Minnesota PUC Information Meeting on Recent FCC Reforms on Jan 12
The Minnesota Public Utilities Commission is hosting an informational meeting on Thursday, January 12, at 1:00. For those who cannot make it in person, it will be webcast here.
The PDF announcement is here.
The Minnesota Public Utilities Commission will convene an informational meeting in the format of panel discussion to examine the implications of the FCC Order with respect to (i) universal service funding, (ii) intercarrier compensation and (iii) the substantive and procedural tasks that the Commission can be expected to face in the coming months. The meeting will commence with opening remarks by Commission Chair Ellen Anderson and Commissioner Michael Rothman of the Minnesota Department Commerce. The panel discussion will be moderated by Commissioner Betsy Wergin. The panelists are:I would have specifically liked to hear how the rural telephone coops would be affected by the inter-carrier compensation changes as those charges have helped many rural communities gain access to broadband. Apparently, the MTA rep will represent their viewpoint.The Commission will welcome questions from attendees as time permits.
- Jeff Lindsey; CenturyLink
- Brent Christensen; Minnesota Telecom Alliance
- Dan Lipschultz; Moss Barnett PA, competitive carrier perspective
- Tom Cohen; Kelley, Drye Warren LLP for the American Cable Association
- Dave Conn; T-Mobile
- Dennis Ahlers; Minnesota Department of Commerce.

Recognizing this principle flips common arguments about connecting rural areas on their head. Ensuring that people in rural areas are connected benefits everyone -- it is not charity. Connecting people in rural areas increases the value of the connections in urban areas, creating more value for everyone.
But the flip side may be too rarely considered. As these networks have grown in size (and therefore value), the cost of those who are excluded from them also increases significantly. This means that while the costs of not connecting rural areas are high today, those costs will be even greater in coming years. The argument is rather intuitive, but for those who want to learn more, Rahul Tongia and Ernest J Wilson III
Building a new network requires a massive up-front capital investment - in this case the city will have spent $4.4 million to connect the first connection. Good thing they aren't all that expensive!
The article identifies two main sources of the delays: difficulty in getting on the poles owned by Progress Energy and long delays in receiving the fiber-optic cable they ordered (stimulus projects have hogged the supply). Rather than taking 12 weeks, they had to wait 30. Delays cause problems: