17X: Why Who Plays in the Broadband Sandbox Matters

Off-the-road-system rural Alaska has its perks. It’s not for everyone but with a decade under my belt living in what we used to call “the bush” in the ‘70’s and ‘80’s, I can tell you that the best part for me involved people.

The options of shopping at a mall or going to the movie theatre or eating at a fancy restaurant were non-existent. Free time was less about what you were going to do and more about with whom you were going to spend that time. When not working, time was centered on people.

When the weather was conducive, it often involved being together outdoors breathing fresh air while on the snow or on the water or on the tundra or maybe the ball field. When the weather wasn’t cooperative, it often involved food and sometimes music and games. It usually involved laughing and story-telling – but it always involved people and listening and learning and enjoying being together.

Not All Roses

And although I have fond memories of village life, it wasn’t all roses. Limited work opportunities, limited school opportunities, and limited connections to the rest of the world stick out in my mind.

I guess that’s why a dozen years ago, I began realizing what a game-changer robust access to the internet would be for those who live in rural communities in Alaska. It could open up opportunities for work, for school, and for connections beyond a community’s borders.

I wondered a decade ago when policy leaders would come to the realization that the information highway in Alaska was as important as our physical highways and bridges and ports – and recall posing that question to one of our federal delegation members in a joint session of the legislature. A few years later, work began in DC putting together a broadband package;  a few years following, Congress passed that package; and now over the past few years, broadband infrastructure dollars have come to our state as a result of that package. The build-out of a statewide broadband system many of us dreamed about is underway.

An impetus for me to promote strong internet access for the 82% of our state’s communities which are not connected by roads was when I recognized the power of interactive video simultaneously with the shortage of high-quality teachers needed for our rural schools. As legislators, we were hearing about the national shortage of teachers, and understanding that remote, rural life isn’t for anyone and that urban areas were struggling to find teachers, it was no surprise rural areas were having even a tougher go of it.

Connections Mean Opportunities

About that time, I watched a live demonstration of a teacher conducting an engaging class with students in another location in real-time, with communication going back and forth, and creative software in use so the teacher could see each student’s “desk” and their work. The students didn’t skip a beat and the teacher was tremendous.

About that time, a young student in Palmer shared with me that she was taking a virtual class with teenagers across the country and a teacher on the east coast. She loved the teacher and was so connected with the other students in her online classroom that she would forget that she wasn’t physically in-person with them, that her classmates were her friends, and the teacher was accessible and responsive.

It dawned on me then that correctly conducted, creative virtual education opportunities led by cream-of-the-crop teachers were part of the solution for our rural schools. The pursuit for better broadband connections intensified.

Not To Be Deterred

During the covid period, even though online learning wasn’t working for most students, I was not deterred because I saw how poorly many of the classes were structured and how unengaging some of the lessons were conducted. Most teachers had not been trained in the model, and online learning was a flop for the most part. Done right, however, by our best and most creative and engaging teachers, virtual education will open up opportunities to courses that would otherwise not be available in a village. It will be a game-changer if districts ensure the online classes available to their students are the best of the best.

Now, why do I bring all this up about broadband and virtual education opportunities? I bring it up because last week we passed a statute to allow schools to access e-rate funds for higher internet speeds (up from 25 Mbps to 100 Mbps download).

Tech Neutrality is the Name of the Game

Tech neutrality isn’t a new topic. I recall my work a dozen years ago related to unmanned aircraft and the importance of aligning aviation rules absolutely as much as possible, whether the pilot sat in the seat or stood on the ground. Burdensome special rules and bias against an emerging technology will hamper it.

Who misses out when that happens? We do. We all do. Society misses out and opportunities are snatched away. Tech neutrality is currently and once again front and center in my work, this time related to Artificial Intelligence as I research and craft policy.

So, whether it’s drones, A.I., or LEOs, we must step back and let the innovators innovate and then see how the free market rolls.

Bringing It Home to Broadband

Why do I bring tech neutrality up in an article about broadband connectivity in rural Alaska? Whether it’s in reference to the August 2023 Connected Nations Report on School Connectivity or the 2024 FCC Broadband 706 Report just released, we know that fixed broadband pricing in both homes and schools is off the charts higher in our state than in the Lower 48. We know our speeds have been dramatically slower than in the Lower 48 and that Alaskans spend the most on internet access as a share of household income than anywhere else in America. Simply put, we‘ve been the worst in the nation.

We have the perfect opportunity to change that if policymakers don’t squelch it. By “we”, I’m referring to policymakers in Juneau as well as in DC. Lobbyists for fiber-centric companies have the right to swarm our state’s and nation’s Capitol buildings, but lawmakers have the duty to understand the present circumstances and to look at the facts.

Wise and Responsible to Not Sabotage Competition

The e-rate bill that just passed slates $40 million per year in state subsidies for school broadband. This $40 million is paired with $360 million in federal monies (also taxpayer dollars) for a grand total of $400 million, a 1 to 9 match. If the LYSD’s lowered costs played out across other districts, imagine what we could save at the school level, the state level, and at the federal level.

After my presenting the fact that four school districts and 23 schools in Alaska are now using LEO-based internet services, and at my inquiry and request on the Senate floor during the debate on HB 193, Senator Hoffman stated on the record that schools using LEO-based service would be eligible for e-rate. That is the first step in helping open doors for our rural community neighbors.

There is more work to do. We still need clear tech neutral language in statute when it comes to broadband. If one service is as good as another, districts should have the option to pick what works for them. We should not saddle remote communities with high costs. The state and federal governments should not be picking the winners. The livelihoods of individuals associated with the broadband industry will be enhanced, but let’s make sure it’s done fairly. Hundreds of millions of dollars are at stake, multiple billions over one decade. If we are wise and responsible, we will embrace rather than sabotage competition.

Please note: No LEO-based company or lobbyist visited me or reached out in regard to HB 193 to request I provide data about the cost differences associated with broadband. I gathered the facts and presented the case for tech neutrality on the Senate floor at my own initiation and of my own volition because Alaskans deserve to have this information, and policymakers have a responsibility to be good stewards of public funds.