1 | Local Coordination Documentation Tracker | Download Spreadsheet Here | ||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
2 | Purpose of this Resource | |||||||||||
3 | The NOFOs for both the Broadband, Equity, Access & Deployment (BEAD) Program and the Digital Equity Act Programs include requirements for local coordination. This tracker is intended to serve as resource that will support applicants in documenting required local coordination and outreach activities for both programs. Use the tabs of this spreadsheet to track stakeholders, activities, local plans, and feedback and comments. Customize the categories to fit your needs as you begin local coordination activities. | |||||||||||
4 | Tracker Contents | |||||||||||
5 | Tab | Description | Related BEAD NOFO Requirements | Related Digital Equity NOFO Requirements | ||||||||
6 | List of Organizations | Area to document and record each organization and stakeholder group engaged and the purpose of the engagement | Local coordination efforts of each Eligible Entity must include diverse stakeholders from Tribal, rural, suburban, and urban areas to the extent applicable | Each State Digital Equity Plan must include a coordination and outreach strategy that addresses engagement with representatives of each category of covered populations within the State and with the full range of stakeholders within the State | ||||||||
7 | Stakeholder Engagement Tracker | Area to document each meeting held with stakeholder groups, including information on meeting attendees and action items resulting from engagement activities | Each Eligible Entity must document its local coordination and outreach activities by providing a detailed description of their efforts to engage local governments, community groups, union and worker organizations, Tribal Governments, and underrepresented populations | |||||||||
8 | Local Plans | Area to document any plans submitted to the Eligible Entity or existing plans/programs instituted by municipal, regional, or local governments and/or Tribal Entities, as well as notes on how these plans will be incorporated into the Five-Year Action Plan or State Digital Equity Plan | Each political subdivision and federally recognized Tribe must be given an opportunity to submit its own local broadband plan to the Eligible Entity for consideration in the development of the Eligible Entity’s Proposals. Each Eligible Entity must detail how it addressed each submitted plan in each relevant Proposal | Each State Digital Equity Plan must include a description of how local, municipal, regional, and/or Tribal digital equity plans will be incorporated into the State Digital Equity Plan | ||||||||
9 | Public Comment Disclosure | Area to document any comments submitted on the BEAD Five-Year Action Plan or State Digital Equity Plan and notes on how these comments will be addressed | Each political subdivision and federally recognized Tribe must be given an opportunity to comment on the Proposals of the Eligible Entity | Each category of covered populations and the full range of stakeholders within the State must be given opportunities for public comment on the State Digital Equity Plan | ||||||||
10 | Description of Categories | |||||||||||
11 | Category | Description | ||||||||||
12 | Program | It is recommended that all local coordination, stakeholder engagement, and outreach - including with Tribal and Native Entities - is coordinated early on and completed in tandem for both the BEAD and State Digital Equity Planning Grant Program to fufill the requirements of both programs. When documenting local coordination activities, applicants should indicate in the tracker if the stakeholder group or the coordination activity is related to a specific program or to both programs. | ||||||||||
13 | Organization Type | Organizations and stakeholder groups may include, but are not limited to, community anchor institutions, county and municipal governments, nonprofit organizations, civil rights organizations, educational agencies, workforce development organizations, public housing authorities, Tribal governments, Alaska Native Entities, Native Hawaiian organizations, labor organizations and unions, faith-based organizations, higher education institutions (including HBCUs, MSIs, and community colleges), Internet service providers, public utilities commissions, economic development organizations, and advocacy groups. | ||||||||||
14 | Covered Populations | Covered populations for the Digital Equity Act program include: 1) Individuals who live in covered households; 2) Aging Individuals; 3) Incarcerated Individuals, other than individuals who are incarcerated in a Federal correctional facility; 4) Veterans; 5) Individuals with disabilities; 6) Individuals with a language barrier, including individuals who are English learners and have low levels of literacy; 7) Individuals who are membmers of a racial or ethnic minority group; and 8) Individuals who reside primarily in a rural area |
1 | Local Coordination List of Organizations and Stakeholders | Organization/Stakeholder Name | Type of Organization | Meeting/Engagement Purpose (Select the purpose that best matches. If you select "Other," please specify in the notes | Link to the organization's website (if applicable) | ||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
2 | Bear River Association of Governments (BRAG) | Association of Governments | Community Outreach | ||||||||
3 | Five County Association of Governments | Association of Governments | Community Outreach | ||||||||
4 | Mountainland Association of Governments (MAG) | Association of Governments | Community Outreach | ||||||||
5 | Six County Association of Governments | Association of Governments | Community Outreach | ||||||||
6 | Southeastern Utah Association of Local Governments (SEUALG) | Association of Governments | Community Outreach | ||||||||
7 | Uintah Basin Association of Governments (UBAOG) | Association of Governments | Community Outreach | ||||||||
8 | Maise Technology | Business | Community Outreach | ||||||||
9 | Arizona Library | Community Anchor Institution | Plan Development | Engaging with state agencies on best practices for outreach and engagement and digital equity planning | https://connect-arizona.com/ | ||||||
10 | Guadalupe School | Community Anchor Institution | Plan Development | Subgrantee: responsible for creating a local plan | https://guadschool.org/ | ||||||
11 | Kearns Library | Community Anchor Institution | Community Outreach | Engagement with a community center and library to understand core services, community outreach practices, and building a digital inclusion program mainly serving the Latino community | |||||||
12 | Roosevelt Library | Community Anchor Institution | Community Outreach | Presenting the digital equity planning process | |||||||
13 | Salt Lake City Public Library | Community Anchor Institution | Plan Development | Secondary planning partner | https://services.slcpl.org/ | ||||||
14 | Santaquin Library | Community Anchor Institution | Community Outreach | ACP grantee; coordinating partner | |||||||
15 | Utah Bookmobiles | Community Anchor Institution | Data Collection | Hosted outreach events | https://bookmobiles.utah.gov/ | ||||||
16 | Altamont | County or Municipal Government | Community Outreach | ||||||||
17 | American Fork City | County or Municipal Government | Community Outreach | Looking for information and resources | |||||||
18 | Beaver County | County or Municipal Government | Community Outreach | https://beaver.utah.gov/292/GIS | |||||||
19 | Big Cottonwood Community Council | County or Municipal Government | Community Outreach | ||||||||
20 | Blanding | County or Municipal Government | Community Outreach | ||||||||
21 | Box Elder County | County or Municipal Government | Community Outreach | https://www.boxeldercounty.org/contact | |||||||
22 | Brigham City | County or Municipal Government | Community Outreach | ||||||||
23 | Cache County | County or Municipal Government | Community Outreach | https://www.cachecounty.org/departments.html | |||||||
24 | Carbon County | County or Municipal Government | Community Outreach | ||||||||
25 | Cedar City | County or Municipal Government | Community Outreach | ||||||||
26 | City of Helper | County or Municipal Government | Community Outreach | ||||||||
27 | City of Kanab | County or Municipal Government | Community Outreach | ||||||||
28 | Clarkston Town | County or Municipal Government | Community Outreach | ||||||||
29 | Clinton City | County or Municipal Government | Community Outreach | ||||||||
30 | Daggett County | County or Municipal Government | Community Outreach | https://www.daggettcounty.org/16/Clerk | |||||||
31 | Davis County | County or Municipal Government | Community Outreach | https://www.daviscountyutah.gov/ced/contact | |||||||
32 | Duchesne County | County or Municipal Government | Community Outreach | ||||||||
33 | Dutch John | County or Municipal Government | Community Outreach | ||||||||
34 | Emery County | County or Municipal Government | Community Outreach | http://www.emerycounty.com/auditor/contact.htm | |||||||
35 | Enoch City | County or Municipal Government | Community Outreach | ||||||||
36 | Erda | County or Municipal Government | Community Outreach | ||||||||
37 | Fairfield | County or Municipal Government | Community Outreach | ||||||||
38 | Fairview City | County or Municipal Government | Community Outreach | ||||||||
39 | Farr West City | County or Municipal Government | Community Outreach | ||||||||
40 | Garden City | County or Municipal Government | Community Outreach | ||||||||
41 | Garfield County | County or Municipal Government | Community Outreach | https://www.garfield.utah.gov/contact | |||||||
42 | Garland City | County or Municipal Government | Community Outreach | ||||||||
43 | Genola Town | County or Municipal Government | Community Outreach | ||||||||
44 | Grand County | County or Municipal Government | Community Outreach | ||||||||
45 | Grantsville City | County or Municipal Government | Community Outreach | ||||||||
46 | Hanksville Town | County or Municipal Government | Community Outreach | ||||||||
47 | Heber City | County or Municipal Government | Community Outreach | ||||||||
48 | Herriman City | County or Municipal Government | Community Outreach | ||||||||
49 | Hideout Town | County or Municipal Government | Community Outreach | ||||||||
50 | Hyde Park City | County or Municipal Government | Community Outreach | ||||||||
51 | Iron County | County or Municipal Government | Community Outreach | https://www.ironcounty.net/contact | |||||||
52 | Ivins City | County or Municipal Government | Community Outreach | ||||||||
53 | Joseph Town | County or Municipal Government | Community Outreach | ||||||||
54 | Kane County | County or Municipal Government | Community Outreach | https://kane.utah.gov/gov/dept/commission/ | |||||||
55 | La Verkin City | County or Municipal Government | Community Outreach | ||||||||
56 | Leamington Town | County or Municipal Government | Community Outreach | ||||||||
57 | Lehi City | County or Municipal Government | Community Outreach | ||||||||
58 | Logan City | County or Municipal Government | Community Outreach | ||||||||
59 | Lynndyl Town | County or Municipal Government | Community Outreach | ||||||||
60 | Midway City | County or Municipal Government | Community Outreach | ||||||||
61 | Millard County | County or Municipal Government | Community Outreach | ||||||||
62 | Millcreek City | County or Municipal Government | Community Outreach | ||||||||
63 | Mona | County or Municipal Government | Community Outreach | ||||||||
64 | Monticello | County or Municipal Government | Community Outreach | ||||||||
65 | Morgan County | County or Municipal Government | Community Outreach | https://www.morgancountyutah.gov/contact | |||||||
66 | Murray | County or Municipal Government | Community Outreach | ||||||||
67 | Myton | County or Municipal Government | Community Outreach | ||||||||
68 | Naples | County or Municipal Government | Community Outreach | ||||||||
69 | Nephi | County or Municipal Government | Community Outreach | ||||||||
70 | Nibley | County or Municipal Government | Community Outreach | ||||||||
71 | North Logan | County or Municipal Government | Community Outreach | ||||||||
72 | Ogden City | County or Municipal Government | Plan Development | Subgrantee: responsible for creating a local plan | https://www.ogdencity.com/ | ||||||
73 | Orem | County or Municipal Government | Community Outreach | ||||||||
74 | Panguitch | County or Municipal Government | Community Outreach | ||||||||
75 | Payson | County or Municipal Government | Community Outreach | ||||||||
76 | Piute County | County or Municipal Government | Community Outreach | ||||||||
77 | Pleasant Grove | County or Municipal Government | Community Outreach | ||||||||
78 | Pleasant View | County or Municipal Government | Community Outreach | ||||||||
79 | Price | County or Municipal Government | Community Outreach | ||||||||
80 | Promise South Salt Lake | County or Municipal Government | Data Collection | Hosted workshops and meetings | https://sslc.gov/176/Promise-SSL | ||||||
81 | Providence | County or Municipal Government | Community Outreach | ||||||||
82 | Provo | County or Municipal Government | Community Outreach | ||||||||
83 | Provo City/ Utah County Digtial Inclusion Coalition | County or Municipal Government | Plan Development | Inquiring about an established digital equity coalition and streamlined services based in Utah County | |||||||
84 | Rich County | County or Municipal Government | Community Outreach | https://www.richcountyut.org/commissioners/ | |||||||
85 | Richfield City | County or Municipal Government | Community Outreach | ||||||||
86 | Roosevelt | County or Municipal Government | Community Outreach | ||||||||
87 | Roy | County or Municipal Government | Community Outreach | ||||||||
88 | Salem City | County or Municipal Government | Community Outreach | ||||||||
89 | Salina | County or Municipal Government | Community Outreach | ||||||||
90 | Salt Lake City Corporation | County or Municipal Government | Plan Development | Understanding the device refurbishment landscape, problems and opportunities in Salt Lake County | https://www.slc.gov/ims/digital-equity/ | ||||||
91 | Salt Lake City Council | County or Municipal Government | Community Outreach | ||||||||
92 | Salt Lake County | County or Municipal Government | Plan Development | Subgrantee: responsible for creating a local plan | https://slco.org/ | ||||||
93 | San Juan County | County or Municipal Government | Community Outreach | https://sanjuancounty.org/econdev | |||||||
94 | Saratoga Springs City | County or Municipal Government | Community Outreach | ||||||||
95 | Sorenson Unity Center | County or Municipal Government | Community Outreach | The Sorenson Unity Center Youth & Family Services has a strong community presence. The UBC hopes that they will be involved in shaping the DE coalition goals, community outreach, and general barriers to digital equity that they know | |||||||
96 | South Salt Lake | County or Municipal Government | Community Outreach | ||||||||
97 | South Weber | County or Municipal Government | Community Outreach | ||||||||
98 | Spanish Fork | County or Municipal Government | Community Outreach | ||||||||
99 | Springdale Town | County or Municipal Government | Community Outreach | ||||||||
100 | Springville | County or Municipal Government | Community Outreach | ||||||||
101 | St. George | County or Municipal Government | Community Outreach | ||||||||
102 | Summit County | County or Municipal Government | Community Outreach | ||||||||
103 | Tabiona | County or Municipal Government | Community Outreach | ||||||||
104 | Tooele City | County or Municipal Government | Community Outreach | ||||||||
105 | Tooele County | County or Municipal Government | Community Outreach | ||||||||
106 | Town of Stockton | County or Municipal Government | Community Outreach | ||||||||
107 | Tremonton City | County or Municipal Government | Community Outreach | ||||||||
108 | Uintah County | County or Municipal Government | Community Outreach | ||||||||
109 | Vernal City | County or Municipal Government | Plan Development | Subgrantee: responsible for creating a local plan | https://www.vernalcity.org/ | ||||||
110 | Vernon | County or Municipal Government | Community Outreach | ||||||||
111 | Wasatch County | County or Municipal Government | Community Outreach | https://www.wasatch.utah.gov/contact | |||||||
112 | Wasatch Front Regional Council | County or Municipal Government | Plan Development | UBC held workshop for an Association of Governments | |||||||
113 | Washington City | County or Municipal Government | Community Outreach | ||||||||
114 | Washington Terrace | County or Municipal Government | Community Outreach | ||||||||
115 | Weber County | County or Municipal Government | Community Outreach | ||||||||
116 | West Valley City | County or Municipal Government | Plan Development | Listening digital needs in West Valley and introducing goals in the Digital Equity plan | |||||||
117 | Woods Cross | County or Municipal Government | Community Outreach | ||||||||
118 | Center for Economic Opportunity and Belonging | Economic Development | Plan Development | Subgrantee: responsible for creating a local plan | |||||||
119 | Economic Development Corporation of Utah | Economic Development | Plan Development | Discussing the intersection of digital equity and workforce development strategies | https://www.edcutah.org/ | ||||||
120 | Bear Lake Visitor's Bureau | Economic Development Organization | Community Outreach | ||||||||
121 | Brigham City Area Chamber of Commerce | Economic Development Organization | Community Outreach | http://www.bcbrclub.org/contact1.html | |||||||
122 | Cache Chamber of Commerce | Economic Development Organization | Community Outreach | https://cachechamber.com/about-us/ | |||||||
123 | Duchesne County Area Chamber of Commerce | Economic Development Organization | Community Outreach | ||||||||
124 | Emery County Chamber of Commerce | Economic Development Organization | Community Outreach | https://www.emerycountychamber.com/ | |||||||
125 | Heber Valley Chamber of Commerce | Economic Development Organization | Community Outreach | ||||||||
126 | Morgan County Chamber of Commerce | Economic Development Organization | Community Outreach | ||||||||
127 | Panguitch Innovation Hub | Economic Development Organization | Community Outreach | https://panguitchinnovationhub.com/ | |||||||
128 | St. George Area Chamber of Commerce | Economic Development Organization | Community Outreach | ||||||||
129 | Tooele County Chamber of Commerce | Economic Development Organization | Community Outreach | ||||||||
130 | Utah Hispanic Chamber of Commerce | Economic Development Organization | Community Outreach | ||||||||
131 | Utah Valley Chamber of Commerce | Economic Development Organization | Community Outreach | https://thechamber.org/our-staff/ | |||||||
132 | Vernal Area Chamber of Commerce | Economic Development Organization | Community Outreach | ||||||||
133 | Excelsior Academy | Eductional Insitution | Community Outreach | http://www.excelsior-academy.org/ | |||||||
134 | Ogden Preparatory Academy | Eductional Insitution | Community Outreach | ||||||||
135 | Promontory School of Expeditionary Learning | Eductional Insitution | Community Outreach | ||||||||
136 | Utah Arts Academy | Eductional Insitution | Community Outreach | ||||||||
137 | Utah Military Academy | Eductional Insitution | Community Outreach | ||||||||
138 | EducationSuperHighway | Foundation | Community Outreach | The UBC and ESH formed a partnership and launched a media campaign together to raise awareness, and distribute resources for the Affordability Connectivity Program statewide | https://www.educationsuperhighway.org/ | ||||||
139 | National Digital Inclusion Alliance | Foundation | Other | Hosts "State DE Cohort" for state leaders to discuss digital equity planning efforts | https://www.digitalinclusion.org/ | ||||||
140 | National Skills Coalition | Foundation | Data Collection | Assisted in gathering data on digital skills in the workforce | https://nationalskillscoalition.org/ | ||||||
141 | Pew Charitable Trusts | Foundation | Data Collection | Assisted with data and best practices from other states' planning processes | https://www.pewtrusts.org/en/ | ||||||
142 | Transcend International | Foundation | Plan Development | https://transcend-intl.com/ | |||||||
143 | Sunshine Terrace Foundation | Health Care | Community Outreach | https://sunshineterrace.org/ | |||||||
144 | Tooele County Aging Services | Health Care | Community Outreach | ||||||||
145 | Remote Online Institute USU | Higher-Educational Institution | Community Outreach | ||||||||
146 | Southwest Technical College | Higher-Educational Institution | Community Outreach | ||||||||
147 | USU Duchense/Uintah County Center | Higher-Educational Institution | Community Outreach | ||||||||
148 | USU Eastern | Higher-Educational Institution | Community Outreach | ||||||||
149 | USU Extension - Beaver County | Higher-Educational Institution | Community Outreach | ||||||||
150 | USU Extension - Cache and Box Elder Counties | Higher-Educational Institution | Community Outreach | ||||||||
151 | USU Extension - Garfield County | Higher-Educational Institution | Community Outreach | ||||||||
152 | USU Extension - Summit County | Higher-Educational Institution | Community Outreach | http://extension.usu.edu/summit/ | |||||||
153 | USU Extension - Tooele County | Higher-Educational Institution | Community Outreach | http://extension.usu.edu/tooele/ | |||||||
154 | USU Extension - Wasatch County | Higher-Educational Institution | Community Outreach | ||||||||
155 | Utah Tech University | Higher-Educational Institution | Community Outreach | ||||||||
156 | UVU Wasatch Campus | Higher-Educational Institution | Community Outreach | ||||||||
157 | Weber State University | Higher-Educational Institution | Community Outreach | ||||||||
158 | Centro Hispano | Hispanic-serving Institution | Plan Development | Subgrantee: responsible for creating a local plan | https://www.centrohispanouc.org/ | ||||||
159 | Chicanos Por La Causa | Hispanic-serving Institution | Community Outreach | Planning and outreach with local Hispanic-serving Institutions. Chicanos Por La Causa shared their outreach examples and digital equity work, and have hopes of establishing an office in Utah | https://cplc.org/ | ||||||
160 | Club Ability LLC | Hispanic-serving Institution | Plan Development | Subgrantee: responsible for creating a local plan | https://www.clubability.org/ | ||||||
161 | Confederated Tribes of Goshute | Indian Tribe, Alaska Native Entity, or Native Hawaiian Organization | Community Outreach | Tribal consultation | |||||||
162 | Navajo Nation | Indian Tribe, Alaska Native Entity, or Native Hawaiian Organization | Community Outreach | Subgrantee: responsible for creating a local plan | https://www.navajo-nsn.gov/ | ||||||
163 | Navajo Nation Aneth Chapter | Indian Tribe, Alaska Native Entity, or Native Hawaiian Organization | Community Outreach | Tribal consultation | https://aneth.navajochapters.org/ | ||||||
164 | Navajo Nation Mexican Water Chapter | Indian Tribe, Alaska Native Entity, or Native Hawaiian Organization | Community Outreach | Tribal consultation | https://mexicanwater.navajochapters.org/ | ||||||
165 | Navajo Nation Mountain Chapter | Indian Tribe, Alaska Native Entity, or Native Hawaiian Organization | Community Outreach | Tribal consultation | https://navajomountain.navajochapters.org/ | ||||||
166 | Navajo Nation Oljato Chapter | Indian Tribe, Alaska Native Entity, or Native Hawaiian Organization | Community Outreach | Tribal consultation | https://oljato.navajochapters.org/ | ||||||
167 | Navajo Nation Red Mesa Chapter | Indian Tribe, Alaska Native Entity, or Native Hawaiian Organization | Community Outreach | Tribal consultation | https://redmesa.navajochapters.org/ | ||||||
168 | Navajo Nation Teec Nos Pos Chapter | Indian Tribe, Alaska Native Entity, or Native Hawaiian Organization | Community Outreach | Tribal consultation | |||||||
169 | Navajo Tribal Utility Authority | Indian Tribe, Alaska Native Entity, or Native Hawaiian Organization | Community Outreach | Tribal consultation | https://www.ntua.com/ | ||||||
170 | Northwest Band of Shoshone | Indian Tribe, Alaska Native Entity, or Native Hawaiian Organization | Community Outreach | Tribal Consultation | |||||||
171 | Paiute Indian Tribe of Utah | Indian Tribe, Alaska Native Entity, or Native Hawaiian Organization | Community Outreach | Tribal consultation | |||||||
172 | Shivwits Band of Paiutes | Indian Tribe, Alaska Native Entity, or Native Hawaiian Organization | Plan Development | Subgrantee: responsible for creating a local plan | https://shivwits.org/ | ||||||
173 | Utah Paiute Tribal Housing Authority | Indian Tribe, Alaska Native Entity, or Native Hawaiian Organization | Community Outreach | ACP grantee; coordinating partner | https://utahpha.org/ | ||||||
174 | Ute Mountain Ute Tribe | Indian Tribe, Alaska Native Entity, or Native Hawaiian Organization | Community Outreach | Tribal consultation | |||||||
175 | White Mesa Adminstration | Indian Tribe, Alaska Native Entity, or Native Hawaiian Organization | Community Outreach | Tribal consultation | |||||||
176 | Team Suh'dutsing | Internet Service Provider | |||||||||
177 | Marconi Society | Institutions of Higher Education (if not listed above) | Plan Development | ||||||||
178 | Salt Lake Community College | Institutions of Higher Education (if not listed above) | Plan Development | Subgrantee: responsible for creating a local plan | https://www.slcc.edu/ | ||||||
179 | Utah Education & Telehealth Network | Institutions of Higher Education (if not listed above) | Plan Development | Secondary planning partner | |||||||
180 | Utah State University | Institutions of Higher Education (if not listed above) | Community Outreach | ACP grantee; coordinating partner | https://www.usu.edu/ | ||||||
181 | Utah State University Extension | Institutions of Higher Education (if not listed above) | Plan Development | Discussing outreach to rural communities and strategies to leverage remote working/education opportunities in the Digital Equity planning goals | |||||||
182 | Utah Women and Leadership Project | Institutions of Higher Education (if not listed above) | Community Outreach | Informational meeting | https://www.usu.edu/uwlp/ | ||||||
183 | All West Communications | Internet Service Provider | Data Collection | ||||||||
184 | AT&T | Internet Service Provider | Data Collection | ||||||||
185 | BitStream Communications | Internet Service Provider | Data Collection | ||||||||
186 | Boston Omaha Broadband | Internet Service Provider | Data Collection | ||||||||
187 | Connext | Internet Service Provider | Data Collection | ||||||||
188 | Dot Bar Communications | Internet Service Provider | Data Collection | ||||||||
189 | FirstDigital | Internet Service Provider | Plan Development | Internet Service Provider broadband discussion | |||||||
190 | Fusion Networks | Internet Service Provider | Data Collection | ||||||||
191 | Google Fiber | Internet Service Provider | Community Outreach | Internet Service Provider broadband discussion | |||||||
192 | Gunnison Telco | Internet Service Provider | Data Collection | ||||||||
193 | HiCountry Net | Internet Service Provider | Data Collection | ||||||||
194 | InfoWest | Internet Service Provider | Data Collection | Internet Service Provider broadband discussion | |||||||
195 | Intelipop | Internet Service Provider | Data Collection | ||||||||
196 | Liberty Broadband LLC | Internet Service Provider | Data Collection | ||||||||
197 | Lumen | Internet Service Provider | Data Collection | ||||||||
198 | Meridiam Broadband | Internet Service Provider | Data Collection | ||||||||
199 | MTCC | Internet Service Provider | Data Collection | ||||||||
200 | Providers across the state | Internet Service Provider | Data Collection | ||||||||
201 | Rise Broadband | Internet Service Provider | Data Collection | ||||||||
202 | SESD | Internet Service Provider | Data Collection | ||||||||
203 | South Central Communications | Internet Service Provider | Data Collection | ||||||||
204 | STRATA Networks | Internet Service Provider | Data Collection | ||||||||
205 | T-Mobile | Internet Service Provider | Data Collection | ||||||||
206 | TDS Broadband Service, LLC | Internet Service Provider | Data Collection | ||||||||
207 | Terabit Networks | Internet Service Provider | Data Collection | ||||||||
208 | Union Wireless | Internet Service Provider | Data Collection | ||||||||
209 | URTA | Internet Service Provider | Data Collection | ||||||||
210 | Utah Broadband | Internet Service Provider | Data Collection | ||||||||
211 | Utopia | Internet Service Provider | Data Collection | ||||||||
212 | Wasatch Broadband | Internet Service Provider | Data Collection | ||||||||
213 | Beaver County Library | Library | Community Outreach | ||||||||
214 | Brigham City Library | Library | Community Outreach | ||||||||
215 | Davis County Library | Library | Community Outreach | ||||||||
216 | Duchesne County Library | Library | Community Outreach | ||||||||
217 | Minersville Library | Library | Community Outreach | ||||||||
218 | Moab Library | Library | Community Outreach | ||||||||
219 | Morgan County Library | Library | Community Outreach | ||||||||
220 | Murray City Library | Library | Community Outreach | ||||||||
221 | Pleasant Grove City Library | Library | Community Outreach | ||||||||
222 | Provo City Library | Library | Community Outreach | ||||||||
223 | Salt Lake County Library | Library | Community Outreach | ||||||||
224 | Summit County Library | Library | Community Outreach | ||||||||
225 | Tooele County Library | Library | Community Outreach | ||||||||
226 | Uintah County Library | Library | Community Outreach | ||||||||
227 | Wasatch County Library | Library | Community Outreach | ||||||||
228 | Weber County Library | Library | Community Outreach | ||||||||
229 | American Association of Retired Persons (AARP) Utah | Non-Profit | Community Outreach | ||||||||
230 | Blue Star Families Utah Chapter | Non-Profit | Community Outreach | ||||||||
231 | Boys & Girls Club of Northern Utah | Non-Profit | Community Outreach | ||||||||
232 | Cache Refugee and Immigrant Connection | Non-Profit | Community Outreach | https://www.cacherefugees.org/ | |||||||
233 | Christian Center of Park City | Non-Profit | Community Outreach | ||||||||
234 | Cottages of Hope | Non-Profit | Community Outreach | ||||||||
235 | Davis Education Foundation | Non-Profit | Community Outreach | ||||||||
236 | Family Haven | Non-Profit | Community Outreach | ||||||||
237 | Fathers & Families Coalition of Utah | Non-Profit | Community Outreach | ||||||||
238 | Friends Against Family Violence | Non-Profit | Community Outreach | ||||||||
239 | Heber Valley Rotary Club | Non-Profit | Community Outreach | ||||||||
240 | Iron County Care & Share | Non-Profit | Community Outreach | https://www.careandshare-ut.org/ | |||||||
241 | Jump the Moon | Non-Profit | Community Outreach | ||||||||
242 | Kids Who Count | Non-Profit | Community Outreach | ||||||||
243 | Ogden-Weber Community Action Partnership (OWCAP) | Non-Profit | Community Outreach | ||||||||
244 | Promise Co-Op SSLC | Non-Profit | Community Outreach | ||||||||
245 | United Way of Cache Valley | Non-Profit | Community Outreach | ||||||||
246 | Utah Valley Paratransit, United Way | Non-Profit | Community Outreach | ||||||||
247 | Warrior Rizen Foundation | Non-Profit | Community Outreach | https://warriorrizenfoundation.org/ | |||||||
248 | CyberSeniors | Nonprofit Organization (501c3) | Informational meeting to discuss partnerships and accessibility to CyberSeniors services in Utah, and possible trainings for organizations seeking to emulate this digital navigator model for aging individuals | https://cyberseniors.org/ | |||||||
249 | Digitunity | Nonprofit Organization (501c3) | Plan Development | Meeting to discuss Digitunity's feedback on the Digital Equity Plan | https://digitunity.org/ | ||||||
250 | My Hometown Initiative | Nonprofit Organization (501c3) | Data Collection | Listening session to discuss digital equity resources in the community | |||||||
251 | Spy Hop | Nonprofit Organization (501c3) | Community Outreach | Discussing Spy Hop's role and placement in the digital equity plan framework and possibilities for outreach and engagement to cover populations | |||||||
252 | United Way of Utah County | Nonprofit Organization (501c3) | Plan Development | Subgrantee: responsible for creating a local plan | https://unitedwayuc.org/ | ||||||
253 | Utah 211 (United Way) | Nonprofit Organization (501c3) | Data Collection | Understanding the mapping process of 211 resources and asking for a list of digital inclusion serving locations in Utah for the asset map | https://utah211.org/ | ||||||
254 | Utah Afterschool Network | Nonprofit Organization (501c3) | Data Collection | Planning to circulate a statewide survey that includes questions related to digital equity | https://utahafterschool.org/ | ||||||
255 | Utah Communities Connect | Nonprofit Organization (501c3) | Plan Development | Secondary planning partner | |||||||
256 | Utahns Against Hunger | Nonprofit Organization (501c3) | Plan Development | Discussing ways to incorporate digital access and digital equity awareness in food policy and advocacy in Utah | https://www.uah.org/ | ||||||
257 | AARP Utah | Organization that Represents Covered Populations | Data Collection | Providing data from recent survey efforts | https://states.aarp.org/utah/ | ||||||
258 | Catholic Community Services | Organization that Represents Covered Populations | Community Outreach | ACP grantee; coordinating partner | https://www.ccsutah.org/ | ||||||
259 | Community Action Partnership of Utah | Organization that Represents Covered Populations | Community Outreach | ACP grantee; coordinating partner | https://caputah.org/ | ||||||
260 | International Rescue Committee | Organization that Represents Covered Populations | Plan Development | Answering questions about the planning process and timeline for Digital Equity grant opportunities | https://www.rescue.org/ | ||||||
261 | Ogden Civic Action Network (Ogden CAN) | Organization that Represents Covered Populations | Plan Development | Informational meeting to learn about Ogden CAN's intiatives and the opportunity for partnership | |||||||
262 | Pacific Island Knowledge 2 Action Resources | Organization that Represents Covered Populations | Community Outreach | Discussing digital access needs and outreach to Pacific Islander communities | |||||||
263 | Refugee and Immigrant Center - Asian Association of Utah | Organization that Represents Covered Populations | Plan Development | Answering questions about the planning process and timeline for Digital Equity grant opportunities, and strategizing on how the plan can incorpate the needs of this organization | https://aau-slc.org/ | ||||||
264 | Rural Utah Project | Organization that Represents Covered Populations | Community Outreach | The UBC is faciliating coordination between Navajo Nation and the Rural Utah Project to share Google Plus Addresses | |||||||
265 | Utah Commission on Aging | Organization that Represents Covered Populations | Plan Development | Subgrantee: responsible for creating a local plan | https://ucoa.utah.edu/ | ||||||
266 | Utah Migrant Seasonal Farmworkers Coalition | Organization that Represents Covered Populations | |||||||||
267 | Veteran Business and Resource Center | Organization that Represents Covered Populations | Plan Development | Discussing where digital equity planning strategies fit in with workforce development for veterans | https://utahvbrc.org/ | ||||||
268 | |||||||||||
269 | Adobe | Other | Plan Development | Informational meeting | |||||||
270 | Appian/Ignyte | Other | Plan Development | Informational meeting | |||||||
271 | Arizona Broadband Office | Other | Plan Development | ||||||||
272 | Avative | Other | Data Collection | Internet Service Provider broadband discussion | |||||||
273 | Beehive Broadband | Other | Plan Development | Internet Service Provider broadband discussion | |||||||
274 | BellSouth | Other | Plan Development | Internet Service Provider broadband discussion | |||||||
275 | Cellular One | Other | Plan Development | Meeting with Internet Service Provider infrastructure development on Navajo Nation | |||||||
276 | CentraCom | Other | Plan Development | Internet Service Provider broadband discussion | |||||||
277 | Colorado Department of Labor and Employment (Digital Equity Office) | Other | Plan Development | Informational meeting with the Colorado Digital Equity office to discuss best practices and helpful resources | |||||||
278 | Comcast | Other | Plan Development | Internet Service Provider broadband discussion | |||||||
279 | Emery Telcom | Other | Plan Development | Internet Service Provider broadband discussion | |||||||
280 | iRecertify LLC | Other | Plan Development | Informational meeting with local Utah device refurbisher | https://irecertify.com/ | ||||||
281 | Lousiana State | Other | Plan Development | Discussing barriers and strategies for improving digital access for persons with disabilities | |||||||
282 | National Telecommunications and Information Administration | Other | Plan Development | Federal government; FPO is coordinating partner | https://ntia.gov/ | ||||||
283 | Navajo Utah Commission | Other | Community Outreach | Tribal consultation discussing Broadband Planning Initiative for Utah Chapters and Utah Legislative Priorities | |||||||
284 | New Mexico Broadband Office | Other | Plan Development | ||||||||
285 | OneWeb | Other | Plan Development | Internet Service Provider broadband discussion | |||||||
286 | QuickLink | Other | Plan Development | Internet Service Provider broadband discussion | |||||||
287 | Resident Cohort | Other | Data Collection | UBC hosted a series of resident feedback sessions to collect lived-experience, qualitative data on digital access and the Digital Equity Plan | |||||||
288 | South Utah Valley Electric Services | Other | Plan Development | ||||||||
289 | Syringa | Other | Plan Development | Informational meeting | |||||||
290 | Tarana Wireless | Other | Plan Development | Internet Service Provider broadband discussion | |||||||
291 | United States Infrastructure Company | Other | Plan Development | Discussing workforce needs and conducting outreach to women and minority owned businesses | |||||||
292 | Utah Department of Corrections | Other | Plan Development | Discussing barries to digital access for currently incarcerated individuals | |||||||
293 | Utah Department of Transportation | Other | Plan Development | State government; core planning partner | |||||||
294 | Utah Division of Multicultural Affairs | Other | Plan Development | State government; core planning partner | |||||||
295 | Utah Rural Telecom Association Board | Other | Plan Development | ||||||||
296 | Utah State Board of Education | Other | Plan Development | State government; core planning partner | |||||||
297 | Utah State Library Division | Other | Plan Development | State government; core planning partner | |||||||
298 | Verizon | Other | Plan Development | Internet Service Provider broadband discussion | |||||||
299 | Wi-Fiber | Other | Plan Development | Internet Service Provider broadband discussion | |||||||
300 | EBI Consulting | Other | https://www.ebiconsulting.com/ | ||||||||
301 | Airbus | Other | |||||||||
302 | Utah Nonprofit Housing Corporation | Public Housing Authority | Plan Development | Subgrantee: responsible for creating a local plan | https://unphc.org/ | ||||||
303 | Beaver School District | School District | Community Outreach | http://www.beaver.k12.ut.us/ | |||||||
304 | Box Elder School District | School District | Community Outreach | http://www.besd.net/ | |||||||
305 | Cache School District | School District | Community Outreach | http://www.ccsdut.org/ | |||||||
306 | Carbon School District | School District | Community Outreach | http://www.carbonschools.org/ | |||||||
307 | Davis School District | School District | Community Outreach | http://www.davis.k12.ut.us/ | |||||||
308 | Emery School District | School District | Community Outreach | http://www.emerycsd.org/ | |||||||
309 | Iron School District | School District | Community Outreach | http://www.irondistrict.org/ | |||||||
310 | Jordan School District | School District | Community Outreach | http://www.jordandistrict.org/ | |||||||
311 | Logan School District | School District | Community Outreach | http://www.loganschools.org/ | |||||||
312 | Millard School District | School District | Community Outreach | http://www.millard.k12.ut.us/ | |||||||
313 | Morgan School District | School District | Community Outreach | http://www.morgansd.org/ | |||||||
314 | Nebo School District | School District | Community Outreach | http://www.nebo.edu/ | |||||||
315 | Ogden School District | School District | Community Outreach | http://www.ogdensd.org/ | |||||||
316 | San Juan School District | School District | Community Outreach | http://www.sjsd.org/ | |||||||
317 | South Summit School District | School District | Community Outreach | http://www.ssummit.org/ | |||||||
318 | Tooele School District | School District | Community Outreach | http://www.tooeleschools.org/ | |||||||
319 | Uintah School District | School District | Community Outreach | http://www.uintah.net/ | |||||||
320 | Washington School District | School District | Community Outreach | http://www.washk12.org/ | |||||||
321 | Weber School District | School District | Community Outreach | http://www.wsd.net/ | |||||||
322 | Park City Senior Center | Senior Center | Community Outreach | ||||||||
323 | Department of Cultural & Community Engagement | State Agency | Community Outreach | ||||||||
324 | Governor's Office of Economic Opportunitiy | State Agency | Community Outreach | ||||||||
325 | USDA’s Rural Utilities Services (RUS) | State Agency | Community Outreach | ||||||||
326 | Utah Division of Indian Affairs (UDIA) | State Agency | Community Outreach | ||||||||
327 | Utah Education Network | State Agency | Community Outreach | ||||||||
328 | Utah Geospatial Resource Center (UGRC) | State Agency | Community Outreach | ||||||||
329 | Utah Public Lands Policy Coordinating Office | State Agency | Community Outreach | ||||||||
330 | Utah Public Utilities | State Agency | Community Outreach | ||||||||
331 | Utah State Library | State Agency | Community Outreach | ||||||||
332 | Cedar Band of Paiute | Tribal Government | Workshop Participant/Community Outreach | ||||||||
333 | Indian Peaks Band of Paiute | Tribal Government | Workshop Participant/Community Outreach | ||||||||
334 | Kanosh Band of Paiute | Tribal Government | Workshop Participant/Community Outreach | ||||||||
335 | Koosharem Band of Paiute | Tribal Government | Workshop Participant/Community Outreach | ||||||||
336 | Navajo Northern Agency Council | Tribal Government | Workshop Participant/Community Outreach | ||||||||
337 | Northwest Band of Shoshone Nation | Tribal Government | Workshop Participant/Community Outreach | ||||||||
338 | San Juan Southern Paiute Tribe | Tribal Government | Workshop Participant/Community Outreach | ||||||||
339 | Ute Indian Tribe | Tribal Government | Workshop Participant/Community Outreach | ||||||||
340 | Communication Workers of America | Workforce Development Organization | Plan Development | Listening session | |||||||
341 | Department of Workforce Services | Workforce Development Organization | Plan Development | Discussing how to integrate digital equity services in DWS, specifically through Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Programs and Housing assistance | https://jobs.utah.gov/ | ||||||
342 | |||||||||||
343 | Northwest Regional Telehealth Resource Center | Learning about the developments of NRTRC to merge digital and health access | |||||||||
344 | Ciena | Internet Service Provider | |||||||||
345 | Wireless Internet Service Providers Association | Internet Service Provider | |||||||||
346 | Qualcom | Internet Service Provider | |||||||||
347 | Spear Broadband | Internet Service Provider | |||||||||
348 | Outpost.plus | Internet Service Provider | |||||||||
349 | Direct Communications | Internet Service Provider | |||||||||
350 | Millenium | Internet Service Provider | |||||||||
351 | Centerline Communications | Internet Service Provider | |||||||||
352 | Pivot Tech | Internet Service Provider | |||||||||
353 | DojoNetworks | Internet Service Provider | |||||||||
354 | LBiSAT | Internet Service Provider |
1 | Stakeholder Engagement Tracker | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
2 | Covered Populations Reached | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
3 | Engagement Title/Description | Engagement Date (Enter date as MM/DD/YYYY) | Engagement Type | Engagement Location | Target Audience | Target Audience Location | Target Audience County | # Engaged | Individuals who live in covered households | Aging Individuals | Incarcerated Individuals | Veterans | Individuals with Disabilities | Individuals with a language barrier | Individuals who are members of a racial or ethnic minority group | Individuals who primarily reside in a rural area | Notes, including action items, what was discussed, any key themes, or feedback | ||||||||||
4 | Utah Broadband Center and Utah State University | 12/2/22 | Meeting/Presentation | Online | Digital Equity | Local | All Utah Counties | 1 | X | X | X | X | X | ||||||||||||||
5 | Utah BEAD/DE Tribal Consultation Follow Up | 12/2/22 | Meeting/Presentation | Online | BEAD/Digital Equity | Regional | All Utah Counties | 2 | X | X | X | X | X | X | |||||||||||||
6 | Comcast and UBC | 12/6/22 | Meeting/Presentation | Online | BEAD | Local | Counties Served by ISP | 2 | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | ||||||||||||
7 | Connecting Utah San Juan Workshop | 12/6/22 | Meeting/Presentation | Monticello, UT | BEAD/Digital Equity | Local | San Juan County | 21 | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | ||||||||||||
8 | Emery Telecom | 12/7/22 | Meeting/Presentation | Online | BEAD | Local | Counties Served by ISP | 1 | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | ||||||||||||
9 | UETN Board Meeting | 12/7/22 | Meeting/Presentation | Online | BEAD | Local | All Utah Counties | 7 | X | ||||||||||||||||||
10 | SEUALG Board Meeting | 12/8/22 | Meeting/Presentation | Price, Utah | BEAD/Digital Equity | Local | Southeastern Utah Counties | 11 | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | |||||||||||
11 | Bear River Canal Coordination: Broadband Projects in Box Elder County | 12/8/22 | Meeting/Presentation | Tremonton, UT | BEAD | Local | Box Elder County, UT | X | |||||||||||||||||||
12 | CAP Utah ACP Grant Coordination Discussion | 12/13/22 | Meeting/Presentation | Online | Digital Equity | Local | All Utah Counties | 1 | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | ||||||||||||
13 | Connecting Utah - Tooele County Workshop | 12/13/22 | Meeting/Presentation | Tooele, UT | BEAD/Digital Equity | Local | Tooele County, UT | 20 | X | ||||||||||||||||||
14 | Google Fiber 1:1 | 12/14/22 | Meeting/Presentation | Online | BEAD/Digital Equity | Local | Counties Served by ISP | 1 | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | ||||||||||||
15 | Starlink Solutions for Utah | 12/15/22 | Meeting/Presentation | Online | BEAD | Local | Counties Served by ISP | 1 | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | |||||||||||
16 | Utopia 1:1 | 12/15/22 | Meeting/Presentation | Online | BEAD | Local | Counties Served by ISP | 8 | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | |||||||||||
17 | Connext 1:1 | 12/15/22 | Meeting/Presentation | Online | BEAD | Local | Counties Served by ISP | 4 | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | |||||||||||
18 | Telecommunications Industry Association | 12/19/22 | Meeting/Presentation | Online | BEAD | Local | Counties Served by ISP | 3 | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | |||||||||||
19 | RISE Broadband Installation | 12/28/22 | Meeting/Presentation | Online | BEAD | Local | Counties Served by ISP | 1 | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | |||||||||||
20 | Connecting Utah Cache County Workshops | 1/6/23 | Listening Session (In-person) | Logan, Utah | BEAD/Digital Equity | Local | Cache County | 31 | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | |||||||||||
21 | Connecting Utah Box Elder Workshops | 1/9/23 | Listening Session (In-person) | Brigham City, Utah | BEAD/Digital Equity | Local | Box Elder County | 16 | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | |||||||||||
22 | Utah Broadband Center Advisory Commission Meeting | 1/10/23 | Meeting/Presentation | Salt Lake City, Utah | BEAD/Digital Equity | Statewide Engagement | All Utah Counties | 11 | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | ||||||||||||
23 | State Stakeholders Broadband Workshop | 1/10/23 | Listening Session (In-person) | Salt Lake City, Utah | BEAD/Digital Equity | Statewide Engagement | All Utah Counties | 45 | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | ||||||||||||
24 | Connecting Utah Rich County Workshop | 1/11/23 | Listening Session (In-person) | Garden City, Utah | BEAD/Digital Equity | Local | Rich County | 7 | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | |||||||||||
25 | CentraCom ISP 1:1 | 1/12/23 | Meeting/Presentation | Salt Lake City, Utah | BEAD | Local | Counties served by ISP | 1 | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | |||||||||||
26 | Utah Broadband Center asking residents to self-report internet speed | 1/12/23 | Other | Cache County, Utah | BEAD | Regional | All Utah Counties | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | |||||||||||||
27 | Connecting Utah Summit County Workshops | 1/17/23 | Listening Session (In-person) | Coalville, Utah | BEAD/Digital Equity | Local | Summit County | 19 | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | ||||||||||||
28 | Utah Association of Counties Day on the Hill | 1/18/23 | Meeting/Presentation | Salt Lake City, Utah | BEAD/Digital Equity | Statewide Engagement | All Utah Counties | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | |||||||||||||
29 | Wi-Fiber 1:1 | 1/18/23 | Meeting/Presentation | Salt Lake City, Utah | BEAD | Local | Counties served by ISP | 3 | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | ||||||||||||
30 | Connecting Utah Six County Workshop | 1/19/23 | Listening Session (Virtual) | Salt Lake City, Utah | BEAD/Digital Equity | Regional | Juab, Millard, Piute, Sanpete, Sevier, and Wayne Counties | 14 | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | ||||||||||||
31 | Connecting Utah Utah County Workshops | 1/23/23 | Listening Session (In-person) | Provo, Utah | BEAD/Digital Equity | Local | Utah County | 27 | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | ||||||||||||
32 | Connecting Utah Weber County Workshops | 1/24/23 | Listening Session (In-person) | Ogden, Utah | BEAD/Digital Equity | Local | Weber County | 20 | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | ||||||||||||
33 | Local Digital Connectivity Planning Grants Q&A | 1/24/23 | Meeting/Presentation | Online | Digital Equity | Statewide Engagement | All Utah Counties | 13 | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | ||||||||||||
34 | Emery Telcom 1:1 | 1/24/23 | Meeting/Presentation | Salt Lake City, Utah | BEAD | Local | Counties served by ISP | 5 | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | ||||||||||||
35 | Connecting Utah Morgan County Workshop | 1/25/23 | Listening Session (In-person) | Morgan, Utah | BEAD/Digital Equity | Local | Morgan County | 13 | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | ||||||||||||
36 | South Utah Valley Electric Services District 1:1 | 1/25/23 | Meeting/Presentation | Salt Lake City, Utah | BEAD | Local | Counties served by ISP | 1 | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | ||||||||||||
37 | Infowest 1:1 | 1/26/23 | Meeting/Presentation | Salt Lake City, Utah | BEAD | Local | Counties served by ISP | 3 | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | ||||||||||||
38 | Connecting Utah Davis County Workshop | 1/27/23 | Listening Session (In-person) | Farmington, Utah | BEAD/Digital Equity | Local | Davis County | 10 | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | ||||||||||||
39 | Utah Community Connect Meeting | 1/27/23 | Meeting/Presentation | Online | Digital Equity | Statewide Engagement | Statewide | 10 | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | |||||||||||
40 | State Digital Equity Planning Workshop | 1/30/23 | Meeting/Presentation | Online | Digital Equity | Statewide Engagement | Statewide | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | ||||||||||||
41 | Connecting Utah Wasatch County Workshops | 1/30/23 | Listening Session (In-person) | Heber City, Utah | BEAD/Digital Equity | Local | Wasatch County | 23 | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | ||||||||||||
42 | State Digital Equity Planning Workshop | 1/31/23 | Meeting/Presentation | Online | Digital Equity | Statewide Engagement | Statewide | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | ||||||||||||
43 | Connecting Utah Tribal Leader Consultation | 1/31/23 | Listening Session (In-person) | Salt Lake City, Utah | BEAD/Digital Equity | Statewide Engagement | All Utah Counties with Tribal communities | 50 | X | X | X | ||||||||||||||||
44 | Broadband Breakfast on February 15, 2023 – How State Broadband Offices Are Approaching the Next Phase of IIJA | 1/31/23 | Other | Nationwide | BEAD | Regional | All Utah Counties | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | |||||||||||||
45 | Planning Grant for Communication with White Mesa Adminstration | 2/1/23 | Meeting/Presentation | Online | Digital Equity | Local | White Mesa | 1 | X | X | |||||||||||||||||
46 | San Juan Southern Paiute Tribe Council Meeting | 2/3/23 | Meeting/Presentation | Online | BEAD/Digital Equity | Regional | San Juan County | ||||||||||||||||||||
47 | Adobe and Utah Broadband Center | 2/7/23 | Meeting/Presentation | Online | Digital Equity | Statewide Engagement | Statewide | 1 | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | |||||||||||
48 | Connecting Utah Salt Lake County Workshops | 2/13/23 | Listening Session (In-person) | Salt Lake City, Utah | BEAD/Digital Equity | Local | Salt Lake County | 17 | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | ||||||||||||
49 | Navajo Utah Commission | 2/14/23 | Meeting/Presentation | Online | BEAD/Digital Equity | Local | San Juan County | 30 | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | |||||||||||
50 | Utah Broadband Alliance Meeting | 2/15/23 | Meeting/Presentation | Salt Lake City, Utah | BEAD/Digital Equity | Statewide Engagement | All Utah Counties | 94 | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | ||||||||||||
51 | Utah Rural Telecom Association Board | 2/16/23 | Meeting/Presentation | Salt Lake City, Utah | BEAD | Regional | Rural Utah Counties | 5 | X | ||||||||||||||||||
52 | Verizon 1:1 | 2/22/23 | Meeting/Presentation | Salt Lake City, Utah | BEAD | Local | Counties served by ISP | 2 | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | ||||||||||||
53 | Utah Communities Connect Workshop | 2/24/23 | Listening Session (In-person) | Salt Lake City, Utah | Digital Equity | Statewide Engagement | Wasatch Front Counties | 28 | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | ||||||||||||
54 | Connecting Utah Carbon County Workshop | 2/27/23 | Listening Session (In-person) | Price, Utah | BEAD/Digital Equity | Local | Carbon County | 5 | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | ||||||||||||
55 | Connecting Utah Emery County Workshop | 2/27/23 | Listening Session (In-person) | Castle Dale, Utah | BEAD/Digital Equity | Local | Emery County | 8 | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | ||||||||||||
56 | Connecting Utah Grand County Workshop | 2/28/23 | Listening Session (In-person) | Moab, Utah | BEAD/Digital Equity | Local | Grand County | 8 | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | ||||||||||||
57 | San Juan Record: Navajo Utah Commission asks for state designation for Red Mesa road, approve resolution for funding Montezuma Creek shopping center | 2/28/23 | Other | San Juan County, Utah | BEAD | Regional | San Juan County | 14,359 | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | ||||||||||||
58 | Navajo Nation | 3/2/23 | Meeting/Presentation | Gallup, New Mexico | BEAD/Digital Equity | Regional | San Juan County | 40 | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | |||||||||||
59 | Connecting Utah Washington County Workshops | 3/3/23 | Listening Session (In-person) | St. George, Utah | BEAD/Digital Equity | Local | Washington County | 10 | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | ||||||||||||
60 | KSL: Have slow internet? Utah wants to know where to help with broadband access | 3/4/23 | Other | Salt Lake City, Utah | BEAD | Statewide | All Utah Counties | 123,333 | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | ||||||||||||
61 | Ute Mountain Ute Tribe | 3/7/23 | Meeting/Presentation | White Mesa, Utah | BEAD/Digital Equity | Regional | White Mesa, Utah | X | X | X | X | X | X | ||||||||||||||
62 | Connecting Utah Garfield County Workshop | 3/7/23 | Listening Session (In-person) | Garfield County, Utah | BEAD/Digital Equity | Regional | Garfield County | 5 | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | |||||||||||
63 | Utah Digital Equity and Access: US Board of Education Lightspeed Tracker Discussion | 3/7/23 | Meeting/Presentation | Online | BEAD/Digital Equity | Statewide Engagement | Statewide | 2 | X | X | X | X | X | ||||||||||||||
64 | Connecting Utah Iron County Workshops | 3/8/23 | Listening Session (In-person) | Cedar City, Utah | BEAD/Digital Equity | Local | Iron County | 8 | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | ||||||||||||
65 | Moab Times-Independent: Here's how the state wants to expand internet access in Grand County, SE Utah | 3/9/23 | Other | Moab, Utah | Digital Equity | Local | Grand County | 9,769 | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | ||||||||||||
66 | Navajo Nation Utah Commission Consultation | 3/10/23 | Meeting/Presentation | Blanding, Utah | BEAD/Digital Equity | Local | San Juan County | 13 | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | |||||||||||
67 | Appian/Ignyte Grants | 3/10/23 | Meeting/Presentation | Online | BEAD/Digital Equity | Statewide Engagement | Statewide | 4 | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | |||||||||||
68 | Chicanos Por La Causa | 3/14/23 | Meeting/Presentation | Online | Digital Equity | Statewide Engagement | Statewide | 1 | X | X | X | ||||||||||||||||
69 | Digital Access Planning Grant Cohort Call | 3/14/23 | Meeting/Presentation | Online | BEAD/Digital Equity | Statewide Engagement | Statewide | 25 | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | |||||||||||
70 | Local Broadband Planning Grant Cohort Call | 3/15/23 | Meeting/Presentation | Salt Lake City, Utah | BEAD | Statewide Engagement | Counties with organizations that recieved Local Broadband Planning Grants | 47 | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | |||||||||||
71 | Syringa 1:1 | 3/15/23 | Meeting/Presentation | Salt Lake City, Utah | BEAD | Local | Counties served by ISP | 1 | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | |||||||||||
72 | Utah Rural Telecom Association Board | 3/15/23 | Meeting/Presentation | Salt Lake City, Utah | BEAD | Regional | Rural Utah Counties | 7 | X | ||||||||||||||||||
73 | DAPG Meeting: Club Ability 1:1 | 3/17/23 | Meeting/Presentation | Online | Digital Equity | Local | Salt Lake County, UT | 1 | X | X | X | X | X | ||||||||||||||
74 | Navajo Northern Agency Council Meeting | 3/18/23 | Meeting/Presentation | Shiprock, New Mexico | BEAD/Digital Equity | Local | San Juan County | 30 | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | |||||||||||
75 | National Tribal Telecommunications Conference | 3/20/23 | Meeting/Presentation | Online | BEAD/Digital Equity | Regional | All Utah counties with Tribal communities | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | ||||||||||||
76 | QuikLink Internet 1:1 | 3/16/23 | Meeting/Presentation | Salt Lake City, Utah | BEAD | Local | Counties served by ISP | 2 | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | ||||||||||||
77 | Utah Broadband Center and Economic Development Corporation of Utah | 3/16/23 | Meeting/Presentation | Online | Digital Equity | Statewide Engagement | Statewide | 1 | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | ||||||||||||
78 | DAPG Meeting: Shivwits Band of Paiutes 1:1 | 3/20/23 | Meeting/Presentation | Online | Digital Equity | Regional | Washington County | 1 | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | ||||||||||||
79 | DAPG Meeting: Centro Hispano 1:1 | 3/21/23 | Meeting/Presentation | Online | Digital Equity | Local | Utah County, UT | 2 | X | X | X | ||||||||||||||||
80 | Connecting Utah Daggett County Workshop | 3/21/23 | Listening Session (In-person) | Manila, Utah | BEAD/Digital Equity | Local | Daggett County | 7 | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | ||||||||||||
81 | Digital Access Planning Grant Cohort Call - Using the Local Planning Templates | 3/21/23 | Meeting/Presentation | Online | Digital Equity | Statewide | 16 | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | ||||||||||||
82 | Department of Workforce Services - Housing and Community Development Division | 3/23/23 | Meeting/Presentation | Online | Digital Equity | Statewide Engagement | Statewide | 1 | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | |||||||||||
83 | DAPG Meeting: Utah Nonprofit Housing Corporation 1:1 | 3/24/23 | Meeting/Presentation | Online | Digital Equity | Local | Salt Lake County, Utah | 1 | X | X | X | X | X | X | |||||||||||||
84 | DAPG Meeting: Utah Commission on Aging 1:1 | 3/25/23 | Meeting/Presentation | Online | Digital Equity | Local | Salt Lake County, Utah | 1 | X | X | X | X | X | X | |||||||||||||
85 | Utah Communities Connect Meeting | 3/24/23 | Meeting/Presentation | Online | Digital Equity | Statewide Engagement | Statewide | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | ||||||||||||
86 | Connecting Utah Beaver County Workshop | 3/27/23 | Listening Session (In-person) | Beaver, Utah | BEAD/Digital Equity | Local | Beaver County | 7 | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | ||||||||||||
87 | Digital Access Planning Grant Cohort Call - Best Practices for Outreach and Engagement | 3/28/23 | Meeting/Presentation | Online | Digital Equity | Statewide Engagement | All Utah Counties | 16 | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | ||||||||||||
88 | Utah Rural Telecom Association Conference | 3/28/23 | Meeting/Presentation | St. George, Utah | BEAD | Statewide | Rural Utah Counties | 200 | X | ||||||||||||||||||
89 | Paiute Indian Tribe of Utah | 3/29/23 | Listening Session (In-person) | Cedar City, Utah | BEAD/Digital Equity | Local | Iron, Millard, Sevier, and Washington Counties | 8 | X | X | X | X | X | X | |||||||||||||
90 | Box Elder News Journal: High-speed Internet data sought | 3/29/23 | Other | Box Elder County, Utah | BEAD | Regional | Box Elder County | 61,498 | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | ||||||||||||
91 | Ute Mountain Ute Tribe | 3/30/23 | Listening Session (In-person) | Salt Lake City, Utah | BEAD/Digital Equity | Regional | San Juan County | 5 | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | |||||||||||
92 | Utah Broadband Center Announces 2023 Planning Grant Recipients | 4/3/23 | Other | Salt Lake City, Utah | BEAD/Digital Equity | Statewide | All Utah Counties | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | |||||||||||||
93 | Utah Association of Counties Building Utah Conference | 4/4/23 | Meeting/Presentation | St. George, Utah | BEAD | Statewide | All Utah Counties | 30 | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | ||||||||||||
94 | DAPG Meeting: Salt Lake County 1:1 | 4/3/23 | Meeting/Presentation | Online | Digital Equity | Local | Salt Lake County, Utah | 1 | X | ||||||||||||||||||
95 | DAPG Meeting: Vernal City 1:1 | 4/3/23 | Meeting/Presentation | Online | Digital Equity | Local | Uintah County, Utah | 1 | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | ||||||||||||
96 | Local Broadband Planning Grant Cohort Call | 4/6/23 | Meeting/Presentation | Salt Lake City, Utah | BEAD | Statewide | Counties with organizations that recieved Local Broadband Planning Grants | 31 | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | |||||||||||
97 | COEB Discussion | 4/6/23 | Meeting/Presentation | Online | Digital Equity | Statewide | All Utah Counties | 3 | X | X | X | X | X | ||||||||||||||
98 | Arizona Library: Statewide Digital Navigator Program Discussion | 4/6/23 | Meeting/Presentation | Online | Digital Equity | Statewide | Statewide | 3 | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | |||||||||||
99 | Navajo Nation, New Mexico and Arizona State Broadband Offices | 4/7/23 | Meeting/Presentation | Salt Lake City, Utah | BEAD | Regional | Counties bordering Arizona and New Mexico | 4 | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | |||||||||||
100 | Utah Broadband Center and Utah Department of Corrections | 4/10/23 | Meeting/Presentation | Online | BEAD/Digital Equity | Statewide | Statewide | 1 | X | ||||||||||||||||||
101 | Adtran Conference | 4/11/23 | Meeting/Presentation | Huntsville, Alabama | BEAD | National | National audience | 300 | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | ||||||||||||
102 | Digital Access Planning Grant Cohort Call | 4/11/23 | Meeting/Presentation | Online | Digital Equity | Statewide | Statewide | 15 | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | ||||||||||||
103 | DAPG Meeting: Club Ability 1:1 | 4/11/23 | Meeting/Presentation | Online | Digital Equity | Local | Salt Lake County, Utah | 1 | X | X | X | X | X | ||||||||||||||
104 | ACP Grantee Cohort Meeting | 4/12/23 | Meeting/Presentation | Online | Digital Equity | Statewide | Statewide | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | |||||||||||||
105 | Shivwits Band of Paiute | 4/13/23 | Listening Session (In-person) | Ivins | BEAD/Digital Equity | Local | Washington County | 10 | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | |||||||||||
106 | Utah Broadband Center and Salt Lake County Mayor's Office | 4/14/23 | Meeting/Presentation | Online | Digital Equity | Local | Salt Lake County, Utah | 3 | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | |||||||||||
107 | Rural Utah Chamber Coalition Monthly Meeting | 4/14/23 | Meeting/Presentation | Salt Lake City, Utah | BEAD/Digital Equity | Statewide | Rural Utah Counties | 30 | X | ||||||||||||||||||
108 | Utah Rural Telecom Association Board | 4/14/23 | Meeting/Presentation | Salt Lake City, Utah | BEAD | Regional | Rural Utah Counties | 3 | X | ||||||||||||||||||
109 | DAPG Meeting: Salt Lake County 1:1 | 4/14/23 | Meeting/Presentation | Online | Digital Equity | Local | Salt Lake County, Utah | 1 | X | ||||||||||||||||||
110 | Utah Broadband Center and Veteran Business Resource Center | 4/18/23 | Meeting/Presentation | Online | Digital Equity | Statewide | All Utah Counties | 2 | X | X | |||||||||||||||||
111 | Northwest Band of Shoshone | 4/18/23 | Listening Session (In-person) | Ogden, Utah | BEAD/Digital Equity | Local | Box Elder County | 6 | X | X | X | X | X | X | |||||||||||||
112 | Connecting Utah Alliance | 4/18/23 | Meeting/Presentation | Salt Lake City, Utah | BEAD | Statewide | All Utah Counties | 63 | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | ||||||||||||
113 | Connecting Utah Salt Lake City Discussion | 4/20/23 | Listening Session (Virtual) | Salt Lake City, Utah | BEAD/Digital Equity | Local | Salt Lake County | 3 | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | ||||||||||||
114 | Communication Workers of America Labor Union Meeting (CWA7704) | 4/20/23 | Meeting/Presentation | Online | BEAD | Statewide | All Utah Counties | 4 | Will complete cover populations before posting public comment. | ||||||||||||||||||
115 | Grand Opening Event - Roosevelt Library General Public | 4/22/2023 | Meeting/Presentation | Duchesne County, Utah | Digital Equity | Local | Duchesne County | 600 | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | ||||||||||||
116 | International Rescue Committee and Connecting Utah | 4/25/2023 | Meeting/Presentation | Online | Digital Equity | Local | Salt Lake County | 3 | X | X | X | X | |||||||||||||||
117 | FirstDigital 1:1 | 4/27/2023 | Meeting/Presentation | Salt Lake City, Utah | BEAD | Local | Counties served by ISP | 1 | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | ||||||||||||
118 | Dandelion Fest, a Blue Star Families of Utah Event | 4/29/2023 | Other | Salt Lake City, Utah | Digital Equity | Local | Salt Lake County | 25 | X | X | X | ||||||||||||||||
119 | Wasatch Front Regional Council | 5/1/23 | Listening Session (Virtual) | Salt Lake City, Utah | BEAD/Digital Equity | Regional | Box Elder, Davis, Morgan, Salt Lake, Tooele, and Weber Counties | 2 | X | X | X | X | X | ||||||||||||||
120 | EducationSuperHighway - Apartment Wifi Conversation | 5/2/23 | Meeting/Presentation | Online | BEAD/Digital Equity | Statewide | Statewide | 2 | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | ||||||||||||
121 | Local Broadband Planning Grant Cohort Call | 5/4/23 | Meeting/Presentation | Salt Lake City, Utah | BEAD | Statewide | Counties with organizations that received Local Broadband Planning Grants | 22 | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | |||||||||||
122 | Avative 1:1 | 5/5/23 | Meeting/Presentation | Salt Lake City, Utah | BEAD | Local | Counties served by ISP | 3 | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | ||||||||||||
123 | DAPG Meeting: Navajo Nation 1:1 | 5/8/23 | Meeting/Presentation | Online | Digital Equity | Regional | Navajo Nation | 3 | X | X | X | X | |||||||||||||||
124 | West Valley City | 5/8/23 | Listening Session (Virtual) | Salt Lake City, Utah | BEAD/Digital Equity | Local | Salt Lake County | 1 | X | X | X | X | X | X | |||||||||||||
125 | Navajo Nation Red Mesa Chapter and Mexican Water Chapter | 5/9/23 | Listening Session (In-person) | Montezuma Creek, Utah | BEAD/Digital Equity | Local | San Juan County | 10 | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | |||||||||||
126 | Navajo Nation Utah Commission | 5/9/23 | Meeting/Presentation | Salt Lake City, Utah | BEAD/Digital Equity | Local | San Juan County | 30 | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | |||||||||||
127 | Hosting Chicanos Por La Causa: Digital Equity for Utah Latino Communities Luncheon | 5/9/23 | Listening Session (In-person) | Salt Lake City, Utah | Digital Equity | Statewide | Statewide | 15 | X | X | X | ||||||||||||||||
128 | Digital Access Planning Grant Cohort Call | 5/9/23 | Meeting/Presentation | Online | Digital Equity | Statewide | 15 | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | |||||||||||||
129 | American Fork City | 5/10/23 | Meeting/Presentation | Salt Lake City, Utah | BEAD | Local | Utah County | 2 | X | X | X | X | X | X | |||||||||||||
130 | Navajo Nation Aneth Chapter | 5/10/23 | Listening Session (In-person) | Montezuma Creek, Utah | BEAD/Digital Equity | Local | San Juan County | 3 | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | |||||||||||
131 | Comcast 1:1 | 5/11/23 | Meeting/Presentation | Salt Lake City, Utah | BEAD | Local | Counties served by ISP | 3 | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | ||||||||||||
132 | Resident Feedback Session 1:1 | 5/11/23 | Listening Session (Virtual) | Online | Digital Equity | Local | All Utah Counties | 1 | X | X | X | ||||||||||||||||
133 | Navajo Nation Teec Nos Pos Chapter | 5/11/23 | Listening Session (In-person) | Salt Lake City, Utah | BEAD/Digital Equity | Local | San Juan County | 8 | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | |||||||||||
134 | Navajo Nation, New Mexico and Arizona State Broadband Offices | 5/12/23 | Meeting/Presentation | Salt Lake City, Utah | BEAD | Regional | Counties bordering Arizona and New Mexico | 4 | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | |||||||||||
135 | Google Fiber 1:1 | 5/16/23 | Meeting/Presentation | Salt Lake City, Utah | BEAD | Local | Counties served by ISP | 1 | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | ||||||||||||
136 | Utah Broadband Alliance Meeting | 5/17/23 | Meeting/Presentation | Salt Lake City, Utah | BEAD/Digital Equity | Statewide | All Utah Counties | 102 | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | ||||||||||||
137 | ATC Communications 1:1 | 5/17/23 | Meeting/Presentation | Salt Lake City, Utah | BEAD | Local | Counties served by ISP | 1 | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | ||||||||||||
138 | My Hometown Initiative | 5/18/23 | Meeting/Presentation | Salt Lake City, Utah | BEAD/Digital Equity | Local | Salt Lake, Utah, Weber Counties | 3 | X | X | X | X | X | X | |||||||||||||
139 | Mountainland Association of Governments | 5/18/23 | Listening Session (Virtual) | Salt Lake City, Utah | BEAD/Digital Equity | Regional | Summit, Utah, and Wasatch County | 1 | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | ||||||||||||
140 | Aquila Cubed Consulting | 5/19/23 | Meeting/Presentation | Salt Lake City, Utah | BEAD | Local | Duchesne and Uintah Counties | 5 | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | ||||||||||||
141 | Springdale Town | 5/23/23 | Meeting/Presentation | Salt Lake City, Utah | BEAD | Local | Washington County | 2 | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | ||||||||||||
142 | Utah Communities Connect Board Meeting | 5/24/23 | Meeting/Presentation | Online | Digital Equity | Statewide | All Utah Counties | 11 | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | ||||||||||||
143 | Lousiana Digital Equity Team: Accessibility in Digital Equity | 5/25/23 | Meeting/Presentation | Online | Digital Equity | Statewide | All Utah Counties | 4 | X | ||||||||||||||||||
144 | Utah Communities Connect | 5/26/23 | Meeting/Presentation | Salt Lake City, Utah | Digital Equity | Statewide | All Utah Counties | 19 | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | |||||||||||
145 | Resident Feedback Session 1:1 | 5/26/23 | Listening Session (Virtual) | Online | Digital Equity | Statewide | All Utah Counties | 1 | X | X | |||||||||||||||||
146 | Standard Examiner: Ogden seeking info on internet accessibility, speeds to bridge digital divide | 5/29/23 | Other | Ogden, Utah | Digital Equity | Local | Weber County | 86,825 | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | ||||||||||||
147 | Google Fiber 1:1 | 5/30/23 | Meeting/Presentation | Online | BEAD/Digital Equity | Statewide | Counties served by ISP | 2 | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | |||||||||||
148 | Local Broadband Planning Grant Cohort Call | 5/30/23 | Meeting/Presentation | Salt Lake City, Utah | BEAD | Statewide | Counties with organizations that received Local Broadband Planning Grants | 27 | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | |||||||||||
149 | DAPG Meeting: Utah Nonprofit Housing Corporation 1:1 | 5/31/23 | Meeting/Presentation | Online | Digital Equity | Local | Salt Lake County, Utah | 1 | X | X | X | X | X | X | |||||||||||||
150 | DAPG Meeting: United Way of Utah County 1:1 | 5/31/23 | Meeting/Presentation | Online | Digital Equity | Local | Utah County, Utah | 1 | X | X | X | X | X | ||||||||||||||
151 | Resident Feedback Session 1:1 | 5/31/23 | Listening Session (Virtual) | Online | Digital Equity | Statewide | All Utah Counties | 1 | X | X | X | ||||||||||||||||
152 | Infowest 1:1 | 5/31/23 | Meeting/Presentation | Salt Lake City, Utah | BEAD | Local | Counties served by ISP | 3 | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | ||||||||||||
153 | DAPG Meeting: Salt Lake County 1:1 | 6/1/23 | Meeting/Presentation | Online | Digital Equity | Local | Salt Lake County | 1 | X | ||||||||||||||||||
154 | Resident Feedback Session 1:1 | 6/2/23 | Listening Session (Virtual) | Online | Digital Equity | Statewide | All Utah Counties | 1 | X | X | X | ||||||||||||||||
155 | Navajo Nation, New Mexico and Arizona State Broadband Offices | 6/2/23 | Meeting/Presentation | Salt Lake City, Utah | BEAD | Local | Counties bordering Arizona and New Mexico | 4 | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | |||||||||||
156 | Confederated Tribes of Goshute | 6/2/23 | Listening Session (In-person) | Ibapah, Utah | BEAD/Digital Equity | Local | Juab and Tooele Counties | 20 | X | X | X | ||||||||||||||||
157 | Device Refurbishment Ecosystem Workshop | 6/6/23 | Listening Session (In-person) | Salt Lake City, Utah | Digital Equity | Local | Statewide | 27 | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | |||||||||||
158 | ISP listening session pre-confluence event | 6/6/23 | Listening Session (In-person) | Salt Lake City, Utah | BEAD | Statewide | All Utah Counties | 13 | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | ||||||||||||
159 | Internet for All: Utah Broadband Confluence | 6/7/23 | Meeting/Presentation | Provo, Utah | BEAD/Digital Equity | Statewide | All Utah Counties | 245 | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | |||||||||||
160 | Summit County | 6/8/23 | Meeting/Presentation | Salt Lake City, Utah | BEAD | Local | Summit County | 3 | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | ||||||||||||
161 | Broadband Breakfast: Utah Releases Its State Broadband Plan for BEAD Funds, With Middle Mile Prioritization | 6/12/2023 | Other | Salt Lake City, Utah | BEAD | Statewide | All Utah Counties | 539 | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | ||||||||||||
162 | Digital Access Planning Grant Cohort Meeting | 6/13/2023 | Meeting/Presentation | Online | Digital Equity | Statewide | Statewide | 13 | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | |||||||||||
163 | Local Broadband Planning Grant Cohort Call | 6/15/23 | Meeting/Presentation | Salt Lake City, Utah | BEAD | Statewide | Counties with organizations that received Local Broadband Planning Grants | 21 | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | |||||||||||
164 | KSL Newsradio: $317 million coming to Utah to expand and improve internet access | 6/27/2023 | Other | Salt Lake City, Utah | BEAD | Statewide | All Utah Counties | 123,333 | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | |||||||||||
165 | Telecompetitor: Utah Broadband Director: State's Long-Lived Broadband Map is a Big Asset | 6/27/23 | Other | Salt Lake City, Utah | BEAD | Statewide | All Utah Counties | 1,000 | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | |||||||||||
166 | Deseret News: Sen. Mitt Romney: Utah to receive $317 million federal grant to expand and improve internet access | 6/27/23 | Other | Salt Lake City, Utah | BEAD | Statewide | All Utah Counties | 139,000 | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | |||||||||||
167 | St. George News: $317M is coming to Utah to expand access to high-speed internet | 6/27/23 | Other | St. George, Utah | BEAD | Local | All Utah Counties | 102,519 | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | |||||||||||
168 | Resident Feedback Session: 1:1 | 6/30/23 | Listening Session (Virtual) | Virtual | Digital Equity | Statewide | All Utah Counties | 1 | X | X | X | X | X | X | |||||||||||||
169 | Cellular One 1:1 | 6/30/23 | Meeting/Presentation | Virtual | BEAD | Regional | Counties served by ISP | 1 | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | |||||||||||
170 | Navajo Tribal Utility Authority (NTUA) 1:1 | 3/31/23 | Meeting/Presentation | Navajo Nation | BEAD | Regional | Counties served by ISP | 4 | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | |||||||||||
171 | T-Mobile 1:1 | 2/1/23 | Meeting/Presentation | Salt Lake City, Utah | BEAD | Local | Counties served by ISP | 7 | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | |||||||||||
172 | For $317 Million, all of Utah will Finally have Access to a Broadband Internet Connection ... Soon-ish | 7/11/23 | Other | Salt Lake City, Utah | BEAD | Local | All Utah Counties | 1,000 | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | |||||||||||
173 | High-Speed Internet Survey for Local Government and Tribal Leaders | 12/14/22 - 6/1/23 | Survey | Online | BEAD/Digital Equity | Statewide | All Utah Counties | 74 | X | X | X | X | |||||||||||||||
174 | High-Speed Internet Survey for Internet Service Providers | 10/14/22 - 6/1/23 | Survey | Online | BEAD/Digital Equity | Statewide | All Utah Counties | 33 | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | |||||||||||
175 | High-Speed Internet Survey for Businesses | 12/2/22 - 6/1/32 | Survey | Online | BEAD/Digital Equity | Statewide | All Utah Counties | 26 | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | |||||||||||
176 | High-Speed Internet Survey for Elected Officials | 11/16/22 - 6/1/23 | Survey | Online | BEAD/Digital Equity | Statewide | All Utah Counties | 26 | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | |||||||||||
177 | EducationSuperHighway - ActNow Campaign | 3/9/23 - 9/7/23 | Other | Online | Digital Equity | Statewide | All Utah Counties | 73 | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | ||||||||||||
178 | Lumen 1:1 | 07/03/2023 | Meeting/Presentation | Virtual | BEAD | Regional | Counties served by ISP | 3 | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | |||||||||||
179 | Refugee and Immigrant Center - Asian Association of Utah | 07/05/2023 | Meeting/Presentation | Online | Digital Equity | Local | 1 | X | X | X | X | X | X | ||||||||||||||
180 | Department of Workforce Services - SNAP Program | 07/05/2023 | Meeting/Presentation | Online | Digital Equity | Local | 1 | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | ||||||||||||
181 | DAPG Club Ability 1:1 | 07/06/2023 | Meeting/Presentation | Virtual | Digital Equity | Local | Salt Lake County, UT | 1 | X | X | X | X | X | ||||||||||||||
182 | Ciena 1:1 | 07/06/2023 | Meeting/Presentation | Virtual | BEAD/Digital Equity | Regional | Counties served by company | 3 | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | |||||||||||
183 | Transcend International | 07/06/2023 | Meeting/Presentation | Online | Digital Equity | Statewide | All Utah Counties | 1 | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | |||||||||||
184 | Resident Feedback Session: Group | 07/07/2023 | Listening Session (Virtual) | Virtual | Digital Equity | Local | All Utah Counties | 6 | X | X | X | X | |||||||||||||||
185 | Utahns Against Hunger | 07/07/2023 | Meeting/Presentation | Online | Digital Equity | Regional | All Utah Counties | 1 | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | ||||||||||||
186 | Resident Feedback Session 1:1 | 07/10/2023 | Listening Session (Virtual) | Online | Digital Equity | Statewide | All Utah Counties | 1 | X | X | X | ||||||||||||||||
187 | Utah Education Telehealth Network, Shivwits Band of Paiutes & Utah Broadband Center | 07/10/2023 | Meeting/Presentation | Online | BEAD/Digital Equity | Regional | Washington County, UT | 2 | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | ||||||||||||
188 | DAPG Meeting: Utah Nonprofit Housing Corporation 1:1 | 07/10/2023 | Meeting/Presentation | Online | Digital Equity | Local | Salt Lake County, UT | 1 | X | X | X | X | X | X | |||||||||||||
189 | Utah Rural Telecom Association Board | 07/10/2023 | Meeting/Presentation | Online | BEAD | Regional | Counties served by company | 3 | X | ||||||||||||||||||
190 | DAPG Meeting: Navajo Nation 1:1 | 07/11/2023 | Meeting/Presentation | Online | Digital Equity | Regional | Navajo Nation | 1 | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | |||||||||||
191 | Salt Lake County Mayors Office - Diversity & Inclusion | 07/11/2023 | Meeting/Presentation | Online | Digital Equity | Local | Salt Lake County, UT | 1 | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | |||||||||||
192 | Digital Access Planning Grant Cohort Meeting | 07/11/2023 | Meeting/Presentation | Online | Digital Equity | Statewide | All Utah Counties | 13 | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | |||||||||||
193 | DAPG Meeting: Guadalupe School 1:1 | 07/12/2023 | Meeting/Presentation | Online | Digital Equity | Local | Salt Lake County, UT | 1 | X | X | |||||||||||||||||
194 | Utah 211 | 07/12/2023 | Meeting/Presentation | Online | Digital Equity | Statewide | All Utah Counties | 1 | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | |||||||||||
195 | Northwest Regional Telehealth Resource Center | 07/12/2023 | Meeting/Presentation | Online | Digital Equity | Statewide | All Utah Counties | 1 | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | |||||||||||
196 | Resident Feedback Session: Group | 07/13/2023 | Listening Session (Virtual) | Online | Digital Equity | Statewide | All Utah Counties | 2 | X | X | X | X | |||||||||||||||
197 | DAPG Meeting: Ogden City 1:1 | 07/13/2023 | Meeting/Presentation | Online | BEAD/Digital Equity | Local | Ogden City, UT | 1 | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | ||||||||||||
198 | ACP Grantee Cohort Meeting | 07/13/2023 | Meeting/Presentation | Online | Digital Equity | Statewide | All Utah Counties | 7 | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | |||||||||||
199 | Resident Feedback Session: Group | 07/14/2023 | Listening Session (Virtual) | Online | Digital Equity | Statewide | All Utah Counties | 4 | X | X | X | X | |||||||||||||||
200 | Resident Feedback Session 1:1 | 07/17/2023 | Listening Session (Virtual) | Online | Digital Equity | Statewide | All Utah Counties | 1 | X | X | X | ||||||||||||||||
201 | DAPG Meeting: Center of Economic Opportunity and Belonging 1:1 | 07/17/2023 | Meeting/Presentation | Online | Digital Equity | Local | Salt Lake County, UT | 1 | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | |||||||||||
202 | Marconi Society, NTIA and the Utah Broadband Center | 07/17/2023 | Meeting/Presentation | Online | | All Utah Counties | 6 | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | ||||||||||||
203 | Resident Feedback Session 1:1 | 07/18/2023 | Listening Session (Virtual) | Online | Digital Equity | Statewide | All Utah Counties | 1 | X | X | X | ||||||||||||||||
204 | Resident Feedback Session 1:1 | 07/19/2023 | Meeting/Presentation | Online | Digital Equity | Statewide | All Utah Counties | 1 | X | ||||||||||||||||||
205 | Resident Feedback Session 1:1 | 07/19/2023 | Meeting/Presentation | Online | Digital Equity | Statewide | All Utah Counties | 1 | X | X | X | X | X | ||||||||||||||
206 | Utah Afterschool Network | 07/19/2023 | Meeting/Presentation | Online | Digital Equity | Statewide | All Utah Counties | 1 | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | ||||||||||||
207 | Connecting Utah Virtual Call | 07/19/2023 | Meeting/Presentation | Online | Digital Equity | Statewide | All Utah Counties | 50 | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | |||||||||||
208 | Wireless Internet Service Providers Association | 07/20/2023 | Meeting/Presentation | Online | BEAD | Regional | Counties served by wireless providers | 1 | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | ||||||||||||
209 | Resident Feedback Session: Group | 07/20/2023 | Listening Session (Virtual) | Online | Digital Equity | Regional | All Utah Counties | 3 | X | X | X | ||||||||||||||||
210 | DAPG Meeting: Salt Lake Community College 1:1 | 07/25/2023 | Meeting/Presentation | Online | Digital Equity | Local | Salt Lake County, UT | 1 | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | |||||||||||
211 | Resident Feedback Session 1:1 | 07/26/2023 | Listening Session (Virtual) | Online | Digital Equity | Local | All Utah Counties | 1 | X | X | X | ||||||||||||||||
212 | Utah Women and Leadership Project and Utah Broadband Center | 07/27/2023 | Meeting/Presentation | Online | Digital Equity | Statewide | All Utah Counties | 1 | X | X | X | X | X | X | |||||||||||||
213 | Resident Feedback Session: Group | 07/27/2023 | Listening Session (Virtual) | Online | Digital Equity | Statewide | All Utah Counties | 8 | X | X | X | X | |||||||||||||||
214 | Resident Feedback Session: Group | 07/28/2023 | Listening Session (Virtual) | Online | Digital Equity | Local | All Utah Counties | 7 | X | X | X | X | X | X | |||||||||||||
215 | ACP Grantee Cohort Meeting | 07/28/2023 | Meeting/Presentation | Online | Digital Equity | Statewide | All Utah Counties | 11 | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | ||||||||||||
216 | Qualcomm 1:1 | 07/28/2023 | Meeting/Presentation | Online | BEAD | Regional | Counties served by company | 5 | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | |||||||||||
217 | Terra Contracting 1:1 | 07/31/2023 | Meeting/Presentation | Online | BEAD | Regional | Counties served by company | 4 | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | |||||||||||
218 | Lumen 1:1 | 08/01/2023 | Meeting/Presentation | Salt Lake City, Utah | BEAD | Regional | Counties served by ISP | 2 | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | |||||||||||
219 | NTEN Fellowship Application Review Workshop | 08/01/2023 | Meeting/Presentation | Online | Digital Equity | Statewide | All Utah Counties | 13 | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | |||||||||||
220 | ACP Grantee Cohort Meeting | 08/01/2023 | Meeting/Presentation | Online | Digital Equity | Statewide | All Utah Counties | 7 | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | |||||||||||
221 | Catholic Community Services, Google Fiber and Utah Broadband Center | 08/02/2023 | Meeting/Presentation | Online | Digital Equity | Local | Salt Lake County, UT | 2 | X | X | X | X | X | ||||||||||||||
222 | DAPG Meeting: Club Ability 1:1 | 08/02/2023 | Meeting/Presentation | Online | Digital Equity | Local | Salt Lake County, UT | 1 | X | X | X | X | X | ||||||||||||||
223 | Emery Telcom 1:1 | 08/03/2023 | Meeting/Presentation | Online | BEAD | Regional | Carbon and Emery Counties | 1 | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | |||||||||||
224 | Center of Economic Opportunity and Belonging Workforce Development Meeting | 08/03/2023 | Meeting/Presentation | Online | Digital Equity | Local | All Utah Counties | 3 | X | X | X | ||||||||||||||||
225 | Strata and URTA | 08/03/2023 | Meeting/Presentation | Salt Lake City, Utah | BEAD | Regional | Duchesne and Uintah Counties | 4 | |||||||||||||||||||
226 | Digital Access Planning Grant Cohort Meeting | 08/08/2023 | Meeting/Presentation | Online | Digital Equity | Statewide | All Utah Counties | 12 | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | |||||||||||
227 | Utah Community Connect and Utah Broadband Center | 08/09/2023 | Meeting/Presentation | Online | Digital Equity | Statewide | All Utah Counties | 1 | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | |||||||||||
228 | DAPG Meeting: Centro Hispano 1:1 | 08/10/2023 | Meeting/Presentation | Online | Digital Equity | Local | Utah County, UT | 1 | X | X | X | ||||||||||||||||
229 | MoHuman | 08/11/2023 | Meeting/Presentation | Online | Digital Equity | Statewide | All Utah Counties | 2 | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | |||||||||||
230 | CyberSeniors | 08/15/2023 | Meeting/Presentation | Online | Digital Equity | Statewide | All Utah Counties | 1 | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | ||||||||||||
231 | ACP Grantee Cohort Meeting | 08/17/2023 | Meeting/Presentation | Online | Digital Equity | Statewide | All Utah Counties | 11 | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | ||||||||||||
232 | Digital Equity Plan for Navajo Chapters in Utah | 08/21/2023 | Meeting/Presentation | Online | Digital Equity | Regional | Navajo Nation | 1 | X | X | X | ||||||||||||||||
233 | Transcend International, Utah Broadband Center and the Center for Economic Opportunity and Belonging | 08/22/2023 | Meeting/Presentation | Online | Digital Equity | Statewide | All Utah Counties | 2 | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | |||||||||||
234 | Liz Gabbitas Consulting | 08/25/2023 | Meeting/Presentation | Online | Digital Equity | Statewide | All Utah Counties | 1 | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | |||||||||||
235 | Utah Community Connect Meeting | 08/25/2023 | Meeting/Presentation | Online | Digital Equity | Statewide | All Utah Counties | 18 | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | ||||||||||||
236 | iRecertify | 08/25/2023 | Meeting/Presentation | Online | Digital Equity | Local | All Utah Counties | 2 | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | |||||||||||
237 | Spy Hop | 08/29/2023 | Meeting/Presentation | Salt Lake City, Utah | Digital Equity | Local | Salt Lake County, UT | 3 | X | X | |||||||||||||||||
238 | Digitunity | 08/30/2023 | Meeting/Presentation | Online | Digital Equity | Statewide | All Utah Counties | 3 | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | |||||||||||
239 | DAPG Meeting: Club Ability 1:1 | 08/31/2023 | Meeting/Presentation | Online | Digital Equity | Local | Salt Lake County, UT | 1 | X | X | X | X | X | ||||||||||||||
240 | CentraCom ISP 1:1 | 08/31/2023 | Meeting/Presentation | Online | BEAD | Regional | Counties served by ISP | 1 | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | |||||||||||
241 | Tarana Wireless 1:1 | 08/31/2023 | Meeting/Presentation | Bountiful, Utah | BEAD | Regional | Counties served by company | 3 | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | |||||||||||
242 | Beehive Broadband 1:1 | 09/01/2023 | Meeting/Presentation | Online | BEAD | Regional | Counties served by ISP | 2 | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | |||||||||||
243 | Utah State University Extension | 09/01/2023 | Meeting/Presentation | Online | Digital Equity | Statewide | All Utah Counties | 1 | X | X | X | X | X | ||||||||||||||
244 | ACP Grantee Cohort Meeting | 09/05/2023 | Meeting/Presentation | Online | Digital Equity | Statewide | All Utah Counties | 10 | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | ||||||||||||
245 | Pacific Island Knowledge 2 Action Resources | 09/05/2023 | Meeting/Presentation | Online | Digital Equity | Local | Salt Lake County, UT | 1 | X | X | X | X | X | ||||||||||||||
246 | Colorado Department of Labor and Employment (Digital Equity Office) | 09/05/2023 | Meeting/Presentation | Online | Digital Equity | Statewide | All Utah Counties | 1 | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | |||||||||||
247 | Strata | 09/06/2023 | Meeting/Presentation | Salt Lake City, Utah | BEAD | Regional | Counties served by ISP | 2 | |||||||||||||||||||
248 | Tech Charities | 09/11/2023 | Meeting/Presentation | Salt Lake City, Utah | Digital Equity | Regional | Salt Lake County, UT | 2 | X | X | X | X | X | X | |||||||||||||
249 | Digital Access Planning Grant Cohort Meeting | 09/12/2023 | Meeting/Presentation | Online | Digital Equity | Statewide | All Utah Counties | 8 | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | |||||||||||
250 | Transcend International | 09/13/2023 | Meeting/Presentation | Online | Digital Equity | Statewide | All Utah Counties | 3 | |||||||||||||||||||
251 | ACP Grantee Cohort Meeting | 09/15/2023 | Meeting/Presentation | Online | Digital Equity | Statewide | All Utah Counties | 13 | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | |||||||||||
252 | UTOPIA 1:1 | 09/15/2023 | Meeting/Presentation | Online | BEAD | Regional | Counties served by ISP | 1 | |||||||||||||||||||
253 | Beehive Broadband 1:1 | 09/19/2023 | Meeting/Presentation | Online | BEAD | Regional | Counties served by ISP | 2 | |||||||||||||||||||
254 | Connecting Utah Virtual Call | 09/20/2023 | Meeting/Presentation | Online | Digital Equity | Statewide | All Utah Counties | 42 | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | |||||||||||
255 | Utah Community Connect Meeting | 9/22/2023 | Meeting/Presentation | Online | Digital Equity | Statewide | All Utah Counties | 22 | |||||||||||||||||||
256 | DAPG Meeting: United Way of Utah County 1:1 | 9/26/2023 | Meeting/Presentation | Online | Digital Equity | Regional | Utah County | 1 | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | |||||||||||
257 | DAPG Meeting: Vernal City 1:1 | 10/6/2023 | Meeting/Presentation | Online | Digital Equity | Local | Uintah County, Utah | 1 | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | ||||||||||||
258 | DAPG Meeting: Club Ability 1:1 | 10/6/2023 | Meeting/Presentation | Online | Digital Equity | Local | Salt Lake County, UT | 1 | X | X | X | X | X | ||||||||||||||
259 | Digital Access Planning Grant Cohort Meeting | 10/10/2023 | Meeting/Presentation | Online | Digital Equity | Statewide | All Utah Counties | 4 | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | |||||||||||
260 | Utah Technology Coordinators Council Meeting | 10/5/2023 | Listening Session (In-person) | Utah County, Utah | Digital Equity | Statewide | All Utah Counties | 135 | |||||||||||||||||||
261 | Strata Summit | 10/10/2023 | Meeting/Presentation | Vernal, Utah | BEAD | Regional | Counties served by ISP | ||||||||||||||||||||
262 | Kearns Library - Computer Training Courses | 10/11/2023 | Meeting/Presentation | Kearns Library | Digital Equity | Local | Salt Lake County, UT | 1 | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | ||||||||||||
263 | Device Refurbishment Partner Meeting | 10/12/2023 | Meeting/Presentation | Salt Lake City, Utah | Digital Equity | Statewide | All Utah Counties | 20 | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | |||||||||||
264 | Lumen 1:1 | 10/12/2023 | Meeting/Presentation | Online | BEAD | Regional | Counties served by ISP | 2 | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | |||||||||||
265 | Ogden Civic Action Network (Ogden CAN) | 10/13/2023 | Meeting/Presentation | Online | Digital Equity | Regional | Ogden and Weber County | 1 | X | X | X | X | X | X | |||||||||||||
266 | Spear Broadband 1:1 | 10/13/2023 | Meeting/Presentation | Online | BEAD | Regional | Counties served by ISP | 2 | |||||||||||||||||||
267 | Connecting Utah Virtual Call | 10/18/2023 | Online | Digital Equity | Statewide | All Utah Counties | 30 | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | ||||||||||||
268 | Transcend International | 10/20/2023 | Meeting/Presentation | Online | Digital Equity | Statewide | All Utah Counties | 1 | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | |||||||||||
269 | ACP Grantee Cohort Meeting | 10/20/2023 | Meeting/Presentation | Online | Digital Equity | Statewide | All Utah Counties | 1 | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | ||||||||||||
270 | Calix ConneXions Conference Presentation | 10/15/2023 | Meeting/Presentation | Las Vegas, NV | BEAD/Digital Equity | Statewide | Counties served by ISP | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | ||||||||||||
271 | Navajo Nation Mountain Chapter | 10/16/2023 | Listening Session (In-person) | Navajo Mtn | BEAD/Digital Equity | Regional | Navajo Nation | 80 | X | X | X | X | X | X | |||||||||||||
272 | Navajo Nation Oljato Chapter | 10/17/2023 | Listening Session (In-person) | Monument Valley, UT | BEAD/Digital Equity | Regional | Navajo Nation | 80 | X | X | X | X | X | X | |||||||||||||
273 | Navajo Nation Mexican Water Chapter | 10/18/2023 | Listening Session (In-person) | Mexican Water, UT | BEAD/Digital Equity | Regional | Navajo Nation | 80 | X | X | X | X | X | X | |||||||||||||
274 | UBC Coordination: Connecting Navajo Nation Mexican Water Chapter with Rural Utah Project to share Google Plus Code data | 10/18/2023 | Online | BEAD/Digital Equity | Regional | Navajo Nation | 2 | X | X | X | X | ||||||||||||||||
275 | UBC Coordination: Connecting Beehive Broadband with CAP Utah to assist with ACP enrollment | 10/18/2023 | Online | Digital Equity | Local | Box Elder County, UT | 4 | X | X | X | X | X | X | ||||||||||||||
276 | Salt Lake City Corporation | 10/19/2023 | Meeting/Presentation | Salt Lake City, Utah | Digital Equity | Local | Salt Lake County, UT | 1 | X | X | X | X | X | X | |||||||||||||
277 | Navajo Nation Red Mesa Chapter | 10/19/2023 | Listening Session (In-person) | Red Mesa, UT | BEAD/Digital Equity | Regional | Navajo Nation | 80 | X | X | X | X | X | X | |||||||||||||
278 | Navajo Nation Aneth Chapter | 10/20/2023 | Listening Session (In-person) | Aneth, UT | BEAD/Digital Equity | Regional | Navajo Nation | 80 | X | X | X | X | X | X | |||||||||||||
279 | Utah Tribal Leaders Meeting | 10/20/2023 | Listening Session (In-person) | Montezuma Creek, UT | BEAD/Digital Equity | Regional | Navajo Nation | 41 | X | ||||||||||||||||||
280 | Utah Broadband Advisory Commission | 10/23/2023 | Meeting/Presentation | Online | BEAD | Statewide | All Utah Counties | 27 | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | |||||||||||
281 | Cellular One 1:1 | 10/24/2023 | Meeting/Presentation | Salt Lake City, Utah | BEAD/Digital Equity | Regional | Counties served by ISP | 1 | X | X | X | X | X | ||||||||||||||
282 | Utah County Digital Inclusion Coalition: Provo City | 10/24/2023 | Meeting/Presentation | Online | Digital Equity | Regional | Utah County | 3 | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | ||||||||||||
283 | USIC: Utility Locating Resources for BEAD | 10/24/2023 | Meeting/Presentation | Online | BEAD | Statewide | All Utah Counties | 2 | X | ||||||||||||||||||
284 | Najavo Nation Digital Equity Tour Debrief | 10/24/2023 | Meeting/Presentation | Online | BEAD/Digital Equity | Regional | Navajo Nation | 3 | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | |||||||||||
285 | Utah & Pew Charitable Trust | 10/24/2023 | Meeting/Presentation | Online | BEAD/Digital Equity | Statewide | All Utah Counties | 1 | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | |||||||||||
286 | Compudopt | 10/26/2023 | Meeting/Presentation | Online | Digital Equity | Statewide | All Utah Counties | 2 | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | |||||||||||
287 | DAPG Meeting: Guadalupe School 1:1 | 10/24/2023 | Meeting/Presentation | Online | Digital Equity | Local | Salt Lake County, UT | 1 | X | X | X | X | |||||||||||||||
288 | Utah PEW Check-In | 10/24/2023 | Meeting/Presentation | Online | BEAD/Digital Equity | Statewide | All Utah Counties | 1 | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | |||||||||||
289 | DAPG Meeting: Salt Lake County 1:1 | 10/26/2023 | Meeting/Presentation | Online | Digital Equity | Local | Salt Lake County, UT | 1 | X | ||||||||||||||||||
290 | Monthly Broadband Infrastructure Collaboration Call | 10/26/2023 | Meeting/Presentation | Online | BEAD | Statewide | All Utah Counties | 9 | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | |||||||||||
291 | Utah Broadband Initiatives: UBC and Navajo Tribal Utility Authority | 10/27/2023 | Meeting/Presentation | Online | BEAD | Regional | Montezuma Creek, UT | 2 | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | |||||||||||
292 | BellSouth 1:1 | 10/27/2023 | Meeting/Presentation | Online | BEAD | Statewide | Counties served by ISP | 1 | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | |||||||||||
293 | Navajo Utah Commission | 10/27/2023 | Meeting/Presentation | Red Mesa, UT | BEAD/Digital Equity | Regional | Navajo Nation | 15 | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | |||||||||||
294 | DAPG Meeting: Salt Lake County 1:1 | 10/31/2023 | Meeting/Presentation | Online | Digital Equity | Local | Salt Lake County, UT | 1 | X | ||||||||||||||||||
295 | ACP Grantee Cohort Meeting | 10/31/2023 | Meeting/Presentation | Online | Digital Equity | Local | All Utah Counties | 7 | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | ||||||||||||
296 | Sorenson Unity Center 1:1 | 11/1/2023 | Meeting/Presentation | Online | Digital Equity | Local | Salt Lake County, UT | 1 | X | X | X | X | X | X | |||||||||||||
297 | Lumen 1:1 | 11/6/2023 | Meeting/Presentation | Online | BEAD | Statewide | All Utah Counties | 1 | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | |||||||||||
298 | UDOT, Montezuma Creek and Navajo Nation Aneth Colorado Chapter | 11/6/2023 | Meeting/Presentation | Online | BEAD | Regional | Navajo Nation | 5 | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | |||||||||||
299 | Appian | 11/7/2023 | Meeting/Presentation | Online | BEAD | Statewide | All Utah Counties | 3 | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | |||||||||||
300 | Utah Migrant and Seasonal Farmworker Coalition | 11/8/2023 | Meeting/Presentation | Online | Digital Equity | Local | All Utah Counties | 8 | X | X | X | X | |||||||||||||||
301 | Rural Utah Project and Navajo Nation: Google plus Addresses | 11/8/2023 | Meeting/Presentation | Online | BEAD/Digital Equity | Regional | Navajo Nation | 6 | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | |||||||||||
302 | OneWeb 1:1 | 11/9/2023 | Meeting/Presentation | Online | BEAD/Digital Equity | Statewide | All Utah Counties | 1 | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | |||||||||||
303 | Transcend Connecting Utah Gala | 11/10/2023 | Other | | |||||||||||||||||||||||
304 | Utah Broadband Alliance Meeting | 11/14/2023 | Meeting/Presentation | Salt Lake City, Utah | BEAD/Digital Equity | Statewide | All Utah Counties | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | ||||||||||||
305 | US Broadband Summitt | 11/14/2023 - 11/17/2023 | Meeting/Presentation | Washington, DC | BEAD/Digital Equity | Statewide | All Utah Counties | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | ||||||||||||
306 | Atlanta Broadband Symposium | 11/13/2023 - 11/14/2023 | Meeting/Presentation | Atlanta, Georgia | BEAD/Digital Equity | Statewide | All Utah Counties | 30 | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | |||||||||||
307 | Utah Digital Opportunity Network Meeting | 11/15/2023 | Meeting/Presentation | Online | Digital Equity | Statewide | All Utah Counties | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | |||||||||||||
308 | Cellular One and Utah Broadband Center | 11/20/2023 | Meeting/Presentation | Salt Lake City, Utah | BEAD/Digital Equity | Local | Counties served by ISP | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | ||||||||||||
309 | ExcelInEd Conference | 11/15/2023 - 11/17/2023 | Meeting/Presentation | | 24 | ||||||||||||||||||||||
310 | DAPG Meeting Centro Hispano 1:1 | 11/22/2023 | Meeting/Presentation | Online | Digital Equity | Local | Salt Lake County | 1 | X | X | X | X | |||||||||||||||
311 | Infowest 1:1 | 11/28/2023 | Meeting/Presentation | Salt Lake City, UT | BEAD | Local | Counties served by ISP | 1 | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | |||||||||||
312 | Veterans Business Resource Center | 12/1/2023 | Meeting/Presentation | Online | Digital Equity | Local | All Utah Counties | X | Concern from Blanding UT and Navajo population that services are underused, and discussion around how to promote and find liasons that can encourage and educate in culturally appropriate/relevant ways This includes trust, transparency and community involvement Creaating robust outreach methods (videos, visual medias) to engage diverse community and make information palatable Ensure that coalition members are committed to sharing resources via their networks/FB pages Suggestions for outreach: - Chambers of Commerce - Economic Development Directors - City Events Staff | ||||||||||||||||||
313 | Broadband Leader's Summit | 11/29/2023 - 12/01/2023 | Meeting/Presentation | New Orleans, LA | BEAD/Digital Equity | Statewide | All Utah Counties | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | ||||||||||||
314 | BellSouth 1:1 | 12/1/2023 | Meeting/Presentation | Online | BEAD | Local | Counties served by ISP | 1 | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | |||||||||||
315 | Pew Trust Discussion | 12/4/2023 | Meeting/Presentation | Online | BEAD/Digital Equity | Local | All Utah Counties | 6 | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | Conversation on NTIA responses | ||||||||||
316 | Outpost.plus 1:1 | 12/4/2023 | Meeting/Presentation | Online | BEAD | Local | Counties served by ISP | 2 | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | |||||||||||
317 | Minority Business Development Agency | 12/4/2023 | Meeting/Presentation | Salt Lake City, UT | BEAD/Digital Equity | Local | All Utah Counties | 4 | X | X | X | X | X | X | MBDA would like to assist in recruiting Minority owned entreprises and subcontractors during the BEAD deployment phase. | ||||||||||||
318 | IRC 1:1 | 12/5/2023 | Meeting/Presentation | Salt Lake City, UT | Digital Equity | Local | Salt Lake County | o | X | X | X | X | X | Discussed current digital access barriers that newly resettled refugees are experiencing and how the digital inclusion program is working around them to ensure access and digital skills training. | |||||||||||||
319 | Direct Communications | 12/5/2023 | Meeting/Presentation | Online | BEAD | Local | Counties served by ISP | 1 | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | Negociations around the BAG grant contract | ||||||||||
320 | Morgan County 1:1 | 12/5/2023 | Meeting/Presentation | Online | BEAD | Local | Morgan County | 1 | X | X | |||||||||||||||||
321 | Millenium 1:1 | 12/5/2023 | Meeting/Presentation | Online | BEAD | Local | Counties served by ISP | 2 | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | |||||||||||
322 | Ignyte/Appian | 12/5/2023 | Meeting/Presentation | Online | BEAD | Local | All Utah Counties | 4 | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | Grant management offer | ||||||||||
323 | South Valley Electric Service District | 12/7/2023 | Meeting/Presentation | Payson, UT | BEAD | Local | Counties served by SESD | X | X | ||||||||||||||||||
324 | EducationSuperHighway, CEOB and UBC | 12/7/2023 | Meeting/Presentation | Online | Digital Equity | Local | All Utah Counties | 2 | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | Discussions around how ESH can support Utah's ACP cohort and digital inclusion practionners. Recognized current barriers around ACP enrollment and will continue to brainstorm strategies | ||||||||||
325 | CAP Utah ACP Emergency Meeting | 12/7/2023 | Meeting/Presentation | Online | Digital Equity | Local | All Utah Counties | 9 | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | CAP Utah's ACP grant performance and reporting review. UBC member shared statewide goals and outlook on digital equity, and took notes on current barriers the organization is experiencing in ACP enrollments | ||||||||||
326 | URTA/UBC | 12/8/2023 | Meeting/Presentation | Online | | ||||||||||||||||||||||
327 | Team Suh'dutsing/Utah Broadband Center | 12/12/2023 | Meeting/Presentation | Online | BEAD | Local | Southern Utah | 4 | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | |||||||||||
328 | CEOB and UBC: Nonprofit Challenge Process Discussion | 12/13/2023 | Meeting/Presentation | Online | BEAD/Digital Equity | Local | All Utah Counties | 1 | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | Discussed CEOB's role as elgible entity for submitting challenges on behalf of residents | |||||||||||
329 | EBI Consulting: Navigating and Understanding EHP Requirements for BEAD | 12/13/2023 | Meeting/Presentation | Online | BEAD | Local | All Utah Counties | 2 | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | |||||||||||
330 | Centerline Communications | 12/14/2023 | Meeting/Presentation | Online | BEAD | Local | Counties served by ISP | 3 | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | |||||||||||
331 | Utah Digital Opportunity Network Meeting | 12/15/2023 | Meeting/Presentation | Online | Digital Equity | Local | All Utah Counties | 30 | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | Presented Digital Equity Plan, discussed Website design and content and faciliated discussion among members | |||||||||||
332 | Monthly Broadband Infrastructure Collaboration Call | 12/18/2023 | Meeting/Presentation | Online | BEAD | Local | All Utah Counties | 15 | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | |||||||||||
333 | Utah Broadband Advisory Commission Meeting | 12/19/2023 | Meeting/Presentation | Online | BEAD/Digital Equity | Local | All Utah Counties | 18 | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | Agenda | ||||||||||
334 | TEKSystems and UBC | 12/19/2023 | Meeting/Presentation | Online | BEAD/Digital Equity | Local | All Utah Counties | 2 | TEKSystems is offering UBC grant and data tracking systems, CRM and other managing/organizational platforms during the BEAD/DE planning and implentation process | ||||||||||||||||||
335 | Utah New Americans Task Force Meeting | 12/19/2023 | Meeting/Presentation | Online | Digital Equity | Local | All Utah Counties | X | X | X | X | X | |||||||||||||||
336 | Connecting Utah Virtual Call | 12/20/2023 | Meeting/Presentation | Online | BEAD/Digital Equity | Local | All Utah Counties | 15 | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | Agenda | ||||||||||
337 | UETN: San Juan River Region Wireless | 12/20/2023 | Meeting/Presentation | Online | BEAD | Local | Counties served by ISP | 3 | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | |||||||||||
338 | Broadband Breakfast | 12/27/2023 | Meeting/Presentation | Online | BEAD | Local | Counties served by ISP | ||||||||||||||||||||
339 | Pivot-Tech | 1/2/2024 | Meeting/Presentation | Online | BEAD | Local | Counties served by ISP | 4 | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | |||||||||||
340 | Six County AOG: Challenge Process Presentation | 1/3/2024 | Meeting/Presentation | Online | BEAD | Local | Sevier County | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | Presented on UBC challenge process and next steps for AOGs | ||||||||||||
341 | Calix 1:1 | 1/4/2024 | Meeting/Presentation | Online | BEAD | Local | All Utah Counties | 1 | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | |||||||||||
342 | Human IT 1:1 | 1/5/2024 | Meeting/Presentation | Online | BEAD/Digital Equity | Local | All Utah Counties | 1 | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | |||||||||||
343 | Washington State Digital Equity Coalition | 1/8/2024 | Meeting/Presentation | Online | Digital Equity | Local | All Utah Counties | 2 | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | |||||||||||
344 | Dojonetworks 1:1 | 1/9/2024 | Meeting/Presentation | Online | BEAD | Local | All Utah Counties | 1 | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | |||||||||||
345 | Latina Entreprenuers: GOEO Meet & Greet | 1/9/2024 | Meeting/Presentation | Salt Lake City, UT | BEAD/Digital Equity | Local | All Utah Counties | 8 | X | X | Presented briefly to Latina entreprenuers about Digital Equity and BEAD planning to share updates | ||||||||||||||||
346 | Five County AOG Presentation | 1/10/2024 | Meeting/Presentation | Online | BEAD | Local | Look up 5 counties | 13 | X | Presented on UBC challenge process and next steps for AOGs | |||||||||||||||||
347 | Tribal Caucas Day | 1/11/2024 | Meeting/Presentation | Salt Lake City, UT | BEAD/Digital Equity | Local | All Utah Counties | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | Presented on UBC challenge process and next steps for Tribal governments and communities | |||||||||||
348 | Utah Economic Outlook and Public Policy Summit | 1/12/0204 | Meeting/Presentation | Salt Lake City, UT | BEAD/Digital Equity | Local | All Utah Counties | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | ||||||||||||
349 | Mayor's Meeting: Five County AOG | 1/16/2024 | Meeting/Presentation | Online | BEAD | Local | All Utah Counties | 58 | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | Presented on UBC challenge process and next steps for AOGs | ||||||||||
350 | TEKSystems and UBC | 1/16/2024 | Meeting/Presentation | Online | BEAD/Digital Equity | Local | All Utah Counties | 2 | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | |||||||||||
351 | Wasatch Front Regional Council Call | 1/16/2024 | Meeting/Presentation | Online | BEAD | Local | Wasatch Front AOG | 2 | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | |||||||||||
352 | Breaking Point Solutions and UBC | 1/16/2024 | Meeting/Presentation | Online | BEAD | Local | All Utah Counties | 3 | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | Company offers Optimap providing location ID based project analysis that can provide performance project costing for hypothetical project areas to be used for our Challenge Process | ||||||||||
353 | Center of Economic Opportunity and Belonging Open house | 1/16/2024 | Meeting/Presentation | Online | Digital Equity | Local | All Utah Counties | 3 | X | X | X | X | X | Networking event with partner organizations of CEOB and New American economic opportunity development | |||||||||||||
354 | Digital Equity Plan Feedback: NTIA and UBC | 1/17/2024 | Meeting/Presentation | Online | Digital Equity | Statewide | All Utah Counties | 2 | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | |||||||||||
355 | Connecting Utah Virtual Call | 1/17/2024 | Meeting/Presentation | Online | BEAD/Digital Equity | Statewide | All Utah Counties | 96 | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | |||||||||||
356 | AOG Executive Meeting | 1/17/2024 | Meeting/Presentation | Salt Lake City, UT | BEAD | Local | All Utah Counties | ? | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | |||||||||||
357 | Submittable 1:1 | 1/18/2024 | Meeting/Presentation | Online | BEAD/Digital Equity | Local | All Utah Counties | 1 | |||||||||||||||||||
358 | Connecting Leamington with CentraCom | | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
359 | NDIA Digital Equity Plan Review | 1/18/2024 | Meeting/Presentation | Online | Digital Equity | Statewide | All Utah Counties | 4 | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | |||||||||||
360 | New Americans Task Force | | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
361 | Rural Caucus | 1/19/2024 | Meeting/Presentation | Salt Lake City, Utah | BEAD | Local | All Utah Counties | 50 | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | Presented on BEAD and Digital Equity Planning, Challenge Process, and important updates for Rural areas | ||||||||||
362 | Utah Digital Opportunity Network Meeting | 1/19/2024 | Meeting/Presentation | Salt Lake City, Utah | Digital Equity | Local | All Utah Counties | X | Digital equity updates, UDON goals, device refurbishment presentation | ||||||||||||||||||
363 | Digital Inclusion Professional Development Cornell University | 1/19/2024 | Meeting/Presentation | Online | Digital Equity | Local | All Utah Counties | 1 | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | |||||||||||
364 | Submittable 1:1 | 1/23/2024 | Meeting/Presentation | Online | BEAD/Digital Equity | Local | All Utah Counties | 2 | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | Grant managing software demo provided by Submittable | ||||||||||
365 | Challenge Process Zoom Webinar for Nonprofits, Local and Tribal governments | 1/23/2024 | Meeting/Presentation | Online | BEAD/Digital Equity | Local | All Utah Counties | 60 | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | UBC webinar training on the challenge process for nonprofits, tribal and local government entities | ||||||||||
366 | Economic Development Center Utah | 1/23/2024 | Meeting/Presentation | Online | Digital Equity | Local | All Utah Counties | 1 | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | |||||||||||
367 | Transcend International and State Challenge Process | 1/24/2024 | Meeting/Presentation | Online | BEAD/Digital Equity | Local | All Utah Counties | 1 | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | Incubator team for doing outreach to eligible entities and targetting to nonprofits for submitting challenges on behalf of residents | ||||||||||
368 | UServeUtah Leading for Impact Kickoff | 1/25/2024 | Meeting/Presentation | Salt Lake City, Utah | BEAD/Digital Equity | Local | All Utah Counties | 23 | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | |||||||||||
369 | Southeastern Association of Local Governments | 1/25/2024 | Meeting/Presentation | Salt Lake City, Utah | BEAD/Digital Equity | Local | All Utah Counties | ||||||||||||||||||||
370 | Challenge Process Zoom Webinar for Internet Service Providers | 1/25/2024 | Meeting/Presentation | Online | BEAD/Digital Equity | Local | All Utah Counties | 60 | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | UBC webinar training on the challenge process for internet service providers | ||||||||||
371 | Mountainland Association of Governments | 1/25/2024 | Meeting/Presentation | Orem, UT | BEAD/Digital Equity | Local | All Utah Counties | 30 | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | UBC members attended the Mountainland AOG to present on the challenge process | ||||||||||
372 | NDIA Plan Review | 1/29/2024 | Meeting/Presentation | Online | Digital Equity | Local | All Utah Counties | 5 | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | NDIA provided feedback and suggestions on the current Digital Equity Plan Draft | ||||||||||
373 | Wireless Solutions with Airbus and LBiSat | 1/30/2024 | Meeting/Presentation | Salt Lake City, Utah | BEAD | Local | All Utah Counties | 3 | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | Gary Hatch with Airbus would like to meet in person regarding wireless solutions for Utah's remote areas | ||||||||||
374 | Strata 1:1 | 1/30/2024 | Meeting/Presentation | Online | BEAD | Local | All Utah Counties | 1 | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | |||||||||||
375 | Bear River Association of Governments | 1/31/2024 | Meeting/Presentation | Logan, Utah | BEAD/Digital Equity | Local | Box Elder, Cache and Rich Counties | 25? | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | Presented on BEAD and Digital Equity Planning, Challenge Process, and important updates for Bear River Association of Government counties | ||||||||||
376 | Navajo Nation Telecommunication Regulatory Commission | 2/2/2024 | Meeting/Presentation | Phoenix, AZ | BEAD/Digital Equity | Regional | Navajo Nation | ? | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | Meeting with the Navajo Nation Telecommunication Regulatory Commission, the Utah Broadband Center, and the Governor's Office | ||||||||||
377 | Maps on the Hill: State Capitol Building | 2/6/2024 | Meeting/Presentation | Salt Lake City, Utah | BEAD | Local | All Utah Counties | 5 | |||||||||||||||||||
378 | Beehive Broadband 1:1 | 2/6/2024 | Meeting/Presentation | Online | BEAD | Local | Counties served by ISP | 2 | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | |||||||||||
379 | WiFi Cow 1:1 | 2/8/2024 | Meeting/Presentation | Online | BEAD | Local | Counties served by ISP | 1 | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | |||||||||||
380 | UServeUtah Live Session | 2/8/2024 | Meeting/Presentation | Online | Digital Equity | Local | All Utah Counties | ? | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | |||||||||||
381 | UETN February Board Meeting | 2/9/2024 | Meeting/Presentation | Online | BEAD/Digital Equity | Local | All Utah Counties | ? | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | |||||||||||
382 | Whole Grain Fiber Meeting | 2/9/2024 | Meeting/Presentation | Online | BEAD | Local | Counties served by ISP | 2 | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | |||||||||||
383 | Net Inclusion Conference | 2/12/2024 - 2/15/2024 | Meeting/Presentation | Philadelphia, PA | BEAD/Digital Equity | Regional | All Utah Counties | 1300 | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | |||||||||||
384 | State Broadband Leaders Network Conference | 2/13/2024 - 2/15/2023 | Meeting/Presentation | Philadelphia, PA | BEAD/Digital Equity | Regional | All Utah Counties | ? | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | |||||||||||
385 | All West Croydon Final Walk-Out | 2/16/2024 | Other | Croydon, UT | BEAD | Local | Morgan County | ? | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | ||||||||||||
386 | Wasatch Front Regional Council | 2/21/2024 | Meeting/Presentation | Online | BEAD/Digital Equity | Local | Ogden and Layton County | 61 | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | |||||||||||
387 | Wasatch Front Regional Council | 2/21/2024 | Meeting/Presentation | Online | BEAD/Digital Equity | Local | Salt Lake and Utah County | 73 | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | |||||||||||
388 | Utah Broadband Alliance Meeting | 2/21/2024 | Meeting/Presentation | Salt Lake City, Utah | BEAD/Digital Equity | Local | All Utah Counties | ||||||||||||||||||||
389 | Utah Digital Equity Plan 1:1 | 2/21/2024 | Meeting/Presentation | Online | Digital Equity | Local | All Utah Counties | ? | |||||||||||||||||||
390 | UServe Utah Cohort Live Session | 2/22/2024 | Meeting/Presentation | Online | Digital Equity | | All Utah Counties | ||||||||||||||||||||
391 | Utah Digital Opprtunity Network | 2/23/2024 | Meeting/Presentation | Online | Digital Equity | Local | All Utah Counties | 10 | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | |||||||||||
392 | National Grants Management Association | 2/27/2024 - 2/29/2024 | Meeting/Presentation | Washington, DC | BEAD/Digital Equity | Statewide | All Utah Counties | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | Annual Grants Training (AGT) is a multi-day, in-person event ideal for grants management professionals at all career levels. It is the largest grants management-focused training event in the nation. In 2024, AGT had more than 1,600 registrants from every region of the U.S. and other countries. | |||||||||||
393 | NTIA Build America, Buy America Final Waiver Meeting | 2/28/2024 | Meeting/Presentation | Washington, DC | BEAD | Local | All Utah Counties | ||||||||||||||||||||
394 | Promise Partnership of Utah | 3/4/2024 | Meeting/Presentation | Online | Digital Equity | Local | Wasatch Front | 1 | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | Discussed possible partnerships between the UBC, UDON and Promise Partnership | ||||||||||
395 | Digitunity and UBC | 3/6/2024 | Meeting/Presentation | Online | Digital Equity | Local | All Utah Counties | 3 | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | Conversation around device refurbishment ecosystem possibilities and partnerning with Digitunity | ||||||||||
396 | UDON/Broadband Pilot Program/NRTRC | 3/6/2024 | Meeting/Presentation | Online | BEAD/Digital Equity | Regional | All Utah Counties | 4 | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | |||||||||||
397 | Farrpoint and UBC | 3/8/2024 | Meeting/Presentation | Online | BEAD | Local | All Utah Counties | 2 | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | Consulting agency meeting to discuss UBC grant management | ||||||||||
398 | Wireless Internet Service Providers Association of America Conference | 3/4/2024 - 3/7/2024 | Meeting/Presentation | Oklahoma City, OK | BEAD | Statewide | All Utah Counties | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | ||||||||||||
399 | Broadband Workforce Development with Transfer Virtual Reality | 3/6/2024 | Meeting/Presentation | Online | BEAD | Statewide | All Utah Counties | 2 | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | |||||||||||
400 | Beehive Site Visit | 3/12/2024 | Other | Box Elder County, UT | BEAD | Local | Box Elder County | 6 | X | UBC visits broadband infrastructure deployment in Box Elder County towns | |||||||||||||||||
401 | Provo comes to UBC | 3/13/2024 | Meeting/Presentation | Salt Lake City, UT | Digital Equity | Local | Utah County | 1 | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | |||||||||||
402 | Murray School District 1:1 | 3/14/2024 | Meeting/Presentation | Online | BEAD/Digital Equity | Local | Murray, UT | 1 | X | X | X | X | X | X | |||||||||||||
403 | Bear River City Council Meeting | 3/14/2024 | Meeting/Presentation | Bear River City | BEAD/Digital Equity | Local | Bear River, UT | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | ||||||||||||
404 | Utah Digital Opportunity Network Monthly Meeting | 3/15/2024 | Meeting/Presentation | Online | Digital Equity | Local | All Utah Counties | 21 | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | |||||||||||
405 | Virginia and Utah: Challenge Evidence Review Discussion | 3/15/2024 | Meeting/Presentation | Online | BEAD | Local | All Utah Counties | 3 | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | |||||||||||
406 | Utah Tech Coordinators Council | 3/18/2024 | Meeting/Presentation | Salt Lake City, UT | BEAD/Digital Equity | Local | All Utah Counties | ? | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | |||||||||||
407 | UCET Conference | | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
408 | Clad 1:1 | 3/20/2024 | Meeting/Presentation | online | BEAD | Local | All Utah Counties | 1 | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | |||||||||||
409 | Connecting Utah Virtual Call | 3/20/2024 | Meeting/Presentation | Online | BEAD/Digital Equity | Local | All Utah Counties | ? | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | |||||||||||
410 | Virtual: UServeUtah Leading for Impact Conclusion | 3/21/2024 | Meeting/Presentation | Online | Digital Equity | Local | All Utah Counties | 17 | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | |||||||||||
411 | Washington, Utah and Transcend | 3/21/2024 | Meeting/Presentation | Online | Digital Equity | Local | All Utah Counties | 3 | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | I am connecting Transcend with these washington folks to discuss how they set up and deployed a a radio based CBRS solution for some Washington state areas that were not being reached by ISP. This sounds like it was a great public/private partnership between the State and other entities there. | ||||||||||
412 | KSL Interview | 3/21/2024 | Meeting/Presentation | Online | BEAD/Digital Equity | Local | All Utah Counties | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | ||||||||||||
413 | Coastal Coud and UBC | 3/22/2024 | Meeting/Presentation | Online | BEAD | Local | All Utah Counties | 3 | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | |||||||||||
414 | QuikLink 1:1 | 3/22/2024 | Meeting/Presentation | Online | BEAD | Local | All Utah Counties | 1 | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | |||||||||||
415 | Utah Rural Telecommunications Association | 3/25/2024-03/27/2024 | Meeting/Presentation | St. George, Utah | BEAD | Local | All Utah Counties | ? | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | |||||||||||
416 | Broadband Initaitve on Navajo NAtion | 3/27/2024 | Meeting/Presentation | Page, Arizona | BEAD/Digital Equity | Regional | Utah and Arizona, Navajo Nation | 47 | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | |||||||||||
417 | Utah's Device Refurbishment Ecosystem Planning with Digitunity | 3/27/2024 | Meeting/Presentation | Online | Digital Equity | Local | All Utah Counties | 25 | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | Digitunity held a workshop with UBC partners and community digital inclusion practionners to illicit feedback on the currrent state of the device refurbishment ecosystem in Utah, and contribute critical feedback to the Digital Access Plan | ||||||||||
418 | My Learning Alliance and UBC | 3/27/2024 | Meeting/Presentation | Online | BEAD | Local | All Utah Counties | 2 | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | |||||||||||
419 | Digital Inclusion Task Group: Salt Lake Valley Coalition to Ending Homelessness | 3/28/2024 | Meeting/Presentation | Online | Digital Equity | Local | Salt Lake County, UT | 10 | X | X | X | X | X | X | Monthly meeting to discuss barriers and achievements in digital inclusion initiatives specifically for the unhoused population in Salt Lake County | ||||||||||||
420 | Utah Digital Opportunity Networking Working Lunch | 3/29/2024 | Meeting/Presentation | Salt Lake City, UT | Digital Equity | Local | All Utah Counties | 20 | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | UBC hosted working luncheon for UDON members to recap a year's work and discuss upcoming events, state updates, and future strategies | ||||||||||
421 | UDOT and Broadband Project Coordination Discussion | 4/1/2024 | Meeting/Presentation | Online | BEAD | Local | All Utah Counties | 4 | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | |||||||||||
422 | Ramaker 1:1 | 4/2/2024 | Meeting/Presentation | Online | BEAD | Local | All Utah Counties | 1 | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | |||||||||||
423 | Coastal Cloud Demo | 4/2/2024 | Meeting/Presentation | Online | BEAD | Local | All Utah Counties | 6 | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | |||||||||||
424 | Breaking Point Solutions and UBC | 4/2/2024 | Meeting/Presentation | Online | BEAD | Local | All Utah Counties | 2 | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | Met with Glenn Fishbine and Nancy DeGidio from Breaking Point Solutions, who manage the Optimap platform, to go over the options on the map and see what they could do for us. | ||||||||||
425 | Emerge Careers | 4/2/2024 | Meeting/Presentation | Online | Digital Equity | Local | All Utah Counties | 2 | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | Emerge careers provides devices and training programs for justice impacted individuals ranging from currently in prison, re-entry programs and low income populations | ||||||||||
426 | Mayor of Wallsburg and UBC | 4/3/2024 | Meeting/Presentation | Phone Call | BEAD | Local | Wasatch County | 1 | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | Discussed Broadband deployment in the town of Wallsburg | ||||||||||
427 | Comcast and UBC | 4/4/2024 | Meeting/Presentation | Online | BEAD | Local | Counties Served by ISP | 2 | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | Discussing pre challenge speed test results | ||||||||||
428 | Navajo Nation Broadband Office | 4/5/2024 | Meeting/Presentation | Online | BEAD/Digital Equity | Local | Navajo Nation | ||||||||||||||||||||
429 | First Digital and UBC | 4/5/2024 | Meeting/Presentation | Online | BEAD | Local | Counties Served by ISP | 2 | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | |||||||||||
430 | Trileaf | 4/5/2024 | Meeting/Presentation | Online | BEAD | Local | All Utah Counties | 1 | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | Trileaf is a specialized environmental, architecture, and engineering firm with clients in all 50 states and throughout Canada. Known for completing large volumes of small-to-medium-sized projects across large geographies, we have the expertise our clients need. | ||||||||||
431 | Navajo Nation Broadband Office and UBC | 4/8/2024 | Meeting/Presentation | Online | BEAD/Digital Equity | Local | Navajo Nation | 3 | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | |||||||||||
432 | Navajo Tribal Utility Authority and UBC | 4/8/2024 | Meeting/Presentation | Online | BEAD/Digital Equity | Local | Navajo Nation | 2 | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | Meeting concerned the BAG quartlery visit | ||||||||||
433 | NTEN Digital Inclusion Fellowship Presentation | 4/9/2024 | Meeting/Presentation | Online | Digital Equity | Local | Salt Lake County, UT and Provo County | ? | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | Teri Mumm presented at the NTEN Digital Inclusion Fellowship meeting | ||||||||||
434 | Utah Association of Counties Conference | 4/9/2024 - 4/11/2024 | Listening Session (In-person) | Richfield, Utah | BEAD/Digital Equity | Local | All Utah Counties | 3 | X | ||||||||||||||||||
435 | CentraCom ISP 1:1 | 4/10/2024 | Meeting/Presentation | Online | BEAD | Local | Counties Served by ISP | 1 | |||||||||||||||||||
436 | SenaWave 1:1 | 4/10/2024 | Meeting/Presentation | Online | BEAD | Local | Counties Served by ISP | 3 | |||||||||||||||||||
437 | Navajo Nation Virtual Meeting | 4/11/2024 | Meeting/Presentation | Online | BEAD | Local | Navajo Nation | ? | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | |||||||||||
438 | TIA and UBC | | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
439 | One Utah Summit | 4/12/2024 | Other | Salt Lake City, UT | BEAD/Digital Equity | Local | All Utah Counties | ? | |||||||||||||||||||
440 | Navajo Nation Broadband Office and UBC | 4/15/2024 | Meeting/Presentation | Online | BEAD/Digital Equity | Local | Navajo Nation | 3 | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | |||||||||||
441 | Ute Tribe and UBC | 4/15/2024 | Meeting/Presentation | Phone Call | BEAD/Digital Equity | Local | |||||||||||||||||||||
442 | Emerge Careers | 4/16/2024 | Meeting/Presentation | Online | Digital Equity | Local | All Utah Counties | 1 | X | Follow up discussion concerning Emerge Careers proposal to UBC | |||||||||||||||||
443 | Rural Communities Council | 4/16/2024 | Meeting/Presentation | Salt Lake City, UT | BEAD/Digital Equity | Local | Rural Utah Counties | ? | X | ||||||||||||||||||
444 | CentraCom ISP 1:1 | 4/16/2024 | Meeting/Presentation | Salt Lake City, UT | BEAD | Local | Counties Served by ISP | 1 | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | |||||||||||
445 | Utah League of Cities and Towns | 4/17/2024 - 4/19/2024 | Meeting/Presentation | St. George, UT | BEAD/Digital Equity | Statewide | All Utah Counties | 30 | X | X | X | X | X | ||||||||||||||
446 | Lumen and UBC | 04/17/2024 | Meeting/Presentation | Online | BEAD | Local | Counties Served by ISP | 3 | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | Discussion around DSL pre-modifications for Utah Challenge Process | ||||||||||
447 | Manti Telephone and UBC | 04/17/2024 | Meeting/Presentation | Online | BEAD | Local | Counties Served by ISP | 1 | Discussion around DSL pre-modifications for Utah Challenge Process | ||||||||||||||||||
448 | Box Elder County and UBC | 04/17/2024 | Meeting/Presentation | Online | BEAD | Local | Box Elder County | 1 | X | ||||||||||||||||||
449 | Connecting Utah Virtual Call | 04/17/2024 | Meeting/Presentation | Online | BEAD/Digital Equity | Local | All Utah Counties | 91 | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | |||||||||||
450 | Union Telecom | 4/17/2024 | Meeting/Presentation | Online | BEAD | Local | Counties Served by ISP | 2 | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | |||||||||||
451 | HR Greens and UBC | 4/18/2024 | Meeting/Presentation | Online | BEAD | Local | All Utah Counties | 2 | |||||||||||||||||||
452 | Utah Digital Opportunity Network Meeting | 4/19/2024 | Meeting/Presentation | Online | Digital Equity | Local | All Utah Counties | 20 | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | |||||||||||
453 | Western Prosperity Forum | 4/23/2024-4/24/2024 | Meeting/Presentation | Phoenix, AZ | Digital Equity | Regional | All Utah Counties | ? | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | |||||||||||
454 | Western Governor's Association Panel | 04/23/2024 | Meeting/Presentation | Phoenix, AZ | Digital Equity | Regional | All Utah Counties | ? | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | |||||||||||
455 | Congruex Broadband Site Visit | 04/24/2024 | Other | West Jordan, UT | BEAD | Local | West Jordan City, Utah | ? | |||||||||||||||||||
456 | Boradband Initiative on Navajo Nation | 04/25/2024 | Meeting/Presentation | Flagstaff, AZ | BEAD/Digital Equity | Local | Navajo Nation | 22 | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | |||||||||||
457 | Monthly Broadband Infrastructure Collaboration Call | 04/25/2024 | Meeting/Presentation | Online | BEAD/Digital Equity | Local | All Utah Counties | 9 | |||||||||||||||||||
458 | Challenge Process Office Hours for Local, Tribal Gov'ts & Nonprofits | 04/25/2024 | Meeting/Presentation | Online | BEAD/Digital Equity | Local | All Utah Counties | 0 | |||||||||||||||||||
459 | Office Hours for Internet Service Providers | 04/26/2024 | Meeting/Presentation | Online | BEAD/Digital Equity | Local | All Utah Counties | 0 | |||||||||||||||||||
460 | Submittable 1:1 | 04/29/2024 | Meeting/Presentation | Online | Digital Equity | Local | All Utah Counties | 1 | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | |||||||||||
461 | Navajo Nation Broadband Office and UBC | 04/29/2024 | Meeting/Presentation | Online | BEAD/Digital Equity | Local | Navajo Nation | 4 | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | |||||||||||
462 | UBC and Onward Search | 04/29/2024 | Meeting/Presentation | Online | BEAD/Digital Equity | Local | All Utah Counties | 2 | |||||||||||||||||||
463 | UBC and Granicus | 04/30/2024 | Meeting/Presentation | Online | BEAD/Digital Equity | Local | All Utah Counties | 1 | |||||||||||||||||||
464 | UBC and Accenture | 04/30/2024 | Meeting/Presentation | Online | BEAD/Digital Equity | Local | All Utah Counties | 4 | |||||||||||||||||||
465 | Guru Technologies | 05/01/2024 | Meeting/Presentation | Online | BEAD | Local | All Utah Counties | 1 | |||||||||||||||||||
466 | Prevention Science Corp | 05/01/2024 | Meeting/Presentation | Online | Digital Equity | Local | All Utah Counties | 1 | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | |||||||||||
467 | CentraCom ISP 1:1 | 05/01/2024 | Meeting/Presentation | Online | BEAD | Local | All Utah Counties | 1 | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | |||||||||||
468 | Guru Technologies | 05/02/2024 | Meeting/Presentation | Online | BEAD | Local | All Utah Counties | 2 | |||||||||||||||||||
469 | Challenge Process Office Hours for Local, Tribal Gov'ts & Nonprofits | 05/02/2024 | Meeting/Presentation | Online | BEAD/Digital Equity | Local | All Utah Counties | 0 | |||||||||||||||||||
470 | Office Hours for Internet Service Providers | 05/03/2024 | Meeting/Presentation | Online | BEAD/Digital Equity | Local | All Utah Counties | 6 | |||||||||||||||||||
471 | Navajo Nation Broadband Office and NNTRC | 05/03/2024 | Meeting/Presentation | Online | BEAD/Digital Equity | Local | |||||||||||||||||||||
472 | Crewtracks Demo | 06/05/2024 | Meeting/Presentation | Online | BEAD/Digital Equity | Local | All Utah Counties | ||||||||||||||||||||
473 | BRAG officials request county residents' help in securing federal Internet grant (press release) | 05/07/2024 | Other | Online | BEAD | Statewide | All Utah Counties | ||||||||||||||||||||
474 | Boston Omha Broadband Stragetic Meeting | 05/07/2024 | Meeting/Presentation | Heber City, UT | BEAD | Local | All Utah Counties | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | ||||||||||||
475 | Montezuma Creek Fiber | 05/08/2024 | Meeting/Presentation | Online | BEAD | | |||||||||||||||||||||
476 | 2024 Spring Virtual GMBoK Training | 05/09/2024 | Meeting/Presentation | Online | BEAD/Digital Equity | Local | All Utah Counties | ||||||||||||||||||||
477 | Summer SBLN Summit Working Group | 05/09/2024 | Meeting/Presentation | Online | BEAD/Digital Equity | Local | All Utah Counties | ||||||||||||||||||||
478 | Remote Workforce Summit | 05/10/2024 | Meeting/Presentation | Richfield, UT | BEAD/Digital Equity | Local | All Utah Counties | 20 | X | X | |||||||||||||||||
479 | Challenge Process Office Hours for Local, Tribal Gov'ts & Nonprofits | 5/9/2024 | Meeting/Presentation | Online | BEAD/Digital Equity | Local | All Utah Counties | 2 | |||||||||||||||||||
480 | Office Hours for Internet Service Providers | 5/10/2024 | Meeting/Presentation | Online | BEAD/Digital Equity | Local | All Utah Counties | 1 | |||||||||||||||||||
481 | EducationSuperHighway Connectivity for MDUs | 5/13/2024 | Meeting/Presentation | Online | BEAD/Digital Equity | Local | All Utah Counties | 2 | X | X | X | X | X | X | ESH provided a proposal to improve MDU affordability | ||||||||||||
482 | Utah Broadband Alliance Meeting | 5/14/2024 | Meeting/Presentation | Salt Lake City, UT | BEAD/Digital Equity | Local | All Utah Counties | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | Statewide meeting for stakeholders in the Utah Broadband Alliance where presenters and attendees gather to share important information and updates surrounding broadband deployment and digital access | |||||||||||
483 | UBC and Granicus | 5/15/2024 | Meeting/Presentation | Online | BEAD/Digital Equity | Local | All Utah Counties | 1 | Follow-up meeting with a company that offers grant management platform | ||||||||||||||||||
484 | Connect X WIA Conference | 5/14/2025 - 05/16/2024 | Meeting/Presentation | Atlanta, GA | BEAD | Statewide | All Utah Counties | ||||||||||||||||||||
485 | UBC and Utah Education Network | 05/16/2024 | Meeting/Presentation | Online | Digital Equity | Statewide | All Utah Counties | ||||||||||||||||||||
486 | Challenge Process Office Hours for Local, Tribal Gov'ts & Nonprofit | 05/16/2024 | Meeting/Presentation | Online | BEAD/Digital Equity | Local | All Utah Counties | 0 | |||||||||||||||||||
487 | Office Hours for Internet Service Providers | 05/17/2024 | Meeting/Presentation | Online | BEAD/Digital Equity | Local | All Utah Counties | 3 | |||||||||||||||||||
488 | Broadband Access Grant Location Discussion | 05/17/2024 | Meeting/Presentation | Online | BEAD/Digital Equity | Local | |||||||||||||||||||||
489 | First Digital and UBC | 5/17/2024 | Meeting/Presentation | Online | BEAD | Local | Counties served by ISP | 2 | X | ||||||||||||||||||
490 | Linking Families at the Hogle Zoo | 5/18/2024 | Other | Salt Lake City, UT | BEAD/Digital Equity | Local | Salt Lake County | 20 | X | Family event for military and Veteran families looking for resources in Salt Lake County. UBC conducted outreach around internet availability and shared speed test materials with attendees | |||||||||||||||||
491 | Speed Test Challenge Submission Check-In | 5/20/2024 | Meeting/Presentation | Online | BEAD/Digital Equity | Local | All Utah Counties | 3 | X | Meeting to support eligible entity challengers submitting individual speed test surveys as challenges | |||||||||||||||||
492 | UBC and Zayo Introduction | 5/21/2024 | Meeting/Presentation | Online | BEAD/Digital Equity | Local | All Utah Counties | 4 | Introudction to an ISP | ||||||||||||||||||
493 | Human IT 1:1 | 5/21/2024 | Meeting/Presentation | Online | Digital Equity | Local | All Utah Counties | 1 | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | |||||||||||
494 | UBC and Strata | 05/22/2024 | Meeting/Presentation | Hybrid | BEAD | Local | Counties served by ISP | 4 | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | Meeting with an ISP | ||||||||||
495 | Eutelsat OneWeb and UBC | 5/22/2024 | Meeting/Presentation | Online | BEAD | Local | Counties served by ISP | 3 | Meeting with a low-earth orbit satellite ISP | ||||||||||||||||||
496 | Comcast Investment Announcement | 05/22/2024 | Meeting/Presentation | Tooele, UT | BEAD/Digital Equity | Local | Counties served by ISP | 100+ | |||||||||||||||||||
497 | Prevention Science Corp and UBC | 5/23/2024 | Meeting/Presentation | Online | Digital Equity | Local | All Utah Counties | 1 | X | ||||||||||||||||||
498 | Challenge Process Office Hours for Local, Tribal Gov'ts & Nonprofits | 5/23/2024 | Meeting/Presentation | Online | BEAD/Digital Equity | Local | All Utah Counties | 1 | X | X | Office hours to support eligible entities working through the challenge process | ||||||||||||||||
499 | Office Hours for Internet Service Providers | 5/24/2024 | Meeting/Presentation | Online | BEAD/Digital Equity | Local | All Utah Counties | 0 | |||||||||||||||||||
500 | UBC and Strata Networks | 5/24/2024 | Meeting/Presentation | Online | BEAD | Local | Counties served by ISP | 6 | X | ||||||||||||||||||
501 | Meeting with Ute Business Committee | 5/28/2024 | Meeting/Presentation | Fort Duchesne, Utah | BEAD/Digital Equity | Local | Uintah County | 4 | X | X | Present the proposed US-40 Fiber Optic Project to the Ute Business Committee for their input and comment | ||||||||||||||||
502 | UBC and Tech Charities | 5/29/2024 | Meeting/Presentation | Online | Digital Equity | Local | Salt Lake County | 1 | X | X | X | X | |||||||||||||||
503 | UBC and National Institute of Standards & Technology | 5/29/2024 | Meeting/Presentation | Online | Digital Equity | Local | All Utah Counties | ||||||||||||||||||||
504 | Utah Department of Corrections Meeting | 5/30/2024 | Meeting/Presentation | Online | Digital Equity | Local | All Utah Counties | 11 | X | ||||||||||||||||||
505 | Challenge Process Office Hours for Local, Tribal Gov'ts & Nonprofits | 5/30/2024 | Meeting/Presentation | Online | BEAD/Digital Equity | Local | All Utah Counties | 0 | |||||||||||||||||||
506 | Office Hours for Internet Service Providers | 5/31/2024 | Meeting/Presentation | Online | BEAD/Digital Equity | Local | All Utah Counties | 0 | |||||||||||||||||||
507 | Meet with KGP | 6/3/2024 | Meeting/Presentation | In-person | BEAD | Regional | All Utah Counties | 2 | |||||||||||||||||||
508 | UAN Survey Results | 06/04/2024 | Meeting/Presentation | Online | Digital Equity | Statewide | All Utah Counties | 4 | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | |||||||||||
509 | GoTo Webinar - The BEAD Application Phase Is Approaching | 06/05/2024 | Meeting/Presentation | Online | BEAD | Statewide | All Utah Counties | ||||||||||||||||||||
510 | Ute TBCP Deduplication-NTIA/UBC* | 06/06/2024 | Meeting/Presentation | Online | BEAD | Local | Daggett, Duchesne and Uintah | 9 | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | |||||||||||
511 | Call to discuss USTelecom Leadership Summit Panel | 06/06/2024 | Meeting/Presentation | Online | BEAD | Regional | All Utah Counties | 5 | |||||||||||||||||||
512 | Utah Community DE Incubator Core Planning Team. Udon/UBC pertnership meeting * | 06/06/2024 | Meeting/Presentation | Online | Digital Equity | Local | All Utah Counties | 2 | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | |||||||||||
513 | Navajo Nation Broadband Office/UBC* | 06/07/2024 | Meeting/Presentation | Online | BEAD/Digital Equity | Regional | Navajo Nation/ San Juan County | 12 | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | |||||||||||
514 | Office Hours for Internet Service Providers | 06/07/2024 | Meeting/Presentation | Online | BEAD | Local | All Utah Counties | 0 | |||||||||||||||||||
515 | Navajo Nation Broadband Office/UBC* | 06/10/2024 | Meeting/Presentation | Online | BEAD/Digital Equity | Regional | All Utah Counties | 7 | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | |||||||||||
516 | BAG Reporting Orientation HiCountry | 06/10/2024 | Meeting/Presentation | Online | BEAD | Local | Salt Lake County | 4 | |||||||||||||||||||
517 | Navajo Nation meeting* | 06/12/2024 | Meeting/Presentation | Online | BEAD | Regional | San Juan County | ? | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | |||||||||||
518 | Connecting Utah-Virtual Zoom Call | 06/12/2024 | Meeting/Presentation | Online | BEAD/Digital Equity | Statewide | All Utah Counties | 71 | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | |||||||||||
519 | Navajo Nation work session* | 06/12/2024 | Meeting/Presentation | Online | BEAD | Regional | San Juan County | ? | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | |||||||||||
520 | Utah Community DE Incubator Core Planning Team* | 06/13/2024 | Meeting/Presentation | Online | Digital Equity | Statewide | All Utah Counties | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | ||||||||||||
521 | Verizon Rebuttal meet | 06/13/2024 | Meeting/Presentation | Online | BEAD | Local | All Utah Counties | 1 | |||||||||||||||||||
522 | Direct Communciation BAG reporting Orientation | 06/14/2024 | Meeting/Presentation | Online | BEAD | Local | Utah County, Tooele County | 1 | |||||||||||||||||||
523 | Office Hours for Challenge Process Rebuters | 06/14/2024 | Meeting/Presentation | Online | BEAD | Local | All Utah Counties | 0 | |||||||||||||||||||
524 | Meeting with 50-State | 06/18/2024 | Meeting/Presentation | Online | BEAD | Regional | All Utah Counties | 6 | |||||||||||||||||||
525 | EDWS Legislative Presentation 20 Min Broadband* | 06/19/2024 | Meeting/Presentation | In-person | BEAD | Statewide | All Utah Counties | ? | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | |||||||||||
526 | Mandatory Planning Call | Utah DTS | Bridging the Divide: | 06/19/2024 | Meeting/Presentation | Online | Digital Equity | Statewide | All Utah Counties | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | ||||||||||||
527 | Office Hours for Challenge Process Rebuters | 06/21/2024 | Meeting/Presentation | Online | BEAD | Statewide | All Utah Counties | 1 | |||||||||||||||||||
528 | Morgan County/Beehive Broadband/UBC discussion * | 06/21/2024 | Meeting/Presentation | Online | BEAD | Local | Morgan County | 2 | |||||||||||||||||||
529 | Meeting with Bellsouth -typically ongoing meeting | 06/21/2024 | Meeting/Presentation | Online | BEAD | Regional | All Utah Counties | 1 | |||||||||||||||||||
530 | Utah/NNBO - BEAD* | 06/24/24 | Meeting/Presentation | Online | BEAD/Digital Equity | Local | San Juan County | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | ||||||||||||
531 | Logan - Roger Jones Retirement from BRAG | 06/24/24 | Meeting/Presentation | In-Person | BEAD | Local | Cache County | ||||||||||||||||||||
532 | Utah Digital Government Summit | 06/26/24 | Meeting/Presentation | In-Person | BEAD/Digital Equity | Statewide | All Utah Counties | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | ||||||||||||
533 | Wi-fiber Challenge Conversation | 06/26/24 | Meeting/Presentation | Online | BEAD | Local | All Utah Counties | 5 | |||||||||||||||||||
534 | Monthly broadband infrastructure collaboration call | 06/27/24 | Meeting/Presentation | Online | BEAD/Digital Equity | Statewide | All Utah Counties | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | ||||||||||||
535 | Office Hours for Challenge Process Rebutals | 06/28/24 | Meeting/Presentation | Online | Digital Equity | Statewide | All Utah Counties | 0 | |||||||||||||||||||
536 | Navajo Nation Broadband Office | July 5, 2024 | Meeting/Presentation | Online | BEAD/Digital Equity | Local | Navajo Nation/San Juan County | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | ||||||||||||
537 | Bellsouth/Broadband Meeting | July 5, 2024 | Meeting/Presentation | Online | BEAD | Statewide | All Utah Counties | 1 | |||||||||||||||||||
538 | Office Hours for Challenge Process Rebuters | July 5, 2024 | Meeting/Presentation | Online | BEAD | Statewide | All Utah Counties | 0 | |||||||||||||||||||
539 | UDON/UBC/NDIA Competitive Grant Review Meeting | July 9, 2024 | Meeting/Presentation | Online | BEAD/Digital Equity | Statewide | All Utah Counties | 5 | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | |||||||||||
540 | Broadband/Wifi Pros | July 10, 2024 | Meeting/Presentation | In-Person | BEAD | Statewide | All Utah Counties | 10 | |||||||||||||||||||
541 | BEAD Challenge Reviewers Weekly Check -in | July 10, 2024 | Meeting/Presentation | Online | BEAD | Statewide | All Utah Counties | 1 | |||||||||||||||||||
542 | UDON/UBC/NDIA Competitive Grant Review Meeting | July 15, 2024 | Meeting/Presentation | Online | BEAD/Digital Equity | Statewide | All Utah Counties | 5 | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | |||||||||||
543 | RCC-meeting* | July 16, 2024 | Meeting/Presentation | Online | BEAD | Statewide | All Utah Counties | 114 | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | |||||||||||
544 | Connecting Utah-Virtual Zoom Call | July 17, 2024 | Meeting/Presentation | Online | BEAD/Digital Equity | Statewide | All Utah Counties | 56 | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | |||||||||||
545 | Digital Opportunity Research Project | July 18, 2024 | Meeting/Presentation | Online | Digital Equity | Statewide | All Utah Counties | 2 | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | |||||||||||
546 | Broadband Access Grant Matching Funds Discussion | July 22, 2024 | Meeting/Presentation | Online | BEAD | Local | Bear River AOG | 1 | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | |||||||||||
547 | Utah/NNBO - BEAD | July 22, 2024 | Meeting/Presentation | Online | BEAD/Digital Equity | Local | San Juan County | 4 | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | |||||||||||
548 | Kaylene / Rebecca | July 26, 2024 | Meeting/Presentation | Online | BEAD | Statewide | All Utah Counties | 1 | |||||||||||||||||||
549 | Digital Comp Grant | July 31, 2024 | Meeting/Presentation | Online | BEAD/Digital Equity | Statewide | All Utah Counties | 1 | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | |||||||||||
550 | Mtg Navajo Nation & GOEO Broadband | July 31, 2024 | Meeting/Presentation | Online | BEAD/Digital Equity | Local | Navajo Nation/San Juan County | 2 | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | |||||||||||
551 | Competitive grant discussion / UBC / LSI | 08/02/2024 | Meeting/Presentation | Online | BEAD | Statewide | All Utah Counties | 2 | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | |||||||||||
552 | Broadband Leaders Summit/Mountain Connect Panel | 08/06/2024 | Meeting/Presentation | In-Person | BEAD | Regional | All Utah Counties | 100 | X | ||||||||||||||||||
553 | Rebecca, Chris, & Karisa Connect | 08/06/2024 | Meeting/Presentation | In-Person | BEAD/Digital Equity | Regional | All Utah Counties | 2 | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | |||||||||||
554 | Utah BEAD/DE Discussion | 08/06/2024 | Meeting/Presentation | In-Person | BEAD/Digital Equity | Regional | All Utah Counties | 1 | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | |||||||||||
555 | Tri-state Telecom Conference - Panel | 08/07/2024 | Meeting/Presentation | In-Person | BEAD | Regional | All Utah Counties | 200 | X | ||||||||||||||||||
556 | Cohesity Overview Meeting | 08/07/2024 | Meeting/Presentation | Online | BEAD | Statewide | All Utah Counties | 2 | |||||||||||||||||||
557 | Digital Competitive Grant Core Team Check In | 08/12/2024 | Meeting/Presentation | Online | BEAD/Digital Equity | Statewide | All Utah Counties | 3 | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | |||||||||||
558 | Zayo / Utah Broadband Touch-base | 08/13/2024 | Meeting/Presentation | online | BEAD/Digital Equity | Statewide | All Utah Counties | 4 | X | ||||||||||||||||||
559 | Box Elder County BAG Discussion | 08/13/2024 | Meeting/Presentation | Online | BEAD | Local | Box Elder County | 1 | |||||||||||||||||||
560 | Competitive Grant Lead Discussion | 08/15/2024 | Meeting/Presentation | Online | Digital Equity | Statewide | All Utah Counties | 4 | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | |||||||||||
561 | Senator Lee's Staff re: ACP | 08/20/2024 | Meeting/Presentation | In-Person | BEAD | Statewide | All Utah Counties | 4 | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | |||||||||||
562 | Sync: Rebecca (UT BBO) and Athur (WBK Law) | 08/21/2024 | Meeting/Presentation | Online | BEAD | Regional | WA, DC, CO, TX, potentially UT | 2 | |||||||||||||||||||
563 | Utah Broadband Center and Essentia - Introduction and Middle Mile Discussion | 08/21/2024 | Meeting/Presentation | Online | BEAD | Statewide | All Utah Counties | 3 | |||||||||||||||||||
564 | Nokia and BEAD Updates | 08/22/2024 | Meeting/Presentation | Online | BEAD | Statewide | All Utah Counties | 2 | |||||||||||||||||||
565 | SCORE Collaboration and Utah Broadband Center | 08/23/2024 | Meeting/Presentation | Online | Digital Equity | Statewide | All Utah Counties | 4 | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | |||||||||||
566 | Intro Steve Greene & USDA Brad Clausen | 08/27/2024 | Meeting/Presentation | Online | BEAD | Statewide | All Utah Counties | 3 | |||||||||||||||||||
567 | Utah Broadband- Montezuma Creek NTUA | 08/29/2024 | Meeting/Presentation | Online | BEAD | Regional | Counties served by ISP | 5 | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | Meeting for updates on progress of broadband infrastructure buildout at Montezuma Creek, San Juan County. | ||||||||||
568 | Rebecca and Arthur/Mike Lunch (WBK Law) | 09/03/2024 | Meeting/Presentation | In-Person | BEAD | Regional | WA, DC, CO, TX, potentially UT | 2 | |||||||||||||||||||
569 | Utah Broadband Alliance Meeting | 09/04/2024 | Meeting/Presentation | In-Person & Online | BEAD/Digital Equity | Statewide | All Utah Counties | 93 | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | |||||||||||
570 | Site Visit Hi Country Net | 09/05/2024 | Other | In-Person | BEAD | Local | Salt Lake County | 1 | X | staff members went to view the project progress of HiCountryNet’s Broadband Access Grant, which UBC awarded for fiber-to-the-home deployment. | |||||||||||||||||
571 | VA-UT Digital Equity Webinar Discussion | 09/06/2024 | Meeting/Presentation | Online | Digital Equity | Regional | National | 10 | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | UBC is invited to participate on a panel discussion for "Serving Those That Served: Veterans and Digital Equity" presented by the Benton Institute of Broadband & Society, the VA’s Office of Connected Care and Office of Rural Engagement. | ||||||||||
572 | Navajo Nation Broadband Office/NNTC | 09/06/2024 | Meeting/Presentation | Online | BEAD/Digital Equity | Regional | AZ, NM, & UT | 8 | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | |||||||||||
573 | Dura-line Plant Visit | 09/09/2024 | Meeting/Presentation | In-Person | BEAD/Digital Equity | Regional | They serve over 20 locations in & out of the US | 3 | |||||||||||||||||||
574 | Allwest Visit | 09/10/2024 | Meeting/Presentation | Online | BEAD | Regional | northeast Utah to southwest Wyoming. | 2 | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | |||||||||||
575 | GetSetUp Presentation to the Utah Broadband Center | 09/10/2024 | Meeting/Presentation | Online | Digital Equity | Regional | Online Platform | 2 | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | GetSetUp provides older adults with accessible and engaging online learning opportunities, helping them build digital literacy and confidence. | ||||||||||
576 | Utah veterans Plan Review | 09/11/2024 | Meeting/Presentation | Online | BEAD/Digital Equity | Statewide | All Utah Counties | 2 | |||||||||||||||||||
577 | Navajo Nation Meeting | 09/12/2024 | Meeting/Presentation | Online | BEAD/Digital Equity | Local | Navajo Nation/ San Juan County | ||||||||||||||||||||
578 | UDON Introduction Meeting | 09/12/2024 | Meeting/Presentation | Online | BEAD/Digital Equity | Regional | All Utah Counties | 1 | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | |||||||||||
579 | Re: Discussion on upcoming equity grants with PITU | 09/13/2024 | Meeting/Presentation | Online | BEAD/Digital Equity | Local | Southwest Utah | 1 | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | |||||||||||
580 | Utah Jobs for Veterans State Grant Call Lindsey/David | 09/13/2024 | Meeting/Presentation | Online | BEAD/Digital Equity | Statewide | All Utah Counties | 1 | |||||||||||||||||||
581 | Meet with Isotruss/Introductions | 09/13/2024 | Meeting/Presentation | Online | BEAD | Regional | UT, WY, FL, NC, etc. | 2 | Isotruss wanted to know details of the BEAD program & wants to present at the next alliance meeting. | ||||||||||||||||||
582 | Re: Connected Oklahoma Panel Information | 09/19/2024 | Meeting/Presentation | Online | BEAD | Regional | All Utah Counties | 4 | Impact of Middle Mile Networks on Affordability Panel prep call. | ||||||||||||||||||
583 | Jill / Lindsey | 09/24/2024 | Meeting/Presentation | Online | Digital Equity | Statewide | UT & ID | 1 | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | |||||||||||
584 | Beehive Broadband - Bear River City/Elwood Construction Review | 09/25/2024 | Meeting/Presentation | In-Person | BEAD | Local | Bear River City & Elwood | 9 | |||||||||||||||||||
585 | Panel Introduction - From the Plan to the Ground | 09/26/2024 | Meeting/Presentation | Online | BEAD | Regional | All Utah Counties | 5 | |||||||||||||||||||
586 | Lindsey / Kelly with UETN Intro | 09/27/2024 | Meeting/Presentation | Online | Digital Equity | Statewide | All Utah Counties | 1 | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | |||||||||||
587 | Digitunity / UBC Meeting | 10/01/2024 | Meeting/Presentation | Online | BEAD/Digital Equity | Regional | Nation Wide | 2 | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | |||||||||||
588 | Proxim Wireless Broadband Related Conf. Call | 10/01/2024 | Meeting/Presentation | Online | BEAD | Regional | Global | 1 | |||||||||||||||||||
589 | Taylor / Lindsey Program Opportunity Meeting | 10/03/2024 | Meeting/Presentation | Online | Digital Equity | Regional | Nation Wide | 1 | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | |||||||||||
590 | Broadband Expo Panel Planning | 10/03/2024 | Meeting/Presentation | Online | BEAD | Regional | All Utah Counties | 4 | |||||||||||||||||||
591 | Connected Oklahoma Panel - Final Sync up Meeting | 10/03/2024 | Meeting/Presentation | Online | BEAD | Regional | All Utah Counties | 4 | |||||||||||||||||||
592 | Navajo Nation Broadband Office/NNTC | 10/04/2024 | Meeting/Presentation | Online | BEAD/Digital Equity | Regional | AZ, NM, & UT | 15 | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | |||||||||||
593 | Sunday ConneXions Session: How Can Rural Communities Maximize Their Efforts with BEAD | 10/07/2024 | Meeting/Presentation | Online | BEAD | Regional | Nation Wide | 4 | |||||||||||||||||||
594 | One Utah Summit | 10/07/2024 | Meeting/Presentation | In-Person | BEAD | Statewide | All Utah Counties | ||||||||||||||||||||
595 | Connected Oklahoma Pannel - Impact of Middle Mile Networks in Affordability | 10/08/2024 | Meeting/Presentation | In-Person | BEAD | Regional | Nation Wide | 250 | |||||||||||||||||||
596 | Lift Zone Grand Opening | 10/09/2024 | Meeting/Presentation | In-Person | Digital Equity | Local | Salt Lake County | 70 | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | |||||||||||
597 | CanAm & Utah Broadband | 10/9/2024 | Meeting/Presentation | In-Person | BEAD | Regional | All Utah Counties | 1 | |||||||||||||||||||
598 | Rebeccaa / Ray Introductions - Utah Broadband & Sonar Software | 10/9/2024 | Meeting/Presentation | Online | BEAD | Regional | All Utah Counties | 1 | |||||||||||||||||||
599 | Broadband National Expo - Steve Greene Panel - From the Plan to the Ground | 10/9/2024 | Meeting/Presentation | In-Person | BEAD | Regional | Nation Wide | 350 | |||||||||||||||||||
600 | Zayo / Utah broadband F2F BBN | 10/10/2024 | Meeting/Presentation | In-Person | BEAD | Regional | All Utah Counties | 4 | |||||||||||||||||||
601 | Catch up with Rebecca / Dave / Melissa (TIA) | 10/10/2024 | Meeting/Presentation | In-Person | BEAD | Statewide | All Utah Counties | 2 | |||||||||||||||||||
602 | Broadband National Expo - Rebecca Dilg Panel - The Wireless Competitive Advantage | 10/10/2024 | Meeting/Presentation | In-Person | BEAD | Regional | Nation Wide | 80 | |||||||||||||||||||
603 | Utah Broadband Center & Maria Popo, SCTE Meet | 10/10/2024 | Meeting/Presentation | In-Person | BEAD | Regional | Nation Wide | 1 | |||||||||||||||||||
604 | Digital Equity Coordination Meeting | 10/11/2024 | Meeting/Presentation | Online | BEAD/Digital Equity | Statewide | All Utah Counties | 1 | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | |||||||||||
605 | Live Panel - Sunday ConneXions Session: How Can Rural Communitites Maximize Their Efforts with BEAD? | 10/13/2024 | Meeting/Presentation | Las vegas | BEAD/Digital Equity | Statewide | Counties served by ISP | 80 | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | |||||||||||
606 | Calix Panel - How can Rural Communities Maximize Their Efforts with BEAD? | 10/13/2024 | Meeting/Presentation | Las vegas | BEAD/Digital Equity | Statewide | Counties served by ISP | 80 | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | |||||||||||
607 | CentraCom Funding - UT Broadband Office | 10/14/2024 | Meeting/Presentation | Las vegas | BEAD | Statewide | Counties served by ISP | 6 | |||||||||||||||||||
608 | Boston Omaha Broadband/Utah Funding | 10/14/2024 | Meeting/Presentation | Las vegas | BEAD | Statewide | Counties served by ISP | 7 | |||||||||||||||||||
609 | Strata/Utah Funding | 10/14/2024 | Meeting/Presentation | Las vegas | BEAD | Statewide | Counties served by ISP | 5 | |||||||||||||||||||
610 | WISPA State Coordinators Dinner | 10/15/2024 | Meeting/Presentation | In-Person | BEAD | Regional | Nation Wide | 14 | |||||||||||||||||||
611 | RCC - Meeting | 10/15/2024 | Meeting/Presentation | Online | BEAD | Statewide | All Utah Counties | 20 | |||||||||||||||||||
612 | Connecting Utah- Virtual Zoom Call | 10/16/2024 | Meeting/Presentation | Online | BEAD/Digital Equity | Local | All Utah Counties | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | ||||||||||||
613 | Dayton Photonics | 10/17/2024 | Meeting/Presentation | Online | BEAD | Regional | All Utah Counties | 2 | Dayton Photonics is a Telecommunications equipment supplier in Kettering Ohio. | ||||||||||||||||||
614 | Utah Broadband Advisory Commission Virtual Meeting | 10/18/2024 | Meeting/Presentation | Online | BEAD/Digital Equity | Local | All Utah Counties | 44 | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | |||||||||||
615 | NNBO x ACA: Digital Equity Planning | 10/21/2024 | Meeting/Presentation | Online | Digital Equity | Regional | UT, AZ, & NM | 6 | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | |||||||||||
616 | Utah Broadband Center FreeCast Intro | 10/23/2024 | Meeting/Presentation | Online | BEAD | Statewide | All Utah Counties | 3 | |||||||||||||||||||
617 | Box Elder County Commission Meeting | 10/23/2024 | Meeting/Presentation | In-Person | BEAD | Local | Box Elder County | ||||||||||||||||||||
618 | BBC Summit West - Prep Call | 10/24/2024 | Meeting/Presentation | Online | BEAD | Regional | Summit - Western States | 5 | |||||||||||||||||||
619 | Utah's BIG BEAD Overview and Training | 10/24/2024 | Meeting/Presentation | In-Person | BEAD/Digital Equity | Local | All Utah Counties | 55 | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | |||||||||||
620 | Utah Tribal Leaders Meeting Presentation by Lindsey | 10/25/2024 | Meeting/Presentation | In-Person | Digital Equity | Regional | 80 | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | ||||||||||||
621 | Pre App Map with Emery Telecom | 10/28/2024 | Meeting/Presentation | Online | BEAD | Regional | UT & CO | 1 | |||||||||||||||||||
622 | Questions on Reporting with Beehive Broadband | 10/28/2024 | Meeting/Presentation | Online | BEAD | Regional | Western UT and Eastern NV | 2 | |||||||||||||||||||
623 | Utahs BIG BEAD Grant Overview Webinar | 10/29/2024 | Meeting/Presentation | Online | BEAD/Digital Equity | Local | All Utah Counties | 87 | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | |||||||||||
624 | Meeting with Ben Ekins from UBB | 10/30/2024 | Meeting/Presentation | In-Person | BEAD | Statewide | All Utah Counties | 1 | |||||||||||||||||||
625 | Broadband Communities Summit West - Rebecca | 10/30-10/31/24 | Meeting/Presentation | San Diego | BEAD | Regional | Western United States | 25 | |||||||||||||||||||
626 | Just Transition Meeting | 11/1/2024 | Meeting/Presentation | Online | BEAD/Digital Equity | Local | Millard, Emery, Carbon, Uintah, Sevier, and Kane County | 1 | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | Natalie from Just Transition was interested in learning more about the broadband and digital access services in these counties (Millard, Emery, Carbon, Uintah, Sevier and Kane). | ||||||||||
627 | NNBO x ACA: Digital Equity Planning | 11/4/2024 | Meeting/Presentation | Online | Digital Equity | Regional | UT, AZ, & NM | 8 | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | |||||||||||
628 | Utah's BIG BEAD Grant Virtual Office Hours | 11/5/2024 | Meeting/Presentation | Online | BEAD/Digital Equity | Statewide | All Utah Counties | 5 | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | |||||||||||
629 | Veterans and Digital Equity Webinar - Practice Run | 11/5/2024 | Meeting/Presentation | Online | Digital Equity | Regional | UT & VA | 10 | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | |||||||||||
630 | GigTRAK + Discussion - OTI and Utah | 11/5/2024 | Meeting/Presentation | Online | BEAD | Statewide | All Utah Counties | 2 | |||||||||||||||||||
631 | CentraCom BEAD Pre-Application Map BSL Eligibility Review | 11/6/2024 | Meeting/Presentation | Online | BEAD | Statewide | All Utah Counties | 3 | |||||||||||||||||||
632 | BEAD Informational Meeting | 11/8/2024 | Meeting/Presentation | Online | BEAD | Statewide | All Utah Counties | 2 | |||||||||||||||||||
633 | UBC Office Hours; Pre-Application Support | 11/12/2024 | Meeting/Presentation | Online | BEAD/Digital Equity | Statewide | All Utah Counties | 7 | |||||||||||||||||||
634 | Navajo Nation Broadband Deployment & Implementation | 11/12/2024 | Meeting/Presentation | Online | BEAD/Digital Equity | Regional | Navajo Nation | 50 | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | |||||||||||
635 | Broadband Breakfast Live Online | 11/13/2024 | Meeting/Presentation | Online | BEAD | Regional | All States | 21 | |||||||||||||||||||
636 | Strata BEAD Discussion | 11/14/2024 | Meeting/Presentation | Online | BEAD | Statewide | All Utah Counties | 2 | |||||||||||||||||||
637 | Murice / Lindsey Digital Equity 1:1 | 11/14/2024 | Meeting/Presentation | Online | Digital Equity | Local | Grand County | 1 | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | |||||||||||
638 | NNBO x ACA: Digital Equity Planning | 11/15/2024 | Meeting/Presentation | Online | Digital Equity | Regional | UT, AZ, & NM | 8 | |||||||||||||||||||
639 | BEAD Informational Meeting | 11/19/2024 | Meeting/Presentation | Online | BEAD | Regional | All States | 2 | |||||||||||||||||||
640 | UBC Office Hours; Pre-Application Support | 11/19/2024 | Meeting/Presentation | Online | BEAD/Digital Equity | Statewide | All Utah Counties | 14 | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | |||||||||||
641 | Broadband Breakfast Live Online | 11/20/2024 | Meeting/Presentation | Online | BEAD/Digital Equity | | |||||||||||||||||||||
642 | Community Advisory Board Meeting for E-Sincere Study | 11/20/2024 | Meeting/Presentation | Online | BEAD/Digital Equity | Statewide | All Utah Counties | 19 | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | |||||||||||
643 | Lunch and Learn: Digital Citizenship | 11/21/2024 | Meeting/Presentation | Online | Digital Equity | Statewide | All Utah Counties | 80 | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | |||||||||||
644 | Utah Broadband Alliance Meeting | 11/21/2024 | Meeting/Presentation | Salt Lake City, UT | BEAD/Digital Equity | Statewide | All Utah Counties | 78 | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | |||||||||||
645 | Digital Equity Coordination Meeting | 11/21/2024 | Meeting/Presentation | Online | Digital Equity | Statewide | All Utah Counties | 4 | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | |||||||||||
646 | Digital Equity Meeting | 11/22/2024 | Meeting/Presentation | Online | Digital Equity | Local | Guadschool.org | 2 | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | |||||||||||
647 | Club ABILITY | 11/22/2024 | Meeting/Presentation | Online | Digital Equity | Statewide | All Utah Counties | 1 | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | |||||||||||
648 | CHLPI / Utah Broadband Center | 11/25/2024 | Meeting/Presentation | Online | BEAD/Digital Equity | Statewide | All Utah Counties | 3 | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | |||||||||||
649 | UBC Office Hours; Pre-Application Support | 11/26/2024 | Meeting/Presentation | Online | BEAD/Digital Equity | Statewide | All Utah Counties | 12 | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | |||||||||||
650 | Meet with Steve WISPA | 11/26/2024 | Meeting/Presentation | Online | BEAD | Statewide | All Utah Counties | 1 | |||||||||||||||||||
651 | Utah Alternative Technologies | 12/2/2024 | Meeting/Presentation | Online | BEAD | Statewide | All Utah Counties | 2 | |||||||||||||||||||
652 | UBC Office Hours; Pre-Application Support | 12/3/2024 | Meeting/Presentation | Online | BEAD/Digital Equity | Statewide | All Utah Counties | 2 | |||||||||||||||||||
653 | Broadband Access Grant Discussion | 12/3/2024 | Meeting/Presentation | Online | BEAD | Local | 2 | ||||||||||||||||||||
654 | Broadband Panel - Claire | 12/5/2024 | Meeting/Presentation | Online | BEAD | Regional | 50-60 | ||||||||||||||||||||
655 | Allwest Ribbon Splicing Event | 12/5/2024 | Other | Croydon, UT | BEAD/Digital Equity | Local | Croydon County | 30 | |||||||||||||||||||
656 | Strata BEAD Call with Rebecca | 12/6/2024 | Meeting/Presentation | Online | BEAD | Local | Cache Valley, Daggett County, Uintah Basin, and Utah County | 4 | |||||||||||||||||||
657 | State Broadband Officer Roundtable - PM Session | 12/6/2024 | Meeting/Presentation | Online | BEAD | Statewide | All Utah Counties | 37 | |||||||||||||||||||
658 | Digital Equity Coordination Meeting | 12/6/2024 | Meeting/Presentation | Online | BEAD/Digital Equity | Statewide | All Utah Counties | 2 | |||||||||||||||||||
659 | Wallsburg City Council re: Grant and Buildout Progress | 12/6/2024 | Meeting/Presentation | Online | BEAD | Local | 1 | ||||||||||||||||||||
660 | Shivwits Digital Equity Grant Meeting | 12/10/2024 | Meeting/Presentation | Online | Digital Equity | Local | Ivins, Utah | 6 | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | |||||||||||
661 | Breaking Point Solutions & UBC | 12/10/2024 | Meeting/Presentation | Online | BEAD | Local | All Utah Counties | 5 | |||||||||||||||||||
662 | Utah Navajo BSLs | 12/10/2024 | Meeting/Presentation | Online | BEAD | Regional | UT, AZ, & NM | 1 | |||||||||||||||||||
663 | MBDA Discussion | 12/10/2024 | Meeting/Presentation | Online | BEAD | Local | All Utah Counties | 1 | |||||||||||||||||||
664 | Meeting with RMSI | 12/10/2024 | Meeting/Presentation | Online | BEAD | Local | All Utah Counties | 3 | |||||||||||||||||||
665 | Broadband Breakfast | 12/11/2024 | Meeting/Presentation | Online | BEAD/Digital Equity | Regional | All Utah Counties | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | ||||||||||||
666 | Teams call with Utah Broadband office | 12/11/2024 | Meeting/Presentation | Online | BEAD | Local | All Utah Counties | 2 | |||||||||||||||||||
667 | NE Leadership Meeting / Tribal Leaders Meeting | 12/13/2024 | Meeting/Presentation | In-Person | BEAD/Digital Equity | Regional | All Utah Counties | 40 | |||||||||||||||||||
668 | | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
669 | BIG BEAD Final Application Grant Webinar | 01/21/2025 | Meeting/Presentation | Online | BEAD | Statewide | All Utah Counties | ||||||||||||||||||||
670 | BEAD Virtual Training & Office Hours | 01/28/2025 | Meeting/Presentation | Online | BEAD | Statewide | All Utah Counties | 17 | |||||||||||||||||||
671 | BEAD Virtual Training & Office Hours | 02/04/2025 | Meeting/Presentation | Online | BEAD | Statewide | All Utah Counties | 16 | |||||||||||||||||||
672 | BEAD Virtual Training & Office Hours | 02/11/2025 | Meeting/Presentation | Online | BEAD | Statewide | All Utah Counties | 26 | |||||||||||||||||||
673 | BEAD Virtual Training & Office Hours | 02/18/2025 | Meeting/Presentation | Online | BEAD | Statewide | All Utah Counties | 26 | |||||||||||||||||||
674 | BEAD Virtual Training & Office Hours | 02/25/2025 | Meeting/Presentation | Online | BEAD | Statewide | All Utah Counties | 27 | |||||||||||||||||||
675 | BEAD Virtual Training & Office Hours | 03/04/2025 | Meeting/Presentation | Online | BEAD | Statewide | All Utah Counties | 27 | |||||||||||||||||||
676 | Capacity Grant Training-Virtual | 03/24/2025 | Meeting/Presentation | Online | Digital Equity | Statewide | All Utah Counties | 40 | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | |||||||||||
677 | Final App Weekly Training Webinar | 03/25/2025 | Meeting/Presentation | Online | BEAD | Statewide | All Utah Counties | 24 | |||||||||||||||||||
678 | Final Application Office Hours | 03/25/2025 | Meeting/Presentation | Online | BEAD | Statewide | All Utah Counties | 24 | |||||||||||||||||||
679 | UBC White Hills Ribbon Splicing | 03/03803/28/2025 | Meeting/Presentation | Online | BEAD/Digital Equity | Local | SanPete County | @saraedgar@utah.gov | |||||||||||||||||||
680 | NTTA Tribal Broadband Summit - Chandler AZ | 03/31/2025 | Meeting/Presentation | in person | BEAD/Digital Equity | Local | 150 | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | ||||||||||||
681 | BEAD Virtual Training & Office Hours | Meeting/Presentation | Online | BEAD | Statewide | 23 | |||||||||||||||||||||
682 | Digital Opportunity Grant Training & Office Hours | 04/08/2025 | Meeting/Presentation | Online | Digital Equity | Statewide | All Utah Counties | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | ||||||||||||
683 | | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
684 | | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
685 | Connecting Utah Virtual Call | 04/16/2025 | Meeting/Presentation | Online | BEAD/Digital Equity | Regional | All Utah Counties | 40 | |||||||||||||||||||
686 | Digital Opportunity Grant Training & Office Hours | 04/15/2025 | Meeting/Presentation | Online | Digital Equity | Regional | All Utah Counties | ||||||||||||||||||||
687 | | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
688 | State BEAD mapping collaboration | 04/14/2025 | Meeting/Presentation | Online | BEAD | Statewide | All Utah Counties | 43 | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | |||||||||||
689 | Ute Tribe Design | 04/15/2025 | Meeting/Presentation | Online | BEAD | Regional | Uintah & Duchesne Counties | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | ||||||||||||
690 | Final APP BEAD Weekly Training Webinar | 04/15/2025 | Meeting/Presentation | Online | BEAD | Statewide | All Utah Counties | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | ||||||||||||
691 | Digital Opportunity Grant Training & Office Hours | 04/15/2025 | Meeting/Presentation | Online | Digital Equity | Statewide | All Utah Counties | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | ||||||||||||
692 | Utah League of Cities and Towns Mid-Year Conference | 04/16/2025 | Meeting/Presentation | In-Person | Digital Equity | Statewide | All Utah Counties | 175 | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | |||||||||||
693 | Connecting Utah Virtual Call | 04/16/2025 | Meeting/Presentation | Online | BEAD/Digital Equity | Statewide | All Utah Counties | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | ||||||||||||
694 | Utah Tribal Leaders Meeting TownPlace Suites 1219 W | 04/17/2025 | Meeting/Presentation | In-Person | Digital Equity | Regional | San Juan, Washington County, Uintah, Weber, Box Elder, Cache, Davis County, Wayne, Garfield | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | ||||||||||||
695 | Shivwits Band meeting/Jill Haslam | 04/21/2025 | Meeting/Presentation | Online | Digital Equity | Local | Washington County | 1 | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | |||||||||||
696 | Northwest Band of the Shoshone Nation Tour | 04/21/2025 | Meeting/Presentation | In-Person | Digital Equity | Local | Box Elder County | 5 | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | |||||||||||
697 | Final App Weekly Training Webinar's-Recorded | 04/22/2025 | Meeting/Presentation | Online | BEAD | Statewide | All Utah Counties | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | ||||||||||||
698 | Digital Opportunity Grant Training | 04/22/2025 | Meeting/Presentation | Online | Digital Equity | Statewide | All Utah Counties | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | ||||||||||||
699 | Digital Opportunity Grant Office Hours | 04/22/2025 | Meeting/Presentation | Online | Digital Equity | Statewide | All Utah Counties | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | ||||||||||||
700 | Shivwits Band meeting/Jill Haslam | 04/24/2025 | Meeting/Presentation | Online | Digital Equity | Local | Washington County | 1 | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | |||||||||||
701 | Interview with Rebecca and Kainoa | 04/25/2025 | Meeting/Presentation | Online | Digital Equity | Local | Salt Lake County | 1 | |||||||||||||||||||
702 | Digital Opportunity Grant Meeting- Allen Evans | 04/28/2025 | Meeting/Presentation | Virtual | Digital Equity | Local | Salt Lake County | 2 | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | |||||||||||
703 | DOG Training | 04/29/2025 | Meeting/Presentation | Virtual | Digital Equity | Statewide | All Utah Counties | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | ||||||||||||
704 | DOG Office Hours | 04/29/2025 | Meeting/Presentation | Virtual | Digital Equity | Statewide | All Utah Counties | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | ||||||||||||
705 | DOG Office Hours | 05/01/2025 | Meeting/Presentation | Virtual | Digital Equity | Statewide | All Utah Counties | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | ||||||||||||
706 | Utah Broadband Alliance Meeting | 05/14/2025 | Meeting/Presentation | In-Person | BEAD | Statewide | All Utah Counties | 30 | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | |||||||||||
707 | | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
708 | | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
709 | | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
710 | | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
711 | | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
712 | | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
713 | | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
714 | | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
715 | | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
716 | | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
717 | | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
718 | | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
719 | | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
720 | | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
721 | | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
722 | | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
723 | | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
724 | | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
725 | | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
726 | | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
727 | | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
728 | | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
729 | | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
730 | | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
731 | | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
732 | | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
733 | | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
734 | | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
735 | | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
736 | | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
737 | | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
738 | | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
739 | | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
740 | | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
741 | | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
742 | | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
743 | | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
744 | | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
745 | | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
746 | | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
747 | | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
748 | | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
749 | | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
750 | | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
751 | | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
752 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
753 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
754 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
755 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
756 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
757 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
758 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
759 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
760 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
761 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
762 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
763 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
764 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
765 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
766 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
767 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
768 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
769 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
770 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
771 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
772 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
773 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
774 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
775 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
776 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
777 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
778 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
779 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
780 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
781 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
782 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
783 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
784 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
785 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
786 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
787 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
788 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
789 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
790 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
791 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
792 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
793 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
794 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
795 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
796 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
797 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
798 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
799 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
800 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
801 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
802 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
803 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
804 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
805 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
806 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
807 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
808 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
809 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
810 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
811 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
812 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
813 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
814 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
815 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
816 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
817 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
818 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
819 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
820 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
821 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
822 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
823 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
824 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
825 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
826 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
827 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
828 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
829 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
830 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
831 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
832 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
833 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
834 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
835 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
836 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
837 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
838 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
839 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
840 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
841 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
842 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
843 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
844 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
845 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
846 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
847 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
848 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
849 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
850 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
851 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
852 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
853 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
854 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
855 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
856 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
857 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
858 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
859 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
860 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
861 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
862 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
863 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
864 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
865 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
866 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
867 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
868 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
869 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
870 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
871 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
872 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
873 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
874 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
875 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
876 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
877 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
878 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
879 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
880 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
881 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
882 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
883 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
884 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
885 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
886 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
887 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
888 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
889 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
890 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
891 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
892 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
893 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
894 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
895 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
896 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
897 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
898 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
899 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
900 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
901 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
902 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
903 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
904 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
905 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
906 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
907 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
908 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
909 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
910 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
911 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
912 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
913 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
914 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
915 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
916 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
917 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
918 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
919 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
920 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
921 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
922 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
923 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
924 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
925 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
926 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
927 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
928 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
929 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
930 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
931 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
932 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
933 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
934 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
935 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
936 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
937 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
938 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
939 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
940 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
941 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
942 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
943 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
944 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
945 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
946 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
947 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
948 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
949 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
950 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
951 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
952 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
953 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
954 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
955 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
956 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
957 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
958 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
959 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
960 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
961 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
962 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
963 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
964 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
965 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
966 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
967 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
968 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
969 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
970 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
971 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
972 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
973 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
974 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
975 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
976 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
977 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
978 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
979 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
980 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
981 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
982 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
983 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
984 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
985 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
986 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
987 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
988 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
989 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
990 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
991 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
992 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
993 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
994 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
995 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
996 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
997 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
998 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
999 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
1000 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
1001 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
1002 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
1003 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
1004 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
1005 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
1006 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
1007 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
1008 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
1009 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
1010 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
1011 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
1012 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
1013 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
1014 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
1015 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
1016 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
1017 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
1018 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
1019 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
1020 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
1021 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
1022 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
1023 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
1024 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
1025 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
1026 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
1027 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
1028 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
1029 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
1030 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
1031 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
1032 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
1033 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
1034 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
1035 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
1036 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
1037 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
1038 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
1039 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
1040 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
1041 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
1042 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
1043 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
1044 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
1045 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
1046 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
1047 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
1048 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
1049 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
1050 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
1051 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
1052 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
1053 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
1054 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
1055 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
1056 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
1057 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
1058 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
1059 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
1060 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
1061 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
1062 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
1063 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
1064 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
1065 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
1066 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
1067 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
1068 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
1069 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
1070 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
1071 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
1072 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
1073 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
1074 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
1075 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
1076 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
1077 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
1078 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
1079 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
1080 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
1081 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
1082 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
1083 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
1084 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
1085 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
1086 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
1087 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
1088 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
1089 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
1090 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
1091 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
1092 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
1093 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
1094 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
1095 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
1096 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
1097 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
1098 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
1099 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
1100 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
1101 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
1102 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
1103 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
1104 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
1105 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
1106 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
1107 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
1108 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
1109 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
1110 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
1111 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
1112 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
1113 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
1114 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
1115 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
1116 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
1117 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
1118 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
1119 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
1120 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
1121 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
1122 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
1123 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
1124 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
1125 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
1126 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
1127 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
1128 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
1129 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
1130 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
1131 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
1132 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
1133 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
1134 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
1135 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
1136 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
1137 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
1138 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
1139 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
1140 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
1141 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
1142 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
1143 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
1144 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
1145 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
1146 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
1147 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
1148 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
1149 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
1150 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
1151 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
1152 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
1153 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
1154 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
1155 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
1156 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
1157 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
1158 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
1159 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
1160 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
1161 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
1162 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
1163 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
1164 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
1165 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
1166 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
1167 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
1168 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
1169 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
1170 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
1171 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
1172 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
1173 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
1174 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
1175 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
1176 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
1177 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
1178 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
1179 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
1180 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
1181 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
1182 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
1183 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
1184 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
1185 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
1186 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
1187 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
1188 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
1189 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
1190 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
1191 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
1192 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
1193 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
1194 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
1195 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
1196 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
1197 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
1198 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
1199 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
1200 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
1201 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
1202 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
1203 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
1204 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
1205 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
1206 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
1207 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
1208 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
1209 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
1210 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
1211 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
1212 |
1 | Customer Service Calls | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
2 | NAME | DATE | PHONE NUMBER | TOPIC | Discussion/notes | ||||||||||||||||||||||
3 | Mayor of Wallsburg call (Rebecca's call) | 04/03/2024 | ? | ? | ? | ||||||||||||||||||||||
4 | Grace Tepper | 03/14/2024 | (240) 485-7307 | grace@benton.org | Add her to the broadband Alliance contact list and Newsletter | She asked if I could add her to the broadband Alliance contact list and Newsletter | |||||||||||||||||||||
5 | Dennis | 03/11/2024 | 385-285-0121 | N/A | ACP | Dennis called today and would like a call back regarding reduced or subsidized computers, and/or phones from one of our nonprofits in Utah. Answered his questions as far as I could and sent his info over to Sophie for more details on the reduced/free devices. | |||||||||||||||||||||
6 | Joel | 02/22/2024 | 801-888-5954 | N/A | Internet Shoping | Gentlman wanted help to find out what providers were in his area. Coached him through the https://highspeedinternet.com/ and talked him through finding the right provider for him | |||||||||||||||||||||
7 | Marla Winegar | 02/19/2024 | 801-530-6340 | mwinegar@utah.gov | Needed a list of Interent Providers | Called her back and also emailed her the site to reference Utah's ISP's | |||||||||||||||||||||
8 | Craig Olsen | 02/28/2024 | 435-773-6060 | N/A | Wanted to know more about the Speed Test | Elderly Gentleman wanted more info about the speed test and how to take it. Walked him through the process | |||||||||||||||||||||
9 | Stevie Heart | 02/12/2024 | 530-515-1410 | N/A | Financal Distress, needed help to pay for internet | "I am a Fire survivor and was sexually assaulted by a stranger who was stalking me at my my Home and bysiness in another State. I have come here to Utah to seek Safety as I have a been granted safe at home address and a current legal case against the perpetrators. Please call me or email if you can help me." Directed her to Emery cust care and they helped by reducing her bill | |||||||||||||||||||||
10 | Susan | 02/08/2024 | 801-787-8227 | ssets4u@yahoo.com | Worried about ACP ending | Susan of Orangeville Utah called and wanted help to subsidize her Emery bill as soon as it ACP ended. I directed Emery customer service her way and they helped her | |||||||||||||||||||||
11 | Wade Knudsen | 02/07/2024 | 435-901-9421 | wknudsen@wificow.com | Worried about BEAD funding putting him out of business | Set up an appointment for him to meet with Rebecca and Steve about WIFI cow staying in business despite BEAD funding | |||||||||||||||||||||
12 | Gary Hatch | 01/10/2024 | 602-432-4471 | N/A | Airbus | Wanted me to set up an appointment with UBC to discuss how Airbus can assist with bringing internet to rural areas in UTAH | |||||||||||||||||||||
13 | James T | 01/09/2024 | 801-715-6777 | N/A | Challenge Process Outreach | James Toledo called me and I coordinated over the phone a time for Rebecca to present at a Native American Caucus | |||||||||||||||||||||
14 | Diego | 11/13/2024 | 801-949-9818 | N/A | ACP | Wanted info on how to sign up for ACP. Directed him to our site and gave him instructions. | |||||||||||||||||||||
15 | Adam Richens | 11/3/2023 | 435-590-5113 | N/A | Maps about Long Haul Fiber in Miller County | Wanted updated maps that showed fiber optic lines that pass through the county. Directed him to an updated map. | |||||||||||||||||||||
16 | Jennifer Cloonan | 10/13/2023 | 412-337-9145 | Jcc4725@ftr.com | Volume 1 Initial Proposal, couldn't submit comments | Jennifer from Fronteir Communications every time she tried to submit a comment on our website she would get an error. I had her email me her comments and forwarded them to Clint wiith Horrocks | |||||||||||||||||||||
17 | Arapa ? (Couldn't understand him clearly bc of his thick accent) | 10/05/2023 | 801-897-9889 | N/A | Internet Shoping and ACP Questions | Arpas just moved into the area and he was looking for help to sign up for internet with the ACP discount. Walked him through the process and texted him the ACP sign up instructions for reference | |||||||||||||||||||||
18 | Derek Mellus of GOEO working with Brad Welch of CentraCom | 04/10/2024 | m 801 674 2310 | dmellus@utah.gov; bradw@centracom.com | HIgh Speed Internet Access near Green River or Moab for Marvel Film in May | This is a collaborative effort between the GOEO Office of Film and Tourism to help accommodate a film maker producing a film in Utah that needed a data center to store their footage. We connected them with Centracomm who has already taken steps to meet their needs. | |||||||||||||||||||||
19 | Jose | 04/18/2024 | 385-490-6997 | N/A | Looking for internet options for their area | Just moved to Utah and wanted to find out what carrier was in their area. Referred them to highspeedinternet.com and educationsuperhighway.com | |||||||||||||||||||||
20 | Marlene Thomas | 4/23/2024 | 435-840-2671; 435-882-4282 | N/A | Questions about challenge process | Marlene wanted to know what the challene process was, (she was on our email contact list and had questions) I called her back and answered all her questions, explaining what the challenge process was and how it will benefit Utahn's to get more connected through high-speed internet. | |||||||||||||||||||||
21 | Dan Gettens | 4/29/24 | 603-496-3427 | N/A | called to ask questions about possibiity of presenting at Alliance meeting | Answered Dan's questions about what it entails to present at one of our Alliance meetings | |||||||||||||||||||||
22 | Kaylee | 05/08/24 | 801-629-8864 | N/A | Kaylee wanted to inquire about free cell phones for seniors | Kaylee wanted the UBC to come to Ogden to educate seniors on how to apply for free cell phones from federal governemt programs. I directed her to Website about the Lifeline programs | |||||||||||||||||||||
23 | Tayna Crystal | 5/13/24 | 435-783-4975 | N/A | had questions about broadband availability challenge process | I explained to Tayna what she needed to do in order to register for the portal and send in a challenge | |||||||||||||||||||||
24 | Emma | 7/10/24 | 435-754-9746 | N/A | ACP questions | I let her know that ACP is now over, and gave her info about Lifeline and how she can save money wih lifeline and learn more about it on th UDON site. | |||||||||||||||||||||
25 | Tyler | 07/26/24 | 435-225-1972 | N/A | General Broadband Grants Inquiry | Wanted updates on the current broadband grants we offered. I let him know the updates on the BEAD timeline. | |||||||||||||||||||||
26 | Joyce | 8/15/2024 | 801-558-6730 | N/A | Thought we were Broadband Connect. Re-directed | Gave her the correct number for the ISP, Broadband Connect, customer service. | |||||||||||||||||||||
27 | Anthony Gomez with Verizon | 11/04/24 | 202-878-2218 | N/A | Questions about BEAD challenge process | Called him back and answered his questions. Wanted info about when it will be finalized and approved by NTIA | |||||||||||||||||||||
28 | Ryan with Duraline | 11/20/24 | 440-781-1320 | N/A | Questions about his November Alliance presentation | Helped him narrow down his presentation topic and answered general Alliance meeting questions | |||||||||||||||||||||
29 | Phill Carol | 01/17/24 | 801-328-1050 ext. 4 | N/A | Assistance for low income seniors | Referred him to lifeline $9 monthly credit |
1 | Customer Service Email tracking | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
2 | Name of Constituent | Date of Incoming email | phone number | email address | Email Subject | Discussion | Notes | ||||||||||||||||||||||
3 | Derek Mellus of GOEO working with Brad Welch of CentraCom | 04/10/2024 | m 801 674 2310 | dmellus@utah.gov; bradw@centracom.com | HIgh Speed Internet Access near Green River or Moab for Marvel Film in May | This is a collaborative effort between the GOEO Office of Film and Tourism to help accommodate a film maker producing a film in Utah that needed a data center to store their footage. We connected them with Centracomm who has already taken steps to meet their needs. | Rebecca Dilg directed Derek Mellus of GOEO, Office if Film and Tourism to Brad Welch of Centracom to help a film maker producing a Marvel film | ||||||||||||||||||||||
4 | Anthony Gomez | 4/24/2024 | 2028782218 | anthony.gomez2@verizon.comanthony.gomez2@verizon.com | Utah BEAD Challenge Process Portal Access RequestUtah BEAD Challenge Process Portal Access Request | I am seeking Arcgis access for Utah's BEAD Challenge Process to participate on behalf of Verizon. I previously registered with the Utah Broadband Center, and I did so again a moment ago. I was advised by the team in Utah that my registration should have been followed up with an email from notifications@arcgis.com with instructions on how to access my account. However, I cannot locate such an email for Utah (I can access my Arcgis account in other states). The Utah team provided me with guidance to contact you under these circumstances. Please advise on how to proceed as the Utah BEAD Challenge Process is active with strict time constraints. Thank you, Anthony | Sent the email to steve Greene and Clint and they were able to answer his questions and fix the portal issue | ||||||||||||||||||||||
5 | Tiffany Myers | 4/12/24 | 9402564764 | tiffanie.myers@ftr.com | Add contact to UBC contact list | She submitted a request to be added to the UBC Alliance contact list | I made sure to add her to the UBC Alliance contact list for Broadband commuications | ||||||||||||||||||||||
6 | Cynthia Olsen | 4/29/24 | 435.622.5007 | colsen@stratanetworks.com | Un/Underserved Updated files | Good Afternoon, As I’m going through the locations to challenge, I’m finding that some of the locations listed in the Un/Underserved location lists in the initial proposal appendixes are now marked served. Are there updated downloads available for these locations that are considered Un/Underserved to save me some time? | Steve Greene replied to her and resolved her issue. | ||||||||||||||||||||||
7 | Jacob Barlow | 05/03/2024 | cell: 303-947-8091 | Jacob.Barlow@lumen.com | UT Challenge Portal Issues | I am having trouble finding my challenges to rebut (potentially) in the portal. I used to be able to see the Bulk DSL Modifications, but those are gone now. I received a notification that I had a location challenge to review, but It’s not showing up either. The screen shot shows what I’m seeing after I login. | I sent this issue to Horrocks and they fixed the portal issue | ||||||||||||||||||||||
8 | Cynthia Olsen | 05/06/2024 | 435.622.5007 | colsen@stratanetworks.com | UT Challenge Process question | One follow up question. I apologize. My notes got wet, and I can’t read who I’m supposed to challenge instead of ourselves for technology type or speed etc. | sent the issue to Horrocks and Steve Greene and Horrocks fixed the portal issue. Steve Greene replied and let her know | ||||||||||||||||||||||
9 | Cynthia Olsen | 05/06/2024 | 435.622.5007 | colsen@stratanetworks.com | UT Challenge Process question | I have another evidence question.For a technology challenge. If our maps aren’t updated yet (so I can’t pull dated screenshots of that) and I have a list of over 300 locations to challenge. Would a construction/project redline with a date of construction completion marked be sufficient evidence? | Sent this to Steve Green, he replied and answered her question | ||||||||||||||||||||||
10 | Cynthia Olsen | 05/07/2024 | 435.622.5007 | colsen@stratanetworks.com | UT Challenge Process question | May 7, 2024, 9:30 AM Am I ok to redact information on these redlines that we feel is proprietary? For example, could we just say all lines that are x color are fiber and redact our | Sent this to Steve Green, he replied and answered her question | ||||||||||||||||||||||
11 | Cynthia Olsen | 05/07/2024 | 435.622.5007 | colsen@stratanetworks.com | UT Challenge Process question | Can you remind me what I put in the “Enter the Service Provider you are challenging*” section when I am essentially challenging my own company data that needs corrected? | Sent this to Steve Green, he replied and answered her question | ||||||||||||||||||||||
12 | Darren L Woolsey | 05/21/2024 | 435-748-3129 | DWoolsey@emerytelcom.com | Challenges | Emery Telcom and its affiliated ISP’s are concerned about the “Historic Speed Test” layer on the Eligible Location Challenge Map. In reading some of the Utah Broadband Center information regarding the challenge process it appears that individuals can submit speed test data as a “challenge” but this speed test information does not appear on the “Locations Currently Challenged” or “Bulk Challenges” layers and therefore we cant download these locations to examine the data or respond/rebut this data. Are we missing something that we should be addressing or concerned about with this speed data? | Elizabeth Henrikson responded: Hi Darren, Yes, you are missing something. That layer is just for reference. They are not challenges for Emery. If Emery receives a speed test challenge, they will be notified and will be able to submit a rebuttal for that specific challenge. I hope this helps! | ||||||||||||||||||||||
13 | Ken Wood | 07/03/2024 | 6077317796 | Message Details: Nombre: Ken Wood Correo electrónico: ken.wood@commscope.com | Add contact to UBC contact list | Ken Wood sent in a request to be added to the UBC Alliance contact list | E Henrikson emailed him back and let him know his contact information had been added to the UBC contact list | ||||||||||||||||||||||
14 | 07/08/2024 | 4109193613 | colubrid.mc2@gmail.com | ACP | She asked for more informaion about ACP and how she could sign up | I let her know that ACP is now over, and gave her info about Lifeline and how she can save money wih lifeline and learn more about it on th UDON site. | |||||||||||||||||||||||
15 | Emmalee Davis | 07/09/2024 | C: (832) 918-1551 | edavis@le.utah.gov, | wanred calendar invite to WiFi pros hybrid meeting | asked me to add her to UBC's Wi-Fi pros virtual meeting via calendar invie | I added her to the calendar invite | ||||||||||||||||||||||
16 | Scott Okagawa | 07/10/2024 | N/A | scott.okagawa@altmansolon.com | Challenge Process | Scott inquired as to where we are at with the challenge process. | I answered his question and added him to UBC list to makeje got his personal questions ansered with clarity. | ||||||||||||||||||||||
17 | Joy Stewart | 7/18/24 | N/A | jstewart@rbbn.com | Potential Alliance Speaker/not vetted | Joy asked if she could potentially speak at an Alliance meeting | Steve Greene says the product she sells is not compatibal with UBC's current innitiative's/discussions. I replied to her email: Thank you for your email. If you are wishing to present at the Alliance meeting, we unfortunately feel your product may not align with Septembers’ over-all theme at this time. We will keep your contact information and get back to you if anything changes. If you wish to attend the Alliances networking luncheon in person, it’s a great opportunity to network! We will send out the invite to register within a few weeks. If you’d like, I can add you to our contact list for our outgoing broadband, communications? We wish you the very best! | ||||||||||||||||||||||
18 | Infligo Tech | 7/23/24 | 8017839163 | contact@infligo.tech | Add contact to UBC contact list | added email to contact list | |||||||||||||||||||||||
19 | Debbie Calhoun | 07/30/2024 | Debbie.Calhoun@jsitel.com | inquiring about when notification of the BEAD program pre-qualification information is anticipated to be released. | We're hoping in September, but the exact timeline has not been finalized. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
20 | John Monday | 08/02/2024 | jmonday@hrgreen.com | Add contact to UBC contact list | added email to contact list | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
21 | Bert Granberg | 08/24/2024 | bgranberg@wfrc.org | Spring 2023 Utah Moves Household Travel Survey | Overview presentation (not specific to BB but including a few BB examples) | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
22 | 11 minute mp4 video from same slide deck | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
23 | Kyle Bradshaw | 08/26/2024 | kbradshaw@atccomm.com | List of Eligible Locations | ATC Comm did apply for challenge portal access. The most current list is on the challenge portal map, that you have the logins for, through the challenge portal. You could also go to the connecting Utah webpage and find a basic overview map under Digital Connectivity Plan, this is a non-interactive map so you can't look at close ups. We hope to have a first draft of eligible locations hopefully within a week or two | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
24 | Kurby Okuda | 08/27/2024 | kokuda@okudaenterprises.com | Add contact to UBC contact list | added email to contact list | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
25 | Andrew Sington | 09/01/2024 | asington@stateside.com | BEAD Program Questions | Do you plan on filing comments at NTIA in response to their alternative technology guidance? Yes, we did. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
26 | Page 2 of the NTIA guidance specifically notes: “Any Eligible Entity that received NTIA approval of Volume II of its BEAD Initial Proposal prior to the publication of this updated guidance and that wishes to modify its Volume II or Initial Proposal Funding Request to reflect this updated guidance should contact its Federal Program Officer for direction.” | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
27 | Do you anticipate you will be modifying your Volume II to reflect this new guidance? We don't anticipate modifying. Our volume two includes the option to go with an alternative technology if after a "Last Chance" round, locations are not chosen they can be served with an alternative technology. If NTIA requests we include the process to do this rather than referring to their guidance, we will add it per their request. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
28 | J Scheffer | 09/03/2024 | j.scheffer@finleyusa.com | Add contact to UBC contact list | added email to contact list | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
29 | Allie Reynolds | 09/16/2024 | a.reynolds@finleyusa.com | Prequalification Projected Dates | Please see the clip for tentative dates set for the pre-application portal to open, and other relevant dates, etc: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
30 | Claudia Saldana | 09/17/2024 | csaldana@mountainland.org | Broadband in Eagle Mountain City | The Utah Broadband Advisory Commission is a legislative commission and its members consist of legislators and representatives of state agencies. The Utah Broadband Advisory Commission meetings are public, posted on the Utah Public Meeting website, and Eagle Mountain City is welcome to attend those meetings. Eagle Mountain City is also welcome to participate in the quarterly Broadband Alliance Meetings and monthly Connecting Utah calls, which convene broadband stakeholders from across the state and many different sectors (including internet service providers, local governments, nonprofits, etc.). | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
31 | Brooke Allen | 10/01/2024 | brooke@directcom.com | Bead Prequalification and portal opening | The prequalification portal will open October 22nd. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
32 | Christian, Kimberlee | 09/30/2024 | Kimberlee.christian@wwt.com | Broadband Provider List | Here is the link to add World Wide Technology & a WWT point of contact to the Directory. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
33 | Michael Dao | 10/18/2024 | mdao@xkl.com | add contact to UBC Directory | add your contact/business contact information in the directory here, | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
34 | Blake Child | 10/29/2024 | blake.child@horrocks.com | add contact to UBC Directory | add your contact/business contact information in the directory here, | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
35 | Frank DeJoy | 10/29/2024 | frank@bobfiber.com | add contact to UBC Directory | add your contact/business contact information in the directory here, | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
36 | Charles Baldwin | 10/29/2024 | charles@bitstream.org | add BitStream to your mailing lists | added to mailing lists | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
37 | Trisha McCabe | 10/31/2024 | trisham@senawave.com | add contact to directory | added to mailing lists | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
38 | Frank McCown | 10/30/24 | frankmccown@gmail.com | BEAD, BSL Updated Unserved and Underserved Data & Resolution of Support Text | see #28 on our FAQ sheet for the links to apply for a Qost Quest Licence which would give you access to the data you are looking for: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
39 | Kyle Bradshaw | 10/29/24 | kbradshaw@atccomm.com | list of BEAD locations | We were able to expedite our request with our communications team so the Broadband Serviceable Locations which are eligible for BEAD funding for served and underserved locations have been posted to our website and is ready for viewing: https://business.utah.gov/broadband/grants/. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
40 | Cynthia Olsen | 10/30/24 | colsen@stratanetworks.com | BEAD Pre App Map | The posted BSL ID's are on our site: https://business.utah.gov/broadband/grants/. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
41 | Jack Walkenhorst | 11/04/24 | jack.walkenhorst@allwest.com | Utah BEAD Pre-Application | If an email address already exists in another AmpliFund account, then it cannot be added into another Applicant account. As a work around, user can be added with the +1 to the email alias, as following: ann.prockish+1@jsitel.com, this will be linked to their email address and they will still receive emails in the inbox for ann.prockish@jsitel.com. They will just have to use ann.prockish+1@jsitel.com to login to the Applicant account of "All West Communications" | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
42 | Katie Woody | 11/7/24 | kwoody@unionwireless.com | Pre-Application Portal | I checked this morning and was able to access the Forms tab. Thank you for looking into the issue for me. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
43 | Brinkley, Parke | 11/19/24 | parke.brinkley@verizon.com | Mailing List | added to mailing lists, and If Verizon would like to apply for BEAD funding, it is required to complete the registration and pre-application process by December 23rd. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
44 | FrankFrank DeJoy | 11/05/24 | frank@bobfiber.com | StreamLink Terms and Conditions | oforwarded this to Amplifundforwarded this to AmplifundFrwoFp | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
45 | Cynthia Olsen | 11/21/24 | colsen@stratanetworks.com | Served CAIs | The attached csvs show CAI locations that are served. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
46 | JJeremy Schingten | 11/21/24 | jeremys@mtpllc.us | Utah Broadband Resource Directory | Here is the link to the resource directory. There is a tab for Vendors. Please fill in your company information. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
47 | JoJoe Silverzweig | 11/21/24 | joe@silver-strategy.com | Added to Resource Directory | Here is the link to the resource directory. There is a tab for Vendors. Please fill in your company information. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
48 | Mike Simmons | 11/21/24 | msimmons@utahbroadband.com | Eligible BSLs question | Based on the latest curing from NTIA that we submitted Friday, Unserved locations is 17716 and Underserved locations is 25823 for a total of 43539. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
49 | Steve Collin | 11/25/24 | scollin@terracontracting.com | BIG Registration | Based on the work you do, you can go with option 2 and "advise all of the 97 entities who have registered with the Utah Broadband office – that once grants are made we are available to perform work on their behalf." | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
50 | 11/27/24 | We have created a Utah Broadband Resource Directory to assist in sharing your information. Please feel free to add your company name, contact, and information about your company to it. We hope to see you building in Utah!! | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
51 | Nathan Page | 11/27/24 | npage@rivertonutah.gov | Request:'Utah Broadband Center Resource Directory' | Here is the link to the resource directory. Please fill in your company information within the allotted fields. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
52 | Nick Strain | 12/09/2024 | nicholas.strain@bekaert.com | Bekaert Guy Strand | Here is the link to the resource directory. Please fill in your company information within the allotted fields. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
53 | CyCynthia Olsen | 12/09/2025 | colsen@stratanetworks.com | Pre-App Question | Saying no does not lessen your chance of selection. It provides a risk assessment when monitoring the projects going forward. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
54 | CyCynthia Olsen | 12/09/2026 | colsen@stratanetworks.com | Contractors etc | See question #30 on the FAQs | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
55 | Joe Krol | 12/16/24 | mrjoekrol@gmail.com | Quick BEAD Question | The BEAD guidelines do not require ISP's to bid for contractor roles. They just need to adhere to certain financial reporting regarding their projects. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
56 | Keith Weber | 12/16/22 | keith.weber@civicusgroup.com | BEAD Pre-Application | Answer A: For applicants who are not currently providing broadband services, documentation showing capability to run a business would be acceptable even if it is not a telecommunications business. Documentation that shows that your organization has shown success in business or program administration and operations, as well as sufficient financial capability, would be acceptable. Anything that you can show that demonstrates these capabilities would be acceptable. Documentation showing experience with projects of similar scope or previous federal grant experience would be acceptable as well. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
57 | Cynthia Olsen | 12/17/2024 | colsen@stratanetworks.com | BEAD location.csv | Here is the NTIA template for that can be downloaded here: https://broadbandusa.ntia.gov/technical-assistance/BEAD_Final_Proposal_Guidance_and_Templates. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
58 | Knoll, Emil J (Duffy) | 1212/19/24 | duffy.j.knoll@verizon.com | BEAD Prequalification Application | Thank you for letting us know, and congratulations on getting the Pre-app submitted! | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
59 | Laura King-Petersen | 12/20/2024 | laura.kingpetersen@gmail.com | Registration and Pre-application | If it relates to the operational capability of your entity, you could talk about past projects that have been completed. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
60 | Cynthia Olsen | 12/21/2024 | colsen@stratanetworks.com | Submitting | The Strata applications just got submitted | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
61 | Laura King-Petersen | 12/20/24 | laura.kingpetersen@gmail.com | Pre-application Response | Publicly funded: current and past. Refer also to FAQ #22 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
62 | Cynthia Olsen | 12/20/25 | colsen@stratanetworks.com | Challenges | Steve Greene responded to her in a seperate email | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
63 | Emily Marasco | 12/30/24 | emilym@utetribe.com | Registration and Pre-Application | WA meeting was scheduled to answer her questions. Her questions were answered in the virtual meeting | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
64 | Cynthia Olsen | 12/23/24 | colsen@stratanetworks.com | Challenges Evidence | The attestation is not needed by the end of the year but rather is required by the full application | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
65 | process however it does help us making the PFSAs when we have the evidence sooner. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
66 | Michael Zindel | 01/02/24 | michael@libertybb.net | Registration and Pre-Application | The Utah Broadband Center (UBC) has conducted a completion review of your recently submitted BEAD Registration and Pre-Application for Liberty Broadband LLC. The following items were missing, or require correction or clarification in your application: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
67 | Frank DeJoy | 01/08/24 | frank@bobfiber.com | LOC and Performance Bonds | Robert Busch responded to his questions in a seperate email | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
68 | Cynthia Olsen | 01/13/24 | colsen@stratanetworks.com | Resending Challenge files | Thank you Cynthia! These files have been forwarded to Steve Greene | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
69 | Cynthia Olsen | 01/13/25 | colsen@stratanetworks.com | Planned project locations | This information was forwarded to Steve Greene as requested | Fri, Jan 17, 12:22 PM (9 days ago) | |||||||||||||||||||||||
70 | Cynthia Olsen | 1/15/24 | colsen@stratanetworks.com | Recall challenge | This information was forwarded to Steve Greene as requested | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
71 | Jaleen Johnson | 1/16/24 | jaleen@utn.org | REsources for the next UBC newsletter | We will be happy to attend UTN's Jan. 30th webinar, as well as include this pertinent information in our upcoming February newsletter | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
72 | Cynthia Olsen | 1/14/2024 | colsen@stratanetworks.com | Non BSL Locations | Steve says, " I have that spreadsheet saved in my Strata file. You can tell her to send me all the files she has and I will collect them until our process is determined." | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
73 | Kim Bury (BGE) | 01/07/24 | kimbury@broadbandgrantexperts.com | Prequalified Applicants List | Yes the prequalified applicant list has been published to our UBC site on our grants page, under the resources section: https://business.utah.gov/broadband/grants/. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
74 | Kim Bury (BGE) | 1/21/24 | kimbury@broadbandgrantexperts.com | Inflation Reduction Act of 2022 | Broadband was excluded from the “immediately pause the disbursement of funds appropriated through the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
75 | Shandra Pipkin | 1/15/24 | shandra@libertybroadband.site | connecting Utah webinars | This is the zoom link we will be using on Tuesday morning at 10AM: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
76 | bradshaw@atccomm.com | bed | https://utah-gov.zoom.us/j/6936861043?pwd=aW5QbVFVY1p5ZFlidzFMQTFTRXhiQT09&omn=83733972234. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
77 | Kyle Bradhsaw | 1/28/25 | 2086732401 | kbradshaw@atccomm.com | BEAD App Webniar Recording | Kyle was asking when the virtual office hours recording would be available on our website. | Samantha responded saying marcoms was in the procress of uploading and should be available by the end of the work week | ||||||||||||||||||||||
78 | Jack Walkenhorst | 1/29/25 | 4357834938 | jack.walkenhorst@allwest.com | BEAD Application Portal | Jack asked if the final application portal was opening today? they tried to access it in the morning and could not access it. | Samantha responded saying our software team was still working on some changes and will not be done today. Mentioned that once the portal opens we will email applicants. | ||||||||||||||||||||||
79 | Katie Woody | 1/29/25 | 3077824376 | kwoody@unionwireless.com | BIG BEAD Portal | Katie ws asking whether the BIG BEAD Application portal was not working or if the released date got pushed. She was trying to access it. | Samantha answered that yes the date of release got pushed and will receive an email as soon as the portal opens. | ||||||||||||||||||||||
80 | Ann Prockish | 1/28/25 | 9132205572 | Ann.prockish@jsitel.com | BEAD Weekly Training/Office Hours | Ann keep trying to log in to the virtual office hours and keep getting an error. Was asking if session were going to be recorded and who they can contact in the future re technical difficulties. | Samantha responded that there was tech. difficulties that morning, all session will be recorded and uploaded to the UBC webstie. For furuture reference to email samantha. | ||||||||||||||||||||||
81 | Jamie Scheffer | 1/30/25 | 4176815343 | j.scheffer@finleyusa.com | BEAD Program (BIG) Dates and Application Guide | They were asking about the date, portal access and application guideline for BIG BEAD portal. The website had the outdated infromation. | Samantha informed them that we are still working on the application guieline and portal. Let them know we will be emailing pre registered applicants once they are available for viewing. | ||||||||||||||||||||||
82 | Laura King | 1/31/25 | lking@utopiafiber.com | BIG BEAD Final application question | They were asking about the technical capability and where the recording of the virtual hours and slides would be avaible for public viewing. | Samantha send the question to claire and responded to Laura with Claires response. | |||||||||||||||||||||||
83 | Jamie Scheffer | 2/4/25 | j.scheffer@finleyusa.com | BEAD Program (BIG) Dates and Application Guide | f/u regarding the application guideline | Samantha let them know we are still in the procress | |||||||||||||||||||||||
84 | Mike Simmons | 2/3/25 | msimmons@utahbroadband.com | BIG BEAD Full Application Questions | Had questions about the nontingousness of the UPFAs and discrepancies. | fwd the email to claire and shared her response saying we are updating the map and files. | |||||||||||||||||||||||
85 | Laura King | 2/5/25 | <lking@utopiafiber.com> | BEAD Final Application Portal - is it up yet? | Asked if the portal was open and the link was broken or if the portal had not been opened yet. | Samantha told her that indeed the portal is not open yet and will let them know once it is. | |||||||||||||||||||||||
86 | Franj DeJoy | 2/5/25 | frank@bobfiber.com | BIG BEAD Full Application Questions | Had more questions about the applications | fwd the email to claire and shared her response with the FAQ answers | |||||||||||||||||||||||
87 | Scott SIms | 02/07/25 | ssims@premierbroadband.com | Pre-Registration - BEAD | He asked if he coul be added to the final application window since he saw it is now open. | Samantha answered that only pre-registed applciants can apply for this round but if there are any upfa that are not chosen a last round will open up to those who did not pre registered . | |||||||||||||||||||||||
88 | Jamie Scheffer | 02/10/25 | j.scheffer@finleyusa.com | Re: BEAD Program (BIG) Dates and Application Guide | They were asking if they could be added to the email list re virtual hours as they are consulting firm and are representing a pre registered applicant (BSI) | Samantha had a bit of back and forth conversation to figure out who they were as they did not mentioned they were helping a pre applicant at the begining. | |||||||||||||||||||||||
89 | Katie Woody | 02/12/25 | kwoody@unionwireless.com | Invalid Meeting ID Feb 12th Meeting | The link that was sent out for the utah broadband alliance was not working | About 30 min before the meeting was supposed to start, DTS shut down Elizabeth H. zoom account which was the one that was hosting the zoom call. Samantha created a new zoom link under her account and sent it to all of those who had signed up for virtual attendance thorugh eventbrite. | |||||||||||||||||||||||
90 | Kassidee Oakeson | 02/12/25 | KOakeson@emerytelcom.com | Zoom Link Not Working | They were trying to access the zoom link for UBA but link was not working. | About 30 min before the meeting was supposed to start, DTS shut down Elizabeth H. zoom account which was the one that was hosting the zoom call. Samantha created a new zoom link under her account and sent it to all of those who had signed up for virtual attendance thorugh eventbrite. | |||||||||||||||||||||||
91 | Paul Davis | 02/15/25 | pauld@brag.utah.gov | zoom link | The broadband alliance meeting zoom link was not working | About 30 min before the meeting was supposed to start, DTS shut down Elizabeth H. zoom account which was the one that was hosting the zoom call. Samantha created a new zoom link under her account and sent it to all of those who had signed up for virtual attendance thorugh eventbrite. | |||||||||||||||||||||||
92 | Shona Tonkin | 02/15/25 | Shona.Tonkin@itd.idaho.gov | Link for meeting doesn't work | The broadband alliance meeting zoom for the UBA. | About 30 min before the meeting was supposed to start, DTS shut down Elizabeth H. zoom account which was the one that was hosting the zoom call. Samantha created a new zoom link under her account and sent it to all of those who had signed up for virtual attendance thorugh eventbrite. | |||||||||||||||||||||||
93 | Braeden Christofferson | 02/15/26 | bchristofferson@vernal.gov | Utah Broadband Alliance Feb 12 Meeting - cant join | Could not access the UBA zoom linke | About 30 min before the meeting was supposed to start, DTS shut down Elizabeth H. zoom account which was the one that was hosting the zoom call. Samantha created a new zoom link under her account and sent it to all of those who had signed up for virtual attendance thorugh eventbrite. | |||||||||||||||||||||||
94 | Frank DeJoy | 02/15/25 | frank@bobfiber.com | UT BEAD Question: LOC requirements | Had a question about the BIG BEAD application and the requirement for a LOC and the amount subsidy award. | Samantha fwd the email to claire and Robby, email frank back with their answer. | |||||||||||||||||||||||
95 | Cynthia Olsen | 2/19/25 | colsen@stratanetworks.com | Updated csv | They wanted a updated csv of the UPFAs. | Samantha referred them to the UBC website as the most updated version of csv was available there. | |||||||||||||||||||||||
96 | Frank DeJoy | 02/19/25 | frank@terabitnetworks.com | Did you publish the correct UPFAs gis data? | Wanted to double check UPFA data and map were correct due to different dates | Samantha confirmed that while it has different dates it is the correct data - later changed the date to avoid future confusion. | |||||||||||||||||||||||
97 | Laura King | 02/10/2025 | lking@utopiafiber.com | BIG BEAD Final application question | Laura had a few questions re the BIG BEAD application and their risk assessment score. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
98 | Shandra Pipkin | 02/20/2025 | shandra@libertybroadband.site | Grant Question | Shandra has questions re whether the pre-application costs would be reimbursed . | Samantha copied the answer from the FAQ that answers their question. | |||||||||||||||||||||||
99 | David Bradshaw | 02/24/2025 | david@senawave.com> | Letter of Credit | Inquired whether they could move forward with their BIG BEAD application without the bank letter of credit | Samantha sent the email to Claire and Robby and pasted the answer to David. | |||||||||||||||||||||||
100 | Amy Hamilton | 02/21/2025 | amyhamilton@broadbandgrantexperts.com> | BEAD Question | Amy was asking when P.2 of the application would open and Samantha answered that there was a bit of delay but it is open now. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
101 | Kim Bury | 02/25/2025 | kimbury@broadbandgrantexperts.com | Webinars Broadband | Kim wanted to be added to the email list and was also asking for the video recording of the last training session. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
102 | Trisha McCabe | 02/25/2025 | trisham@senawave.com | Questions about BEAD part 1 | Their CEO wanted to speak to someone from the team. Samantha directed the email to Rebecca, Steve and Claire. | Steve contacted him and answered his questions. | |||||||||||||||||||||||
103 | Cynthia Olsen | 02/26/2025 | colsen@stratanetworks.com | BSL ID List Template Error | Cynthia pointed out an error on the BSL Excel sheet as the dropdown was not working. Samantha asked Claire to check the sheet and fix the bug. Claire fixed and Samantha emailed Cynthia to let her know. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
104 | Scott SIms | 03/03/2025 | ssims@premierbroadband.com | Website Help - Bead App Portal | The sender was asking where the apply button was on the Amplifund portal for the BEAD application. | Samantha reache out to Claire to check if they were on a different list as their names were not in the pre-registered applicant list and therefore could not participate in the first round. Claire emailed back saying she could call them and explain that the pre-application period ended in December. | |||||||||||||||||||||||
105 | Cynthia Olsen | 03/03/2025 | colsen@stratanetworks.com | Challenge 5 | Cynthia emailed Claire S. stating " I have a question about challenge 5. " Claire fwd the email to Samantha for her to answer. 5-Location is already served by a privately-funded network It states that it requires an FCC challenge...however, we have submitted the locations with our normal BDC filings and not a challenge. So, how do you want me to proceed with those 2 fields for this dataset? | Samantha asnwered letting her know that she should select Yes about a challenge has been submitted and provide a narrative in the challenge ID filed stating that the data was submitted through BDC filing. | |||||||||||||||||||||||
106 | Jack Walkenhorst | 03/04/2025 | jack.walkenhorst@allwest.com | Feb. 27th UPFA Map Update | Jack emailed back with a response to our email regarding the distance between UPFAs to not be more than 10 miles and that there will be a delay to redo the map. They emailed back saying they were okay with that as long as it was within the same neighborhood. | Samantha answered "The current UPFAs will remain as they are, but applicants can divide them internally at the census block level to propose different technologies. Applicants can configure their proposals within a UPFA to maximize fiber deployment and separate it from other technologies, though the entire UPFA must be applied for and will be awarded. | |||||||||||||||||||||||
107 | Thomas Kanyarusoke | 03/04/2025 | kanyarusoke@yahoo.com | BEAD application part 2 | Thomas was asking how they can access part 2 for the UPFA selection as the portal was not showing the button apply. They later asnwered saying they will be workingw with comcast. | Samantha looked over the pre-approved applicants list and responded that only pre approved applicants are able to apply on this round. |
1 | Engagement Title/Description | Engagement Date (Enter date as MM/DD/YYYY) | Engagement Type | Engagement Location | Target Audience | Target Audience Location | Target Audience County | # Engaged | Individuals who live in covered households | Aging Individuals | Incarcerated Individuals | Veterans | Individuals with Disabilities | Individuals with a language barrier | Individuals who are members of a racial or ethnic minority group | Individuals who primarily reside in a rural area | Notes, including action items, what was discussed, any key themes, or feedback |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
2 | Connecting Utah Tribal Leader Consultation | 1/31/23 | Listening Session (In-person) | Salt Lake City, Utah | BEAD/Digital Equity | Local | All Utah Counties with Tribal communities | 50 | X | X | X | ||||||
3 | Planning Grant for Communication with White Mesa Adminstration | 2/1/23 | Meeting/Presentation | Online | Digital Equity | Local | White Mesa | 1 | X | X | X | X | X | ||||
4 | San Juan Southern Paiute Tribe Council Meeting | 2/3/23 | Meeting/Presentation | Online | BEAD/Digital Equity | Local | San Juan County | ||||||||||
5 | Navajo Utah Commission | 2/14/23 | Meeting/Presentation | Online | BEAD/Digital Equity | Local | San Juan County | 30 | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | |
6 | San Juan Record: Navajo Utah Commission asks for state designation for Red Mesa road, approve resolution for funding Montezuma Creek shopping center | 2/28/23 | Other | San Juan County, Utah | BEAD | Regional | San Juan County | 14,359 | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | ||
7 | Navajo Nation | 3/2/23 | Meeting/Presentation | Gallup, New Mexico | BEAD/Digital Equity | Regional | San Juan County | 40 | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | |
8 | Ute Mountain Ute Tribe | 3/7/23 | Meeting/Presentation | Toawaoc, Colorado | BEAD/Digital Equity | Local | Bluff and Montezuma Creek/ Ute Mountain Ute Reservation | ||||||||||
9 | Navajo Nation Utah Commission Consultation | 3/10/23 | Meeting/Presentation | Blanding, Utah | BEAD/Digital Equity | Regional | San Juan County | 13 | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | |
10 | Navajo Northern Agency Council Meeting | 3/18/23 | Meeting/Presentation | Shiprock, New Mexico | BEAD/Digital Equity | Local | San Juan County | 30 | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | |
11 | National Tribal Telecommunications Conference | 3/20/23 | Meeting/Presentation | Online | BEAD/Digital Equity | Regional | All Utah counties with Tribal communities | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | ||
12 | DAPG Meeting: Shivwits Band of Paiutes 1:1 | 3/20/23 | Meeting/Presentation | Online | Digital Equity | Regional | Washington County | 1 | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | ||
13 | Paiute Indian Tribe of Utah | 3/29/23 | Listening Session (In-person) | Cedar City, Utah | BEAD/Digital Equity | Local | Iron, Millard, Sevier, and Washington Counties | 8 | X | X | X | X | X | X | |||
14 | Ute Mountain Ute Tribe | 3/30/23 | Listening Session (In-person) | Salt Lake City, Utah | BEAD/Digital Equity | Regional | San Juan County | 5 | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | |
15 | Navajo Nation, New Mexico and Arizona State Broadband Offices | 4/7/23 | Meeting/Presentation | Salt Lake City, Utah | BEAD | Regional | Counties bordering Arizona and New Mexico | 4 | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | |
16 | Shivwits Band of Paiute | 4/13/23 | Listening Session (In-person) | Ivins | BEAD/Digital Equity | Local | Washington County | 10 | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | |
17 | Northwest Band of Shoshone | 4/18/23 | Listening Session (In-person) | Ogden, Utah | BEAD/Digital Equity | Local | Box Elder County | 6 | X | X | X | X | X | X | |||
18 | DAPG Meeting: Navajo Nation 1:1 | 5/8/23 | Meeting/Presentation | Online | Digital Equity | Regional | Navajo Nation | 3 | X | X | X | X | |||||
19 | Navajo Nation Red Mesa Chapter and Mexican Water Chapter | 5/9/23 | Listening Session (In-person) | Montezuma Creek, Utah | BEAD/Digital Equity | Local | San Juan County | 10 | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | |
20 | Navajo Nation Utah Commission | 5/9/23 | Meeting/Presentation | Salt Lake City, Utah | BEAD/Digital Equity | Local | San Juan County | 30 | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | |
21 | Navajo Nation Aneth Chapter | 5/10/23 | Listening Session (In-person) | Montezuma Creek, Utah | BEAD/Digital Equity | Local | San Juan County | 3 | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | |
22 | Navajo Nation Teec Nos Pos Chapter | 5/11/23 | Listening Session (In-person) | Salt Lake City, Utah | BEAD/Digital Equity | Local | San Juan County | 8 | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | |
23 | Navajo Nation, New Mexico and Arizona State Broadband Offices | 5/12/23 | Meeting/Presentation | Salt Lake City, Utah | BEAD | Regional | Counties bordering Arizona and New Mexico | 4 | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | |
24 | Navajo Nation, New Mexico and Arizona State Broadband Offices | 6/2/23 | Meeting/Presentation | Salt Lake City, Utah | BEAD | Local | Counties bordering Arizona and New Mexico | 4 | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | |
25 | Confederated Tribes of Goshute | 6/2/23 | Listening Session (In-person) | Ibapah, Utah | BEAD/Digital Equity | Local | Juab and Tooele Counties | 20 | X | X | X | ||||||
26 | Navajo Tribal Utility Authority (NTUA) 1:1 | 3/31/23 | Meeting/Presentation | Navajo Nation | BEAD | Regional | Counties served by ISP | 4 | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | |
27 | Utah Education Telehealth Network, Shivwits Band of Paiutes & Utah Broadband Center | 07/10/2023 | Meeting/Presentation | Online | BEAD/Digital Equity | Regional | Washington County, UT | 2 | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | ||
28 | DAPG Meeting: Navajo Nation 1:1 | 07/11/2023 | Meeting/Presentation | Online | Digital Equity | Regional | Navajo Nation | 1 | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | |
29 | Digital Equity Plan for Navajo Chapters in Utah | 08/21/2023 | Meeting/Presentation | Online | Digital Equity | Regional | Navajo Nation | 1 | X | X | X | ||||||
30 | Navajo Nation Mountain Chapter | 10/16/2023 | Listening Session (In-person) | Navajo Mtn | BEAD/Digital Equity | Regional | Navajo Nation | 80 | X | X | X | X | X | X | |||
31 | Navajo Nation Oljato Chapter | 10/17/2023 | Listening Session (In-person) | Monument Valley, UT | BEAD/Digital Equity | Regional | Navajo Nation | 80 | X | X | X | X | X | X | |||
32 | Navajo Nation Mexican Water Chapter | 10/18/2023 | Listening Session (In-person) | Mexican Water, UT | BEAD/Digital Equity | Regional | Navajo Nation | 80 | X | X | X | X | X | X | |||
33 | UBC Coordination: Connecting Navajo Nation Mexican Water Chapter with Rural Utah Project to share Google Plus Code data | 10/18/2023 | Online | BEAD/Digital Equity | Regional | Navajo Nation | 2 | X | X | X | X | ||||||
34 | Navajo Nation Red Mesa Chapter | 10/19/2023 | Listening Session (In-person) | Red Mesa, UT | BEAD/Digital Equity | Regional | Navajo Nation | 80 | X | X | X | X | X | X | |||
35 | Navajo Nation Aneth Chapter | 10/20/2023 | Listening Session (In-person) | Aneth, UT | BEAD/Digital Equity | Regional | Navajo Nation | 80 | X | X | X | X | X | X | |||
36 | Utah Tribal Leaders Meeting | 10/20/2023 | Listening Session (In-person) | Montezuma Creek, UT | BEAD/Digital Equity | Regional | Navajo Nation | 41 | X | ||||||||
37 | Najavo Nation Digital Equity Tour Debrief | 10/24/2023 | Meeting/Presentation | Online | BEAD/Digital Equity | Regional | Navajo Nation | 3 | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | |
38 | Utah Broadband Initiatives: UBC and Navajo Tribal Utility Authority | 10/27/2023 | Meeting/Presentation | Online | BEAD | Regional | Montezuma Creek, UT | 2 | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | |
39 | Navajo Utah Commission | 10/27/2023 | Meeting/Presentation | Red Mesa, UT | BEAD/Digital Equity | Regional | Navajo Nation | 15 | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | |
40 | UDOT, Montezuma Creek and Navajo Nation Aneth Colorado Chapter | 11/6/2023 | Meeting/Presentation | Online | BEAD | Regional | Navajo Nation | 5 | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | |
41 | Rural Utah Project and Navajo Nation: Google plus Addresses | 11/8/2023 | Meeting/Presentation | Online | BEAD/Digital Equity | Regional | Navajo Nation | 6 | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | |
42 | Team Suh'dutsing/Utah Broadband Center | 12/12/2023 | Meeting/Presentation | Online | BEAD | Local | Southern Utah | 4 | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X |
1 | Engagement Title/Description | Engagement Date (Enter date as MM/DD/YYYY) | Engagement Type | Engagement Location | Target Audience | Target Audience Location | Target Audience County | # Engaged | Individuals who live in covered households | Aging Individuals | Incarcerated Individuals | Veterans | Individuals with Disabilities | Individuals with a language barrier | Individuals who are members of a racial or ethnic minority group | Individuals who primarily reside in a rural area | Notes, including action items, what was discussed, any key themes, or feedback | |||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
2 | Airband | 11/1/2022 | Meeting/Presentation | Online | BEAD | Local | Counties served by ISP | 1 | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | ||||||||||
3 | All West Communications | 11/10/2022 | Meeting/Presentation | Online | BEAD | Local | Counties served by ISP | 1 | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | ||||||||||
4 | AT&T | 12/14/2022 | Meeting/Presentation | Online | BEAD | Local | Counties served by ISP | 1 | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | ||||||||||
5 | Bear Lake ISP Dot Bar | 11/1/2022 | Meeting/Presentation | Online | BEAD | Local | Counties served by ISP | 1 | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | ||||||||||
6 | Beehive Broadband | 11/10/2022 | Meeting/Presentation | Online | BEAD | Local | Counties served by ISP | 1 | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | ||||||||||
7 | Bitstream Communications | 11/10/2022 | Meeting/Presentation | Online | BEAD | Local | Counties served by ISP | 1 | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | ||||||||||
8 | Bluespring Internet | 11/2/2022 | Meeting/Presentation | Online | BEAD | Local | Counties served by ISP | 1 | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | ||||||||||
9 | CentraCom | 1/12/2023 | Meeting/Presentation | Online | BEAD | Local | Counties served by ISP | 1 | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | ||||||||||
10 | Comcast/Xfinity | 11/11/2022 | Meeting/Presentation | Online | BEAD | Local | Counties served by ISP | 1 | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | ||||||||||
11 | Connext Networks | 12/15/2022 | Meeting/Presentation | Online | BEAD | Local | Counties served by ISP | 1 | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | ||||||||||
12 | Digital Boulevard | 11/21/2022 | Meeting/Presentation | Online | BEAD | Local | Counties served by ISP | 1 | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | ||||||||||
13 | Direct Communications | 11/29/2022 | Meeting/Presentation | Online | BEAD | Local | Counties served by ISP | 1 | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | ||||||||||
14 | Dot Bar Communications | 11/1/2022 | Meeting/Presentation | Online | BEAD | Local | Counties served by ISP | 1 | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | ||||||||||
15 | Emery Telecom | 1/24/2023 | Meeting/Presentation | Online | BEAD | Local | Counties served by ISP | 1 | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | ||||||||||
16 | First Digital | 4/27/2023 | Meeting/Presentation | Online | BEAD | Local | Counties served by ISP | 1 | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | ||||||||||
17 | Frontier Communications | 11/21/2022 | Meeting/Presentation | Online | BEAD | Local | Counties served by ISP | 1 | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | ||||||||||
18 | Fusion Networks | 11/9/2022 | Meeting/Presentation | Online | BEAD | Local | Counties served by ISP | 1 | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | ||||||||||
19 | Go Fiber/Info West | 1/26/2023 | Meeting/Presentation | Online | BEAD | Local | Counties served by ISP | 1 | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | ||||||||||
20 | Google Fiber | 12/21/2022 | Meeting/Presentation | Online | BEAD | Local | Counties served by ISP | 1 | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | ||||||||||
21 | Gunnison Telecommunication | 11/10/2022 | Meeting/Presentation | Online | BEAD | Local | Counties served by ISP | 1 | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | ||||||||||
22 | HiCountryNet | 11/1/2022 | Meeting/Presentation | Online | BEAD | Local | Counties served by ISP | 1 | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | ||||||||||
23 | Intellipop Operations | 11/1/2022 | Meeting/Presentation | Online | BEAD | Local | Counties served by ISP | 1 | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | ||||||||||
24 | Keystone Solutions | 11/16/2022 | Meeting/Presentation | Online | BEAD | Local | Counties served by ISP | 1 | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | ||||||||||
25 | Lumen Technologies | 11/9/2022 | Meeting/Presentation | Online | BEAD | Local | Counties served by ISP | 1 | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | ||||||||||
26 | Manti Telephone/AFConnect | 11/11/2022 | Meeting/Presentation | Online | BEAD | Local | Counties served by ISP | 1 | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | ||||||||||
27 | Rise Broadband | 11/10/2022 | Meeting/Presentation | Online | BEAD | Local | Counties served by ISP | 1 | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | ||||||||||
28 | South Central Communications | 12/14/2022 | Meeting/Presentation | Online | BEAD | Local | Counties served by ISP | 1 | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | ||||||||||
29 | South Electric Service District (SESD) | 1/25/2023 | Meeting/Presentation | Online | BEAD | Local | Counties served by ISP | 1 | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | ||||||||||
30 | STRATA Networks | 11/9/2022 | Meeting/Presentation | Online | BEAD | Local | Counties served by ISP | 1 | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | ||||||||||
31 | TDS | 11/9/2022 | Meeting/Presentation | Online | BEAD | Local | Counties served by ISP | 1 | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | ||||||||||
32 | Terabit Networks | 11/2/2022 | Meeting/Presentation | Online | BEAD | Local | Counties served by ISP | 1 | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | ||||||||||
33 | T-Moblie | 2/1/2023 | Meeting/Presentation | Online | BEAD | Local | Counties served by ISP | 1 | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | ||||||||||
34 | Union Telephone | 11/22/2022 | Meeting/Presentation | Online | BEAD | Local | Counties served by ISP | 1 | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | ||||||||||
35 | Union Wireless | 12/9/2022 | Meeting/Presentation | Online | BEAD | Local | Counties served by ISP | 1 | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | ||||||||||
36 | Utah BroadBand | 11/2/2022 | Meeting/Presentation | Online | BEAD | Local | Counties served by ISP | 1 | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | ||||||||||
37 | Utah Rural Telecom Association | 2/16/2023 | Meeting/Presentation | Online | BEAD | Local | Counties served by ISP | 1 | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | ||||||||||
38 | UTOPIA Fiber | 12/15/2022 | Meeting/Presentation | Online | BEAD | Local | Counties served by ISP | 1 | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | ||||||||||
39 | Verizon/MCI/XO | 2/24/2023 | Meeting/Presentation | Online | BEAD | Local | Counties served by ISP | 1 | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | ||||||||||
40 | Wasatch Broadband | 11/1/2022 | Meeting/Presentation | Online | BEAD | Local | Counties served by ISP | 1 | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | ||||||||||
41 | Wi-Fiber | 1/18/2023 | Meeting/Presentation | Online | BEAD | Local | Counties served by ISP | 1 | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | ||||||||||
42 | CentraCom ISP 1:1 | 1/12/23 | Meeting/Presentation | Salt Lake City, Utah | BEAD | Local | Counties served by ISP | 1 | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | ||||||||||
43 | Wi-Fiber 1:1 | 1/18/23 | Meeting/Presentation | Salt Lake City, Utah | BEAD | Local | Counties served by ISP | 3 | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | |||||||||||
44 | Emery Telcom 1:1 | 1/24/23 | Meeting/Presentation | Salt Lake City, Utah | BEAD | Local | Counties served by ISP | 5 | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | |||||||||||
45 | Infowest 1:1 | 1/26/23 | Meeting/Presentation | Salt Lake City, Utah | BEAD | Local | Counties served by ISP | 3 | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | |||||||||||
46 | Utah Rural Telecom Association Board | 2/16/23 | Meeting/Presentation | Salt Lake City, Utah | BEAD | Regional | Rural Utah Counties | 5 | X | |||||||||||||||||
47 | Verizon 1:1 | 2/22/23 | Meeting/Presentation | Salt Lake City, Utah | BEAD | Local | Counties served by ISP | 2 | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | |||||||||||
48 | Syringa 1:1 | 3/15/23 | Meeting/Presentation | Salt Lake City, Utah | BEAD | Local | Counties served by ISP | 1 | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | ||||||||||
49 | QuikLink Internet 1:1 | 3/16/23 | Meeting/Presentation | Salt Lake City, Utah | BEAD | Local | Counties served by ISP | 2 | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | |||||||||||
50 | FirstDigital 1:1 | 4/27/2023 | Meeting/Presentation | Salt Lake City, Utah | BEAD | Local | Counties served by ISP | 1 | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | |||||||||||
51 | Avative 1:1 | 5/5/23 | Meeting/Presentation | Salt Lake City, Utah | BEAD | Local | Counties served by ISP | 3 | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | |||||||||||
52 | Comcast 1:1 | 5/11/23 | Meeting/Presentation | Salt Lake City, Utah | BEAD | Local | Counties served by ISP | 3 | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | |||||||||||
53 | Google Fiber 1:1 | 5/16/23 | Meeting/Presentation | Salt Lake City, Utah | BEAD | Local | Counties served by ISP | 1 | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | |||||||||||
54 | ATC Communications 1:1 | 5/17/23 | Meeting/Presentation | Salt Lake City, Utah | BEAD | Local | Counties served by ISP | 1 | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | |||||||||||
55 | Resident Feedback Session 1:1 | 5/26/23 | Listening Session (Virtual) | Online | Digital Equity | Statewide | All Utah Counties | 1 | X | X | ||||||||||||||||
56 | Google Fiber 1:1 | 5/30/23 | Meeting/Presentation | Online | BEAD/Digital Equity | Statewide | Counties served by ISP | 2 | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | ||||||||||
57 | Infowest 1:1 | 5/31/23 | Meeting/Presentation | Salt Lake City, Utah | BEAD | Local | Counties served by ISP | 3 | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | |||||||||||
58 | Cellular One 1:1 | 6/30/23 | Meeting/Presentation | Virtual | BEAD | Regional | Counties served by ISP | 1 | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | ||||||||||
59 | T-Mobile 1:1 | 2/1/23 | Meeting/Presentation | Salt Lake City, Utah | BEAD | Local | Counties served by ISP | 7 | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | ||||||||||
60 | Lumen 1:1 | 07/03/2023 | Meeting/Presentation | Virtual | BEAD | Regional | Counties served by ISP | 3 | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | ||||||||||
61 | Ciena 1:1 | 07/06/2023 | Meeting/Presentation | Virtual | BEAD/Digital Equity | Regional | Counties served by company | 3 | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | ||||||||||
62 | Qualcomm 1:1 | 07/28/2023 | Meeting/Presentation | Online | BEAD | Regional | Counties served by company | 5 | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | ||||||||||
63 | Terra Contracting 1:1 | 07/31/2023 | Meeting/Presentation | Online | BEAD | Regional | Counties served by company | 4 | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | ||||||||||
64 | Lumen 1:1 | 08/01/2023 | Meeting/Presentation | Salt Lake City, Utah | BEAD | Regional | Counties served by ISP | 2 | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | ||||||||||
65 | Emery Telcom 1:1 | 08/03/2023 | Meeting/Presentation | Online | BEAD | Regional | Carbon and Emery Counties | 1 | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | ||||||||||
66 | Strata and URTA | 08/03/2023 | Meeting/Presentation | Salt Lake City, Utah | BEAD | Regional | Duchesne and Uintah Counties | 4 | ||||||||||||||||||
67 | CentraCom ISP 1:1 | 08/31/2023 | Meeting/Presentation | Online | BEAD | Regional | Counties served by ISP | 1 | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | ||||||||||
68 | Tarana Wireless 1:1 | 08/31/2023 | Meeting/Presentation | Bountiful, Utah | BEAD | Regional | Counties served by company | 3 | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | ||||||||||
69 | Beehive Broadband 1:1 | 09/01/2023 | Meeting/Presentation | Online | BEAD | Regional | Counties served by ISP | 2 | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | ||||||||||
70 | Strata | 09/06/2023 | Meeting/Presentation | Salt Lake City, Utah | BEAD | Regional | Counties served by ISP | 2 | ||||||||||||||||||
71 | UTOPIA 1:1 | 09/15/2023 | Meeting/Presentation | Online | BEAD | Regional | Counties served by ISP | 1 | ||||||||||||||||||
72 | Beehive Broadband 1:1 | 09/19/2023 | Meeting/Presentation | Online | BEAD | Regional | Counties served by ISP | 2 | ||||||||||||||||||
73 | Strata Summit | 10/10/2023 | Meeting/Presentation | Vernal, Utah | BEAD | Regional | Counties served by ISP | |||||||||||||||||||
74 | Lumen 1:1 | 10/12/2023 | Meeting/Presentation | Online | BEAD | Regional | Counties served by ISP | 2 | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | ||||||||||
75 | Spear Broadband 1:1 | 10/13/2023 | Meeting/Presentation | Online | BEAD | Regional | Counties served by ISP | 2 | ||||||||||||||||||
76 | Cellular One 1:1 | 10/24/2023 | Meeting/Presentation | Salt Lake City, Utah | BEAD/Digital Equity | Regional | Counties served by ISP | 1 | X | X | X | X | X | |||||||||||||
77 | BellSouth 1:1 | 10/27/2023 | Meeting/Presentation | Online | BEAD | Statewide | Counties served by ISP | 1 | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | ||||||||||
78 | Lumen 1:1 | 11/6/2023 | Meeting/Presentation | Online | BEAD | Statewide | All Utah Counties | 1 | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | ||||||||||
79 | OneWeb 1:1 | 11/9/2023 | Meeting/Presentation | Online | BEAD/Digital Equity | Statewide | All Utah Counties | 1 | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | ||||||||||
80 | BellSouth 1:1 | 06/07/2025 | Meeting/Presentation | Online | BEAD | Statewide | All Utah Counties | 2 | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | ||||||||||
81 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
82 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
83 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
84 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
85 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
86 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
87 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
88 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
89 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
90 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
91 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
92 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
93 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
94 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
95 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
96 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
97 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
98 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
99 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
100 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
101 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
102 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
103 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
104 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
105 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
106 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
107 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
108 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
109 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
110 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
111 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
112 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
113 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
114 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
115 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
116 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
117 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
118 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
119 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
120 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
121 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
122 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
123 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
124 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
125 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
126 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
127 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
128 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
129 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
130 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
131 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
132 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
133 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
134 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
135 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
136 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
137 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
138 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
139 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
140 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
141 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
142 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
143 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
144 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
145 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
146 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
147 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
148 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
149 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
150 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
151 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
152 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
153 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
154 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
155 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
156 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
157 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
158 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
159 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
160 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
161 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
162 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
163 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
164 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
165 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
166 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
167 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
168 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
169 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
170 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
171 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
172 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
173 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
174 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
175 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
176 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
177 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
178 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
179 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
180 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
181 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
182 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
183 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
184 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
185 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
186 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
187 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
188 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
189 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
190 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
191 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
192 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
193 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
194 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
195 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
196 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
197 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
198 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
199 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
200 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
201 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
202 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
203 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
204 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
205 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
206 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
207 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
208 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
209 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
210 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
211 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
212 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
213 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
214 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
215 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
216 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
217 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
218 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
219 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
220 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
221 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
222 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
223 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
224 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
225 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
226 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
227 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
228 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
229 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
230 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
231 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
232 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
233 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
234 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
235 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
236 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
237 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
238 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
239 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
240 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
241 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
242 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
243 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
244 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
245 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
246 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
247 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
248 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
249 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
250 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
251 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
252 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
253 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
254 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
255 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
256 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
257 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
258 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
259 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
260 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
261 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
262 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
263 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
264 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
265 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
266 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
267 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
268 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
269 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
270 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
271 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
272 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
273 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
274 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
275 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
276 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
277 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
278 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
279 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
280 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
281 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
282 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
283 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
284 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
285 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
286 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
287 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
288 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
289 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
290 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
291 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
292 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
293 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
294 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
295 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
296 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
297 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
298 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
299 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
300 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
301 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
302 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
303 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
304 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
305 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
306 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
307 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
308 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
309 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
310 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
311 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
312 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
313 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
314 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
315 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
316 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
317 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
318 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
319 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
320 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
321 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
322 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
323 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
324 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
325 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
326 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
327 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
328 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
329 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
330 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
331 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
332 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
333 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
334 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
335 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
336 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
337 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
338 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
339 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
340 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
341 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
342 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
343 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
344 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
345 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
346 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
347 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
348 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
349 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
350 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
351 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
352 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
353 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
354 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
355 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
356 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
357 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
358 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
359 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
360 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
361 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
362 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
363 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
364 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
365 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
366 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
367 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
368 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
369 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
370 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
371 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
372 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
373 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
374 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
375 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
376 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
377 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
378 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
379 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
380 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
381 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
382 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
383 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
384 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
385 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
386 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
387 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
388 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
389 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
390 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
391 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
392 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
393 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
394 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
395 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
396 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
397 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
398 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
399 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
400 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
401 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
402 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
403 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
404 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
405 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
406 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
407 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
408 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
409 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
410 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
411 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
412 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
413 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
414 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
415 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
416 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
417 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
418 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
419 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
420 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
421 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
422 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
423 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
424 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
425 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
426 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
427 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
428 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
429 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
430 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
431 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
432 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
433 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
434 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
435 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
436 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
437 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
438 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
439 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
440 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
441 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
442 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
443 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
444 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
445 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
446 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
447 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
448 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
449 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
450 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
451 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
452 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
453 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
454 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
455 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
456 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
457 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
458 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
459 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
460 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
461 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
462 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
463 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
464 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
465 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
466 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
467 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
468 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
469 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
470 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
471 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
472 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
473 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
474 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
475 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
476 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
477 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
478 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
479 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
480 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
481 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
482 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
483 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
484 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
485 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
486 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
487 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
488 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
489 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
490 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
491 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
492 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
493 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
494 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
495 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
496 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
497 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
498 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
499 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
500 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
501 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
502 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
503 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
504 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
505 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
506 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
507 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
508 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
509 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
510 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
511 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
512 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
513 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
514 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
515 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
516 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
517 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
518 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
519 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
520 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
521 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
522 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
523 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
524 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
525 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
526 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
527 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
528 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
529 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
530 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
531 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
532 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
533 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
534 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
535 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
536 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
537 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
538 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
539 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
540 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
541 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
542 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
543 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
544 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
545 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
546 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
547 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
548 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
549 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
550 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
551 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
552 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
553 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
554 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
555 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
556 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
557 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
558 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
559 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
560 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
561 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
562 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
563 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
564 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
565 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
566 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
567 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
568 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
569 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
570 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
571 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
572 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
573 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
574 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
575 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
576 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
577 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
578 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
579 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
580 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
581 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
582 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
583 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
584 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
585 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
586 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
587 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
588 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
589 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
590 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
591 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
592 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
593 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
594 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
595 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
596 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
597 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
598 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
599 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
600 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
601 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
602 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
603 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
604 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
605 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
606 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
607 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
608 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
609 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
610 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
611 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
612 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
613 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
614 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
615 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
616 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
617 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
618 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
619 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
620 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
621 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
622 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
623 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
624 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
625 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
626 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
627 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
628 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
629 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
630 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
631 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
632 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
633 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
634 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
635 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
636 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
637 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
638 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
639 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
640 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
641 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
642 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
643 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
644 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
645 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
646 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
647 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
648 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
649 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
650 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
651 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
652 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
653 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
654 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
655 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
656 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
657 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
658 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
659 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
660 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
661 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
662 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
663 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
664 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
665 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
666 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
667 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
668 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
669 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
670 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
671 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
672 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
673 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
674 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
675 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
676 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
677 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
678 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
679 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
680 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
681 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
682 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
683 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
684 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
685 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
686 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
687 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
688 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
689 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
690 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
691 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
692 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
693 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
694 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
695 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
696 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
697 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
698 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
699 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
700 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
701 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
702 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
703 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
704 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
705 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
706 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
707 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
708 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
709 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
710 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
711 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
712 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
713 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
714 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
715 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
716 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
717 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
718 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
719 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
720 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
721 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
722 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
723 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
724 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
725 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
726 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
727 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
728 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
729 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
730 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
731 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
732 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
733 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
734 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
735 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
736 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
737 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
738 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
739 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
740 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
741 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
742 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
743 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
744 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
745 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
746 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
747 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
748 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
749 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
750 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
751 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
752 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
753 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
754 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
755 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
756 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
757 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
758 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
759 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
760 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
761 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
762 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
763 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
764 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
765 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
766 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
767 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
768 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
769 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
770 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
771 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
772 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
773 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
774 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
775 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
776 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
777 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
778 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
779 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
780 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
781 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
782 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
783 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
784 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
785 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
786 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
787 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
788 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
789 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
790 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
791 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
792 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
793 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
794 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
795 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
796 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
797 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
798 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
799 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
800 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
801 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
802 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
803 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
804 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
805 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
806 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
807 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
808 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
809 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
810 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
811 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
812 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
813 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
814 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
815 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
816 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
817 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
818 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
819 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
820 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
821 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
822 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
823 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
824 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
825 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
826 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
827 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
828 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
829 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
830 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
831 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
832 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
833 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
834 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
835 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
836 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
837 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
838 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
839 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
840 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
841 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
842 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
843 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
844 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
845 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
846 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
847 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
848 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
849 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
850 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
851 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
852 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
853 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
854 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
855 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
856 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
857 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
858 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
859 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
860 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
861 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
862 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
863 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
864 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
865 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
866 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
867 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
868 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
869 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
870 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
871 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
872 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
873 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
874 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
875 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
876 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
877 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
878 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
879 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
880 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
881 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
882 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
883 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
884 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
885 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
886 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
887 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
888 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
889 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
890 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
891 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
892 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
893 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
894 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
895 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
896 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
897 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
898 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
899 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
900 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
901 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
902 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
903 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
904 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
905 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
906 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
907 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
908 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
909 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
910 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
911 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
912 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
913 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
914 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
915 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
916 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
917 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
918 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
919 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
920 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
921 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
922 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
923 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
924 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
925 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
926 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
927 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
928 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
929 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
930 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
931 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
932 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
933 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
934 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
935 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
936 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
937 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
938 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
939 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
940 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
941 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
942 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
943 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
944 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
945 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
946 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
947 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
948 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
949 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
950 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
951 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
952 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
953 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
954 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
955 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
956 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
957 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
958 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
959 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
960 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
961 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
962 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
963 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
964 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
965 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
966 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
967 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
968 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
969 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
970 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
971 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
972 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
973 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
974 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
975 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
976 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
977 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
978 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
979 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
980 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
981 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
982 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
983 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
984 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
985 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
986 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
987 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
988 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
989 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
990 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
991 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
992 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
993 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
994 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
995 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
996 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
997 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
998 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
999 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
1000 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
1001 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
1002 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
1003 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
1004 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
1005 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
1006 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
1007 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
1008 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
1009 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
1010 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
1011 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
1012 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
1013 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
1014 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
1015 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
1016 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
1017 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
1018 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
1019 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
1020 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
1021 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
1022 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
1023 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
1024 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
1025 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
1026 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
1027 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
1028 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
1029 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
1030 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
1031 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
1032 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
1033 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
1034 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
1035 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
1036 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
1037 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
1038 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
1039 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
1040 |
1 | Local Plan Submission | |||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
2 | Stakeholder Name | Locality/Region/City | Link to Existing Plan (If available online) | Point of Contact for Local Plan | Plan Title | Description | Program (BEAD or Digital Equity) | Notes / Strategy for Addressing Stakeholder Plan |
3 | Alpine City | Utah County | https://www.connectingutah.com/_files/ugd/1112d4_1777d463357a42499aecb179d778030d.pdf | Ryan Robinson, Assistant City Administrator; ryan@alpinecity.org | Alpine City Local Broadband Plan | Five-year strategic plan for broadband deployment in the community, identifying community priorities, potential barriers to deployment, and areas in need of greater access. | BEAD | This plan has been included in the statewide five-year digital connectivity plan, and will be utilized to help identify priority areas for BEAD-funded projects. |
4 | Beaver County | Beaver County | https://www.connectingutah.com/_files/ugd/1112d4_d7e85e423a804b6997642f33e202cca0.pdf | Jen Wakeland, Strategic Development Director; jenw@beaver.utah.gov | Beaver County Local Broadband Plan | Five-year strategic plan for broadband deployment in the community, identifying community priorities, potential barriers to deployment, and areas in need of greater access. | BEAD | This plan has been included in the statewide five-year digital connectivity plan, and will be utilized to help identify priority areas for BEAD-funded projects. |
5 | Bear River Association of Governments | Cache, Rich, and Box Elder Counties | https://www.connectingutah.com/_files/ugd/1112d4_730395bece7c4384ae30530b71074e6b.pdf | Brian Carver, Community and Economic Development Director; brianc@brag.utah.gov | Bear River Association of Governments Local Broadband Plan | Five-year strategic plan for broadband deployment in the community, identifying community priorities, potential barriers to deployment, and areas in need of greater access. | BEAD | This plan has been included in the statewide five-year digital connectivity plan, and will be utilized to help identify priority areas for BEAD-funded projects. |
6 | Town of Brighton | Salt Lake County | https://www.connectingutah.com/_files/ugd/1112d4_78cd7db4044f468aa861bbd5c0991b30.pdf | Erin O'Kelley, Long Range Planner; eokelley@msd.utah.gov | Town of Brighton Digital Infrastructure Plan | Five-year strategic plan for broadband deployment in the community, identifying community priorities, potential barriers to deployment, and areas in need of greater access. | BEAD | This plan has been included in the statewide five-year digital connectivity plan, and will be utilized to help identify priority areas for BEAD-funded projects. |
7 | Centro Hispano | Utah County | https://www.connectingutah.com/_files/ugd/4a35e5_3afa837e9b3c4692854431aa388b527d.docx?dn=Centro%20Hispano%20-%20Digital%20Access%20Plan%20DRAFT.docx | Jackie Larson, Executive Director | Centro Hispano Digital Access Plan | Stragetic plan to improve digital access for cover populations by assessing unique community barriers, gathering public input and lived-experience data, strategizing program development and/or expansion, and making recommendations for the statewide Digital Equity Plan | Digital Equity | This plan will be included in the broader Digital Equity Plan where strategies and recommendations align. |
8 | Center for Economic Opportunity and Belonging | Salt Lake County | https://www.connectingutah.com/_files/ugd/4a35e5_443527eae95d4cb1860f8b9b52cb7fc3.pdf | Robert Roake, Director of Operations | The Center for Economic Opportunity and Belonging Digital Access Plan Recommendation | Stragetic plan to improve digital access for cover populations by assessing unique community barriers, gathering public input and lived-experience data, strategizing program development and/or expansion, and making recommendations for the statewide Digital Equity Plan | Digital Equity | This plan will be included in the broader Digital Equity Plan where strategies and recommendations align. |
9 | Club Ability | Salt Lake County | https://www.connectingutah.com/_files/ugd/4a35e5_423f2e9c09ec4aa4ad4729cb619f42b0.docx?dn=Club%20Ability%20Digital%20Access%20Plan%20DRAFT.docx | Juliette Bautista, Director | Club Ability Digital Access Plan (Plan de Acceso Digital) | Stragetic plan to improve digital access for cover populations by assessing unique community barriers, gathering public input and lived-experience data, strategizing program development and/or expansion, and making recommendations for the statewide Digital Equity Plan | Digital Equity | This plan will be included in the broader Digital Equity Plan where strategies and recommendations align. |
10 | Davis County School District | Davis County | https://www.connectingutah.com/_files/ugd/1112d4_4db7e532cc9943bd8e0c5af490d3d6fb.pdf | Ryan Hansen, Digital Learning Director; rhansen@dsdmail.net | Davis County School District and Community Local Broadband Plan | Five-year strategic plan for broadband deployment in the community, identifying community priorities, potential barriers to deployment, and areas in need of greater access. | BEAD | This plan has been included in the statewide five-year digital connectivity plan, and will be utilized to help identify priority areas for BEAD-funded projects. |
11 | Five County Association of Governments | Beaver, Garfield, Iron, Kane, and Washington Counties | https://www.connectingutah.com/_files/ugd/1112d4_1819e92d856340a786f22bef8a12dfa1.pdf | Nathan Wiburg, Senior Planner; nwiberg@fivecounty.utah.gov | Five County Association of Governments (AOG) Local Broadband Plan | Five-year strategic plan for broadband deployment in the community, identifying community priorities, potential barriers to deployment, and areas in need of greater access. | BEAD | This plan has been included in the statewide five-year digital connectivity plan, and will be utilized to help identify priority areas for BEAD-funded projects. |
12 | Guadalupe Center Educational Programs, Inc. | Salt Lake County | https://www.connectingutah.com/_files/ugd/4a35e5_7c1bb04bf48e4dc9815fe489fded0760.docx?dn=Guadalupe%20School%20-%20Digital%20Access%20Plan%20DRAFT.docx | Guy Lebeda, Development Officer | Guadalupe School Digital Access Plan | Stragetic plan to improve digital access for cover populations by assessing unique community barriers, gathering public input and lived-experience data, strategizing program development and/or expansion, and making recommendations for the statewide Digital Equity Plan | Digital Equity | This plan will be included in the broader Digital Equity Plan where strategies and recommendations align. |
13 | Morgan County | Morgan County | https://www.connectingutah.com/_files/ugd/1112d4_9936dd556e74438788d6ccd1a165c951.pdf | Blaine Fackrell, Commissioner; bfackrell@morgancountyutah.gov | Morgan County Local Broadband Plan | Five-year strategic plan for broadband deployment in the community, identifying community priorities, potential barriers to deployment, and areas in need of greater access. | BEAD | This plan has been included in the statewide five-year digital connectivity plan, and will be utilized to help identify priority areas for BEAD-funded projects. |
14 | Ogden City | Weber County | https://www.connectingutah.com/_files/ugd/1112d4_6d2b7c7b4bc84a13b48af2d63e9f177d.pdf | Jess McClelland, IT Division; jessmcclelland@ogdencity.com | Ogden City Digital Access Plan | Stragetic plan to improve digital access for cover populations by assessing unique community barriers, gathering public input and lived-experience data, strategizing program development and/or expansion, and making recommendations for the statewide Digital Equity Plan | Digital Equity | This plan will be included in the broader Digital Equity Plan where strategies and recommendations align. |
15 | Ogden City | Weber County | https://www.connectingutah.com/_files/ugd/1112d4_23f2417219cd47aeba73c2f4a63a6db1.pdf | Jess McClelland, IT Division; jessmcclelland@ogdencity.com | Ogden City Local Broadband Plan | Five-year strategic plan for broadband deployment in the community, identifying community priorities, potential barriers to deployment, and areas in need of greater access. | BEAD | This plan has been included in the statewide five-year digital connectivity plan, and will be utilized to help identify priority areas for BEAD-funded projects. |
16 | Salt Lake County | Salt Lake County | https://www.connectingutah.com/_files/ugd/ceee1c_2adafc4bc7db48ab818e2da5afc78c7d.docx?dn=Digital%20Access%20Plan%20Salt%20Lake%20County%20(Draft)%20(1).docx | Brooke Lockyer, Program and Grant Coordinator | Salt Lake County Digital Access Plan | Stragetic plan to improve digital access for cover populations by assessing unique community barriers, gathering public input and lived-experience data, strategizing program development and/or expansion, and making recommendations for the statewide Digital Equity Plan | Digital Equity | This plan will be included in the broader Digital Equity Plan where strategies and recommendations align. |
17 | San Juan County | San Juan County | https://www.connectingutah.com/_files/ugd/1112d4_97a479622b494c54a99e25782e6a7ec9.pdf | Mack McDonald, Chief Administration Officer; mmcdonald@sanjuancounty.org | San Juan County Local Broadband Plan | Five-year strategic plan for broadband deployment in the community, identifying community priorities, potential barriers to deployment, and areas in need of greater access. | BEAD | This plan has been included in the statewide five-year digital connectivity plan, and will be utilized to help identify priority areas for BEAD-funded projects. |
18 | Shivwits Band of Paiutes | Washington County | https://www.connectingutah.com/_files/ugd/1112d4_604b2a8f7ff5492fbb48d5e9a543513f.pdf | Jill Haslam, Paralegal | Shivwits Band of Paiutes Digital Access Plan | Stragetic plan to improve digital access for cover populations by assessing unique community barriers, gathering public input and lived-experience data, strategizing program development and/or expansion, and making recommendations for the statewide Digital Equity Plan | Digital Equity | This plan will be included in the broader Digital Equity Plan where strategies and recommendations align. |
19 | Six County Association of Governments | Juab, Millard, Piute, Sanpete, Sevier, and Wayne Counties | https://www.connectingutah.com/_files/ugd/1112d4_2b280d6695dd49ccb5f1e256cfe07012.pdf | Tyler Timmons, Regional Planner; ttimmons@sixcounty.com | Six County Association of Governments (AOG) Local Broadband Plan | Five-year strategic plan for broadband deployment in the community, identifying community priorities, potential barriers to deployment, and areas in need of greater access. | BEAD | This plan has been included in the statewide five-year digital connectivity plan, and will be utilized to help identify priority areas for BEAD-funded projects. |
20 | Salt Lake Community College | Salt Lake County | https://www.connectingutah.com/_files/ugd/4a35e5_16e4a9a03cab48f1acd471da27748ae2.docx?dn=SLCC%20Digital%20Access%20Plan%20DRAFT.docx | Melissa Helquist, Professor | Local Digital Access Plan for Utahns with Disabilities | Stragetic plan to improve digital access for cover populations by assessing unique community barriers, gathering public input and lived-experience data, strategizing program development and/or expansion, and making recommendations for the statewide Digital Equity Plan | Digital Equity | This plan will be included in the broader Digital Equity Plan where strategies and recommendations align. |
21 | Southeaster Utah Association of Local Governments | Carbon, Emery, Grand, and San Juan Counties | https://www.connectingutah.com/_files/ugd/1112d4_87b0a5b3caf0465eb62e1628a19f9758.pdf | Jade Powell, Deputy Director; jpowell@seualg.utah.gov | Southeastern Utah Local Broadband Plan | Five-year strategic plan for broadband deployment in the community, identifying community priorities, potential barriers to deployment, and areas in need of greater access. | BEAD | This plan has been included in the statewide five-year digital connectivity plan, and will be utilized to help identify priority areas for BEAD-funded projects. |
22 | Summit County | Summit County | https://www.connectingutah.com/_files/ugd/1112d4_b4909559481a4b879ac82873e0a7b7cc.pdf | Ron Boyer, IT Director; rboyer@summitcounty.org | Summit County Local Broadband Plan | Five-year strategic plan for broadband deployment in the community, identifying community priorities, potential barriers to deployment, and areas in need of greater access. | BEAD | This plan has been included in the statewide five-year digital connectivity plan, and will be utilized to help identify priority areas for BEAD-funded projects. |
23 | Utah Education and Telehealth Network | Statewide | https://www.connectingutah.com/_files/ugd/1112d4_a1f8cba4a56e4e16ba8a2e0df0ee97eb.pdf | Jeff Egly, Associate Director; jegly@uen.org | Utah Education and Telehealth Network Digital Access Plan | Five-year strategic plan for broadband deployment in the community, identifying community priorities, potential barriers to deployment, and areas in need of greater access. | BEAD | This plan has been included in the statewide five-year digital connectivity plan, and will be utilized to help identify priority areas for BEAD-funded projects. |
24 | Utah Commission on Aging | Statewide | https://www.connectingutah.com/_files/ugd/4a35e5_e9ec49a8c41944fcbe6aed3d8c6610e8.docx?dn=Utah%20Commission%20on%20Aging%20Digital%20Access%20Plan%20DRAFT.docx | Rob Ence, Executive Director | Utah Commission on Aging Digital Access Plan | Stragetic plan to improve digital access for cover populations by assessing unique community barriers, gathering public input and lived-experience data, strategizing program development and/or expansion, and making recommendations for the statewide Digital Equity Plan | Digital Equity | This plan will be included in the broader Digital Equity Plan where strategies and recommendations align. |
25 | United Way of Utah County | Utah County | https://www.connectingutah.com/_files/ugd/4a35e5_8191fca33593434d8d3a954678664289.pdf | Gary Tippets, Digital Inclusion Supervisor | Utah County Digital Inclusion Plan | Stragetic plan to improve digital access for cover populations by assessing unique community barriers, gathering public input and lived-experience data, strategizing program development and/or expansion, and making recommendations for the statewide Digital Equity Plan | Digital Equity | This plan will be included in the broader Digital Equity Plan where strategies and recommendations align. |
26 | Vernal City | Uintah County | https://www.connectingutah.com/_files/ugd/4a35e5_b3f61cf2f05446d6874cbfc7495b2872.pdf | Gabby Blackburn, Assistant City Manager | Vernal City Digital Access Plan | Stragetic plan to improve digital access for cover populations by assessing unique community barriers, gathering public input and lived-experience data, strategizing program development and/or expansion, and making recommendations for the statewide Digital Equity Plan | Digital Equity | This plan will be included in the broader Digital Equity Plan where strategies and recommendations align. |
27 | Wallsburg Town | Wasatch County | https://www.connectingutah.com/_files/ugd/1112d4_4f1acd53db95403cad55d29a42091d0f.pdf | Scott Larsen, Councilman; scott.wallsburg.town@gmail.com | Wallsburg Valley Local Broadband Plan | Five-year strategic plan for broadband deployment in the community, identifying community priorities, potential barriers to deployment, and areas in need of greater access. | BEAD | This plan has been included in the statewide five-year digital connectivity plan, and will be utilized to help identify priority areas for BEAD-funded projects. |
28 | Utah Department of Transportation | Statewide | https://www.connectingutah.com/_files/ugd/1112d4_4f1acd53db95403cad55d29a42091d0f.pdf | Lynne Yocom, Fiber Optics Director; lyocom@utah.gov | UDOT Fiber Optic Program Plan | Five-year strategic plan for broadband deployment in the community, identifying community priorities, potential barriers to deployment, and areas in need of greater access. | BEAD | This plan has been included in the statewide five-year digital connectivity plan, and will be utilized to help identify priority areas for BEAD-funded projects. |
29 | ||||||||
30 | ||||||||
31 | ||||||||
32 | ||||||||
33 | ||||||||
34 | ||||||||
35 | ||||||||
36 | ||||||||
37 | ||||||||
38 | ||||||||
39 |
1 | Public Comment Disclosure | |||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
2 | First Name | Last Name | Organization | Title | Email Address | Relevant Section of the Plan | Feedback Provided | Other Comments | Date Submitted | Written Responses and Actions Taken by State in Response |
3 | James | Dye | N/A | James.L.Dye@gmail.com | Volume 1: Unserved and Underserved Locations | I would like to make sure that my home and subdivision are included on the Unserved list. I live in the Highlands West subdivision in Mountain Green, Morgan County, Utah. The local provider, Beehive, has installed fiber in all of the surrounding areas, but has not provided service to our subdivision. Our only option is CenturyLink DSL. I get 20 MB down and less than 1 MB up service. | 9/29/23 | Considered the comment and elgible locations will be covered with the challenge map | ||
4 | Dom | Paul | N/A | avocet@q.com | Volume 1: Unserved and Underserved Locations | High speed broadband is being brought into our community along a central roadway (Old Highway, Road in Mountain Green, Utah). The broadband seems to be traveling through,but not necessarily into our community. As an example, I live on River View Circle, just 400 yards from the main broadband cable installation, but to the best of my knowledge, it will not be serving me or my neighbors. Each of us use the Internet for work and personal use. Any proposal and installation of high-speed broadband should include arteries into the associated neighborhoods. | 9/29/23 | Considered the comment and the list of eligible locations will be published in the challenge map | ||
5 | Elaine | Gizler | San Juan County Economics | egizler@sanjuancounty.org | Volume 1: Unserved and Underserved Locations | San Juan County is a very underserved area and severly needs broadband | 10/6/23 | Considered the comment and elgible locations will be covered with the challenge map | ||
6 | Jan | Davenport | davenport.jan9@gmail.com | Volume 1: Unserved and Underserved Locations | I live in Garland but border Tremonton. Tremonton has fiber cable which is fast. We do not. We can hookup to Rize internet but has poor service and off often. We have no other choice. Wish we had fiber internet like my neighbors. But it is not available to us or the people by me | 10/6/23 | Considered the comment and elgible locations will be covered with the challenge map | |||
7 | Ariane | Schaffer | Google Fiber | arianeschaffer@google.com | Volume 1: Introduction | Link to Comments | 10/8/23 | The recommendations apply to Volume II | ||
8 | Ryan | Hickman | River Canyon Wirless | Ryan@rivercanyonwireless.com | Volume 1: Introduction | Eligability: Wireless Internet Service Providers are left out of the funding pool for funding and are over built by wire-line or fiber providers. WISPs provide access to areas not covered by normal providers as they don't feel it's "worth while" and unlicenses frequency bands are deamed "unreliable" and therefor only licensed or LBR frequencies qualify. We have served 4 counties for nearly 15yrs with NO GOVERMENT assistance, but now we face an aggressive over build by another telco whom has been bloated with government funding. The eligability requirement needs to change to include Fixed Wireless Providers access the BEAD and other government funding. | 10/10/23 | UBC will follow the NTIA policy that determines licensed wireless to be underserved | ||
9 | Eric | Duthie | Hildale City, Utah | ericd@hildalecity.com | Volume 1: Unserved and Underserved Locations | Hildale City and the Town of Apple Valley, rural municipalities in eastern Washington County are in urgent need of BEAD funding. Many areas of both communities have little to no service. | 10/10/23 | Considered the comment and elgible locations will be covered with the challenge map | ||
10 | Paul | Larsen | Brigham City | plarsen@bcutah.gov | Volume 1: Unserved and Underserved Locations | To the extent possible, funding for broadband deployment should emphasize open access to network infrastructure by diverse ISP's. Competition in the provision of internet services should be encouraged in the use of public funds. Funding for closed networks should come exclusively from the network owner, not public sources. Additionally, connection to the network should come with a cost to the end user, not simply as a free connection provided at the expense of the public through public financing. UTOPIA is a model for the type of network that should be encouraged through the use of public funding. | 10/12/23 | UBC will follow NTIA guidelines regarding open access networks | ||
11 | Michael | Henke | Midway City | mhenke@midwaycityut.org | Volume 1: Introduction | This will help many unserved and underserved populations in Utah to have access to high-speed broadband connections. | 10/12/23 | Comment does not require a response | ||
12 | Randy | Gosby | InfoWest | rcosby@infowest.com | Volume 1: Unserved and Underserved Locations | Page 5, typo: UBC is statutorily required to identify any CAIs lacking broadband service with speeds of at least 1 Gigabyte per second (1 Gbps). This should be "Gigabit per second", not "Gigabyte". | 10/12/23 | The typo has been corrected in Volume I | ||
13 | Thomas | Denos | Communications Workers of America | tdenos@cwa7704.org | Volume 1: Unserved and Underserved Locations | The Communications Workers of America (CWA) supports the current draft of the Utah Broadband Center’s (UBC) Initial Proposal Volume I, including the state’s adoption of NTIA’s model challenge process, with some constructive modifications recommended below. CWA’s comments support UBC’s plans to adopt NTIA’s Optional Module 2 for DSL Modification and NTIA’s Optional Module 3 for Speed Test Modifications. CWA recommends reclassification of areas served through fixed wireless to underserved, and the use of unserved classification for MDUs in census tracts with both high poverty rates and high numbers of unconnected households until they are successfully challenged as served. CWA also recommends additional measures to secure transparency and accountability in the challenge process and to ensure that relevant units of local government and nonprofit organizations are fully prepared and have sufficient time to participate in the challenge process. CWA applauds UBC’s recognition that DSL is not an adequate broadband technology. The failure of incumbent ISPs to maintain their legacy copper networks have made them more susceptible to outages after natural disasters and general degradation of service quality. UBC’s adoption of NTIA’s Optional Module 2 for DSL Modification ensures investment in future proof fiber networks and expedites the phase-out of legacy copper facilities by treating locations that the National Broadband Map shows to have available qualifying broadband service (i.e., a location that is “served”) delivered via DSL as “underserved.” Similarly, CWA supports UBC’s adoption of Optional Module 3 for Speed Test Modification. This ensures that the locations that are shown as “served” on the FCC Map can be reclassified as “unserved” if rigorous speed test methodologies demonstrate that the “served” locations actually receive service that is materially below 100 Mbps downstream and 20 Mbps upstream. CWA also encourages UBC to change the availability status to underserved in areas listed on the National Broadband Map as served through licensed fixed wireless. This revision will limit the use of fixed wireless as an inferior bandaid for the lack of broadband availability. An engineering analysis of fixed wireless technologies by consulting firm CTC Technology and Energy concluded that “fiber represents the most fiscally prudent expenditure of public funds in most circumstances because of its longevity and technical advantages.” CTC’s cost analysis of fiber and fixed wireless deployments finds that while fiber’s upfront capital costs are higher than those of fixed wireless in many circumstances, the total cost of ownership over 30 years is comparable for fiber and fixed wireless, and fiber provides much higher quality service. CWA believes that the FCC Map may overestimate coverage at many MDUs and urges UBC to reclassify units as “underserved,” until appropriately rebutted, if evidence demonstrates that at least 3 units or 10 percent of the unit count listed in the Fabric within the same broadband serviceable location, whichever is larger, are unserved or underserved. UBC should also classify all MDUs in census tracts with both high poverty rates and high numbers of unconnected households as unserved until they are successfully challenged as served. This bulk reclassification will serve as an additional check to ensure that all of the units within an MDU meet the definition of served location. Other states such as Delaware have proposed a similar reclassification as part of their initial proposal. CWA fully supports UBC’s proposal to only accept speed tests conducted between the hours of 7-11 pm local time as evidence for a challenge rebuttal, as this timeframe captures typical peak network usage. | 10/13/23 | DSL will remain underserved, following the NTIA guidelines | ||
14 | Thomas | Denos | Communications Workers of America | tdenos@cwa7704.org | Volume 1: Challenge Process | To ensure successful implementation, CWA recommends UBC maximize transparency and accountability in the challenge process. Prior to the start of the challenge process, UBC should provide notice and training to units of local government and nonprofit organizations on how to challenge the current broadband map and increase the 30-day challenge submission timeline when a nonprofit or local entity provides a reasonable explanation on why an extension is needed. While ISPs have had many years of experience challenging broadband availability data with federal and state agencies, the process is new to local governments and organizations. In order to ensure the most accurate availability data, UBC should extend the rebuttal period if an ISP provides a reasonable explanation for why additional time is needed to submit rebuttal evidence. Further, UBC should publicly disclose and post online in an easily accessible format all submitted challenges and rebuttals before the final challenge determination has been made. Considering that ISPs have had several opportunities to submit accurate broadband deployment data through the FCC’s Broadband Map and the NTIA’s Broadband Need Map/the National Broadband Availability Map (NBAM), CWA urges UBC to fully scrutinize challenges based on “Enforceable Commitments” and “Planned Service”. ISPs that serve or plan to serve broadband at a location should be required to explain why they had not previously provided the relevant data to the aforementioned mapping processes. Challengers should always be required to provide evidence of service for each location getting challenged. CWA recommends that UBC not allow providers to submit area challenges to reclassify a census block as served, which can overstate actual coverage. Lastly, UBC should closely scrutinize all requests for redactions due to proprietary information so that important public information is not incorrectly withheld. | 10/13/23 | The challenge process timeline has been extended to 40 days for each stage. UBC intends to provide training and technical assistance regarding the challenge process to eligible challengers. | ||
15 | James | Farr | Lumen Technologies Inc. | James.B.Farr@llumen.com | Volume 1: Unserved and Underserved Locations | Comments: With the proposed change, an existing DSL area, near the fiber node that can get 140/20 will now be considered underserved. The 140/20 areas will be categorized and weighed the same as DSL areas with only 25/3. In addition to reclassifying all DSL as underserved, the state also has the flexibility to reclassify fixed wireless and home 5-G fixed wireless. Even though the NTIA allows this modification, states need to be careful in ensuring priority for the unserved first. By making this modification, the state will have more underserved areas and will not receive more money from BEAD. Many states already believe they do not have enough BEAD money to cover the unserved areas and expanding the underserved areas does not help with the shortfall in grant funds. | 10/13/23 | DSL will remain underserved, following the NTIA guidelines | ||
16 | James | Farr | Lumen Technologies Inc. | James.B.Farr@llumen.com | Volume 1: Challenge Process | Utah (90-day process): Comments: NTIA allows up to 120 days for the entire process. The state should utilize the entire allowed time frame. It is very important for the state to ensure there is no overbuilding of served areas. Since the state has decided to reclassify all DSL technology as underserved, the only areas that Lumen may end up rebutting are areas that are currently served or planned to be served by fiber to the premise (FTTP). The company serves as an Incumbent Local Exchange Carrier in 16 states and is likely to receive notices of challenges in multiple states at the same time. If the company does not have adequate time to rebut all challenges that cover areas served by FTTP, the state could end up awarding BEAD grants in areas that are already served with FTTP. Documentation needed for rebuttal: Comments: If Utah reclassifies all DSL to underserved, the only areas that Lumen will need to rebut are any challenged areas that have existing or planned FTTP. With FTTP technology, it should be unnecessary to do speed tests. An ISP should be able to provide other reasonable documentation for rebuttal: • Screen shots of website showing speed available to the existing challenged FTTP locations • Confidential fiber map. • List of service locations that currently have FTTP, or that are part of a project that will be completed by June 2024. o There is a lag time to when a FTTP project is completed, and when the FCC map and state maps are updated. (up to 6 – 9 months) | 10/13/23 | Concerning the disclosure policy, we will maintain as “protected” any subscriber info (personal identification info).There is a state privacy law that protects the privacy of individuals. Otherwise, the challenge would be a government record subject to public disclosure | ||
17 | Sylvia | Wilkins | Strata Networks | sywilkins@stratanetnetworks.com | Volume 1: Challenge Process | On page 8 of the Initial Proposal, it states that “UBC will treat locations that the National Broadband Map shows to have available qualifying broadband service (i.e., a location that is “served”) delivered via DSL as “underserved.”” Will locations that the National Broadband Map show “unserved” delivered via DSL remain “unserved?” | 10/13/23 | DSL will remain underserved, following the NTIA guidelines | ||
18 | Sylvia | Wilkins | Strata Networks | sywilkins@stratanetnetworks.com | Volume 1: Challenge Process | At what point in Utah Broadband Center’s BEAD process will the state speed test results be included in the data? Will the data be used to determine location eligibility, to challenge location eligibility, or at any other point within the process? The viability and usefulness of internet-based speed test data would depend on its intended use. | 10/13/23 | Data will be used to challenge location eligibility. Providers will be able to rebut. If there is continued question, onsite tests will be taken. | ||
19 | Sylvia | Wilkins | Strata Networks | sywilkins@stratanetnetworks.com | Volume 1: Challenge Process | There are concerns with the impact that internet subscription packages offered by providers with speeds set under the unserved/underserved threshold have on the results of the state’s speed test. For example, although gigabit speeds may be available to a broadband serviceable location, the resident at that location may choose to subscribe to a 50 Mbps package, thus internet-based speed testing will not represent true broadband capabilities for the location. How will this scenario be handled to ensure accurate representation of broadband capabilities? | 10/13/23 | Guidlines regarding speed test requirements and methodologies are included in Volume 1 | ||
20 | Sylvia | Wilkins | Strata Networks | sywilkins@stratanetnetworks.com | Volume 1: Challenge Process | There are concerns that the process to rebut a speed test challenge may prove onerous and difficult to achieve. Would it be permissible for a provider to utilize the CAF Testing process to provide true performance of a location having a speed test challenge? | 10/13/23 | Yes to the question, this comment did not require a language change in the document | ||
21 | Sylvia | Wilkins | Strata Networks | sywilkins@stratanetnetworks.com | Volume 1: Challenge Process | For a location where fiber optics are available at the curb (FTTC) and can have services installed within 10 days, but the customer has not chosen to subscribe to a package that requires a fiber install, would it be permissible for mapping data to be utilized to rebut a technology challenge. | 10/13/23 | Yes to question, no change to document | ||
22 | Sylvia | Wilkins | Strata Networks | sywilkins@stratanetnetworks.com | Volume 1: Appendices | Will the dataset be made available that is used to identify locations already subject to enforceable commitments? Information has been previously submitted to the State’s consultant identifying some existing enforceable commitments for RUS ReConnect projects. Is this communication sufficient or will you want this information to be submitted through a separate process? Will datasets be included outlining all locations with an enforceable commitment including NTIA’s Tribal Broadband Connectivity Program? | 10/13/23 | It is permissible to use mapping data to rebuttle a challenge. | ||
23 | Sylvia | Wilkins | Strata Networks | sywilkins@stratanetnetworks.com | Volume 1: Appendices | Several of the existing state and federal broadband funding entities offer more than one program that providers participate in. Are there specific programs that deem a location ineligible for BEAD funding? Could the UUSF and Federal Lifeline-Universal Service programs be clarified to describe the participation that deems an area ineligible for funding | 10/13/23 | UBC will follow the deduplication process as outlined by NTIA | ||
24 | Sylvia | Wilkins | Strata Networks | sywilkins@stratanetnetworks.com | Volume 1: Unserved and Underserved Locations | Could further clarification be given on what version of BDC data will be used? The initial proposal states that the data was sourced on September 8, 2023, by UBC from the August 29, 2023, version of the FCC Broadband Data Collection. Many discrepancies appeared in our review of the data. After evaluating the data further, it appears that the data being referenced within the initial proposal hasn’t been updated in at least some areas since the December 31, 2022, BDC data submissions. | 10/13/23 | UBC will be using this comment in version II of the fabric. We accepted this comment and added clarification | ||
25 | Sylvia | Wilkins | Strata Networks | sywilkins@stratanetnetworks.com | Volume 1: Introduction | Will there be an opportunity to provide comments and questions related to the high-cost threshold and low-cost plan? | 10/13/23 | This comment applies to Volume II | ||
26 | Kira | Slawson | Utah Rural Telecom Association | kslawson@blackburn-stroll.com | Volume 1: Introduction | : COMMENTS OF THE UTAH RURAL TELECOM ASSOCIATION ON THE INITIAL PLAN. General • We suggest you add page numbers to the Initial Proposal. Section 2 Unserved and Underserved Locations • You indicate that UBC will update these datasets after public comments and prior to submission of the Initial Proposal with the latest data set from NTIA. Will there be additional opportunity for further comment on this? Section 4 Challenge Process • Permissible Challengers. Only non-profit organizations, units of local or tribal governments, and broadband service providers are eligible to make challenges, yet the “Specific Examples” and “Permissible Rebuttal” evidence may not be readily available to a permissible challenger. See comments below regarding “Specific Examples” and “Permissible Rebuttals.” • Challenge Process Overview. The timelines identified in the Challenge Process overview are very tight. You indicate that challengers will have 30 days to submit a challenge from the time the initial list of unserved/underserved locations, CAIs, and existing enforceable commitments are posted. 30 days is very short time frame. Can you extend this? • Enforceable Commitment/Planned Service. How are these determined? How will the state enforce or hold a company responsible for “planned service”? It would be unfortunate for a company to claim they are planning service in an area so that the area is deemed ineligible for BEAD funding only to have that company renege on its “planned service.” Has the State thought of how they will enforce “planned service.” • Evidence & Review. You indicate that UBC will document that standards of review to be applied in a standard operating procedure manual. Will you make the manual available for stakeholder review so the process is transparent? • Challenge Types with Examples. Please make it clear that Table 2 identifies examples of Specific Examples and Permissible Rebuttals, but that the table is not an exhaustive list of “Specific Examples” and “Permitted Rebuttals”. o Availability. § The description is “the broadband service identified is not offered at the location, including a unit of a multiple dwelling unit.” Consider modifying this to read “the broadband service identified is, or is not, offered at the location…” since a challenge can be made to a location that is identified as unserved as well as served. § The Examples of challenges might be available to an individual, but will not necessarily be available to a “permitted challenger,” particularly with only 30 days to mount the challenge. Consider allowing individuals to object on a single location basis, but permit bulk challenges by “permissible challengers” only? § Likewise, the “Permissible Rebuttals” should only be examples, not an exhaustive list. o Speed/Latency. We are concerned with the speed/latency challenges. As we have indicated previously subscriber speed tests data is subject to too many variables and is not reliable. See also “Speed Test Requirements” below. o Not part of an enforceable commitment. No permissible rebuttals are identified. Again, it should be made clear this is not an exhaustive list. • Area and MDU Challenge. o This section contains language that says “the provider can use any of the permissible rebuttals listed above.” This seems to imply that no other rebuttals will be permitted. Please clarify to make it clear that the permissible rebuttals listed in the Table are examples only and not an exhaustive list. There may be other Specific Examples and Permissible Rebuttals. o This Section also includes language that says “Area challenges for availability need to be rebutted with evidence that service is available for all BSLs within the census block group (e.g., by network diagrams that show fiber or Hybrid Fiber Coax infrastructure or customer subscribers).” Does this mean the minimum BEAD bid geography is a census block? If bids smaller than a census block are accepted then this seems unworkable. • Speed Test Requirements. Speed test options 3 & 4 are problematic. Suppose the customer is using an older device or an IOT device with a “Fast Ethernet” port, i.e. a port that is only capable of 100 MBPS or less. The test will show “unserved” when that is not necessarily the case. If the tests are preformed via a WiFi connected device there are other limitations that may create false negatives. Also, rebuttal language includes “A service provider may rebut an area speed test challenge by providing speed tests, in the manner described above, for at least 10% of the customers in the challenged area. The customers must be randomly selected.” 10% could be hundreds of customers which is untenable. Finally, providers can run a remote speed test on a modern Calix router (something placed in the last 2-3 years), but have no ability to run a remote speed test on a router the customer bought at Walmart. o We also wonder why the State is adopting the 80/80 rule? | 10/13/23 | Partially incorporated comments in Volume I, others were considered | ||
27 | Amelia | De Jesus | The Wireless Infrastructure Association (WIA) | amelia.dejesus@wia.org | Volume 1:Community Anchor Institutions | Link to Comments | 10/13/23 | Comments apply to Volume II | ||
28 | Jennifer | Cloonan | Frontier | Jcc4725@ftr.com | Volume 1: Introduction | Utah would be well-served to strongly articulating a preference for fiber buildout to unserved and underserved locations in the Introduction and throughout the Vol. 1 Initial Proposal, mirroring the clear preference that has been repeatedly expressed by the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA). | 10/13/23 | Comments apply to Volume II | ||
29 | Jennifer | Cloonan | Frontier | Jcc4725@ftr.com | Volume 1: Community Anchor Institutions | “Community support organizations” (p. 6) should include language that qualifying community support organizations/CAIs are those which are bona fide non-profit organizations or government agencies. | 10/13/23 | The UBC definition of Eligible CAIs is included in Volume 1 | ||
30 | Jennifer | Cloonan | Frontier | Jcc4725@ftr.com | Volume 1: Challenge Process | o “Permissible Challengers” (p. 9) – Challenges filed by nonprofits should be confined to locations of clients served by the nonprofits filing a challenge. o “Speed Test Requirements” (p. 16 – 17) – Speed test measurements conducted by and submitted by a subscriber (for speed and latency) should be accepted as evidence only if conducted using industry-accepted platforms and with equipment recommended by or provided by the subscriber’s internet provider. As an illustrative example, if someone uses a 20-yr old modem or a 10-year-old iPhone, they are using a device incapable of handling and achieving the speed an ISP provides. Speed tests submitted by subscribers should be required to also submit what equipment was used to conduct the speed test (ex: iPhone2, name and model of modem) doing so would allow the ISP attached to that serviceable address better info assist a customer in receiving or securing equipment that would deliver better connectivity. | 10/13/23 | Considered the comment and UBC will follow NTIA guidelines regarding speed tests and Community Anchor Institutions | ||
31 | Tim | Alborg | Education Super Highway | Volume 1: All | Link to Comments | 10/13/23 | Comments apply to Volume II | |||
32 | Anthony | Tate | Compudopt | anthony.tate@compudopt.org | Volume 1: Unserved and Underserved Locations | Compudopt, a nationally recognized 501c(3) nonprofit organization committed to ending the digital divide, thanks you for the opportunity to contribute to your BEAD plan and applauds your dedication to bridging the digital divide in Utah. At Compudopt, we firmly believe in the transformative potential of technology and have been staunch advocates for connectivity, digital access, skill development, and empowerment. Our mission is to provide equitable access and education to underserved youth and their communities. Since our establishment in 2007, Compudopt has delivered over 262,000 hours of technology education and distributed more than 63,000 computers to over 67,000 households, impacting nearly 225,000 individuals across the United States. In line with Utah's Initial Proposal on page 6, which defines "Community support organizations" as entities facilitating greater broadband service utilization among vulnerable populations, including low-income, unemployed, and aged individuals, we see an opportunity for Compudopt to join the ranks of community support organizations in Utah. We share the state's goal of empowering equal access and education for under-resourced youth and their communities. YOUTH: First and foremost, Compudopt addresses the critical issue of digital inequality among our youth. In today's digitally driven world, access to technology is synonymous with access to education. Compudopt equips underprivileged children with the tools they need to thrive academically and, ultimately, in life. By providing connectivity, computers and the essential digital skills, Compudopt bridges the educational divide, ensuring that no child is left behind due to lack of access. ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT: Compudopt extends its mission to encompass unemployed individuals in our community. In an era where employment applications, job training, and remote work depend on digital literacy, Compudopt plays a pivotal role. It empowers unemployed individuals with the skills and resources they need to secure meaningful employment opportunities that would otherwise be out of reach. ELDERLY: Compudopt also extends its support to our elderly population, who may be overlooked in the digital age. By nearly every statistical measure available, our senior and elderly population remains the least connected, least digitally literate group of our society. The organization provides them with the means to stay connected with loved ones, access crucial healthcare information, and engage in a world that increasingly relies on technology. Thank you for your time and consideration. I eagerly await the opportunity to discuss this matter further and explore how we can collaborate to strengthen our community through support for Compudopt. | 10/14/23 | Included resource in Digital Equity planning | ||
33 | Steven | Schwerbel | WISPA - Broadband Without Boundaries | sschwerbel@wispa.org | Volume 1: Challenge Process | Link to Comments | 10/15/23 | Comments were incorporated in Volume I | ||
34 | -- | -- | NTIA | Volume 1: All | Link to Comments | 10/18/23 | Comments were incorporated in to Volume I | |||
35 | Jennifer | Somers | Comcast | Vice President, Government Affairs | Jennifer_Somers@comcast.com | Volume 1: Challenge Process | Link to Comments | 10/13/23 | Considered the comments and two components were incorporated in Volume I | |
36 | Lisia | Satini | UPIHC/Jayhawks | lisia@upihc.org | Volume 2: Low-Cost Broadband Service Option (Requirement 16) | It doesn't work, I know there is a gap and this issue needs to be addressed. | 11/20/2023 | |||
37 | Rex | Burton | rrb.asi@gmail.com | Volume 2: Objectives (Requirement 1) | This needs to be killed as quickly as possible. Like most people in Utah I hate having to pay other people's bills! Tell them to go get a job and pay for it by themselves. Also we need to figure out which government officials will be making money out of this program one way or another. They need to go to jail. | 11/20/2023 | ||||
38 | Rodney | James | IBEW | Rodney_James@ibew.org | Volume 2: Labor Standards and Protection (Requirement 11) | "On behalf of the 4,345 active members of the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers (IBEW) in the state of Utah, I write to respectfully submit the IBEW’s comments on the state’s plan to implement the federal Broadband Equity, Access and Deployment (BEAD) program. As you know, BEAD represents the critical buildout of the telecommunications network called for in the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law and its $65 billion investment in expanding high-speed internet access and adoption. Nationally, the IBEW represents approximately 39,000 permanent employees working for telecommunications companies as well as thousands of construction workers who perform contract work for internet service providers. Historically playing a significant role in the telecommunications industry, the IBEW is one of the largest labor unions representing workers for incumbent local exchange carrier providers, the largest building trade in the telecommunications sector, and as a labor representative for workers manufacturing and assembling telecommunications equipment. IBEW’s reach extends to every corner of the United States, representing workers in multiple other industries such as railroad, utility, broadcasting and government. Comments on Labor Standards With such a widespread available workforce, the IBEW has the membership depth to complete the state of Utah buildout, indeed addressing one of the biggest challenges states report in accomplishing the goals of BEAD: the shortage of trained and skilled workers. According to the Initial Proposal, Volume 2, the state is only considering the subgrantee’s fair labor practices history as 10% percent of its score. The IBEW believes this should have a much higher priority. Specifically, the IBEW submits that to be eligible, subgrantees must demonstrate consistent past compliance with federal labor and employment laws and written disclosure of any violations. The Initial Proposal, Volume 2, stipulates that the state will not mandate any of the following labor protections: • Using a directly employed workforce, as opposed to a subcontracted workforce • Paying prevailing wages and benefits to workers, including compliance with Davis-Bacon and Service Contract Act requirements, where applicable, and collecting the required certified payrolls • Using project labor agreements (i.e., pre-hire collective bargaining agreements between unions and contractors that government terms and conditions of employment for all workers on a construction project) • Use of local hire provisions • Commitments to union neutrality • Use of labor peace agreements • Use of an appropriately skilled workforce (e.g., through Registered Apprenticeships or other joint labor-management training programs that serve all workers, particularly those underrepresented or historically excluded) • Taking steps to prevent the misclassification of workers. The IBEW firmly believes that the state should mandate these labor standards for grantees and subgrantees that receive BEAD funds. The IBEW believes that the state should favor grantees and subgrantees that will employ unionized residents of Utah and be wary of grantees and subgrantees that plan to subcontract a significant portion of the BEAD work, particularly if they will subcontract it to an out-of-state, nonunion company. Background from other IBEW BEAD priorities Requirements of the BEAD Program include documented, certified consultation and coordination with labor unions, labor law compliance and a highly skilled workforce. The use of prevailing wages is strongly suggested, along with a workforce trained via registered apprenticeship programs. The IBEW and its construction-employer partners are the largest private sector trainer of electrical workers in the United States, jointly operating nearly 300 construction training centers in the United States. This partnership invests $200 million annually on training, at no cost to participants or taxpayers. The BEAD Program also encourages the use of labor peace agreements. As the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law makes clear that it is in the public interest for broadband infrastructure to be built expeditiously and in a way that ensures reliability and resilience, labor peace agreements protect employers against labor disputes to ensure that projects are completed on-time and on-budget. The IBEW is the largest utility sector labor union in the United States, representing approximately 250,000 workers directly employed by public utility districts, investor owned and municipal utilities or utility cooperatives. IBEW members in this sector have a high level of familiarity and expertise with middle-mile broadband infrastructure, which is often utilized by electrical utilities to provide communications systems to monitor and support the reliable delivery of electricity and other critical utility services. The IBEW has made great strides in recruiting historically underrepresented populations. The union’s success in membership inclusion and diversity is borne out in a comprehensive nationwide 2022 survey that found that the number of Black and Hispanic members has doubled over the past five years. A quarter of all Black IBEW members are female and 1 in 3 active male apprentices identify as minority. IBEW members look forward to working with Utah to create good-paying jobs through the once-in-a-generation investment closing the digital divide. Together, we can ensure that all citizens of Utah have access to affordable, reliable high-speed broadband and a network worthy of the 21st century." | 11/20/23 | |||
39 | Paul | Hill | Utah State University Extension | paul.hill@usu.edu | Volume 2: Objectives (Requirement 1) | "Excellent work on this revised proposal! This is an incredible plan. I've identified three potential weaknesses related to digital equity and provided recommendations that may help strengthen the document. 1. There seems to be ambiguity around how funds would be distributed to eligible entities for non-deployment initiatives like digital literacy programs if excess funds become available. More clarity on the exact process would be helpful. Recommendation: Provide additional details on how the funding allocation process would work for non-deployment activities, including specifics on eligibility criteria, application procedures, and selection methods. 2. While the plan refers to engaging with faith leaders, nonprofits, etc., it is unclear if strategies extend to people with disabilities, which are a covered population. Recommendation: Expand the outreach and program design scope to expressly target rural residents and those with disabilities to ensure their digital access and equity needs are addressed. 3. There appears to be limited discussion of metrics, monitoring mechanisms, and periodic evaluation protocols to track the impact of digital equity programs over time. Recommendation: Develop clear output, outcome and impact indicators aligned directly to program objectives along with data collection tools and scheduled program assessments." | 11/22/2023 | UBC addresses these suggestions and concerns with detail in the Statwide Digital Equity Plan | ||
40 | Patrick | Campbell | dubhlann@gmail.com | Volume 2: Low-Cost Broadband Service Option (Requirement 16) | Springdale | 12/3/2023 | Thank you for your comments | |||
41 | JENS | JENSEN | Jensen | jensenutah@infowest.com | Volume 2: Public Comment | Infowest has bragged about "FiberWave" broadband being available. We are underserved with a wireless system that is becoming slower as more customers are added. When I have asked "why not deployed yet?", they responded they were doing the densely populated areas first. But the densely populated areas have Broadband! So instead of improving current wireless customers, they are trying to get a piece of the existing pie. Having seen the Federal Government spend money on "Broadband for everyone", I will say I am not impressed or satisfied. | 12/4/2023 | Thank you for your comments | ||
42 | Tracy | Peek | Peek Consulting | tracy.peek@tpeek.com | Volume 2: Local, Tribal, and Regional Broadband Planning Processes (Requirement 2) | Thank you for your comments | ||||
43 | Kirsten | Hubbard | DojoNetworks | kirsten@dojonetworks.com | Volume 2: Deployment Subgrantee Selection (Requirement 8) | "Email: BEAD Must Be Driven by Industry-Specific Experts to Fulfill Its Promise of Broadband for All Americans Hello, Your commitment to Broadband Equity, Access, and Deployment (BEAD) Program evidences a noble vision of an America prepared for the next generation through a digitally saturated and educated society. That vision can only be fulfilled when BEAD is driven by industry experts who have specialized knowledge in creating broadband solutions that are sustainable, functional, cost effective, and future-proof for those most affected by the digital divide. Internet solutions for the multi-dwelling units (MDUs) targeted by BEAD, including affordable housing, student housing, and senior living communities, differ significantly from single-home solutions. Methodologies, technologies, and services used for single-family homes simply cannot be applied or mass produced in the MDU space. Conversations about funding solutions that will truly achieve BEAD’s objectives must include providers with MDU-specific knowledge and expertise. DojoNetworks is that industry expert. DojoNetworks (the fastest growing internet company that you have never heard of): ● Has been an ISP since 1996 (over 28 years), building, maintaining, and servicing high-quality MDU networks for more than 21 years. Learn more here. ● Started serving the rural residential market in 1998. ● Has been working with WiFi since 2004 and, in 2016, built what is now the reference design for MDU. ● Helped write MDU industry standards and evolving state standards for affordable living communities, including those in New York. Read more here. ● DojoNetworks is still working with every MDU building owner or operator that has ever partnered with us; 100% retention rate over 21 years. ● Builds and manages hundreds of MDU projects with tens of thousands of users across the nation; currently serves customers in 24 states, with more being added each month. ● Boasts a 99% customer (resident) satisfaction rate. ● Brings an expertise specific to MDUs that is lacking in larger or broader internet companies. ● Uniquely skilled and experienced at building simplified, affordable, and reliable managed WiFisolutions for MDU communities that are often challenged by older buildings, restrictive layouts, and cost constraints. BEAD offers a once-in-a-generation chance to create a digitally saturated and educated America. We invite you to use our experience and knowledge to direct taxpayer funds toward solutions that are cost effective, resident centered, sustainable, and based on decades of experience developing highly specialized working models. While we understand the public comment process, we feel an elevated conversation would be beneficial. We respectfully request a 20-minute meeting within the next two weeks. A DojoNetworks representative will call your office soon to schedule an appointment. You may also reply to the enclosed email. Thank you for considering this opportunity. I look forward to discussing the possibility of working with you. Sincerely Dan Myers President, DojoNetworks" | 12/7/2023 | UBC did not mention MDUs in Volume 2 | ||
44 | Johnny | Kampis | Taxpayers Protection Alliance | johnny@protectingtaxpayers.org | Volume 2: Objectives (Requirement 1) | "The Taxpayers Protection Alliance (TPA) is a rapid response, non-profit, nonpartisan organization dedicated to educating the public through the research, analysis and dissemination of information on the government’s effects on the economy. On behalf of the millions of taxpayers and consumers in the state of Utah, TPA is pleased to aid the state in its legal obligation to consider the implications of its policies. It is critical that the state adopt a five-year plan that will shepherd the most effective usage of funds from the Broadband Equity, Access and Deployment (BEAD) Program, which will ensure the minimum amount of taxpayer waste while also helping to close the digital divide. The state can do this by offering the lion’s share of the BEAD funds to private providers, who have much better track records for providing quality service than government projects. TPA has written extensively about the failure of government-owned networks (GONs), which often underperform compared to expectations. Many such projects have failed, as chronicled in TPA’s two “GON with the Wind” reports, which often results in no better broadband service for local residents, but higher tax bills or power rates for those citizens. As you determine your final plans for regulations, pricing and scoring criteria for the BEAD grants, TPA would strongly suggest that you do not go beyond the minimum rules that are required by the National Telecommunications and Information Administration for this program. Adding additional requirements for providers will only scare away potential applicants, reducing competition and harming consumers. Thank you for your time and attention to this matter. Johnny Kampis Director of Telecom Policy for the Taxpayers Protection Alliance" | 12/7/2023 | Thanks for your comment. UBC will run a competitive grant program to allocate BEAD funds and will abide by state laws regarding broadband deployment. | ||
45 | Doug | Adams | Think Marketing | doug@thethinkagency.com | Volume 2: Deployment Subgrantee Selection (Requirement 8) | "Utah’s Volume 2 does not require that recipients commit to or include a plan for marketing when applying for funding. The BEAD NOFO clearly directs States to require subgrantees to conduct public awareness and marketing in a variety of media outlets to promote broadband service made possible from BEAD investments. On page 68, section iv. Public Notice: Eligible Entities shall require subgrantees to carry out public awareness campaigns in their service areas that are designed to highlight the value and benefits of broadband service in order to increase the adoption of broadband service by consumers. Awareness campaigns must include information about low-cost service plans and any federal subsidies for low-income households such as the Lifeline Program, the Affordable Connectivity Program, and any successor programs. Further, awareness campaigns must be conducted in an equitable and nondiscriminatory manner. Subgrantees must utilize a variety of communications media (e.g., online, print, radio) and provide information in languages other than English when warranted based on the demographics of the community. As a firm experienced and adept in broadband network marketing, our recommendation is that Utah ensure subgrantees will dedicate resources to marketing and public awareness campaigns. This can be accomplished by requiring that subgrantee applicants recognize the requirement in grant applications and provide an anticipated path for how requirements will be met. Additionally, Utah should require marketing resources be identified/named and a basic marketing plan provided upon award." | 12/10/23 | UBC member has added to the plan to include public awareness campaign requirement. The NOFO requires a public awareness campaign on Page 20 of Volume 2. | ||
46 | Doug | Adams | Think Marketing | doug@thethinkagency.com | Volume 2: Certification of Compliance with BEAD Requirements (Requirement 19) | "Utah’s Volume 2 does not require that recipients commit to or include a plan for marketing when applying for funding. The BEAD NOFO clearly directs States to require subgrantees to conduct public awareness and marketing in a variety of media outlets to promote broadband service made possible from BEAD investments. On page 68, section iv. Public Notice: Eligible Entities shall require subgrantees to carry out public awareness campaigns in their service areas that are designed to highlight the value and benefits of broadband service in order to increase the adoption of broadband service by consumers. Awareness campaigns must include information about low-cost service plans and any federal subsidies for low-income households such as the Lifeline Program, the Affordable Connectivity Program, and any successor programs. Further, awareness campaigns must be conducted in an equitable and nondiscriminatory manner. Subgrantees must utilize a variety of communications media (e.g., online, print, radio) and provide information in languages other than English when warranted based on the demographics of the community. As a firm experienced and adept in broadband network marketing, our recommendation is that Utah ensure subgrantees will dedicate resources to marketing and public awareness campaigns. This can be accomplished by requiring that subgrantee applicants recognize the requirement in grant applications and provide an anticipated path for how requirements will be met. Additionally, Utah should require marketing resources be identified/named and a basic marketing plan provided upon award." | 12/10/23 | Thank you for your comments | ||
47 | Phil | Phil | All West Communications, Inc. | phil.marchant@allwest.com | Volume 2: Public Comment | "Dear Utah Broadband Center, All West Communications is a full service technology company for voice, broadband, video and data backhaul in Utah and Wyoming. The majority of our projects & expansions have been self-funded, but we fully participate in numerous federal and state grant opportunities. Our overall goal is to provide exceptional broadband access to the residents and businesses through fiber optics. We have utilized existing facilities to extend FTTH services to many of our rural neighbors in Summit, Wasatch, Rich, Morgan, Davis, Salt Lake, Tooele and Weber counties. It's our feelings that several of the requirements of the NTIA’s Broadband Equity and Deployment (BEAD) program are inhibitive and are in conflict with the purpose of the funding. One primary issue in the scoring criteria is a higher score for 50% plus match. Increasing cost to the provider will undoubtedly remove locations from their viable project list, or create another race to the bottom, similar to the RDOF Auction several years ago. Another issue would be speed of deployment, giving more scoring points to providers who can claim to complete the project within a 12 month period. Depending on when the clock starts, many times the permitting process encompasses the first several months if not more. Secondly, is the required use of Census Block Groups for broadband serviceable location determination. In rural Utah, locations are often miles apart and large census block groups with currently several different telecom providers serving different communities miles apart, but still part of the same census block group. We feel a more organic approach to BSL serviceability will lead to the most possible locations getting served. Third, Pre-Registration process. What is the anticipated time window for this? It is a critical “make or break” step, please allow sufficient time for prospective applicants to submit a well thoughtout strategy. Fourth, Rurality. What is the criteria for this determination? How does this play into census block groups, hence application areas? While we fully support the goal of providing true high-speed broadband service to the residents of Utah, we feel it must be done with the greatest of care and not hamper the investment. Thank you very much for your commitment and hard work in helping a brighter, more connected future for Utah. Sincerely, All West Communications, Inc. c/o Phil Marchant Director of Strategic Partnerships" | 12/11/2023 | We are required to do all the locations in a funding block area, which might entail an entire Census Block group. Rurality is not a scoring criteria anymore. The pre-registration process is 30 days. We do not have additional edits to make to this comment because of all the comments are addressed in Volume 2. | ||
48 | William | Finlinson | Leamington Town | rkjfinny1@yahoo.com | Volume 2: Objectives (Requirement 1) | If 25Mbps is considered the threshold for unserved and 100 Mbps is the threshold for underserved, it appears all who are considered unserved would by definition be underserved since 100 Mbps is greater than 25 Mbps. Therefore the underserved number should be 69,667 vs 28,109. Since I don’t want to renter the below info for each comment or question, I will address my other two questions here. When you talk about matching funds to get more points, who pays the match? The community to be served or the contractor installing the new service? CentraCom received a contract to install service in Leamington over a year ago. We were told that service would be installed Summer 2023. That did not happen. When queried, CentraCom said they having issues getting the railroad to grant permission to cross under the railroad tracks. If that permission is delaying our install overa year, what can be done to expedite railroad approvals? | 12/11/2023 | UBC member will respond to questions with the following answers. The match can come from any non federal funds, but is required by applicant to secure for their project. Underserved is not also counted ar unserved, separate categories. UBC is aware of permitting issues and are working to address them. | ||
49 | Janet | Monsen | j.monsen12@gmail.com | Volume 2: Public Comment | I am concerned about the high levels of electromagnetic waves & their harmful effects that they have on people & animals. Also about eminent domain across farmland. Will these concerns even be addressed? | 12/12/2023 | UBC member will address. We do not anticpiate needing to do any eminent domain line across farmland. All BEAD funded deployment projects are required to adhere to environmental review standards. | |||
50 | Kevin | Homer | kevin.homer@gmail.com | Volume 2: Public Comment | "It is not appropriate to use taxpayer funds from the federal government to pay for services and products that incur additional debt and increase the federal deficit, or to increase federal and state government agencies to provide services and products that compete with private businesses and commerce. It is appropriate to provide information to citizens about existing private businesses that provide Internet access and to allow free markets and private businesses to provide those services and products." | 12/12/2023 | UBC works diligiently to maximize fedral funding opportunities. The project is limtied 5 year plan with no onging funds exested beyond the program period. | |||
51 | Gregory | Rosston | grosston@stanford.edu | Volume 2: Introduction | Link to Comments | 12/12/2023 | UBC must follow NTIA guidelines to determine pricing we used the baseline rates currently offered. We are not rate regulating because it is not a requirement for the state. After the grants are awarded, ongoing monitoring will occur to ensure compliance and impact. | |||
52 | Jennifer | Cloonan | Frontier | Jennifer.Cloonan@ftr.com | Voume 2: Introduction | As a general comment, Frontier appreciates the Utah Broadband Center’s (UBC) articulated preference for fiber buildout to unserved and underserved locations, mirroring the clear preference that has been repeatedly expressed by the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA). Fiber connectivity will provide Utah households and businesses with superior technology that is future proof and delivers the best long-term return on the investment being made by UBC. | 12/13/2023 | Thank you for your comment | ||
53 | Jennifer | Cloonan | Frontier | Jennifer.Cloonan@ftr.com | Volume 2: Deployment Subgrantee Selection (Requirement 8) | "• Sec. 2.4.1 – Pre-registration (Requirement 8) – Frontier supports UBC’s “pre-registration” process to assist UBC in determining qualified applicants ahead of submission of BEAD grant applications (pp. 16 – 17). Reviewing financial, operational, managerial, technical, compliance, ownership, and other public funding materials ahead of the submission of project-specific application will creates efficiencies for UBC staff as they progress into their BEAD Application Round, allowing them to focus on the actual projects being proposed. As such, we would recommend that once an ISP has been pre-qualified, these items would not need to be re-submitted for any project submitted in the Application Process (pp. 17 – 19). • Sec. 2.4.1 – Project Funding Areas (Requirement 8) – A desire to package “project funding areas” for unserved and underserved locations throughout the state (p. 17) is understandable for UBC’s goal to achieve universal service. Frontier recommends a cautious approach based on its experience with projects across many states. When a State Broadband Office tries to draw polygons, geographic units, or project areas, without proper regard or full knowledge of existing ISP infrastructure and capabilities, it unfortunately has the effect of dissuading an ISP from applying for a grant to serve an area because of the misalignment of project areas with existing infrastructure, and the geographic unit inflexibility leads to extremely expensive, non-competitive, and infeasible projects. Instead, ISPs should be encouraged to submit projects that make sense from an infrastructure deployment and cost-efficiency perspective, to achieve UBC’s goal of providing fiber connectivity to as many unserved and underserved Utah households as swiftly as possible. • Sec. 2.4.9 – 2.4.10 –Extremely High Cost Per Location Threshold (Requirement 8) – Frontier would caution UBC that if their Extremely High Cost Per Location Threshold (EHCT) is set too low (pp. 43 – 45) it risks funding less reliable broadband technologies that are not “future-proof,” i.e., do not have the capacity for growth and scalability features, and will not deliver the same performance or return on investment that fiber does when fiber connectivity is feasible. Further, funding technologies that lack scalability would likely not eliminate the digital divide for many Utah residents but rather would unnecessarily cement the digital divide for these unserved and underserved households given that BEAD represents a once in a generation level of infrastructure funding. Utah residents that could have received access to fiber technology with BEAD funding but were provided with lesser technologies will continue to experience a digital divide. • Sec. 2.4.17 – Disclosure of Other Publicly Funded Projects (Requirement 8) – UBC’s evaluation of a prospective subgrantee’s application should not include asking ISPs to disclose applications an ISP “is planning to submit” (p. 55). An ISPs intentions or pending applications in another state are dependent upon many factors and are always subject to change, thus in addition to being private, proprietary, and not relevant, it may change the day after being disclosed with a state broadband office. Therefore, Frontier would request that UBC remove this condition of BEAD application process. • Sec. 2.4.17 – Disclosure of Other Publicly Funded Projects (Requirement 8) – In reviewing an ISP’s grant application, Frontier asks UBC to consider the full spectrum of in-kind commitments made by communities, and ISP assets of equipment and fiber lines, as part of an application’s matching commitments (pp. 18, 56) and financial stability. These complement and deliver the acceleration of fiber connectivity by an ISP to unserved and underserved areas and should be calculated as an in-kind contribution to an overall project application submission. Frontier encourages UBC to recognize and expressly articulate that with local governments and school districts, contributions and collaboration can take many forms and include initiatives to drive adoption, workforce development, digital inclusion, and other factors that seek to ensure that the broadband infrastructure being deployed has the maximum impact for individuals, family, and the community. Frontier would appeal to the UBC to recognize these collaborative initiatives as in-kind project contributions and allow them to be included as part of the ISPs comprehensive 25% matching commitment to the extent that these initiatives are formalized with a community and reasonably quantified." | 12/13/2023 | UBC is not asking for qualifications more than once in the pre-registration process. Refer to section [ ] for more information on how project funding areas will be determined because it has been revised since the initial draft and clarification has been added. Thanks for the comment (Extremely high cost) 2.4.17 comment - NTIA requirement - refer to the NOFO (pg75) | ||
54 | Jennifer | Cloonan | Frontier | Jennifer.Cloonan@ftr.com | Volume 2: Cost and Barrier Reduction (Requirement 14) | Sec. 2.10 – Cost and Barrier Reduction (Requirement 14) – ISPs face significant construction barriers and experience impacted timelines that arise from permitting. Frontier appreciates UBC’s efforts (pp. 78 – 80) to address this, including a high level of awareness and a desire to assist ISPs in solving bureaucratic issues which will delay connectivity for Utahns. Looking to states like Virginia and Wisconsin for best practices on rail permitting may provide additional insight. There are inevitably Utah communities who may lack sufficient experience to deal with the massive amount of construction and infrastructure deployment that will occur in the quest for full connectivity. As such, UBC would be well-served to offer technical assistance and establish toolbox resources for counties and municipalities that will encourage speedier approvals to accelerate fiber deployment for their residents. | 12/13/2023 | UBC is considering this suggestion and researching options to increase capacity and support with permitting issues | ||
55 | Jennifer | Cloonan | Frontier | Jennifer.Cloonan@ftr.com | Volume 2: Certification of Compliance with BEAD Requirements (Requirement 19) | Sec. 2.16 – Certification of Compliance with BEAD Requirements (Requirement 19) – ISPs are under significant pressure to fund (both through their own matching contributions and to front capital needed for expansion) and to complete builds in multiple states and locations simultaneously and under ambitious timelines. In order to expedite Utah’s construction and deployment of the critical fiber infrastructure needed to provide connectivity to vulnerable communities that remain unserved or underserved, Frontier recommends that UBC structure its disbursement and reimbursement procedures (pp. 46 – 47, 91) by modeling the practices of other states and capital project fund programs and design a process for reimbursement on a monthly or quarterly basis. Other states have successfully designed and implemented this practice with their own capital project fund programs. This will assist greatly in ensuring that ISPs have the capital investment needed to support efforts to accelerate broadband buildout in Utah. | 12/13/2023 | UBC is considering imlempenting this suggestion | ||
56 | Rola | Masri | Environmental Health Trust | RolaMasri@EHTrust.org | Volume 2: Deployment Subgrantee Selection (Requirement 8) | Theodora Scarato, Executive Director, Environmental Health Trust, Theodora.scarato@EHTrust.org Rola Masri, Director of Government Outreach, Environmental Health Trust, RolaMasri@EHTrust.org Utah Broadband Center, 60 East South Temple, Suite 300, Salt Lake City, UT 84111, connectingutah@utah.gov Comment Submitted Through Online Portal: https://www.connectingutah.com/initial-proposal Re: Environmental Health Trust Testimony on the Broadband Equity, Access and Deployment (BEAD) Program Regarding the Importance of Wired Broadband Instead of Wireless. Dear Sir or Madam, We are thankful to the Utah Broadband Center (UBC) for the opportunity to submit comments in response to the Initial Proposal to Implement the Broadband Equity, Access, and Deployment (“BEAD”) Program. The Environmental Health Trust is a not-for-profit think tank that promotes a healthier environment through research, education and policy. We work directly with policymakers, communities, and health and education professionals to bring awareness of environmental hazards and how to mitigate them. The money that will be made available to Utah through BEAD funding represents a once in a lifetime opportunity to advance Utah’s technological future through the 21st century and beyond. It is critical that the decisions made with this money will create an infrastructure that is truly future-proof and not just good-enough-for-now. Investments made into Utah’s Broadband future need to consider performance, scalability for future needs, energy efficiency, and effects on the environment and human health. The National Telecommunications and Information Association (NTIA), charged with distributing the bulk of the $65 billion federal broadband infrastructure grant program, has stated clearly that “Eligible Entity should prioritize projects designed to provide fiber connectivity directly to the end user.” And we agree. It is imperative that BEAD funding decisions for Utah’s broadband future only be used for fiber technology all the way to the end user and not be wasted on wireless infrastructure which will not meet future connectivity needs, harm the environment and the health of Utah residents and create another digital divide in just a few years. We encourage the state to supplement BEAD funding for areas that meet the Extremely High Cost Per Location Threshold so that every community has fiber to the premise. We encourage municipally owned broadband for these investments to ensure that the most informed decisions are made for each community. Fiber is superior to wireless because it: achieves the highest performance metrics like speed, low latency, reliability, cybersecurity and privacy; can be easily and affordably scaled for future needs; will make us competitive with other countries that have surpassed the U.S. thus far with their fiber deployments; is energy efficient with the least carbon footprint to keep us on track with Utah’s environmental objectives; has the least impact on the environment; does not emit wireless radiation and will preserve the health and safety of residents. Currently, all these goals can only be achieved with fiber optics to and through the premises. We urge UBC to accept nothing less than the best for every resident of Utah. Whether they live in urban, suburban, rural or tribal lands, whether rich or poor, every Utah resident deserves fiber, the technology investment that will catapult them into the future. Performance and Scalability While wireless infrastructure promises faster and cheaper deployment, it is no match for the performance of fiber infrastructure and ends up being costlier in the long run to maintain and upgrade. The poor performance metrics of wireless infrastructure costs our states billions of dollars when residents and businesses are held up by unreliable service, low speeds, and issues with cybersecurity and privacy. Baseline speed requirements of 100/20Mbps (download/upload) can be achieved with current cable infrastructure, the kind that is already available for most homes and businesses. 5G wireless infrastructure offers speeds similar to what cable currently provides and is limited in its capacity to reliably offer faster upload speeds peaking at just 50 Mbps. Using BEAD funding for wireless infrastructure will put communities in another digital divide in just a few years when bandwidth demands increase with future technology demands. Baseline speeds for fiber infrastructure is 1000/1000 Mbps (download/upload) far surpassing wireless speeds at its minimum performance capabilities. Currently cities that have adopted all fiber networks are seeing speeds of 10,000/10,000 Mbps with the capabilities of upgrading to Terabyte symmetrical speeds. Chattanooga, Tennessee adopted fiber 12 years ago with symmetrical speeds of 1000 Mbps and has now upgraded to 10Gbps (or 10,000 Mbps) symmetrical speeds by simply replacing the electronics and keeping all the fiber intact. The pandemic shutdowns forced large families to work and school from home and it was a quick lesson on the imperative need for fast, reliable internet that not only allowed us to quickly download information but to also have fast upload speeds so that multiple family members can have online video calls at the same time. Wireless infrastructure fails in allowing multiple users on the same network to reliably have online video meetings at the same time. Wireless infrastructure fails during inclement weather or when the path of the signal is obstructed.7 Fiber and current cable infrastructure can reliably offer superior service without these challenges. Competition With Other Countries The quality of broadband will make or break our ability to compete with the rest of the world. Other countries have recognized the importance of fiber optics all the way to the premises and have invested heavily to reach 100% penetration, ensuring that even rural communities with unfavorable terrain have fiber. As of 2019 - 92% of China’s internet users had fiber all the way to the home. 62% of homes in the European Union 39 bloc nations have fiber to the premises. United Arab Emirates, Qatar, Singapore and Hong Kong all have higher than 90% penetration of fiber all the way to the premises while Iceland, Spain and Portugal are catching up at 76.8%, 73.5% and 71.1% respectively. The US, on the other hand, stands at 16.39% penetration of Fiber to the Premises and ranked 30th among Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development countries, as of 2020. Energy Efficiency According to IEEE Magazine, 5G base stations are expected to consume roughly 3 times the power of 4G base stations and more 5G base stations are required to cover the same area. Energy consumption is expected to increase by 61 times from 2020 to 2030 with 5G. Adding more strain on Utah’s electric grid, especially when we have not fully moved to renewable energy, will further exacerbate carbon emissions. One study found that the digital carbon footprint of an American is 5 times larger than the world average. According to countries that have already installed fiber to the homes (FTTH), like China and Spain, fiber is 85% more energy efficient than copper yielding a saving of 208GWh which represents a reduction of 56,500 tons of CO2 emissions. One study done by the Federal Environment Ministry and the German Environment Agency found that video transmission through fiber optics is nearly 50 times more energy efficient than wireless. Research on whole network level assessments of the operational energy use implications of 5G warns “Energy-intensive user practices contribute to ever-growing levels of data traffic, and counteract the energy-saving potential of 5G efficiency improvements.” Wireless Radiation Impacts on the Environment No U.S. agency or international authority has ever acted to review research on wireless radiation effects on the environment nor set exposure limits to ensure protections for birds, bees, trees and wildlife. It is a critical regulatory gap. In 2014, the U.S. Department of Interior wrote a letter to the NTIA detailing several published studies showing impacts of wireless radiofrequency radiation (RFR) to birds stating that, “There is a growing level of anecdotal evidence linking effects of non-thermal, non-ionizing electromagnetic radiation from communication towers on nesting and roosting wild birds and other wildlife.“ It further stated, “However, the electromagnetic radiation standards used by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) continue to be based on thermal heating, a criterion now nearly 30 years out of date and inapplicable today.” Significant research has accumulated indicating serious environmental effects, yet with no review by federal agencies. On August 13, 2021, the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit ruled in our case against the FCC (EHT et al. v FCC) stating “we find the Commission’s order arbitrary and capricious in its complete failure to respond to comments concerning environmental harm caused by RF radiation.” The Commission also “completely failed even to acknowledge, let alone respond to, comments concerning the impact of RF radiation on the environment. That utter lack of a response does not meet the Commission’s obligation to provide a reasoned explanation for terminating the notice of inquiry.” To this date the FCC still has not revisited its wireless radiation guidelines despite its court orders to do so over two years ago. In 2021 and 2022 a three-part landmark research review by U.S experts of over 1,200 studies on the effects of non-ionizing radiation to wildlife entitled “Effects of non-ionizing electromagnetic fields on flora and fauna'' found adverse effects in all species studies and at even very low intensities. Findings included impacts to orientation, migration, reproduction, mating, nest, den building and survivorship. In a review published in Environment International on the ecological effects of RF-EMF, 70% of the studies reviewed found RF had a significant effect on birds, insects, other vertebrates, organisms, and plants, with development and reproduction in birds and insects being the most strongly affected. Biologists caution that non ionizing electromagnetic radiation is a critical factor in the decline of pollinator and insect populations. A new 2023 systematic review and metaanalysis of studies on the biological effects of non-ionizing electromagnetic fields (EMF) to insects published in Reviews on Environmental Health states the “vast majority of studies found effects, generally harmful ones” with toxic effects occurring at radiation levels that are below those considered safe for humans. Trees are at risk from wireless as well. A field monitoring study spanning nine years involving over 100 trees found damage on the side of the trees facing transmitting cell antennas. Researchers have released subsequent reports documenting continued impacts to tree canopy from cell tower antennas., Other RF effects include impacts to leaf, shoot, seedlings of Aspen trees and biochemical impacts to plants. Environmental Health Trust has developed a website focused on the science of wildlife and wireless that you can access at wildlifeandwireless.org. Fiber optics not only offers superior performance metrics and energy savings, but also has no radio frequency radiation emissions and therefore surpasses all these environmental issues. Health and Safety Extensive published scientific evidence indicates that wireless radiofrequency (RF) radiation at levels far below FCC limits can cause cancer, increased oxidative stress, genetic damage, structural and functional changes of the reproductive system, memory deficit, behavioral problems, and neurological impacts. EHT et al. v. FCC the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit 202117 also ruled the FCC ignored scientific evidence on negative health effects from long term wireless radiation exposure at current allowable levels, especially in regards to children, who the American Academy of Pediatrics states are more vulnerable to wireless radiation. The court ordered the FCC to examine the record evidence regarding long term exposure to children, health effects unrelated to cancer and environmental impacts. So far, the FCC has not responded. This landmark ruling highlights how no federal health agency has reviewed the full body of current research to ensure current safety standards are protective. The state of New Hampshire had similar findings when it commissioned a study on the Environmental and Health Effects of Evolving 5G Technology and issued a final report in 2020 with 15 recommendations including: requiring setbacks of all wireless transmitters from residences, businesses and schools, adopting a statewide position to encourage fiber optics to the premise, acknowledging the need for further studies to outline clinical symptoms related to RF exposure, developing RF safety limits to protect the environment, among other recommendations. In 2022, the Pittsfield, Massachusetts Board of Health voted to send a cease-and-desist order to shut down a Verizon cell tower. The order issued to Verizon states “Whereas, soon after the facility was activated and began transmitting, the City started to receive reports of illness and negative health symptoms from residents living nearby the facility,...The negative health symptoms the affected residents have reported include complaints of headaches, sleep problems, heart palpitations, tinnitus (ringing in the ears), dizziness, nausea, skin rashes, and memory and cognitive problems, among other medical complaints. … Whereas, as further documented below, the neurological and dermatological symptoms experienced by the residents are consistent with those described in the peer-reviewed scientific and medical literature as being associated with exposure to pulsed and modulated Radio Frequency (“RF”) radiation, including RF from cell towers.” A major 2022 review of the existing scientific literature on cell tower radiation and health found associations with radiofrequency sickness, cancer and changes in biochemical parameters. For example, a study published in Electromagnetic Biology and Medicine on people living near cell antennas found significant biochemical changes in the blood. This study evaluated effects in the human blood of individuals living near mobile phone base stations compared with healthy controls living more than 300 meters from a base station. The group living closer to the antennas had statistically significant higher frequency of micronuclei and a rise in lipid peroxidation in their blood; these changes are considered biomarkers predictive of cancer. According to Dr. Linda Birnbaum, Scientist Emeritus and Former Director of the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences and National Toxicology Program of the National Institutes of Health, “Aware that the FCC’s 1996 limits lacked the underpinning of solid scientific data regarding long term health effects, the FDA requested large-scale studies by the National Toxicology Program (NTP) and in 2018 the NTP studies found clear evidence of an association with cancer in male rats. Additionally, the NTP found heart damage and DNA damage, despite the fact that the animals were carefully exposed to non-heating RFR levels long assumed to be safe. The Ramazzini Institute animal studies used even lower RFR lower exposures to approximate cell tower emissions and also found increases of the same tumor type. The NTP studies were carefully controlled to ensure exposures did not significantly heat the animals. The animal study findings in combination with human studies indicate adverse effects from non heating levels of radiofrequency.” A review paper on corporate risk entitled “Limiting Liability with Positioning to Minimize Negative Health Effects of Cellular Phone Towers” reviewed the “large and growing body of evidence that human exposure to RFR from cellular phone base stations causes negative health effects.” The authors recommend restricting antennas near homes and within 500 meters of schools and hospitals to protect companies from future liability. An Uninsured Risk Currently, insurance authorities classify 5G and wireless radiation as “high” risk , carriers define radio frequency as a pollutant and their insurers exclude it from health effects liability coverage., A 2019 Report by Swiss Re Institute, a world leading provider of insurance, classifies 5G mobile networks as a “high”, “off-the-leash” risk stating, “Existing concerns regarding potential negative health effects from electromagnetic fields (EMF) are only likely to increase. An uptick in liability claims could be a potential long-term consequence” and “[a]s the biological effects of EMF in general and 5G in particular are still being debated, potential claims for health impairments may come with a long latency.” Wireless companies inform shareholders of the risk but not the communities impacted by the infrastructure. For example, Crown Castle states in their 2020 10-K tax filing that: “If radio frequency emissions from wireless handsets or equipment on our communications infrastructure are demonstrated to cause negative health effects, potential future claims could adversely affect our operations, costs or revenues. “The potential connection between radio frequency emissions and certain negative health effects, including some forms of cancer, has been the subject of substantial study by the scientific community in recent years. We cannot guarantee that claims relating to radio frequency emissions will not arise in the future or that the results of such studies will not be adverse to us.” “If a connection between radio frequency emissions and possible negative health effects were established, our operations, costs, or revenues may be materially and adversely affected. We currently do not maintain any significant insurance with respect to these matters.” Conclusion Utah has the potential to be at the forefront of technological advancements, environmental protections and health protections. The Utah Broadband Center has been given a once in a lifetime spending opportunity and can achieve all of these goals by investing into fiber optics all the way to every home and business, no matter the initial cost. We urge UBC to stay steadfast in these goals so that Utah can have the opportunity to compete on the world stage while keeping residents and the environment safe. We are happy to provide UBC with more information and resources if needed. Sincerely, Theodora Scarato Executive Director Environmental Health Trust Theodora.scarato@EHTrust.org Rola Masri Director of Government Outreach Environmental Health Trust RolaMasri@EHTrust.org www.EHTrust.org 2 https://broadbandusa.ntia.doc.gov/sites/default/files/2022-09/BEAD-Frequently-Asked-Questions-%28FAQs%29_V ersion-2.0.pdf 3 Miller, A. B., Sears, M. E., Morgan, L. L., Davis, D. L., Hardell, L., Oremus, M., & Soskolne, C. L. (2019). Risks to Health and Well-Being From Radio-Frequency Radiation Emitted by Cell Phones and Other Wireless Devices. Frontiers in Public Health, 7. 4 Davis, D., Birnbaum, L., Ben-Ishai, P., Taylor, H., Sears, M., Butler, T., & Scarato, T. (2023). Wireless technologies, non-ionizing electromagnetic fields and children: Identifying and reducing health risks. Current Problems in Pediatric and Adolescent Health Care, 53(2), 101374. 5 McCredden, J. E., Cook, N., Weller, S., & Leach, V. (2022). Wireless technology is an environmental stressor requiring new understanding and approaches in health care. Frontiers in Public Health, 10. 6 Clegg, F. M., Sears, M., Friesen, M., Scarato, T., Metzinger, R., Russell, C., Stadtner, A., & Miller, A. B. (2020). Building science and radiofrequency radiation: What makes smart and healthy buildings. Building and Environment, 176, 106324. 7 https://www.benton.org/sites/default/files/FixedWireless.pdf 8 https://www.sdxcentral.com/articles/news/att-sounds-alarm-on-5g-security/2019/11/ 9 https://www.highspeedinternet.com/resources/how-fast-is-5g-home-internet 10 https://fiberbroadband.org/2022/02/24/cheap-sneakers-or-good-shoes-investing-in-fiber-for-the-long-term/ https://fiberbroadband.org/2021/02/18/reflecting-on-chattanoogas-journey-to-becoming-a-10g-city/ 11 https://worldbroadbandassociation.com/greaterbroadbandinvestment/ 12 https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/2020-chinese-ftth-deployments-state-of-the-chinese-fiber-broadband-n etwork-regional-comparison-competitive-landscape-analysis-of-the-fiber-optical-network-value-chain-301059551.html 13 https://www.lightwaveonline.com/fttx/ftth-b/article/14292814/ftth-passes-more-than-62-of-eu39-households-ftth-council- europe 14 https://www.ftthcouncil.eu/knowledge-centre/all-publications-and-assets/1710/ftth-b-global-ranking-2023 15 https://www.statista.com/statistics/604623/share-of-fibre-connections-in-broadband-oecd/#statisticContainer 16 https://spectrum.ieee.org/5gs-waveform-is-a-battery-vampire 17 https://www.datacenter-forum.com/datacenter-forum/5g-will-prompt-energy-consumption-to-grow-by-staggering-1 60-in-10-years?fbclid=IwAR0zQ_dGvwT_phdacXuhOkllYOm_p0u95nJAac1toWs4zGUNJnotrvRki7I 18 https://theshiftproject.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/Lean-ICT-Report_The-Shift-Project_2019.pdf 19 https://www.umweltbundesamt.de/en/press/pressinformation/video-streaming-data-transmission-technology 20 https://www.etsi.org/images/files/ETSIWhitePapers/WP_47_GFDI.pdf 21 Williams, Laurence and Sovacool, Benjamin K. and Foxon, Timothy J., The energy use implications of 5G: Reviewing whole network operational energy, embodied energy, and indirect effects (January 13, 2022). Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 157 (2022) 112033, Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4008530 22 Levitt, B. B., Lai, H. C., & Manville, A. M. (2021). Effects of non-ionizing electromagnetic fields on flora and fauna, Part 3. Exposure standards, public policy, laws, and future directions. Reviews on Environmental Health. 23 Levitt BB, Lai HC and Manville AM II (2022) Low-level EMF effects on wildlife and plants: What research tells us about an ecosystem approach. Front. Public Health 10:1000840. doi: 10.3389/fpubh.2022.1000840 24 https://www.ntia.doc.gov/files/ntia/us_doi_comments.pdf 25 Final Court Decision EHT et. al v. the FCC 8/13/2021 https://www.cadc.uscourts.gov/internet/opinions.nsf/FB976465BF00F8BD85258730004EFDF7/$file/20-1025-1910 111.pdf 26 https://www.cadc.uscourts.gov/internet/opinions.nsf/FB976465BF00F8BD85258730004EFDF7/$file/20-1025-1910111.pdf 27 Levitt, B. B., Lai, H. C., & Manville, A. M. (2021). Effects of non-ionizing electromagnetic fields on flora and fauna, Part 3. Exposure standards, public policy, laws, and future directions. Reviews on Environmental Health. 28 Levitt, B. B., Lai, H. C., & Manville, A. M. (2022a). Effects of non-ionizing electromagnetic fields on flora and fauna, part 1. Rising ambient EMF levels in the environment. Reviews on Environmental Health, 37(1), 81–122. 29 Levitt, B. B., Lai, H. C., & Manville, A. M. (2022b). Effects of non-ionizing electromagnetic fields on flora and fauna, Part 2 impacts: How species interact with natural and man-made EMF. Reviews on Environmental Health, 37(3), 327–406. 30 Cucurachi, S., Tamis, W. L. M., Vijver, M. G., Peijnenburg, W. J. G. M., Bolte, J. F. B., & de Snoo, G. R. (2013). A review of the ecological effects of radiofrequency electromagnetic fields (RF-EMF). Environment International, 51, 116–140. 31 Balmori A. (2021) Electromagnetic radiation as an emerging driver factor for the decline of insects. Science of the Total Environment. 767: 144913 32 Thill A, Cammaerts MC, Balmori A. Biological effects of electromagnetic fields on insects: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Rev Environ Health. 2023 Nov 23 33 Waldmann-Selsam, C., Balmori-de la Puente, A., Breunig, H., & Balmori, A. (2016). Radiofrequency radiation injures trees around mobile phone base stations. Science of The Total Environment, 572, 554–569. 34 Breunig, Helmut. “Tree Damage Caused By Mobile Phone Base Stations An Observation Guide.” (2017). 35 2021 Report “Tree damage caused by mobile phone base stations” 36 Haggerty, K. (2010). Adverse Influence of Radio Frequency Background on Trembling Aspen Seedlings: Preliminary Observations. International Journal of Forestry Research, 2010, 836278. 37 Halgamuge, M. N. (2017). Review: Weak radiofrequency radiation exposure from mobile phone radiation on plants. Electromagnetic Biology and Medicine, 36(2), 213–235 38 Miller, A. B., Morgan, L. L., Udasin, I., & Davis, D. L. (2018). Cancer epidemiology update, following the 2011 IARC evaluation of radiofrequency electromagnetic fields (Monograph 102). Environmental Research, 167, 673–683. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envres.2018.06.043 39 Yakymenko, I., Sidorik, E., Kyrylenko, S., & Chekhun, V. (2011). Long-term exposure to microwave radiation provokes cancer growth: Evidence from radars and mobile communication systems. Experimental Oncology, 33(2), 62–70.https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/21716201/. 40 Falcioni, L., Bua, L., Tibaldi, E., Lauriola, M., De Angelis, L., Gnudi, F., Mandrioli, D., Manservigi, M., Manservisi, F., Manzoli, I., Menghetti, I., Montella, R., Panzacchi, S., Sgargi, D., Strollo, V., Vornoli, A., & Belpoggi, F. (2018). Report of final results regarding brain and heart tumors in Sprague-Dawley rats exposed from prenatal life until natural death to mobile phone radiofrequency field representative of a 1.8 GHz GSM base station environmental emission. Environmental Research, 165, 496–503. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envres.2018.01.037 41 Kim S, Han D, Ryu J, Kim K, Kim YH. Effects of mobile phone usage on sperm quality - No time-dependent relationship on usage: A systematic review and updated meta-analysis. Environ Res. 2021 Nov;202:111784. doi: 10.1016/j.envres.2021.111784. Epub 2021 Jul 30. PMID: 34333014 42 Swiss Tropical and Public Health Institute. ""Mobile phone radiation may affect memory performance in adolescents, study finds."" ScienceDaily. ScienceDaily, 19 July 2018. <www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2018/07/180719121803.htm>. 43 Divan HA, Kheifets L, Obel C, Olsen J. Cell phone use and behavioural problems in young children. J Epidemiol Community Health. 2012 Jun;66(6):524-9. doi: 10.1136/jech.2010.115402. Epub 2010 Dec 7. PMID: 21138897. 44 Hiie Hinrikus, Jaanus Lass & Maie Bachmann (2021) Threshold of radiofrequency electromagnetic field effect on human brain, International Journal of Radiation Biology, 97:11, 1505-1515, DOI: 10.1080/09553002.2021.1969055 45 AAP Letter to the FCC Chairman calling for the FCC to open up a review of RF guidelines (7/12/2012), AAP Letter to US Representative Dennis Kucinich in Support of the Cell Phone Right to Know Act 12/12/2012, AAP to FCC Commissioner Mignon Clyburn and FDA Commissioner Margaret Hamburg calling for a review of RF guidelines 8/29/2013 46 https://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/statstudcomm/committees/1474/reports/5G%20final%20report.pdf 47 https://ehtrust.org/wp-content/uploads/Pittsfield-Health-Board-Cell-Tower-Order-to-Verizon-April-11-2022-FINAL- REDACTED.pdf 48 A. Balmori (2022). Evidence for a health risk by RF on humans living around mobile phone base stations: From radiofrequency sickness to cancer. Environ. Res., 214 (2022), Article 113851 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envres.2022.113851 49 Zothansiama, Zosangzuali, M., Lalramdinpuii, M., & Jagetia, G. C. (2017). Impact of radiofrequency radiation on DNA damage and antioxidants in peripheral blood lymphocytes of humans residing in the vicinity of mobile phone base stations. Electromagnetic Biology and Medicine, 36(3), 295–305. https://doi.org/10.1080/15368378.2017.1350584. 50 National Toxicology Program Radiofrequency Radiation https://ntp.niehs.nih.gov/whatwestudy/topics/cellphones/index.html 51 Falcioni et al., Report of final results regarding brain and heart tumors in Sprague-Dawley rats exposed from prenatal life until natural death to mobile phone radiofrequency field representative of a 1.8 GHz GSM base station environmental emission, Environmental Research, Volume 165, 2018, Pages 496-503 DOI: 10.1016/j.envres.2018.01.037 52 Pearce, J. M. (2020). Limiting liability with positioning to minimize negative health effects of cellular phone towers. Environmental Research, 181, 108845. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envres.2019.108845. 53 Swiss Re 5G Report https://ehtrust.org/wp-content/uploads/Swiss-Re-SONAR-Publication-2019-excerpt-1.pdf 54 https://ehtrust.org/key-issues/reports-white-papers-insurance-industry/ 55 https://www.genesisinsurance.com/toolbox/assets/pdfs/Segment:%20%20Public%20Entity/TPP%20B%20C-M%2 000%2001%2005%20-05%20 Coverage%20Part%20B,%20Public%20Officials%20Liability-Claims%20Made%20 Coverage.pdf (p.4) 56 https://ehtrust.org/key-issues/electromagnetic-field-insurance-policy-exclusions/ 57 https://ehtrust.org/wp-content/uploads/Swiss-Re-SONAR-Publication-2019-excerpt-1.pdf 58 https://ehtrust.org/key-issues/corporate-company-investor-warnings-annual-reports-10k-filings-cell-phone-radiation-risks/ 59 https://ehtrust.org/key-issues/corporate-company-investor-warnings-annual-reports-10k-filings-cell-phone-radiatio n-risks/ 60 https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1051470/000105147018000082/cci10-k123117.htm See also Factsheets on Legal Liability of Cell Towers at https://ehtrust.org/wp-content/uploads/Legal-Liability-Cell-Tower-Radiation-Health-Effects-3.pdf" | 12/13/2023 | The UBC's priority is fiber, and the UBC recognizes there are some locations that will require other technologies due to prelimanary cost modleing, BEAD allocation, and the obligation to serve all unserved and underserved BSLs. | ||
57 | Tim | Alborg | EducationSuperHighway | tim.alborg@educationsuperhighway.org | Volume 2: Deployment Subgrantee Selection (Requirement 8) | Link to comment document | 12/13/2023 | UBC will work with the Utah Digtial Opportunity Network to collect data and strategize the activites needed. | ||
58 | Randy | Cosby | InfoWest | rcosby@infowest.com | Volume 2: Deployment Subgrantee Selection (Requirement 8) | "Open Access 3 points - This ""bonus"" to reward open access companies as more suitable to build networks than non-open-access companies is discriminatory and tips the scale in favor of providers that should be on equal footing with others. While Open Access principles state that it can provide the most economical and ""fair"" market for services, such services are only available in conjunction with third party ISPs who are not bound by any of the other terms that other private companies will be. For example, can an open access provider state what speeds will be available at a particular price as required in the application process? If so, the OA provider is not actually ""open,"" ""fair"" and ""neutral"" but is dictating (in monopoly style) the pricing and terms upon the third party providers. If they don't dictate the pricing, any stated pricing in an OA provider proposal is merely a suggestion, not a statement of fact. There are also principles in 2.4.17 (DISCLOSURE OF OTHER PUBLICLY FUNDED PROJECTS) that come into conflict in the case of Utah's largest OA provider, UTOPIA. While the bulleted list of sources covers some recent federal and state funding overlap, it does not address the use of public (state) funds for such items as retirement benefits and management, state negotiated fleet and fuel pricing, etc. that put UTOPIA at a Publicly. Funded advantage for their bids that local private companies do not enjoy. Open Access 3 points - This ""bonus"" to reward open access companies as more suitable to build networks than non-open-access companies is discriminatory and tips the scale in favor of providers that should be on equal footing with others. While Open Access principles state that it can provide the most economical and ""fair"" market for services, such services are only available in conjunction with third party ISPs who are not bound by any of the other terms that other private companies will be. For example, can an open access provider state what speeds will be available at a particular price as required in the application process? If so, the OA provider is not actually ""open,"" ""fair"" and ""neutral"" but is dictating (in monopoly style) the pricing and terms upon the third party providers. If they don't dictate the pricing, any stated pricing in an OA provider proposal is merely a suggestion, not a statement of fact. There are also principles in 2.4.17 (DISCLOSURE OF OTHER PUBLICLY FUNDED PROJECTS) that come into conflict in the case of Utah's largest OA provider, UTOPIA. While the bulleted list of sources covers some recent federal and state funding overlap, it does not address the use of public (state) funds for such items as retirement benefits and management, state negotiated fleet and fuel pricing, etc. that put UTOPIA at a Publicly funded advantage for their bids that local private companies do not enjoy. I would suggest that if BEAD requires an award for being an open access provider, it should be much smaller than 3%. Additional points consideration should also be given to companies that are privately funded without government backing, discounts and negotiating power to help re-balance the scales." | 12/13/2023 | UBC has removed Open Access as a scoring criteria; Open Access is a requirement for the BEAD NOFO ( see page 69 of the NOFO and page 20 on Volume 2 for further details) Disclosure of public benfefits is a legislative issue. | ||
59 | Steven | McGhie | Utah Broadband | steve@utahbroadband.com | Volume 2: Public Comment | "Scoring Feedback 3% Bonus for Open Access - I know the idea of OA is to foster competition, but there is minimal competition on a traditional OA network. On the contrary, it is much more monopolistic than competitive providers building competing networks. Let me explain. An OA network is built by a single provider. It is managed by a single provider. It is maintained by a single provider. There is a base price dictated by a single provider. The only competitive element is the ""mark-up"" of the base price by reselling providers. That mark-up is usually so small that the competitive variance is negligible. Additionally, if there is only one provider that builds, operates and maintains the network (regardless of how many reselling providers there are), the quality and reliability of the service are 100% dictated by the OA provider, not the myriad of reselling providers. So if the OA is not responsive to network outages or build a poor network, all service providers and all of their customers will suffer. That is not true competition! Lastly, if the OA operator chooses at some point in the future to be a service provider to the public as well as the OA operator, they can virtually price every other reseller out of the market. They would have received the benefit of gaining the extra points on their proposal but effectively eliminate all competition after the fact. I suggest the State of Utah not provide any additional points for an OA network and penalize other service providers, because when you look under the hood they are essentially the same and this scoring system creates an unfair advantage. If BEAD forces this recognition, I suggest you make it non-impacting. Award .25 points or less. Scoring Affordable Pricing (p23): In the Scoring paragraph it notes that the price must be less than $90 for ""all taxes, fees and charges charged to the customer."" I suggest this gets changed to say ""all internet service only related taxes, fees and charges charged to the customer."" The reason this is important is that we may offer service add-ons like managed wifi, streaming TV, security, etc. Those types of services should be excluded from that language. It may be good to add a sentence excluding those items (language like: including but not limited to the following add-on services...) Speed to Deployment (p26) Are there any penalties for missing the committed timeline? Should larger projects be penalized for having a longer build times? What happens if someone walks away from the project? This should be considered and compared to specific projects (e.g. same census blocks) as opposed to an overall application. Feel free to reach out if you have any questions about my comments. -Steve" | 12/14/2023 | Additional services that are not included in the base plan will not need to be included in the plan pricing requirements. The speed to deployment has been revised to replace the timeline with project readiness critieria. | ||
60 | Andrew | Mincheff | INCOMPAS | amincheff@incompas.org | Volume 2: Deployment Subgrantee Selection (Requirement 8) | "MULTIPLE TECHNOLOGIES FOR BROADBAND SERVICE Preparing for the future by clearing the way for both high-speed fixed and mobile networks, including 5G networks, is critical, and INCOMPAS is a proponent that fiber serves as the foundation for these networks. Every technology in the broadband ecosystem needs access to fiber—including fixed wireless, cable, cellular (mobile & 5G), and satellite. Building more fiber helps all, and fiber densification throughout the U.S. is critical for winning the race to 5G. INCOMPAS also acknowledges that fiber to the premises may not be technically and geographically possible in certain unserved and underserved locations in Utah. Therefore, INCOMPAS posits that the U.S. Treasury’s final guidance on the American Rescue Plan struck the right balance by encouraging recipients to prioritize investments in fiber infrastructure wherever feasible and also requiring recipients “to design projects to, upon completion, reliably meet or exceed symmetrical 100 Mbps download and upload speeds” in the last mile. In those situations where it is not practicable to do so because of the extremely high cost of the project or geography or topography of the area to be served by the project, projects must reliably meet or exceed the 100/20 Mbps standard and be scalable to a minimum of symmetrical 100 Mbps download and upload speeds. In defining the “Extremely High Cost Per Location Threshold” for project funding areas, the Utah Broadband Center (UBC) should follow Treasury’s example and continue to set speeds at a level that spurs competition by retaining the standard of at least 100/20 Mbps while also encouraging scalability up to 100/100 Mbps to help deliver reliable home broadband in a time-efficient way that does not leave thousands of Utahans on the wrong side of the digital divide. This funding represents an historic opportunity to provide every American with reliable, affordable broadband, so states should set their scoring of applications judiciously to guarantee that BEAD funds go towards the appropriate mix of fiber and other hybrid, cost-effective alternative technologies—such as next generation Fixed Wireless Access solutions—to ensure that all unserved and underserved families and communities are granted access to high quality broadband. To award scalability and promote other future-proof technologies, INCOMPAS encourages that the UBC also consider possible speed tiers of service for wireless to ensure the bids selected are most able to provide a competitive or fiber-equivalent service. Specifically, in those circumstances where the subgrantee’s alternative technology such as Fixed Wireless Access has proven it can exceed 100/100 Mbps for serving high-cost areas, the state could award applications with added points for going beyond the speed of service requirements and reaching certain speed levels (ex. 200/50 Mbps, 400/100 Mbps, etc.), as well as for attaining a lower cost per location within the applied-for project funding area(s). SELECTION AMONG PRIORITY BROADBAND PROJECTS INCOMPAS believes it is critical that this infrastructure investment be made in robust and reliable networks that can offer greater connectivity today and higher speeds in the future, and projects must be able to scale to meet consumer and business demand over time. Indeed, it is important to deploy for today and the future so that the networks can serve both high-speed fixed and mobile networks. The UBC should also consider those grantees who can continue to scale and have proven experience meeting their community’s needs. This should include successful experience offering broadband internet access service or partnering with entities who do so, serving other businesses, community anchor institutions, and residences, and a demonstrated willingness to hire within the community and support the local economy with the BEAD Program. Such entities must also be able to deliver on the project both financially and technically in a timely fashion. Regarding additional prioritization factors to evaluate broadband project awards, the BEAD Program will not achieve the objective of ensuring the availability of affordable, high-quality broadband service in unserved and underserved areas unless the UBC exercises its authority to adopt rules promoting competition. The networks funded by the BEAD Program will likely be the only broadband facilities in the unserved and underserved areas that the program was designed to target, and the high entry barriers in those areas make it unlikely that another competing service provider will deploy network facilities in the same area. Customers served by networks funded by the BEAD Program will likely have no choice of providers. This absence of competition poses a serious threat to ensuring affordable and high-quality services. It is therefore critically important that Utah adopt Open Access as a Secondary Criterion for selecting among Priority Broadband Projects. COMPETITIVE BID PROCESS To further enable and promote increased competition in both unserved and underserved areas, Utah must ensure a competitive, open bid process as required by the IIJA. We urge the UBC to clearly set forth that the BEAD Program be awarded through a competitive process and must permit competitive broadband and infrastructure providers, as well as others, to participate and without tilting the playing field in a way that discourages participation by private sector entities. The framework or details for the competitive process should be publicly available, with clear rules from the beginning that are published and in compliance with NTIA’s requirements. INCOMPAS’ members have successfully entered the market in many different types of communities and situations. They have built networks in rural areas where no providers were offering service and did so with no public sector support or funding. They have partnered with towns and cities to deliver fiber-based connectivity for the first time which has transformed communities. INCOMPAS believes that there is no need to preference certain types of entities in the grant process. Rather, transparent deployment and service requirements stated in the grant process will allow all entities that could deliver such service to compete, and taxpayers benefit from a more efficient program when there is competition for it. INCOMPAS supports the UBC thoroughly vetting and reviewing subrecipients to ensure that they have the technical and financial experience to deliver on the grant projects. INCOMPAS also believes that potential recipients should not be discriminated against for being a private sector company. Prioritizing one class of recipient over others is not in the public interest and prevents all applicants from having meaningful and robust opportunities to compete for funding. Recipients should be judged on their ability to meet the grant requirements and their proposals. Prioritizing certain types of entities (e.g., non-profits and co-ops) should be strictly forbidden." | 12/14/2023 | UBC appreciates this comment and will look into these ideas to implement. | ||
61 | Andrew | Mincheff | INCOMPAS | amincheff@incompas.org | Volume 2: Cost and Barrier Reduction (Requirement 14) | Speeding up broadband deployment is critical for families and small businesses who need internet access. INCOMPAS’ members consistently face delays in securing permits and gaining access to the public rights-of-way to deploy facilities. Speed to market is critical to meet needs as quickly as possible for the BEAD Program. Thus, INCOMPAS believes it is necessary to have the Utah Broadband Center (UBC) review or enact guidelines that enable faster processing to allow the deployment of broadband infrastructure more quickly; these guidelines should cover both small cells and other wireless equipment and fiber that is used by both fixed and mobile providers to connect their networks. As part of allocating the BEAD Program funds, the UBC should encourage local authorities to review their permitting processes and determine whether they have the resources they need to process and issue permits quickly. Duplicative, slow, and costly local processes in certain jurisdictions create a significant impediment to deployment efforts, and these processes can constitute a barrier to entry to competitive providers. Accordingly, the UBC should encourage local jurisdictions to expedite permitting, allow applicants to submit applications in batches, and keep permitting and all other fees low. The UBC should also require that these fees be publicly disclosed, competitively and technology neutral, non-discriminatory, and based on actual and direct costs reasonably incurred. And where cities and towns need financial assistance to purchase and implement technology upgrades for speeding permitting processes, such as offering batch permit processing, or they need to hire temporary staff to handle the number of requests, the UBC should evaluate these needs and allow for such reasonable costs to be covered by the BEAD Program funding. It is also critical for the UBC to encourage local jurisdictions to evaluate their processes and fees for reasonableness so that project dollars are used efficiently and effectively, which will enable more fiber miles to be built. Forcing competitive providers to construct their network entirely underground in areas where existing overhead facilities are available, but where municipal right-of-way fees or requirements prohibit overhead deployment—not only creates unnecessary delay, but it also guarantees fewer fiber miles will be built. INCOMPAS members also mention the delays and difficulties with the underground utility locates process and the burden this creates for deploying networks. Recognizing the costly delays associated with locates including inaccurate markings, lack of coordination and late work completion, INCOMPAS suggests that the UBC work with their state 811 One Call Center local authorities to evaluate their locates process to address this barrier to deployment and to help optimize projects for speed and efficiency as part of this new funding. Another challenge our members often face is accessing poles and public rights-of-way. Increasing broadband providers’ access to public rights-of-way will help spur faster and more efficient deployments to unserved areas—benefiting consumers and businesses waiting for access to next-generation networks. The UBC must work with those entities that own and/or manage the rights-of-way and the facilities located within the rights-of-way to extend fair and transparent protections to providers who need access to build out their networks. This includes those entities that own or manage utility poles, highways, and railroads. Utility poles in the right-of-way, which are typically owned by large electric utilities or incumbent telephone providers or municipal or cooperative utilities, are crucial for deploying fiber and small cells quickly and efficiently. These pole owners control “make-ready” costs—the charges that prepare the pole for a new attachment. When these costs, including costs to replace poles and charges to correct pre-existing conditions on the pole, are unreasonably high, providers may scale back their deployment or forego serving an area entirely. Some of these pole owners have a competitive interest in denying access to their facilities because they are themselves deploying broadband. For instance, INCOMPAS’ members have repeatedly faced prohibitions for accessing the pole infrastructure of utility cooperatives who use their monopoly position to deny access to competitors which has disadvantaged rural areas from receiving broadband from a competitive provider. The UBC should make clear that any grants awarded for projects are conditioned upon grantees permitting competitors reasonable, fair, and non-discriminatory access to their owned and managed utility poles and conduit. Entities receiving federal grants should not be permitted to engage in anti-competitive activity by excluding competitive providers from their service territories by actually or constructively denying them access to their poles and conduit—including by refusal to negotiate pole access agreements or charging excessively high pole attachment fees—which competitors must access in order to provide a competitive alternative. Finally, the BEAD Program and other broadband investment programs present a historic opportunity for communities large and small, urban and rural, to right the wrongs of the past and build a better future for all Americans. It is not hyperbolic to suggest BEAD projects may be the most important infrastructure activity this century for communities. To help ensure projects are done right and deployed with all deliberate speed, INCOMPAS proposes the UBC implement a “Broadband Ready City” Checklist to help guide cities, counties, and all local municipalities. This checklist for broadband success will promote smart, fast, and cost-effective deployment as part of the BEAD Program and demonstrate a willingness to enhance competition and choice. Suggestions for developing broadband deployment ready guidelines for cities, towns, counties, and local entities include: • Broadband Money for Broadband Projects: Limit application fees to the actual, objectively reasonable costs incurred by the jurisdiction to process an application. Limit rights-of-way access fees to actual objectively reasonable cost. • Streamlined for Speed: Implement expedited or streamlined review of zoning and permitting applications that facilitate wireless and fiber deployment, including those that make efficient use of existing infrastructure pursuant to federal law. • Transparent Review: Establish procedures to allow all forms, applications and documentation related to a project to be reviewed and either approved or denied within 30 days after the application is submitted. Adopt efficient intake procedures, such as batch permitting and electronic submission. • Pro Innovation: New innovative deployment processes and construction techniques, such as micro-trenching, speed deployment and cut construction time. Investing in faster, future-proof networks that are built to last and enable an “all of the above” deployment strategy. • Smart Restoration: Working together to ensure broadband money is dedicated to internet access, smart street restoration obligations that are in scope with deployment construction projects set at the time of the application, will help communities maximize the benefits of their broadband dollars. INCOMPAS urges the UBC to begin the process of including these deployment issues in its discussions on its rules with the implementation process. INCOMPAS’ members are seeing significant delays and increases in costs prior to the public sector financing that’s now available, and they are concerned that with the additional financial boost afforded by Congress, further delays are likely as those who manage/own the rights-of-way are ill-prepared for the increased demand for requests to access the rights-of-way. Agencies at the Federal, State, and Local levels all need to prepare now and begin discussions of how to avoid costly delays. INCOMPAS recommends identifying where there are current gaps, including training employees, reviewing processes that can be expedited by investing in technological upgrades, and coordinating between agencies/managers of rights-of-way as soon as possible. Better, faster internet will bring more educational opportunities, healthcare options, and attract greater investment to fuel local economic growth. More competition brings consumers and businesses more choice and lower prices. | 12/14/2023 | Regarding the Middle Mile Attachments and sharing, this is a requirement for the NTIA NOFO, see page 69. Volume II page 20. UBC will consider list of suggestions for broadband deployment ready cities. | ||
62 | Andrew | Mincheff | INCOMPAS | amincheff@incompas.org | Volume 2: Middle-Class Affordability Plans (Requirement 20) | The BEAD NOFO requires that Eligible Entities include a “middle-class affordability plan” in their Initial and Final Proposals. INCOMPAS believes prioritizing BEAD last-mile broadband projects that comply with Open Access would enable Utah to bridge the digital divide and to establish an efficient and effective middle-class affordability plan. OPEN ACCESS, WHOLESALE CONDITION INCOMPAS is also submitting these comments to emphasize the benefits your state’s consumers would experience if the Utah Broadband Center (UBC) prioritized last-mile broadband projects that commit to complying with Open Access in the BEAD Program. One of the most serious risks associated with the BEAD Program is that it will produce new local broadband monopolies across Utah and across the nation. The program will appropriately subsidize the deployment of broadband facilities in areas where new network investment has not occurred and is unlikely to occur in the future, but once BEAD-funded networks are deployed, they will face no competition from existing or potential facilities-based entrants. The result will be entrenched monopolies with essentially no incentive to provide reasonable wholesale access to competitors who can offer better service, lower prices, and more innovation and investment in the marketplace. There can be no dispute that a monopoly market structure will harm consumers and businesses in BEAD-funded areas. Over time, the newly minted broadband monopolists will provide lower quality of service and higher prices than would be possible in a competitive market, and broadband customers will suffer as a result of the lack of choice. Taxpayers are paying for the BEAD Program, and they deserve better. They have a right to broadband AND broadband competition. There are two ways in which to promote this objective. First, the UBC could seek to replicate the effects of competition by regulating the service quality and even the prices of the broadband service that BEAD subgrantees offer. This could require that the low-cost, high-speed plans are offered to essentially all consumers or it could take the form of service quality regulations, or both. However, these forms of direct regulation are often less effective than actual competition in delivering better service and lower costs for consumers. Second, the UBC could choose the option that NTIA specifically designed to address this problem and that it encourages Eligible Entities to adopt – prioritizing last-mile broadband projects that commit to complying with Open Access. Open Access allows Utah to rely on competition rather than regulation to ensure that consumers receive better service and potentially even lower prices than would otherwise be available under the BEAD Program. Among the many benefits of Open Access, one worth special emphasis is the way it helps to bridge the digital divide. By tailoring their service offerings to the specific needs of unserved and underserved communities, resale competitors are likely to find ways to make broadband useful and helpful to those communities. This can be done, for example, by offering complementary services, such as VoIP, cloud storage, simple billing and usage-tracking options, equipment repair, educational support, training, and other services designed for the specific needs of consumers, small businesses, and community anchor institutions in unserved and underserved communities. Monopolists have little or no incentive to innovate in these ways. By offering products and services tailored to the needs of the target communities, competitors relying on Open Access will ensure that the broadband made available via BEAD-funded networks will be more relevant and beneficial to consumers, that more consumers will subscribe to the service, and that those who do so will benefit more from it. In short, the digital divide will be more effectively bridged. Another critical area worth mentioning, the benefits of Open Access would accrue at virtually no cost. Open Access is easy to administer because Utah can rely on the pre-existing framework established for the avoided-cost discount developed pursuant to Sections 251(c)(4) and 251(d)(3) of the Communications Act. Implementing the Open Access criterion requires virtually no expenditure of administrative resources. No ratemaking proceedings are required. No complex consideration of potential implementation issues is required. Indeed, NTIA likely chose the avoided-cost definition of Open Access for this reason. NTIA was well-aware that adopting the avoided-cost discount approach to Open Access offered Eligible Entities an off-the-shelf discount framework that is easy to design and administer. Finally, there is no basis for the concern expressed by broadband providers in that Open Access would undermine investment incentives. Those opponents do not analyze the specific terms of Open Access as defined in the BEAD NOFO. If they did, they would be obligated to recognize that the Open Access discount reflects the costs that the network owner avoids when selling service at wholesale rather than retail (e.g., marketing, billing, and collection-related costs), so network owners incur no meaningful costs when selling to wholesale customers as opposed to retail customers. | 12/14/2023 | UBC has adjusted the scoring criteria to include more points for symmetrical wireless and unlicensed spectrum. | ||
63 | Randall | Sandone | Critical Infrastructure Resilience Institute at the University of Illinois | rsandone@illinois.edu | Volume 2: Objectives (Requirement 1) | The State of Utah has put together an extensive and well-crafted proposal for implementing the Broadband Equity, Access, and Deployment (BEAD) grant program in Utah. While the proposal appears to meet the specified grant requirements, it seems to overlook a crucial factor that could impact the deployment – the resilience of the broadband infrastructure itself. The goals and objectives of the Utah program are detailed in Volume 2, specifically on pages 5 through 9 and appropriately focus on aspects of availability, accessibility, and affordability, each further detailed in specific goals and objectives. This comment is submitted to focus on the concepts of availability and accessibility of broadband. Modern telecommunications infrastructure relies heavily on precise timing signals, currently provided by GPS (Global Positioning System) satellites, for its efficient operation. Any loss, disruption or manipulation of these signals could render the broadband infrastructure inaccessible to subscribers, thus negating the primary goal of the BEAD program and the objectives of Utah. There have been numerous instances worldwide where the timing function of broadband has been compromised due to accidental or malicious actions targeting and degrading GPS timing sources. These events have exposed vulnerabilities in the reliability of broadband infrastructure, necessitating the development of mitigation strategies to provide alternative backup timing sources. This is crucial to ensure the continuity of critical infrastructure and accessibility, both of which are vital to the intended beneficiaries of this grant program. A resilient broadband timing solution is not just important; it's foundational to the success of broadband delivery. We wholeheartedly support the vision and objectives of the Utah plan for implementing BEAD grant funding. However, to ensure the availability and reliability of broadband infrastructure, it is imperative to address the need for a robust and resilient back-up timing signal source as part of the broadband deployment. Terrestrial-based timing systems represent a solution that relies on ground-based infrastructure and signals, in contrast to satellite-based systems like GPS or GNSS (Global Navigation Satellite System). These terrestrial systems incorporate redundancy and backup mechanisms to ensure reliability, such as using multiple timing sources or paths to minimize the risk of timing disruptions due to equipment failures or other issues. Currently, eight states and one territory in the US have implemented an alternative timing solution known as the Nationwide Integration of Timing Resiliency for Operation (NITRO). NITRO retrieves timing information from multiple government and commercial sources of space-based and terrestrial timing, including GPS, and analyzes them for accuracy. The most precise alternative timing signal is then transmitted to users via terrestrial broadcasts, fiber, and wireless cellular networks. NITRO is currently utilized by State National Guard Bureaus to maintain their ability to support civilian authorities during disasters and similar crises. This same capability can serve as a backup timing source for the broader broadband telecommunications systems that rely on precise timing. This is a perfect opportunity to utilize BEAD Grant funding to expand NITRO, a critical capability, and make it accessible to a wider range of stakeholders, thereby strengthening an essential component of broadband delivery and usage that is susceptible to attacks. This initiative would leverage the Department of Defense's existing investment in creating the basic NITRO capability and enable the Department of Commerce to fulfill its mandate of providing critical backup timing to ensure uninterrupted commerce and the stability of the US economy. Such an approach aligns with the public/private partnership philosophy promoted by Congress in the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act and BEAD Grant legislative language. Failure to address the resilience of the timing function in broadband infrastructure could undermine the goals and objectives of the BEAD Program in general and the Utah program specifically and would diminish the return on the $42 billion investment that has been appropriated to support the program. Accordingly, we recommend that Utah include back-up timing as a priority for BEAD Grant implementation in its final Volume 2 Proposal. | 12/14/2023 | UBC recommends reaching out to ISP's to share this opportunity and joining Utah Alliance Meetings for make connections. | ||
64 | Benjamin | Aron | CTIA | baron@ctia.org | Volume 2: Non-Deployment Subgrantee Selection (Requirement 9) | Utah states that it does not anticipate having BEAD funding left over after meeting its primary objectives. (Volume 2, at 56-57) However, to the extent UBC does have BEAD funding available to address priorities after meeting the obligations to connect unserved locations, underserved locations, and Community Anchor Institutions, CTIA would like to engage with UBC to discuss approaches it can take to applying BEAD funding to improve wireless coverage. States like Louisiana and Missouri have programs that may be instructive to UBC and beneficial to the residents and businesses of Utah (See Louisiana Office of Broadband Development & Connectivity, Draft BEAD Initial Proposal Volume 2, at 33, https://connect.la.gov/media/54gnbfyl/louisiana-ip-volume-2-final-for-approval-1.pdf (allocating points in the subgrantee selection process to applicants that make certain commitments involving the deployment of new wireless tower infrastructure for hardening and resiliency purposes); Missouri Department of Economic Development, Missouri Cell Tower Grant Program, Program Guidelines (May 26, 2023), https://ded.mo.gov/media/pdf/cell-towers-grant-program-final-guidelines-v2 (providing grants for tower companies to deploy in areas without access to quality cellular service).). | 12/14/2023 | Volume 2 accounts for the use of alternative technologies in the case of extremely high cost areas. | ||
65 | Benjamin | Aron | CTIA | baron@ctia.org | Volume 2: Deployment Subgrantee Selection (Requirement 8) | I. UBC SHOULD CONFORM TO THE NOFO BY ADHERING TO THE RELIABLE BROADBAND SERVICE REQUIREMENT AND BY USING THE EHCPLT IN HIGH-COST AREAS RATHER THAN A MATCHING WAIVER (2.4.10 USE OF EHCPLT AND 2.4.2 PRIORITIZATION AND SCORING PROCESS (REQUIREMENT 8)). The NOFO requires states’ Initial Proposals to describe how the EHCPLT will be “utilized during the subgrantee selection process described in Section IV.B.7 of this NOFO.” (NTIA, Notice of Funding Opportunity, May 12, 2022 at 31) Section IV.B.7.a of the NOFO, in turn, provides that, for locations that exceed the EHCPLT, states must first consider non-fiber proposals using other “Reliable Broadband Service” technologies, as defined in the NOFO (Id. at 38). The technologies defined in the NOFO as “Reliable Broadband Service,” in addition to fiber, are terrestrial fixed wireless technology utilizing entirely licensed spectrum or a hybrid of licensed and unlicensed spectrum, cable broadband, and DSL (Id. at 15). Only if “no Reliable Broadband Service technology meeting the BEAD Program’s technical requirements would be deployable for a subsidy of less than the Extremely High Cost Per Location Threshold at a given location” may a state consider other technologies that are not Reliable Broadband Service, though they still must meet program requirements (Id. at 38). Volume 2 appears to misapply the NOFO’s two-step process for considering non-fiber proposals for locations above the EHCPLT. Volume 2 states that UBC will “impartially evaluate technology options proposed by applicants” and “explore licensed fixed wireless and low-earth orbit satellite technologies when no other technology meeting the requirements for reliable broadband service can be deployed at a lower cost than the EHCPLT for a particular location.” (Volume 2, at 45.) UBC must adhere to the NOFO’s requirement that states consider all Reliable Broadband Service technologies, such as licensed fixed wireless, before considering any non-Reliable Broadband Service technologies, such as satellite, and may not consider a non-Reliable Broadband Service technology as an equivalent to Reliable Broadband Service technologies, such as licensed fixed wireless, as Volume 2 proposes to do (id.). For these reasons, UBC should revise Volume 2 to make clear that, in areas that exceed the EHCPLT, UBC will first consider proposals based on non-fiber Reliable Broadband Service technologies, such as fixed wireless broadband, and will only consider proposals from non-Reliable Broadband Service technologies if no Reliable Broadband Service proposals are presented for the given area. UBC also should address extremely high-cost locations using the EHCPLT rather than by requesting a waiver of the matching requirement. Volume 2 indicates that “[p]er NTIA approval, UBC may consider a waiver for the matching funds criteria” and “reserves the right to consider any and all waivers for subgrantees,” including waiver of the EHCPLT. (Id. at 36.) “NTIA expects Eligible Entities to set the Extremely High Cost Per Location Threshold as high as possible to help ensure that end-to-end fiber projects are deployed wherever feasible,” (NOFO at 31 (emphasis added)) but the circumstances where UBC proposes to consider waivers of the matching requirement are, according to the design of the BEAD program, cases where end-to-end fiber may not be feasible. In such cases, the correct response under the BEAD process is to apply the EHCPLT and consider Reliable Broadband Service technologies other than fiber. (See id) UBC therefore should eliminate the proposal to rely on a waiver of the 25% match requirement in extremely high-cost areas, and instead apply the EHCPLT process in such areas, as specified in the NOFO. | 12/14/2023 | UBC has adjusted the scoring rubric to prioritize other reliable broadband technology such as unlicensed or low earth orbit satellite | ||
66 | Benjamin | Aron | CTIA | baron@ctia.org | Volume 2: Deployment Subgrantee Selection (Requirement 8) | II. UBC SHOULD ADJUST ITS APPROACH TO AFFORDABILITY TO ALIGN WITH LEGAL LIMITATIONS AND FEDERAL BENCHMARKS (2.4.2 PRIORITIZATION AND SCORING PROCESS (REQUIREMENT 8) AND 2.13 MIDDLE-CLASS AFFORDABILITY PLANS (REQUIREMENT 20)). UBC proposes to allocate affordability points on a sliding scale according to the subgrantee’s proposed price relative to $90 for Gigabit service by Priority Broadband Project proposals or $60 for 100/20 Mbps service for Other Last-Mile Broadband Projects (Volume 2, at 23 (Priority Broadband Projects), 31 (Other Last-Mile Broadband Projects)) - functionally, using a rate cap approach. UBC’s middle-class affordability proposal also relies on a “recommended service plan” that “must meet, at a minimum … total package costs of $90 per month or less [or] $60 per month or less” for priority and non-priority projects, respectively, and adds that providers must provide service outage credits for outages longer than 12 hours. (Id. at 86.) There are two issues with UBC’s approach. First, regarding middle-class affordability, NTIA has directed states to “adopt diverse strategies” to ensure middle class affordability (NTIA, BEAD Initial Proposal Guidance, Volumes I and II, at 82 (“Initial Proposal Guidance”)), and clarified that the middle-class affordability requirement is a “strategy,” not a specific service plan (NTIA, Tricky Topics to Watch Out for in the Initial Proposal 22 (Sept. 2023)). To the extent that UBC bases its approach to ensuring middle-class affordability on the pricing chart it proposes to use to score applications on affordability, UBC’s proposal constitutes a service plan, not a strategy, so it violates programmatic requirements. Second, the rate cap approach that UBC proposes to use to meet requirements regarding affordability scoring and middle-class affordability constitutes prohibited rate making. CTIA urges UBC to take an approach to affordability scoring and middle-class affordability, as other states have, that relies on market forces rather than a rate cap. Ohio’s draft Initial Proposal, Volume 2, for example, takes such an approach. Ohio proposes to calculate an average of applicant-proposed rates from all applications, and award points to applicants proposing prices below the average (See State of Ohio Initial Proposal, Volume II, Broadband Equity, Access, and Deployment Program 66-67, 74, https://broadband.ohio.gov/static/202310-DRAFT_Ohio-BEAD-Initial-Proposal-Volume-II_vShare.pdf.). Other market-based approaches that encourage and reward lower prices without engaging in rate-setting can be found in the Initial Proposal, Volume 2, of South Carolina and South Dakota. (See State of South Carolina Initial Proposal, Volume II, Broadband Equity, Access, and Deployment Program 22-23, https://ors.sc.gov/sites/ors/files/Documents/Broadband/BEAD/Initial%20Proposal/South%20Carolina_BEAD_IP%20Volume%202%20Draft.pdf; State of South Dakota Initial Proposal, Volume II, Broadband Equity, Access, and Deployment Program 19, https://sdgoed.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/10/South-Dakota-BEAD-Volume-2-Initial-Proposal_DRAFT.pdf.) CTIA highlights these other approaches because all of them are preferrable to using a rate cap, which is a form of rate regulation, and such regulation is prohibited under the BEAD program. In the process of enacting the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (“IIJA”), federal lawmakers specifically barred broadband rate regulation in a subsection entitled “No Regulation of Rates Permitted.” (IIJA, Pub. L. 117-58, § 60102(h)(5)(D), 135 Stat. at 1201 (2021).) As a result, NTIA is barred from regulating rates, and it cannot impose conditions on or provide incentives to Eligible Entities to accomplish that goal indirectly. Approving proposals like UBC’s that contain a rate cap or otherwise engage in ratemaking would violate this prohibition. (See, e.g., HIAS, Inc. v. Trump, 985 F.3d 309, 325 (4th Cir. 2021) (Executive Branch may not impose conditions on a federal program that are inconsistent with the program’s statutory scheme); City & Cty. of San Francisco v. Trump, 897 F.3d 1225, 1234-35 (9th Cir. 2018) (Executive Branch violates Separation of Powers by attempting to condition federal funding on requirements not contained in underlying statute); City of Providence v. Barr, 954 F.3d 23, 45 (1st Cir. 2020) (same); City of Philadelphia v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 916 F.3d 276, 291 (3d Cir. 2019) (same); City of Chicago v. Barr, 961 F.3d 882, 909 (7th Cir. 2020) (same); see also La. Pub. Serv. Comm’n v. FCC, 476 U.S. 355, 374 (1986) (“[A]n agency literally has no power to act ... unless and until Congress confers power upon it.”)) Moreover, broadband service is an interstate information service and, as such, may not be subjected to common carrier regulations. (Restoring Internet Freedom, Declaratory Ruling, Report and Order, and Order, 33 FCC Rcd 311 (2018), pet. for rev. granted in part, denied in pertinent part, Mozilla Corp. v. FCC, 940 F.3d 1 (D.C. Cir. 2019) (per curiam). Even for the brief period between 2015-2018 when the FCC treated broadband service as a common carrier service, the FCC rejected rate regulation. See Protecting and Promoting the Open Internet, Report and Order on Remand, Declaratory Ruling and Order, 30 FCC Rcd 5601, 5775 ¶ 382, 5814 ¶ 451 (2015).) Rate regulation is a classic form of common carrier regulation. (See, e.g., MCI Telecomms. Corp. v. AT&T Co., 512 U.S. 218, 230-32 (1994) (rate regulation is a classic example of common carrier regulation).) Consequently, UBC’s authority to address affordability is cabined and circumscribed and may not include prescribing or otherwise regulating rates. (This is particularly true as to wireless broadband service, which is independently exempt from state rate regulation under federal law. See 47 U.S.C. § 332(c)(3)(A).) Given the linkage between UBC’s affordability scoring rubric and its middle-class affordability proposal, avoiding a rate cap also is consistent with NTIA’s direction that states should approach middle-class affordability through a “strategy,” not a specific rate plan. (Tricky Topics to Watch Out for in the Initial Proposal at 22.) If UBC, despite the unlawfulness of the approach, chooses to retain a rate cap to measure against (and again, CTIA strongly encourages UBC to use a market-based approach instead), UBC might consider using the FCC’s reasonable comparability benchmark for that purpose. (See Wireline Competition Bureau and Office of Economics and Analytics Announce Results of 2023 Urban Rate Survey for Fixed Voice and Broadband Services, FCC Public Notice, DA No. 22-1338, WC Docket No. 10-90 (rel. Dec. 16, 2022) (“Urban Rate Survey Public Notice”).) In fact, UBC cites the benchmark in Volume 2, but instead elects to us lower thresholds of $90 and $60. (Volume 2, at 85.) The FCC’s benchmark is based upon its Urban Rate Survey of broadband pricing applicable to recipients of support through similar broadband deployment programs, such as the Connect America Fund Phase II and Rural Digital Opportunity Fund. (See, e.g., 47 C.F.R. § 54.805(a) (“For purposes of determining reasonable comparability of rates, recipients are presumed to meet this requirement if they offer rates at or below the applicable benchmark to be announced annually by public notice issued by the Wireline Competition Bureau….”)) It shows that an unlimited data plan offering 100/20 Mbps would cost an average of $105.03 per month. (Urban Rate Survey Public Notice at 3.) Using the FCC’s benchmark will help ensure that rate plans available on networks built in Utah using federal deployment subsidies are similar, which will help avoid consumer confusion that could arise from companies potentially charging neighbors different rates depending on the federal subsidy program used to deploy the different network segments from which they receive service. CTIA and its member companies are proud of their record of making service more affordable for all Americans and support the BEAD program’s emphasis on ensuring affordable service offerings on BEAD-subsidized networks. But Volume 2’s approach to affordability fails to lay out an effective, legally sustainable strategy to ensure that middle class households in Utah can afford service from the providers funded by BEAD. These affordability requirements could also discourage qualified providers from bidding on areas at all, decreasing the likelihood of drawing competitive bids. | 12/14/2023 | UBC is incentivizing providers to offer more affordable services. | ||
67 | Benjamin | Aron | CTIA | BAron@ctia.org | Volume 2: Low-Cost Broadband Service Option (Requirement 16) | III. UBC SHOULD REVISE ITS LOW-COST PLAN TO IMPROVE PROMOTE BROAD PARTICIPATION BY POTENTIAL SUBGRANTEES (2.12 Low-Cost Broadband Service Option (Requirement 16)). CTIA and its members strongly support efforts to ensure that broadband service is affordable. The wireless industry has long been at the forefront of pioneering affordable options for consumers, such as the first prepaid wireless plans requiring no contract, credit check, or deposit. Wireless providers currently offer a variety of affordable plans in Utah, including plans supported by the Affordable Connectivity Program (“ACP”) and the FCC's Lifeline program. The majority of ACP customers choose wireless broadband service, demonstrating a strong consumer preference for the benefits of wireless broadband. (See USAC, ACP Enrollment and Claims Tracker, Additional ACP Data, Total Enrolled ACP Subscribers by Service, https://www.usac.org/about/affordable-connectivity-program/acp-enrollment-and-claimstracker/additional-acp-data/.) UBC appropriately ties its low-cost affordability option to the ACP and Lifeline programs but should revise Volume 2 to give providers flexibility to adjust their low-cost plans for inflation and cost of living increases, perhaps tied to a metric such as the Consumer Price Index. (Volume 2, at 83-84) Permitting subgrantees to adopt reasonable cost adjustments over time would be an economically sound approach, and one that NTIA expressly approves. (NTIA, Internet for All, Frequently Asked Questions and Answers Version 5.0, BEAD Program 45, https://broadbandusa.ntia.doc.gov/sites/default/files/2023-11/Broadband_Equity_Access_Deployment_Program_Frequently_Asked_Questions_Version_5.0.pdf. ) Such a modification will result in greater provider engagement and a more effective use of Utah’s BEAD funding. | 12/14/2023 | UBC has modified the low cost plan to account for small inflation adjustments | ||
68 | Benjamin | Aron | CTIA | BAron@ctia.org | Volume 2: Deployment Subgrantee Selection (Requirement 8) | IV. UBC SHOULD ELIMINATE PROPOSED OPEN ACCESS SCORING CRITERIA (2.4.2 Prioritization and Scoring Process (Requirement 8)). UBC’s scoring rubric would award points to subgrantees “based on the information submitted for each element of the open access category.” including “details regarding open access policy, … description of wholesale services and rates, … [and] identification of retail ISP partners and status of contract negotiations.” (Volume 2, at 34-35.) CTIA respectfully asks UBC to remove this scoring criterion. Last-mile open access policies are likely to increase the cost and complexity of deploying last-mile networks and are contrary to universal service goals because they create a burden on constructing last-mile networks in areas that are already expensive and difficult to serve. While the NOFO “encourages” open access criteria to the extent they do not conflict with primary criteria, such as affordability (NOFO at 45-46), non-priority projects will be considered primarily, if not exclusively, in broadband serviceable locations that exceed the Extremely High Cost Per Location. The high initial cost to serve in those locations makes it particularly inadvisable to increase either the cost or complexity of deployment, which could reduce overall affordability. | 12/14/2023 | UBC removed the Open Access incentives in the scoring | ||
69 | Benjamin | Aron | CTIA | BAron@ctia.org | Volume 2: Middle-Class Affordability Plans (Requirement 20) | See previously posted comment about middle class affordability plans relying on flawed affordability scoring plan. | 12/14/2023 | See previous comments | ||
70 | Benjamin | Aron | CTIA | BAron@ctia.org | Link to comment document | 12/14/2023 | Duplicate | |||
71 | Joshua | Butler | Human I-T | joshua.butler@human-i-t.org | Volume II Public Comment | On behalf of Human-I-T, I would like to express our gratitude to the Utah Broadband Center and the State of Utah for undertaking the crucial task of developing the State Broadband Equity and Deployment Plan and seeking public comment. We recognize this as an essential step in constructing a bridge to bring Utah residents across the digital divide, ensuring that they not only connect but thrive in the digital landscape. With over a decade of experience providing digital inclusion services, Human I-T stands as the country’s leading digital equity practitioner and nonprofit refurbisher of electronics and technology. We fully support the Utah Broadband Center's commitment to achieving equity through broadband access that is affordable and reliable for every resident of Utah. We firmly believe that access to technology is a right, not a privilege, and would like to highlight the following best practices we find critical to bridging the digital divide effectively: Holistic Digital Navigation: Focus on addressing all aspects of digital inclusion, including connectivity, access to devices, digital skills, and technical support. Provide comprehensive support to individuals or communities to ensure they have the necessary resources and knowledge to fully participate in the digital world. Assisted at Time of Call, Not 'Air Traffic Control': Be responsive and proactive in assisting individuals seeking support. Instead of acting as a controlling authority, aim to provide personalized assistance in real-time, addressing their specific needs and challenges, with solutions in-the-moment rather than pushing them to make additional phone calls or visit additional websites. Culturally Competent Services: Recognize and respect the diverse cultural backgrounds and identities of the communities served. Tailor services to meet the unique needs and preferences of different cultural groups, ensuring that everyone feels included and valued. Collaborative Process with Trusted Partners: Foster partnerships with community-based organizations (CBOs), local governments, educational entities, and other trusted stakeholders. Work together to identify and address digital inequities, leveraging collective expertise and resources to achieve more significant impact. In-person and Remote Support through Various Communication Channels: Offer both in-person and remote support options to accommodate different circumstances and preferences. Utilize multiple communication channels, such as phone, email, chat, or video conferencing, to ensure accessibility and convenience for individuals seeking assistance. Public/Private Partnerships will be vital to success. We encourage the Utah Broadband Center to work with partners such as Human I-T and other organizations with the experience of working with governmental entities to close the digital equity gap. With the obvious priority being to fund broadband infrastructure, Human-I-T believes the State of Utah should not wait until Digital Equity planning grants become available to begin to address the need for digital literacy. Residents can only truly be connected if they have access to a proper device and the skills to use that device. To further this point, it should be noted that the NOFO expressly contemplates that states may use BEAD funds for non-deployment activities. Human-I-T applauds the Utah Broadband Center for including a robust list of Non-Deployment activities to support the incoming broadband infrastructure. Often described as a “once in a lifetime opportunity”, the reality is that funds from the BEAD Program will not be enough to support long-term network maintenance, affordability subsidies, and digital skills training. State and territorial lawmakers should begin planning for these long-term costs now and work with their broadband offices and community stakeholders to plan for a foundation that can support these needs after the federal funds are spent. Thank you for your consideration of the above comments. Sincerely Joshua Butler Senior Policy & Advocacy Manage | 12/14/23 | This comment is relevant to the Digital Equity Plan. Utah Broadband Center will release the Utah State Digtail Equity plan this year. | ||
72 | Shari | Elrhouaoui | Conexon, LLC | shari.elrhouaoui@conexon.us | Volume 2: Deployment Subgrantee Selection (Requirement 8) | 1. The initial proposal should allow additional evaluation of eligible locations. Budgets are tailored to include only eligible locations. With fiber technology, the reality is that many more locations will have access to the network than eligible locations alone. Unfortunately, this method can result in a high cost per passing for a given project when looked at solely in terms of eligible locations. If the Office encounters a project with a high cost per passing, the Office should take into consideration the full impact of the project before casting judgment on the viability of the project. This can be done a few ways, but one of the simplest methods would be to compare the cost per household passed and the cost per household served (i.e. comparing the total number of passings of a given a project with the total number of eligible passings of a given project). 2. The initial proposal should allow more flexible project areas. 3. Fiber deployment should be prioritized. Fiber is the only future-proof and scalable technology on the market today and serves a dual purpose in strengthening smart grid capabilities. 4. Minimal BEAD Program Outlay should not be weighted so heavily. The scoring structure as it stands now favors technologies such as fixed wireless which are cheaper to deploy than a fiber network. Affordability should be given more weight than the outlay. This is the time and the funding pool that we need to bridge the digital divide. If we place focus on the least expensive solutions, we risk funding the technologies that are not able to provide reliable symmetrical speeds leaving people with a good enough solution for now, but unable to meet future network demands. 5. The initial proposal's scoring criteria disincentivizes fiber deployment, even though it places importance on the technology 6. The initial proposal should allow funding for middle-mile projects, in line with NTIA's guidance. 7. While most will agree with using actual data to determine the EHCPLT, the Office should note that fiber projects will have a higher cost per passing and we would recommend that this number be adjusted for different technologies, i.e. one EHCPL for fiber, and one for all other technologies; or the EHCPL should be based on fiber only projects. | 12/15/23 | Comments and questions will be addressed with the following responses: 1- ISP are allowed to tap into infrastructure upon completion of unserved and underserved BSL, but served BSL will not be counted in the total number of passing in the project area 2 - Project areas have not yet been defined 3-5 - Fiber deployment is prioritized over alternative technology solutions but they are not scored against each other. Wireless and fiber are scored differently 6 -Any middle mile project must be connected last mile underserved and unserved. Soley Middle Mile proposals are not eligible 7 - The EHCPLT is based on fiber only projects | ||
73 | Daniel | Myers | DojoNetworks | dan@dojonetworks.com | Volume 2: Low-Cost Broadband Service Option (Requirement 16) | The best solutions in MDU and affordable MDU are to deploy a Bulk managedWiFi system. Such a system, when built properly, provides ubiquitous WiFi and Internet coverage throughout the MDU for both internet and WiFI calling but also manages the RF spectrum so that all residents get a great experience and don't have issues with wireless interference caused by other residents in such a dense environment with multiple unsynchronized WiFi routers, so it is a much different environment then a single family home. Since MDUs typically have so many apartments in such a small footprint or space each apartment owners WiFi router interferes with their neighbors. This causes internet dropouts and slow speeds. A ManagedWiFi system coordinate the wireless frequencies of all of the devices in an entire building making the internet work much better for all residents. A bulk managedWiFi system will be owned by the property owner and improve the asset and increase the value of the asset. It allows the property owner to deploy building management assets and tools such as: lead detection, freeze and temperature sensors, door left open sensors for safety. And provides free internet for all residents. Individual cable or modem solutions such as fiber to the unit but purchased by the resident provide a less than ideal solution specifically in an MDU environment. The industry including NAA and NMHC are all advocating for ManagedWiFi solutions in MDUs today for the best experience for residents and for operators. It is also important to make sure that True ManagedWiFi is what is being deployed, here is some information about that: https://www.dojonetworks.com/blog/true-managed-wifi And here is some information about what NY has done around ManagedWiFi in affordable housing. I assisted them in defining the minimum specs: https://www.dojonetworks.com/blog/more-states-should-adopt-new-yorks-affordable-housing-internet-policies | 12/15/23 | UBC did not mention MDU's in Volume 2 | ||
74 | Daniel | Myers | DojoNetworks | dan@dojonetworks.com | Volume 2: Middle-Class Affordability Plans (Requirement 20) | The best solutions in MDU and affordable MDU are to deploy a Bulk managedWiFi system. Such a system, when built properly, provides ubiquitous WiFi and Internet coverage throughout the MDU for both internet and WiFI calling but also manages the RF spectrum so that all residents get a great experience and don't have issues with wireless interference caused by other residents in such a dense environment with multiple unsynchronized WiFi routers, so it is a much different environment then a single family home. Since MDUs typically have so many apartments in such a small footprint or space each apartment owners WiFi router interferes with their neighbors. This causes internet dropouts and slow speeds. A ManagedWiFi system coordinate the wireless frequencies of all of the devices in an entire building making the internet work much better for all residents. A bulk managedWiFi system will be owned by the property owner and improve the asset and increase the value of the asset. It allows the property owner to deploy building management assets and tools such as: lead detection, freeze and temperature sensors, door left open sensors for safety. And provides free internet for all residents. Individual cable or modem solutions such as fiber to the unit but purchased by the resident provide a less than ideal solution specifically in an MDU environment. The industry including NAA and NMHC are all advocating for ManagedWiFi solutions in MDUs today for the best experience for residents and for operators. It is also important to make sure that True ManagedWiFi is what is being deployed, here is some information about that: https://www.dojonetworks.com/blog/true-managed-wifi And here is some information about what NY has done around ManagedWiFi in affordable housing. I assisted them in defining the minimum specs: https://www.dojonetworks.com/blog/more-states-should-adopt-new-yorks-affordable-housing-internet-policies | 12/15/23 | UBC did not mention MDU's in the Volume 2 | ||
75 | Dale | Carey | Vertical Bridge | Dale.Carey@verticalbridge.com | Volume 2: Objectives (Requirement 1) | Vertical Bridge appreciates the opportunity to comment on aspects of the draft Utah Initial Proposal Volume II (“the draft”) for the BEAD program. We appreciate your consideration of our comments below. It is important for your draft to reflect the spirit of technical neutrality required by Congress in the law and specifically point out how non-pure-play Fiber-to-the-Home (FTTH) subgrantees can participate in the BEAD program in your state. The Initial BEAD Proposal should maintain qualification criterion based on broadband data rates at the statutory definition of 100 Mbps/20 Mbps. Imposing data rate requirement that go beyond this definition established by Congress and reflected in the Notice of Funding Opportunity (NOFO) is limit’s your state’s options and is not justifiable. Under the IIJA statute, eligible areas under the BEAD program are defined as areas with speeds less than 25/3 Mbps (Unserved) and speeds less than 100 Mbps/20 Mbps (underserved). The statute does not identify or allow for expanding the requirements for eligibility. Further, the statute requires technological neutrality in awarding funding under this program. Fixed wireless is a reliable broadband service that can provide the speeds required for BEAD funding. These speeds offer more than enough throughput to meet the needs of customers today and in the future. Specifically, the 100/20 Mbps speed threshold can more than support the members of a five-person family who are simultaneously using video apps to work, learn, visit with doctors and friends, and watch movies. This is not a battle between technologies. Fiber and fixed wireless are both incredible technologies that will make sense to deploy in different areas. Both are upgradeable as technology advances. Your draft should allow providers and consumers the opportunity to choose the right mix of technology to meet their deployment and non-deployment policy objectives. It is imperative that you establish an Extremely High-Cost Threshold (EHCT) in a manner that encourages participation by providers of all technologies that can achieve your goal of serving every household in the state. Mobile Broadband Access is Essential, Not a Luxury. We strongly recommend that you consider articulating specifically how mobile broadband (5G) can participate in the BEAD program within your state. Many individuals, families, and small businesses rely upon mobile broadband as their primary means to access broadband services. Mobile 5G can deliver the minimum broadband data rates required under the IIJA and NOFO and your Initial BEAD Proposal should explicitly mention how mobile 5G will play a role in how you disperse BEAD funding. Wireless is The Affordable Broadband Option. While it is a laudable goal to connect as many homes as possible, institutions, and businesses with fiber, the fact remains that many who will have access to fiber will not be able to afford it. As you know, the NOFO requires states to consider means to ensure broadband affordability. Wireless, both fixed and mobile, can be that solution. Several national operators are having great success in FWA adoption because it is an affordable option. Some individuals and families can only afford mobile service and are not in a financial position to add a new fiber or cable bill to their monthly budget, even if BEAD is funding a new fiber connection to their home or place of education or workplace. In 2021, 15 percent of Americans were “smartphone-only” broadband users that do not have traditional home broadband service. They have “cut the cord” and cannot afford or have decided not to purchase another expensive wireline connection. For footnote: (https://www.pewresearch.org/internet/fact-sheet/internet-broadband/) The Establishment of Critical Resiliency Need (CRN) criteria. Some states have included scoring criteria to encourage subgrantees to include “Critical Resiliency Need (CRN)” which would include emergency resiliency with wireless infrastructure. We support the inclusion of this scoring criteria. Wireless service is generally restored most rapidly after an emergency. Consumers rely on their wireless phones when they lose electric power and when they are mobile. Fiber networks are less resilient and take longer to restore, and it is more costly to do so, which impacts their sustainability. The large subsidies that are required to build fiber to difficult-to-serve areas will render them uneconomic to restore in the wake of disasters, when those subsidies are no longer available, making them far from future-proof. Even in the very short-term, let alone long-term future, backup power to FTTH generally lasts only 24 hours or less, rendering them completely inoperable in events like hurricanes where power is wiped out for weeks or even months. That is why citizens rely on their cellphones in emergencies, given that power is available due to backup generators located at the tower. The availability of mobile networks and FWA will facilitate a fast restoration of broadband services following major weather events or other emergencies. This concept should recognize the role that 5G networks enhance resiliency with respect to both mobile and fixed wireless access (FWA). In resiliency zones (i.e., CRN), ubiquitous 5G should be a priority goal and objective and in these areas, applications to provide mobile 5G or FWA should not be considered duplicative or de-conflicting of FTTH applications in the same area when evaluating applications. Further, the draft should clarify that wireless infrastructure that is linked to CRN will be considered in all funding rounds and not dependent upon the timing of the establishment of an EHCT. Create a Separate Section on the Role of Wireless in the BEAD Initial Proposal. It would be helpful for you to create a new section in your draft that specifically addresses how you envision wireless technologies will be a part of your short and long-term strategies. While we acknowledge that there is a strong pro-fiber leaning the NOFO, wireless technologies, both fixed and mobile, will play an important role in the BEAD program in your state. Your draft should reflect this role and including a specific section in your Initial Proposal will help ensure that your BEAD funding will utilize the right mix of technological solutions that will expand access and improve affordability. Our bottom line is that we encourage you to provide a specific section in your BEAD Initial Proposal that explicitly addresses the role of wireless in how you intend to utilize BEAD funding. Further, we encourage you to consider the important role that mobile broadband plays in your broadband plan. Respectfully Submitted, Dale A. Carey EVP of Strategy and Convergence Vertical Bridge REIT, LLC | 12/15/23 | Wireless and alternative technology projects will be considered where fiber projects are not reasonable | ||
76 | Kira | Slawson | Utah Rural Telecom Association | kslawson@blackburn-stoll.com | Volume 2: Deployment Subgrantee Selection (Requirement 8) | URTA welcomes the opportunity to comment on Utah’s Initial Proposal, Volume 2 (IP) addressing the Broadband Equity, Access, and Deployment (BEAD) program. URTA thanks the Utah Broadband Center (UBC) for its hard work with BEAD program so far. URTA’s membership remains committed to increase broadband services throughout the state and anticipates its members will actively participate in Utah’s BEAD program. Preliminarily, we were under the impression that UBC would be including some instruction/policy on cabins and/or seasonal vacation (second) homes. The State of Utah should focus the BEAD dollars on primary homes with year round access. URTA will focus its comments on the infrastructure deployment portion of Volume 2. URTA recognizes that after the needs of unserved and underserved locations and community anchor institutions (CAIs) are addressed, there are other digital equity related objectives the UBC seeks to undertake, provided there are sufficient BEAD funds for these purposes. URTA urges the UBC to ensure that its infrastructure deployment objectives are met with the federal funds before planning to use extra funds for digital equity purposes. It seems premature to explore digital equity initiatives while deployment costs for unserved, underserved, and CAIs are still undetermined. The following are comments, questions, and observations intended to improve Utah’s BEAD program rollout to ensure maximal participation and effectiveness. For administrative efficiency, URTA will follow the sections of volume 2 in providing its input rather than address items in order of priority. 1. Section 2.4.1: The creation of Project Funding Areas (PFAs) is an important and critical step in Utah’s BEAD program. The IP states that UBC will not accept challenges on the creation or composition of PFAs. URTA takes this to mean that the UBC will not welcome any input on the PFA creation process. URTA believes the UBC will be better served if it welcomed input from interested providers on the creation of PFAs. For example, including tribal and non-tribal areas in the same PFA can result in deployment issues and significant construction delays. This is particularly troublesome in the Uintah Basin where the tribal areas are not contiguous, but rather create a checkerboard of ownership. Seeking input after the pre-registration process but before the creation of the PFAs may avoid the need for the UBC to remedy PFAs that do not receive provider interest. This process could be inferred to be implicit in the process with UBC’s intent to conduct outreach with providers. URTA believes an explicit collection of comments on the creation of the PFAs is appropriate and withstands any transparency challenge to the process. 2. Questions: o Will the UBC provide a template for the pre-registration submissions other than the .csv template to identify broadband serviceable locations (BSLs)? URTA submits that a standard template for all portions of the pre-registration process would be welcomed by all providers. o UBC indicates that all submissions must be marked as proprietary and confidential under the Utah Open Records Act, or the responses will be made publicly available. At what point will responses not marked confidential be made publicly available? After the deadline? After the award? After construction is completed? 3. UBC states that the .csv file must contain the census block groups (CBGs) or portions of CBGs the applicant intends to serve. Yet, it also states Utah’s PFAs “will be defined by CBG.” URTA seeks clarification on whether any portions of CBGs will be assigned separately to PFAs. Why does the UBC want portions of CBGs identified when PFAs will be defined by CBG and not subparts of CBGs? The IP indicates later that UBC will make adaptations to PFAs, presumably to adjust PFAs to a smaller than CBG geography in certain instances. This needs clarification. URTA believes creation of PFAs only along a CBG or collection of CBG boundaries is too restrictive and that portions of CBGs should be considered for PFAs. Consider the situation where there are multiple small islands of BSLs in a CBG. It may be more efficient to allow providers to apply for selections of the BSLs in the CBG rather than apply for the entire CBG. This approach is more aligned with NTIA’s vision that a project may be a single unserved BSL or a grouping of BSLs. The IP currently defines a CBG as the minimum geographical area for PFAs. URTA recommends more flexibility on the creation of PFAs, or at least clarify the PFA creation process. 4. URTA is unclear how the pre-registration and subsequent application processes work and what limits exist. For example, is an applicant restricted in its application(s) to the BSLs identified in its pre-registration submission? Or, can a pre-registrant apply for PFAs regardless of whether the BSLs in the PFA were identified in its pre-registration submission? Said another way, if a provider pre-registers in one area of the state, is the provider eligible to apply for PFAs across the state? Or is it limited in its application submission by what it submits in pre-registration? Also, if an applicant pre-registers for an area, it is obligated to apply for the PFA containing that area in the application process? In all circumstances, URTA recommends maximum flexibility for providers after PFAs are established. 5. UBC states that it wants costs for PFAs to be segregated to identify incremental costs to provide “complete universal service.” URTA is unclear what UBC means by the term complete universal service. BEAD has defined service obligations—is UBC expanding the Utah BEAD obligations for other services? If UBC is seeking incremental costs to reach 100% coverage in a PFA, this implies that different technologies may be used. “Universal service” should not be used to describe “100% coverage.” Clarification on this point is needed. 6. Does the term “application area” refer to PFA or some other area definition? 7. Does the phrase “submitting a proposal” refer to the pre-registration or application submission? 8. The IP states that if there is only one application for a PFA and it meets certain criteria, the proposal is the default winner. URTA believes this would set a problematic public policy. This default award only works if there is sufficient funding for all priority projects in all PFAs where the applicant proposes end-to-end fiber optic facilities. The BEAD program funds are limited, so implementation of this policy could result in the entire fund going to one PFA (if no one else bid on the same PFA). We believe a better approach is to have the various priority broadband projects compared using the scoring matrix to determine which should be funded. The IP should qualify the default rule to apply only when there is sufficient BEAD support to award all default PFAs. 9. Section 2.4.2 and Section 2.12-2.13: o Applications that propose to construct end-to-end fiber-optic facilities to all BSLs in a Project Funding Area will be defined as a “Priority Broadband Project.” Applications that do not propose to construct end-to-end fiber optic facilities to all BSLs in a Project Funding Area will be defined as an “Other Last-Mile Broadband Deployment Project.” How is “end to end” defined? A provider may have existing infrastructure in an area which does not require new “end to end” facilities to be built. It is likely that only new last mile facilities will be required in many areas. o Minimal Bead Outlay Scoring Matrix Can a “high-cost” area project, which is exempt from a matching funds requirement, receive all 50 points under the “Minimal Bead Outlay Requirement? With regard to the “Minimal Bead Outlay” can you explain whether other public funds or grants can be stacked to reach this threshold? Under the Minimal Bead Outlay matrix, a provider can be awarded a maximum of 50 points. Under the Project Match Percentage, if a provider has a 50% match, they get 10 points. Should these sections be reconciled? o With regard to the Economic Need on Priority Broadband Projects scoring matrix, please describe how “economically distressed areas” will be identified? o The scoring matrix for priority projects defines a price of less than $90 per month for 1Gbps symmetrical service to receive maximum points. This price is very aggressive and possibly unsustainable. The FCC’s national urban benchmark for 1Gbps/500Mbps is $142.75. Requiring providers to offer a $90 rate for maximum points for a service that is double the upload speed of the national benchmark has the potential to affect the long-term sustainability of the network. URTA recommends UBC use the FCC’s national urban benchmark value for the scoring matrix and for BEAD low-cost pricing requirements. If the UBC opts not to use the FCC’s national urban benchmark threshold used for federal universal service affordability determinations, all service prices in the BEAD program should be adjusted annually to inflation as providers are committing to these prices over the multi-decade life of the asset. o The speed to deployment scoring matrix is unrealistic. It is URTA’s member experience that significant projects with permitting requirements require two or more years to complete. Deployment of facilities in tribal areas requires even longer. Relatedly, what is the penalty to a provider that commits to an unrealistic timeframe and then needs more time? URTA recommends UBC not setup providers to fail by using an unrealistic speed to deploy criterion. UBC should award maximum points for projects that deploy within two years. Such requirement should also have a six month cure period in the event a provider misses its deployment milestone. Additionally, the State might consider an exit policy if permitting becomes untenable. 10. Section 2.4.3: With regard to Community Anchor Institutions, will UBC publish a list of CAIs? 11. Section 2.4.5: Compliance with EHB and BABA requirements. Can applicant supplied matching funds be used to purchase non-BABA compliant materials, even where BEAD provided funds cannot be so used? 12. Section 2.4.9: The Extremely High-Cost Threshold Locations discussion anticipates creating the threshold after UBC receives applications. Does the UBC expect that applicants will need to resubmit applications to address the threshold process in the IP? URTA believes a better course would be for UBC to identify a preliminary threshold prior to submissions to assist the providers to more accurately determine applications areas. 13. Section 2.4.10.c: Use of Extremely High Cost Per Location Threshold. UBC states: “In cases where a priority broadband project area exceeds the EHCPLT, the UBC will solely consider non-priority broadband projects, even if they do not meet the criteria for reliable broadband service. Are you stating that a fiber solution will not be considered for these locations? Sincerely, The Utah Rural Telecom Association | 12/15/23 | Questions and comments will be addressed with the following questions: 1 - UBC has added language that will evaluate land ownership when defining project funding areas (pg 20 Vol 2) land ownership areas when we finalize the project areas. 2. Yes, UBC will provide technical assistnce during the pre registration. Only the list of applicants will be published without location information. 3. It depends. 4-7. Lanuage has been added to clarify. 8. Refer to page 42 of the BEAD NOFO for priority broadband project requirements. 9. We will ask NTIA for clarification and the definition on "end-to-end" 10. We added scoring to project areas that match in the table on page - Minimal BEAD outlay: Yes except for federal funds Minimal BEAD outlay scoring matrix: This scoring rubric has been revised - "High-cost area project": At $142 no points and you will recieve more points the lower you go. - UBC will confirm with NTIA 11. UBC has published a list of CAIs in Volume 1 12. UBC will consider this suggestion 13. We've revised the language to be less exlcusive about project types. | ||
77 | Kira | Slawson | URTA | KiraM@blackburn-stoll.com | Link to comment document | 12/15/23 | Duplicate | |||
78 | GEORGE | KERSTETTER | MOUNTAINLAND SUPPLY | george.kerstetter@mountainland.com | Volume 2: Deployment Subgrantee Selection (Requirement 8) | As an integral part of the Utah community and a stakeholder in the development of our state's broadband infrastructure, I propose that Utah-headquartered businesses, particularly those in the Drilling and Utilities sector such as Mountainland Supply, should be given preferential bidding rights for the Broadband Equity, Access, and Deployment (BEAD) projects. Justification for Preferential Bidding Rights: 1. Local Economic Stimulation: Utah-headquartered businesses, like Mountainland Supply, play a pivotal role in keeping financial resources within the state. According to Local First Utah, independent businesses significantly contribute to keeping millions of dollars recirculating in the Utah economy. By granting these businesses preferential rights, more funds would remain within our local ecosystem, boosting economic vitality. 2. Employment Opportunities: Small businesses are the backbone of the US economy and a key source of jobs. The Small Business Administration notes that small businesses have provided many jobs and a significant portion of new jobs since the 1970s. By supporting Utah-headquartered businesses, we can create and sustain local employment, benefiting residents directly. 3. Community Development and Support: Businesses like Mountainland Supply have longstanding relationships within local communities. These relationships are not only commercial but also socio-economic, contributing to the overall development and well-being of the regions they serve. 4. Alignment with BEAD's Spirit and Intent: The spirit and intent of the BEAD funding are to enhance communities through improved connectivity. By prioritizing businesses embedded within these communities, we ensure that the outcomes of the BEAD projects are closely aligned with the needs and aspirations of the people living in these areas. 5. Environmental Considerations: Local businesses often engage in practices that are more environmentally sustainable, such as making more local purchases and requiring less transportation. This approach aligns with a broader commitment to reducing environmental impacts. 6. Building Stronger Relationships: Small businesses, including those in the Drilling and Utilities sector, often build strong relationships with local ties, aiding community development efforts. In conclusion, by granting preferential bidding rights to Utah-headquartered businesses for the BEAD projects, we can encapsulate the full circle of benefits - enhancing the communities we live in and serve, increasing employment and commerce opportunities, and fulfilling the true spirit of the BEAD funding. This approach will not only aid in broadband deployment but will also strengthen the socio-economic fabric of our beloved state. | 12/15/23 | Utah is not able to contract Utah suppliers only. UBC member has spoken with commentor and provided explanation | ||
79 | Steven | Schwerbel | WISPA - Broadband Without Boundaries | sschwerbel@wispa.org | Volume 2: Objectives (Requirement 1) | UBC lays out robust goals addressing all aspects of the BEAD program, including both expansion and non-deployment projects such as digital equity (“DE”) programming such as “training for digital independence” and “support for sustainable community programs.” WISPA supports a heavy emphasis on ensuring the state is able to undertake meaningful DE programming. Throughout the BEAD NOFO, the role that equity programs will play is clear –DE is a vital component of BEAD. As recently as December 5, 2023, NTIA Administrator Alan Davidson reiterated to the House Communications and Technology Subcommittee the important role DE efforts play in gauging the success of the broader BEAD program: “we can build a connection to somebody’s home, but …even if they can afford that connection and they don’t have the skills or the tools or the devices to get online then all of this work is for naught” (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1u-N1Zh34mg at 1:27:55). However, it is not clear that Utah will be able to fully or even partially fund these non-deployment projects, noting in Requirement 9 that “Utah does not anticipate sub-granting Broadband Equity, Access, and Deployment (BEAD) funds for non-deployment activities due to budget constraints.” WISPA believes this does not need to be the case, and indeed can be avoided through thoughtful policy solutions. With an appropriate combination of technologies, including Fixed Wireless Access (“FWA”) networks using both licensed and unlicensed (“uFWA”) spectrum, UBC can realize cost savings that Utah will be able to put toward DE efforts. An industry report by the Carmel Group (“The Carmel Report”) notes the significant cost differences between fiber and FWA: “it generally costs less than $500 in network capital outlay for a WISP to connect a fixed-wireless customer versus approximately $4,500 to connect a fiber subscriber” (https://www.wispa.org/docs/2021_WISPA_Report_FINAL.pdf). These cost savings can be realized without sacrificing speed or technical reliability: the radio technology WISPA members use to provide broadband service to their customers has seen dramatic innovation over the last decade, with current technology offering 1 Gbps download speeds that exceed the BEAD NOFO’s minimum standards (https://www.taranawireless.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2022/05/Tarana-G1-Data-Sheet_2022.05.23.pdf). WISPA members such as Resound Networks and NextLink have demonstrated the ability of FWA technology to deliver cutting-edge service in the field (https://airspan.com/news/resound-networks-and-airspan-networks-successfully-test-1-gigabit-per-second-fixed-wireless-access-fwa-services-using-6-ghz-spectrum/, https://nextlinkinternet.com/gigabit-6-ghz-fixed-wireless-is-a-reality/). This trend will only continue in the future. Taken together, this suggests that the fundamental goal of UBC’s BEAD program should be to successfully connect all unserved and underserved BSLs as quickly and cost-effectively as possible using the widest range of available technologies in order to maximize its investment. Using this “best tool for the job” approach, including robust deployments of FWA networks, will ensure that savings realized through wise technology investments are able to be prioritized to non-deployment activities. WISPA’s subsequent discussions will be geared toward identifying opportunities to achieve this goal. | 12/15/23 | UBC is addressing DE needs in the Digital Equity Plan. If there is enough funding, we will consider these suggestions. We have addititional funds to focus on Digital Equity through the Digital Equity capacity grant funds. UBC expects to use non-fiber technologies. Thank you for the comment. | ||
80 | Steven | Schwerbel | WISPA - Broadband Without Boundaries | sschwerbel@wispa.org | Volume 2: Deployment Subgrantee Selection (Requirement 8) | Preregistration WISPA appreciates the potential advantages of a prequalification phase before Utah launches its grant process. In this, WISPA strongly supports UBC using a “light lift” prequalification document that will not unduly burden small providers who may be only considering a BEAD application. These small companies will not have the significant manpower resources to dedicate to in-depth and highly technical responses, and may be filtered out by any process that requires significant staff time to complete. Several of the BEAD gating criteria may be challenging to fully address before the grant process even begins, and UBC should remain cognizant of the unintended bureaucratic hurdles a poorly-designed prequalification phase may have. Additionally, WISPA encourages UBC to create an avenue by which a provider can submit a grant after the prequalification phase has closed, as some small providers may recognize potential opportunities to expand their networks somewhat later in the process and still wish to participate. Project Boundaries Broadband costs depend significantly on factors of soil composition, topography, and population density. Generally, prioritizing a small project area territory will ensure that these factors remain reasonably consistent and proposed projects will not have to address significant disparities in service types. WISPA expresses concern that using Census Block Groups (“CBGs”) to define Project Funding Areas (“PFAs”) as UBC proposes may be too large to be easily served by one technology type or grant proposal, as it may comprise diverse geographic and soil features, and especially given the significant range of topographies in the state – issues which may be compounded by uneven population densities in a given project area. CBGs may also use road center lines as boundaries, pushing UBC to duplicate fiber lines down both sides of a road. Providers may see approaches to building out networks that are not immediately apparent to the state, and existing networks may suggest approaches to covering grant areas in unforeseen ways that do not correlate to pre-existing political boundaries. WISPA encourages UBC seek project boundaries that most limit geographic, soil composition, and population density diversity and creates the most physically compact project areas – Michigan, for example, has proposed a Hexbin model, while a number of other states will define their own project boundaries based on the factors above as well as BSLs remaining to be served. Using the smallest possible project boundary will yield several significant benefits: 1.) Being smaller, the range of grant proposals will likely come from more providers offering a wider range of alternatives for serving a given territory. This will increase participation by small providers. 2.) The increased number of applications will help UBC prioritize Minimum BEAD Outlay per project area, thus finding savings to pass on to DE efforts, and identify areas where providers find it more feasible to offer a higher match percentage. 3.) In identifying more targeted areas that are extremely challenging to serve, UBC can better prioritize its Extremely High Cost Per Location Threshold (“EHCPLT”) and identify opportunities to further save costs by employing alternative technologies. Fixed Wireless Access (“FWA”) alternatives may be especially valuable in these areas, as they offer significant savings in both project cost and time to deployment (https://www.wispa.org/docs/2021_WISPA_Report_FINAL.pdf). UBC is encouraged to follow the model put forward in Colorado’s Initial Proposal Volume 2, which includes a period of public comment on proposed project areas before finalizing its project areas. Grant Process and Scoring WISPA appreciates UBC’s grant application process, which appears to balance the BEAD NOFO’s fiber prioritization with an understanding that there may be instances in which “UBC requests, and the NTIA Assistant Secretary grants, a waiver allowing UBC to select an alternative project.” Similarly, WISPA strongly supports UBC’s recognition that “[s]ome Project Funding Areas may be optimally served by a combination of fiber optic technology, hybrid fiber coaxial cable (HFC), or fixed wireless.” This balance will serve Utah well in selecting the best and most cost-effective project for an individual PFA. WISPA supports UBC’s focus on “Minimum BEAD Outlay” for both Priority Broadband Projects and Other Last-Mile Broadband Deployments to Minimal BEAD Outlay. UBC rightly recognizes that its BEAD funds are not unlimited, and that it will need to maximize its outlay wherever possible to achieve universal service. Focusing on prioritizing the “most cost-efficient applications determined by evaluating the total funding requested to provide broadband access to a defined application area” will encourage providers to “put their best foot forward” and offer the most cost-competitive applications they can. While WISPA appreciates Utah’s evaluation of the proposed grant match percentage offered by each provider, WISPA also strongly supports UBC’s discussion of targeted waivers for this criterion. As Utah reaches the most remote and challenging BSLs to serve, local providers and communities will likely have fewer resources, but face higher costs of service. Recognizing this impact, several other states, including Oregon, Kansas, and Vermont, have requested a targeted waiver of the matching grant component for providers in high-cost areas. While WISPA believes it is vital to ensure that providers have an appropriate level of “skin in the game” and believes the state should not be expected to fund 100 percent of any project with taxpayer funds, the ability to allow individual projects to reduce the required matching percentage will broaden the ability of communities and small ISPs to participate in Utah’s BEAD program. Further, WISPA supports “Speed to Deployment” as a vital priority for UBC’s Secondary Criteria: the opportunity cost of waiting for a broadband network to be completed is significant. In a white paper titled Getting to the Broadband Future Efficiently with BEAD Funding, MIT economist Dr. William Lehr notes that “studies have variously estimated the value of broadband at around $2,000 to $4,000 per subscriber per year. These estimates suggest that delaying the availability of broadband for two years because of the prioritization of FTTP to the 8 million unserved locations identified in the FCC mapping data may forego $32 to $64 billion in total surplus. These substantial opportunity costs cannot be overlooked” (https://www.wispa.org/docs/Lehr_White_Paper_Final.pdf). BABA Waiver WISPA recognizes the need to contemplate implementation of Build America, Buy American (BABA) Act requirements, but encourages UBC to support NTIA’s limited non-availability waiver for certain construction materials and manufactured products, and to continue to work with Utah’s ISP community to understand the impact of supply chain issues on the potential need for other waivers that will support the swift and efficient deployment of broadband infrastructure across the state. Extremely High Cost Per Location Threshold WISPA appreciates the care UBC has put into its consideration of setting an appropriate EHCPLT. Facing “a projected overall shortfall of $350-$400 Million BEAD funds to achieve universal Fiber to the Premise (FTTX) service,” it is clear that all technologies must be on the table for Utah to truly close the digital divide. Given the greater flexibility the EHCPLT gives UBC to consider high-speed FWA, including uFWA, this issue is vitally important to WISPA members. If the EHCPLT is set too high, there will be a gap between locations funded with Priority Broadband Projects and those that do not meet the EHCPLT, leading providers to not bid on certain project areas. Indeed, the EHCPLT is a vital tool not merely for determining how many locations Utah’s BEAD allocation can serve with fiber, but in maximizing cost savings that will allow UBC to undertake robust non-deployment activities. On December 13, 2023, the Vernonburg Group released a fully-interactive Broadband Funding Optimization Tool, underwritten by WISPA, that allows states to consider their policy choices and the ways they can optimize funding to achieve the goal of universal broadband (https://www.vernonburggroup.com/broadband-funding-optimization-tool). The Optimization Tool includes variables such as the funding amounts from all current programs, the amount of matching funds, and the percentage of aerial and underground fiber to determine an optimum EHCPLT and the percentage of locations that will require alternative technologies such as FWA and satellite. Assuming UBC averages the BEAD-mandated 25% match from subgrantees and deploys 58% buried fiber, the Optimization Tool shows that an EHCPLT of $18,976 results in savings of $39.8 million to connect CAIs and undertake other non-deployment activities. This balance yields a mix of 67% of BSLs to be served by fiber, 27% served by FWA, and 6% by satellite. If UBC increases its average grant match to 35%, holding other factors constant, an EHCPLT of $19,734 would yield a mix of 68% fiber, 27% FWA, and 5% satellite, with savings of $94.2 million. This tool is available for Utah to use to test its assumptions and understandings of the possibilities offered by an appropriate EHCPLT. WISPA encourages UBC to consider the Colorado Broadband Office’s conclusion that it must focus on alternative technologies in EHCPLT areas elsewhere: “In cases where a priority broadband project area exceeds the [EHCPLT], the OBD will solely consider non-priority broadband projects, even if they do not meet the criteria for reliable broadband” (https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Um_uLrR7IjTcdMbsOdW3QvrNxsskLxnl/view). Letter of Credit While letters of credit were required under the initial BEAD NOFO, NTIA announced a conditional programmatic waiver to the letter of credit (“LOC”) requirement on November 1, 2023, allowing alternatives including performance bonds and issuing funding on a reimbursement basis (https://broadbandusa.ntia.gov/funding-programs/policies-waivers/BEAD-Letter-of-Credit-Waiver). This waiver came about due to the work of a broad coalition representing the entire spectrum of broadband stakeholders, including many WISPA members. While NTIA and Utah have a legitimate interested in ensuring that subgrantees have the financial capability to undertake the projects they propose, the original LOC mechanism is an inappropriate tool and would stifle, rather than encourage, applications by small business. Recently, Weiss bank safety ratings for many banks, even extremely large banks, have fallen below B-, making it even more difficult for smaller providers to obtain letters of credit, or to do so on acceptable terms. A number of CAF and RDOF recipients are currently being forced to replace LOCs because the banks providing them have recently become ineligible and leading to the potential suspension of federal support. The significant costs of the LOC are explained in an ex parte letter WISPA filed with the FCC before the FCC released its Rural Digital Opportunity Fund (RDOF) Phase I Auction Order in February 2020 (https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/101231379529828/1). Consistent with NTIA’s programmatic waiver, WISPA strongly supports Utah’s use of the waiver for all providers and UBC’s adoption of the full range of alternatives offered in the NTIA’s waiver. Further discussion of the impact of the LOC requirement on minority businesses and women-owned enterprises follows in Requirement 13. Audited Financials Consistent with the BEAD NOFO, WISPA supports UBC’s proposal to allow unaudited financial information “if the applicant has not been audited during the ordinary course of business,” provided that the subgrantee commits to providing the audited documents if its proposal is selected. Opening the BEAD process in this way will allow new entrants to participate without bearing the cost of an audit as “table stakes” while ensuring that appropriately audited financial information is available at an appropriate point. Plans signed by Professional Engineer UBC plans to require providers to produce network plans “certified by a professional engineer.” However, requiring a professional engineer’s signature would be inefficient and lead to a reduction in small providers’ ability to participate. Frequently, professional engineers are not best qualified to evaluate network design if they do not have significant experience in broadband network design; further, many small companies may be unable to afford the cost of engaging a professional engineer, and, as the Federal Communications Commission determined in July 2022 (https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/DA-22-733A1.pdf) and again just a few days ago (https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/DA-23-1123A1.pdf), such qualifications are not always readily available where a provider would otherwise like to hire one. WISPA encourages UBC to explicitly adopt the waiver conditions the FCC granted to its own professional engineering certification rules and to work with the provider community to determine alternative authorities who could qualify to certify that network plans are appropriately designed. | 12/15/23 | UBC has revised the language for project boundaries The pre-registration is required and technical assistance will be provided. We revised language to include the BABA Waiver in Volume 2 UBC will use disgression to modify the match | ||
81 | Steven | Schwerbel | WISPA - Broadband Without Boundaries | sschwerbel@wispa.org | Volume 2: Non-Deployment Subgrantee Selection (Requirement 9) | Utah makes clear that it is unlikely to be able to fund any non-deployment efforts, including DE programming. This would be an unfortunate policy result of an inability to realize savings through FWA as a more prevalent alternative to fiber. Indeed, the BEAD NOFO makes clear that DE programs should be robust and should be seen as an integral part of the overall program. However, an appropriate EHCPLT combined with a subgrantee selection scoring rubric that incentivizes opportunities for FWA projects to compete will generally increase the likelihood that the state will find enough cost savings to create a meaningful equity program. | 12/15/23 | We are addressing DE needs in the Digital Equity Plan. If there is enough funding, we will do this. We have addititional funds to focus on Digital Equity through the Digital Equity capacity grant funds. | ||
82 | Steven | Schwerbel | WISPA - Broadband Without Boundaries | sschwerbel@wispa.org | Volume 2: MBEs/WBEs/Labor Surplus Firms Inclusion (Requirement 13) | WISPA greatly appreciates Utah’s focus on the importance of MBEs and WMEs. On September 6, 2023, WISPA joined a wide range of broadband leaders in signing a memo titled “BEAD – Alternatives to the Irrevocable Standby Letter of Credit Requirement” (https://connecthumanity.fund/wp-content/uploads/2023/09/Re_-BEAD-%E2%80%94-alternatives-to-the-irrevocable-standby-letter-of-credit-requirement_Sep6.pdf). The letter makes the LOC requirement’s negative impact on MBEs and WMEs clear: “by establishing capital barriers too steep for all but the best-funded ISPs, the LOC shuts out the vast majority of entities the program claims to prioritize: small and community-centered ISPs, minority and women-owned ISPs, nonprofits, and municipalities.” WISPA reiterates its support for plans that utilize the NTIA’s conditional programmatic waiver of the letter of credit requirements to pursue alternative mechanisms to ensure fiscal accountability in the BEAD grant process. | 12/15/23 | Thank you for your comment | ||
83 | Steven | Schwerbel | WISPA - Broadband Without Boundaries | sschwerbel@wispa.org | Volume 2: Cost and Barrier Reduction (Requirement 14) | As it further considers opportunities to reduce costs and barriers to speedy deployment, WISPA supports UBC’s approach to incorporating a “Broadband-Ready Communities” model to give local communities an additional tool to grapple with the challenges of bureaucratic approvals and costs. A Pew memo describes the potential benefits of implementing these standards: “These programs are designed to create efficiencies in broadband deployment, provide a signal to developers and ISPs that a community is willing to work with them toward broadband expansion projects, and foster local leadership and collaboration in all broadband development efforts” (https://www.pewtrusts.org/-/media/assets/2023/04/broadband-ready-communities-ta-memo-pdf.pdf). | 12/15/23 | Thank you for your comment | ||
84 | Steven | Schwerbel | WISPA - Broadband Without Boundaries | sschwerbel@wispa.org | Volume 2: Climate Assessment (Requirement 15) | WISPA encourages UBC to consider including climate-related concerns in its scoring model: these issues can be addressed in unique ways by FWA networks. Given the cost of trenching fiber, buried fiber will likely present significant hurdles in both cost and time, incentivizing providers to move toward aerial fiber deployments that are vulnerable to impacts from the flooding, severe storms, wildfires, and other climate hazards that Utah plans to address. By contrast, FWA deployments utilize towers and other vertical infrastructure that can better withstand severe climate events and thus do not have the vulnerabilities presented by fiber, presenting a more appealing solution to the problem of deploying high-speed solutions in challenging terrains. Indeed, states like California, FWA providers are frequently called upon to step in to provide emergency connectivity support for first responders battling wildfires, as their infrastructure is unaffected by these natural disasters. FWA networks may be vital lifelines when winter snowstorms have knocked down aerial fiber deployments or flooding has affected buried fiber. All technologies involve tradeoffs, but FWA networks can offer powerful redundancies when disasters strike and communities and first responders need broadband access most. Utah will undoubtedly be able to identify climate concerns that can be better mitigated against by FWA deployments, rather than fiber. Further, a recent white paper from Tarana Wireless, a vendor that leads the WISP industry in innovating FWA solutions, argues that “when calculated on a per-subscriber basis, the Tarana G1 platform generates 55% less cumulative carbon emissions compared to a fiber-to-the-home deployment, and 70% less net present carbon emissions” (https://www.taranawireless.com/next-generation-fixed-wireless-a-greener-future/). Given Utah’s acknowledgement of the impact of climate change on the state, FWA deployments may be a vital part of an overall green strategy that UBC could pursue in considering its final BEAD rules. | 12/15/23 | UBC anticipates a variety of technologies in project areas. | ||
85 | James | Farr | Lumen/CenturyLink | james.b.farr@lumen.com | Volume 2: Objectives (Requirement 1) | Objectives: (Requirement 1) State BEAD programs are governed by the BEAD NOFO, NTIA rules and other NTIA guidance. In many situations this does not provide much flexibility; however, in other cases there is more flexibility. It is clear to Lumen that Utah, in developing its BEAD Initial Proposal, Volume II, desires to establish a program that seeks to maximize the benefits of the limited BEAD funding to serve as many unserved and underserved customer locations as possible. Utah has been given the huge task of applying insufficient funding to accomplish the very difficult and challenging task of providing FTTP to as many unserved and underserved BSLs as possible and at the same time attempting to cover all high-cost unserved and underserved locations with some type of high-speed internet (HSI) solution. Every state must consider the best approach for determining project areas. Some states are allowing providers to select the project areas, which provides the maximum amount of flexibility to providers and should incent the highest number of applications. Doug Dawson, President of CCG Consulting, discusses in a December 11, 2023, posting, the reasons why allowing ISPs to determine project areas is important. (https://potsandpansbyccg.com/2023/12/11/bead-grant-areas/) Utah is proposing to establish the project areas by Census Block Groups (CBGs) based upon information that it receives during the preregistration phase. Even though the state wants to establish firm project areas, Utah needs to allow flexibility so providers can determine the CBGs that they want to include within a proposed project area. They will pick the CBGs that they can best serve given how close the CBGs are to existing infrastructure. If the project areas are too rigid, this will discourage providers from filing as many applications as possible. Allowing providers to establish their own project areas helps providers focus their limited resources on determining the most promising project areas and developing the most competitive and lowest grant cost per BSL applications. Lumen believes its recommendations, discussed in more detail below in response to other sections/requirements, will help the state achieve its goals and help attract the most capable applicants to deploy broadband infrastructure to Utah’s remaining unserved and underserved customer locations. | 12/15/23 | UBC has been highly cautioned by NTIA to not let providers choose their areas, but we are allowing providers to help define the project areas in the pre-registration process. | ||
86 | James | Farr | Lumen/CenturyLink | james.b.farr@lumen.com | Volume 2: Deployment Subgrantee Selection (Requirement 8) | Deployment Subgrantee Selection (Requirement 8) Plan for Fair, Open, and Competitive Process Issues/concerns with the pre-registration and project area proposals and time frames. (pages 16 -18) There are several reasons why the proposed pre-registration and project area time frames and process will be challenging and difficult for providers, which could impact participation or significantly reduce the project areas that can be considered by providers. • The time frame between when the challenge period concludes and when the pre-registration deadline closes does not provide a lot of time for a provider to identify the “census block groups or a portion thereof” that the provider plans to serve once the state map has been finalized. • “UBC will not entertain proposals which do not seek to provide broadband access to all locations within a defined application area.” o There are going to be high cost BSLs and CBGs that if included in a proposal could derail the entire project area. Providers need the flexibility to exclude high cost BSLs within CBGs and, also exclude high cost CBGs from project areas. • “Applicants must submit separate applications for any CBG areas that are non-contiguous. All applications must segregate costs between only unserved locations and the entire Project Funding Area so that the incremental costs to provide complete universal service in each area can be compared to the cost to meet the priority unserved locations.” o This will result in multiple applications for the several smaller project areas, which creates logistical and administrative challenges for providers and is an ineffective use of planning and finance resources. In developing grant project areas, Lumen picks up as many CBGs as possible within its exchange boundaries, whether they are contiguous or not. The company would only exclude high-cost CBGs or high-cost BSLs within CBGs. The company usually establishes one project area for each exchange area and does not create several project areas within the same exchange area. • There often are shared costs like fiber electronics in the central office serving the exchange area and fiber transport that all CBGs within the exchange area can rely upon to support FTTP deployment. If one project area is broken up into multiple smaller projects, which smaller project area covers the shared costs for all the project areas? Also, what if that smaller project area with the assigned shared costs is not awarded a grant? Segregating “costs between only unserved locations and the entire Project Funding Area so that the incremental costs to provide complete universal service in each area can be compared to the cost to meet the priority unserved locations” significantly adds to the amount of planning resources required to support the grant projects. If this cost breakout remains the requirement, the company will most likely significantly reduce the project areas it considers. Time frame to cure missing or incomplete application documentation (Page 18): Three business days may not be adequate time depending upon what needs to be provided. The state needs to allow flexibility, otherwise it may disqualify what otherwise would be very good applications. The state should notify applicants and clearly identify the missing or incomplete information. They should work with the applicant and mutually agree on what will be a reasonable time frame for compliance. The state should consider this to help establish the required response time frame for specific situations. Prioritization and Scoring Process Grant cost per BSL is the best way to achieve “Minimal BEAD Program Outlay.” Minimal BEAD Program Outlay needs to include consideration of the cost per location as the BEAD NOFO suggests on page 43: “In comparing the project’s BEAD outlay and the prospective subgrantee’s match commitments, Eligible Entities should consider the cost to the Program per location while accounting for any factors in network design that might make a project more expensive, but also more scalable or resilient.”(BEAD NOFO p.43) Utah should incorporate the average grant cost per BSL(location) as the most important criteria for scoring the primary criteria, to ensure scoring is truly based on the Minimal BEAD Program Outlay. Also, the percentage of matching funds is not a relevant measurement for scoring Minimal Bead Program Outlay if the state wants to maximize the number of unserved BSLs that will benefit from the BEAD program. An example that demonstrates this occurred in Montana with the 2022 ARPA funding grant program. Lumen and another provider both filed applications to provide FTTP in Forsyth, Montana: Unsuccessful - CenturyLink Application: Score 65 1,032 BSLs, requested grant: $656,500 Grant cost per BSL: $636 Awarded – Range Telephone: Score 66 766 BSLs, winning grant: $6,121,738 Grant cost per BSL: $7,992 The Montana scoring did not consider grant cost per BSL. The project areas were very similar, yet the cost was significantly different. CenturyLink had existing middle mile fiber into Forsyth and provided voice service in Forsyth primarily through aerial copper facilities. The company in developing its cost estimate, based that upon being able to over lash fiber cable to the existing aerial copper attachments on existing poles throughout most of the project area. Even though the company does not know the engineering plans for Range Telephone, it suspects they did not have existing infrastructure and they based their plans on having to do a large percentage of buried fiber, which would explain the significant cost difference. Range Telephone was granted an award for Forsyth because it scored 1 point higher than CenturyLink even though its grant cost per BSL of $7,922 was more than 12 times CenturyLink’s $636 per BSL. This was not an isolated situation in Montana. The average grant cost for awarded BSL to CenturyLink was $953 per BLS. In comparison the overall average grant cost for awarded BSL to all awarded providers was $5,009. As learned through the Montana experience, if Utah is not willing to make appropriate changes to scoring based upon average grant cost per BSL, this may result in an inefficient use of BEAD grant dollars. To eliminate the risk of having a similar outcome in Utah the state needs to use average grant cost per BSL as the best way to score Minimal BEAD Program Outlay. ‘Average grant cost per BSL’ should replace or at least be included in scoring Minimal BEAD Program Outlay. Other issues with current proposal for Minimal BEAD Program Outlay: • Scoring based upon serving at least 80% of the unserved and underserved BSLs in rural or non-rural areas within the state designated project areas. o If some form of this scoring criteria is going to be used, the state needs to ensure that served BSLs are not included and funded through the BEAD grant and only unserved and underserved BSLs are included. • Points awarded to projects serving economically disadvantaged areas. o Even though this may be a very important criterion to the state, it is not related to Minimal BEAD Program Outlay. It should be considered a secondary criterion, consistent with the NTIA BEAD NOFO, and should not be included as part of a primary criteria. • Points based on percentage match requirement. o For reasons already discussed, using average grant cost per BSL is a better measurement to accomplish Minimal BEAD Program Outlay. Providers with significant existing infrastructure should be able to achieve a lower average grant cost per BSL. o If the state decides to keep some form of points based on percentage match it needs to allow providers to include existing infrastructure as in-kind contributions to score percentage match, as allowed in the BEAD NOFO. As the NOFO states on page 22: “In-kind contributions, which may include third-party in-kind contributions, are non-cash donations of property, goods or services, which benefit a federally assisted project, and which may count toward satisfying the non-federal matching requirement of a project’s total budgeted costs when such contributions meet certain criteria.” Scoring Affordability: (page 22) The state is proposing to score affordability based upon using a sliding scale, with less than $90 a month for 1-gig symmetrical FTTP service receiving the most points. The ‘less than $90 a month rate’ must include taxes, fees and surcharges and a provider must guarantee that its rate will continue for at least 5-years to be less than $90 in order to receive the maximum points. For any BEAD grants that are awarded to Lumen, the company will place XGS-PON multi-gig FTTP technology and utilize its Quantum Fiber brand to market FTTP services. The current offerings can be viewed at the following website link: www.Quantumfiber.com Quantum Fiber markets its 1-gig offering as 940 Mbps symmetrical FTTP service. The current pricing, not including taxes, fees and surcharges is $75 a month. (Taxes, fees and surcharges may vary by jurisdiction.) The $75 a month pricing includes free installation – a $129 value, and free use of a 360 WiFi modem and up to 4 WiFi pods to improve the WiFi experience within the home. Under the state’s current proposal, this would qualify for the maximum points for scoring affordability. However, the company is reluctant to guarantee pricing for 5 years because it potentially could undermine how the company prices/markets/packages its services through use of standardized pricing discussed below. The company utilizes standardized pricing for its Quantum Fiber brand throughout the company. Awarded grant project areas will get the same very competitive pricing that the company utilizes in very competitive areas such as Salt Lake City, Ogden, Phoenix, Tucson, Denver, Minneapolis, Portland, Seattle, etc. In these areas the company competes vigorously with several multi-gig providers such as CATV providers and other FTTP providers. The company does not want to establish one-off pricing for grant areas. The best way to ensure affordability and a cost for service plans guaranteed to be competitive is to require winning applicants to offer the same competitive pricing in grant areas that it offers in competitive metropolitan areas. Nobody can forecast what changes will happen in the marketplace over the next 5 years. Recently, to be more competitive, the company eliminated its Quantum fiber 200 Mbps symmetrical offering for new non-ACP qualified customers and replaced it with a 500 Mbps symmetrical offering. A 2 ½ times increase in speed with comparable rates when considering the value of the WiFi modem and WiFi mods that should be factored into the comparison. In addition to scoring affordability based upon the state’s current proposal, allow as an alternative scoring based upon the providers’ guarantee to provide standardized competitive rates in grant project areas. Based upon this, Lumen would receive the maximum points for affordability. Prioritizing Eligible CAIs: Utah realizes there is not enough BEAD money to fund connecting CAIs as the third priority behind connecting unserved and underserved BSLs. However, that does not necessarily indicate that CAIs will not benefit at least indirectly from the BEAD program. When designing FTTP projects, there often is at least some flexibility in determining the locations of where the fiber cables need to be placed to provide FTTP to the unserved and underserved BSLs without significantly increasing the costs. Providers can consider placing the fiber cables for FTTP that are at least nearby CAIs locations without increasing the overall grant costs. The actual entrance fiber cable and electronics to CAIs should not be paid for by the grant. Fiber entrance cable projects happen in response to a signed agreement with a CAI for specific fiber-based services. If fiber is nearby and the CAI is willing to enter into an agreement, there usually will be no additional construction charges to the CAI for the placing of fiber entrance facilities. Having fiber facilities nearby CAIs will facilitate CAIs who are willing to enter into an agreement to be able to order fiber-based services in the future. It most likely will not be possible for an applicant to get signed agreements with a CAI prior to filing a grant application, especially if there are multiple providers planning projects in the same area. If Lumen is awarded a grant in a project area, it is planning to contact CAIs to get agreements so the entrance fiber facilities can be placed on separate non-Bead funded projects. Definition of Eligible Project Areas: Lumen has demonstrated its’ commitment to Utah by undertaking significant FTTP deployment at its own expense. The company continues to aggressively build FTTP to many locations in Utah where a business case can be made. The company is building FTTP in the lower cost, competitive areas so that it can be competitive with CATV providers and other FTTP providers. This benefits Utah citizens in these areas because it provides a strong competitive choice for high-speed internet (HSI). Company resources in Utah are primarily focused on building FTTP to additional areas where there is a business case to do so. The company already has built FTTP out to hundreds of thousands of customer locations in Utah and is planning to build out to hundreds of thousands more locations over the next several years. In its recent quarterly financial results, the company reported that it already has over 3.5 million FTTP customer location passings in its 16-state ILEC territory and is planning to build at least another 500,000 new FTTP customer locations next year. Because of the amount of FTTP builds already underway and planned, planning, engineering, and other resources at the company are in high demand and the company will have to be thoughtful in applying these resources to BEAD grant projects. The company is also interested in being awarded BEAD grants to help change the economics of building FTTP in higher cost areas that otherwise will not happen. However, the company has limited resources and will be disciplined in determining which states have established overall BEAD program criteria and requirements that provide a reasonable opportunity for the company to be awarded funding. CBGs fit well into existing practices for providers because they are easy to work with and are consistent with data gathering and compiling efforts that most providers use to analyze coverage. However, an applicant should not be required to serve all CBGs and BSLs within project areas. It most likely will be very difficult and much more expensive for existing providers to be required to serve with Fiber to the Premise (FTTP) all eligible CBGs and all BSLs in state designated project areas. Doing so could make the entire project uneconomical. The following recommendations should assist providers in their efforts to identify competitive grant projects and help the state maximize the total number of unserved/underserved CBGs and BSLs that will be served with FTTP: • The state should identify upfront the expected high-cost threshold for when fixed wireless and satellite will need to be utilized. o This should be based upon the maximum average grant cost per BSL for FTTP. For example, if the state establishes $6,000 as the high-cost threshold, providers can combine multiple CBGs together so that the average grant cost for FTTP within the project area will be less than the high-cost threshold. The state needs to allow flexibility to providers in determining project areas, based upon estimated planning/engineering costs to build to the various CBGs within project areas. Utilizing cost model data can be helpful to target potential areas, but often, estimated planning/engineering costs from experienced providers come in significantly higher than modeled costs. The following reference will provide more information about difficulties and problems with using cost models for BEAD grants: A good article, “Cost Models and BEAD Grants” was published on December 8, 2023 by Doug Dawson, President of CCG Consulting, explaining the challenges with using cost models. See link: https://potsandpansbyccg.com/ The company anticipates it will be difficult and very costly in most situations to serve with FTTP every eligible BSL within many CBGs. Applicants need flexibility to exclude high-cost BSLs and entire CBGs if necessary. The company is only planning to file applications for project areas where it can make a business case within the 75% BEAD grant parameters to build FTTP. The BSLs and CBGs that are high cost may need to be excluded to make the entire remaining project area economical. Use of Extremely High Cost Per Location Threshold: Identifying the high-cost threshold for FTTP It is essential for the state to identify the anticipated high-cost threshold at least 90 days before the start of the preliminary application process, even if it is a preliminary threshold, subject to changes based upon receiving better information. Lumen needs to be very careful with its planning, engineering and other resources and will only want to focus on potential project areas that appear to have a reasonable opportunity for success. Allowing for exclusion of high-cost areas is an important concept that should apply not only to high cost CBGs, but also to high-cost BSLs within CBGs. Ensuring Minimum Financial Capability Letter of Credit Regarding the Letter-of-Credit (LOC) requirements, Lumen believes that Utah should consider various options in addition to the recent guidance put out by NTIA, as set forth in “BEAD Letter of Credit Waiver,” released on November 1, 2023, https://broadbandusa.ntia.gov/funding-programs/policies-waivers/BEAD-Letter-of-Credit-Waiver. The LOC requirements adopted by the state will likely have a significant impact upon the number of applications filed by Lumen and probably other providers. For example, if the state was willing to seek and obtain a waiver from NTIA for the LOC requirement, which is an option, this should greatly increase the number of prospective providers and applications that the state receives. If a state sets up stringent LOC requirements, this will likely reduce the number of providers and applications significantly. Even a company the size of Lumen is not in a financial position to file LOCs covering hundreds of millions or billions of grant projects within its 16-state ILEC service territory. In composite, LOC and other state BEAD criteria/requirements could either encourage or discourage applicants/applications. To alleviate these concerns, Utah should apply for a waiver of the LOC requirement from NTIA or at least make available all the options set out in the Limited Waiver. Ensuring Technical Capability The requirement that the design and project plans must be certified by a professional engineer licensed in the state of Utah: Requiring a certified professional engineer will likely create a hardship for providers that do not staff certified engineers internally. This requirement will also increase the overall cost of the projects due to the need to contract with an outside engineer. Each unnecessary cost adds up and diverts grant monies away from being used to extend broadband infrastructure to unserved areas. In Lumen’s experience, these added costs to provide outside professional engineer certifications are not insignificant. The cost for PE certification can easily be in the $3,500 to $20,000 range. Most companies that will be submitting BEAD applications have a history of successfully building broadband networks and the engineers within their organization (or who they contract with) often have more experience with FTTP projects than someone with the title of professional engineer. In fact, the FCC has recognized that the majority of providers do not use or need a PE to design and build a broadband network and has waived the certified PE requirement in the Broadband Data Collection (BDC) since the program’s onset (see ¶10 of FCC Order in WC Docket No. 19-195, DA-23-1123A1, released November 30, 2023). As the state has determined, if it is necessary to require a certification by a professional engineer in the state of Utah, this will need to take place after the grant has been awarded and the company has completed the detailed engineering design plans before construction starts. Description of the proposed projects in the applications: This may be a problem for Lumen depending upon the amount of detail that Utah will require upfront when the application is filed. The company does not do the detailed engineering design plans before a grant project is awarded. The company does not want to incur these costs if it is not awarded a grant. Hopefully, Utah will work with the company on the level of detail it will require in the applications before awarding a grant. The company can provide significantly more detail after a grant is awarded and the company has completed the detailed engineering. For grant projects, the company has been able to have an engineering planner utilize planning software to develop a very good cost estimate for doing FTTP projects. This is the same process that the company has successfully used for developing the cost estimates for the millions of FTTP customer locations that it has and will build on its own. | 12/15/23 | The comments and questions will be addressed by the following responses: UBC has extended the time frame for the pre-registration period to 60 days, and the application period 60 days. UBC has revised language in Volume 2 for clarity UBC has revised the language to address project areas in BSLs. UBC has revised language from "separate applications" to separate "proposals in applications" UBC revised Volume 2 to remove segregation costs | ||
87 | James | Farr | Lumen/CenturyLink | james.b.farr@lumen.com | Volume 2: Cost and Barrier Reduction (Requirement 14) | Cost and Barrier Reduction (Requirement 14) • Lumen commends Utah for their commitment to improve existing permitting and easement processes to increase project efficiency and timeliness. This will likely help increase the speed and reach of broadband infrastructure deployment. • The state should also consider prioritizing proposed projects that leverage use of the existing infrastructure and reduce costs to connect unserved/underserved locations in Utah. Additional recommended actions for Eligible Entities to streamline permitting processes include: • Eliminate non-cost-based ROW and permit fees. Fees are intended to recoup costs. Accordingly, and consistent with recent FCC and court decisions, Rights of Way and permit fees should be limited to a reasonable approximation of the government’s objectively reasonable costs. • Prohibit excessive extra requirements that increase costs and slow down broadband infrastructure deployment. In addition to charging excessive ROW and permit fees, local governments sometimes seek to impose other requirements on providers that significantly increase costs while offering little to no benefit to the public. Examples of practices that should be rejected include: o Excessive bonding requirements. Bonds should not be required for routine utility work. In the limited circumstances where a bond is indicated, the bond amount should be limited to incremental ROW restoration costs, not the entire cost of the project. o Requiring Professional engineer review when no civil engineering work is involved. This requirement simply moves money from the provider to a professional engineer with no benefit to the public and should be prohibited. o Excessive administrative fees, fines, and penalties. Utilities should not be required to re-apply to use the ROW (and pay a fee for such re-application) more than once every 10 years. Fines and penalties for minor administrative infractions should be objectively reasonable and no greater than necessary to recoup actual costs. o Arbitrary height requirements for attachments that exceed national safety standards. Such requirements cause delays and excessive expense that can prohibit deployment of broadband to consumers. • Require private third parties to pay for utility relocations they cause. To reduce cycle times and the likelihood of disputes, permits issued to a private developer or other third party should expressly state that the developer must pay for all necessary utility relocations. • Prohibit non-reimbursable undergrounding mandates. Requiring providers to locate or relocate all facilities underground for reasons other than public safety materially increases costs and significantly slows the deployment of broadband infrastructure. • Allow over-lashing. Over-lashing is often the most efficient means of providing higher quality broadband services at lower prices to the public and should be allowed, as they are under Federal Communications Commission rules. • Secure and Limit GIS Mapping Data. GIS mapping data is highly sensitive and confidential. Requests for GIS mapping data should only be allowed when reasonable assurances can be provided that such data will be securely kept and will not be subject to disclosure pursuant to applicable laws. | 12/15/23 | UBC will take these recommendations into consideration in its efforts to streamline permitting processes. Applicants are permitted to use existing infrastructure as part of their proposal match. | ||
88 | James | Farr | Lumen/CenturyLink | james.b.farr@lumen.com | Volume 2: Low-Cost Broadband Service Option (Requirement 16) | Low-Cost Broadband Service Option (Requirement 16) Lumen suggests that the low-cost and no-cost framework for broadband align with the FCC’s Affordable Connectivity Program (ACP). More specifically, Lumen has launched a new no-cost broadband plan, called “ACP Internet,” to subscribers that qualify for the FCC’s Affordable Connectivity Program. For grant areas which will be marketed under the Quantum Fiber brand, ACP Internet offers broadband speeds of up to 200 Mbps at no charge. This includes free installation and free lease of the modem, along with 2 Wi-Fi nodes to improve the Wi-Fi signal within the customer location. The company’s low-cost option for non-ACP customers who qualify for ACP is $30 a month for 200 Mbps upload and 200 Mbps download High Speed Internet (HSI) service. ACP qualified customers may choose to utilize the ACP benefit through a wireless provider and will still be able to get a lower cost option FTTP HSI from the company. Also, Lumen, through its Quantum Fiber brand, provides standardized pricing and offerings for Fiber to the Premise (FTTP) HSI throughout the company. Customers in the more rural grant areas will get the same very competitive FTTP HSI rates and terms and conditions that Lumen customers get in very competitive areas. (page 83) To encourage high subscription and adoption, there shall be no installation fee charged to consumers while providers are installing the infrastructure and until inspections by UBC. Thereafter, installation fees can be no more than $100. (page 86) Provider will need to waive installation charges for any service installation that exceeds the 10-calendar day commitment. As previously discussed, through its Quantum Fiber brand the company utilizes standardized pricing and offerings. Grant project areas get the same very competitive pricing and offerings the company has in very competitive areas, such as Salt Lake City, Ogden, etc. The company is very reluctant to agree to one-off pricing and one-off terms and conditions for grant areas. This defeats the purpose of having standardized pricing and offerings. For grant projects, Lumen places the fiber drop pursuant to a service order request from a customer for fiber HSI service at locations that previously have not had fiber-based service. Along with the fiber drop placement, the company installs service at the customer location. This includes work activities both outside and inside the customer’s location. The company currently waives the $129 installation for its 940 Mbps (1 gig) symmetrical service but does not for its 500 Mbps symmetrical service. The company periodically needs to change its pricing and offerings to be competitive. There may be many valid reasons why a 10-calendar day commitment for installing service may not be reasonable. For example, during winter months, the company may not be able to place buried fiber drops necessary to install the fiber-based service within 10 calendar days. Unless the state is willing to pay the installation charge out of the BEAD program funds, and develop a list of exceptions for this requirement, they should not require waiving installation charges for any service installation that exceeds the 10-calendar day commitment. Costs for placing fiber drops and optical network equipment: Since fiber drops and optical network equipment are eligible BEAD costs as set forth in the BEAD NOFO, Lumen recommends that Utah set a time period after completion of the FTTP project for which providers cannot charge these costs to consumers at BEAD-funded locations. Instead, the company will track these costs and seek appropriate reimbursement consistent with the awarded BEAD grant. Having a set time frame will provide an incentive for customers to sign up sooner rather than later because they could avoid having to pay for the placing of the fiber drop, which sometimes can be very costly. After the set time frame, providers will be allowed to charge what they normally charge for placing fiber drops and optical network equipment. Currently, the company does not charge customers the related fiber drop costs if it is less than $1,500 per location. If the cost is higher, the company may charge for the drop costs above $1,500. In situations where the customer will be charged, customers will be notified prior to the placing of the drop to ensure they agree to pay | 12/15/23 | UBC revised Volume 2 to reflect no more than $300 installation costs. According to the Broadband Installation Act, the installment period is 10 business days and providers must waive the fee thereafter. Construction timeframe and fees: Companies will be able to seek appropriate reimbursement consistent with the award grant. UBC recommends that providers build this in to their proposals and budget. | ||
89 | James | Farr | Lumen/CenturyLink | james.b.farr@lumen.com | Volume 2: Certification of Compliance with BEAD Requirements (Requirement 19) | Certification of Compliance with BEAD Requirements (Requirement 19) Lumen’s comments regarding periodic reporting: • While we acknowledge the BEAD NOFO recommends semiannual progress reporting, Lumen recommends that Utah follow the Rural Digital Opportunity Fund and Connect America Fund II reporting process, which is annually. Additionally, the company suggests the state consider equal monthly grant payments like RDOF. • Also, states should adopt audit and compliance requirements consistent with those in the BEAD NOFO or NTIA guidance to ensure uniformity with how compliance will be measured, the potential penalties they may face, and the audit processes involved among the states. The states’ current proposal is for subgrantees to submit quarterly reports on project progress. If the state is not inclined to go with an annual reporting requirement, as a fallback a 6-month report requirement would be much better. Quarterly reporting is too frequent, especially during winter months when construction activities will be limited. | 12/15/23 | UBC will consider this comment | ||
90 | James | Farr | Lumen/CenturyLink | james.b.farr@lumen.com | Volume 2: Middle-Class Affordability Plans (Requirement 20) | Middle-Class Affordability Plans (Requirement 20) 14. Middle class affordability plans: Lumen, through its Quantum Fiber brand, provides standardized pricing and offerings for FTTP high speed internet (HSI) throughout the company’s footprint. Customers in more rural grant areas will get the same very competitive FTTP HSI rates and terms and conditions that Lumen customers get in its very competitive areas such as Salt Lake City, Portland, Phoenix, Minneapolis, Seattle, etc., where the company is competing against multi-gig CATV providers and other FTTP providers. The best way to assure middle class affordability is to require winning applicants to offer the same competitive pricing in the more rural grant areas that it offers in competitive metropolitan areas. See current Quantum Fiber competitive offerings at the following website link: https://www.quantumfiber.com/homepage.html | 12/15/23 | UBC cannot rate regulate, only incentivize. | ||
91 | Jennifer | Somers | Comcast | Jennifer_Somers@comcast.com | Link to comment document | 12/15/23 | I. Language has been updated in the Selection Procces section to clarify language about unserved locations 1. The language has been clarified in the project funding area 2. The language has been updated around how much of a project area can consist of served locations We would like to hear those locations from you in the pre-registration proccess 3. We remove/update the requirement in Volume 2 to include separate plans (for unserved: underserved/unserved) Applications: UBC will explore this recommendation EHCT: UBC has revised language around EHCT locations for clarification UBC revised language about non-priority project selection Pre-registration proccess: Applicants can provide the process, the licensing will not be required II Selection Criteria and Scoring: The minimal BEAD outlay section has been revised and the scoring has been updated UBC has revised the Fair Labor practice scoring UBC has changed the scoring for Speed of Deployment Speed of Network: UBC has removed this section Open Access Networks: This has been removed from scoring criteria III Affordability: UBC revised 10 day installation requirement to 10 business days 1) We've revised the scoring to include the FCCs Urban Benchmark 2) Going with NTIA requirements c) Inflation is included in Volume 2, UBC will add language about governement fees UBC intends to follow NTIA guidence on the useful life of network assets B. We added language about providing a low-cost to Eligible suscribers BEAD pricing: Depends on what their pricing is C) "All or nothing" points -- UBC is using urban rate benchmark with sliding scale UBC will define useful life networks once we get guidance from NTIA Request for automatic annual inflation adjustment: we are going to allow the providers to contact us if there is a change V. Labor Committments: This language has been changed in the scoring UBC did not add any requirements that weren't on the initial requirements Our language proposes to consider waivers, not award them Doing quarterly reimbursement, not more than 6 months UBC will look into LOC requirement | |||
92 | Gabriel | Moran | Tarana Wireless, Inc. | gmoran@taranawireless.com | Volume II Public Comment | Dear Director Dilg, Thank you for the opportunity to comment on Volume II of Utah’s BEAD Initial Proposal. Moreover, we deeply appreciate your leadership and the work that the Utah Broadband Center (UBC) is doing to ensure all Utahns have access to reliable high-speed broadband internet. BEAD was created with the stated goal of “Internet for All,” not Internet for Some. This once-in-a-lifetime funding opportunity is an important chance to ensure no family in Utah is left on the wrong side of the digital divide. Tarana Wireless is a next-generation Fixed Wireless Access (ngFWA) broadband technology company. It was founded 14 years ago in the Bay Area by three U.C. Berkeley PhDs who were committed to developing a solution to bridge the digital divide. Tarana Wireless' Gigabit 1 (G1) platform is the result of over $400 million invested over a decade of ground-up R&D, exclusively focused on perfecting Fixed Wireless Access. G1 offers all the fast-deployment advantages of FWA, but now with the performance, capacity, and interference rejection required to deliver reliable fixed broadband connections for homes and businesses at a large scale. This includes challenging non-line-of-sight conditions, utilizing both licensed and unlicensed spectrum, finally providing a fully-formed wireless alternative to last-mile fiber for the long term. Our G1 base node, which is mounted on a vertical asset such as a cell tower, grain silo, or tall building, can effectively serve up to 256 homes spanning line-of-sight distances of up to 18.6 miles and non-line-of-sight distances of 3.1 miles, all while delivering speeds of up to 800 Mbps per connection. With an upcoming software upgrade, Tarana Wireless will soon be able to provide up to 1.6 Gbps in aggregate broadband service to each household. Tarana Wireless’ ngFWA is a scalable end-game broadband technology embraced by nearly 300 Internet Service Providers (ISPs) in 21 countries and 45 U.S. states (including Utah). 2.4 Subgrantee Selection Tarana Wireless is thrilled that UBC will allow providers to proffer flexible project applications that utilize a mixture of reliable broadband technologies. We recognize the inherent tension between the principle of prioritizing fiber infrastructure while also looking to stretch a finite and limited BEAD allocation to connect as many Utahn families to reliable broadband internet as possible. We believe that this hybrid approach proposed by the UBC will allow Utah to maximize the amount of fiber to be deployed while ensuring the most hard-to-reach (and therefore expensive) broadband serviceable locations (BSLs) do not dissuade a bidder from participating in the process. The initial concept behind BEAD areas was that an area should consist entirely of either fiber or other technologies. To address this issue and enhance capital efficiency, we propose allowing a percentage of locations below the Extremely High Cost Per Location Threshold fiber areas to be non-fiber. Tarana Wireless humbly recommends that the UBC issue specific tiers that incentivize providers to to bid non-fiber technologies that not only meet but exceed the NTIA’s speed standards of 100/20 Mbps. We believe that this will provide clear messaging to providers that UBC has the expectation and desire that non-fiber project applications should look to provide reliable futureproof service. Following fiber, the BEAD Notice of Funding Opportunity provides preference to alternate technologies utilizing licensed spectrum but lacks further guidance on how to evaluate wireless bids. High-frequency wireless technology offers high speeds but covers relatively shorter distances, resulting in significantly higher costs. Unlicensed frequency bands are often considered unreliable due to potential interference that may impact performance over time. However, mobile networks in licensed spectrum also face resource contention, albeit in a different, more managed manner. Given the addition of next-generation Fixed Wireless Access to the already diverse range of wireless technologies, it becomes imperative to assess non-fiber options using objective criteria. Tarana Wireless would recommend the following performance tiers for Texas: 200/50 Mbps 400/100 Mbps 1 Gbps/250 Mbps As part of these performance tiers, the UBC should also include a latency standard to ensure any provided broadband service has minimal lag. Providers should be able to provide these speeds without exceeding a latency of 100 milliseconds. Tarana Wireless recommends that the Affordability component of the Scoring Criteria for Priority Broadband Projects and Non-Priority Broadband Projects should include an enumerated time commitment that a provider is expected to offer an economical affordability plan to consumers in a project area. Tarana Wireless is concerned that a provider could commit to offering a low-cost affordable broadband plan for the purpose of winning a project bid, but then introduce market-rate pricing after completing the project and signing up subscribers. It would be unfair to consumers if a provider built out a network in their area and offered an affordable broadband plan option for a year only to adjust pricing to a level that those homes and families could not afford. Affordable broadband internet must be provided for a significant duration of time to be impactful. Clarification on this matter would be of vital importance. 2.11 Climate Assessment Climate change, along with the associated extreme weather, significantly affects a substantial portion of the population. As weather-related climate events become increasingly frequent each year, the issue is not a question of if they will occur but rather when. While these climate-related occurrences pose genuine threats to the safety and personal property of residents in these vulnerable areas, they also present challenges for deploying broadband services to these same communities. Broadband infrastructure, like other forms of infrastructure, is susceptible to damage caused by extreme weather conditions. Ensuring the resilience of broadband operations, commonly referred to as climate resiliency, is paramount for maintaining online connectivity for businesses and residents. Additionally, it plays a crucial role in delivering emergency services, including weather alerts and disaster response efforts. Next-generation fixed wireless (ngFWA) represents a novel last-mile communication technology designed to mitigate climate risks through a more resilient last-mile architecture, reduced infrastructure that requires hardening, simplified redundancy planning, and enhanced resilience in the face of obstacles and weather-related failures. As the leader in the ngFWA category, Tarana Wireless' Gigabit 1 (G1) platform encompasses all the advantages of ngFWA compared to traditional fixed wireless systems, along with distinctive innovations specific to the G1 platform. Broadband infrastructure faces vulnerability on multiple fronts. For instance, aerial fiber optic cables can be susceptible to damage, either by being burned in wildfires or torn down from poles during high winds. Similarly, equipment placed underground is at risk of failure due to flooding or ground movement, such as earthquakes. While all broadband technologies are prone to damage from extreme weather, the degree of susceptibility varies among them. Recent broadband funding initiatives, such as the Broadband Equity, Access, and Deployment (BEAD) program, have acknowledged the significance of climate resiliency. These programs aim to deploy broadband infrastructure that can remain operational even in the face of extreme climate events. Specifically, the Broadband Equity, Access, and Deployment (BEAD) Notice of Funding Opportunity (NOFO) mandates applicants choose a technology platform appropriate for the climate risks prevalent in the region. This encompasses considerations such as alternative siting of facilities, retrofitting, and underground construction, or the fortification of assets like fiber. The NOFO explicitly emphasizes the importance of network redundancies to mitigate the risk of a single point of failure whenever feasible. For these reasons, governments and businesses are actively seeking means to enhance climate resilience within their broadband networks, applying this consideration to both new and existing infrastructure. Tarana's G1 is at the forefront of climate resiliency, boasting several industry firsts that align seamlessly with the resilience objectives of governments and businesses. More Resilient Last Mile The "last mile" denotes the segment of a broadband connection directly linking to a residence or business. Wireline last-mile infrastructure incorporates technologies like DSL, cable, and fiber optic, establishing a connection between a subscriber's location and the primary network backbone. In contrast, wireless last mile pertains to the wireless link connecting a subscriber to a nearby tower, which, in turn, is linked to the main network backbone. Due to the reduced infrastructure (wires), wireless last mile implies fewer elements vulnerable to fires, floods, winds, and earthquakes. Wireless is already acknowledged as an excellent backup to wired connections; nevertheless, with ample speeds and reliability, wireless has the potential to serve as a primary connection. As a next-generation fixed wireless technology, G1 integrates the intrinsic resilience of wireless for the last mile connection and enhances it with gigabit speeds, low latency, and support for symmetric service. It achieves this in a highly scalable manner that surpasses the capabilities of legacy wireless technologies like Wi-Fi or 5G, which are limited to much slower speeds, lack support for symmetric service, or cannot provide sufficient capacity to sustain entire communities. Broadband infrastructure, akin to other forms of physical infrastructure, can be vulnerable to failures, such as high winds tearing wires off poles or fires melting above ground wiring. The remedy for this involves employing hardening techniques tailored to the specific technology, such as burying wires. Wireless towers, naturally, also necessitate hardening. Nevertheless, towers enjoy the advantage of being situated at fewer locations, a contrast to wired infrastructure, which can extend over hundreds of miles. While many towers employ fiber optic backhaul, which faces the same resiliency risks mentioned earlier, towers possess the advantage of being able to utilize wireless backhaul. This can serve as either a backup to fiber optic backhaul or as one or more primary backhaul links. G1 further minimizes the required infrastructure through its enhanced cell coverage. With G1, fewer towers are needed to achieve or surpass the capacity of legacy wireless technologies. While certain frequencies, like millimeter wave (mmWave) at 11 GHz or higher, can be susceptible to weather-related failure or oxygen absorption that limits functionality, this is not the case with G1. Tarana's G1 employs wireless frequencies in lower bands—specifically 3 GHz, 5 GHz, and 6 GHz—that are not prone to weather-related failure (known as rain fade). Thus, even in severe weather conditions, such as heavy rainfall, the performance of a G1 wireless link will not be significantly reduced. Adapt to Unforeseen Changes in the Physical Environment Severe climate events can give rise to unplanned obstacles that have the potential to block a wireless signal. These obstacles may include swaying or downed trees, collapsed buildings, or other structures. In general, legacy fixed wireless connections, such as those utilizing Wi-Fi, struggle to handle obstructions effectively. To address this, legacy fixed wireless relies on a clear line-of-sight between both ends of the link. This approach presents challenges in locations where natural obstacles, such as buildings and trees, are prevalent. When physical infrastructure shifts, as in the case of high winds, and obstructs the link, it can significantly impact performance and reliability, precisely when both are crucial. A distinctive feature of next-generation fixed wireless is its capability to manage obstructions in non-line-of-sight links. G1 adeptly utilizes multipath, incorporating signal reflections and diffractions, to navigate around obstacles within the signal path. Additionally, it surpasses legacy wireless solutions by continuously optimizing the wireless signal 5,000 times per second. In the event of a signal interruption due to blockage, G1 automatically and swiftly seeks a better signal path, ensuring uninterrupted performance. This adaptability allows for optimal performance even in scenarios involving unforeseen alterations to the physical environment and obstruction of the link. Wireless technology is particularly conducive to establishing redundancy within a network. Implementing a second redundant wireless link is relatively straightforward, whereas achieving wired redundancy is both challenging and cost-prohibitive. This is particularly evident in rural, sparsely-populated areas where subscriber locations may be miles apart, and there might be only one road into a community. While a single tower can accommodate hundreds or even thousands of subscribers, towers can be constructed redundantly to offer overlapping coverage. Consequently, in the event of a failure in one tower, other towers can seamlessly assume the devices connected to the failed tower. Typically, situating towers in close proximity could pose challenges for legacy wireless systems, as they lack mechanisms to mitigate the heightened interference that would result. However, this is not the scenario with G1. G1's distinctive interference cancellation techniques simplify the process of siting towers closely for added redundancy without compromising performance. Tarana's G1 is a broadband platform that provides gigabit speeds, coupled with essential features that enhance its climate resiliency. These features include a more resilient last mile, reduced infrastructure requiring hardening, improved weather resiliency, adaptability to changes in the physical environment, and redundancy. G1 stands out as the only product delivering the requisite speeds that subscribers demand in a scalable, cost-effective, and climate-resilient manner. | 12/15/23 | This comment is addressed in Volume 2 | ||
93 | Jennifer | Somers | Comcast | jengsomers@gmail.com | Volume II Public Comment | Link to comment document | 12/15/23 | Duplicate | ||
94 | Tara | Thue | AT&T | tt4387@att.com | Volume 2: Deployment Subgrantee Selection (Requirement 8) | Deployment Subgrantee Selection (Requirement 8) AT&T is concerned with the proposed affordability scoring methodology and the recommendation to offer specific plans with a particular rate. The proposed affordability scoring methodology favors service packages for the gigabit symmetrical service to be priced at certain “affordable” rates with applicants receiving 15 points if the cost of the gigabit symmetrical service package is below $90 per month (including all equipment, taxes and fees) using a sliding scale system to score applications that provide 1Gbps/1Gbps symmetrical services from $90 or more per month, with no points awarded for monthly service over $120 or more per month. UBC’s proposed scoring for gigabit symmetrical service uses a sliding scale price benchmark to determine how many points to award, but UBC provides no factual grounding or basis for the price points included in the sliding scale. Stated another way, the scale appears to use price points arbitrarily chosen by the state, which conflicts with the express prohibition in the Infrastructure Investment & Jobs Act (“IIJA”) on broadband service rate regulation through the BEAD program. IIJA § 60102(h)(5)(D). Notably, the IIJA does not otherwise provide an independent grant of authority to states to regulate broadband rates and, in fact, states are preempted from regulating broadband rates.* For this reason, AT&T believes UBC should revise its proposed affordability scoring methodology. In that regard, AT&T recommends UBC should instead score and rank applicants’ proposed prices against the FCC’s urban broadband benchmark rate for the gigabit symmetrical service for applicants proposing FTTP Priority Broadband Projects or the 100/20 Mbps Tier for non-FTTP Last-Mile Broadband Deployment Projects, for example, awarding points as follows: An application proposing a rate below the FCC’s benchmark urban rate should receive full Affordability points; An application proposing a rate at the FCC’s benchmark urban rate should receive partial Affordability points; and An application proposing a rate that is above the FCC’s benchmark urban rate should receive no Affordability points. This scoring approach is better aligned with the goals of this requirement, while avoiding rate regulation, because the FCC urban rate benchmark provides a simple and objective, fact-based, competitive price reference and an administratively simple way to ensure that lower prices receive more weight. *See Charter Advanced Servs. v. Lange, 903 F.3d 715, 719 (8th Cir. 2018) (“‘[A]ny state regulation of an information service conflicts with the federal policy of nonregulation, so such regulation is preempted by federal law” (quoting Minn. PUC v. FCC, 483 F.3d 570, 580 (8th Cir. 2007)); N.Y. State Telecomms. Ass’ns v. James, 544 F. Supp. 3d 269, 280-83 (E.D.N.Y. 2021) appeal docketed, 21-1975 (2d Cir. 2021) (finding that conflict preemption and field preemption each bar New York state from regulating broadband service pricing). | 12/15/23 | UBC has revised language regarding the scoring for affordability, according to the Urban benchmark. | ||
95 | Tara | Thue | AT&T | tt4387@att.com | Volume 2: Low-Cost Broadband Service Option (Requirement 16) | Low-Cost Broadband Service Option (Requirement 16)UBC establishes a maximum price ($55 rural; $30 urban) in Utah for the low-cost broadband service option with no apparent ability for providers to change prices in the future. AT&T recommends UBC recognize that providers need flexibility for future price changes, as NTIA provided in BEAD FAQ guidance documentation (see NTIA, Internet for All Frequently Asked Questions and Answers at FAQ 8.15, available at https://broadbandusa.ntia.gov/sites/default/files/2023-11/Broadband_Equity_Access_Deployment_Program_Frequently_Asked_Questions_Version_5.0.pdf). In particular, NTIA recognized states are permitted to allow for reasonable cost adjustments over time to accommodate changes in costs and broader economic conditions. This makes sense, as price locks for extended periods are unprecedented and would clearly be a form of unnecessary and intrusive rate regulation. Also, over time, providers are likely, and should be encouraged, to increase speeds and would otherwise be expected to make price changes in the normal course of business due to, among other things, increased costs. Another area of concern relates to eligibility requirements under the low-cost service option. AT&T agrees with UBC that eligibility criteria should mirror that of the current ACP (or its successor program) but recommend against specifying other eligibility criteria, as the ACP standards are subject to change, and consistency will help streamline eligibility determinations. Simply specifying that the low-cost service option be available to all residents/households that meet the ACP (or its successor program) eligibility requirements will not only ensure that Utah residents availing themselves of the low-cost service option will be able to apply their ACP benefit but will also enable Utah to utilize the eligibility administration function performed by the National Verifier & Universal Service Administration Company. | 12/15/23 | UBC added language regarding service prices and inflation. | ||
96 | Tara | Thue | AT&T | tt4387@att.com | Volume 2: Middle-Class Affordability Plans (Requirement 20) | Middle-Class Affordability Plans (Requirement 20) For the middle-class affordability requirement, Utah should not adopt an approach that would regulate broadband service rates. As noted above, the IIJA does not permit broadband service rate regulation, nor does the IIJA provide an independent grant of authority to states to regulate broadband rates. Indeed, states are preempted from regulating broadband rates. Furthermore, as NTIA’s Initial Proposal September 2023 Guidance makes clear, the purpose of the middle-class affordability plan requirement is to ensure that states adopt strategies that help ensure affordable broadband for all residents including the middle-class,* not mandate that ISPs receiving BEAD funding provide specific internet service tiers priced at specific levels. To ensure that a BEAD-funded network’s service area provides high-quality broadband service to all middle-class consumers at reasonable prices, Utah should utilize approaches that encourage multiple providers to compete for BEAD funding. Robust competition in the BEAD funding process will help to ensure that all consumers in BEAD-funded areas gain access to high-quality, high-speed internet service at affordable prices while also helping to ensure that BEAD dollars get improved broadband service to as many people who need it as possible. Finally, the state should not rigidly adopt all the middle-class affordability strategies suggested in the NOFO. The obligation under this requirement is to develop a plan or strategy to help ensure middle-class affordability, not to regulate broadband rates or service tiers (which states are not permitted to do in any event.) * See NTIA, Tricky Topics to Watch Out for in the Initial Proposal at 22 (available at https://broadbandusa.ntia.doc.gov/sites/default/files/2023-09/BEAD_Initial_Proposal_-_Tricky_Topics.pdf). | 12/15/23 | Consumers who are eligible for the ACP program will be eligible for BEAD low-cost program. We will add to Middle Class Affordability: we encourage providers to use the same service plan across their networks. | ||
97 | Stella | Tschirky | Rocky Mountain West Telecom | stella.tschirky@rmwt.com | Volume II Public Comment | In the verbiage of the Volume 2 proposal regarding the allocation of funds for Administrative Expenses, many of the line items seem to point towards costs that the state of Utah would incur, rather than the subgrantee. The Programmatic Expenses also point to expenses incurred by the state such as “monitoring subgrantee performance through grant agreements and enforceable commitments.” Contrariwise, the “Eligible Entity Deployment Activities” outlined for the 95% seem to cover the budget for the projects subgrantees would be undertaking, such as “design, engineering, and installation of equipment and systems needed to deliver broadband services in the identified unserved and underserved areas.” There is a lack of clarity regarding the Administrative Expense allocation. If the verbiage regarding budget distribution on pages 87 and 88 could be clarified to specify whether that budget allocation falls on the state or on subgrantees, that would be extremely helpful for generating the necessary grant applications aligned with UBC’s expectations. | 12/15/23 | Deployment activities is the relevant funding for subgrantee applications | ||
98 | Colin | Andrews | Telecommunications Industry Association | candrews@tiaonline.org | Volume 2: Workforce Readiness (Requirement 12) | With regards to Utah Workforce Readiness Plan, it is important to be aware of a critical shortage of trained professionals in our industry. The combination of a large percentage of individuals in telecom ‘aging out’, almost $100 B of new federal and state funds dedicated to bringing broadband to all Americans, the continued significant building of wireline and wireless networks by service providers, and, too few new technicians and professionals joining the workforce is causing a massive worker shortage. Attracting the next generation to become a broadband professional is critical to the success of our industry and our country. To assist states with BEAD deployment, TIA has joined forces with Questex, the owners of Fierce Telecom, to create Broadband Nation, a program to work with states, the federal government, and industry to help solve this great infrastructure challenge. Broadband Nation www.broadbandnation.org is being designed to attract, train and deliver the next generation of broadband professionals to achieve the mission of connecting all Americans. We will do this through an interactive portal, designed to highlight and promote the national importance of the broadband professional, and connect individuals, government, and industry to drive the mission. We will inspire the new entrants by using compelling content such as a “day in the life” videos to inform prospective candidates about career opportunities and execute a national brand campaign to create broad awareness targeting a younger and diverse talent pool. Then, we will help them navigate the path by linking the candidates to available training and then jobs. We will work with industry partners like yourselves to aggregate and widen training opportunities, around the country, and showcase available job opportunities. Broadband Nation will be a ‘big tent’; we are not planning to create a single training program but rather make existing programs more available. We wanted to be sure that you were aware of this resource and would be happy to answer any questions you may have about how Broadband Nation can help with broadband deployment in Utah. | 12/15/23 | UBC will take note and put Telecommunications Industry Association on communications list | ||
99 | Kelleigh | Cole | UETN | kcole@uen.org | Volume 2: Low-Cost Broadband Service Option (Requirement 16) | UETN feels $90 per household for broadband service is too high of a threshold. There are many households that would not be able to afford this price. More points should be awarded to applicants that can provide fiber at a lower cost than $90. Providers should be encouraged and rewarded for providing service at a lower cost. Especially since the ACP and ECF do not have permanent funding. | 12/15/23 | Affordability scoring has been adjusted | ||
100 | Tara | Thue | AT&T | tara.thue@att.com | Volume 2: Deployment Subgrantee Selection (Requirement 8) | AT&T is concerned with the proposed affordability scoring methodology and the recommendation to offer specific plans with a particular rate. The proposed affordability scoring methodology favors service packages for the gigabit symmetrical service to be priced at certain “affordable” rates with applicants receiving 15 points if the cost of the gigabit symmetrical service package is below $90 per month (including all equipment, taxes and fees) using a sliding scale system to score applications that provide 1Gbps/1Gbps symmetrical services from $90 or more per month, with no points awarded for monthly service over $120 or more per month. UBC’s proposed scoring for gigabit symmetrical service uses a sliding scale price benchmark to determine how many points to award, but UBC provides no factual grounding or basis for the price points included in the sliding scale. Stated another way, the scale appears to use price points arbitrarily chosen by the state, which conflicts with the express prohibition in the Infrastructure Investment & Jobs Act (“IIJA”) on broadband service rate regulation through the BEAD program. IIJA § 60102(h)(5)(D). Notably, the IIJA does not otherwise provide an independent grant of authority to states to regulate broadband rates and, in fact, states are preempted from regulating broadband rates.* For this reason, AT&T believes UBC should revise its proposed affordability scoring methodology. In that regard, AT&T recommends UBC should instead score and rank applicants’ proposed prices against the FCC’s urban broadband benchmark rate for the gigabit symmetrical service for applicants proposing FTTP Priority Broadband Projects or the 100/20 Mbps Tier for non-FTTP Last-Mile Broadband Deployment Projects, for example, awarding points as follows: • An application proposing a rate below the FCC’s benchmark urban rate should receive full Affordability points; • An application proposing a rate at the FCC’s benchmark urban rate should receive partial Affordability points; and • An application proposing a rate that is above the FCC’s benchmark urban rate should receive no Affordability points. This scoring approach is better aligned with the goals of this requirement, while avoiding rate regulation, because the FCC urban rate benchmark provides a simple and objective, fact-based, competitive price reference and an administratively simple way to ensure that lower prices receive more weight. *See Charter Advanced Servs. v. Lange, 903 F.3d 715, 719 (8th Cir. 2018) (“‘[A]ny state regulation of an information service conflicts with the federal policy of nonregulation, so such regulation is preempted by federal law” (quoting Minn. PUC v. FCC, 483 F.3d 570, 580 (8th Cir. 2007)); N.Y. State Telecomms. Ass’ns v. James, 544 F. Supp. 3d 269, 280-83 (E.D.N.Y. 2021) appeal docketed, 21-1975 (2d Cir. 2021) (finding that conflict preemption and field preemption each bar New York state from regulating broadband service pricing). | 12/15/23 | This is comment is reflected in Volume 2 | ||
101 | Tara | Thue | AT&T | tara.thue@att.com | Volume 2: Low-Cost Broadband Service Option (Requirement 16) | UBC establishes a maximum price ($55 rural; $30 urban) in Utah for the low-cost broadband service option with no apparent ability for providers to change prices in the future. AT&T recommends UBC recognize that providers need flexibility for future price changes, as NTIA provided in BEAD FAQ guidance documentation (see NTIA, Internet for All Frequently Asked Questions and Answers at FAQ 8.15, available at https://broadbandusa.ntia.gov/sites/default/files/2023-11/Broadband_Equity_Access_Deployment_Program_Frequently_Asked_Questions_Version_5.0.pdf). In particular, NTIA recognized states are permitted to allow for reasonable cost adjustments over time to accommodate changes in costs and broader economic conditions. This makes sense, as price locks for extended periods are unprecedented and would clearly be a form of unnecessary and intrusive rate regulation. Also, over time, providers are likely, and should be encouraged, to increase speeds and would otherwise be expected to make price changes in the normal course of business due to, among other things, increased costs. Another area of concern relates to eligibility requirements under the low-cost service option. AT&T agrees with UBC that eligibility criteria should mirror that of the current ACP (or its successor program) but recommend against specifying other eligibility criteria, as the ACP standards are subject to change, and consistency will help streamline eligibility determinations. Simply specifying that the low-cost service option be available to all residents/households that meet the ACP (or its successor program) eligibility requirements will not only ensure that Utah residents availing themselves of the low-cost service option will be able to apply their ACP benefit but will also enable Utah to utilize the eligibility administration function performed by the National Verifier & Universal Service Administration Company. | 12/15/23 | UBC has revised Volume 2 to reflect this change | ||
102 | Tara | Thue | AT&T | tara.thue@att.com | Volume 2: Middle-Class Affordability Plans (Requirement 20) | For the middle-class affordability requirement, Utah should not adopt an approach that would regulate broadband service rates. As noted above, the IIJA does not permit broadband service rate regulation, nor does the IIJA provide an independent grant of authority to states to regulate broadband rates. Indeed, states are preempted from regulating broadband rates. Furthermore, as NTIA’s Initial Proposal September 2023 Guidance makes clear, the purpose of the middle-class affordability plan requirement is to ensure that states adopt strategies that help ensure affordable broadband for all residents including the middle-class,* not mandate that ISPs receiving BEAD funding provide specific internet service tiers priced at specific levels. To ensure that a BEAD-funded network’s service area provides high-quality broadband service to all middle-class consumers at reasonable prices, Utah should utilize approaches that encourage multiple providers to compete for BEAD funding. Robust competition in the BEAD funding process will help to ensure that all consumers in BEAD-funded areas gain access to high-quality, high-speed internet service at affordable prices while also helping to ensure that BEAD dollars get improved broadband service to as many people who need it as possible. Finally, the state should not rigidly adopt all the middle-class affordability strategies suggested in the NOFO. The obligation under this requirement is to develop a plan or strategy to help ensure middle-class affordability, not to regulate broadband rates or service tiers (which states are not permitted to do in any event.) * See NTIA, Tricky Topics to Watch Out for in the Initial Proposal at 22 (available at https://broadbandusa.ntia.doc.gov/sites/default/files/2023-09/BEAD_Initial_Proposal_-_Tricky_Topics.pdf). | 12/15/23 | UBC has revised Volume 2 to reflect this change | ||
103 | Sydnee | Dickson | Utah State Board of Education - Superintendency | sydnee.dickson@schools.utah.gov | Volume 2: Deployment Subgrantee Selection (Requirement 8) | Dear Utah Broadband Center Leaders, I am writing to express my concern regarding the current eligibility criteria outlined in the BEAD Initial Proposal, specifically the exclusion of public institutions, including schools and libraries, from the list of "eligible entities for BEAD-funded projects" as indicated on page 16 of the draft. It is disheartening to note that public entities, including state, county, city, and school districts, are not explicitly included in the list of potential recipients unless they are directly partnered with an existing ISP provider. These institutions have been at the forefront of fostering solutions to address broadband access issues in collaboration with their local communities. Notably, libraries, schools, public parks, and various community-based organizations have played pivotal roles in advancing broadband accessibility. For instance, leaders in the San Juan School District have spearheaded a community-driven solution for broadband, recognizing the absence of an active ISP provider in the River Region. We are concerned that the current eligibility criteria would preclude them from accessing essential BEAD resources necessary to benefit their community, including families within the Navajo Nation. The absence of these public entities listed as eligible subgrantees represents a missed opportunity that could significantly impede our collective efforts to extend broadband access to a broader population. I strongly believe that reconsidering the role of these organizations and reinstating them in the eligibility criteria for BEAD funding would enhance the effectiveness of the proposed plan. I urge the state to reconsider the current limitations and recognize the vital contributions that public institutions can make toward achieving our shared goals of equitable broadband access. Explicitly including them as eligible recipients for BEAD funding would not only strengthen the proposal but also ensure a more comprehensive and inclusive approach to addressing the critical issue of broadband accessibility in our state. Thank you for your attention to this matter. I trust that you will give due consideration to my concerns and work towards a more inclusive and effective BEAD program. Sincerely, Superintendent Sydnee Dickson cc: Sarah Young, USBE Chief of Staff | 12/15/23 | The list of eligible applicants has been updated. Per state statute of broadband grants public /private partnerships are required: 63N-17-102. (2) "Eligible applicant" means: (a) a telecommunications provider or an Internet service provider; (b) a local government entity and one or more private entities, collectively, who are parties to a public-private partnership established for the purpose of expanding affordable broadband access in the state; or (c) a tribal government. (3) "Public-private partnership" means an arrangement or agreement between a government entity and one or more private persons to fund and provide for a public need through the development or operation of a public project in which the private person or persons share with the government entity the responsibility or risk of developing, owning, maintaining, financing, or operating the project. | ||
104 | Jennifer | Somers | Comcast | jengsomers@gmail.com | Volume II Public Comment | Link to comment document (the same doecument found in Jennifer's comments above) | 12/15/23 | Duplicate | ||
105 | Tyler | Rasmussen | STRATA Networks | trasmussen@stratanetworks.com | Volume II Public Comment | 2.4.1 Plan for Fair, Open, and Competitive Process Will the name of specific applicants, or the number of applicants, which have pre-registered to serve BSLs in applicable PFAs be made public? The process of establishing Project Funding Areas by entire Census Block Groups seems flawed. Will UBC eliminate all of the CBGs in the state that do not meet the BEAD NOFO requirement of 80% or greater number of BSLs being unserved or underserved within the CBG? If this is the requirement, has UBC conducted an analysis to determine how many unserved locations will be removed from application eligibility per this requirement? The document states that there will be a process “pertaining to existing award commitments (i.e., from state general funds or another federal infrastructure program) that is found within a Project Funding Area, or if a new award commitment is made during the subgrantee selection process”, applicants will need to resubmit, withdraw, or attest that no BEAD funds will be used for BSLs covered by previous commitments. Does this also include awards that have been made, or will be made, by the NTIA through the Tribal Broadband Connectivity Program? If so, are the speed thresholds to determine “unserved” and “underserved” the same as with other programs (25/3 & 100/20 respectively)? 2.4.2 Prioritization and Scoring Process Project Match Percentage on Priority Broadband Projects The scoring process outlined for the Project Match Percentage, and the subsequent requirement to match projects up to 50% to receive full points, is untenably high in comparison to other similar programs (i.e. USDA RUS ReConnect, NTIA BTOP, etc). A very large percentage of rural locations which are currently unserved or underserved, cannot be economically served if a 50% match is required to be awarded BEAD funds. Speed to Deployment On page 24, the table outlining the Secondary Criteria, including the Speed to Deployment portion, states that a maximum number of points that can be earned in this category is 8, however, on page 25, the document states “Speed to Deployment – 9 Points”. The corresponding table on page 26 also references a maximum number of potential points at 8. Can the UBC please clarify that the maximum number of points available for Speed to Deployment is 8 points rather than 9 as stated on page 25? When considered the deployment of broadband projects in rural portions of the state, where providers are required to work with several state, federal, and tribal entities to secure applicable permitting and environmental clearance, a 1-year deployment schedule is not feasible. If an applicant claims a 1-year deployment timeframe, but is unable to meet the commitment, how will the UBC impose punishment or sanction the applicant for overstating the original application? Strata strongly suggests a more realistic timeframe that allows carriers to secure proper permitting prior to deployment. Our experience suggests that many of these projects take 3-4 years to complete due to the multi-jurisdictional complexity of rural projects. 2.4.9 Identification of Extremely High Cost Per Location Threshold If the EHCPLT were to be identified in advance, some carriers may choose to discount the project cost to meet the threshold and confirm the status of a priority broadband project. 2.12 Low-Cost Broadband Service Option It is our understanding that BEAD applicants must offer a low-cost option in rural areas that “shall be no more than $55/month for eligible households that qualify for ACP,”. We interpret this to mean that BEAD applicants must agree to offer this plan only to households that qualify for ACP and the plan must only be offered in the Project Funding Areas that are awarded BEAD funds. UBC encourages grantees to develop more advantageous low-cost options that may include lower speeds than the stated $60/month for 100/20 Mbps and provides an example of 50/5 Mbps in situations where the subscriber does not need 100/20 Mbps. Are prospective grantees to assume that a 50/5 Mbps broadband tier for $55/month in rural areas is an acceptable offering to meet the requirement of the low-cost plan? 2.13 Middle-Class Affordability Plans This proposal outlines recommended service plans, that a provider must meet at a minimum, to receive maximum points in the Affordability scoring section. The specific language referencing the 100/20 Mbps plan for $60/month is not referenced in the scoring table included on page 20. Should applicants consider both 1 Gbps plan for <$90/month and the 100/20 Mbps plan for $60/month mandatory requirements to receive the full 15 points in the Affordability section? Has the UBC considered the financial impact on rural providers of mandating a $60/month plan for 100/20 Mbps that must be maintained for five years? Many rural providers offer base broadband rates that are greater than the $60/month threshold today. Reducing the base rate to meet this requirement will likely cost the provider hundreds of thousands of dollars annually and place additional pressures on the Utah Universal Service Fund. This requirement would force rural providers to decrease their base broadband rate in PFAs, as well as surrounding areas, to avoid overly complex disparate pricing arrangements. | 12/15/23 | 2.4.1 The list of applicants who have pre-registered will be made public but the project areas will not be public Language has been updated to clarify the project funding area determinations Yes, it does apply to awards through Tribal Broadband Connectivity Program Yes, because those are NTIA thresholds 2.4.2 We have added additional language about matching. Please refer to page 29 for scoring only for fiber projects/priority projects We have updated the Speed to Deployment Scoring to match We have updated the 1 year deployment timeframe 2.4.9 UBC may release a preliminary threshold upon application but final thresholds will not be released until after review. 2.12 Volume 2 includes language around ACP eligibility UBC has removed the language regarding low cost and middle class referring to 50/5 mbps option 2.13 The affordability scoring section has been updated Regarding non-prioirity project scoring: we have revised the scoring table and language regarding the low cost affordability (changed $60 to $70) | ||
106 | Thomas | Denos | Communications Workers of America | tdenos@cwa7704.org | Volume 2: Deployment Subgrantee Selection (Requirement 8) | I. Deployment Subgrantee Selection (Requirement 8) A. Fair Labor Practices 1. The State should allocate a greater proportion of Fair Labor Practices points to forward looking measures that support labor compliance, rather than retroactive measures of past compliance. In Utah’s Initial Proposal Volume 2, the Fair Labor Practices category has a Maximum 10 points (p 23-24). “Applications that provide all the required information and certify they will comply with existing labor requirements outlined in the BEAD Notice of Funding Opportunity (NOFO) will receive 10 points. Points will be allocated based on the information submitted for each element of the fair labor category. Applications that provide no response will receive 0 points.” ”Certification of compliance”, 5 Points, “Compliance with federal labor employment laws”, 2 points, “Disclosure of applicant violations”1 Point, “ Disclosure of contractor and/ or subcontractor violations” 1 Point, “Wage Information” .5 Points, and “Workplace safety committees” .5 Points. The Initial Proposal includes only the minimum factors for “record of labor compliance” and “plan for labor compliance” that the BEAD NOFO requires. As it is currently stated, this category functions like an “all or nothing” criteria: many applicants will score full points in this criteria based on past performance, and the scoring does little to affect performance on the funded project. This category would be more effective if it functioned to incentivize applicants to incorporate high road labors standards in order to gain a greater score. CWA recommends that forward looking measures regarding workforce plans should receive a greater point allocation than backwards-looking records of compliance. We recommend that past compliance should be worth 20% of the total points allocated for Fair Labor Practices, and plans for ensuring compliance be allocated 80% of the total points allocated for Fair Labor Practices. For example, if Fair Labor Practices are worth 10% of the total point allocation, we recommend that records of compliance be worth 2% and plans for compliance be worth 8%. Allocating points towards forward looking measures incentivizes applicants to ensure high road labor practices on the project and better promotes an effective program. 2. The State should incorporate additional high road labor factors into its Fair Labor Practices Category. The Initial Proposal includes only the minimum factors for record of labor compliance and plan for labor compliance that the BEAD NOFO requires. The Fair Labor Practices category would be more effective if it functioned to incentivize applicants to incorporate high road labors standards in order to gain a greater score. The State should consider adding additional criteria into its Fair Labor Practices category, including prioritizing applicants that will use a directly hired workforce for broadband deployment, installation, and maintenance; applicants that have robust in-house training programs with established requirements that are tied to uniform and progressive wage scales, job titles, and certifications or skill codes recognized by the industry; applicants that will create jobs with quality wages and benefits in broadband construction/broadband deployment; and applicants that will create jobs with quality wages and benefits in ongoing network operations, after network deployment. CWA also supports prioritizing applicants that will perform broadband deployment, installation, and maintenance work with a locally based workforce. CWA has seen situations in which employers dodge labor commitments or undermine labor standards by subcontracting work to other companies. Incentivizing a directly employed workforce, and ensuring applicants live up to those commitments, is an effective way to ensure that applicants promote good labor standards. Delaware and California’s Initial Proposals have incorporated prioritization factors regarding directly employed workforce, robust in-house training, and locally based workforce into their evaluation criteria. 3. The point system should allocate a greater percentage of points to Fair Labor Practices. CWA recommends that Fair Labor Practices receive a third of the 75% point allocation that the NOFO requires to be allocated to Primary Criteria, in other words, 25% of total point allocation. We view high road labor practices as mutually reinforcing with program considerations of managerial, technical, and financial capacity to execute the project. A higher point allocation for Fair Labor Practices supports multiple program goals. Several states have adopted this approach, including: Delaware’s Initial Proposal Volume II allocates 25% to Fair Labor Practices.https://broadband.delaware.gov/pages/index.shtml?dc=community. California’s Initial Proposal Volume II allocates 20% to Fair Labor Practices. https://www.cpuc.ca.gov/beadprogram. Pennsylvania allocates a combined 25% to labor factors, including 15% to Fair Labor practices and 10% to Equitable workforce development and job quality. https://dced.pa.gov/download/volume-ii-of-the-broadband-equity-access-and-deployment-bead- proposal/?wpdmdl=122099. New York’s Initial Proposal and Maryland’s Initial proposal both allocate 30% to Fair Labor Practices. https://broadband.ny.gov/broadband-deployment-initial-proposal;https://dhcd.maryland.gov/Broadband/Pages/StatePlans.aspx. 4. Additional information Additional information on CWA’s recommendations regarding Fair Labor Practices, including context regarding labor trends in the telecommunications industry, is available at https://buildbroadbandbetter.org/system/files/2023-09/CWA-Broadband-HIgh-Road-Labor-Repor t-2023.pdf. CWA provides this link in lieu of an attachment as the submission form does not support document attachments. B. Extremely High Cost Per Location Threshold CWA highly supports the State’s preference for fiber. Fiber is sustainable, scalable, and renewable. It offers greater capacity, predictable performance, lower maintenance costs, and a longer technological lifetime than coaxial cable, satellite, and fixed wireless technologies. CWA urges the state to select an EHCT that lives up to the spirit of the EHCT framework as described in the BEAD NOFO by selecting a number as high as possible to help ensure that end-to-end fiber projects are deployed wherever feasible. The objective of 100 percent coverage is not intended by NTIA to undercut a strong preference for end-to-end fiber-optic architecture. The allocated BEAD funds should be sufficient to deploy fiber to nearly all unserved locations, which is the primary mandate under the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law, and can likely reach a significant share of underserved locations as well. Other state and federal universal service programs and appropriations-funded broadband grant programs could help fill the remaining connectivity gaps and ensure that everyone can benefit from future-proof fiber technology. CWA also encourages the State to consider studies of the long-term value of fiber in determining an EHCT. An engineering analysis of fixed wireless technologies by consulting firm CTC Technology and Energy concludes that “fiber represents the most fiscally prudent expenditure of public funds in most circumstances because of its longevity and technical advantages.” CTC’s cost analysis of fiber and fixed wireless deployments finds that while fiber’s upfront capital costs are higher than those of fixed wireless in many circumstances, the total cost of ownership over 30 years is comparable for fiber and fixed wireless, and fiber provides much higher quality service. The CTC analysis further finds that while fixed wireless technologies will continue to improve, they will not match the performance of fiber optic networks. CWA recommends that the State incorporate a minimum of a 30-year period to evaluate the total cost of ownership of non-FTTP networks as part of its EHCT analysis. BEAD Program Notice of Funding Opportunity at 13, fn 6. CTC Technology, “Fixed Wireless Technologies and Their Suitability for Broadband Delivery”, 49-51, June 2022, https://www.benton.org/sites/default/files/FixedWireless.pdf. C. Network resiliency considerations CWA recommends that the State adopt additional network resiliency considerations as part of the Minimal BEAD Program Outlay scoring, including for projects that are not Priority Broadband Projects. CWA urges the Office to also incorporate as part of the scoring criteria the six groups of resiliency strategies that the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) adopted in its disaster resiliency docket for certain facilities-based wireless and wireline service providers, with the goal of ensuring access to 911 and other government and local community services (e.g. 211 or 311), the ability to receive emergency alerts and notifications, and access to basic Internet browsing. These include: Implement 72-hour back-up power to support essential communications equipment and minimum service levels for the public Build and maintain redundant communication networks Harden communication networks to withstand damage Network operators should have available temporary facilities (e.g., mobile cell sites, mobile satellite and microwave backhaul, etc.) to restore service to their networks when facilities are damaged or destroyed; Establish communication and coordination processes with first responders, other public utilities, the Commission, and the general public Establish preparedness planning for employees and ensure sufficient staffing levels. California Public Utilities Commission’s resiliency decisions: D.20-07-011 (wireless), https://www.cpuc.ca.gov/-/media/cpuc-website/divisions/communications-division/documents/net work-resiliency/d2007011-july-16-2020.pdf, D.21-02-029 (wireline), https://www.cpuc.ca.gov/-/media/cpuc-website/divisions/communications-division/documents/net work-resiliency/d2102029-february-18-2021.pdf. D. “As-built” reporting and inspection requirements CWA urges the State to conduct comprehensive monitoring to ensure compliance with program guidelines, including plans for field review. CWA recommends that the State conduct periodic and random site visits, which should include inspections of pole attachments and handholds. CWA further recommends subgrantees submit “as-built” technical documentation, certified by a licensed Professional Engineer, that verifies project completion and demonstrates that the deployed infrastructure, service area, and equipment match those in the approved final application and are capable of delivering the minimum proposed speeds consistently to all potential customers in the project area. Recipients should be required to identify any differences between the network design in the approved final application and the “as-builts,” and explain the reasons for the differences and any impacts or changes to the final application resulting from these differences. Subgrantees should also be required to validate the performance characteristics of any deployed infrastructure and equipment that differs from the specifications in the approved final application. | 12/15/23 | Scoring for fair labor practices have been amended, under Community Impact. UBC has added scoring to workforce development and developed plan to utilize local workforce for deployment, installation, maintanence, etc. Network resiliency: UBC is following NTIA guidelines which does not allow this suggestion Inspection requirements are included in Volume 2 | ||
107 | Thomas | Denos | Communications Workers of America | tdenos@cwa7704.org | Volume 2: Labor Standards and Protection (Requirement 11) | Labor Standards and Protection (Requirement 11) and Workforce Readiness (Requirement 12) A. Subgrantees’ plans for ensuring a skilled and credentialed workforce should be available to the public on a website. In general, CWA recommends that broadband programs require applicants to disclose information on their workforce plans and practices. Collecting and publicly posting this information is a simple and low-cost way to promote accountability and high road labor practices. We recommend collecting information regarding workforce and work conditions early, as part of the evaluation process for bids, and that regular reporting of information be incorporated throughout the funding cycle as part of ongoing compliance and monitoring. All workforce plan information required, including that required under Requirement 11 and Requirement 12, should be part of regular Labor Reporting and should be publicly available on a website. Enforcement is an endemic problem in labor compliance. If the information applicants disclose as part of their skilled and qualified workforce information is posted publicly, the public and worker organizations are able to hold applicants accountable to those commitments and aid in enforcement. The State is already familiar with similar disclosures from ARP programs. For example, the American Rescue Plan State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds require that recipients publish Recovery Plan Performance Reports, which include workforce practice and labor standard information, on the recipient’s website. The Treasury Department recommends that these reports be “accessible within three clicks or fewer from the homepage of the recipient’s website.” (U.S. Department of the Treasury, Compliance and Reporting Guidance: State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds.) Just as transparency promotes accountability in other program areas, public disclosure around workforce plans promotes compliance and accountability regarding workforce practices. B. Subgrantees’ workforce representations should be binding commitments. CWA recommends that the State consider applicants’ and subgrantees’ representations regarding workforce plans as material conditions of the grant or otherwise legally binding and enforceable. If an applicant states that it will directly employ a workforce at a certain wage, or commit to a certain percentage of state-based workers, these commitments mean little if they are not binding. Representations around workforce are reflected in multiple parts of the initial proposal, including Requirement 8, Requirement 11, and Requirement 12. CWA recommends that these workforce representations be consolidated into subgrantees’ labor reporting requirements, and treated as binding commitments. C. The State should consider clarifying required subgrantee information regarding a locally hired workforce and ongoing operational workforce. CWA recommends that the State incorporate disclosure requirements around locally based workforce. CWA also recommends that the State require information regarding an applicants’ operational workforce, in other words, the jobs that will be created in order to maintain and service the network, beyond the initial build, and include disclosure requirements related to the same. Below is information CWA generally recommends broadband programs incorporate into workforce plan disclosures, including the above recommendations, which may be a resource as the State develops its labor reporting requirements: Applicants should submit a Workforce Plan that describes how the applicant will ensure safe, effective, and timely project execution. Describe how the applicant will ensure compliance in its own labor and employment practices, as well as that of any contractors and subcontractors. The plan shall include the following information: 1. Safety and Training - A description of how the applicant will ensure that the workforce is properly trained to conduct the work safely and effectively, including a description of training, certification and/or licensure requirements for each job title, a description of any in-house training program and whether or not training is tied to uniform and progressive wage scales, job titles, and certifications or skill codes recognized by the industry. Does the applicant participate in a labor-management apprenticeship program? If so, describe the program requirements. Is there a labor-management health and safety committee on the worksite? If so, describe how the committee operates and its composition. 2. Job Quality - A description of wage scales and minimum wage rates, overtime rates, and benefits for each job title that will carry out the proposed work. For each job title, an estimate of the number of workers or work hours required and the entity that will employ the workforce. Does the applicant have experience on projects with prevailing wage requirements? Does the applicant commit to pay prevailing wage for this project? 3. Accountability and Subcontracting - Will the workforce be directly employed by the applicant? If not, will the applicant subcontract the work to another entity? What entity or entities? If the workforce will be subcontracted, the applicant should disclose the Workforce Plan for the subcontracted workforce as well and describe how the applicant will ensure any subcontractor is held accountable for labor law compliance and abiding by the commitments in the Workforce Plan. 4. Local Hire and Targeted Hire - Does the applicant have any policies or programs that encourage career pathways and hiring for marginalized communities or the local community, including any programs for women and people of color? What percentage of the existing workforce resides in the state/in zip codes deemed relevant by the agency? Will the applicant commit to ensure that a certain proportion of the workforce will reside in relevant zip codes? 5.Ongoing Network Operations - For projects where the applicant will operate the network, does the applicant have an existing workforce to perform the customer service and operations work? Will that workforce be based locally and directly hired by the employer? If those functions will be outsourced, will any of the jobs be overseas? Describe the wage scales, minimum wage rates, and benefits this workforce will receive. (Communications Workers of America, Broadband Investments that Go the Distance, https://buildbroadbandbetter.org/system/files/2023-09/CWA-Broadband-HIgh-Road-Labor-Report- 2023.pdf.) | 12/15/23 | A. UBC will take this into consideration as we development the grant portal B. Any workforce requirements will be incorporated in contracts UBC is requiring providers to report on contracted or subcontracted workforce Please refer to sections 2.7 and 2.8 in Volume 2 of detail fair labor requirements | ||
108 | Kira | Slawson | URTA | KiraM@blackburn-stoll.com | Volume 2: Section 2.4.1 | Section 2.4.1: The creation of Project Funding Areas (PFAs) is an important and critical step in Utah’s BEAD program. The IP states that UBC will not accept challenges on the creation or composition of PFAs.1 URTA takes this to mean that the UBC will not welcome any input on the PFA creation process. URTA believes the UBC will be better served if it welcomed input from interested providers on the creation of PFAs. For example, including tribal and non-tribal areas in the same PFA can result in deployment issues and significant construction delays. This is particularly troublesome in the Uintah Basin where the tribal areas are not contiguous, but rather create a checkerboard of ownership. Seeking input after the pre-registration process but before the creation of the PFAs may avoid the need for the UBC to remedy PFAs that do not receive provider interest. This process could be inferred to be implicit in the process with UBC’s intent to conduct outreach with providers. URTA believes an explicit collection of comments on the creation of the PFAs is appropriate and withstands any transparency challenge to the- process. 2. Questions: o Will the UBC provide a template for the pre-registration submissions other than the .csv template to identify broadband serviceable locations (BSLs)? URTA submits that a standard template for all portions of the pre-registration process would be welcomed by all providers. o UBC indicates that all submissions must be marked as proprietary and confidential under the Utah Open Records Act, or the responses will be made publicly available. At what point will responses not marked confidential be made publicly available? After the deadline? After the award? After construction is completed? 3. UBC states that the .csv file must contain the census block groups (CBGs) or portions of CBGs the applicant intends to serve. Yet, it also states Utah’s PFAs “will be defined by CBG.” URTA seeks clarification on whether any portions of CBGs will be assigned separately to PFAs. Why does the UBC want portions of CBGs identified when PFAs will be defined by CBG and not subparts of CBGs? The IP indicates later that UBC will make adaptations to PFAs, presumably to adjust PFAs to a smaller than CBG geography in certain instances. This needs clarification. URTA believes creation of PFAs only along a CBG or collection of CBG boundaries is too restrictive and that portions of CBGs should be considered for PFAs. Consider the situation where there are multiple small islands of BSLs in a CBG. It may be more efficient to allow providers to apply for selections of the BSLs in the CBG rather than apply for the entire CBG. This approach is more aligned with NTIA’s vision that a project may be a single unserved BSL or a grouping of BSLs. The IP currently defines a CBG as the minimum geographical area for PFAs. URTA recommends more flexibility on the creation of PFAs, or at least clarify the PFA creation process. 4. URTA is unclear how the pre-registration and subsequent application processes work and what limits exist. For example, is an applicant restricted in its application(s) to the BSLs identified in its pre-registration submission? Or, can a pre-registrant apply for PFAs regardless of whether the BSLs in the PFA were identified in its pre-registration submission? Said another way, if a provider pre-registers in one area of the state, is the provider eligible to apply for PFAs across the state? Or is it limited in its application Utah Broadband Center Comments of URTA December 15, 2023 Page 3 ___________________ submission by what it submits in pre-registration? Also, if an applicant pre-registers for an area, it is obligated to apply for the PFA containing that area in the application process? In all circumstances, URTA recommends maximum flexibility for providers after PFAs are established. 5. UBC states that it wants costs for PFAs to be segregated to identify incremental costs to provide “complete universal service.” URTA is unclear what UBC means by the term complete universal service. BEAD has defined service obligations—is UBC expanding the Utah BEAD obligations for other services? If UBC is seeking incremental costs to reach 100% coverage in a PFA, this implies that different technologies may be used. “Universal service” should not be used to describe “100% coverage.” Clarification on this point is needed. 6. Does the term “application area” refer to PFA or some other area definition? 7. Does the phrase “submitting a proposal” refer to the pre-registration or application submission? 8. The IP states that if there is only one application for a PFA and it meets certain criteria, the proposal is the default winner.2 URTA believes this would set a problematic public policy. This default award only works if there is sufficient funding for all priority projects in all PFAs where the applicant proposes end-to-end fiber optic facilities. The BEAD program funds are limited, so implementation of this policy could result in the entire fund going to one PFA (if no one else bid on the same PFA). We believe a better approach is to have the various priority broadband projects compared using the scoring matrix to determine which should be funded. The IP should qualify the default rule to apply only when there is sufficient BEAD support to award all default PFAs. | 12/15/23 | Duplicate | ||
109 | Kira | Slawson | URTA | KiraM@blackburn-stoll.com | Volume 2: 2.4.2 and Section 2.12-2.13: | Applications that propose to construct end-to-end fiber-optic facilities to all BSLs in a Project Funding Area will be defined as a “Priority Broadband Project.” Applications that do not propose to construct end-to-end fiber optic facilities to all BSLs in a Project Funding Area will be defined as an “Other Last-Mile Broadband Deployment Project.” How is “end to end” defined? A provider may have existing infrastructure in an area which does not require new “end to end” facilities to be built. It is likely that only new last mile facilities will be required in many areas. o Minimal Bead Outlay Scoring Matrix Can a “high-cost” area project, which is exempt from a matching funds requirement, receive all 50 points under the “Minimal Bead Outlay Requirement? 2 IP, p. 18 Utah Broadband Center Comments of URTA December 15, 2023 Page 4 ___________________ With regard to the “Minimal Bead Outlay” can you explain whether other public funds or grants can be stacked to reach this threshold? Under the Minimal Bead Outlay matrix, a provider can be awarded a maximum of 50 points. Under the Project Match Percentage, if a provider has a 50% match, they get 10 points. Should these sections be reconciled? o With regard to the Economic Need on Priority Broadband Projects scoring matrix, please describe how “economically distressed areas” will be identified? o The scoring matrix for priority projects defines a price of less than $90 per month for 1Gbps symmetrical service to receive maximum points.3 This price is very aggressive and possibly unsustainable. The FCC’s national urban benchmark for 1Gbps/500Mbps is $142.75. Requiring providers to offer a $90 rate for maximum points for a service that is double the upload speed of the national benchmark has the potential to affect the long-term sustainability of the network. URTA recommends UBC use the FCC’s national urban benchmark value for the scoring matrix and for BEAD low-cost pricing requirements. If the UBC opts not to use the FCC’s national urban benchmark threshold used for federal universal service affordability determinations, all service prices in the BEAD program should be adjusted annually to inflation as providers are committing to these prices over the multi-decade life of the asset. o The speed to deployment scoring matrix is unrealistic.4 It is URTA’s member experience that significant projects with permitting requirements require two or more years to complete. Deployment of facilities in tribal areas requires even longer. Relatedly, what is the penalty to a provider that commits to an unrealistic timeframe and then needs more time? URTA recommends UBC not setup providers to fail by using an unrealistic speed to deploy criterion. UBC should award maximum points for projects that deploy within two years. Such requirement should also have a six month cure period in the event a provider misses its deployment milestone. Additionally, the State might consider an exit policy if permitting becomes untenable. | 12/15/23 | Duplicate | ||
110 | Kira | Slawson | URTA | Volume 2: Section 2.4.3: | Section 2.4.3: With regard to Community Anchor Institutions, will UBC publish a list of CAIs? | 12/15/23 | Duplicate | |||
111 | Kira | Slawson | URTA | Volume 2: Section 2.4.5: | Compliance with EHB and BABA requirements. Can applicant supplied matching funds be used to purchase non-BABA compliant materials, even where BEAD provided funds cannot be so used? | 12/15/23 | Duplicate | |||
112 | Kira | Slawson | URTA | Volume 2: Section 2.4.9: | The Extremely High-Cost Threshold Locations discussion anticipates creating the threshold after UBC receives applications. Does the UBC expect that applicants will need to resubmit applications to address the threshold process in the IP? URTA believes a better course would be for UBC to identify a preliminary threshold prior to submissions to assist the providers to more accurately determine applications areas. | 12/15/23 | Duplicate | |||
113 | Kira | Slawson | URTA | Volume 2: Section 2.4.10. | Use of Extremely High Cost Per Location Threshold. UBC states: “In cases where a priority broadband project area exceeds the EHCPLT, the UBC will solely consider non-priority broadband projects, even if they do not meet the criteria for reliable broadband service. Are you stating that a fiber solution will not be considered for these locations? | 12/15/23 | Duplicate | |||
114 | Tyler | Rasmussen | Strata Networks | trasmussen@stratanetworks.com | Volume 2: Section 2.4.1 | 2.4.1 Plan for Fair, Open, and Competitive Process Will the name of specific applicants, or the number of applicants, which have pre-registered to serve BSLs in applicable PFAs be made public? The process of establishing Project Funding Areas by entire Census Block Groups seems flawed. Will UBC eliminate all of the CBGs in the state that do not meet the BEAD NOFO requirement of 80% or greater number of BSLs being unserved or underserved within the CBG? If this is the requirement, has UBC conducted an analysis to determine how many unserved locations will be removed from application eligibility per this requirement? The document states that there will be a process “pertaining to existing award commitments (i.e., from state general funds or another federal infrastructure program) that is found within a Project Funding Area, or if a new award commitment is made during the subgrantee selection process”, applicants will need to resubmit, withdraw, or attest that no BEAD funds will be used for BSLs covered by previous commitments. Does this also include awards that have been made, or will be made, by the NTIA through the Tribal Broadband Connectivity Program? If so, are the speed thresholds to determine “unserved” and “underserved” the same as with other programs (25/3 & 100/20 respectively)? | 12/15/23 | Duplicate | ||
115 | Tyler | Rasmussen | Strata Networks | trasmussen@stratanetworks.com | Volume 2: Section 2.4.2 | 2.4.2 Prioritization and Scoring Process Project Match Percentage on Priority Broadband Projects The scoring process outlined for the Project Match Percentage, and the subsequent requirement to match projects up to 50% to receive full points, is untenably high in comparison to other similar programs (i.e. USDA RUS ReConnect, NTIA BTOP, etc). A very large percentage of rural locations which are currently unserved or underserved, cannot be economically served if a 50% match is required to be awarded BEAD funds. Speed to Deployment On page 24, the table outlining the Secondary Criteria, including the Speed to Deployment portion, states that a maximum number of points that can be earned in this category is 8, however, on page 25, the document states “Speed to Deployment – 9 Points”. The corresponding table on page 26 also references a maximum number of potential points at 8. Can the UBC please clarify that the maximum number of points available for Speed to Deployment is 8 points rather than 9 as stated on page 25? When considered the deployment of broadband projects in rural portions of the state, where providers are required to work with several state, federal, and tribal entities to secure applicable permitting and environmental clearance, a 1-year deployment schedule is not feasible. If an applicant claims a 1-year deployment timeframe, but is unable to meet the commitment, how will the UBC impose punishment or sanction the applicant for overstating the original application? Strata strongly suggests a more realistic timeframe that allows carriers to secure proper permitting prior to deployment. Our experience suggests that many of these projects take 3-4 years to complete due to the multi-jurisdictional complexity of rural projects. | 12/15/23 | Duplicate | ||
116 | Tyler | Rasmussen | Strata Networks | trasmussen@stratanetworks.com | Volume 2: Section 2.4.9 | 2.4.9 Identification of Extremely High Cost Per Location Threshold If the EHCPLT were to be identified in advance, some carriers may choose to discount the project cost to meet the threshold and confirm the status of a priority broadband project. | 12/15/23 | Duplicate | ||
117 | Tyler | Rasmussen | Strata Networks | trasmussen@stratanetworks.com | Volume 2: Section 2.12 | 2.12 Low-Cost Broadband Service Option It is our understanding that BEAD applicants must offer a low-cost option in rural areas that “shall be no more than $55/month for eligible households that qualify for ACP,”. We interpret this to mean that BEAD applicants must agree to offer this plan only to households that qualify for ACP and the plan must only be offered in the Project Funding Areas that are awarded BEAD funds. UBC encourages grantees to develop more advantageous low-cost options that may include lower speeds than the stated $60/month for 100/20 Mbps and provides an example of 50/5 Mbps in situations where the subscriber does not need 100/20 Mbps. Are prospective grantees to assume that a 50/5 Mbps broadband tier for $55/month in rural areas is an acceptable offering to meet the requirement of the low-cost plan? | 12/15/23 | Duplicate | ||
118 | Tyler | Rasmussen | Strata Networks | Volume 2: Section 2.13 | 2.13 Middle-Class Affordability Plans This proposal outlines recommended service plans, that a provider must meet at a minimum, to receive maximum points in the Affordability scoring section. The specific language referencing the 100/20 Mbps plan for $60/month is not referenced in the scoring table included on page 20. Should applicants consider both 1 Gbps plan for <$90/month and the 100/20 Mbps plan for $60/month mandatory requirements to receive the full 15 points in the Affordability section? Has the UBC considered the financial impact on rural providers of mandating a $60/month plan for 100/20 Mbps that must be maintained for five years? Many rural providers offer base broadband rates that are greater than the $60/month threshold today. Reducing the base rate to meet this requirement will likely cost the provider hundreds of thousands of dollars annually and place additional pressures on the Utah Universal Service Fund. This requirement would force rural providers to decrease their base broadband rate in PFAs, as well as surrounding areas, to avoid overly complex disparate pricing arrangements. | 12/15/23 | Duplicate |
1 | Engagement Date | Engagement Type | Engagement Location | Target Audience | Target Audience Location | Target Audience County | # Engaged | Aging Individuals | Incarcerated Individuals | Veterans | Individuals with Disabilities | Individuals with a language barrier | Individuals who are members of a racial or ethnic minority group | Individuals who primarily reside in a rural area | Notes, including action items, what was discussed, any key themes, or feedback | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
2 | FCC Open House for ACP Grantees: Weekly | Ongoing | Meeting | Online | Digital Equity | |||||||||||
3 | Western States Broadband Alliance Monthly Meeting | Ongoing | Meeting | Online | Digital Equity | |||||||||||
4 | NDIA State Digital Equity Cohort: Monthly | Ongoing | Meeting | Online | BEAD/Digital Equity | |||||||||||
5 | NDIA Community Call: Monthly | Ongoing | Meeting | Online | Digital Equity | |||||||||||
6 | NTIA SBLN Virtual Series: Monthly | Ongoing | Meeting | Online | BEAD/Digital Equity | |||||||||||
7 | San Antonia Net Inclusion Conference | 02/27/2023 - 03/03/2023 | Conference | San Antonio, TX | Digital Equity | |||||||||||
8 | Indigenous Digital Sovereignt: From the Digital Divide to Digital Equity Webinar | 7/11/2023 | Webinar | Online | BEAD/Digital Equity | |||||||||||
9 | Digital Navigators and Device Divide Training | 8/2/2023 | Meeting | Online | Digital Equity | |||||||||||
10 | Digital Inclusion Leadership Certificate Follow-Up Meeting | 8/31/2023 | Meeting | Online | Digital Equity | |||||||||||
11 | New Hampshire Forum on Strengthening Cyber Safety Skills and Systems Training | 9/6/2023 | Meeting | Online | BEAD/Digital Equity | |||||||||||
12 | ExcelinEd Digital Divide Network | 9/14/2023 | Meeting | Online | Digital Equity | |||||||||||
13 | Digital Equity Leaders Network: How Libraries Are Partnerning to Boost Digital Skills | 9/28/2023 | Webinar | Online | Digital Equity | |||||||||||
14 | Digital Inclusion 102: How to Build Partnerships and Coalitions | 10/04/2023 | Webinar | Online | Digital Equity | |||||||||||
15 | SHLB Member Policy Call: Biweekly | Ongoing | Meeting | Online | BEAD/Digital Equity | |||||||||||
16 | Utah and PEW Charitable Trust: Monthly | Ongoing | Meeting | Online | BEAD/Digital Equity | |||||||||||
17 | Digital Equity Leaders Network Monthly Meeting | Onging | Meeting | Online | Digital Equity | |||||||||||
18 | Utah Commission on Aging (Digital Access Planning Subgrantee) Quarterly Meeting | Ongoing | Meeting | Online | Digital Equity | |||||||||||
19 | Digital Inclusion Leadership Certificate Follow-Up Meeting | |||||||||||||||
20 | Digital Inclusion Task Group Monthly Meeting | Ongoing | Meeting | Online | Digital Equity | |||||||||||
21 | Digital Inclusion Research Forum | 10/11/2023 - 10/18/2023 | Conference | Dallas, TX | Digital Equity | |||||||||||
22 | Broadband Breakfast Live Online | 11/01/2023 | Webinar | Online | BEAD/Digital Equity | |||||||||||
23 | Digitunity Webinar: Healthcare Meets Digital Inclusion: A Transformative Partnership | 11/01/2023 | Webinar | Online | Digital Equity | |||||||||||
24 | Utah Indigeneous Day 2023 | 11/12/2023 | Event | West Valley City, Utah | Digital Equity | |||||||||||
25 | FCC Workshop on Environmental Comliance and Historic Preservation | 11/02/2023 | Webinar | Online | BEAD/Digital Equity | |||||||||||
26 | SBLN Leaders Meeting | 12/5/2023 | Meeting | Online | BEAD | Presentations on State challenge processes, portals and Q&A | ||||||||||
27 | Advance-BEAD Challenge Process Webinar | 12/12/2023 | Webinar | Online | BEAD | |||||||||||
28 | NGA Broadband Advisors Monthly Network Call | 01/09/2024 | Webinar | Online | BEAD | |||||||||||
29 | AI in DIgital Equity: Time for a community conversation | 01/09/2024 | Webinar | Online | Digital Equity | |||||||||||
30 | Western States Broadband Alliance January Monthly Meeting | 01/16/2024 | Meeting | Online | BEAD | |||||||||||
31 | NDIA Digital Inclusion 101 | 1/18/2024 | Meeting | Online | Digital Equity | |||||||||||
32 | NDIA State Digital Equity Cohort: Monthly | 1/18/2024 | Meeting | Online | Digital Equity | |||||||||||
33 | NDIA Community Call: Monthly | Ongoing 1/19/2024 | Meeting | Online | Digital Equity | |||||||||||
34 | Western States Pact Broadband Group | 2/20/2024 | Meeting | Online | BEAD | |||||||||||
35 | Maximizing BEAD Funding to connect MDUs: Subgranting process | 2/29/2024 | Meeting | Online | BEAD | |||||||||||
36 | Building Your Digital Equity Capacity | 4/2/2024 | Webinar | Online | Digital Equity | |||||||||||
37 | Uniform Guidance Launch | 4/2/2024 | Webinar | Online | BEAD/Digital Equity | |||||||||||
38 | SHLB Member Policy Call: Biweekly | Ongoing 6/3/2024 | Meeting | Online | BEAD/Digital Equity | |||||||||||
39 | NGA Broadband Leaders Workshop (Teri/Claire/Rebecca) | 6/3/24-6/5/24 | Meeting | Kansas City, Kansas | BEAD/Digital Equity | |||||||||||
40 | Pew BETI OFfice Hours Monthly Call on the 1st Friday | Ongoing | Meeting | Online | BEAD/Digital Equity | |||||||||||
41 | 2024 Regiional Fiber Connect Workshop Series (Rebecca/Steve) | 06/04/2024 | Workshop | In-person | BEAD | |||||||||||
42 | GoTo Webinar - The BEAD Application Phase Is Approaching | 06/05/2024 | Webinar | Online | BEAD | |||||||||||
43 | Building for Digital Equity #B4DE “Pathways to Affordable Connectivity | 06/10/2024 | Livestream meeting | Online | Digital Equity | |||||||||||
44 | Webinar Series: How to Build a Public Broadband Network | 06/11/2024 | Meeting | Online | Digital Equity | |||||||||||
45 | NGMA Compliance Conversations: 2024 Uniform Guidance Updates | 06/11/24 | Meeting | Online | BEAD | |||||||||||
46 | NGA Broadband Advisors Monthly Network Call | Ongoing 06/11/24 | Meeting | Online | BEAD | |||||||||||
47 | SHLB Poles Symposium | 06/13/24 | Meeting | Online | BEAD | |||||||||||
48 | OptiMap User Group - Third Tuesday of Every Month | Ongoing 06/18/24 | Meeting | Online | BEAD | |||||||||||
49 | Utah Digital Opportunity Network-Monthly Resource Meeting Monthly | Ongoing 06/21/24 | Meeting | Online | BEAD | |||||||||||
50 | UDON Monthly Resource Meeting-Monthly | Ongoing 06/21/25 | Meeting | Online | Digital Equity | |||||||||||
51 | NDIA Community Call | 6/21/24 | Meeting | Online | Digital Equity | |||||||||||
52 | SBLN Monthly Virtual Meeting (2024 Series) | 6/25/24 | Meeting | Online | BEAD | |||||||||||
53 | RWA Rural Wireless Association Infrastructure Summit | 6/25/24- 06/27/24 | Meeting | In-Person | BEAD | |||||||||||
54 | Broadband Forward Conference | 06/24/24- 2/26/24 | Meeting | In-Person | BEAD | |||||||||||
55 | Wesco Webinar: Planning an End-to-End Broadband Deployment Project | 06/27/2024 | Meeting | Virtual | BEAD | |||||||||||
56 | SBLN Directors Working Group Meeting (2024 Series) | 07/09/2024 | Meeting | Virtual | BEAD | |||||||||||
57 | NGA Broadband Advisors Monthly Network Call | Ongoing 07/09/2024 | Meeting | Virtual | BEAD | |||||||||||
58 | Navajo Nation BB Deployment & Adoptions Mtg | 7/12/2024 | Meeting | Virtual | BEAD/Digital Equity | |||||||||||
59 | SHLB Member Policy Call (Biweekly) | 7/15/2024 | Meeting | Virtual | BEAD/Digital Equity | |||||||||||
60 | Pew BETI Office Hours - Monthly Call | Ongoing 7/12/2024 | Meeting | Virtual | BEAD | |||||||||||
61 | SHLB Broadband Deployment Policy Group Call (2024) | Ongoing 7/16/2024 | Meeting | Virtual | BEAD/Digital Equity | |||||||||||
62 | State DE Cohort (Third Thursday) | Ongoing 07/18/2024 | Meeting | Virtual | BEAD/Digital Equity | |||||||||||
63 | NDIA Community Call | 07/19/2024 | Meeting | Virtual | BEAD/Digital Equity | |||||||||||
64 | NTIA BLM Permitting Summit | 07/22/2024 | Conference | In-Person | BEAD | |||||||||||
65 | SBLN Monthly Virtual Meeting (2024 Series) | Ongoing 7/23/24 | Meeting | Virtual | BEAD/Digital Equity | |||||||||||
66 | Digital Equity Webinar Series: Updates from NTIA's Digital Equity | 7/25/24 | Meeting | Virtual | BEAD/Digital Equity | |||||||||||
67 | SHLB Member Policy Call (Biweekly) | Ongoing 7/29/24 | Meeting | Virtual | BEAD/Digital Equity | |||||||||||
68 | Challenge Process Office Hours, Group 10 | 7/31/24 | Meeting | Virtual | BEAD | |||||||||||
69 | State DE Cohort (Third Thursday) | Ongoing 8/1/2024 | Meeting | Virtual | BEAD/Digital Equity | |||||||||||
70 | Pew BETI Office Hours - Monthly Call | Ongoing 8/2/2025 | Meeting | Virtual | BEAD/Digital Equity | |||||||||||
71 | Digital Equity Competitive Grant NOFO | 08/02/2024 | Meeting | Virtual | Digital Equity | |||||||||||
72 | Mountain Connect Panelist Prep Call | 08/05/24 | Meeting | Virtual | BEAD | |||||||||||
73 | SHLB Member Meet Up at Mountain Connect | 08/06/24 | Meeting | In-Person | BEAD | |||||||||||
74 | Let's Talk BEAD: Mountain West States | 08/06/24 | Meeting | In-Person | BEAD | |||||||||||
75 | SHLB Member Policy Call (Biweekly) | Ongoing 08/12/24 | Meeting | Virtual | BEAD/Digital Equity | |||||||||||
76 | State Collaboration on Esri BEAD Challenge Portals | Ongoing 08/12/24 | Meeting | Virtual | BEAD | |||||||||||
77 | EDCUtah DRC Training- Elected Officials | 08/13/2024 | Meeting | Virtual | BEAD/Digital Equity | |||||||||||
78 | Webinar: Decoding the 5th Circuit's Decision on the USF | 08/14/2024 | Meeting | Virtual | Digital Equity | |||||||||||
79 | Competitive Application Webinar, Part 3: Project Narrative | 08/15/2024 | Meeting | Virtual | Digital Equity | |||||||||||
80 | Utah Digital Opportunity Network-Monthly Resource Meeting Monthly | Ongoing 08/16/2024 | Meeting | Virtual | BEAD | |||||||||||
81 | NGMA Webinar | 08/20/2024 | Webinar | Virtual | BEAD/Digital Equity | |||||||||||
82 | SHLB Broadband Deployment Policy Group Call | Ongoing 08/20/2024 | Meeting | Vitual | BEAD/Digital Equity | |||||||||||
83 | Western States Broadband Alliance Monthly Meeting | Ongoing 08/20/2024 | Meeting | Virtual | BEAD | |||||||||||
84 | SHLB Member Policy Call (Biweekly) | Ongoing 08/26/2024 | Meeting | Virtual | BEAD/Digital Equity | |||||||||||
85 | State Collaboration on Esri BEAD Challenge Portals | Ongoing 09/03/24 | Meeting | Virtual | BEAD | |||||||||||
86 | SHLB Member Policy Call (Biweekly) | Ongoing 08/09/2024 | Meeting | Virtual | BEAD/Digital Equity | |||||||||||
87 | Pew BETI Office Hours - Monthly Call | Ongoing 09/06/2024 | Meeting | Virtual | BEAD/Digital Equity | |||||||||||
88 | NGA Broadband Advisors Monthly Network Call | Ongoing 09/10/2024 | Meeting | Virtual | BEAD/Digital Equity | |||||||||||
89 | Digital Equity Competitive Grant Program FAQ Webinar | 09/10/2024 | Meeting | Virtual | Digital Equity | |||||||||||
90 | Fierce Network Workforce Webinar | 09/11/2024 | Meeting | Virtual | BEAD | |||||||||||
91 | SHLB Broadband Deployment Policy Group Call | Ongoing 09/17/2024 | Meeting | Virtual | BEAD/Digital Equity | |||||||||||
92 | SBLN Summit Portland | 09/17 - 09/19/2024 | Summit | In-Person | BEAD/Digital Equity | |||||||||||
93 | GoTo - Economic and Social Impacts of Broadband Expansion | 09/18/2024 | Webinar | Virtual | BEAD | |||||||||||
94 | UDON Monthly Resource Meeting-Monthly | 09/20/2024 | Meeting | Virtual | Digital Equity | |||||||||||
95 | Chandler AZ - Tribal Summit | 09/23 - 09/26/2024 | Summit | In-Person | BEAD | |||||||||||
96 | SHLB Member Policy Call (Biweekly) | Ongoing 09/23/2024 | Meeting | Virtual | BEAD/Digital Equity | |||||||||||
97 | NEAR Group, Audit-Proof Your Organization Training | 09/25/24 | Training | Virtual | Digital Equity | |||||||||||
98 | State Collaboration on Esri BEAD Challenge Portals | Ongoing 09/25/24 | Meeting | Virtual | BEAD | |||||||||||
99 | Western States Broadband Alliance Monthly Meeting | Ongoing 09/26/2024 | Meeting | Virtual | BEAD/Digital Equity | |||||||||||
100 | State DE Cohort (First Thursday Monthly) | Ongoing 10/03/2024 | Meeting | Virtual | BEAD/Digital Equity | |||||||||||
101 | Pew BETI Office Hours - Monthly Call | Ongoing 10/04/2024 | Meeting | Virtual | BEAD/Digital Equity | |||||||||||
102 | One Utah Summit | 10/07 - 10/09/2024 | Summit | In-Person | BEAD | |||||||||||
103 | SHLB Member Policy Call (Biweekly) | Ongoing 10/07/2024 | Meeting | Virtual | BEAD/Digital Equity | |||||||||||
104 | SBLN Directors Working Group Meeting (2024 Series) | 10/08/2024 | Meeting | Virtual | BEAD | |||||||||||
105 | NGA Broadband Advisors Monthly Network Call | Ongoing 10/08/2024 | Meeting | Virtual | BEAD/Digital Equity | |||||||||||
106 | SHLB Member Policy Call (Biweekly) | Ongoing 10/09/2024 | Meeting | Virtual | BEAD | |||||||||||
107 | Digital Inclusion Week: Building State & Local Strategies to Achieve Digital Equity | 10/09/2024 | Meeting | Virtual | Digital Equity | |||||||||||
108 | Broadband Accessibility with CSD | 10/10/2024 | Meeting | Virtual | Digital Equity | |||||||||||
109 | CTN Day of Equity | 10/10/2024 | Meeting | Virtual | Digital Equity | |||||||||||
110 | SHLB Broadband Deployment Policy Group Call | Ongoing 10/15/2024 | Meeting | Virtual | BEAD/Digital Equity | |||||||||||
111 | Western States Broadband Alliance Monthly Meeting | Ongoing 10/15/2024 | Meeting | Virtual | BEAD/Digital Equity | |||||||||||
112 | UDON Monthly Resource Meeting-Monthly | Ongoing 10/18/2024 | Meeting | Virtual | Digital Equity | |||||||||||
113 | NDIA Community Call | 10/18/2024 | Meeting | Virtual | Digital Equity | |||||||||||
114 | State Collaboration on Esri BEAD Challenge Portals | Ongoing 10/16/2024 | Meeting | Virtual | BEAD | |||||||||||
115 | SHLB Member Policy Call (Biweekly) | Ongoing 10/21/2024 | Meeting | Virtual | BEAD/Digital Equity | |||||||||||
116 | SBLN Monthly Virtual Meeting (2024 Series) | Ongoing 10/22/2024 | Meeting | Virtual | BEAD/Digital Equity | |||||||||||
117 | Western States Broadband Alliance Monthly Meeting | Ongoing 10/22/2024 | Meeting | Virtual | BEAD | |||||||||||
118 | DELN Monthly Meeting | Ongoing 10/24/2024 | Meeting | Virtual | Digital Equity | |||||||||||
119 | NDIA Implementation Conference - Washington, DC | 10/28-10/31/2024 | Conference | In-Person | Digital Equity | |||||||||||
120 | Navajo Nation Broadband Office/NNTC - (AZ, NM, UT) | Ongoing 11/01/2024 | Meeting | Virtual | Digital Equity | |||||||||||
121 | Pew BETI Office Hours - Monthly Call | Ongoing 11/01/2024 | Meeting | Virtual | BEAD/Digital Equity | nnbo | ||||||||||
122 | SHLB Member Policy Call (Biweekly) | Ongoing 11/04/2024 | Meeting | Virtual | BEAD/Digital Equity | |||||||||||
123 | State Collaboration on Esri BEAD Challenge Portals | Ongoing 11/04/2024 | Meeting | Virtual | BEAD | |||||||||||
124 | State DE Cohort (First Thursday Monthly) | Ongoing 11/07/2024 | Meeting | Virtual | BEAD/Digital Equity | |||||||||||
125 | Decoding Health Inequity | 11/07/2024 | Meeting | Virtual | Digital Equity | |||||||||||
126 | SBLN Directors Working Group Meeting (2024 Series) | Ongoing 11/12/2024 | Meeting | Virtual | BEAD/Digital Equity | |||||||||||
127 | SLC Women Leaders Association Meeting | 11/12/2024 | Meeting | Virtual | BEAD | |||||||||||
128 | State DE Cohort Meeting (Every two weeks on Thursday) | Ongoing 11/14/2024 | Meeting | Virtual | BEAD/Digital Equity | |||||||||||
129 | Digital Equity in Indian County NDIA Webinar | 11/14/2024 | Meeting | Virtual | Digital Equity | |||||||||||
130 | Women & Business Conference 2024 | 11/15/2024 | Meeting | In-Person | BEAD | |||||||||||
131 | UDON Monthly Resource Meeting | Ongoing 11/15/2024 | Meeting | Virtual | Digital Equity | |||||||||||
132 | NDIA Community Call | Ongoing 11/15/2024 | Meeting | Virtual | Digital Equity | |||||||||||
133 | SHLB Member Policy Call (Biweekly) | Ongoing 11/18/2024 | Meeting | Virtual | BEAD/Digital Equity | |||||||||||
134 | Western States Broadband Alliance Monthly Meeting | Ongoing 11/19/2024 | Meeting | Virtual | BEAD/Digital Equity | |||||||||||
135 | SHLB Broadband Deployment Policy Group Call | Ongoing 11/19/2024 | Meeting | Virtual | BEAD/Digital Equity | |||||||||||
136 | SBLN Monthly Virtual Meeting (2024 Series) | Ongoing 11/19/2024 | Meeting | Virtual | BEAD/Digital Equity | |||||||||||
137 | Utah Special District Market Update | 11/21/2024 | Meeting | Virtual | BEAD | |||||||||||
138 | Reproductive Telehealth Access for People with Disabilities | 11/21/2024 | Meeting | Virtual | Digital Equity | |||||||||||
139 | State Collaboration on Esri BEAD Challenge Portals | Ongoing 11/25/2024 | Meeting | Virtual | BEAD | |||||||||||
140 | SBLN Monthly Virtual Meeting (2024 Series) | Ongoing 11/26/2024 | Meeting | Virtual | BEAD/Digital Equity | |||||||||||
141 | SHLB Member Policy Call (Biweekly) | Ongoing 12/02/2024 | Meeting | Virtual | BEAD/Digital Equity | |||||||||||
142 | Building the Carolinas' Tech Future Webinar | 12/04/2024 | Meeting | Virtual | Digital Equity | |||||||||||
143 | State DE Cohort (First Thursday Monthly) | Ongoing 12/05/2024 | Meeting | Virtual | BEAD/Digital Equity | |||||||||||
144 | Navajo Nation Broadband Office/NNTC - (AZ, NM, UT) | Ongoing 12/06/2024 | Meeting | Virtual | Digital Equity | |||||||||||
145 | NGA Broadband Advisors Monthly Network Call | Ongoing 12/10/2024 | Meeting | Virtual | Digital Equity | |||||||||||
146 | SBLN Directors Working Group Meeting (2024 Series) | Ongoing 12/10/2024 | Meeting | Virtual | BEAD/Digital Equity | |||||||||||
147 | CTN Webinar Series - The Gift of Digital Inclusion | Ongoing 12/12/2024 | Meeting | Virtual | BEAD/Digital Equity | |||||||||||
148 | ||||||||||||||||
149 | WISPAMERICA 2025 Conference | 03/24/2025 | Conference | In-person | BEAD | |||||||||||
150 | SHLB: SHLB Member Policy Call (Biweekly) | Ongoing 03/24/2025 | Meeting | Virtual | BEAD/Digital Equity | |||||||||||
151 | SHLB: SHLB Digital Opportunity Policy Group Call March 2025 | Ongoing 03/25/2025 | Meeting | Virtual | Digital Equity | |||||||||||
152 | URTA 2025 Annual Meeting | Yearly/Ongoing 3/25/2025 | Conference | In-Person | BEAD | |||||||||||
153 | DRAW Meeting | 03/27/2025 | Meeting | Virtual | Digital Equity | |||||||||||
154 | CTN | Lunch & Learn Webinar Series: Neuropsychology & the Aging Brain | 3/27/2025 | Meeting | Virtual | Digital Equity | |||||||||||
155 | Western States Broadband Alliance Monthly meeting | Ongoing 04/15/2025 | Meeting | Virtual | Digital Equity | |||||||||||
156 | Winning the Bid: Unlocking Procurement Opportunities | 04/16/2025 | Meeting | Virtual | BEAD/Digital Equity | |||||||||||
157 | State DE Cohort Meeting (Third Thursday) | 04/17/2025 | Meeting | Virtual | BEAD/Digital Equity | |||||||||||
158 | Digital Navigator Working Group | 4/17/2025 | Meeting | Virtual | Digital Equity | |||||||||||
159 | ||||||||||||||||
160 | NDIA Community Call | 04/18/2025 | Meeting | Virtual | Digital Equity | |||||||||||
161 | MDEC Webinar - Workforce Development & Digital Skills | 4/23/2025 | Meeting | Virtual | Digital Equity | |||||||||||
162 | SHLB: SHLB Member Policy Call | 4/23/2025 | Meeting | Virtual | BEAD/Digital Equity | |||||||||||
163 | E-SINCERE CAB Meeting | 4/23/2025 | Meeting | Virtual | Digital Equity | |||||||||||
164 | Digital Resiliance in the American Workforce Coaching call | 4/23/2025 | Meeting | Virtual | Digital Equity | |||||||||||
165 | CTN | Lunch & Learn Webinar Series: Life on the Edge of Connectivity | 4/24/2025 | Meeting | Virtual | Digital Equity | |||||||||||
166 | Utah Digital Opportunity Network April Resource Meeting | 4/25/2025 | Meeting | Virtual | Digital Equity | |||||||||||
167 | Pew BETI Office Hours - Monthly Call | 4/25/2025 | Meeting | Virtual | Digital Equity | |||||||||||
168 | ||||||||||||||||
169 | Pew Trusts Workshop | 4/28/25 | Meeting | In-person | BEAD/Digital Equity | |||||||||||
170 | NTIA Meeting-Utah, Missouri, Maine, West Virginia | 4/28/25 | Meeting | In-person | BEAD/Digital Equity | |||||||||||
171 | SHLB DOLN network | 4/28/25 | Meeting | Virtual | BEAD/Digital Equity | |||||||||||
172 | SHLB: SHLB Digital Opportunity Policy Group Call | 4/29/25 | Meeting | Virtual | BEAD/Digital Equity | |||||||||||
173 | DRAW- Learning Circle #2 UTAH | 4/30/25 | Meeting | Virtual | BEAD/Digital Equity |