*** 
MODERATOR: Good afternoon. 
My name is Bob at kinson, I am Director of policy research at the institute of telecommunications information, based at the Columbia business school. 
I am here today as a moderator of the roundtable. 
I am not an employee of NTIA, or any government agency so any comments I make can be attributed only to me and certainly not any government agency and probably not to CITI or Columbia university. 
The last roundtable for today is the roundtable on rural and unserved areas, representatives from a number of stakeholders will participate in a roundtable discussion on this topic and I will introduce those panelists in a moment. 
Procedural each of the panelists will make a very brief comment building largely on the questions and topics that were raised in the joint rest for information last week. 
As a reminder comments on that request for information are due on April 13. 
I would strongly recommend that anyone who is interested in these topics and subjects use that as a vehicle to provide NTIA and RUS with your thoughts and recommendations. 
The program is being webcast and also on teleconference, so for the last 30 minutes of the program, members of the audience here, the Department of Commerce auditorium and with people participating on the web and webcast will have an opportunity to ask questions and make comments. 
Based on what we have seen over the last day and a half, there have been some very interesting comments and questions and very stimulating questions. 
I would certainly like to note that my observation that these roundtable discussions are extraordinarily open and a transparent process as I just mentioned just a second ago. 
NTIA and RUS really wants your inputs. 
They have the RFI, there is lots of ways to provide thoughts and information to these agencies and they welcome your participation greatly. 
Let me quickly introduce our speakers for today. 
On my left, Geoffrey Blackwell, the Director of strategic relations and minority business development of the Chickasaw nation. 
In that role he provides analysis on new market strategies and business opportunities. 
He is also chairman of the telecommunications subcommittee of the national Congress of American Indians and is responsible for coordinating with federal agencies and elected officials concerned with tribal lands serving six years as the senior attorney and liaison for tribal governments for the telecommunications commission. 
To Geoff's left is Eric Peterson, the executive Director of the RCA rural cellular association, happens to be my initials as well, RCA is the leading association representing tier 2 and 3 wireless providers who serve 25 million wireless consumers in virtually every state. 
To Eric's left is dean Manson, Senior Vice President and General Counsel, Hughes communications, Inc., enterprises and small governments before joining in the year 2000 he was formerly in the law firm. 
To dean's left is John Rose, president of OPASCO an association of 5 hundred rural telecommunications companies. 
Prior to his four years he served  
Four years with RUS and ten years as an officer in the United States Navy. 
To John's left is Tracey Steiner. 
As one of the national rural electric cooperative association's senior corporate counsel she works with members on legal and policy issues to aspects of electric cooperatives, core and diversified business activities her responsibilities include representing the electric cooperatives on members of telecommunications policy, E-Commerce and consumer protection. 
And last and certainly not least Joycelyn Tate, associate media broker of the MMTC, the minority media and telecommunications council. 
She is also chair of the rural broadband working group, which expands affordable broadband to minorities and others in rural communities. 
NTIA and RUS have a monumental task ahead of them. 
And our job today is to try to help them. 
They have to figure out a way to implement the American recovery and reinvestment act in a way that produces the greatest broadband bang for every taxpayer buck. 
And excuse me, among other things that means that NTIA and RUS have to adopt rules, develop contracts, solicit proposals, review the proposals when they come N select those that best satisfy the statute and the award criteria and on and on and on. 
It's a mammoth task and the thoughts and suggestions of experienced experts such as we have here today will hopefully help NTIA and RUS get that job done as quickly and as effectively as possible. 
The topic is rural and unserved areas. 
This is again a very important definitional aspect of the implementation of the act, and as somebody observed, earlier in one of the earlier panels sometimes definitions dictate outcomes and that's why these definitional issues are in fact so important. 
One purpose of the NTIA's BTOP program is to provide broadband access to consumers in unserved areas. 
What is an unserved area, then, is the obvious question. 
How do you know it and how do you define it. 
They require 75% of the areas served with a U.S. supported project to be in a rural area. 
What is a rural area? 
How do you know it, and how do you define it? 
And is unserved and rural, are they always the same, if they are not the same, what are the implications, for example. 
It is important for all the stakeholders to understand these terms, for what they mean in the broadband stimulus program. 
So, let's get on with it, and our first speaker on this panel is Geoffrey Blackwell. 
Geoffrey, step up here. 
MR. BLACKWELL:  (In other language) my name is Geoffrey Blackwell, I did have the pleasure of providing testimony in the field in Las Vegas. 
I find myself fielding first, maybe because my last name begins with B but I wasn't given the opportunity to provide rebuttal or maybe cross-examination if we have attorneys. 
I am here because tribal lands are unserved. 
You heard from so many different tribal voices in the field and in Las Vegas and Flagstaff because tribal lands are unserved. 
We have provided a slide for you to take a look at that summarizes the positions of the national Congress of American Indians and I am not going to read through that slide because you can read it yourself. 
But I want to draw some particular aspects out of it to help lend some ideas to this discussion, this panel today, to help NTIA and RUS, because each one of these perspectives comes from the unserved area of tribal lands. 
Regarding the definition of broadband, we need an evolving definition that is adaptable and scaleable. 
We need accountability and transparency and local control. 
Our ultimate concern around the discussions of speed that have occurred in the field, is that we have a cautiousness based on cynical fears from historical experiences in our underserved regions. 
We need sustainability and we need a genuine orientation towards community growth potential. 
On this subject of speed, one of my colleagues from the Pacific northwest suggested that 1.5 Mg as a baseline minimum is a place to begin that discussion. 
I would agree with that but with the same historical sin civil I would reiterate that it takes 3 Mg to provide any meaningful solution to educate tribal youth and 10 Mg of telemedicine services to distance diagnose broken bones. 
On the definitions of unserved and underserved from the unserved perspective one must find a definition that accurately measures how broadband can support the growth of these communities into their rightful place in the tableau of the United States. 
You must have criteria that measures joblessness, that measures the deplorable healthcare statistics on tribal lands and the educational academic potential of our students. 
From the perspective of Indian country, prioritize unserved appropriately. 
We know we can't ask for all of the money in this act. 
It would be inappropriate and ultimately would be counterproductive. 
But prioritize whether the criteria threaten the overall community health of a region. 
It is very important that the government consult as it rolls out these projects consult with tribal nations that already have solutions. 
You have heard from many different peoples around Indian country, all of the presenters, I personally have been to their reservations, and I have seen their solutions and I have seen how those solutions have been successful because they have not been simplistic one dimensional offerings. 
They are offerings that meet all the need of a tribal community and governmental community that must care for the health, safety and welfare of their community. 
Often it falls on itself to provide uses where others have not. 
When you talk about eagle back, South Dakota, sakaton, Arizona, plummer, Idaho, this is not a place where a K street or Wall Street business plan has a general opportunity for success. 
One must look at the potential for broadband and look at the specifically impourished challenging nature of growing a business in these regions, and act appropriately. 
Perhaps this is a place where the government's money in this regard is the best spent or the dollar would go the furthest. 
You must prioritize where the potential can be met. 
We may not be down this road again. 
It is the genuine governmental obligation under this act, the congressional intent to help us develop our economies. 
Tribal governments and intertribal organizations, when it comes to this country we are the institutions that this act envisions we can help coordinate and effect wait these programs across Indian country and these would include but not exclusively include the national Congress of American Indians, the national tribal telecommunications association, native public media, the affiliated tribes of northwest Indians, the united south and eastern tribes and several others. 
With that I will thank you for your time. 
MODERATOR: Thank you very much. 
MODERATOR: Our next speaker is Eric Peterson. 
MR. PETERSON:  Thank you. 
On behalf of the nearly 1 hundred wireless carriers, members of the rural cellular association, I am pleased to be with you to provide input into this ambitious and timely proceeding. 
As Robert noted in his brief introduction, the carrier members of RCA collectively serve more than 25 million rural customers in virtual every state of our nation. 
Together these carrier members have a footprint that today covers more than 75% of the United States. 
The majority of these companies have been designated to receive support from the universal service fund allowing them to provide wireless service to consumers in the most rural and remote parts of our nation. 
All of these companies rely on their USF support to build out and maintain wireless service in places that otherwise would be economically unfeasible to serve. 
To these carriers the prospect of obtaining broadband grants or loans like those authorized under the American recovery and reinvestment act of 2009 is needed to further advance their technology and leap frog them to a level of service they probably would not otherwise expect to achieve in the next five years. 
Ideally, with funding available through the recovery act, RCA members will soon be providing rural customers and those visiting rural America access to broadband services on a par with service provided in our nation's population centers. 
These broadband loans and grants coupled with possible changes to section 254 of the communications act would make broadband a supported service that would go to realize a long ways, to realize the president's goal providing wireless broadband to the four corners of our nation. 
RCA suggests that the federal managers of this initiative look within the Commerce Department, namely the Census Bureau to define what constitutes a rural area. 
If it Z you will find that the Census Bureau generally defines rural areas as those not classified as urban. 
The Census Bureau generally defines urban areas as areas with a large central place and adjacent densely settle census blocks that together have a total population of at least 25 hundred for urban clusters or at least 50 thousand for urban areas. 
The Census Bureau delineates urbanized areas and urban classified boundaries to encompass densely settled territories consisting of core census groups or blocks that have a population densities of at least 1 thousand people per square mile and surrounding census blocks that have an overall density of at least 5 hundred people per square mile. 
The Census Bureau definition of rural and urban areas have evolved, and reflect changes in census technology and the nation's population trends. 
Perhaps most importantly, however, adoption of the Census Bureau's definition will help ensure that broadband stimulus funding is targeted at a granular level to the rural areas that need it most and distribute it in a fair and impartial manner. 
As to the definition of unserved and underserved, RCA offers the following, unserved areas should be defined as areas where consumers have no or unreliable access to conventional broadband services including hardline, cable or wireless. 
Underserved areas should be defined as areas that do not have access to broadband service that is reasonably comparable in function, speed, or cost to broadband services provided in urban areas. 
RCA appreciates this opportunity to provide comment on this very important initiative, and looks forward to playing an active and constructive role in bringing wireless broadband service to rural America. 
Thank you. 
MODERATOR: Our next speaker is dean Manson. 
MR. MANSON:  Thank you, Bob. 
On behalf of the satellite industry association, I would like to thank the NTIA, RUS, and FCC for the opportunity to participate in this important forum. 
The SIA is a Washington, D.C. based trade association representing leading global satellite operators, service providers, manufacturers, launch service providers, and ground equipment suppliers, SIA is the unified voice of the satellite industry on policy, regulatory and legislative issues affecting the commercial satellite industry. 
The satellite industry whole heartedly supports the stimulus program bringing broadband to consumers who are not adequately served has been the core mission of the industry. 
Today we are pleased to announce that between Hughes and wild blue we have over 8 hundred thousand subscribers to our broadband internet service in the 50 states we cover the entire United States so any consumer or small business can subscribe at speeds up to 5 Mbps depending on the service select. 
So echoing the comments from the panel, if you think of unserved of households that have no provider able to provide them with a broadband, there is technically no one who is currently unserved, however, cost can get in the way of a consumer's practical access to broadband, particularly the unfront cost of equipment such as in our case, a satellite dish and other in home end user equipment. 
Through the stimulus program we hope to immediately expand the broad reach of broadband by providing subsidies providing free equipment to consumers for broadband service. 
This is possibly the most shovel ready of all projects since consumers need only place an order and the service could be installed and activated immediately. 
Looking only slightly further down the road for proposals in building new infrastructure, our in our case satellites, we could bring consumers faster speeds for the same or lower prices. 
What does this mean for the definitions of unserved, underserved and rural? 
First and foremost, we believe efforts should be focused on areas where there is no other broadband access method currently available. 
It has been widely reported that about 10 million households currently do not have the population density support for terrestrial based broadband service by helping to make satellite more affordable in these areas the government can immediately accelerate deployment and economic development. 
In a sense it might be convenient and in some ways preferable to ignore the term "areas in the statute. 
We don't have the luxury of doing that given the way the statute has come out that these ten million households that currently do not have terrestrial based access we think are you ultimately the target. 
One thought in terms of how to deal with the structure we have been given and to define unserved areas is depicted on the slide here down towards the bottom. 
It would be to take the form 477 data that is available to the FCC and we think it's important echoing comments from a prior panel to rely on existing data. 
I agree it's somewhat backwards in terms of the ideal picture, to complete the mapping project first and then use the more comprehensive data but as a practical matter we have to work with data that is available now. 
And the FCC has a lot of data through form 477 forms we can take that data and link the zip codes in the order of lowest to highest rate of existing broadband penetration. 
Grants could then be prioritized toward the areas that have the lowest penetration rate, say, for example, the bottom third. 
It could also help to look at generally what constitutes a served area. 
That might be something that we could -- picking up again on some of the comments and questions from the prior panel we could look at the aspiration and what's our goal of the project. 
We want to increase the penetration rate. 
We can define a target penetration rate and consider geographic areas, perhaps zip codes that are below that target rate as unserved or underserved and those above just for purposes of having prioritized the limited funds that are available as adequately served. 
Whatever definition is select, we believe it should be something that relies on available data and can be implemented quickly. 
In summary the satellite industry is pleased to be positioned as an immediately deployable part of the picture to bring deployment of broadband to unserved and underserved members. 
Thank you. 
MODERATOR: John Rose. 
 MR. ROSE:  I am the president of POPASTC, our median size company is about 3 thousand companies, so we are a group of small companies. 
And we believe that rural areas and all areas deserve broadband. 
We believe that it should be both mobile and land line. 
We want to define unserved as 768 kbs and underserved as under 12 Mbps. 
Today's definition of broadband is about 90% of our area and 10% unserved and we think funds need to go to that 10% unserved as well to get broadband out but we really think we should look at speeds as well. 
For our 90% people that have available broadband we have a take rate of only 40%. 
So we need to look at how we get that other 50%. 
And I think speed matters. 
If you have higher speeds, you have more content, have you a higher take rate. 
And take rate is important to us. 
If you have higher speeds you have more commerce, more jobs, better education. 
Kids, higher take up. 
For lower income we need higher speed as well and I will get into subsidizing but I think there are ways for lower income to use cloud computing to minimize cost. 
Speed matters for education, for medical for managing public safety for management emergency providers and it matters for security. 
I think we need to look at covering both coverage and upgrading our networks to compete globally. 
In rural areas commerce and jobs equal availability on coverage, high speeds and high take rate. 
And we have to take care of all of those. 
We need reliable networks, otherwise business and consumers won't do it. 
We need sustainable networks for the long-term. 
We need finances for the short-term which the stimulus will provide but we also need to consider the long-term and we need to consider the middle mile or back haul in access to the internet because we have high charges for this and that inhibits our ability to cover the area as well as the high speeds. 
We think by getting stimulus money it's a downpayment on the future. 
We could get fiber deeper in our territories so we can upgrade speeds as well as coverage. 
We think a successful stimulus package includes low-income perhaps, jobs, commerce and training. 
Low-income programs, I think David already talked about taking a lifeline link up and make it broadband. 
I agree 100 percent with that. We need to do that. We need to educate the consumer on what's on the internet, how to use it, and what to do in small companies are willing to step forward and do that. 
We need to figure out ways to put people in broadband that necessarily don't have a computer. 
Maybe on line TV and other consumers electronics but we need that as well. 
We talk about a market for speeds and high speeds, it's the chicken and egg concept. 
If we don't have the network we can't put the content and if we don't have the content we don't need the network. 
We think it should be performance oriented we shouldn't push it down to the low level we should push it up to performance so we can get the commerce, educate children and have the medical stuff. 
That's why we are looking at speeds as well. 
Our independent carriers with associations have 5 hundred there, it should be 7 hundred, we have established networks, we know our customer base and we are shovel ready to accomplish the stimulus goals. 
We thing grants go further than loans, we need more sustainable business models, we want to be eligible for funds, we want to partner with public governments and whatever to do, but we want to do this. 
And we make progress, but we need to make progress and we think the stimulus package makes rural areas competitive not just in cities but everywhere around the world. 
Even though we have availability for 90%, the low-income is extremely important to us. 
Educational needs are important to us, high speeds are important to us and we need to make sure that mobility is important. 
That should have a different standard from the 768 kbs. 
We want to make sure to increase take rate if we increase our take rate we could cover a lot more people in addition to the people that don't have adequate coverage. 
Thank you very much. 
MODERATOR: Our next speaker is Tracey Steiner. 
MS. STEINER:  Good afternoon. 
You may be wondering why someone on the electric industry is sitting on this panel today, so I would like to provide a little background about the national rural electric cooperative association and its members. 
NREC's members are electric cooperatives. 
Electric co-ops are utility companies that are owned by the consumers they serve. 
In total that means 42 million customers in 47 states. 
There are 864 distribution cooperatives and these cooperatives serve communities from remote Alaskian fishing villages to extended suburbs of major metropolitan areas. 
Cooperatives operate with the lowest consumer density. 
The average is seven consumers per mile of distribution line. 
With density this low it's not surprising to see why we don't see a lot of DSL and cable modem broadband offered in these communities. 
Creating a consumer business model based on density at this low level is a significant challenge.  Still a number of NREC's members provide internet and broadband, and in providing broadband over a variety of platforms including satellite, WIFI. 
Broadband as it has been said before enables a lot of things it enables improved healthcare, education, and business opportunities and it can do that in rural communities. 
The need for it there is even more urgent today. 
The median per capita income of electric cooperative consumers is 21 thousand 435 dollars. 
This is 21% below the national average. 
According to USDA's reports unemployment and poverty rates are rising significantly in rural areas. 
Simply put, we need broadband and we need it now. 
It's NECRA's hope that NTIA and RUS will develop programs that are inclusive. 
Unfortunately existing broadband programs have fallen short of expectations and we believe this is at least due in part to the fact that definitions and eligibility criteria have been written to be overly restrictive. 
Definitions, such as using a maximum population number only to define when an area is rural. 
Those kinds of definitions are less than ideal for identifying communities in need, communities that are lacking adequate broadband service. 
NRECA is still formulating an opinion about what an exact better definition might look like but at this point we would like to encourage everyone to look at the definitions that we do have. 
They have something in common. 
They establish common bright line thresholds and these kinds of definitions have the ability to create arbitrary divisions, so that areas for project buildouts that fall just under the threshold are eligible, while those that fall just a hair above are now deemed ineligible. 
Congress should not include these definitions in the legislative language and therefore we should look at this as an opportunity to craft something better. 
Thank you. 
MODERATOR: Our last speaker is Joycelyn Tate. 
MS. TATE:  Thanks, Bob. 
And I would like to thank NTIA and RUS for providing this opportunity to the minority media and telecommunications council to participate in this most important roundtable discussion. 
While the voices of our country's populations in rural and unserved areas are finally being heard so let's make sure we hear and respond to them correctly. 
Current data that is used to assess broadband penetration in rural areas tends to overaccount for rural broadband penetration. 
Zip codes in rural areas tend to be quite large and thus result in data that shows broadband services available within some rural zip codes but not necessarily reflect availability of broadband within the entire zip code. 
So more granular mapping data is needed to truly and accurately determine the rural areas in which broadband is lacking in order to increase service and adoption in those areas a. 
In some low-income areas we are faced with additional challenges. 
One of those is once we get broadband to the home, how do we get it into the home? 
Many homes in rural areas, take for instance, wearwood, Virginia, are populated with low-income residents. 
These houses don't have the proper three-prong electrical outlets that are needed to plug in computers or other hardware associated for adoption. 
Houses in those areas and other areas throughout the country tend to be old homes, sometimes public housing with antiquated electrical wiring that may not accommodate broadband relateded equipment. 
This issue must be addressed or rural broadband adoption goals will fall far short. 
Sometimes when I talk to people about broadband and unserved and underserved community they say, oh, you mean people in the country and rural areas? 
Although that's true it's a misNomer to believe that all unserved populations in this country are in rural areas. 
Many unserved communities are in urban areas where broadband service is the highest. 
The structural reasons for this disparity in both rural and broadband are linked to poverty, red lining, unemployment, race and language. 
And these disparities are unlikely to be eliminated by the marketplace. 
That's why it's critical and important that in addition to serving the populations in rural areas the broadband needs of unserved urban populations must also be addressed because in the original buildout unserved urban areas was made several years ago with low speed service technology. 
That's why in addition to getting the rural populations off dial-up and on to broadband it's vitally important that unserved communities in urban areas which oftentimes tend to be minorities and low-income populations are also slated to receive supplemental infrastructure development so that both rural and unserved you were ban populations can achieve parity in broadband service. 
Otherwise we will create a rural/urban digital divide. 
On that same note I would like to also say there should be parity to broadband service to colleges and universities in rural areas and colleges and universities in urban areas that have served native Americans, African Americans and Hispanic Americans. 
I be thank you for this opportunity to provide this and we will do what we can for greater broadband adoption for all people. 
Thank you. 
MODERATOR: Thank you very much. 
We got, I think some very interesting presentations and the thing that struck me most -- well, the thing that struck me most, dean, I heard him say, correct me if I am wrong, problem solved. 
Satellite is everywhere. 
I would be interested to know if other panelists agree that there is no unserved area, effectively no unserved area because there is satellite everywhere. 
 MR. ROSE:  I will answer that. I think satellite is good but there is limitations I think in speeds you want to get full broadband I think it doesn't cut it all the way and I think satellite leaves a lot of people unserved. 
MODERATOR: How about on the tribal areas? 
MR. BLACKWELL:  I would add that one size does not fit all. 
One technology does not fit all. 
There is no one solution for all of Indian country. 
As many different tribes as there are there are as many different challenges, geopolitical, terrain, historical challenges. 
It is far too simplistic to say -- actual I more prefer the statement, one size fits none. 
Now that having been said I think every technology represented on this panel is going to have a solution in Indian country and in many places it will be an AMALGAM of several of them but I cannot agree there are not unserved places in the United States anecdotally in Indian country we have a 5% to 8% penetration rate. 
Much of that has been provided by the tribes, their own -- their own initiatives, some of whom have testified in these hearings. 
So -- no one size does not fit. 
MODERATOR: Which probably gives a little bit of equal time. 
So any response, dean? 
MR. MANSON:  We certainly wouldn't attempt to suggest that satellite is the solution for every place, even though it is available everywhere in the country but the economics of satellite are so compelling especially when you get into areas where it isn't economic to dig trenches and run wire line solutions. 
There are large areas of the country where broadband by satellite is available, can be accessed but it is cost prohibitive in terms of cost of equipment. 
Yes, it is technically available everywhere but economically important it is not practically available for folks who cannot provide the equipment. 
So we think the stimulus program will help us to bridge that gap as a practical matter to people who can make best use of it. 
MODERATOR: Anybody else? 
The speed -- is speed -- we have heard speed sometimes as high as 1 hundred Mbps and as low as 768 KBPS as being appropriate thresholds, I would like to hear more in the underserved in determining what is underserved versus unserved. 
I would like to hear more comments on the speed issue and where some thresholds might be? 
I know some of you spoke about it during comments, just to hone in on that. 
MR. PETERSON:  If you were using speed as the entry level determinant for eligibility, I would say that's probably not going to serve the intent of the legislation or the president's goals very well. 
I think perhaps maybe having aspirational objectives, something to build out towards, is probably the better strategy with regard to speeds. 
 MR. ROSE:  I think speed and coverage are both important but I think speed means a lot to take away. 
The more you can get on broadband the more content, the more for education, the more for medical, that means you have higher take-up. 
By the way the reason I have these sunglasses on, is I had a cataract operation and these lights are killing me. 
MODERATOR: I hope that it was successful. 
MS. STEINER:  Speed is one way to measure a level of service, I don't think it's the only way. 
Like my fellow panelist at the end there, a one size type definition is problematic, and you end up picking and choosing technologies when the act specifically says that many it should be technology neutral. 
Speed is relative. 
More is better but if you only have dial up, then even a marginal improvement to first tier current FCC broadband definition looks really, really good. 
MODERATOR: Geoffrey? 
MR. BLACKWELL:  I would add that the congressional intent is pretty clear here. 
Our host agencies are charged with coming up with community oriented definitions. 
Now many believe that this is -- you know, this is implicit and there are majority directed in rural populations. 
And there are many that believe as previous definitions of broadband they believe they have been majority industry driven definitions that now, the reason why there is this intent to create a community oriented definition is there is skepticism and there is a lack of confidence that private market would provide this service without this sort of direction in this stimulus money. 
So I think it's very important when we talk about speeds to have that element of future growth in mind. 
 MR. ROSE:  I agree with that and I think we need two different speeds one for mobility service and one for computer service. 
MR. BLACKWELL:  This point was made by dean in the previous question that you asked. 
When we talk about -- when a statement is made about something is not feasible, not affordable or feasibility and affordablity to whom? 
There have been many tribes in the United States that have been forced to become their own de-facto carriers of last resort because the business model did not make sense to somebody else when perhaps it was a one dimensional residential service based business model. 
And many of these -- well members of tribal nation, PASCO, with leadership positions on your board, there are a number of service operators operating out of spectrum. 
Tribes at home are forced to make a -- find a way to make it work even if it does mean going into deep debt and becoming experts at cyclical task management at RUS. 
I think we need to keep in perspective where we are talking about, we are talking about unserved regions. 
MODERATOR: Eric had pointed to the existing census definitions as a means for identifying rural areas. 
I.e., rural area is anything that isn't urbanized just a statistical analysis of a census block. 
I would be interested in reactions from any other panelists, whether that sort of preexisting standard is -- might be suitable or is there some better way to make that differentiation? 
MS. TATE:  I think when we are looking at unserved, I don't think looking at that specific definition works. 
Like I said in my presentation, there are many unserved populations in urban areas, so a definition needs to be established that would take those people into consideration. 
They are surrounded by people and surrounded by neighborhoods that are highly serviced and they are in an unserved area. 
MODERATOR: I was going to follow-up about the question about whether we were talking about unserved individuals or unserved areas and I will come back to you in a second. 
Rural is an important definition at least to the RUS program, and perhaps that is how RUS already does their allocations. 
I'm not sure of your spots.  
MS. STEINER:  I will try to marry your points. 
Certainly a number of areas are unserved but they don't serve as a proxy for one another. 
Using census data has historically driven electrification programs through RUS. 
But as the agency's mission extends to water and waste water programs and broadband programs and other telecom services, different definitions have been adopted by Congress and put into the statute over time. 
And they vary up to I believe 20 thousand people. 
But again this gets back to the same problem of drawing a bright line on a one dimensional measure. 
When you look at rural areas in a broader perspective, it's a function of total population size, it's a function of density and it's a function of remoteness or distance from a more urbanized area, so you can look at it in multiple different perspectives, and I don't know that one is necessarily better just because we already used it before. 
MODERATOR: But the comment about the one dimensionality, the NTIA and RUS dilemma, part of it as I understand it, is speed to get the program up and running and money distributed immediately. 
And presumably at least an advantage of either preexisting definition or a bright line, you know, a binary decision on some of these things has the benefit of speed. 
It may not be as he will elegant. 
Is there a fast elegant solution to these problems? 
MR. PETERSON:  Not to take pride in ownership but when we proposed this definition we looked at the example that RUS uses and we also looked at other regs, and we found that there are several dozen definitions within the Department of Agriculture for what is rural. 
So we thought, well, there is reference in the RUS language, and there is reference in other places to the census bureau, so we came back to the census bureau and looked at their definition and we thought it was probably one that offered the most logical ability to defend and second of all the most flexibility. 
For example, you can say in census blocks of 5 hundred people, but it doesn't have to be 500, it could be 501 or 494 or some reasonable range. 
We would hope and several other panelists expressed the position as well that there be some discretion given to those who will ultimately make the decisions on these grants and loans, and that there would not be this rigid bright line that if you are an inch over you are not eligible, and if you were inch behind you are not eligible, you have to hit it right on the mark. 
Because there isn't that kind of a community in place in the country -- MODERATOR: So you think human judgment rather than just running through a computer and having it spit out who is in and who is out. 
MR. PETERSON:  I would think that most Americans would say some modicum of human judgment is necessary. 
MODERATOR: Let's go back to Joycelyn's prior comments. 
Does the law really -- is it really talking just when it says unserved area, and we have been talking about unserved communities and unserved peoples. 
Does it really make any difference or is it literally a geography issue? 
MS. TATE:  I don't think it's just a geography. 
Yes, it is a geography issue and a personal issue. 
When you have rural communities -- I'm sorry, urban communities some that may be within an area and they have been red lined for a number of years because of the reasons I mentioned, unemployment, language disparities, waste. 
Those are considered unserved areas regardless of their geographic location through the urban area. 
They have been -- there is a bright line where they have been drank out and excluded by the marketplace. 
So the definition for unserved --  
>> So you can envision an area which might on its face seem to be served but we -- in that geographic area, individuals who are unserved. 
MS. TATE:  Yes. 
MODERATOR: Any other comments on it? 
MR. BLACKWELL:  Getting back to the original question. 
I would agree with Ms. Tate that there is greater need for granularity, certainly in the instance of tribal country several tribal leaders instruct Meade that the data doesn't represent Indian country when it comes to telecommunications and the penetration rate. 
Many have told me that their penetration is far lower or cyclical in nature, dependent on limited budgets. 
People go off service in the cold of winter because they have other critical infrastructure. 
I would agree with some of the comments you made on the 477 report and the inability of zip coding to adequately measure our penetration in Indian country. 
I think a human element with an understanding of a bit of the different history of how Indian country was created would be quite helpful to efforts of these two agencies to their mission among the tribal lands. 
With over 562 recognized tribes there is only 313 nations in the United States. 
There are several tribes who are landless, there were several tribes whose tribal lands were eradicated and have checkerboard situations that get right to the comments that Ms. Tate is making. 
So there is a level of reality that would not rely on a report from one particular agency. 
We would be happy to work with the agencies on a forward going basis to help them understand this. 
The FCC has done a deep amount of work in this regard with respect to several service and it may be a repository of information that would benefit these two agencies as well. 
MODERATOR: Let me get off that topic for a second and another theme came up from the last panel and we had a last speaker in the audience speaking strongly about the middle mile and back haul issues and John raised it here. 
I would be interested to know in the tribal lands and other parts of rural America, if the middle mile back haul issue and cost of availability was solved does the last mile just come along much more automatically? 
And a lot of discussion has seemingly been focused on the last mile. 
So this is a new milestone in the discussion, talking about the middle and the back haul. 
MR. MANSON:  I think it makes a tremendous difference whether you have actual last mile assets or middle mile access. 
Satellite over the years has done a tremendous job of filling in the areas in a population that -- where -- there is access. 
MODERATOR: You mention satellite. 
Can satellite feed wifi and would share a 5 Mbps signal? 
MR. MANSON:  We use satellite for back haul of wifi systems. 
But even for providing the actual last mile, there are plenty of folks, for example, who live in an area that might otherwise have access to terrestrial broadband but their drive way is too long to connect them or they were too far away from the neighbors and they may be in a county that is otherwise pretty well served. 
Back to your main question, it is inescapable that we have to rely solely on available data just in the timeframe of getting it done in the timeframe that is required. 
I think there has to be a priority of doing it quickly and fairly. 
The statute does call for consultation with the states and that is a place where more targeted input and more human touch can be brought to bear, albeit quickly. 
There has to be an emphasis that it is done quickly. 
MODERATOR: John Rose? 
 MR. ROSE:  As we cover -- as we increase the speeds, as we begin increase of take rate, we are going to have a tremendously grueling spans of back haul and access to the internet back bone, and if you put that on a fewer subscribers, it's a tremendous cost, and we think some of the stimulus money could be well served to go to back haul. 
MODERATOR: We will start Q & A in a few minutes so if people want to get to their positions on the microphones, it would be a good time to get there. 
Does anybody on the panel have reactions to the other panelists that they violently agree or disagree with. 
Particularly this hour of the day the violent disagreements keep everyone much more on their toes. 
MR. PETERSON:  Both John and dean make very good points about the issue of back haul and when you were commenting to the Congress as this legislation was moving through we strongly urged that this stimulus money be used or a portion of it be eligible to be used for back haul. 
That is probably the most expensive proposition as far as the wireless community is concerned, the cost of towers and the back haul on those towers. 
Some of our providers use microwave but there is a wire connection somewhere. 
MODERATOR: What are the costs of a wireless operatorer, how much does that amount to? 
Bigger than a bread box, smaller than a battleship? 
How big is it? 
MR. PETERSON:  I can't estimate it but the cost of back haul could be at least 25% of the operation, maybe more. 
And that's why there is so much interest on the part of the rural areas with roaming and things of that nature to offset costs. 
A lot of our carriers doing microwave, some of them have actually gone to situations where they don't have their towers connected at all by the wire because of those bad phone calls  
>>  It is significant and hopefully as agencies develop the re:ings and you get a finer program. 
We will get other means to cover that middle mile. 
 MR. ROSE:  I think the middle mile and access to back bone can exceed the 25%. 
It's a significant problem. 
For land line and wireless. 
MODERATOR: Looks like we don't have a lot of audience participation but we will gin some up. 
The rule being identify yourself and let us know if it's going to be a comment, a question directed to someone if possible. 
The clock is at the front to give you a cue as to the minute that we would like you to stay within in something the questions. 
And go ahead, microphone number 1. 
>>  Right. 
My name is Kelly Bonnham, I work with telecom services we are a rural middle mile last mile and back haul provider. 
We have about 4 thousand route miles of Mike wave. 
We do microwave because fiber is not cost effective. 
This is a comment -- there are actually two. 
One of the reasons getting to the rural or underserved definition might be to apply the E rate test. 
We do a lot of E rate work, and I think you might find a fairly direct correlation between high E rate eligibility 80% or better and unserved or underserved areas. 
One of the areas that we do provide services on the the net are on the Arizona portion of the Navajo nation that's a 90% nation and I don't think anybody would argue that the Navajo is an unserved or underserved market. 
And the other question about back haul and middle mile cost, it is very high. 
We pay on some of our networks when we get rural service from other carriers as much as 7 hundred dollars a megabit for back haul. 
We don't build our own because of issues involving rights of way. 
Thank you. 
MODERATOR: Anyone have a comment on his comment? 
He wasn't offering any question. 
MODERATOR: Why is back haul so expensive for this middle mile? 
Is it just because it's in a relatively dense geographic area? 
 MR. ROSE:  I mean, that's right. 
Distance is a problem, and it's not a regulated thing, and a lot of time we only have one way of getting out and we have to go to the companies that provide it. 
MR. BLACKWELL:  I agree with what my fellow panelists said it would serve the commission and some of these agencies to consider the middle mile and back haul. 
What we are talking about fiber and it is the most expensive instance in Indian country but it leads to all of the types and potentially leads to all the types of services that I highlighted in my slide. 
And I would hope that this discussion would lead into something that we have been a little remiss in discussing and that is a great concern of ours in Indian country which is, of course, sustainability. 
MR. MANSON:  I would add that it is most expensive to back haul terrestrial service is probably those areas where it's most cost effective to provide coverage by satellite. 
MODERATOR: Microphone 2. 
>>  Mike DeFalco Appalachian regional commission. 
I have a couple of comments that might be a little bit offtopic. 
But when you brought up the issue of bringing speed into the mix in terms of defining unserved and underserved maybe they are appropriate. 
The first question, is it more important to get broadband coverage where it doesn't exist than to get increased or better coverage where it does exist? 
And the second question, is it appropriate to use a government subSidity coming from these grants to build a competitive network in an area that already has broadband service even if the new network would provide a higher degree of broadband service and what about the ramifications to the private sector provider who first built the network, because now they have a subsidy being brought in that will build a competing network. 
MODERATOR: Those two questions will probably take up the rest of the afternoon in a sense, but they are very good questions. 
Let's do the first one first. 
MR. MANSON:  To chime in quickly. 
Congress stated two goals among others, that there is a direct requirement to bring broadband to unserved areas and to bring broadband to currently underserved areas, and vulnerable populations and they didn't prioritize between the two. 
So I think it's fair to say that both are goals that implementing agencies have an opportunity to establish an overall goal if there were to be a master goal of reaching a certain penetration rate or bringing the country to a particular level of broadband adoption and clearly the folks that don't have effective access to broadband ought to be heavily looked at as beneficiaries of these programs. 
MR. BLACKWELL:  I do believe that there are -- we may not have this opportunity again. 
There are places in the United States that in Indian country that face not just a digital divide but an analog divide. 
And risking being left even further behind. 
These are palpable. 
This is reality in Indian country. 
We have very challenging statistics. 
You know, we are hoping that this sort of investment will help us on things like our high infant mortality rate compared to elsewhere in the United States. 
It's an interesting academic question in this room. 
I would hope that as I said earlier, we are not expecting to get all of the money here, but I expect and I hope that it would be prioritized in the places where the lack of service is dangerous -- dangerously attacking this definition of community that we are trying to arrive at. 
On the second part of the question -- MODERATOR: Let's do the competition point later. 
Any other comments on the first question. 
MR. PETERSON:  I think the point that I would want to make here is that it really depends on the merits of the proposal. 
But at the same time I think we ought to not look at this particular pot of 7 billion dollars as the one and only time that this is going to occur. 
I would like to think of this more as kind of a pilot, to see what's feasible, what the needs are, what the opportunities are, and as everyone has commented, it's kind of a disappointment that we do this and then we do the mapping and then we do the plan or we ought to do the planning first. 
But it is what it is. 
And I am hopeful that out of this will come clearly a rationale for moving ahead so that we can -- so that we can meet the kinds of needs in a sustainable way that Jeff is identifying, that we can address the competing interests where you've got anchor institutions in communities that really would benefit and they are not being served by a perhaps -- perhaps by a broadband provider that is already in the community. 
There are a lot of competing interests and I think our objective here with regard to this exercise is to give the administrators of this program enough flexibility to be able to prioritize what they think are the best of the proposals no matter whether it happens to be one that is going into a community that is already served or whether it's a situation where this may be the only opportunity that is perceived to being present for the time. 
MS. TATE:  I have to concur. 
I don't think this is going to be our one and only shot at this. 
This is a pilot. 
And this is an opportunity for those people who have not had a voice before to finally be heard in the issues to be addressed. 
So I look at this as a way to make some clear definitions, model definitions, try to find ways to take this program once it is completed and moving forward to start including people because otherwise the gap is going to get larger and larger, so I concur with my panel members who say we should look at this as a starting point and not an ending point and look to build on this and to try to lay the ground work, so we don't have these unserved communities and under served communities that we have now and to try to bridge that gap. 
MODERATOR: I was going to switch to question number 2 and ask you to respond to it first, John, about the question about whether your small telephone company members. 
 MR. ROSE:  I think coverage and speeds are both important to our country. 
And I understand how we got to make these compromises. 
The thing with competition, we had a big debate in our membership, and we decided we need to be forward looking and we have to compete, we will compete but we need to make sure this money goes to getting broadband out there, getting take rates and coverage and speeds but we are willing to compete and whether there is a second person in the area, if that happens, that happens, but we think we can compete. 
MR. BLACKWELL:  On the subject of competition there are many places in Indian country that wish we have the demographics for competition. 
In several places we just don't. 
We don't have situations that were envisioned by the 96 act and it's competitive framework. 
In places where tribes have served themselves and essentially 10, 15 years ahead of the curve have made investments those investments become trust assets. 
Those become an extension of the tribal government itself. 
And the government must seek to consult with tribes and analyze these situations where what could otherwise be called subsidization of artificial competition, artificial competition could harm that asset, and could harm the services that are being provided to this critical mission of tribal governments and other communities within our boundaries. 
That is very important. 
It is not -- and I said this in Las Vegas and I will reiterate it here. 
It is not an anticompetitive attitude. 
It's an attitude that simply realizes what is actually the situation in certain parts of Indian country. 
And I would agree with panelists that have said that we need to look at this stimulus bill as a pilot project bill. 
I don't think that is exactly the correct term, but it is seed money, and we want to seed our economies and have them grow as well, but there are places that need -- without this jump-start it may never come. 
MODERATOR: This may be another area where judgment may be required. 
MR. BLACKWELL:  I think the elements of sustainability have to be examined in a level of detail heretofore have been left unsaid by government. 
MODERATOR: Granular analysis. 
MR. BLACKWELL:  And where the areas are. 
A couple of panelists mentioned universal service, and the subcommittee at the national Congress for native Americans was created by a group of tribal telecommunications companies who were perhaps the leading edge of seeing these sustainability issues and the necessary nature of high cost and low-income provisions in the universal service model. 
So it is the experience of those who begin services in any country sooner or later have to become expert in areas of universal service. 
As we look towards sustainability we look to those in the majority of the industry to see what their offerings are. 
Now when I said earlier that we are skeptical, that is because less than three years after the Federal Communications Commission wrote the special enhanced tribal lands link up provisions it had to instigate a series of enforcement actions to require very familiar majority stake holder holder company names. 
We were still looking for partners, we are looking for opportunities we want to work with those who see the opportunities we see but the sustainability of this, we are very doubtful about. 
MODERATOR: Up to number 3. 
>>  I am Harry rush with the Appalachian regional commission. 
Over the last 19 years we have been funding strategic telecommunications planning along with aggregation of demand aspects, developing mapping, and also leading to business case models where our rural area which we have talked about a number of times here, 42% of our region is declared as rural compared to the United States. 
Where we have seen these processes go through from beginning to end, we have also stepped behind these projects and put in broadband development, deployment, wireless situations, et cetera. We have yet to see a single project go under, because what they have done up front is done the planning, put the business case model together, organized the community to serve all sectors, and what they have ultimately got at is they're deciding on their future and they are putting a market business case forward. 
This creates the competition. 
You build the backbone or build the infrastructure, the WISP's, and ISP's and other people can make a business case model if they are not having to eat their return on investment. 
Thank you. 
MODERATOR: Thank you. 
Microphone number 4. 
>>  First of all Jerry piper with the telecom alliance in the State of Idaho. 
MODERATOR: Could you step closer. 
>>  Can you hear me now? 
That wasn't an advertisement. 
Jerry piper with the Idaho telecom alliance in the State of Idaho. 
Just real quick comment on the satellite. 
I would suggest that the comment that it can reach everyone, would he suggest that he hasn't tried to install very many of them west of the continental divide. 
Second of all, there has been a few of the folks on the panels that have actually been bold enough to select a speed. 
Most of them say whatever the FCC says or whatever they describe as unserved is okay. 
What I was wondering is if in terms of education and in terms of telemedicine, if the panelists were those people receiving the broad band for those services, what speed would they accept, since I think speed is going to be the definitive thing here, what speed would they accept to deliver those video services and what speed would they accept that they would expect to receive those video services in a manner that they could actually do something? 
 MR. ROSE:  There is a very good GAO report and I forget the number, that just came out in February, that lists, you know, different speeds and different applications. 
But for medical high definition medical, they list 75 to 1 hundred Mbps. 
If you look at that, there is a lot of stuff that the GAO report has, and forget the name of the report. 
But it's very good. 
MODERATOR: I have it in my brief case. 
I could probably run back and get it. 
MR. MANSON:  To address the first part of your comment were you suggesting that it's difficult to install satellite west of the continental divide. 
>>  It's easy to install. 
It's the 2 hundred thousand P foot mountain in front of the guy's yard. 
>>  There is some areas where you can't see satellites but those tend to be few in number and certainly in those areas it wouldn't be a feasible solution. 
MODERATOR: Speeds of applications. 
If it's not medical imaging which may be or doing remote surgery which might be one level to adjust video conferencing or you know, streaming videos, whatever we are talking about. 
MR. PETERSON:  I don't have any problem with aspirational speeds and certainly John has made the point with regard to the GAO study and what the recommended speeds for those various applications are. 
But there should be different speeds for wireless and different speeds for wire lined because they have different capabilities and again those are some of the flexibilities that need to be part of this initiative. 
MODERATOR: Number one. 
>>  Hello I work for international broadband electric communications. 
We think setting a minimum threshold speed is imperative to these agencies. 
Without it, my question would be how do you determine where there is competition and where there is not? 
We have talked a lot about there are subsidized areas that there are pockets of them and they are rural and urban. 
But without setting a threshold speed how do you determine what is unserved and what is under served. 
MODERATOR: Just as a question. 
>>  Wed currently provide up to five mg up and down. 
MODERATOR: Clearly there has to be some sort of speed indicated and the definition of broadband itself is one place where that can be done. 
Obviously we are talking about broadband and we are not talking about dial-up and we ought to be talking about speeds significantly better than dial-up. 
So that would be the primary place to put a speed threshold. 
MODERATOR: Both for unserved and underserved. 
MR. MANSON:  Certainly with underserved but talking about broadband top the extent that I thought broadband for unserved and broadband for underserved, yes I think there has to be some reason why it couldn't be equated dial up. 
MR. BLACKWELL:  I think in Indian country that 5% -- I think we suffer from speeds that are well below national averages for the same sorts of services that our government's trying to provide. 
I think it's important to aim at a level that is worthy of this stimulus funding, that is worthy of government investment. 
There is a nervousness that if the speed is too low that there will be a rush to that speed and there will be a rush to that speed and that we will get left behind again when emerging technologies can do even more wonderful things than they can do now. 
It's also important to be said that whatever the speed is, it has to be sustained and symmetrical. 
It can't just be burst. 
That is one thing uniform across Indian country that technologies hold. 
>>  Jackie McCarthy with PCIA the wireless infrastructure association with a brief comment because wireless may be the only practicable path to broadband in many areas that currently do not have broadband we think underserved should include any area in which there is no wireless broadband coverage. 
In these areas customers do not have ubiquitous service and the benefits brought about by competition with wireless are the greatest to the extent that economic or other circumstances have left the areas behind and to the extent that K street Wall Street business plan Mr. Blackwell referred to is not feesible funds can change that into a possible business case. 
Thank you. 
MODERATOR: Microphone number 3. 
MR. BLACKWELL:  Can I respond to that? 
Just pulling a few threads together from the various comments. 
When I mentioned K street and wall street business plans what I am juxtaposed about is the demand aggregation plan that Mr. Rush referred to earlier. 
There are a number of people in rural, remote -- number of entities in remote America that could learn from the kind of presentations he makes. 
I made reference earlier, too, that we lack the kind of competition envisioned by the 96 act. 
Much more often we are trying to put together demand aggregation models than competition models. 
MODERATOR: Okay. 
We were at microphone number 3, I believe. 
>>  Okay. 
I have a question following my statement. 
I will admit that the easiest service for us to sell as a service provider is 1 hundred MG services. 
We get 30 times more revenue from services and the companies that need it don't hesitate to pay. 
However, what is interesting, is that the largest volume of business comes from people who want the lowest priced service. 
You have a full tier of service anywhere from 1 to 10 mg's in 90% of all inquiries choose the slowest speed service they can get because they would rather have the lower price. 
They don't have the demand for that broadband. 
So the question I ask the panel, is if there are people in urban and underserved areas who have a critical need to have broadband, why would it not be sufficient to take a slower speed service if 90% of the area most likely would probably only select the slower speed? 
Would that not be adequate for the need? 
If you needed the fast speed, somebody would build it and somebody would pay for it. 
MS. TATE:  I think the reason they choose the lower speeds are for economic reasons if the universal service funds could be applied to broadband to supplement the costs I think they would choose higher speed services, I think it's income based, if I can't afford it, if I can barely afford it, I get what I can afford. 
>>  That's a good point but the big argument -- MODERATOR: We are getting tight on time. 
Stay up there. 
If we make it around we will okay. 
>>  Ms. Herrerra. 
Montgomery Maryland. 
We have farming land in rumor Montgomery County, Maryland. 
The rural issue is important even when you have urban areas in the state. 
My question is, in a lot of cases whether it's fiber or putting up towers, we certainly do that, it just cost a fortune to get it to the low density areas. 
So from the members of the panel in the rural communities, would you agree that price per Mbps should be part of the definition for served and under served? 
MR. PETERSON:  No. 
MR. MANSON:  I think it's a key part of the consideration. 
I'm not sure if it's in the definition necessarily. 
I could see it possibly working that way but I think you hit on a critical point. 
And how much it costs to bring a mega bit per second to end user consumer has to be part of the equation. 
If you are in a densely populated area it makes sense but if you are in a widely diverse non-dense area, things like satellite are more effective. 
MODERATOR: We were talking about threshold questions with definitions and I think I would take your response to be it could also be an award criteria factor. 
MR. MANSON:  Yeah. 
MR. PETERSON:  And my response wasn't meant to be flippant but I think that is part of a business case, that the applicant would have to look at, and certainly if it's -- if it's not economically feasible even with a broadband grant at whatever amount of money might be available, then obviously it's something that can't be done under this particular program and that's one of the reasons, why, for example, we advocate the amendments to the universal service fund, the telecommunications act, with regard to the applicability of the universal service fund to sustain the service so that in fact if it is economically infeasible in it's barest form, there is an opportunity to supplement it and to bring the price down to a point where in fact consumers can afford to buy it and providers can afford to operate it. 
And to your point about rural areas in densely normally thought of densely populated areas, that was one of the key points as to why we liked the Census Bureau version because it takes into consideration that there are very rural areas in places like Montgomery County Maryland or Fairfax County, Virginia, or counties in Illinois. 
MODERATOR: Stay there. 
We are getting late, towards the end I want to make sure everybody gets a first crack. 
Number one? 
>>  I am frank Cumberland, president of broadband in Wisconsin it's getting late so maybe my brain is tired, but I haven't heard really a debate on what you define rural to be. 
If you accepted the definition of rural as it is defined today by the census or USDA, I am wondering if somebody, if you feel in this proposal on this program that we ought to revisit and get tighter in a more formal definition of what rural is. 
 MR. ROSE:  I think, Bob, you asked the question a while ago can we get an elegant definition? 
I am not sure that is possible. 
Census blocks is one way to do it and I think the FCC had five officer six years ago they put together putting to the Census Bureau and did not match the cost. 
Now there are different type of models using satellite over laying road technology and video stuff gives us a better look at clusters of people. 
I think the mapping program we need to look at the mapping, we need to look at census blocks and clusters and roads but I agree it needs to be much more granular but I'm not sure there is an elegant definition out there. 
MODERATOR: We will talk about mapping on Monday afternoon at this time. 
>>  Thank you my name is Andrew Langer president of the institute for literacy, we are focused on small business and entrepreneurship. 
And what I have is more in the way of a comment than a question. 
We tend to take a skeptical view of government involvement in the marketplace in any case, usually as evidenced by there is no small irony in a government building and I can't get broad band or internet access while I am sitting here. 
MODERATOR: You had have to apply for a grant. 
>>  I will and I think Mr. Blackwell makes a compelling point here, that I really don't know if this is going to be the end or the beginning, I would like to think it's the end of massive government stimulus packages, but if it isn't or if it is, we should be serving people who haven't gotten served first that those people who have no access or are dangerously critical in access, they ought to get served first. 
That is the position that my organization will take when we are providing comments. 
MODERATOR: I appreciate that you are filing comments and I would like to remind everyone that the date is April 13. 
>>  Just a quick response. 
My point is that underserved Americans are -- urban Americans are choosing to be underserved equivalent to rural providers I think rural needs more broad band and underserved needs more broadband. 
And sometimes -- rural isn't necessarily being left behind but using the money for more than rural needs does leave somebody behind so I think there should be a balance. 
And I ask that NTIA considers a balance to make sure adequate funds goes to each need. 
MODERATOR: And your second shot. 
>>  First I would mention that because people wherever they may live may decide that they don't want to have to pay twice as much for five times as less service as the rest of the world it shouldn't mean that they did it by choice and it's an option. 
My question is following up on price points. 
Should -- because the purpose of the act, one of them was to spur demand, should projects that provide service at low free or cost effective extending service should those projects get more points in any kind of application process? 
MODERATOR: I will let the panel answer that, but that has come back -- let's come back next Tuesday because award criteria is exactly what we will be discussing on Tuesday. 
MR. BLACKWELL:  I would appreciate knowing where the gentleman from Mike number 3 is from. 
Because like the lady at microphone 4, I dispute your premise. 
It is surprising, because I don't think you intended to say that certain folks are not interested, so we shouldn't -- we should keep them uninterested. 
It sort of smacked of that. 
I cannot hear what you are saying. 
>>  Okay. 
What I mean is everyone deserves faster speed. 
Rural isn't being left behind because they don't have it we are all left behind if we don't have faster speed. 
We all make due or we all get faster speeds. 
MODERATOR: Let me take a note that we have gone past the 4:15 mark. 
So I think we need to wrap up. 
Before I ask for some acknowledgment of the great panel, I want to remind everyone that we are back here next Monday and Tuesday. 
On Monday, topics are nondiscrimination and interconnection obligations, the role of the states and broadband mapping. 
On Tuesday, most award compliance and oversight, selection criteria, and community economic development. 
So I believe those are going to be some interesting topics and I hope to see you here next Monday and/or Tuesday. 
I would like to thank the panel for an interesting and stimulating conversation this afternoon. 
And those of you who have to travel, have safe travels, and see you next week. 
Thank you.