one construction project, and the
virtually unlimited capacity of fiber optic cable, we promote and support the build of middle mile open
access dark fiber deeper and deeper into rural communities.
2
For very remote, rural communities, there is likely no business case possible for a fully funded private
provider without some level of support from either the municipality, state or at the federal level. When
support is provided mechanisms that increase the availability of middle mile open access dark fiber are
welcomed. This should help increase competition in certain areas, although we do recognize there are
areas where it will remain a challenge to have competition.
Focus on Open Access Middle Mile Dark Fiber versus Incremental Approach to Meeting Broadband
Definitions
We believe federal support of an incremental approach to providing broadband may cost more in the
long run than a federal support approach that focuses on laying open access middle mile dark fiber. By
incremental approach we mean that a federal agency provides a definition of broadband then provides
support for providers to meet this definition; then after a period of time, the definition of broadband
changes; then federal support is once again provided to support the new definition of broadband. If
instead, federal support is focused towards very high speed broadband, enabled by deployment of high
strand count open access middle mile dark fiber, a tremendously useful asset is now in place that can
serve the surrounding community for decades. We would be pleased to work with federal agencies
proposing where Illinois would benefit from middle mile open access dark fiber. This will be based on
the current availability of broadband in the area and the level of competition. In Illinois, the ICN would
be pleased to add additional open access middle mile dark fiber to its inventory to then sell this dark
fiber to retail Illinois providers.
Allow Deployment of Excess Fiber Strand Capacity
When broadband grants and loans from federal agencies support the construction of fiber optic cable
the deployment of additional excess fiber strands should be allowed. The incremental cost of the excess
strands should be borne by the awardee of the grant or loan. When a broadband construction project is
being supported by a grant or loan the ability of the awardee to pay for additional fiber strands provides
a cost effective investment for the future. This approach will enable other entities, not just the target
customers of the original broadband grant or loan, to benefit from high speed broadband. Requiring the
excess capacity to be open access middle mile dark fiber will further facilitate expansion of high speed
broadband throughout rural communities.
Clear Rules supporting Broadband Deployment from Federal Agencies to their State Counterparts
We would like there to be clear rules and guidelines that state and federal agencies can follow for the
use and availability of federally funded assets for the deployment of broadband. We have found
inconsistency and confusion regarding what assets can be used, by whom, and at what cost. For
example, the use of the rights of way within the fence line of federal interstate highways or controlled
access right of way is unclear. During the building of the ICN fiber network this was a cause of much
confusion and delays. The end result was ICN installing fiber in the right of way along federal highways;
however, the rules and guidance from federal agencies remain unclear, and today commercial providers
are discouraged from accessing this right of way.
3
The same confusion arose with utilizing federally funded assets of the Chicago Transit Authority. This
was eventually resolved via face to face meetings with federal officials in the US Department of
Transportation, but again, after much discussion and delays.
Delays Crossing Rail Lines
The length of time required to cross rail lines seems to be an industry wide problem and was faced by
ICN on a number of occasions. Obtaining the right permits and permissions from rail road companies
seems to take an inordinate amount of time, a time period we believe is unreasonable. We would
promote actions that ensure rail road companies respond in a timely manner to all broadband requests
for rail road crossings, while still ensuring the safety of all personnel and all appropriate procedures are
followed. Fees charged should also be reasonable and not exorbitant.
Competition in Rural Areas
By ensuring only one provider is funded for a federal loan or grant in a particular area certainly limits the
competition in that area, by definition. An approach that allows for one funding activity for middle mile
open access dark fiber, with that fiber then being made available to retail providers for the connection
to the end user premise may spur more competition in the last mile. We recognize that for very remote
rural areas, competition in the last mile, even with middle mile fiber available, will be a challenge, due to
the distances involved and the limited revenue potential.
Single Point of Contact for Federal Broadband Loans and Grants
The establishment of BroadbandUSA within NTIA facilitates understanding of the various broadband
funding opportunities available within other Executive branch agencies, and we welcome this effort.
Anything that can be done to simplify the process, and make it easier to navigate the different
broadband funding programs available and the process for applying to the funding programs is
welcome. We see this providing tremendous benefit to interested parties in the State that wish to apply
for broadband loans or grants. The offer of assistance that BroadbandUSA has extended to communities
in the US is welcome and supported.
Broadband Loans and Grants
We support the provision of broadband loans and grants by federal agencies to support high speed
broadband deployment. We have input related to federal agency broadband loans and grants
• Alignment of goals – although each federal agency has different responsibilities, we believe
alignment of goals between the broadband loans and grants will help accelerate broadband
deployment. For example, in a rural community a goal may be to bring very high speed
broadband to key community anchor institutions first versus high speed broadband to every
location within the community. The goal may dictate or strongly recommend fiber deployment
and may even specify how many fiber optic strands should be laid.
• Shift to grants from loans and encourage deployment of very
high speed broadband – for
remote rural areas we encourage the shift of funding from loans to grants, facilitating the
4
deployment of broadband. However, associated with this shift we believe it is imperative that
assets are put in place that will serve the community for decades. Hence, we believe a shift in
funding to grants should be associated with a step increase in the broadband speed
requirement to for example, at least 100Mb/s. And it should be associated with the deployment
of fiber based high speed connections. If a portion of the fiber can be specified as open access
this would be an ideal scenario.
• Reverse auction approach – associated with the availability of grant funds, we welcome the
reverse auction approach to determine the level of federal support needed for rural areas. A
reverse auction approach should ensure all parties have the opportunity to compete for grant
funds and to lay fiber. We are at an exciting time in the deployment of broadband technology,
with technology changing the landscape typically quicker than the regulatory environment can
keep up. The funding environment and funding programs need to adapt quicker to the changing
technology market place and recognize and leverage new business models and new ways of
working. Fiber based broadband has resulted in many new broadband business models. There
are a wide variety of service providers with many new local entrants that we believe should
have the opportunity to expand broadband in their communities. We believe a reverse auction
approach to provide broadband grants ensures both a cost effective method of grant
distribution while having maximum participation from interested parties.
• Encourage very high speed broadband deployment – rather than an incremental approach to
meeting broadband goals, we believe grants made available by reverse auction should state very
high speed broadband goals, that will mean the deployment of fiber technology and that will
last for decades.
• Provide additional federal funds matching state broadband funds – to promote broadband
deployment in key rural areas targeted by States, we welcome federal grant programs providing
an additional federal match to a State contribution. This recognizes State contributions and
ensures funds are targeted to areas prioritized by the State.
The response to the RFC is given by the introductory text above and by responses to the questions
below. For some of the questions, we felt it easier to provide the response in the introductory text.
Thus, if we have not explicitly answered a question below, the answer may be found in the introductory
text. If you have any questions on our response, please do not hesitate to contact us.
Response to the RFC Questions
A. Overarching Questions
1. How can the federal government promote best practices in broadband deployment and adoption?
What resources are most useful to communities? What actions would be most helpful to communities
seeking to improve broadband availability and use?
5
Response
[Include response here]
The National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) is ideally placed to be able to
assist communities with broadband network development. They have existing engineering and
regulatory expertise, and their engineering capability should be enhanced to be able to provide
technical assistance to communities who do not have this type of experience. The NTIA would be able to
bring lessons learned from network implementations around the US as examples of broadband
deployments.
Guidance on secure access and methodologies to reduce data breaches would be welcome by
communities and in particular anchor institutions within those communities.
2. How can the federal government best promote the coordination and use of federally-funded
broadband assets?
Response
[Include response here]
A single integrated unified approach. The coordination will only be effective if managed with a single
entity. Sharing among many agencies will cost time and money. Also, keeping the states and territories
well informed of progress, continually asking for input, and actively looking to better manage
expectations and incorporating the needs of the consumers. The coordination and use of federally-
funded broadband assets should also be done cost effectively.
3. What federal regulations and/or statutes could be modernized or adapted to promote broadband
deployment and adoption?
Response
[Include response here]
Again as discussed above, a single agency needs to coordinate all efforts around items that could be
modified with some ease. These items could be the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) as well as
issues around access to “Right of Way” areas for installing infrastructure (Fiber, etc.) around roads and
rails.
4. As the federal government transitions to delivering more services online, what should government do
to provide information and training to those who have not adopted broadband? What should the
federal government do to make reasonable accommodations to those without access to broadband?
Response
[Include response here]
6
Provide education, information and training via public resources like libraries and other groups willing to
provide the education. Also work with industry to lower access costs.
5. How can the federal government best collaborate with stakeholders (state, local, and tribal
governments, philanthropic entities, industry, trade associations, consumer organizations, etc.) to
promote broadband adoption and deployment?
Response
[Include response here]
B. Addressing Regulatory Barriers to Broadband Deployment, Competition, and Adoption
6. What regulatory barriers exist within the agencies of the Executive Branch to the deployment of
broadband infrastructure?
Response
[Include response here]
Focus should be on streamlining any laws and regulations that drive up costs and slow implementation,
while not sacrificing the protection of life and property.
7. What federal programs should allow the use of funding for the deployment of broadband
infrastructure or promotion of broadband adoption but do not do so now?
Response
[Include response here]
8. What inconsistences exist in federal interpretation and application of procedures, requirements, and
policies by Executive Branch agencies related to broadband deployment and/or adoption, and how
could these be reconciled? One example is the variance in broadband speed definitions.
Response
[Include response here]
9. Are there specific regulations within the agencies of the Executive Branch that impede or restrict
competition for broadband service, where residents have either no option or just one option? If so,
what modifications could agencies make to promote competition in the broadband marketplace?
Response
[Include response here]
When RUS funding supports a particular area for high speed broadband a second service provider is
prohibited from receiving RUS funding for that same area, thus limiting competition. If instead RUS
7
supported middle mile open access dark fiber and supported multiple last mile providers in an area this
would spur competition.
There should be fair and open competition so that all competitors have an equal opportunity to deploy
broadband. There should be no monopolies. There are several locations for which there is only one
internet provider available and not at the broadband speeds needed to be effective.
10. Are there federal policies or regulations within the Executive Branch that create barriers for
communities or entities to share federally-funded broadband assets or networks with other non
federally funded networks?
Response
[Include response here]
11. Should the federal government promote the implementation of federally-funded broadband
projects to coincide with other federally-funded infrastructure projects? For example, coordinating a
broadband construction project funded by USDA with a road excavation funded by DOT?
Response
[Include response here]
The federal government should absolutely promote cooperative projects for broadband
implementation. This is an excellent way to save both funding and time. The example of USDA and IDOT
is a perfect one, since adding a fiber optic cable installation to an existing roadway project is a fairly
minor incremental cost to the roadway project, and the cable installation component would be far less
expensive than starting an installation project on its own. Not to mention the coordination and design
efforts to install fiber optic cables in ways that they are not in the way for future road construction
projects. Roadway projects referenced here include for example building new roads or expanding
existing roads where the installation of empty conduit and/or fiber makes sense. We understand that
not every roadway project, for example road repairs, is amenable to placing empty conduit and/or fiber.
Another pairing would be to combine broadband installation projects with the upcoming FirstNet
implementation. In many cases, FirstNet will be installed in rural areas that have little to no fiber or
wireless cellular broadband services available. Combining these projects in some areas would again help
by saving time, and spreading costs among the different players, as opposed to each entity having to pay
for the same services over and over again.
C. Promoting Public and Private Investment in Broadband
12. How can communities/regions incentivize service providers to offer broadband services, either wired
or wireless, in rural and remote areas? What can the federal government do to help encourage
providers to serve rural areas?
Response
8
[Include response here]
If the federal government approaches this opportunity in the framework of an economic development
plan the rate of adoption in rural areas and the probability of cost competitiveness will greatly increase.
Offering “seed money” to begin construction in a region where providers would normally not serve
because of the low return on investment. Also eliminating obstacles that slow implementation and
increase cost for the project will be essential. The speed to market and amount of money required to
build in new markets will affect the cost of providing services to rural consumers.
13. What changes in Executive Branch agency regulations or program requirements could incentivize last
mile investments in rural areas and sparsely populated, remote parts of the country?
Response
[Include response here]
In many cases, complying with environmental requirements, including the various studies and other
regulations can add a significant cost to the installation of last mile services. These include trenching in
buried cables and/or building towers to provide the services. Both of these types of construction
projects can be significantly slowed by environmental regulations, in addition to incurring significant
costs. The federal government should streamline, or otherwise fast-track some of the approval
processes. Additionally, if there were to be consistent implementation standards for broadband
deployments, (see Item 21, below), regulatory agencies would know what work is being performed on a
consistent basis. Having a level of consistency between project implementations would speed the
approval process.
14. What changes in Executive Branch agency regulations or program requirements would improve
coordination of federal programs that help communities leverage the economic benefits offered by
broadband?
Response
[Include response here]
15. How can Executive Branch agencies incentivize new entrants into the market by lowering regulatory
or policy barriers?
Response
[Include response here]
D. Promoting Broadband Adoption
16. What federal programs within the Executive Branch should allow the use of funding for broadband
adoption, but do not do so now?
Response
9
[Include response here]
Any federal program that depends in any way on broadband services to fulfill its mission should be
allowed to use federal funding to enhance broadband adoption. Also, the federal government should
look for areas where vastly different federal programs have similar dependencies on broadband data
and allow / require them to combine and share funding for these projects. This would spread the
funding out and not cause too much of a burden to individual federal agencies.
Many community computer centers have had success with broadband adoption in rural communities.
There are also successful telehealth initiatives in place. We welcome BroadbandUSA helping facilitate
the duplication of best practices and success scenario’s.
17. Typical barriers to broadband adoption include cost, relevance, and training. How can these be
addressed by regulatory changes by Executive Branch agencies?
Response
[Include response here]
E. Issues Related to State, Local, and Tribal Governments
18. What barriers exist at the state, local, and/or tribal level to broadband deployment and adoption?
How can the federal government work with and incentivize state, local, and tribal governments to
remove these barriers?
Response
[Include response here]
19. What federal barriers do state, local, and tribal governments confront as they seek to promote
broadband deployment and adoption in their communities?
Response
[Include response here]
20. What can the federal government do to make it easier for state, local, and tribal governments or
organizations to access funding for broadband?
Response
[Include response here]
21. How can the federal government support state, local, and tribal efforts to promote and/or invest in
broadband networks and promote broadband adoption? For example, what type of capacity-building or
technical assistance is needed?
Response
10
[Include response here]
Ideally, the Federal Government, through NTIA, would provide a comprehensive guide to building
broadband networks. It would provide almost a step-by-step how to guide covering everything from
regulatory issues, planning, funding models, design, procurement, implementation, and operations, to
name a few. This provides consistent network implementation projects across the US. This consistency
would enhance economies of scale, where if most networks are built to a common standard,
understood by all suppliers and vendors, they can compete better, have lower risks in working with the
project, which all leads to lower costs to the individual projects. Also, providing in-depth technical and
project assistance reduces the need for each community to spend precious funding on design
consultants. The communities would be able to leverage the knowledge they received from NTIA
towards keeping design and project costs lower.
F. Issues Related to Vulnerable Communities and Communities With Limited or No Broadband
22. How can specific regulatory policies within the Executive Branch agencies be altered to remove or
reduce barriers that prevent vulnerable populations from accessing and using broadband technologies?
Vulnerable populations might include, but are not limited to, veterans, seniors, minorities, people with
disabilities, at-risk youth, low-income individuals and families, and the unemployed.
Response
[Include response here]
23. How can the federal government make broadband technologies more available and relevant for
vulnerable populations?
Response
[Include response here]
G. Issues Specific to Rural Areas
24. What federal regulatory barriers can Executive Branch agencies alter to improve broadband access
and adoption in rural areas?
Response
[Include response here]
25. Would spurring competition to offer broadband service in rural areas expand availability and, if so,
what specific actions could Executive Branch agencies take in furtherance of this goal?
Response
[Include response here]
11
26. Because the predominant areas with limited or no broadband service tend to be rural, what specific
provisions should Executive Branch agencies consider to facilitate broadband deployment and adoption
in such rural areas?
Response
[Include response here]
Unfortunately, because of the lack of infrastructure in rural areas, the cost to build in these areas is
much higher on both a per-person and a per-mile basis. This comes down to a simple question of
funding, and the way for the federal government to spur development is through funding, either
through grants or some other means of financial assistance. However, one way to help keep costs down,
and assess the progress and suitability of the grant projects, would be to require grantees to follow
consistent standards and guidelines of the type described in Item 21, above. If there is a consistent set
of standards, it is much easier to have consistent cost estimates, time estimates, and much easier
project tracking than if each grantee follows a different method.
H. Measuring Broadband Availability, Adoption, and Speeds
27. What information about existing broadband services should the Executive Branch collect to inform
decisions about broadband investment, deployment, and adoption? How often should this information
be updated?
Response
[Include response here]
Information we believe the Executive Branch should collect at least annually includes:
• Locations served with a fiber connection
• Anchor institutions served with a fiber connection
• Communities served with wireless connections and speed of those connections
• Availability of open access middle mile dark fiber
In addition to the collection of broadband data, we believe the data should be normalized between the
different Executive Branch agencies and then made available via API’s. Having consistency of data
definitions and location information between agencies will greatly help with data analysis and help
better assess the state of broadband deployment in Illinois.
28. Are there gaps in the level or reliability of broadband-related information gathered by other entities
that need to be filled by Executive Branch data collection efforts?
Response
[Include response here]
12
29. What additional research should the government conduct to promote broadband deployment,
adoption, and competition?
Response
[Include response here]
Funding. Create grants that vendors can apply for to better market and research product offerings.
The cost of fiber deployment in rural areas to first connect anchor institutions then residences. At what
point, based on both demographic and geographic attributes, in remote rural communities are non-fiber
and wireless technologies practical.
30. How might the federal government encourage innovation in broadband deployment, adoption, and
competition?
Response
[Include response here]
Conduct a vendor Summit where vendors can demonstrate new products, technologies and software.
Also conducting webinars with Vendors so they can demonstrate new products, technologies and
software. Discussions with other states that have best practices already in place and willing to share.
Introduce more widespread use of reverse auctions to distribute broadband grant funds to targeted
areas. Illinois would be pleased to provide input on target areas for high speed broadband deployment.