MR. SEIFERT:  Good morning and welcome to 
Commerce.  To some of you, welcome back to Commerce.  
Hopefully, the line's a little bit easier.  Welcome to 
all of you on the Web and those listening by 
teleconference.  My name is Mike Seifert, and this is 
our opening session of our week of public comment.  
		I am going to turn it over to our moderator who we 
are pleased to have here.  Robert Atkinson, since he 
left, has been the Director of Policy and Research at 
the Columbia Institute for Tele-Information at the 
Columbia Business School.  While he was at the FCC, he 
was Deputy Chief of the Common Carrier Bureau.  And 
just to correct the record, I never was the Deputy 
Chief of the Common Carrier Bureau, despite press 
reports.  Bob was, and did an excellent job.  Bob is 
going to help us and help our panelists see our way 
through some of these issues and discuss the important 
sorts of things that NTIA and RUS need to do to get 
these grant and loan programs up and running.  So we 
appreciate the panelists giving us some of their 
valuable time and we appreciate Bob helping us out this 
week.  Thank you very much.
		MR. ATKINSON:  Thank you very much -- I am Bob 
Atkinson, the Director of Policy Research at CITI.  We 
are an academic center.  We are focused on telecom, 
Internet, and electronic media.  I am not an employee 
of NTIA or any government agency, so that any comments 
I do make during these roundtables are strictly mine 
only, and cannot represent the views of NTIA, or CITI 
for that matter.  
		The topic for this morning's roundtable discussion 
is private sector eligibility.  Representatives from a 
number of stakeholders will participate in the 
roundtable discussion on this topic, and I will 
introduce the panelists in a moment.  Procedurally, 
each of the panelists will make very brief comments on 
the topics raised on the joint RUS/NTIA request for 
information that was issued last week.  I will then 
moderate a roundtable discussion amongst the panelists, 
and finally the last 30 minutes of the roundtable will 
be devoted to questions or comments from the audience 
here at the Commerce Department or from the 
teleconference and the Webcast.  I expect these 
presentations will spur a lively discussion and 
generate new innovative ideas about deploying and 
utilizing broadband services.  
		Finally, I would like to observe the roundtable 
discussions and last week's request for information are 
part of an open and transparent process which all 
interested parties will have opportunities to provide 
comments to NTIA and RUS over the next few weeks.  
		I would now like to briefly introduce the 
panelists in the order that they will present their 
remarks.  On my left is Curt Stamp.  Curt is the 
president of the Independent Telephone and 
Telecommunications Alliance.  He was Commissioner of 
the IA utilities board and has due to -- today Mr. 
Stamp is representing a coalition that includes CITI, 
the National Cable and Telecommunications Association, 
the Wireless Communications Association, and the 
Satellite Communications Association.  
		Next to Curt is Debbie Goldman.  Debbie is the 
Telecommunications Policy Director at the 
Communications Workers of America, where she is 
responsible for regulatory affairs and 
telecommunications policy.  She currently coordinates 
the union's "Speed Matters" campaign promoting 
affordable high-speed Internet for America.  
		Next to Debbie, Sasha Meinrath.  Sasha is the 
Research Director of the New America Foundation -- they 
are a wireless future program -- and director of the 
foundation's Open Technology Initiative.  That focus is 
on community wireless networks, municipal broadband, 
and telecom policy.  Additionally, he coordinates the 
Wireless Coalition Partnership dedicated to the 
development of open-source interoperable low-cost 
wireless technologies.  
		Next to Sasha is Betty Ann Kane, she is chairwoman 
of the District of Columbia Public Service Commission 
and has served as commissioner.  She has over 30 years 
of service in the District of Columbia government, 
including three terms as an at-large member of the 
council of the District of Columbia, and has extensive 
private sector experience in regulatory administration 
public policy matters.  And today Chairman Kane is 
representing the National Association of Regulatory 
Commissioners.  
		Last but not least, Grant Seiffert, the president 
of the Telecommunications Industry Association.  TIA's 
member companies represent the entire supply chain of 
the ICT industry, manufacturing products, providing 
services, and offering applications by content, video, 
voice, and data, thereby merging communications and 
entertaining options.  Today Mr. Seiffert is 
representing CTI, ITIC, and Tech America.  
		As many of you know, NTIA and RUS have a 
monumental job to accomplish in a very short period of 
time implementing the American Recovery and 
Reinvestment Act in a way that produces the greatest 
broadband bang for every taxpayer buck.  Among other 
things, this means adopting rules, developing 
contracts, reviewing proposals, selecting those to best 
satisfy the goals of the act and award criteria.  
There's many, many, many other things that NTIA and RUS 
have to do.  
		So the purpose of this series of roundtables is to 
provide NTIA and RUS with considerate thoughts and 
suggestions from experienced experts from a broad range 
of stakeholders so that the agencies can accomplish 
their tasks as quickly and effectively as possible.  As 
I mentioned a moment ago, the topic of today's 
discussion is private sector eligibility.  This is a 
pretty important topic with respect to the overall 
broadband stimulus program because the ARRA establishes 
who is eligible to receive BTOP grants from the NTIA.  
States, the District of Columbia, Indian tribes, Native 
Hawaiians, and nonprofit entities are eligible as a 
matter of law.  But other entities are eligible for 
grants only if NTIA finds their eligibility to be in 
the public interest by rule.   
		so the purpose of this roundtable is to help 
NTIA develop this public interest rule so that everyone 
can understand who is and who isn't eligible for the 
BTOP grants.  Let's start our panel discussion with 
Curt Stamp, the president of the Independent Telephone 
and Telecommunications Alliance.  Curt.
             MR. STAMP:  Thank you, Bob.  Good morning and 
thank you for the opportunity to participate in this 
morning's panel on private sector eligibility for funds 
under the Broadband Technology Opportunities Program, 
or BTOP.  As Bob mentioned, I am Curt Stamp and the 
president of the Independent Telephone and 
Telecommunication Alliance, but I am before you today 
representing a broad and diverse industry coalition 
that includes not only ITTA but U.S.  Telecom, CTIA, 
the Wireless Association, the National Cable and 
Telecommunications Association, the satellite industry, 
and the Wireless Communication Association 
International.  It's a group that is often on different 
sides of policy debates, but comes together and agrees 
that private broadband service providers have a vital 
role to play in realizing the goal of broadband for all 
Americans put forth by the administration and this 
program.  
             The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 
2009 extends eligibility for BTOP funds to any entity, 
including a broadband service or infrastructure 
provider that the Assistant Secretary finds by rule to 
be in the public interest.  In establishing that rule, 
the Assistant Secretary is directed, to the extent 
practical, to promote the purposes of the program in a 
technologically neutral manner.  The industries I 
represent, all current providers of broadband service 
and infrastructure across a variety of platforms, 
support the adoption of a rule which finds that direct 
grants to private sector providers is in the public 
interest.  As a former state commissioner, I understand 
and appreciate the importance of ensuring that these 
funds are used in way that not only furthers the public 
interest but are used as efficiently and effectively as 
possible.  As I will explain further, the goals of BTOP 
will be furthered if direct grants to private sector 
providers are determined to be in the public interest 
and are part of the grant program from the outset.  
             The public interest and the purpose of BTOP 
will be best served by a rule that makes any provider 
of broadband service or infrastructure eligible for a 
grant.  If we are to reach the goal of ubiquitous 
broadband availability in the United States, we must 
use all tools available and the private sector can and 
should be a part of that solution.  These companies 
have extensive technical, financial, and managerial 
experience and expertise in building broadband networks 
and providing broadband service.  They clearly have the 
capability of carrying out the projects that they 
propose in a competent manner in compliance with all 
applicable federal, state, and local laws, and in an 
efficient and expeditious manner as envisioned by ARRA.  
             The experience and expertise of the private 
sector places us in a unique position of being able to 
quickly and effectively undertake projects that will 
give broadband to the far reaches of rural America as 
well as pockets within our urban areas that do not have 
access to broadband today.  The proven track record as 
providers of broadband service and infrastructure will 
give NTIA assurance that the grants will be implemented 
in a responsible manner and that the goals of BTOP and 
the act will be realized.  
             To streamline the process and allow for the 
quickest disbursement of the grant funds as possible, 
NTIA should extend eligibility to any existing entity 
that holds an FCC license, state certificate of public 
convenience and necessity, cable franchise, or similar 
government authorization, or who is otherwise providing 
broadband service under applicable federal, state, and 
local law.  
             MR. ATKINSON:  Curt, could I interrupt for 
one second?  
             MR. STAMP:  Yes, sir.
             MR. ATKINSON:  Are we supposed to be putting 
up a slide here?  Someone from NTIA?  I know each 
speaker has one slide.  So --  
             MR. STAMP:  And just getting the logos on was 
the challenging part.  So I wanted to show that and get 
that all lined up.  Thank you.  
             As I mentioned, to streamline the process and 
allow for the quickest disbursement of grant funds as 
possible, NTIA should extend eligibility to any 
existing entity that holds an FCC license, state 
certificate, et cetera.  No additional or individual 
review of any such entity should be required as a 
condition of initial eligibility since such entities 
have already proved -- have been found to be viable 
service providers and have demonstrated track records 
as such.  Making these providers eligible for BTOP 
funds offers among the best opportunities to ensure 
that the funds are used immediately to create jobs, 
extend broadband, facilitate adoption, and otherwise 
serve the public interest and the statutory goals.  
These companies have the experience working with state 
and local governments, health care providers, education 
institutions, and businesses, and can build on those 
relationships to push broadband further and open 
opportunities for the greater number of Americans.  
             Allowing direct grants to the private sector 
also results in additional private sector investment in 
broadband service and infrastructure.  The 20 percent 
nonfederal match requirement in this program will not 
only leverage the program funds but will help to ensure 
that recipients have a stake in the success of their 
projects.  
             Finally, to maintain fairness and competitive 
neutrality in the programs, NTIA should make the 
finding that awarding grants to private sector entities 
is in the public interest in the initial notice of 
availability of funds.  It would be inequitable, 
inefficient, and potentially wasteful for other 
categories of eligible entities -- states, public 
subdivisions, et cetera -- to have their applications 
filed and processed while the agency is still 
contemplating how to write the public interest standard 
for experienced and capable commercial providers of 
broadband service.  Private sector applicants should 
not be sidetracked in the grant-making process until 
after considerable sums of money have already been 
given to others.  All applicants should be permitted to 
approach the starting gate simultaneously and to have 
their respective applications given full and fair 
consideration in the program as a whole.  
             Again, on behalf of the industries I 
represent, I thank you today for the opportunity to 
participate in today's panel, and I look forward to the 
discussion and your questions.  Thank you.  
             (Applause. )
             MR. ATKINSON:  Debbie Goldman.  
             MS. GOLDMAN:  Thank you, and I also want to 
thank the NTIA for this opportunity to speak on behalf 
of the Communication Workers of America.  We represent 
more than 700,000 members, the majority of whom are 
working in this industry.  
             I begin -- and I take my opportunity to talk 
about the public interest standard for the eligibility 
of private entities, but I want to emphasize that many 
of the points that I will make will also apply to 
considerations and priorities that the NTIA ought to 
make in considering grants in general, because most 
important is to ensure an additional level of 
oversight, fraud protection, and sustainability of the 
projects that are funded, and to ensure that the goals 
of the statute are met, job creation and the best and 
most effective expansion of broadband services.  
             Therefore, my first point is that we would 
want to look for a strong government role in endorsing 
projects that are proposed by private entities.  And if 
you look at the statute, it says that public entities 
include states or political subdivisions, the District 
of Columbia, U.S. territory or possession, Indian 
tribes, or native Hawaiian organization.  Endorsement 
by one of these organizations should give special 
priority to any grant applicants from the private 
sector.  In addition, priority should be given to 
entities that add substantial infrastructure and a 
focus on unserved areas.  
             Most important, the applicant should be 
required to demonstrate that it has the financial, 
technical, managerial, and operational qualifications 
to complete the project in a timely manner and that it 
has the capacity to continue operating after stimulus 
funding is no longer available.  Past performance shall 
be a strong consideration to determine the applicant's 
qualifications.  The applicant shall be required to 
demonstrate that it has no past record or material 
violation of federal, state, or local laws or 
regulations.  
             Applicants shall be required to demonstrate 
that the project will result in sustainable and quality 
job creation and economic development.  And as 
mentioned earlier, we want to use this public money to 
leverage the most private investment, and at a minimum, 
the applicant shall provide the 20 percent match from 
its own sources.
             The applicant should also be able to 
demonstrate that it meets other grant requirements and 
priorities which will be enumerated in the rules, and I 
mention a number of them that we believe will again 
ensure additional oversight, fraud protection, 
sustainability, and achievement of the statute's 
objectives of job creation and broadband build-out:  
evidence of rapid engagement and construction, 
viability of timeline and certainty of completion, 
priority to projects in states with prior mapping of 
infrastructure and technology plans so that we have 
identified where the unserved areas are, 
identification of the specific number of households and 
locations -- for example, libraries, schools, other 
public and community facilities, including industrial 
parks or small businesses that will be served -- and 
the number of jobs created.  
             (Applause.)
             MR. ATKINSON:  Our next speaker is Sasha 
Meinrath.
             MR. MEINRATH:  Thank you very much.  It's 
good to be here.  For those who know me, you will not 
be surprised that I will be taking a slightly 
different, though allied, perspective on things.  I've 
spent the past decade, in addition to my work at the 
New America Foundation, also doing community technology 
deployment.  And I've been climbing on roofs.  I've 
been building coalitions.  I've been suffering the 
slings and arrows of outrageous local politics.  And 
I've been successfully implementing solutions in 
communities that people said were impossible to deploy 
in.  
             So let me begin by restating what I hope is 
obvious, which is that private profits are the 
byproduct of a critically important digital inclusion 
work, work that needs to be done desperately in this 
country, but they are not the end goal of the stimulus 
funding.  
             Now, our fundamental goal should be to search 
for the most efficacious, eligible entities, both 
public and private, and maximize the social and 
economic benefits of this national intervention.  It is 
critically important for NTIA to evaluate each 
application on its own merits, and not disallow any 
specific entities or organizations from applying a 
priori.  
             The fact is that broadband stimulus is 
so desperately needed -- the fact that this is so 
desperately needed is indicative of the woeful state of 
current service provision within many communities.  And 
its very existence, that of the BTOP program, points to 
the need for new thinking and innovation and new 
strategies that dramatically differ from prior 
practice.  
             The types of eligible private entities we 
must support must go far beyond the usual suspects.  
Within the private sector, NGOs of all types must be 
eligible and must include nonprofits, coalitions of 
service organizations, tribal entities and 
cooperatives, hybrid partnerships with municipal 
entities, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera.  
             Current measures, business models, 
implementation plans have far too often marginalized 
considerable resources and expertise within local 
communities.  The deep prioritization of local control 
and accountability has too often led to far less 
effective IT training for local residents, lowered 
educational outcomes, decreased salience to local 
constituencies for the services that are deployed, and 
the marginalization of these communities that these 
resources are supposed to be serving.  
             So NTIA has an opportunity to begin to 
address these digital injustices.  We have both an 
obligation to ensure that the very best organizations 
receive public funding and a concomitant duty to ensure 
that the most socially and economically just outcomes 
are deployed.  Diversity and heterogeneity of business 
models are critically important factors in ensuring 
that universal, affordable broadband access and the 
widespread adoption of digital resources becomes a 
reality.  
             So, to sum up, digital inclusion is not just 
about the services offered; it's about the local 
control and accountability of these organizations, and 
it's about finding the right institutions and 
organizations to deliver these services in the first 
place.  
             So I very much look forward to the following 
discussion and the public comment.  Thank you.
             (Applause.)
             MR. ATKINSON:  Our next speaker is Ms. Betty 
Ann Kane, Chairman.  
             MS. KANE:  It's only been "chairman" for a 
couple weeks, so we have to get used to that title.  I 
want to thank NTIA for the opportunity to share the 
views of the National Association of Regulatory and 
Utility Commissioners, or NARUC, as it is known.  It is 
the organization that represents the elected and 
appointed public utility commissioners in the 50 
states, the District of Columbia, and the territories.  
On behalf of NARUC, we are pleased to be here to 
present our view of what NTIA should consider in 
establishing whether any entities other than the 
statutory ones who are named should be declared to be 
in the public interest.  
             And basically our position is that in 
determining what the public interest is in this 
instance, in determining this rule, it should be 
informed by the underlying purposes and goals of the 
legislation.  
             First of all, that state and political 
subdivisions should include, at minimum, of course, 
state public utility commissions, state broadband 
authorities, and state universal service administrative 
agencies.  In that context, a private firm or a sole 
proprietorship or an individual should be considered 
eligible for participation in the Broadband Technology 
Opportunities Program, in the public interest, when 
that entity is acting in partnership with any of those 
state entities.  
             Many state commissions and, in other cases, 
other broadband commissions established by a state or 
other state agencies currently adopt and run broadband 
adoption, infrastructure grant, tele- health lifeline 
linkup, and universal service programs, and have long 
experience particularly in the universal service area.  
They have been recognized by Congress in both the act 
and elsewhere in federal legislation as having 
particular expertise in this area, and obviously they 
need to be a very important part of this.  Likewise it 
makes no sense, we think, to simply exclude an 
otherwise non-qualifying entity that chooses to seek a 
grant if it's done in partnership with the state or 
political subdivision.
             In addition, NTIA should find that an entity 
that is applying to serve otherwise unserved citizens, 
where "unserved" means no facilities-based Internet 
access other than dial-up or satellite, or the entities 
offering to improve the quality or affordability of 
broadband in an area --that that would be the second 
judge of public interest with that partnership, where 
quality should be judged along multiple dimensions 
including band width in either direction, redundancy, 
reliability or -- excuse me -- redundancy and 
reliability.  
             And let me say a little bit more about the 
underlying goals and purposes of the act.  Purposes of 
grants, according to legislation, to provide broadband 
service to consumers in unserved areas; to provide 
improved access to broadband service to consumers in 
underserved areas; and, number three, to provide 
broadband education, awareness, training, access, 
equipment, and support to schools, libraries, medical 
and health care providers, community colleges, other 
institutions of higher learning, other community 
support entities, to facilitate greater use of 
broadband service through these organizations or to 
provide outreach, access, equipment, and support 
services, and in particular, according to the 
congressional legislation, that section 6001(c) directs 
NTIA to consult with the states on the identification 
of unserved and underserved areas in their borders, and 
(2) the allocation of grants to projects affecting each 
state.  
             The conferees recognize that states have 
resources and a familiarity with local economic, 
demographic, and market conditions that could 
contribute to the success of the broadband grant 
program.  And states will be encouraged to coalesce 
stakeholders and partners, assess community needs, 
aggregate demand for services, and evaluate demand for 
technical assistance.  Conferees therefore expect and 
intend that the NTIA, at its discretion, will seek 
advice and assistance from the states in reviewing 
grant applications as long as the NTIA, of course, 
retains sole authority to approve the awards, and they 
intend that the NTIA, in its discretion, will assist 
the states in post-grant monitoring to ensure that 
recipients comply with the terms and conditions of 
their grants.
             So both the congressional intent as well as 
the goals of the legislation have a very strong role 
for states, which is why NARUC's position is that 
private entities that -- should be eligible for grants 
and should be determined in the public interest if they 
are working in partnership with a state, both for 
reasons of coordination and because all of the social 
and economic goals of the legislation -- jobs, 
education, health -- these are state responsibilities, 
and they will best be carried out timely, targeted, and 
although the goal of the stimulus law is to be 
temporary, sustainability will be best achieved through 
coordination with the states.  Thank you.
             (Applause.)
             MR. ATKINSON:  And our last speaker is Grant 
Seiffert.
             MR. SEIFFERT:  Good morning.  Thank you, Mr. 
Seifert, for inviting me to speak today here.  I'm Mr. 
Seiffert, so Mark and I will have an interesting 
dialogue back and forth on the transcript.  
             I am grateful for the opportunity to appear 
before you and to serve on this distinguished panel.  I 
appreciate the leadership of the NTIA, the FCC, the 
Congress, the RUS, the administration, and of course, 
thank you, Mr. President Obama for his leadership on 
bringing broadband to all Americans.  On behalf of TIA, 
CEA, ITI, Fiber to the Home Council, and Tech America, 
I collectively represent a large coalition of thousands 
of Internet companies, equipment vendors, suppliers, 
those who are supplying the broadband networks, 
consumer electronics, systems integrators, information 
technology, government contractors, and information 
technology consulting and sourcing companies, all of 
which want to see a successful implementation of the 
broadband initiatives we discuss today. 
             This is a historic opportunity for all.  I 
urge the NTIA to embrace the flexibility Congress wove 
into the Broadband Technology Opportunities Program, 
BTOP, and allow all entities private and public to 
propose and receive funding for projects that will make 
broadband technology available in all corners of our 
nation.  The bottom line is that we need to get this 
economy moving, and broadband investment will do that.  
Ultimately, fulfilling the purposes of the BTOP should 
be the driving force behind every decision the NTIA 
makes with regard to the process set forth in order to 
serve the best interests of citizens and our economy.  
             As companies that help provide Internet 
service to millions of Americans and creators of the 
technologies and applications that will build the 
broadband networks and provide consumers the tools they 
need to harness the Internet, our members work with a 
vast array of public and private entities to deploy 
broadband.  Their experience shows that all parties -- 
public, private, and partnerships combining the two -- 
can very effectively seek and steer broadband delivery 
projects.  
             Therefore, in order for the American people 
to get the most benefit for the stimulus funds 
allocated to broadband deployment, all parties should 
be eligible to bid for the BTOP funding and show how a 
project can meet the purposes of the BTOP as 
established by Congress.  
             BTOP eligibility standards should be flexible 
to bring the most qualified and most diverse group of 
applicants to the table.  NTIA should not focus on what 
type of entity an applicant is, but rather (1) the 
value of the proposed project to the American people; 
(2) the applicant's ability to use the funds to achieve 
the project's objective.  And the criteria for grant 
awards should include a proposed project's area and 
demographic coverage, costs and efficiency, along with 
equality and suitability of the broadband offering.  In 
any particular case, the best candidate under these 
principles may be the state or local government, a 
tribal authority, a nonprofit organization, a private 
party, or a partnership.  
             An open eligibility policy will allow the 
NTIA to pick the best among diverse applicants.  A 
flexible approach would also be consistent with the RUS 
portion of the ARRA, which allows private entities to 
propose broadband infrastructure projects funding.  
             In addition to opening the grant applications 
access to all parties, NTIA should maximize the 
flexibility Congress provided in the BTOP with respect 
to areas available for and contractual conditions on 
grant funding.  As the applicants' application process 
begins, states should be advised to consult with the 
NTIA to extend such expertise that will streamline the 
application process and facilitate completion of the 
projects.  
             Our coalition has other input on a host of 
other matters which will - that you have inquired into 
in your request for information.  In the coming days, 
we will provide a concise list of our shared positions 
to assist you in developing the grant application 
selection and award processes.  Again, I urge the NTIA 
to ensure that all parties can apply for BTOP grants to 
bring the best innovators into the BTOP broadband 
development effort.  
             And, in closing, I don't believe and many in 
industry don't believe that this program can be 
successful and meet the goals set by Congress and the 
administration without the private parties being 
involved.  So I thank you, and we offer our assistance 
on technical and policy matters moving forward.  Thank 
you very much.  
             (Applause.)
             MR. ATKINSON:  Thank you, panelists.  And I 
think the panel has demonstrated the difficulty, in a 
sense, of the task that NTIA has ahead of them, which 
is to come up with a rule that establishes what the 
public interest is or it's a -- according to the 
statute, an entity -- the Assistant Secretary of 
Commerce, the Administrator of NTIA can -- has to find 
by rule that any of the -- any entity not mentioned by 
statute is in the public interest.  And what I will 
challenge our panelists to do is to tell me what is the 
rule -- if you were writing the rule right now that 
defines what is the public interest or how you would 
figure out what the public interest is, what should 
that rule look like?  
             And I think it's a difference between a rule 
that is put into the standard governmental-type rule 
versus the award criteria.  I think, at least, there's 
-- they're different.  The award criteria comes after 
the proposals come in, but first, who is eligible even 
to put a proposal into the hopper?  And, you know, 
Congress certainly said nonprofits, state or political 
subdivisions, et cetera, et cetera, and then it's any 
other entity as long as in advance a rule has been 
written that describes that public interest.  
             I have heard in the discussion, for example 
-- I guess it was Curt Stamp who suggested that anybody 
who holds a government license or authorization is 
prima -- prima facie they're authorized.  Is that a 
fair point of view?  
             So I could envision writing a rule that says 
anyone who holds a public -- a certificate of public 
convenience and necessity from a state or has a federal 
license, et cetera, et cetera -- that's rule-type 
language.  Would you -- so I am going to go down the 
row here and just say tell me again, what is the 
eligibility criteria in a rule, like one sentence?  To 
be eligible in the public interest, you must be X or do 
X.  
             MR. STAMP:  Actually, I think you gave my 
answer to me.  I think we would argue that all private 
providers should be eligible but those who have a 
current license -- that should be kind of the hurdle 
for them.  We are not necessarily saying any other 
provider wouldn't be eligible who doesn't meet that 
criteria, but from a further review, further 
determination of eligibility with NTIA, anyone who is 
currently operating under one of those licenses is 
eligible.  
             MR. ATKINSON:  So anyone who holds a spectrum 
license from the FCC?  
             MR. STAMP:  Exactly.
             MR. ATKINSON:  Because that, presumably, was 
found to be in the public interest --
             MR. STAMP:  Cable franchise, et cetera.
             MR. ATKINSON:  Okay.  Fine.
             Debbie, how would you write that rule?  
             MS. GOLDMAN:  Well, part of the advantage of 
being part of this panel and holding these roundtables 
is learning from each other.  And although I did not 
propose what Curt enunciated, I think that I would 
concur with him that that should be a bottom line, that 
you have some kind of a public license or --
             MR. ATKINSON:  So, when you say "endorse" -- 
I think you used the term "endorsement," that might be 
a prior endorsement in terms of a license, as opposed 
to having a new -- having to go and get some sort of a 
new endorsement or both, or what?  
             MS. GOLDMAN:  Well, as you push me, I am 
thinking through the difference between a rule of the 
public interest and a criteria that would bump you up 
to the top.  And I certainly support endorsement by the 
public sector.  
             I am very concerned that the NTIA construct a 
grant-making system that has a very strong state role, 
because I am very concerned about fraud protection, 
sustainability, and, really, identification of where 
there are the projects that meet the statute's goals.  
Therefore, it seems to me a strong -- and when I say 
"state," I mean a strong governmental role, a state or 
its political subdivision.  So I think Betty Ann Kane 
has also given us a lot of good direction around that.  
             And I hope I am not avoiding answering your 
question directly, but I do think that this is the area 
we need to be thinking about.  Thank you.
             MR. ATKINSON:  Sasha, write me a rule in two 
sentences.  
             MR. MEINRATH:  Two sentences?
             MR. ATKINSON:  What is the public interest?
             MR. MEINRATH:  There's definitely a divide -- 
let me preface this.  There's a divide between sort of 
the pragmatic operationalization of a rule that we can 
all sort of look at and objectively identify --
             AUDIENCE MEMBER:  We can't hear you.
             MR. MEINRATH:  Sorry about that.
             There's a problem of trying to operationalize 
this in a manner that's two sentences long and can be 
objectively assessed and the real-world social, 
economic impacts on the ground that people experience 
in their everyday lives.  And so somehow -- and there's 
a tension here, obviously.  So somehow we have to write 
a rule that gets at the notion of supporting 
organizations that have meaningful real-world impacts 
on the ground in local communities.  
             And I would like to see a rule in fact that 
really, as was mentioned, sort of prioritizes -- 
doesn't write off everyone else -- but prioritizes the 
groups and organizations that have had meaningful 
impacts on the ground in local communities, and 
irregardless in some ways of whether it's in telecom or 
poverty reduction or education, et cetera.  I feel like 
this can be a program that drives innovation and shifts 
our priorities to really focus on the impacts of 
broadband in helping all of these secondary areas.  
             MR. ATKINSON:  So does -- I'm sort of hearing 
somebody has to at least bring a track record. 
             MR. MEINRATH:  A track record would be very 
nice, but not the typical track record that I think, 
you know, a sort of risk-averse politician would want, 
of like you've deployed broadband networks and, you 
know, done that successfully, but rather who is on the 
ground actively involved with a long-time standing and 
trust within local communities.  
             If you are talking about working in under- 
and unserved communities in particular, there is 
expertise and there are people who have incredible 
resources that are not going to get tapped unless we 
make that a priority.  
             MR. ATKINSON:  And -- but compared to Curt or 
Debbie's idea which is fairly simple to write into a 
rule, that's pretty amorphous.  
             MR. MEINRATH:  And thus the tension between 
sort of effectiveness on the ground and political 
pragmatics.  And somehow NTIA has to bridge that 
divide.  I would --  
             MR. ATKINSON:  We're here to help them today, 
hopefully, so --
             MR. MEINRATH:  That's right.
             MR. ATKINSON:  And hope you can provide --
             MR. MEINRATH:  But what I would say is that 
it is important to look at the social, economic justice 
impacts of on-the-ground organizations.  And maybe that 
will be a partnership --   
             MR. ATKINSON:  Would that go more into the 
award criteria rather than the eligibility criteria?  
             MR. MEINRATH:  I think they are definitely 
related.  And, again, it's not about like saying these 
are the organizations you should fund and everyone else 
you shouldn't, but that this needs to be a priority 
criteria for deciding where funding goes and who should 
be eligible.  
             MR. ATKINSON:  Betty Ann, you've been in 
government a long time and have written many rules.  
             MS. KANE:  Yes, and I think might protest the 
difference, that there is a difference between sort of 
political considerations and effectiveness at the state 
and local level.  
             But, again, writing a rule, I think NARUC 
would say the rules should say, if you are not one of 
the statutorily named entities, state or a subdivision 
or nonprofit -- even the case of a nonprofit -- that an 
other entity would be deemed in the public interest if 
it was working in partnership. 
             MR. ATKINSON:  What do you mean by 
"partnership"?  I mean, clearly not an investment 
partnership.  
             MS. KANE:  Not necessarily, although 
certainly there are a number of states, for example, 
that do give broadband grants out of state funds or out 
of state universal service funds, ranging from, you 
know, Vermont and Maine all the way to California, 
which actually do take applications and give grants to 
private companies to build, for example, in build-out 
deployment in rural remote areas and have been very 
successful.  So that's one kind of partnership.  
             There are state broadband commissions, in 
Virginia, for example.  It's had an excellent program 
where they actually took their tobacco fund money and 
used it to fund a very detailed kind of mapping of 
where there was needs in the state and working and 
continuing to work.  This is a broadband commission set 
up through the governor's office working with business 
communities, working with private sector entities to 
target and bring in -- again, the actual work being 
done by private sector entities building the 
deployment, building the infrastructure, but in 
partnership or in coordination with a state plan.  
             When we look at demographics -- I mean, job 
creation, education, health, these are all state 
responsibilities, and the state on the ground knows 
where the partnership coordination and consistency with 
a state plan.  
             MR. ATKINSON:  Is a state certification of 
public convenience and necessity, for example -- is 
that enough of a partnership in your thinking of it?  
             MS. KANE:  Not necessarily for this kind of 
work.  You can have entities that are not telephone 
companies, not providers and not licensed entities, and 
don't need to be licensed entities, but they could be 
other service providers that would have the ability and 
capability to work closely with the state.  
             MR. ATKINSON:  Take Curt's idea of just if 
you already have a license, that might qualify, but be 
a bit broader and more inclusive.  
             MS. KANE:  I would have to go out on a limb 
and say that if just having a license would have 
accomplished the goal, then we would have broadband 
everywhere and it would be affordable.  So --  
             MR. ATKINSON:  Grant Seiffert, right?  
             MR. SEIFFERT:  The most cost-effective, 
efficient, and serves the public out there that does 
not have broadband.  And we believe that the 
congressional intent is to not preclude anyone from 
applying.  So that's really important.  I think there 
is some support on the panel for this.  Because we do 
want to see the best and brightest brought to this 
issue.  They ought to be given an opportunity to at 
least apply, given the criteria.  
             MR. ATKINSON:  So you are saying that the 
Assistant Secretary's statutory requirement defines by 
rule are in the public interest?  You are saying, 
anybody can apply?  
             MR. SEIFFERT:  I think not anybody, but you 
certainly have to have some metropolitan writ within 
the industry, and I think the challenge is -- again, I 
don't think Congress wants to exclude anyone from 
serving in this roll-out of the infrastructure.  
             MR. ATKINSON:  How do you define the best and 
brightest?  Anybody thinks they are the best and 
brightest.  Anybody can come along with that criteria.  
             MR. SEIFFERT:  I think there are innovators, 
and there is confirmation, whether it's private, or 
public, or partnerships -- again, we don't want to 
exclude.  And as I said in my testimony, this is an 
opportunity that is historic.  Sasha has said a couple 
of times that he has worked in smaller communities that 
can only bring this service to consumers.  So I think 
there is the -- the challenge is not setting the bar 
too low, but too high.  
             MR. ATKINSON:  Anybody like to make comments 
about each other's, and we will go around again in 
order?  
             MR. STAMP:  I wanted to respond to 
Commissioner Kane on the requirement that there is a 
private-public partnership.  Throughout the debate as 
we worked with CRD and others, Congress rejected the 
idea that there be a specific requirement that one 
would have to partner with one of those named entities.  
The intent of Congress is clear that along the lines of 
what the grant said, we should have the eligibility as 
broad as possible, and I think if we start putting a 
lot of restrictions on who you have to require and who 
can apply and some of those other things, you run the 
risk of driving away potential investors and people who 
could actually be part of that solution moving forward.
             And, you know, I think the other piece that 
we sometimes fail to realize, when people talk about 
how, as Sasha did, about the woeful job we have done so 
far, if you look at the areas where there is not 
broadband service that lasts 10 to 15 percent or 
whatever the number is you want to use, the biggest 
reason that there is not investment in those areas 
today is there is not an economic business case to be 
made to make that investment.  So one of the reasons we 
pushed for the grants in this process and pushed to 
have private sector folks be eligible is we have gotten 
the folks in place and you need that grant for someone 
to move what is now a noneconomic business case and 
make it an economic case to invest.  
             MR. ATKINSON:  Betty Ann, do you have your 
mike in your hand?  I said we would go in order, so I 
apologize.  Let's do it that way.  
             MS. GOLDMAN:  I wanted to ditto what Curt 
just said because a lot of reasons this is important is 
there was not an incentive to build infrastructure, and 
equally important there needs to be an assurance that 
once that infrastructure is built with public money 
that the entity that built it has the capacity, both 
the technical, the managerial, the financial, and the 
skilled labor to operate.  We don't want to be in a 
situation where, after this is all done, we put 
infrastructure in the ground and then we see companies 
that don't have a viable business model to operate.  So 
I think it is important that we identify private 
entities that have the capability and sustainability to 
operate once they have built this infrastructure.  
             MR. ATKINSON:  Is that more of an award 
criteria than an eligibility -- just to put in the 
proposal?  
             MS. GOLDMAN:  You are absolutely right.  
That's why the bottom line would have to be looking at 
a track record, and a state certification would 
certainly be one way to create some kind of a bottom 
line.  
             And the other piece that we have to remember, 
there are goals in this statute about increasing 
affordability and digital literacy, and those kinds of 
adoption goals.  And it may be that there would be 
entities -- I'm not sure they are private entities, 
quite frankly.  I think it is likely they are 
governmental and nonprofit.  But there may be private 
entities that would be interested in applying for those 
kinds of grants and those would not be entities that 
would be getting certificates from the FCC or state 
commissions or cable commissions.  
             I want to think hard about it, because I have 
a very strong preference that the projects that are 
funded have a strong engagement with a planning 
perspective and accountability.  That means that there 
is a close engagement with a governmental entity.  
             MR. ATKINSON:  Any comments, Sasha?  
             MR. MEINRATH:  I will respectfully disagree 
with some of the statements said about the unserved and 
underserved areas in the United States when you have 
lawsuits that are put out there and -- to stop people 
who have deployed networks.  We have predatory pricing 
and red-lining happening in underserved and unserved 
areas of our nation.  
             It's very clear that there are people who 
want to deploy in all areas -- not all perhaps, but a 
lot of areas -- and are kept from doing so, through 
legal machinations, through pricing discriminations, 
and through a variety of different ways, and we can't 
ignore that history.  To do so really misses the mark 
in terms of depth and breadth of the product we face.  
             And I look at, for example, other areas, 
other countries that have done far better in terms of 
broadband service provision, and it's due to sort of an 
interplay between markets and regulations that supports 
a variety of different business models and that ensure 
that no one gets left out as we have allowed to happen 
in the United States.  That history needs to be 
attended to, otherwise we will repeat the same sorts of 
mistakes this time around with the money we have 
available today.  
             MR. ATKINSON:  The rule can't say it's in the 
public interest to have people apply for these grants 
who have just come out of the woodwork?  
             MR. MEINRATH:  The rule needs to include 
objective, quantitative criteria, but it also sort of 
needs to include -- 
             MR. ATKINSON:  Like what?  
             MR. MEINRATH:  Like sticking to the statute 
and what it is intended to be.  And there was also this 
exemption, I think it was put in there because of the 
qualitative realities like some organizations should be 
eligible that might not otherwise not be because their 
on-the-ground work is so important and so efficacious.  
And that hard work is what NTIA takes on, but I think 
they are very much up to it, and they are ready to move 
forward with this, and I feel like if we nail things 
down too narrowly, we will have failed because we 
created the Cheetah of broadband deployment.  It works 
really well as long as nothing in the world changes and 
then becomes extinct because it cannot adapt to new 
circumstances or situations.  
             MR. ATKINSON:  Betty Ann?  
             MS. KANE:  I would not like to see something 
very rigid but certainly coordination with the state's 
plan, the state's broadband plan.  If we are looking at 
the law, we are talking about job creation as one of 
the main goals of the whole legislation, but 
specifically on this, the job created facilities that 
are statutory, that is located within a state economic 
zone or zone designated by the federal government or 
Department of Agriculture, et cetera, that is done in 
conjunction with the state, anyway.  If we want to get 
things done and we want to -- not scattershot, but if 
we want it to be effective and sustainable in creating 
jobs and education, and in the many, many areas, the 
urban areas where infrastructure is there but the 
uptake and the adoption isn't there because of 
affordable, lack of computers, lack of in-home 
equipment, lack of understanding about the value of the 
Internet, what it can do for education, jobs, et 
cetera, that is always done in conjunction with service 
agencies that have always worked together with the 
state.  Partnership, not necessarily the kind of 
public-private partnership you might see when you are 
building something but certainly coordination and 
consistency with the state.  
             And all through legislation -- there are 
several different types of other core legislation -- is 
funding for the broadband mapping.  And that 
responsibility is given to a designated state entity, 
one per state.  And that is enacting procedure and 
enacting exercises, not just one shot, but it has to 
look at not only where broadband is, what the speeds 
are, what the barriers are to the deployment and 
uptake, and an ongoing updating of that.  So it lets us 
envision, and the only way that is going to happen is 
there is a clearing-house role and coordination role to 
make this work.  
             MR. ATKINSON:  There is a need for speed not 
only in broadband speed but in getting these programs 
up and running as fast as possible.  You think that 
states or other government agencies would be able to 
work quickly enough to establish these partnerships or 
provide any sort of endorsements or things like that?  
             MS. KANE:  I think that is probably the best 
way to get it done quickly, if NTIA gets flooded with 
20,000 applications.  And I think NTIA will be greatly 
assisted by having this role to support states to be a 
filter and give priority to those that are coordinated 
with the best fit of the state plan and best way to get 
it done, get the money out there, and get the states to 
play a role in monitoring the use of the money and in 
holding people's feet to the fire and making it happen.  
             MR. ATKINSON:  We are getting questions from 
the Webcast.  
             Go ahead, Grant.
             MR. SEIFFERT:  I was going to reiterate that 
the NTIA should not focus on the entity.  If that's the 
case, I believe again reinforcing the fact that you are 
going to have some applicants that have better ideas, 
better solutions because of the gaps that have been out 
there that we currently know, and that the value that 
they bring to the table is that they are bringing new 
ideas and you have got to get those to the table in 
order to bridge this gap.  
             MR. ATKINSON:  Well, you know NTIA has a 
tough job ahead of them in finding out who is 
establishing this rule of eligibility.  I am looking at 
my watch.  I think it might be at least -- ask the 
audience to at least get the audience to get some 
questions, and if you line up and ultimately line up in 
a circle, 1, 2, 3, 4 -- there are microphones and we 
have questions coming in from the Webcast.
             And -- I guess there has been a history at 
the federal and state level for competition to be in 
the public interest.  Is that, is competition a public 
interest factor that NTIA either should take into 
account or in fact be bound by in terms of finding 
what's the public interest with these grants?  Any 
thoughts?  Debbie?  
             MS. GOLDMAN:  Competition to me is a means, 
not an ends.  The statute does not mention competition 
as the goal for broadband grants.  The goals are to 
serve unserved areas, underserved areas, to facilitate 
an option to get more computer capacity in anchor 
institutions, and I have forgotten the fifth.  But it's 
along those lines, it's not -- and public safety -- it 
is not to foment competition.  Particularly in those 
areas where there is low -- where there is no 
broadband, there is a reason for that.  And to try to 
get competitors who are dividing the low density up, 
you are not going to have a sustainable business case.  
So I do not see competition as a public interest 
standard in this particular arena.  
             I want to step back just for a minute, and 
talk about how we have been focusing on how you define 
the public interest rule for public entities.  I do 
want to step back.  Obviously, the logical process for 
a broadband grant program would be first you have 
gathered the data.  You know where there is unserved 
areas, you know where there is underserved areas.  
Probably about 15 states have done that already.  
             Then you have an entity that has gathered all 
the stakeholders and developed a plan.  Again, about a 
dozen states have done that.  At the federal level, we 
are doing that backwards.  We have the grants at the 
same time we are giving the money for the mapping, and 
the FCC has a year to develop a broadband strategy.  
This leaves the NTIA whose goal it is in this act to 
create jobs and jump-start the economy at somewhat of a 
disadvantage.  We want to get the money out there.  We 
know it's needed and we want to create jobs, but we 
also are at a disadvantage in that we do not have a 
national map.
             Therefore, we learned last time the NTIA has 
talked about giving these grants out in thirds.  It 
makes sense that those states that have not done their 
mapping apply to get their mapping done, set up their 
infrastructure.  That's step one.  It doesn't mean that 
those states cannot have entities, nonprofits, local 
governments, states, or private entities with some kind 
of endorsement from the state applying.  But they 
should definitely be getting their structure, their 
ducks in a row.  
             In the meantime, we have many states that do 
have their mapping and do have their structures in 
place and can assist the NTIA when it gets its 20,000 
applications in prioritizing, because there is no way 
that NTIA can look at and try to determine 20,000 
entities, which one has a track record of a viable and 
sustainable business plan.  So a strong state or local 
role is very important in the process.  
             MR. ATKINSON:  I think what we should do -- I 
promised the audience that the last 30 minutes would be 
theirs.  So I will start off with one question from the 
teleconference.  I apologize, someone is standing up 
already, and we will get there in a moment.  
             This is directed to Curt and Grant.  The 
question is:  It appears that you suggest basically 
that anyone who is licensed gets in. In reality your 
rule seems to strip the congressional language of any 
meaning.  Are you really saying "any" in private 
business?  Curt?  
             MR. STAMP:  I think to clarify where we are 
coming from, the incumbent folks that I represent are 
saying to the extent private sector folks are eligible 
-- and we think they should be, they are a vital part 
of this process -- there shouldn't be any additional 
eligibility test beyond those who are currently have 
the FCC license and the state certification.  That 
doesn't necessarily preclude unlicensed entities, but 
it says that the folks would have to be looked at 
harder, that the viability to be in the long-term is 
there.  We indeed are saying that many folks in the 
private sector should be eligible and should be able to 
apply in this program.  
             MR. ATKINSON:  Grant?  
             MR. SEIFFERT:  From the coalition's 
perspective, we don't have a specific position on the 
licensing issue, but I think it's clear from our 
standpoint that anyone that is interested in applying 
should be allowed to apply based on the goals and 
objective of the program.  And so those criteria set 
forth by the NTIA are going to dictate how someone 
comes in to apply.  And those decisions should be based 
on the merit of the business, and again focusing on the 
best bang for the buck.  Those that are not receiving 
broadband -- and again, there is a reason why there is 
such a challenge to get the infrastructure built out.  
So, you may see -- I don't think we want to exclude any 
entrepreneurs or any other carriers that have not been 
serving that particular space.  
             So, again, I think no one should be excluded 
or precluded.  I think the flexibility that Congress 
gave the NTIA is very important, and the NTIA should 
use that flexibility to their advantage.  
             MR. ATKINSON:  Thank you.  Let's go to the 
audience.  And we have a time limit on either the 
question or comment, so please make brief -- is that 
what this -- that will tell you when your time is up.  
So please, so we can get as many people in.  Because I 
am seeing at least 10 or 15 people here.  And I have a 
file from the outside world.  
             Microphone number 1, identify yourself.  
             MR. HALPERT:  I am Jim Halpert from the DLA 
Piper law firm.  It seems to me that if you look at the 
legislative history of the Senate bill that forms the 
basis for the BTOP program, that initially it precluded 
private sector participation, then was amended in order 
to allow it.  And if you look to consider what the 
meaning of the public interest ought to be here, I 
think I agree with Debbie that it's important to look 
at the statutory purposes in issues like 
sustainability.  Projects that have not already been 
built out are going to be factors that ought to 
determine whether a grant application is relevant.  And 
it probably would be useful for NTIA, in order to do 
gating and screening, to require some initial showings 
of, for example, sustainability of project -- as a way 
to gate out some of the tens of thousands of 
applications that really won't be able to be built.  
             By the same token, I thought that Grant's 
point about working with or including entities that 
have worked in the community successfully is an 
important plus factor in the grant decision-making 
process, for example.  But that there ought to be some 
gating factor in order for NTIA to be able to do this 
job in a timely fashion.  
             MR. ATKINSON:  That was a comment, no 
question.  Thank you.  Now go up to microphone number 
2.  
             MR. LEDERER:  My name is Gerry Lederer.  
             MR. ATKINSON:  I should remind the press, if 
you have any questions, if you would go back to the 
microphone.  Appreciate it.  Thank you.  
             MR. LEDERER:  I am here representing a 
collection of local governments under the heading 
TeleCommUnity.  I would like to go back to the question 
that you asked to folks out in the field.  What we hear 
incumbents trying to say is that Congress was blind to 
the fact that they didn't create a public interest 
test.  They did in fact, Congress could have easily 
said any licensed provider is a protected class.  
             And so I guess my question is -- my statement 
is that there really does need to be a public interest 
test.  What we found in local government over the years 
is the ability to enforce something under contract, 
under franchise agreement, as opposed to under the 
legal or police powers standard, has always made a 
great deal of sense and made life a little bit easier.  
So at a minimum, the public interest test could be that 
any incumbent or any existing provider that takes the 
grant does so under contractual terms and agrees not to 
challenge any of those terms on a legal basis or a 
police powers basis at a later date.  
             MR. ATKINSON:  Microphone number 3 at the 
back.  
             MR. POSEY:  My name is Jess Posey.  I am CEO 
of a company called TelePost Technologies.  I am an 
extremely frustrated entrepreneur because we are 
looking at the BTOP package and we don't see a way for 
newer technologies that could have extraordinarily 
large impact on this essentially get wedged in here.  
The reason I say that is because even in terms of 
venture financings and such, any time you look at the 
technology that is going to impact within the current 
system, there is a tendency to step back away from it 
because people do not believe it would ever be adopted, 
which is the crux of the problem.  Here is why I 
believe you should care because the technology that we 
have ended up developing takes the actual price of 
implementation of a broadband solution down about 75 
percent from a megahertz per second basis down to 10 
percent.  You are talking about being able to have up 
to six miles -- four miles -- three miles, 10 megahertz 
per second.  It kills the noise problem that hurts DSL 
and does not affect us.  It allows people to step up as 
their desire to step up and their 100 megahertz 
solution, which is especially good for those areas, 
especially good for those places that are in remote and 
rural areas.  
             Is there a way to wedge in innovative 
brand-new technologies for people who haven't laid down 
fiber for the past 25 years?  Thank you.  
             MR. ATKINSON:  Does anybody have a response 
to that?  
             MS. KANE:  I think there are places where it 
does match techniques and innovative approaches and 
also not to favor any one technology over the other.  
So, I see legislation as encouraging those kinds of new 
approaches.  
             MR. ATKINSON:  Microphone number 4?  
             AUDIENCE MEMBER:  I'm not sure where to 
start.
             MR. ATKINSON:  Could you identify yourself. 
             AUDIENCE MEMBER:  Tom with DSL and 
association for wireless providers.  I would like to 
start out by agreeing with part of Curt's comment, 
which stated that a licensor should be providing a 
broadband service.  Or -- I would like to emphasize 
providing the broadband service.  Any provider doing 
that today should be eligible in our opinion.  
Currently the unlicensed market is serving America 
under FCC regulation and state regulations.  It should 
not be excluded from this proceeding in any way, shape, 
or form.  
             I think there does have to be a strong focus, 
though, on having a preexisting proof of -- proof of 
preexisting sustained model, and I don't see any 
candidate that is better for doing that than existing 
entities across the country that through any 
disadvantaged state have continued to survive and 
thrive throughout the last ten years.  I would also 
note -- I will leave my comment at that.  Thank you.  
             MR. ATKINSON:  Thank you.  We will go to the 
Web.  This is a question from Gary Ivory.  He is from 
Washington State, with BCPDU.org.  His question is:  
Many public agencies are broadband facility providers.  
Will public agencies that are facilities providers be 
eligible for NTIA and broadband access grants?  Does 
anyone have an answer?  
             MS. KANE:  I don't know about RUS because 
there are certain statutory provisions for loans and 
grants, but certainly I would say in many cases there 
would be municipal or state public facilities, and 
legislation specifically mentions those types of 
publicly provided services.  
             MR. ATKINSON:  I think the answer is yes.  A 
couple quick ones.  
             MR. KAMIETE:  Jeff Kamiete, medical lake, 
also Washington.  We have received rural utilities 
funding through grants and have worked with several 
communities, both incorporated and unincorporated.  
Does that count as far as merit and past experience?
             MR. ATKINSON:  Does anyone want to say no?  
Everyone says yes?  That would fit into at least some 
of the panelists' thoughts that there is some sort of a 
track record.  
             MS. KANE:  A good example where a government 
entity has had to step in and provide service that is 
not a good business case or profit-making entity.  
             MR. STAMP:  The lines seem to be building 
here a bit, too.  The public interest piece we were 
talking about here is in terms of who is eligible to 
apply.  The other criteria in terms of sustainability 
in your business model and how effectively and 
efficiently you do it is sorted out in the selection 
criteria process.  All we are saying is that private 
entities should be able to and are a vital part of that 
mix going forward, and should be still going forward.  
And we can talk about the merits as you sort through 
the various selection criteria.  
             MR. ATKINSON:  Microphone number 1.  And let 
me ask people, if you are going to ask a question, say 
that at the beginning, and if you are going to address 
it to anybody in particular, just so the panelists can 
be really paying attention and preparing their answer.  
If you are going to make a comment, just say you are 
making a comment.  Microphone number 1.  
             MR. CONTE:  My name is Dennis Conte, and I am 
an independent telecommunications consultant.  And my 
question is how the panel would feel about a separate 
NOFA for private entities?  States compete against 
states, and private entities compete against private 
entities?  
             MR. ATKINSON:  Panelists?  And that, by the 
way, is similar to a question we received from the city 
of Chicago that says:  Private sector entities are 
eligible to apply for BTOP grants if they meet public 
interest requirements.  Having defined this, will 
private sector entities be competing for the same 
funding pool as other applicants?  The question is:  
Would there be two separate pools so that competition 
wouldn't occur?  Curt?  
             MR. STAMP:  I think my initial reaction to 
that would be no.  As you are looking, we have a 
limited pot of funds and we are trying to be as 
effective and efficient as possible.  So to have a 
private sector round, and you have private sector 
grants for communities A, B, and C, for X dollars, and 
then six months later you have the public sector round 
and they do that for 50 percent of what the private 
sector was going to do or vice versa, then you run the 
risk of over-spending or not effectively spending those 
dollars if you try to tranche it out in trying to get 
the particular amount of providers.  
             MR. MEINRATH:  I would say that the dichotomy 
of private sector versus nonprofit versus public entity 
is going to be very difficult.  I suspect there is 
going to be a lot of hybrid groups and coalitions, et 
cetera, that are putting things in there.  On that 
level, it is complicated.  
             The other aspect of this I wanted to bring up 
is -- and I think the there is a reason why the 
language was skewed to support a different status quo.  
And I think that needs to be held in mind when you 
think about what other criteria and what is the intent 
of this law.  We clearly don't want another subsidy for 
the same players that have failed to deliver in 
underserved areas.  
             MR. ATKINSON:  Microphone number 2 in the 
back.  Question or comment?  
             MR. ALVERSON:  This is both comment and 
question for the panel.  My name is Dale Alverson.  I 
am Medical Director for the Center of Telehealth at the 
University of New Mexico.  And in New Mexico we face 
tremendous challenges with the digital divide, 
particularly in rural areas and tribal areas.  I want 
to make sure that NTIA encourages applicants to show 
evidence of coordination and collaboration between 
private and public entities in improving affordable 
broadband, particularly to the underserved and 
unserved.  And that means working in concert with state 
IT initiatives such as is occurring in New Mexico with 
tribes, the private sector.  
             And my question is how should the applicant 
demonstrate that?  
             The second comment is that applicants should 
demonstrate innovative approaches in providing 
broadband in communities where there is low potential 
of return on investment.  That has been a huge barrier 
that might require subsidy programs such as the FCC and 
telemedicine programs using universal services funds or 
other innovative business plans.  How should that be 
demonstrated by the applicants?  
             MR. ATKINSON:  Anyone want to take that?  
             MS. KANE:  We are getting into grant 
criteria, but I believe the bottom line should be with 
collaboration.  If you look at the legislation, 
legislation on the mapping -- and I think these two 
things, they kind of go together in terms of the whole 
concept of it, requires, that there be a huge county or 
designated region in the state, a local technology 
planning team with members representing the broad 
cross-section of the community, which is business, 
telecommunications, labor organizations, schools, 
libraries, health, et cetera.  I could see where that 
would need to be a criteria of the grant application 
process in terms of documenting how that collaboration 
is occurring, whether those types of teams or planning 
is in place.  
             MR. ATKINSON:  Anybody else?  
             MR. MEINRATH:  I want to comment on this.  
This notion of the private-public partnership hides all 
manner of sin, and has in the past.  This is where I 
love the idea of private-public partnerships applying 
and coalitions applying, et cetera.  When we are 
looking at those applications, we really have to look 
at coming back to where is the ownership for this 
model, where is the accountability, where is the 
control over these initiatives.  And that really I 
think is going to differentiate kind of the wheat from 
the chaff.  We want to see a true collaboration, and 
that too often has not been the case in a public and 
private partnership.  
             MR. ATKINSON:  I have a question.  Who can 
tell me what FCC form 477 is?  Tell us because this 
relates to the next question.  
             MR. STAMP:  Briefly, it's the -- it's 
basically the form the FCC uses to gather data on 
broadband deployment availability, and they generate a 
biannual report based on that.  
             MR. ATKINSON:  The reason I asked -- and I 
thought that is what it is, but I didn't want to risk 
looking ignorant.  The question is from Denise Hamilton 
in Tampa, Florida:  "I would like to add to the 
eligibility of the grant.  I would like FCC form 477 as 
part of the matrix to be eligible for a grant." 
             Any comments as part of the eligibility 
criteria, a form 477 filer?  
             MR. STAMP:  I think again that probably goes 
more to the award criteria than it does eligibility.  
             MR. ATKINSON:  But you wouldn't be a form 477 
filer if you were not already at least in the business.  
             MR. STAMP:  That's true.  If you put that in, 
the laundry list of eligible -- prima facia eligibility 
of filing form 477 is probably one of those that 
probably extends the list.  Yeah.  
             MR. ATKINSON:  Anybody have a problem with 
that 477?  
             MR. MEINRATH:  The more information that is 
made publicly available that grantees are required to 
provide, the better off we all are.  Classic economics 
assumes perfect information amongst providers and 
suppliers.  And in the broadband market, it's like the 
most imperfect information ordinance imaginable.  
             MR. ATKINSON:  Microphone number 1?  I'm 
sorry, microphone number 3?  
             MS. McCARTHY:  Good morning.  I have a brief 
comment.  My name is Jackie McCarthy, and I am in 
public affairs at the Wireless Infrastructure 
Association.  Our owners own and operate all types of 
infrastructure facilities for deployment of existing 
networks by both existing and emerging providers.  We 
feel that BTOP must engage the expertise and 
capabilities of private sector entities that are 
successfully deploying networks and that would include 
not only the carriers and CPCN holders that Mr. Stamp 
mentioned but the wireless infrastructure providers 
that build the backbone of those networks.  
             To the extent that the economies in the past 
have not made these projects feasible, BTOP can change 
this to a positive business case, and finally I would 
submit to you that the inclusion of these kinds of 
entities is consistent with congressional intent, as 
evidenced in the conference report in which Congress 
said that as broad a class of entities as possible 
should be eligible to apply for grants, including tower 
companies, tower providers, as well as carriers.  
             MR. ATKINSON:  Microphone number 4?  
             MS. HANDEM:  Thank you, my name is Luisa 
Handem, Director of the Rural Mobile Broadband 
Alliance, a broadband organization that seeks to bring 
together equipment makers, telcos, and rural people 
that want to see this broadband initiative happen.  I 
first of all would like to thank the Obama 
administration for bringing this wonderful cause to the 
forefront of his policies a little less than two months 
after taking office.  And I would also like to thank 
NTIA, RUS, FCC, and the panelists, and in particular I 
would like to thank Sasha for his very innovative 
ideas.  You seek to bring together telcos and other 
interested parties to help the government go through 
supporting the public interest and who should get the 
grants.  
             RuMBA USA stands for information speed and 
deployment in areas that are underserved and unserved.  
And we have had tremendous response since founding it 
almost three weeks ago.  What we would like to seek is 
input from the panelists on where do they see RuMBA 
being most effective.  We have had tremendous support.  
Our site was down a couple of days, so many hits.  I 
get calls from all over the country from members, 
potential members to RuMBA.  What we intend to do is to 
streamline the application process.  We want to bring 
everyone or anyone that thinks they can provide the 
broadband capabilities that the recovery act is seeking 
to address.  
             So, my question to the panel is, how quickly 
can we achieve this?  And I would like to say also that 
innovation should be number one.  We should not lose 
sight of companies as small as they may be that may be 
able to provide the results we need.  
             MR. ATKINSON:  Thank you.  Just to be sure, I 
am going to be a little rude, but that's my job in 
terms of trying to keep this thing on time.  That 
question does relate, however, to one of the questions 
we received from the Webcast from Alexander Hagen at 
Etheric Networks.  His question is:  Broadband fixed 
costs will establish a -- will broadband ISPs be given 
consideration or do we need to join some industry 
association?  Perhaps yours.  As with the expansion of 
VoIP, the path may not be attractive to us.  
             Comments or reactions?  
             MR. SEIFFERT:  In order to address this 
challenge we have, again, all parties from a technology 
standpoint are going to be required.  So certainly, 
again, as I said before, the best and brightest, latest 
ideas, and newest technology.  So I don't think anyone 
should be excluded or we should be picking one 
technology over the other necessarily, but they are all 
going to have different attributes and merits for that 
particular problem, and they will address that through 
the application process.  Anybody else?  
             MS. GOLDMAN:  I think, again, we are getting 
questions that have to deal with potential applicants 
trying to figure out what would be the most effective 
way to put together an application and how will this be 
considered and prioritized.  It seems to me that in 
answer to some of these questions, I am going to sound 
a little bit like a broken record, but I think there is 
a very important role for the states to be evaluating 
where there needs to be priorities within those states, 
so that states will be putting together packages, one 
would hope, that would be addressing the priorities 
within the states.  
             And it is conceivable that the actual RFPs 
from the states, soliciting from the states, the 
partnerships may come then or they may come once the 
funding is available.  So then the states would be 
seeking to put out competitor process for the 
providers.  I know that slows it down, and one of the 
goals is to get this money out fast, but, again, we 
have heard that there are going to be different grant 
periods, and so there are going to be different kinds 
of projects that will be put together.  But I think 
that as wireless ISPs or private entities or telehealth 
associations are looking to how do we scale this up, 
working through regional governmental entities or state 
entities to put together projects that are scaleable 
and sustainable makes a lot of sense, and I know I 
moved way beyond the scale of the question.  
             MR. ATKINSON:  I think we can go a little bit 
over --  there's five or six speakers.  But lightning 
round questions, if you would, please.  
             MR. YASSINI:  Comment and question.  My name 
is Rouzbeh Yassini, YAS Broadband Ventures.  Back in 
1998, we invented the broadband that was used by the 
government arsenal and Air Force Base when the 
broadband network came together.  Based on our support 
and standardization, we put together a cable modem 
known as the father of cable modems, the same as PHD.  
We had a research center built in 2003, in Boston.  The 
reason we built that is because people stopped thinking 
of broadband as Internet.  It is far bigger than the 
Internet.  We've got 50 projects each representing each 
state in this country, and as a result we learned the 
difficulties that broadband has brought in. Broadband 
specifically with security and user interface can turn 
this broadband stimulus to the biggest broadband 
bailout that will solve the security of the nation 
which will be exposed.  
             My question is:  How would an inventor and 
visionary like us, which has depth of knowledge of 
broadband for 25 years, assist the Secretary of this 
office and your panel to do a better job for this 
grant?  
             MS. KANE:  Approach one or two of the states 
and work together with them.  It may be the technology 
you've got is appropriate for a particular problem in a 
particular state, all kinds of solutions are needed.  
What I need in the District of Columbia, where we have 
multiple ISP and Internet providers but we have many, 
many people of low-income who don't subscribe, is I 
need to access my public housing center, very different 
than what you might need in Montana or some place else.  
I think there is a role for everybody, in all kinds of 
ideas and innovations in some of which are providers 
and some of which -- it needs to be tailored and fit 
into the goals of the state.  
             MR. ATKINSON:  I think you should look at the 
request for information that NTIA and RUS put out.  
There is a wide opportunity to provide assistance 
through the Assistant Secretary through that mechanism 
if nothing else, as well as this.  My phone number -- 
             MR. SINGLETON:  Rico Singleton, Deputy Chief 
Information Officer for New York State.  Just a brief 
comment.  New York State supports the private sector 
for eligibility; however, we strongly encourage a 
requirement that the private sector do so in 
partnership with an eligible entity as defined in the 
bill.  The state has a broad amount of experience in 
broadband and has the best position and perspective to 
understand how the profit lines up with a comprehensive 
broadband interest for the state.  When we think about 
public interest, we speak about authority -- the 
broadband authority for the state, when it exists, 
should be relied upon to make that determination, such 
as in New York State the governor created the Council 
for Universal Broadband, that developed a strategy that 
consists of nonprofit eligible members as well as the 
state sector.  We are therefore in support of the 
position of Betty Ann Kane, that we have a private 
public partnership, and where broadband authority and 
strategy exists, that private sector applications must 
align for that strategy.  
             MR. THOMPSON:  My name is Scott Thompson.  I 
am here on behalf of Networks, which is an antenna 
system provider.  They are currently licensed in 30 
states and provide innovative next generation broadband 
networks combined with fiber optics and wireless.  I am 
going to speak very briefly as a comment in support of 
what Mr. Flood said, and in opposition of what the last 
guy said.  I think there is a differentiation between 
the eligibility standards and the criterion for grants.  
And we endorse strongly that Congress sought to include 
as many entities as possible to be reflected in the 
legislative history.  And while working with the states 
is obviously something we want to do and partnering 
with the states is something we ought to do, I don't 
think it should be a threshold gating issue for 
eligibility which would be perhaps an issue for 
criterion for a grant.  
             MR. ATKINSON:  Microphone number 4?  
             MR. DELDEL:  My name is Roy Deldel.  I would 
like to remind everyone why we are here.  The private 
sector in particular, the telco and the cable 
companies, along with some local governments, have 
failed to deploy broadband technologies in the targeted 
communities that we are here talking about today.  
Given that fact, I think that those companies that have 
been encouraged by Congress, such as telco and cable 
companies, to build out broadband in unserved and 
underserved communities, their failure to do so should 
force them to not take a leadership role in terms of 
eligibility but, as Sasha has indicated, be in 
association or under the umbrella of some 
community-based organization.  
             With respect to local government and the 
private sector, if those two parties are allowed to go 
forward with this kind of application in partnership, I 
think we will have pretty much what we have now, 
because they have a partnership with local government, 
but more important, they make the case of the telco 
representatives that the reason why they didn't do the 
build-out is because of the funding or it wasn't a 
business case.  But I would like to remind them that 
those communities, in particular urban areas, are 
varied communities that have given these companies 
extreme profits.  So I don't buy the argument that 
there is no business case to be made.  
             MR. ATKINSON:  I have to cut you off.  I 
apologize.  It is my job to be rude when I have to be.  
Last question from the audience, and then I have one 
more from the Web net.  
             AUDIENCE MEMBER:  Thank you, Mr. Chairman.  
This is a question and comment for Curt, I believe.  I 
am from the rural sector of Iowa -- Cedar Falls, Iowa.  
And I am representing a CEO of a company that is 
30 years old, had the best year ever in Iowa.  And I 
would like to address this to the situation where I 
have a DSL live VoIP right beside me, but I haven't 
hooked into it.  I work with pharmaceuticals, I work 
with other corporate America, and I want security.  So 
I am very, very interested in security.  I want 
sustainability for this whole program and practicality.  
I think precautionary means, whatever, for that 
sustainability, precautionary for health, if that be 
the case, whatever it is.  I think those should all be 
high, high criteria.  And I would like to stress for 
our particular company we need that confidentiality, so 
we like the hard-wire.  That doesn't mean when I go to 
Panera or something I don't want a quick fix for quick 
information.  So I want to see it all work for the best 
of the country.  I want to see it work like DSL in 
Europe.  
             MR. ATKINSON:  I don't think there is a 
question in there, so I will go to the Internet 
question, and this is a question, and it's the last 
one.  
             Both NTIA and RUS have expressed the desire 
to align certain aspects of their grant programs.  The 
statute has different criteria for each program.  Would 
you agree that the eligibility criteria should be the 
same for NTIA and RUS programs?  And this is from 
O'Connor and Johnston.  Should they both have the same 
eligibility requirements?  
             MS. KANE:  You can't get around what the 
statutory provisions are.  But there is a provision 
that there is no double-dipping, no duplication, and an 
entity that gets an RUS grant can't get any money for 
another part of the project.  So that calls for what 
can be added to RUS's coordination with the state, 
whether it's through what NTIA is doing with the states 
or directly with the states.  But one very good way to 
avoid duplication is you should fund both pots 
effectively with coordination with the states.  
             MR. STAMP:  I would echo that to the extent 
practical.  Where there are opportunities to have the 
same definitions, they need to do that, but the 
coordination is paramount if they are going to use the 
dollars as effectively as possible.  
             MR. ATKINSON:  Looks like Debbie is going to 
get last word.  
             MS. GOLDMAN:  I will encourage that person to 
tune in at 1:00 when that is specifically the topic of 
conversation.  
             MR. ATKINSON:  That is a perfect lead-in for 
the next session.  We will be reconvening this 
afternoon.  
             I want to give a big round to the panel, who 
did an excellent job.  I want to especially thank you 
for your lightning return of your slides and your 
information.  This has been coming together very 
quickly, and these folks were real troupers.  The next 
panel starts at 1:00 p.m.  
             For those of you who are here in the flesh, 
can you leave the building and come back in, save 
enough time to get through security?  There's places to 
eat, all around.  Across the street is probably the 
quickest.  
             The next panel as Bob said and Debbie said is 
coordination with RUS and NTIA.  Folks who are 
participating by teleconference and Webcast, if you 
submitted a question and it did not get asked from the 
microphone, I want you to understand those are going 
into the record and we will be reviewing those.  The 
comment intake form is up on the NTIA Web site.  We go 
to NTIA.DOC.GOV/broadband.  We will take a break until 
1:00.
             
             
             
             
             
             
             
             
             


1