Banquet Speakers: Milda Hedblom and Craig Rapp
Milda Hedblom is a professor of political science at Augsberg and the Humphrey Institute, and she works extensively as a consultant ‘where innovation happens’. She is currently working with Monticello on broadband access as a municipal utility. Her major challenge, here and elsewhere has been to determine how one connects with the residents and the consumers, where, if the broadband development succeeds, it will develop into a long term community asset. She has been involved with communications technology for a number of years and it has changed significantly; while in her work in Rosemount about ten years ago, they were inventing the map; today it’s much more economical, and with many more options; the technology has changed, been adopted, and is more widespread and needed. Ten years ago, when she was in Geneva with the UN, they were working on a worldwide scale on telecommunications, with the United States, in or near the lead. Few foresaw how rapidly the US would lose it’s pre-eminent position in technology as we see today.
She noted that broadband development must be viewed as a whole, as with understanding the proverbial elephant. First, goals are critical in the implementation of technologies, and can help direct the project effectively. Connecting most efforts is the desire or necessity for economic development.
Implementation has evolved along with the technology; for example, non-profits are frequently playing an important role in broadband development, and newly, municipalities, counties and governments are the “new kids” of wireless/broadband implementation. These commonly have a history of municipal electricity providers, but even those without that history are now working to provide broadband.
There is also increased activity in regional development of services; interlinking short, medium, and long term goals being addressed together, avoiding the problem of reinventing the wheel in every city. Communication between neighboring cities is still uncommon. Counties are now beginning to be directed to provide broadband services.
Broadband development is currently on a two way street; while this conference looks at community input and development, the ‘arrow’ also goes the other way, from the government actions and policies directing changes in use and participation. There have been some efforts [from the private sector] to limit capabilities of governmental organizations to provide broadband/wireless, and right now the greatest legal focus is on the delivery of video; some are proposing statewide video broadband franchising.
Fourth; what about the general public in Minnesota appears to focus on price and moderate speed, as seen both through polls and the Chaska experience. However, this may be changing as a new Minnesota high speed bill put forward by a coalition of users, not providers or specialist policy community; calls for gigabit to every “premise” by 2015, saying this as vital to business. While business can afford very high speed internet access, they note that ‘our employees can’t buy it’, “it” often meaning fiber.
Fiber and broadband are really quite comparable on a number of levels.
Finally, she urged that one keep an eye on the money. For success, what was needed was to find the investment model that will sustain the work, within each political climate. We need a new broadband vision; we need to align the goals; fiber to the home and wireless is not a zero sum game; the community needs to change so it can serve as a migration path, perhaps wireless now and for mobile use, the eventual fiber to the home. Wireless needs to be planned for an upgrade to fiber later.
Craig Rapp noted that his time in local government encompassed a number of telecommunication events, from cable installations and multi-city cable commissions, after which he ran a local gas company; he noted that all this informed his understanding of the adoption of technologies. It is important to develop a clear vision of what you want to do, along with appropriate metrics.
He noted that there are many leaders with great visions, but often the successful ventures are not shared throughout the metro area. If we decide we need it in Minneapolis or Chaska, then move, we should not lose it if we move into a neighboring suburb. We have a history of solving these larger types of problems through common action, through the Met council. Now we see, in broadband/wireless, the potential waste of resources ten years down the road. Even now, many local governments have financial problems; resources will ultimately [and hopefully] force us to cooperate on issues such as broadband.
He noted that we currently have the wrong vision for broadband; he currently sees Minnesota as lagging behind in economic growth. He cited the emergency radio communications system as an example of this successful cooperation. He said what was needed was resources, political will, and vision, and said that someone needed to step forward declaring this as a goal. While we can go along and do individual implementations, what does it take for us to figure out that that is a waste of duplicative efforts, caused by petty economic competition. He argued that we need to be going to ultra-high speed broadband to the home; citing Daniel Pink and Richard Florida. If we don’t have some idea as to where the ball is going to be…
Where we’re going is a wireless, broadband connected whole. That’s what economic competitiveness and a clear goal is all about.
In an economic development context; it is all about providing the basics that an economy needs to run, to allow for private investment. Electricity 100 years ago is what broadband is today. We are heading toward wasteful use of money if we do not plan and implement broadband with clear goals and a coherent vision.