Idaho Education Network

Is Otter *Trying* to Kill Broadband in Idaho?

By Sharon Fisher, 1-27-09

If Idaho’s executive branch is trying to shoot down the prospect of a statewide broadband Internet network, they’re doing a hell of a good job. Let’s count the ways.

Last year’s Legislature passed a bill to create the Idaho Education Network, a statewide broadband Internet purportedly for education but which actually would also be used for economic development and, eventually, for state agencies.

But it looks like the Department of Administration, put in charge of the project, has skipped over the first steps and jumped right into awarding contracts—to the same old good buddies. Moreover, the Department is talking about circumventing the Legislature to do so—which, after Laptopgate earlier this session, could end up killing the project due to interbranch conflict.

How the Idaho Education Network (IEN) came about.
There has been some dispute over the past couple of years regarding how many people in Idaho lack high-speed Internet access. U.S. West (Qwest) has indicated that it believes that a majority of the people in Idaho who want such high-speed connections have access if they want it, but some people have disagreed, saying they want it but can’t get it – and that Qwest has stymied efforts by other companies to provide it.

Without high-speed access, it is difficult or impossible to use web-based browsers, let alone have access to downloadable video or music. In addition to consumer use, this not only affects the ability of companies in those areas to do business, but also the ability of students to use the Internet for research – which is where the Education committee came in.

The bill, which upon passage became known as H543, did a couple of things. First, it charged the Department of Administration—originally slated to be killed last year, but which is now run by Governor C.L. “Butch” Otter’s good buddy Mike Gwartney, for no salary—with coordinating the development, outsourcing and implementation of a statewide network for education, including connectivity of a bandwidth high enough to support two-way interactive video and consisting primarily of fiber optic transmission media.

The first step was for the department to develop a map of currently underserved areas. Following that, the state’s involvement would allow it to leverage its purchasing power to promote private sector investment in telecommunications infrastructure that will benefit other technology applications such as telemedicine, telecommuting, telegovernment and economic development.

However, if the Department of Administration completed the first step, it’s not on its website in a publicly available form. Why is this a problem? Because before you can solve a problem, first you have to know its scope. Moreover, a big part of defining the problem is defining the kind of broadband network Idaho citizens are going to get. These definition questions included the following:

How will the Department of Administration identify these areas?
Will it rely on the word of Qwest and other providers about where Internet access is available, or will it go out and look on its own?

How granular will the map be?
For example, some areas may have access to Internet or not, depending on line-of-sight to a transmitter. Will the map be based simply on whether the majority of people in a county or city have access, or might it be down to the block level? Will the map note what speeds and what Internet communications methods are available in a particular area, or will low-speed Internet access via satellite look the same as a pipe fat enough to download three movies simultaneously?

How will the Department of Administration define “broadband”?
According to the Federal Communications Commission, “broadband” can be as little as 200 k bits per second – a speed that does not permit a number of common Internet applications.

So, Problem #1: we don’t appear to have the map, nor the definitions that would be required to create the map and decide where more service is needed.

That brings us to Problem #2: According to an article by Jared Hopkins in the Times-News, Gwartney has apparently already awarded the contracts—and a good chunk of them are apparently to Qwest.

You know, Qwest. The company that said that everyone in Idaho who wanted broadband already had it. The company that donated more than $60,000 during the two-year 2008 election cycle, according to the Secretary of State’s office (as reported by the Times-News). The company that, in the 2004 Legislative session, pushed for more deregulation,—and after losing by a single vote, pushed again in 2005 and won, partly because Senator Jack Noble (R-Kuna), who had singlehandedly killed it in 2004 by changing his vote, had been forced to resign from the Legislature due to conflict of interest charges on another matter.

When Idaho last awarded a chunk of money to help improve broadband access in Idaho, in 2006, Qwest received $5 million—and, according to a 2007 report, spent the money inefficiently by increasing service in places where it already existed, and charging a high price for it. The result is that not many people got better access, and the cost per new user was much higher for Qwest than for other companies awarded money ($120.83 per customer, compared to as little as $29.76 from another vendor).

The Times-News article gets into a lot more detail, too. For example, according to the article Gwartney said that he solicited all telephone companies operating in Idaho, which then formed 11 “consortiums” that submitted bids.

Just telephone companies? What about companies such as DigitalBridge, which operates WiMAX networks all over the Intermountain West—including some Idaho cities? WiMAX, a technology based on cell phones, is slower than wired Internet but is much cheaper to implement, particularly in rural and mountainous areas.

However, the Times-News goes on to say, “Gwartney would not release details about the contracts - or even say how much they are for. He said that information will be posted online only after the closure of a 10-day period in which losing firms are allowed to protest the awards.”

Swell.  Sniff test, anyone?

(The other award, incidentally, went to a consortium including Syringa Networks. According to William Korver at www.broadbandcensus.com, Syringa Networks is made up of 12 Idaho independent local exchange carriers and has also created state-wide fiber-optic network in Idaho.)

Now we come to Problem #3: How to pay for it.

When the IEN was created last year by a unanimous vote of the House, nothing was budgeted for it—it was to be funded by private donations for now, with appropriations to follow when the economic outlook was better. Somehow, now, it has become a five-year, $50 million project, with 70 percent to be paid for by the federal government, with a 30 percent match by the state of Idaho.  There is $3 million proposed in Otter’s 2010 budget to pay for it.

Gwartney is also asking for a $100,000 supplemental to the 2009 budget “to beat a mid-February deadline to make an application for federal matching funds to keep the project on track,” according to the Times-News. This is, of course, a laudable goal. The problem is that, faced with a tight budget year and concern from the Joint Finance-Appropriations Committee of how it could find the $100,000, Gwartney said he could do an end-run around JFAC through executive order if the Legislature wouldn’t fund it.

Let’s get this straight. One of the Governor’s staff—you know, the same staff that called the Legislature “sneaks” for finding a way to fund replacement laptops that the Governor vetoed—is saying it will bypass the Legislature to get its funding. (Not to mention, Gwartney will issue an executive order? Even if it’s technically possible, is that really the politic thing to say?)

Yeah, that’s gonna work well.

Idaho needs the IEN, there’s no doubt about it. But after Laptopgate, the executive branch is setting itself up for a heck of a spitting contest between it and the Legislature—one that could end up drowning IEN, and the hopes of rural Idahoans who need broadband along with it.

Like this story? Get more! Sign up for our free newsletters.