NWBDC Founder Don Sidlowski joined other experts from around the state in a meeting of stakeholders conducted by the Wisconsin Public Service Commission (PSC) related to the Broadband Grant Program announced by Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker (R) at the PSC’s Broadband Summit in April, 2013. Part of the 2013-14 biennial budget, the $4.3 set-aside will be released as grants at the rate of up to $500K per year for the next ten years. For any year where the entire amount is not awarded the remaining balance will roll to the next fiscal year. Since the announcement, the PSC has been working on an interpretation of the legislation (Wis Stats 196.504) and invited stakeholders to this meeting to comment on the process for how the grants should be administered and awarded. Among many points submitted to the PSC, Sidlowski urged the Commission to define “unserved” and “underserved” not by census blocks but population density per square mile. “We believe the term underserved should not be defined solely as being tied to a definitive number of broadband service providers, in this case fewer than 2which implies one or none, and that the definition should be expanded to include or be replaced by a population density per square mile criteria of those with access to service. Current formulas typically use standard census blocks in which if only one individual in the entire block has access to service the entire block is categorized as served. This is a deeply flawed approach which vastly overestimates the amount of geography with access to broadband and grossly underestimates underserved and unserved areas”, said Sidlowski. He also recommended a point system be implemented by which a higher score (and thus chance of being awarded) be given to projects that aim for such things as higher broadband speed and likelihood that the service will not just be made available but actually used. He also suggested the funds be allocated 70/30 with the larger portion of the funds designated for public-private partnership applications, which are specifically identified in the statutory language as being sought after. Said Sidlowski, “the providers do not suffer in any way from this segregation of funding since a town, village or county must in any event team with a provider in order to qualify for grant fund consideration. Adding this grant criteria provision does not shut off funding to the providers, it merely ensures that the majority of project applications will be public-private partnerships. It is precisely at the town, village and county level in the public sector where funds are most scarce and therefore where the majority of the grant funds should be awarded.”