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

Transcription

1 FINAL REPORT High-Speed Internet Deployment and Adoption Strategy Recommendations for the State of Washington Prepared by: CBG Communications, Inc. for the Department of Information Services in consultation with the High-Speed Internet Strategy Work Group December 1, 2008

2 Table of Contents Page No. Executive Summary... iv Introduction and Background...1 Recommendations...4 Summary of HSIS Deployment and Adoption Strategy...40 Implementation Plan and Timeline...42 Attachments...48 A. Synopsis of the UTC Broadband Disparity Study B. Enabling Legislation C. Open Records in Washington State C.1 Presentation on Public Records Act Chapter RCW D. Other States Protection of Proprietary and Competitively Sensitive Information D.1 Presentation on Other States Protection of Proprietary and Competitively Sensitive Information E. Synopsis of Electricity, Telephone and Cable Television Deployment and Adoption History F. Other States Broadband Mapping Initiatives G. Vermont Telecommunications Authority H. Possible Federal Funding for State Mapping Initiatives I. Proposed High-Speed Internet Service Definition J. Mapping and Inventory Features J.1 Revised Mapping and Inventory Features K. Potential Public Infrastructure to Map and Inventory K.1 Revised Potential Public Infrastructure to Map and Inventory L. Third Party and In-House GIS Mapping Considerations M. Local Technology Planning Teams (LTPTs) N. Presentation - Connected Nation - LTPT O. Presentation - Connect Communities Network - LTPT P. Costs of Other States Initiatives i

3 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 Broadband Data Improvement Legislation HH. Compilation of information provided by Work Group Members in response to a wide variety of questions and issues including: HH.a Responses to Questions from High-Speed Internet Strategy Work Group from August 7, 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

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

5 Executive Summary During the 2008 legislative session, the Legislature enacted and the Governor signed Second Engrossed Substitute Senate Bill 6438 (E2SSB 6438) that required the development of a statewide High-Speed Internet Deployment and Adoption Strategy. The Department of Information Services (DIS) was charged with the responsibility of developing this strategy in consultation with a High-Speed Internet Strategy Work Group (Work Group). The Work Group was a diverse cross-section of government, community, education, business, non-profit, economic development, health care, technology, union, public utility, and service provider interests. CBG Communications, Inc. (CBG) assisted DIS in facilitating the Work Group meetings and in developing the strategy, as well as the associated report. Between July 2008 and November 2008, the Work Group met, reviewed, and discussed a wide variety of information, perspectives, and opinions concerning six major topic areas specified by E2SSB 6438 as part of its role in advising DIS. These major topic areas included: Develop geographic information system maps and inventories, of public and private high-speed internet infrastructure Address management of proprietary and competitively sensitive data Spur development of high-speed internet (HSI) resources across the state Track residential and business adoption of high-speed internet, computers, and related information technology Build, facilitate, and use local technology planning teams to help with internet deployment to disenfranchised areas or areas not currently served Work with Washington State University Extension to establish low-cost programs to improve computer ownership, technology literacy, and high-speed internet access for populations not currently served in the state Many documents and materials, including the attachments to the report, were developed to assist the Work Group in its activities and to help facilitate discussion. DIS arrived at the following major recommendations related to the high-speed internet deployment and adoption strategy, with concurrence from the Work Group: The state should adopt a definition of high-speed internet service (HSIS) that is consistent with the Federal Communications Commission s (FCC s) broadband speed tiers in the download and upload direction; except the state s definition should not include the bottom FCC tier in either the download or upload direction because the Work Group believes this tier cannot be characterized as highspeed internet. iv

6 High-speed internet should also be defined by the applications that it can enable, instead of just by upload and download speed; including applications that range from basic and YouTube video, to the more robust telecommuting, highdefinition video, telemedicine, and supercomputing applications. The state desires HSIS mapping at the census block level, but this would require significant time and expense on the part of the service providers and the state. Alternatively, the state should consider mapping at the census tract level, where data will be more readily available based on the new FCC requirements, be less costly for service providers and the state, while ensuring consistency between state and federal reporting requirements. The map itself should be produced by a third-party entity that signs Non- Disclosure Agreements (NDAs) with service providers and provides only a finished product to the state; thereby ensuring the confidentiality of proprietary, competitively sensitive, and security sensitive data. This map should provide adoption information, availability information, the HSIS technology used, and available speed tiers. It should link to providers websites to obtain pricing data. The map should also allow for an interactive, web-based version that receives queries and inputs from consumers. Local technology planning teams (LTPTs) should be coordinated by DIS at the state level; along with a facilitator, designated by and working in conjunction with DIS, that will assist the LTPTs in conducting a local needs assessment, developing a strategic technology plan, identifying funding sources, and helping to implement the plan. LTPTs should be organized at the county level. Washington State University (WSU) Extension should be considered as the facilitator based on: o Existing presence in each local area o Current involvement in technology programs o Synergistic organizational characteristics LTPTs should work to leverage existing grassroots community technology efforts. v

7 DIS should oversee benchmarking and tracking residential, business, non-profit, and institutional high-speed internet adoption on a statewide basis. This should be accomplished by using a variety of information including: updated mapping, FCC and other federal agency data, consumer input, localized surveys, and national tracking surveys. In order to spur development of high-speed internet, the state should undertake a variety of initiatives, including: o Expanding the Community Technology Opportunities Program (CTOP) o Soliciting funding in the form of grants and donations from a variety of entities o Establishing a variety of low cost hardware/software programs aimed at residential and business consumers o Establishing a variety of low cost hardware/software programs aimed at existing public access locations, such as community technology centers and libraries o Supporting loan programs for small businesses in order to enhance workforce training and business technology acquisition efforts o Other initiatives aimed at boosting economic development A variety of metrics and benchmarks should be employed in order to measure the level of success of the HSI deployment and adoption strategy including: o A continual increase in basic high-speed internet availability such that 99+% availability is determined in targeted areas by 2012 o A continual expansion in the HSI speed tier level provided and applications enabled o A continual increase in high-speed internet adoption and usage o A continual expansion in technology literacy and access to HSI technology o A continual increase in service provider participation in the deployment and adoption initiative o A continual increase in end user satisfaction Two major legislative initiatives are needed. First, DIS should be authorized to coordinate the entire deployment and adoption strategy implementation, including seeking federal funding to support such an initiative. Second, initial funding needed should be authorized to begin implementation, at least for a staged effort. vi

8 The funding needed will range from a minimum staged effort on all fronts (mapping, LTPT implementation, updating mapping, and support for internet resource development) estimated at an initial $532,250 beginning in FY 2010, to a comprehensive statewide effort on all fronts estimated at a total of $3,979,000 over 2 years (FY FY2011). Specific funding levels for spurring HSIS deployment in Washington cannot be accurately estimated at this time until: priority needs are identified through the initial mapping process, and goals are developed by the LTPTs based on an analysis of gaps found in high-speed internet availability and adoption. The deployment and adoption initiative should be pursued in a phased manner, based on the most efficient and effective use of available funding. DIS and the Work Group believe that the recommendations in the following report will provide for significant HSIS infrastructure, service expansion, and increased adoption. This will have the capability to improve the quality of life statewide by enhancing economic development, healthcare, educational services, and the amount of valuable and beneficial information available to residents, business, and institutions. vii

9 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 highspeed internet (HSI) deployment and adoption strategy, in consultation with the High- Speed Internet Strategy Work Group (Work Group). The Work Group was comprised of a diverse cross-section of government, educational, community, business, non-profit, economic development, health care, technology, union, public utility, and service provider interests. DIS also included tribal government and public safety representatives. Over twenty-five representatives from these diverse sectors were invited by DIS to participate in the Work Group. Nearly all responded favorably and the resulting membership is detailed below. Seven meetings were scheduled for the Work Group between July 9, 2008 and November 19, DIS also developed a detailed Work Plan in order to meet the legislation s requirement that the High-Speed Internet Deployment and Adoption Strategy, and associated Report, be delivered to the Legislature by December 1, After a competitive bidding process, DIS retained CBG Communications, Inc. (CBG), to assist in facilitating the Work Group meetings, in developing the strategy, and in assembling the associated report. Work Group Composition The Work Group was made up of a broad representation of the entities and organizations specified by E2SSB This diversity provided a vast range of opinions and information related to a wide range of High-Speed Internet Deployment and Adoption Strategy elements. Specifically, the Work Group was comprised of the members listed on the next page. 1

10 Table 1: Work Group Members Representative Organization Represented Twyla Barnes Educational Services District 112 Jim Broman Lacey Fire District #3 Betty Buckley Communities Connect Network Milt Doumit/Johan Hellman Verizon Michael Gaffney/Matthew Mitchell Washington State University Extension Earl Heister Information Services Board Member Phil Jones Utilities and Transportation Commission David Keyes City of Seattle John Klein King County Gail Love Communication Workers of America Ron Lucas Rainier Communications Commission/Washington Association of Telecommunications Officers and Advisors Gary Mallon Greater Spokane Incorporated Ron Main Broadband Cable Association of Washington Susie Mason Confederated Tribes of the Colville Reservation Alison McCaffree NPower Lew McMurran Washington Technology Industry Association Jeff Mero Association of Washington Public Hospital Districts Matt Newbry Department of Community, Trade and Economic Development Joe Poire Port of Whitman County Gary Robinson Department of Information Services David Siburg Kitsap Public Utilities District Ed Stern Association of Washington Cities/City of Poulsbo Mary Taylor CenturyTel Michael Tracy Grays Harbor Economic Development Council Dan Youmans AT&T Work Group Activities Between July 2008 and November 2008, the Work Group met, reviewed, and discussed a wide variety of information, perspectives, and opinions concerning the six major topic areas specified by E2SSB 6438 in carrying out its role to advise DIS in its development of a statewide strategy to increase deployment and adoption of high-speed internet service (HSIS). These major topic areas included: Develop geographic information system maps and inventories of public and private high-speed internet infrastructure Address management of proprietary and competitively sensitive data Spur development of high-speed internet resources across the state Track residential and business adoption of high-speed internet, computers, and related information technology Build, facilitate, and use local technology planning teams to help with internet deployment to disenfranchised areas or areas not served Work with Washington State University Extension to establish low-cost programs to improve computer ownership, technology literacy, and high-speed internet access for populations not served in the state 2

11 The activities of the Work Group included development and review of a number of materials designed to facilitate discussion in these major subject areas. These documents and materials are included as attachments to this report. The findings and recommendations contained in this report are based on the Work Group s review and discussions. The report provides strategic direction to the state in order achieve the goal of high-speed internet infrastructure and service expansion, and increased adoption statewide. Such infrastructure and service expansion, and increased adoption, has the capability to improve quality of life statewide by enhancing economic development, healthcare, educational services and the amount of valuable and beneficial information available to residents, businesses, and institutions. 3

12 Recommendations The following recommendations are based on the discussions, activities, and conclusions of the Work Group. Described are a number of key high-speed internet strategy elements and issues, as well as recommended approaches and strategies to address these issues. Element: High-Speed Internet Service Definition The Work Group determined that it was extremely important to define the term highspeed internet in order to establish a baseline understanding for all concerned of what was to be mapped. Definitions adopted in a number of other states were reviewed. (Although all of the other states reviewed defined the term broadband, and not highspeed internet, the Work Group determined that for these purposes the two terms are interchangeable.) The Work Group also reviewed the Federal Communication Commission s (FCC) recent redefinition of broadband related to Form 477 reporting requirements. Work Group members also provided information concerning their respective organization s definition of HSIS. The Work Group deliberated the definition at multiple meetings. Recommendation: The Work Group recommends Washington adopt a definition of HSIS that is: Consistent with the FCC broadband speed tiers in the download and upload directions. However, the Work Group s definition will not include the bottom FCC tier in the download or upload direction. The first tier then is 768 kilobits per second (kbps) download and > 200 kbps upload Consistent with realistic asymmetrical operation in the upload direction, but sets a symmetrical operation goal for each tier, which is consistent with the top end of each of the FCC s speed tiers, and is consistent with required categories contained in Form 477 The following comparison shows the Work Group s suggested speed tiers in white. The FCC s speed tiers are consistent with the Work Group s suggested speed tiers, but also include some lower speed pairings that are shaded. The Work Group did not believe these lower speed pairings could be characterized as high-speed internet. 4

13 Table 2: FCC Broadband/HSIS Speed Tier Comparison > 200 kbps and < 768 kbps 768 kbps and < 1.5 mbps 1.5 mbps and < 3 mbps Download Speeds 3 mbps and < 6 mbps 6 mbps and < 10 mbps 10 mbps and < 25 mbps 25 mbps and < 100 mbps 100 mbps Upload Speeds 200 kbps > 200 kbps and < 768 kbps (First Generation) 768 kbps and < 1.5 mbps Tier mbps and < 3 mbps Tier 2 3 mbps and < 6 mbps Tier 3 6 mbps and < 10 mbps Tier 4 10 mbps and < 25 mbps Tier 5 25 mbps and < 100 mbps Tier mbps Tier 7 For the state s purposes, the HSIS definition balances the data gathering needed to provide a realistic assessment of high-speed internet service within the state, coupled with the requirements already placed on providers by the FCC. The definition does not place an additional requirement on service providers because the data that would be categorized as broadband under the FCC s definition is information that would be characterized as high-speed internet under the state s definition. Besides defining high-speed internet in terms of speed tiers (upload and download speed pairings), the Work Group indicated that various levels of high-speed internet should be defined by the applications that can be enabled by different tiers. Specifically, the Work Group believed the majority of high-speed internet users (and potential users) are much more cognizant of the applications that HSI can enable, rather than the speed capability of the upload and download direction. Therefore, the Work Group believed that it was critically important to define the various levels of HSIS in terms of applications that would be recognizable to HSIS users. 5

14 Consistent with this determination, the chart on the following pages shows various applications ranging from basic , to high capacity high-speed remote supercomputing, and how these applications can or cannot be enabled at various speeds. A review of the chart also indicates that the level of interactivity for a number of these applications is significantly affected, based on the specific speed pair available related to either the upload or download direction. 6

15 Table 3: HSIS Speed Tiers/Applications Upload Speeds > 200 kbps and < 768 kbps Download Speeds 768 kbps and < 1.5 mbps Basic (upload small files download medium files) You Tube Video 1.5 mbps And < 3 mbps Telecommuting (upload limited) Standard def video Broadcast quality 1 channel (download only) 3 mbps and < 6 mbps Multi channel Internet Protocol Television (IPTV) File sharing medium files (download only) 6 mbps and < 10 mbps Remote diagnostics (download only) Online Internet gaming (low upload enabled games) 10 mbps and < 25 mbps Telemedicine (download only) Remote one way education (download only) 25 mbps and < 100 mbps Smart/Intelligent building monitoring (Vid, Audio & data) (upload limited) 100 mbps NA 768 kbps and < 1.5 mbps Basic (medium files) You Tube Video Telecommuting Standard def Video Broadcast quality 1 channel (download only) Multi channel Internet Protocol Television (IPTV) File sharing medium files Remote diagnostics (download only) Online Internet gaming (low upload enabled games) Telemedicine (download only) Remote one way education (upload limited) Smart/Intelligent building monitoring (Vid, Audio & data) (upload limited) NA 1.5 mbps and < 3 mbps Basic (medium files) You Tube Video Telecommuting Standard def Video Broadcast quality 1 channel Multi channel Internet Protocol Television (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 (upload large files download medium files) You Tube Video Telecommuting Standard def Video Broadcast quality 1 channel Multi channel Internet Protocol Television (IPTV) File sharing large files Remote diagnostics (limited upload) Online interactive gaming Telemedicine (medium upload apps) Remote Interactive education (upload limited) Smart/Intelligent building monitoring (Vid, Audio & data) (upload limited) Campus wide educational services (upload limited) Technology and business parks (upload limited) 6 mbps and < 10 mbps Basic (upload large files download medium files) You Tube Video Telecommuting Standard def Video Broadcast quality 1 channel Multi channel Internet Protocol Television (IPTV) File sharing large files Remote diagnostics Online Internet gaming Telemedicine (medium upload apps) Remote Interactive education (upload limited) Smart/Intelligent building monitoring (Vid, Audio & data) (upload limited) Campus wide educational services (upload limited) Technology and business parks (upload limited) 7

16 Table 3 (continued.): HSIS Speed Tiers/Applications Upload Speeds 10 mbps and < 25 mbps Download Speeds 768 kbps and < 1.5 mbps Basic Upload large files Download Medium files You Tube Video 1.5 mbps And < 3 mbps Telecommuting Standard def Video Broadcast quality 1 channel 3 mbps and < 6 mbps Multi channel Internet Protocol Television (IPTV) File sharing medium files (large files upload) 6 mbps and < 10 mbps Remote diagnostics Online interactive gaming 10 mbps and < 25 mbps Telemedicine 2-way Remote interactive education 25 mbps and < 100 mbps Smart/Intelligent building monitoring (Vid, Audio & data) (medium upload) Campus wide educational services (medium upload) 25 mbps and < 100 mbps Basic Upload large files Download Medium files You Tube Video Telecommuting Standard def Video Broadcast quality 1 channel Multi channel Internet Protocol Television (IPTV) File sharing medium files (large files upload) Remote diagnostics Online interactive gaming Telemedicine 2-way Remote interactive education Smart/Intelligent building monitoring (Vid, Audio & data) Campus wide educational services Technology and business parks Remote Supercomputing (medium upload) 100 mbps Basic Upload Large files Download Medium files You Tube Video Telecommuting Standard def Video Broadcast quality 1 channel Multi channel Internet Protocol Television (IPTV) File sharing medium files (large files upload) Remote diagnostics Online interactive gaming Telemedicine 2-way Remote interactive education Smart/Intelligent building monitoring (Vid, Audio & data) Campus wide educational services Technology and business parks Remote Supercomputing 8

17 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 ( ), can be accomplished over a high-speed network with speeds on the lower end of the tier chart in both the download and upload direction. Speeds beginning at 768 kbps download and 200 kbps upload will offer sufficient functionality for these low bandwidth applications. However, as applications become more bandwidth intensive, the network must offer higher speeds in order to allow the telecommuter to effectively perform their work functions. Some applications will merely operate at a slower rate, and thus reduce productivity, while others will only be enabled via a higher speed network. For instance: transfer of large files can be accomplished on a network with slower speeds, but it will take significantly longer to accomplish the task and therefore lower the productivity of the telecommuter. Depending on this delay, slower speeds may make telecommuting an ineffective proposition. Furthermore, applications needing real-time connectivity will function poorly, if at all. Examples include real-time video (for example, video conferencing and video monitoring) and multi-tasking, such as transferring files between locations during a video conference. These applications will require higher bandwidths beginning in the range of 3 mbps symmetrical, and significantly higher requirements for high-quality high-definition video with other applications running concurrently. (This example would require symmetrical speeds of 10 mbps or greater). 9

18 Element: FCC Form 477 Data In June 2008, the FCC amended the data submission requirements of Form 477 to collect additional and more granular data on broadband service subscriptions 1. The new requirements state that information gathered shall be at the census tract level, rather than by zip code as previously required. In addition, the requirements regarding Form 477 include: Delineation of the number of broadband connections in service located in individual census tracts Provision of broadband service speed data in conjunction with subscriber counts in the new categories for download and upload speeds 2 Amended reporting requirements for mobile wireless broadband providers to include reporting numbers of subscribers whose plans allow them to browse the internet and access internet content of their choice 3 Providers of interconnected voice over internet protocol (VoIP) service must report subscribership information 4 The FCC also proposed additional methods to gather data including: A voluntary household self-reporting system 5 A recommendation to the Census Bureau that the American Community Survey questionnaire be modified to gather information about broadband availability and subscriptions in households 6 Some of the FCC s proposals related to broadband availability mapping, information gathering of delivered speeds, and broadband customer surveys are new requirements included in the recently passed federal legislation, Public Law , 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 data 7. The FCC will make certain aggregated information publicly available, while holding information they deem confidential from public disclosure. Under Public Law , 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 WC Docket No Para 19-20, Figure 1 3 WC Docket No Para WC Docket No Para WC Docket No Para WC Docket No Para WC Docket No Appendix A (c) 10

19 Public Law , Section 106(i) (2) defines eligible entities as: (i) an agency or instrumentality of a state, or a municipality or other subdivision (or agency or instrumentality of a municipality or other subdivision) of a state (ii) a nonprofit organization that is described in section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 and that is exempt from taxation under section 501(a) of such Code (iii) an independent agency or commission in which an office of a state is a member on behalf of the state Element: Geographic Information System (GIS) Mapping Criteria Once the Work Group determined a definition of high-speed internet, a review began of how information could be gathered, compiled, and displayed in a format that provides for easy understanding of the current state of high-speed internet infrastructure and service deployment. Enabling residential, business, and institutional consumer adoption to be easily displayed and understood is also a goal for the compiled information. Consistent with a number of other state initiatives, E2SSB 6438 stipulates this be done in a Geographic Information System (GIS) based map. This type of map allows for the display of data using various information layers and color keys to help the viewer understand which areas of the state have a high degree of HSIS deployment, and which areas have lower or no HSIS deployment. A GIS based map also allows the viewer to understand the variations in adoption rates across the state. The Local Technology Planning Teams (LTPTs) can also use GIS based maps to help target their efforts to the areas of highest need within their purview, as further described below. In the legislation, the state requested that a strategy be developed to map deployment and adoption information by census block area. Additionally, the requirements of E2SSB 6438 make it essential that service providers maintain a database by address of their installed service (availability), in addition to their customer file (adoption). When reviewing high-speed internet service data fields, the specific elements needed to develop availability and adoption maps at the census block level are the following shaded data fields: Table 4: HSIS Data Fields Serviceable 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

20 While E2SSB 6438 stipulated that the Work Group explore collecting high-speed internet availability and adoption data at the census block level, the FCC will require HSI service providers, beginning in March of 2009, to provide adoption rate data at the census tract level. (A census tract is larger than a census block.) The new federal law, Public Law , requires the FCC to begin acquiring availability data from HSI service providers at the census tract level. Members of the Work Group, who are also service providers, stated that to meet the new federal requirements, all service providers must have the ability by March of 2009 to provide adoption information at the census tract level. Service providers also indicated they will provide census tract level availability information as soon as the FCC issues rules, pursuant to its requirement under the new federal law, that detail how such information is to be provided. There was significant discussion in the Work Group concerning what benefits could be realized if adoption and availability information was mapped at the census tract level, rather than the census block level. First, the Work Group noted that FCC Form 477 adoption information at the census tract level would be readily available soon after March of 2009, and could conceivably enable the state to map and utilize such information in a quicker timeframe than if service providers were to develop a specific database designed and implemented for the census block level. Second, service provider members of the Work Group indicated that FCC requirements enable efficiencies in the provision of prepared data, but customization at a different level of such data for the state of Washington would require significant effort and expense. In other words, it was important to try to achieve consistency between state and federal reporting requirements. Third, the Work Group discussed the significant cost that providers would incur by developing a database that was more granular than the census tract level (the number of census blocks in Washington is more than 100 times higher than the number of census tracts). One review of such costs suggests the following: Concerning adding census block level information to a service provider s database, the providers could perform this function as an in-house cost if they have GIS software such as ESRI s ArcGIS, which supports geocoding addresses to the map. An alternative to performing this function in-house is to engage a third party vendor. The U.S. Census Bureau maintains a list of vendors that perform this service. The cost for geocoding service is generally based on the number of records in the provider s database, and can range from $350 to approximately $50,000. An example of a geocoding service fee schedule is listed below: 12