Okay, well, good afternoon. Good morning. Good afternoon, everybody. Thanks for joining us today. We have a lot to cover today. So I want to just jump right into the meeting. As you all know that we're here to talk about the, it's a BEAD Study Session, because we do want to provide opportunity for engagement and discussion rather than just a webinar. So as you all know that the Broadband Office had released the for public comment, comment, Volume II the initial proposal for BEAD, and that comment period actually ends on December 6th. It's a fairly long and complex proposal. And so we wanted to provide an opportunity for people to learn more about the state's plan. So this, this event is being provided by the Arizona broadband stakeholder digital access Task Force, the Arizona Commerce Authority Broadband Office, and the Governor Hobbs Inter Agency And Community Broadband Advisory Council. So just two seconds, because most of you, I think, have been participating in the task force. So I'm not going to spend a lot of time. But just a reminder that we are a broad coalition of business, government, education, local government, state government, nonprofit organizations, broadband providers, and so forth. And it is open to anybody who chooses to participate. So if you want to keep up to date on broadband and digital inclusion planning and initiatives in Arizona, it's a good place to be. We meet at eight o'clock AM by zoom every Thursday morning. And again, I'll put the link in the chat for the next meeting that's coming Thursday. Next is I haven't seen Maggie, Are you online by chance? I don't think so. But Perla I saw you, can you just talk briefly about the Interagency and Broadband advisory.
I see. Can you hear me safe?
Yeah, can now
But yeah, these are the interagency working groups. They are sent by a distro list that was sent out by Maggie. We basically go over the BEAD Volume I and II and the different requirements that are within those two documents as well. And we also talk how about these groups. And the there are experts that join these groups that go over digital inclusion, workforce, infrastructure and permitting. And I'm blanking on a few because I did get caught off guard here. And my screen is the one that's being shared with the team right now. But I'd be more than happy to type in all the chat for right now.
Sounds good. Thanks. So moving on, the meeting is recorded and will be shared after this meeting. And just just so you know, those of you who have been participating in the AZBSN over the years, you know that after the meetings, I do send out the meeting recording, the transcript, the the meeting, chat, and so forth, so that you can keep up to date. Our Chat zoom transcript, actually we use excuse me, we use otter AI. And so you can actually view the, the information and click on it and it will play the information also. And again, so that'll be available after the meeting. I'll be sending it out to everybody in a day or two. And again, for those of you who attend regularly we are going to do kibitzing with colleagues. And what that is, is isn't optional meeting after after this study session is over, we'll stop recording. And anybody who wants to stay online, chat, ask questions, share information, or whatever is welcome to do. So. That may be five minutes or maybe an hour, it may be one person, it may be five people, maybe 20 people we just never know. But it is, again, just an optional opportunity for people to participate. So moving on. Also, don't forget that if you have a question or a comment, please raise your hand and introduce yourself so that we know who's speaking, and it will really help if you raise your hand to control a meeting. So moving on, Sandip, I'm going to introduce you in a minute. Wait a minute, but you want to introduce you've got several people from your team who were on the call today. Do you want to introduce that quickly?
Absolutely, Steve, and good afternoon, everyone. My name is Sandip Bhowmick broadband Director here at Arizona commerce authority. And Steve, thank you for the opportunity to present BEAD, Volume Two in front of this crowd. With me today I have my whole team. So I have Krystal who's the data and GIS analyst for Arizona Commerce Authority broadband, Perla Lopez, who is our broadband program manager, we have Erin Lorandos. She's our digital equity program manager, Candace Hamana tribal liaison. And we have a new member in the team Vanessa, Vanessa started today. And she's going to be the grants and compliance manager. So the broadband team is growing, we will add two more positions very soon, probably by the end of this month or mid next month. One is coming to engagement and outreach and senior broadband program manager. So the team is growing, the activities is growing. So really appreciate everyone for their support, and especially this group of people.
Great. Well, I'm glad to see you're getting reinforcements Sandip.
It's always important, Steve.
Okay, so let's just jump right into the program. So we have two key people who are going to be presenting this morning, or this afternoon, or whatever it is. And excuse me, and then this is going to be an opportunity to be interactive. So if you have questions or comments or whatever, again, raise your hand, and we will try to answer them and also have time after the presentations. So we're always pleased to have Nicole you Umyam, who's the federal program officer with the NTIA office of internet connectivity and growth for Arizona. And she's going to provide a brief overview of the NTIA. BEAD plan requirements, which are fairly extensive. So we're going to hear from Nicole in just a minute. And then of course, you just met Sandip, who is our state broadband director who will provide a look at how Arizona's draft is response to the NTIA requirements. And again, there will be opportunity for questions and to provide your input. So with that, I'm going to stop sharing and turn it over to you, Nicole.
So Steve, just want to add, once we start, I think the way we discussed last week, Nicole will go ahead and present NTIA requirements for volume two. And then we will go back to the report and we'll scroll through every single section and like dark pages in the in their volume two book which is published in SEO website and take questions from there. We have only one and a half hour it's a massive document. I think the sub grantee selection process can take one and a half hour only. So just need to be mindful of every single chapter every single topic we're discussing, and I would like to add one more thing which is very crucial for this group here. If you have a comment, we would highly highly encourage you to submit that comment in the portal. Anything discussed in this meeting will not be considered directly as a comment towards the volume two so still, please submit those your concern or your comments as a as a comment into ACA portal or directly email to us. This is a study session. So we are just probably justifying and discussing lot of the decisions I see and made in communication in line of NTIA's guidance. So thank you.
Thank you, Sandip, for bringing that up to date. So Nicole, I'm gonna turn it over to you and I'm pretty sure that you have some things to share.
Yes, and good morning, good afternoon or whatever it is. Um, you know, I did promise to regale you with only a select few slides just for some level setting. I'm not sure if everyone's familiarity with the BEAD program. Today we're talking about Volume Two, which indicates there's also a volume one where the public comment is closed. But you know, as Steve mentioned, I am the federal program officer. I live in work here in Arizona in Phoenix. My role with this program is one part Grant Administrator for the BEAD and digital equity programs, that funding flowing to the state of Arizona, one part supporting the capacity of the broadband office to meet all of the program requirements and one part to engage with and support as many groups on the ground in the name of internet for all. So it's really, really an honor to be doing this work with you. One note, we are going over the draft that is posted for public comment of Volume Two, posted for public comment by the ACA. Volume One has been submitted to NTIA formally submitted, Volume Two has not been formally submitted and neither has been approved by NTIA either we're you know, that's that's a a lengthy review process. So that is to say that the texts that we see in the ACA is document is a really great first pass, but it's not finalized or set in stone by any means. When the draft is going to be evaluated by a whole army of NTIA. Colleagues, that initial proposal is evaluated based on section four in the bead NOFO. If you'd like to reference there, it's making sure that it will comply with Section 60102 of the infrastructure act, and making sure that all components of this plan are going to effectuate the purpose of the infrastructure act and be in the public interest. So those are, end to end today's perspective how these plans are ultimately evaluated. Want to share a quick timeline for everyone? Hopefully, you're seeing my slides and not my emails right now. But we'll just take that as confirmation. This is where we are in the process today. So the initial proposal has been published for public feedback, then the state has time to revise based on the comments from NTIA and this this session and the written feedback before they officially submit on or before December 27 of this year. They've already submitted volume one. So we would be looking at Volume Two, and what is called their initial proposal funding request or IP four. So this is a pretty critical time for all of your inputs. Because what goes into the plan is precisely what the state is then evaluated on one year after the plan is approved. So the ways the mechanisms, they say that they will conduct their processes, that creates the rubric for NTIA to evaluate the final proposal, which is then one do one year after the approval of the initial proposal. So unfortunately, we don't have a set timeline on when that would be. But you do the sub grantees the selection process, the the the components of bead awardees would be established by the state. And that is what gets packaged to to NTIA in that final proposal.
So what are we talking about when we say the initial proposal and all of these federal requirements? There are 20 requirements that are outlined in the NOFO. We're going to go over some of these and I i understand that Sandip is going to be really sharing sharing the draft, but I really wanted to hit on some of the key ones first, and perhaps we'll have a little bit of a back and forth if there's questions about what the nofo requires and how the state has addressed each of these components. To note though, requirements three, existing broadband funding, five, six and seven, these are around the challenge process and the idea indications of eligible locations. Those are all components of volume one. So that has already been submitted. But you're still able to view the state's volume one plan, if you want to see the location list and the state's plans around the challenge process. So if you're excited to talk about that today, we're going to have to schedule another time, because today is all about the remaining Nofo requirements, which are the other 20 are sorry, the other 17 listed here. I'm not sure, Sandip, if you want to comment on any of this before I was going to go ahead and dive into subgrantee selection, because I think it's kind of a priority area for a lot of the attendees.
Sure, I think that's a good idea. Just want to add one, one comment, all these 20 requirements, it's so in dense in cases, I think we definitely welcome any policy feedback from your side. And that's why the governor's working group is there for but we would like to today basically, why we added this point into the description or the plan should be the main focus of this whole discussion today. And it's a study session. So I'm assuming everyone kind of went through this report before we jump jump into this call. So let's keep it on point regarding Volume One. And regarding volume two. So today we'll we'll be discussing what Nicole just shared here, we'll be discussing 1,2,4 And then a 220. The last one, which is start that middle class affordability plan, we mark that as 20. So physical world.
Okay, well, Sandip, if you want to queue up in your document, where you start talking about subgrantee selection, we'll just go over some of the high notes here from the guidance. So NTIA sets out a number of principles for sub grantee selection. And these are the parameters that states and territories are using in identifying and making awards for the deployment and non deployment projects alike. So there's some of these components that are set by NTIA, and then others where the state gets to make modifications, and then even novel strategies around what they know are priorities to Arizona. One of the points that I like to highlight is, there's a lot of flexibility here, when we're thinking about how the state is going to develop project areas. And maybe there's some interesting discussion or some questions folks have about about that here. The NOFO allows for state for states and territories to set a project area as small as one single location if need be. I'm not sure that that's likely in our case. But there are, there are some outcomes where that might, that might be a considered factor if we have to get down to the individual location level. But really, states get to set the geography of choice and make, you know, make their best case for how they are going to develop project areas. Which means that they can at the geographic level of their choosing. So there's a bit of flexibility here. If on If the state wants to take a variety of approaches, and it doesn't have to be the same for the entire state, which is if they want to have project areas comprise of a county in one part of the area, but multiple counties in another part of the state or a grouping of Census Blocks. They really just have to make that make that decision and justify it in their initial proposal. I see a hand raised
your hand up? Yeah, I'm
always curious about the method of delivering the service to a household, particularly in a rural remote area. It not all of this is talking about, you know the principles etc. I guess where I'm going with that question is probably the, the wireless, the wireless service is probably more advantageous than than other ways to do a deliver that or or just what do you think the plan is?
Well, that's that's a great question. I, you know, I'll defer to Sandip. But if we want to dig into there now, because the initial proposal includes a lot of considerations around technology types in choosing the these project areas, as well as in evaluating those applications. So, you know, we're informed today even though we've got these these nice slides. I don't know if any of you want to address that now or later.
No I can I can. I think Nicole, I would say, go over your slides regarding sub grantee selection, and then probably I can jump into the document. But I can also answer Vaughn's question. So in a nutshell, bead only provides connectivity where there is less than 100 by 20, or less than 25 by three. So the bead the whole bead funding is divided into two categories, it's in the household level, anything which is unserved or anything which is underserved. So based on that category, Arizona has approximately 320,000 households which need high speed connectivity as per unserved and underserved category. And we have 909 $93 million to cover this. It's it's a given fact that the amount of money we need fiber is the preferred technology from federal government. And that's a preferred technology from our office side too. But the amount of money we have, it's not enough to cover every single household with fiber. As of now we're going through different financial study and their household here in Arizona, which requires at least $250,000, just to connect one household, and those are sometime mobile homes, those are homes, which does not have any address, zip code and everything. So the way our office is thinking that it will be a mix of technologies. So as per the NTIA guideline, and I can share the document, and you will see that in Volume One, there is a sorry, volume two sub grantee selection process, there is a category and it calls extremely high cost threshold or high cost threshold. So state will only entertain fiber technology within a number, the moment it crosses that number will switch into either wireless technology or satellite technology based on where it is how much money we are spending it for one household, we are building one cell tower and deploying wireless technology that's not feasible. So probably we will go with lower orbital satellite in that case. So it's a mix of technology, if that makes sense. But anywhere where fiber makes sense, within the money we have, we will go with fiber to home technology. Having seen that I can jump into the document.
Nicole, do you have anything else before Sandip jumps into his document? Let's
let's get into it. Yep.
So this is the sub grantee selection process section in from our volume two. So main focus of this section that how we will select a sub grantee meaning an ISP, or a partnership between an ISP or city or in this case and municipal network, a nonprofit anyone can apply. So NTIA keep that area pretty open. So it's not only the ISPs, it's can be a city, it can be a county, it can be a nonprofit organization who can apply for this funding. And the second question is, it's a fast project area. As you probably already know, during our capital funding project grant, which we did one and a half year ago, we did not select any area because Arizona was mostly unserved and underserved for long time. So we kept it open, we got application from multiple parts of the country for the from the state and selected the best application based on different criteria. For this one. For bead funding, we are required to define the project areas. So in this case, the way we will be defining the project area based on either a census block group and governmental unit boundary like the County border, expected project size, geography and terrain, our north side of the state is not equal to south side when it comes to geography and gearing and current competitive landscape for between the ISPs. And one of the biggest concern we have here in the state the available middle mile network, if there is not a middle mile network, it needs to be built. Sometime it's allowed by the bead funding, but we are mostly hoping that ISPs will be applying for these BT funding will build as that middle mile connection between a project area and the nearest fiber Point of Presence. So there are a few criteria and we are calling these as a great gated criteria. So every eligible BSL need to be covered. So if there is a project area, I want to take a step back here. So Arizona we have 22 federally recognized tribes. One thing we are 100% sure of as of today, that all these federally 22 recognized area is going to be a separate project areas. So these are all separate respecting tribes and tribal data sovereignty, we would like to keep it separate. And there are 15 counties. In some cases, most probably it will be a countywide approach. If there is a tribe within that county boundary, there going to be a separate project area. So and in some cases in Maricopa County where our Pima County where there is already connection available high speed broadband In high speed broadband connectivity available, in that case, we are most probably going to mostly focus on islands where the connections are not available. In that case, probably that will not be a county wide area, those are going to be smaller specific project areas to make sure that we are covering those gaps.
interrupt for one second. If you're having any questions, please raise your hand. I still like to waste one or a couple of questions in the chat. But if you have questions, please raise your hand. Okay, sorry, Sanip.
No, it's fine.
I'm sorry, that broke your your trade of concentration?
I would highly request everyone if you can keep your question at least at the end of the section. A lot of your question might get answered during this whole briefing. So as I mentioned, the way this whole TR process works, we have the money and then we are liable to serve all the unserved household which has less than 25 by three, and then anything less than 100 by 20. And if there is any money leftover, we'll cover the community anchor Institute. If you go back or radar Volume One, there is a Excel spreadsheet, which was posted with volume one has all the community anchor institutes list by category was uploaded for your review. If you're missing anything, you can still submit it. During the challenge process, which is coming next year, we'll talk more about it in a different session. But what we did, we got a little bit creative here and I'll talk more about it. But maximum eligible CAI is meaning within a project area if a county is a project area, and there are 100 eligible CIAs a community anchor Institute, if an ISP is covering 90 of them and another ISP is covering 100 of them, that the ISP which is covering 100 of them is going to get the maximum amount of points. So we will become a little bit creative when it comes to the to the scoring, then grouping project area and applicant might group multiple project area. So if there is a there are multiple project areas side by side project area 12345, they can submit it fast application together put them all together in the same thing. So but as you see here, it clearly says that, that does not mean that they can just give us a financial for all five project areas together, there needs to be a breakdown for every single project area, how they are covering that how much money they will be spending in there. So what we will be doing, there is a process called pre marketing and qualification phase. So if I don't have the direct presentation, but here's a tentative timeline, around June, July next year, we will publish a map, that map will only be accessible to the local government, our ISPs and nonprofit organizations. What that will do that map will have the identity project areas. Again, those are not written on concrete at that point next year. We are just trying to get a vibe from the ISPs to see that what kind of feedback we're getting from them. At the end of the day. ISPs are the one who will bridge this gap. So if that project area of what the state has defined, does it make sense for the ISPs financially to cover that area. So we want to open up that and kind of mold ideas that these are our project area and see what kind of application or interest we are getting. So we talked about market sounding here, where we will get feedback from the counties and probably add just not counties, counties, local government cities, and the ISPs and probably adjust the project area based on that. After that there will be application pre registration. Any entity who wants to apply for bead funding, have to submit this information before even start applying for that specific or multiple project area. These need to be cleared by Arizona Commerce Authority before even someone called themselves eligible to apply for the bead funding financial capabilities because the way Arizona Commerce Authority works, it's a reimbursable grant. So anyone who is receiving this grant from us, they will complete a certain scope in the in the process, they will submit your reimburse request to ACA and ACA will send them money. So they have to have that financial capabilities on their side to keep going before the reimbursement was issued. And normally ACA issues monthly reimbursement should be pretty straightforward for even as small as fees. But even though sometimes we want to see if that organization in the small ISP or big ISP if they have capabilities or runway to go for that one month. Of course the managerial capabilities if they have right people on place who can execute this project, the technical capabilities. You have the right engineers, right technical people to make sure the project is meeting the standard compliance with applicable law. These are the law if you go to the bead NOFO you will see there are laws regarding fair labor practices. I'm minority business on opportunities, some subcontractors one ready?
Can I disrupt your flow a little bit? I already did. I'm sorry. Because this actually relates to Laurie Prickett's. Question in the in the chat, trying to respond to it, but what Sandip is describing here are essentially gating an eligibility criteria for the applicant. So if if that applicant can demonstrate that they can meet all of these, all of these components, then their project gets evaluated. So if the question is, can an entity partner with one applicant and also apply or partner in multiple ways, the I guess the the main applicant has to meet these, the main applicant would be the responsible party for demonstrating capacity in these minutes. So it's not really a clear yes or no, but the applicant has to demonstrate that. So can a entity participate in multiple ways? As partners? Yes, a entity can apply for multiple project areas as well, at the same time, so you don't have to only bid on one project area. But as long as the applicant meets this gating criteria, they can be considered in the sub grantee selection process. reappointing
call, great point. Yes. So the primary applicant, it can be a partnership application, the primary applicant need to meet this standard before. It's like a vetting criteria. And I understand that there are a lot of laundry list before even someone apply for the big funding. And it's here for a protection. Historically, there are a lot of defaults. And we are seeing defaults in ARDOF funding all over the country. We're seeing defaults in other fundings. These are here to protect the citizens of every single state and make sure the companies are not defaulting in between the projects and these projects are getting built. So these are directly coming from NTIA and the states are right now definitely online to implement these requirements. So quickly going over with the compliance and applicable law, we have operational capability, ownership important information for the state for sorry for the ISP or the entity, public funding information, fair labor practice and high high and how they're going to utilize the highly skilled workforce and create jobs here in the state, and Environmental and Historical Preservation ie pH and build American Buy America, Baba compliance, this is very important that where they're buying the equipment from the equipment need to be manufactured 55% here in United States, so the entity needs to meet that that obligation to, along with that, the entity has to submit a cybersecurity compliance and supply chain risk management compliance plan for us history of business surfacing and working history in the state of Arizona. And current Sam. gov registration. I know this looks really sometimes silly. But we went through this process during our 100 million dollar investment. And trust me, we're still we're still collecting information from the entities regarding some of those requirements implemented not these details implemented by a US Treasury. So these are the things we need to see beforehand before someone can apply for the bead funding. So continuing to the next section. So the mapping information for project application and letter of interest. So basically, what we are saying that they need to give us a net present value or expected deployment cost, that how much they will be spending for specific project areas someone is applying for multiple projects, they are single project area, so that we can set a benchmark on our end that how much money we have to spend for every single project area. So if I can summarize this whole section, it's basically taking a feedback from the ISPs convert that into a CS benchmark and release the final project area based on their feedback that how much money did the ISPs will spending in a specific project area. Then we separated the whole project application into two different rounds. So in round one, we will receive the application basically hold the state will be upward play. And if we have tiny project areas just to give you an example, and we received multiple application or at least single application for each and every single project area, at least 25 And then we have five leftover that five will get rolled into the prod round two. So hope we will get all the application all the project areas by round one, but if there are project areas, which is not getting any interest, because due to the business case or due to the financial case, it will get rolled into the Round two, in round two, there will be a little bit more flexibility if those project area does not have any interest, we'll probably be interested wrapping it up with a different project area and make sure that all the household here in the states are connected. Now, as part of the federal guidelines, we clearly highlighted here fiber preference and outlier definition. So in the state of Arizona, like any other state, we are definitely prioritizing fiber. So when we receive this application or market sounding data from the ISPs, we will see that which number or which households within a project area is feasible to go with fiber, anything over a certain amount of number, we don't know that number, yet, that number can be somewhere between 5000 to 6000 6000 to 7000. Again, I'm speculating here we have to go through a cost modeling study, before identifying that number, the moment it crosses that number will switch into a different technology. So that costs also not only we are trying to calculate on our end, we are trying to calculate the real life data from the ISP application. So there will be multiple going back and forth, that which area or which household within a project area will get fiber and which household will get wireless or some kind of satellite technology. So we discussed about that extensively in this section. The information which will be provided to the applicants, so the unserved and underserved BSL meanings broadband serviceable location, the high cost BSL, eligible CI and their least will be published in the state Broadband Map so that the ISPs when they're applying, or the entities when they're applying, they can take those information and basically create their financial model from there. Once the application is submitted, we will do the post application assessment. So initial screening scoring, the initial screening, then scoring and deconfliction, we talked about how we are going to select the fiber and non fiber option in this section. So you can have a look. And then finally, any negotiation which will be done on behalf of the state how we will cover a whole project area everything was defined in this section. So after post round one, there will be a negotiation with the entities who will be applying for the bead funding was a negotiation done, there will be a contract, ready to be executed. Anything which falls through this negotiation process or any area which did not get any active interest from the ISPs will get rolled into round two. So that's what round two talks about. In the prioritization and scoring process, the way we we divided the whole scoring process is one priority project one non priority project. Think of it when we are talking about priority project, we are talking about the fibre to home project, non priority projects or wireless and satellite projects, or any DSL project, which is non fiber. For the priority projects. If you look at our scoring criteria, and the set the this category, which is basically the primary criteria, the 75% point, these directly, as Nicole mentioned, directly came from NTIA. So the minimum bid outlay is basically their financial model, any entity what financial model they're submitting, and what kind of match they're asking for for that specific project area. And that gives them 50 point. And then cost reasonable, reasonable less, gives them some point and scalability and resiliency. So this whole three category is responsible for fifty points. And affordability is 18 points and fair labor practices seven points. Now as Nicole mentioned, this is a fast pass through, we can change some of those scoring little bit left and right. But the 75 point and these three categories is going to be intact, because not the scoring wise but the categories are going to be intact because it's directly coming from NTIA or federal government. We as a state we define this 25% category. So basically speed to deployment technical requirements, local and tribal coordination and community anchor Institute. You will see if you read any other states plan community anchor Institute is is really unique towards Arizona. The reason we added community anchor Institute in this plan in the scoring criteria, because we don't have enough funding to cover all the community and institutes which is unserved or less than one gig symetrical connection they have. So what do we want we basically said that within a project area, you have to an ISP or entities need to cover all the households unserved or underserved. Along with that the maximum amount of community anchor intitutes they will be connected with one gig of symmetrical connection, they will get these two points extra out of 100. So we're encouraging them to cover as much community intitutes as they can, which is underserved unserved.
So and equitable Workforce Development has five points. So these 25% is set by the state. But this categories are mostly came from some of the ideas NTIA know for orphan care guidance document give us so and then we talked about different scoring criteria, one of the thing I would like to highlight is the affordability scoring criteria for the priority project. So that means if you look at requirement 20, at the end of the document, we talked about middle class affordability plan. So in any fiber project any fiber to home connectivity, if the ISP is offering less than more than $75 plan for one week symmetrical, they get basically zero point, the state's vision is to get a $75 one week symmetrical plan for our residents, at least as an option. So anyone who's offering $75 plan for one week, symmetrical gets 50 points. And there are different ranges here. So the less you go in the dollar value, the more score you get. So this is not a getting criteria. So anyone can offer more than 75. But they will get zero points. In that case, we are trying to create a sustainable internet connectivity for future which is one gig symmetrical going forward. And with with a minimum amount of monthly bills. So that's our target right here. The Fair Labor practice, there is a sub scoring under that so you can have a look there. And also the deployment to speed, the speed to deployment for priority broadband project. Anyone who's completing the whole project within 24 months, get 10 points that Max and then different project timeline get different kinds of scoring criteria, or scoring projects. For the technological requirement for priority project means if there is a fiber project, and the network fibers or switches or anything they're putting on ground, can go up to 10 gig. So in summary, if someone is putting exponents upon equipment, they get the maximum amount of points which is 50 points, anything less than that get 30 points, anyone who's putting e pawn or pawn equipments, which is only can do one weak symmetrical, get zero point out of this thing, the target for this whole section to make sure CREATE A SUSTAINABLE network to the beat funding the maximum amount of investment we are getting in the state right now. And make sure this is a future proof technology. And this technology is out there in the ground for next 30-40 years. So having the right equipment in the ground is very important. And we are prioritizing that. There are some points regarding Open Access details. So if we are building a middle mile piece with the beat funding, we want to make sure it's open access. And if I suppose building that leg with their own funding will not require that but there is definitely extra point if someone is doing that local and tribal coordination for the priority project. There are two key points maximum, by the way, when you are reading the overall scoring criteria that's within. Fernando, I saw your hand raised, as you mean it's something related to to the labor. I will go ahead and request you to go ahead with the cash question.
It was it was in regards to the the speed requirements, did it I haven't read it thoroughly. But it was it talks about data caps,
or we were so no bead funding cannot have any data caps. So we just we mentioned that into the documentation. But when anyone so I would say data cap is one of the gating criteria for Ferando. So if someone is saying that we're putting a data cap, it's outright rejected from day one. Thank you. Appreciate it. So on this section, the local tribal coordination and priority project. Oh, so going back, when you see those, that scoring table right here, it's within 100 points, but then right here, we converted the whole thing into 500 points, because Laurie, I see your hand is raised please go ahead with the question.
I mean, I don't mean to interrupt, but I wanted to kind of backtrack just a little bit are priority and non priority scores together or are they only category based on their within their category? So
within a project area the so if there is a project area like project area x right, and 80% of the project area is fiber, so they are going to fall under this category like priority project category scoring criteria and if there is a 25 to 20 percent, which is wireless or some other technology, they're going to fall the non priority project area category or scoring criteria. Does that make sense?
Yes. So if you have a combination of products that you're supplying, is one category weighed heavier or heavily or?
Yes. So if an ISP is offering 80%, fiber and 20%, wireless or some other technology, you can definitely see that we are going to go with the maximum amount of fiber right? So if your question is regarding the technology, yes, anything with most amount of fiber is our priority at this point. If someone is offering 50%, fiber 50% wireless technology, and in that's for the same project area, we have a different application, which is better than that, we're going to go with with the maximum amount of maximum amount of fiber.
Understand Thank you. Appreciate it.
So when you look at the when you look at the local and tribal coordination, you will see that there are 10 points for letter of support. And there are 10 points for basically their engagement and ISP, or entities engagement into that particular area. Meaning if they are involved, what kind of marketing plan they had, are they really involved with the community. So there are ways that it's not only Arizona commerce authority is asking the in local government to get involved, we're also valuing their opinion. So they have some control that who they are providing this letter of support to, you might see some of the modification in this section, not scoring, why some of the language change, because we got some feedback from NTi. So some of these report will get updated, but I don't see a massive changes anywhere. The scoring rubric for non project non priority projects are almost same only thing which is different is the affordability plan. Because if those are wireless project, we are hoping the deployment cost is not going to be that high. So any non priority projects will like $55 go above that. And it's 400 by 20. If you look at this section, for the priority project, it was one gig symmetrical for non priority is 100 by 20. So our threshold is right here $55. Again, these are not finalized, we're still getting feedback from multiple entities. So they can this can change based on the feedback from during this this public comment period. Other than that, all the labor, requirements, speed to deployment, everything else is same, but also at the same time when it comes to speed, the speed of the network and other technical capabilities. If someone Cindy, go ahead.
Yes, in terms of just clarify, for me, priority project versus non priority is does that mean that people who live in a place where it's harder to get fiber? are sort of taking a backseat? Is that is that would that means I'm just confused?
No, they're not taking a back seat. They're all it's all going to get rolled in at the same time. It just like financially what makes sense what doesn't make sense. So, suppose if state of Arizona and the amount of funding we have, if we our threshold to deploy fiber for specific project area is $7,000. So, anything over $7,000 is going to get switched into a different technology that can be lower orbital satellite or wireless technology. The reason the pricing is different here, because for our the standard for fibre project is one gig symmetrical that doesn't mean they will not offer 100 by 20, they will definitely offer it but for any one gig symmetrical through fiber should our expectation is it should be $75 or less for wireless project which cannot hit one gig technological because of the technological barrier. If they are hitting the beat requirement which is 100 by 20. That's that's the expectation we have pricing wise when they are deploying this project. So $55 So there is a price difference and there's also a speed to difference, but all these projects will get rolled in same time need to be finished within same project area within the same time, compliance wise other requirement financial requirement wise technical requirement wise there is no difference between priority and non priority. We just divided the whole area into two pieces because one is Fiber project one is non Fiber project. That's why you're seeing this difference. But everything is going to get rolling at the same time.
Very good. Thank
you. Appreciate it. So basically, this whole subgrantee selection process talks about all the requirements they need to fulfill and the scoring criteria. So without going too much into this thing, I'm, I'll be happy to take any question. But the GCS, the maximum amount of financial matching will win, most probably a project area, if that makes sense, because if you go back for both priority or non priority project, look at this number here, it says grants to project cost, that one has the maximum amount of ways to 50%. So the other categories are definitely definitely important, especially these three categories, and the most important, the primary criteria, the grants to project cost, affordability, and fair labor practice. These are definitely important. If nothing else is everything is important. But anyone who's providing a really good financial case for us for any specific project area is most probably going to win this project. That's how the scoring will be done. And that's how the Scoring Matrix is are set. Happy to take any question. Mark?
Oh, sorry. Thank you. Great, Sandip and Nicole. So glad this is on the street for review. I have a few questions. Let me try one or two ones really simple. When you specify these price points, are those price points that may never be exceeded in the future? Or do they have some term of time associated with, you know, the build period or a performance period that those price points must be maintained?
Good? That's a great question, Mark. I'm not 100% sure so I will refer this to Nicole. But I think the they say that it's interest requirement is lifetime of the of the project. I think it's eight years, Nicole correct me from wrong.
So there's no official statement on how NTIA is defining useful life of an asset yet, but I'll say that's in the ballpark, but it's not. Yeah, it's not officially communicated yet.
Usually useful life is going to be 20 or 25 years. So kind of answers my question eight is what you do your performance for? If I may, I'll try a second, then I'll wait. For others. I have at least one more. But when it comes to wireless, has the NTIA clarified, I know there's a preclusion against pure unlicensed wireless, though hybrid, a mix of licensed and unlicensed can be allowed. But my question is specifically for CBR s, which has I'm sure as you know, not everyone may three tiers incumbent, which is Defense Department priority access, which is auctioned, and general Authorized Access, which is lightly licensed, will the general authorized access, or CBRs be treated as licensed or unlicensed fundamentally? And if you don't know that, that it will be subject to further investigation, but perhaps you do,
right? Yep. But go ahead, Nicole, I might have some additional points. But go ahead and go.
Yep. So Mark, the GA band that is still considered licensed by roll. So those years Yeah. Any anything that are under the FCCs fixed wireless technology codes, anything added? That includes all the all the tiers added since the NOFO came out? Those get lumped in?
So that's great. Good, I have another question. But let me come back around if there's time for that. Thank you.
So Mark, I just want to add one more comment on what Nicole said. So to clarify what is NTIA is thinking at this point, and we're still putting thought by in that. So any area if it's a roll and there is no CBRs license was claimed before you know that za need to be registered for a certain amount of time, right? If you're not registered before and it's an open playing field, no one ever claimed anything there. Then this is going to be a licensed frequency but in a metro area, where probably PAL and the other licenses already there. Verizon or T Mobile is shooting on the license frequency and I don't consider GA as licensed in that case, because it's going to overshadow the GA. So there are a lot of like thought process going there. But for any unlicensed project areas or non priority project area, our thought from ACA side is most probably this is going to be rural areas, right? Because we are only switching to wireless where fiber is hard to reach or financially does not make sense. So I'm not too worried about that. But yes, to answer your question, as Nicole mentioned, that za is licensed.
Thank you. Just a reminder, anybody who has a question, when you raise your hand, when you're called upon, please introduce yourself who you are, who you represent, please
appreciate, Laurie, I think your hand is raised for a long time. Please go ahead.
This is Lawrie Prickett from Smith Begley. Question for you when and I am going back to the scoring when comparing priority against non priority areas is with the scoring. For example, if one entity provided a complex plan that contained priority a non priority subject matter, would that be compared individually against priority gets priority non priority gets non priority? Or would the entire project be compared as a whole?
The entire project actually, because if you read our initial part of the sub grantee selection process, it says that within a project area, you have to cover every single household. So traditionally, Lawrie, if you are from an organization who provides fixed wireless connectivity, right, everyone has their own business focus. When you are applying for a grant for this project area, you the proposal you're going to provide should contain a plan to cover 100% of those unserved underserved and the maximum amount of CIS. So you, you as an organization, or any organization, or entities cannot just submit a plan for that non priority or just for the priority project areas. So we are making sure that the cherry picking is not again, another issue in the bead funding does that. Does that make sense?
It does. I think we're the My question has more to do with how scoring happens. If you have one set of scoring for priority, another for non priority, then and you have efforts in both? How would that be compared against another project with the scoring under for for somebody else for another entity?
I'm a little confused, but I'll try to answer this again. So okay, let me give you an example. So suppose we did a project area, someone proposed 70% fiber, and 30% wireless. So we will have scored them and convert that scoring into 70% fiber as a priority project area. And then 30% as non priority project area and add them together and come up with the scoring, the total scoring. If someone offered 80% fiber and 20% wireless, definitely as you can see that they are going to score higher compared to other applicants. If that's your question. We are going to calculate it all together both the priority and non priority, add them together and come up with the total score. Does that answer your question? It
does. Thank you. Sorry.
No, no. There are a lot of moving parts. So I want to make sure that we are picking up the right one.
We have a question from David Krassa.
Yes, go ahead. David
Hey, everyone, David Krassa out city of Mesa where I'm where my question is. And the definition of rural, is that just two specific blocks of the city or city wide? Because at City of Mesa, you know, we're huge. So we have pockets that are very densely populated pockets thatare very specifically rural cameras.
David, I'm from your question, what I'm understanding if it's, it's most probably eligibility question that which household or which areas are eligible for funding. So as I mentioned that every county is different, right. There are a lot of rural counties who are going to be a project area itself because that most of the counties unserved or underserved for City of Mesa City of Phoenix, there are small pockets still out there, which is not served or does not have any kind of connectivity. So those are going to be a separate project areas. And if you have a pocket in East Mesa, you have a pocket in North Mesa, those are most probably going to be two different project areas and based on the house density, it will get driven They are going to get fiber or wireless technology.
if no one doesn't have any if folks doesn't have any question, I would refer back this presentation to Nicole, so that she can I
have some questions. Sandip Henry Goldberg?
Yeah.
Let's see here. One thing I'm confused about is the, like the open access, I have a number of questions here, the open access wholesale networks, you see, you give some extra points to that. But those are likely to provide a lot lower long term prices, depending on how many ISPs the say the community gets to sign on to service there. And it would take time for them, I guess, to negotiate with the ISPs to to have them come on to their wholesale network. So how are you going to account for the fact that they need to do that negotiation with the service providers to, you know, to offer service on their wholesale access network? Because that has long term implications for the cost of service in that community?
The question, actually, we're not asking if there is a middle mile piece involved into this whole process will
not the middle now piece? That's a separate question, but just the the last mile Open Access Network? How are you going to account for the fact that the municipalities may need to negotiate with various ISPs to use that service over that, that network when it's available?
I'll just highlight this section. So we're not asking them to do that beforehand. So we're basically asking them to pledge that they will maintain going forward the lifetime of this whole network. So it's an agreement between the state broadband office and will be between the network owner or ISPs, or any entities in this case, that they will keep this option open for future. And we'll probably most probably develop the pricings pricing structure for that, but we haven't thought about that yet. But any network, which is open access, they all they have to do at this point is pledge because getting additional customer additional ISP in future, what happened with the business that's not within anyone's control at this point?
Yeah, well, it would just seem to me, it'd be hard to score the affordability of that network in the future, when you don't give them time to determine what service providers will be providing service on it and what they will charge. The it seems to be a comp, more complicated thing to score that kind of application.
I think I will respectfully disagree with that. I think the pricing model and which ISP will come in can always change based on the business case, five years down the road, the landscape may be completely different. But at least creating that opportunity for other ISPs or other government entity or even their Smart City project or other smart infrastructure related project. It's really, really important. And that includes a smart grid project or any other smart infrastructure related project to it's very important to make sure that we are not using just this infrastructure for broadband funding, were using this infrastructure for additional activities in future. So that was our thought process behind adding another 10 points for that.
Okay. Anyway, that area seems to be maybe requires a little more thinking it seems to me the other area is the whole area of middle mile networks. You say that you're hoping that the ISPs will pay for the middle mile networks themselves because that could be if you're serving the whole state of Arizona, you know, I remember, like PJ way talking about Yuma County costing about 60 million to build a middle mile network in Yuma county. So many of these middle mile networks may add up to hundreds of millions of dollars. And so are you considering the the allowing BEAD infrastructure to pay for these middle mile networks and periods that allows see that as a possibility, but it, it doesn't seem to be clear in the scoring of the applications, how the middle mile networking will be handled. Because you know, it may be lacking in a variety of counties. And it'll cost a lot to provide those middle mile networking solutions, they may serve more than the unserved and unserved underserved locations in those in those communities. So I'm unclear about how you handle the whole middle mile networking aspect of scoring these applications.
So the bead guideline basically says that, if there is a community, which needs to be connected through BEAD funding, and does not have any available middle mile network, or it's out of capacity, then we can spend BEAD dollars to build that middle mile. So we historically invested a significant amount of dollars into our state middle mile program, our county middle mile program, and other private entities, basically, Geo, Windstream, they're expanding their middle mile too. So, if you look at our scoring criteria, in the beginning of this section, we talked about considering middle mile, we understand that Arizona lacks middle mile network in some places, especially the rural counties. But also at the same time, when we went through an assessment few months ago, we saw that there are significant amount of middle mile even in rural counties, which is definitely not public information to to expand BEAD, but there are areas where it does. So that's why when we selected, we talked about our project areas right here. We talked about available backbone infrastructure. So we will consider the available middle mile areas when we are defining the project areas to maximize this funding.
By going back, yes, if there is no, that's not really a choice is it because you have to serve all those unserved and underserved locations.
I understand Henry. So that's where I'm going. So what we are saying that, we're going to use the existing middle mile to make sure that it's leveraging we're leveraging the existing middle mile to deploy with funding. But if there is no middle mile available, and we need to connect that community, which we do, because of the NTIA Bead guideline, we will definitely spend the Bead dollars to connect that community and build middle on
the another area of like, things that seems to be need to be clarified, when you're looking at all the costs of all the you know, the fibre to the home and the middle mile costs. It seems to me that
it may be confusing when you get bids from various ISPs because you're going to create, you said you're going to after the first round, create an extremely high cost per location threshold. First round, and I'm assuming you're going to be looking at all the costs of all the fiber solutions for last mile and all the middle mile infrastructure that's needed. And it could be the case, for example, it seems to me it could come out that you know, possibly from what I've seen of costs of fiber to the home and so on that you might only be able to serve 20% of the locations with fiber when you add the middle mile costs on and the lat high last mile cost so you may be restricting it maybe you may really need a another round of applications to after you've set that extremely high cost threshold number, another round of applications to get all these unserved and unserved underserved locations served without fiber solutions because you've run out of money to serve all the all the last mile and middle mile that's required. So you know, you you mean, need another round of ISP applications do to make sure that you get all those unserved and underserved locations serviced with fixed wireless or satellite or whatever. Because there's such a large number of locations that need to be served. Have you thought about the needing that second round to to have ISPs? You know, bid for all those those locations again, with other solutions beyond fiber if the money is not sufficient.
So are you Henry Thinking about the padrone because we already have two rounds here from
the way you describe it in the in the initial volume two, you say there's round one, we ask people to, I guess you're asking them, you know, to put in as much fiber as possible. And put in non fiber where you think where they think it's too costly, but, and then you're going to set an extremely, and then you're going to look at how much funding you have available to meet all those, the best solutions there. And you may end up with a situation where only 20% of the locations can be served by fiber, when you look at all the fiber to the home costs and the middle of mile costs. And you may, you may need to have a more extensive round to where where after you set this, you know this ecdh PLT number, where they were all the ISPs come back and have to look at we look at how many locations they serve with non fiber solutions, because they may not have considered that and round one. That's what I'm saying is you might need a much more extensive ground to after the
well, we have a post negotiation phase right after the application based on the financial interest we are getting. So the way we are thinking about the financial study for each and every single project area. So we are going through a financial study by ourselves at this point, we are calculating how much money we are already talking to the ISPs that which area of interest they might have when it comes to the whole state. So we have a pretty rough number, these are not we are not developing this number, just an FYI. Just because this is part of the plan, or we are outlining a plan in Volume Two does not mean that this is not that if it is which is not happening in the background. So these activities are already going on for last one year. So the idea here is to get an official response from them. Everyone is interested until we get an official response from them. Basically area of interest market sounding. So during this market sounding phase, Henry, I think let me check real quick, where is that? Right here, the market sounding 2.4 point 1.3. Once we release the state Broadband Map and the identity project areas, from both our ISPs, our counties and cities, I think the finance get involved at that point. So if you think about it, we we named it as a round one and round two. But there are multiple rounds involved, I would say at least three or four rounds involved in between and negotiation. Before even we get into a final number. But I'm I think one one part, I'm not sure about your question that when you refer that 20% of the household will be served with fiber, I don't know what that number is coming from,
like, you know from I've done, I've seen some costs estimates where they say, you may be able with the beat funding, you may be able to only serve 20% of the locations with fiber, because of the high costs of providing fiber to the home. And then if you add the middle mile fiber costs, you may quickly run out of money for all these fiber to the home solution. So if that's the case, it just seems to me that the the initial proposal needs to make a lot more clear how you will handle the second round of applications for all these, you know, for meeting serving all these locations with non fiber solutions. It doesn't it isn't doesn't come out very clearly in the in the in volume to how you would handle that situation. I don't know maybe, you know, have better numbers on it than I'm talking about. So you know that, you know, that won't situation won't occur, but no, absolutely.
Absolutely. No, I agree with you. I think we can definitely add some clarification language. But one thing I can I can definitely voice for that. We I didn't see any evidence. We're still going through the financial study. It's a it's a massive state. I think the biggest part of the financial study Is the existing federal funding, meaning we have a lot of federal funding here in the state. We need to know where those fundings are, like different federal funding, because we cannot double the width been funding on those areas. So once we take them out from the map, and we calculate how much money we have, versus how many 100 sovereign answer household will get a different kind of per household passing cost. But even though before considering those, it does not indicate any number that Arizona will only serve 20% of its household with fiber and rest will be well, so just want to get it clear, without going too deep into the process. But definitely your feedback is taken, we'll try to clarify that in round two, not clarify that add some pointers in round two, which will probably able to clarify your queries.
So Sandip, Nicole, have put a comment in the chat. And, Nicole, I don't know if you want to speak to that or not?
No, I just wanted to make sure everyone had some foundational knowledge about what we talk about when we say extremely high cost for locations.
So that's it the extremely high cost location, you need to clarify that that probably needs to include the middle mile, that's costs that are involved in serving those locations, in addition to the last mile cost that doesn't come out clearly in Volume Two either. is, you know, like the middle mile, part of it doesn't come out very clearly in Volume Two is what I'm saying in terms of the cost, the funding that's involved. You know, I think it should be.
That's not what NTIA guideline says. So we're keeping the middlemile line extension separate. And then how much we'll be spending on the on the community level, just to make sure that if an ISP already has an extent, middle mile connecting to a community, and they are submitting a proposal versus another ISP, which is submitting a proposal, which doesn't have any existing middle mile, and they're building one, we want to keep it separate to compare between these two pricing. So that's why you don't see that calculated or diluted inside the high cost threshold area.
Yeah.
If the middle mile is needed, and one ISP says they're going to build it, and the other one doesn't, I don't see how that how that reconciles. You know, one, somebody has to build the middle mile to serve those last mile connections. So I don't I don't see how you can I you can evaluate one that says they're going to build it and one that doesn't say they're going to build it.
i That's not what I said, I think I misinterpreted myself. What I said that some ISPs, they already had middle mile built it into the community. We have a map and we know for sure, that's why I'm implying but because because those middle mile are probably built for some other cases like SD Wan, or probably connecting a cell tower. Those business costs are different. They did not build the last mile because financially does not make sense for them to build the last mile due to the customers in that area. So we can help them with the funding there.
Okay, so you're saying that some may have have their own middle middle mile, which is going to others? Yeah. Okay.
So wrapping middle mile into extremely high cost threshold is not going to be fair for those entities who already have middle mile there.
Yeah, but if there is an area areas that don't have any middle mile at all, then someone has to build it. Right. So isn't that a requirement that the the they all submit some sort of solution on how to build the middle now in those?
Absolutely, yes. But that's we are just asking to submit that separately, instead of rolling that into the communities per household, how much they're going to spend per household.
Okay, Henry, we've got to, we've got a couple of other people have questions? Okay. No. Meeting here. All right. Ricky, why'd you have a question?
I think Jeff had his hand raised. So I'll go Jeff. Ricky and then Fernando.
Hey, nice job today, Sandip. My question is for Nicole. In Arizona. We have several communities that are border communities, a bordering other states Bullhead City, Arizona, Laughlin, Nevada, Colorado city Hildale, Utah Does the project area for this program endat the state line? And if it does, is there any way to coordinate with yourself and other FPOs or Sandipp and other broadband directors to provide a more comprehensive solution, particularly when you start talking about middle mile in these remote areas?
Great questions. Yep. Yeah, I love that question. Well, you're so the state defined project areas and at the state boundaries, so that would include tribal lands that expand across multiple states and international borders. And, you know, areas that would that would make sense to come in from the Utah side to fund a project over in, in Arizona, for instance, that would have to happen between broadband offices to make an argument for a project area and submit that for approval to the assistant secretary. At this point, at least my awareness, I don't know of Arizona, trying to develop those types of areas that would span borders. But it would have to be proposed by the broadband office first, but Yeah, certainly as a POS, dream about that, that type of thing. Sounds good. Thank you.
I'll just add one more thing. On top of that, Jeff, I think we are not the still 100 person on board to directly partnering up with state broadband offices. But I think our thought process right here, I'll take Colorado city as an example. And we talked about this before, too. If we take hold Mojave County as one project area, we will definitely keep Colorado city as a separate project area, because there is no point to drag in middle mile from this side of Mojave County to all the Colorado city, that's probably going to be 60 million $70 million project. This is better if it's come from Utah. So that's how we're leveraging this thing. It doesn't have to be binding in together, which can waste a lot of public taxpayers money. So we are intentionally keeping this space separate so that we are not building a lot of redundant middle mile labor, which is not the best case use case of the bead funding. So absolutely great question. And we are open for any kind of partnership. That's exact same thing we are doing in Navajo nation today.
Thank you. Ricky, do you have a question?
Good afternoon. Thank you guys so much for hosting us. My name is Ricky White. I'm a senior managing partner with black and white consultancy. And I'm also the chief lead or RJW telecom group. So I have a question I got on a few minutes behind. And I literally have to get off at five minutes as well. So we understand that this is Bead and everything I've heard so far has been related to the cost of bringing infrastructure fiber to the home and middle now. Where is the scoring criteria as it relates to the digital equity component for the communities that you're trying to serve? And can a municipality work together to create a community municipal network that could also apply for the bead funding to create access for the community itself, instead of always having to work with existing ISP that has already overlooked their community?
Great question, Ricky. So the answer? Let me answer this question in three different parts. And I'll let my colleague handle rather too. So the bead component definitely has the amount of money state got, we can spend some money towards workforce development, we can spend some money towards any other eligible cost. But if you will see, I think on requirement if you look at our plan on the requirement 10 We talked about that we don't have enough money to cover all these household as we are mentioning that underserved and unserved so that's why we don't have that runway to spend money on workforce and other related program from the BEAD funding. I would. However, the BEAD funding came from IJJA, which also allocates money for digital equity. And my colleague, Erin Lorandos, who's our digital equity program manager, we are going through a planning process to submit the state digital equity plan to NTIA. And next year, the window will be open for the states to apply for digital equity fund, which will directly come to the state and there will be a sub grantee process and nonprofit ISPs. entities can directly apply for that grant to expand digital equity related program in your community. But I would invite my colleague Erin and Nicole to add anything on top of that.
unsuccessfully trying to find some, some slides here for you, but can a local government be an eligible sub grantee? Yes. Absolutely. But the ultimately the applicant has to demonstrate that they meet those capacity and capability requirements. And like I mentioned before, that does include two years of demonstrated service. So there would have to be some sort of partnership with a, an entity that can provide that service and demonstrate it at the time of application. But there is some flexibility around if that network is, you know, ultimately taken over and commercialized by the local government. So there is flexibility, but those partnerships, and those discussions would have to happen. Now, as, as the state's preparing to open it up, they're already not the NOFO doesn't requires states and territories to have digital equity scoring criteria. But as part of the final proposal, which is to say, the final report of how the statement through this whole process, and conducted this selection, and all of that, they do have to demonstrate pretty significant local coordination across the board, as well as looking at things like letters of support from different communities for those potential applicants, that piece is baked into the scoring criteria. So it's sort of indirectly, indirectly represented there. The initial proposal also does require a discussion of how the digital equity efforts are going to be interwoven. But the purpose is really about, about the bead deployment and non deployment costs. So a little bit of both, they're not covered everything. Don't
you have a question? Comment?
Oh, I just wanted to thank Sandip, there's a lot of data to go through just as he's evaluating other federal programs, this may make Henry feel better is that we have already invested in the our ARDOF $20.1 billion, that that was supposed to be addressing middle mile connectivity to outlying areas of Arizona. So I think I think you may feel better to where some of these are being addressed yet, as they're working on these projects. Now, hopefully, because I, there has been federal programs in the past Connect America Fund one into that, you know, so let's make sure that we're using taxpayers dollars, taxpayer dollars, you know, effectively. And I think once we find out where this our dark money has been spent, I think we'll be able to have a better answer. At least I know that we'll have a better answer. Yeah,
absolutely. That's a great point, Fernando, that's a great point. See, the if, again, another speculation, if bar household deployment cost in Arizona, Arizona average is $5,000. But if we consider all the ARDOF investment here in the state, USDA investment, our own investment of $200 million, and other federal funding, which happened in last five years, mostly those are going to be fibre to home or some kind of licensed fixed wireless project and take them off from the map, which is also a requirement from NTIA side, this number can go up a lot. So that's one of the process state broadband office is going through right now. And it will be in the challenge process map that which areas are already committed to by the Federally federal funding already, and which areas those areas are not going to be open for bid funding. So I just want to clarify that. Nicole, I don't know if you want to add anything.
No, that
sounds good. Can you stop sharing, please? Sure. So we've reached pretty much the end of this meeting, as I mentioned earlier, that anybody who wants to stay online, we will stop recording, and anybody who wants to stay online. Will kibbutz ask more questions. If you're any comment, you're welcome to do so. And again, thank you, Sandeep and Nicole, you guys did a great job. I know there's a lot of work has gone into doing these plans. I had some questions that I'll hold and I'll talk to you guys offline about some of which I've already discussed with you in the past. Anyway. So with that, we're officially done for today. One last thing, which I always remind people is and I will be sharing this out but you can if the if there's anything in the chat that you'd like to say, you can save the chat. If you go down and go to the chat. At the very bottom, you'll see three ellipses, and click on that and you can save the chat and out. So I find that helpful for people who saw some stuff in the chat that they'd like to save.
I just add one thing, Steve, that the volume one, Volume Two you're seeing, these are back and connected with lots of the material published by NTIA for last 18 months. So there are a lot of terms there are a lot of times which was just spelled once into this whole document, but there is a whole document behind this. Just talk about this term, like high cost threshold areas and everything. So it's it's complicated just to evaluate all the points based on this volume one or volume two. So feel free to reach out to us instead of searching online, we can definitely send you the least or any helpful document you might need to clarify something in volume one and volume two. Or reach out to Nicole she knows those document on her fingertips. She knows exactly what they are.
Okay, so we are officially done. I'm going to stop recording
