Legislative hearing House Community and Economic Development Committee

 The good thing about a wrong number at 7 am and double-checking the time of a medical appointment is that RantWoman was able virtually to attend yesterday's #WALEG  House Community and Economic Development Committee

The agenda under the heading Committee Schedules Agendas and Documents

 Public Hearing

•  HB 1673 - Concerning broadband infrastructure loans and grants made by the public works board. (Remote testimony.)
•  HB 1723 - Closing the digital equity divide by increasing the accessibility and affordability of telecommunications services, devices, and training. (Remote testimony.)

Full video of the hearing available 

RantWoman's takeaways probably in order of things she is most able to follow up on.

--Awesome work by the Black Brilliance Research project about digital equity issues for #BIPOC. And as a pretty privileged well educated white person with a disability, RantWoman is getting good at saying "...and disability. / people with disabilities.."  In the case of HB1723 RantWoman would suggest aligning the definitions of more likely to be unserved or underserved with the 14 frequently overlapping categories identified by the Work Force Board's barrier populations work. The categories RantWoman remembers from service on a related committee include many #BIPOC identities as well as categories such as experience with homelessness or incarceration as well as age and persons living with disabilities. RantWoman is discouraged not to find, in a fast Google search the exact of barrier populations identified but here is one out-of-date link out of date link referencing Barrier populations

 So expect RantWoman to work on including voices with some of these lived experiences in further conversations with an eye to informing discussion about the many technological and economic or subsidy questions involved in achieving greater digital equity. 

--HB1673's low-key title masks a number of issues that emerged during testimony. The bill proposes to adjust some rules related to disaster recovery and public disclosure. Mainly the bill is about changing the rules the Public Works Board uses to administer some loan programs.  The Who? Washington Public Works Board  Other state offices which might be in the picture include the state Broadband office, the Workforce Board, as well as OSPI, the State library, DSHS. RantWoman has good intentions of actually reading the bills instead of just responding to testimony but RantWoman would not mind if some smart person reading this blog post had time to think in a little more detail about how all these offices might play together better beyond small adjustments in the task list for the state broadband office to advance digital equity, as well as how to measure performance.

--Both HB1673 and HB 1723 involve issues of state and federal rules related to money and subsidies for different categories of people and different technological standards. Technology is evolving very rapidly, federal rules get adjusted more slowly and the kinds of service providers interested in being in the market are also evolving quickly. So it matters for instance when one person spoke of concern about "overbuilding" if available loans are administered incorrectly. On the other hand many who work in this space hear fear of overbuilding as barriers to new providers with better technology or different financing models from entering the market. All this is only on the provider / access side.  Next consider other realities about digital inclusion.

--RantWoman considers provisions of HB1723 about funding planning efforts almost more important than standards of broadband speeds. Almost. Providers in urban areas should absolutely be able to support higher broadband speeds than currently exist in many areas. Being an anchor institution should also mean incentives for providers to meet that level of performance but in some areas getting more connectivity at whatever level might be as important or more so than producing a network which relies on pricing unaffordable for many potential customers. The rest of this story is more than RantWoman is even going to try to work out in one blog post.

--RantWoman definitely supports funding DSHS efforts to help clients gain access to the internet, to whatever subsidies they are eligible for.

--The new federal broadband benefits will partially subsidize purchase of devices needed to access the internet. Smartphones now come with many more accessibility features built in than other categories of devices. Some users with disabilities still also need specific hardware or software. Even a small increase in device subsidy when a customer has a particular need would be a valuable step in support of digital equity.

--RantWoman was struck by testimony about WA Courts. King County has been able to move virtually all court proceedings to virtual environments. RantWoman assumes there are still barriers such as people needing to access the courts with inadequate phone plans and no smartphone options or while trying to connect by someone else's wi-fi. RantWoman would be interested to hear more about how the virtual hearings are working from the perspective of the public. 

More importantly, RantWoman thinks the courts in the rest of WA absolutely on the list of anchor institutions along with schools and libraries. Anchor institutions qualify for certain discounts and priorities from telecom providers. Throughout most of WA people needing to come to court during the pandemic either got no services during lockdowns o have had to solve whatever transportation issues they live with all the time and come in person to their local court proceedings. A digital equity bill absolutely should include courts and related services in the category of anchor institutions.

Courts having the technology needed to do virtual proceedings is only one side of the picture though. The need for digital equity also extends to people needing to come to court. Digital inequity initiatives should include ways for people who don't already have digital access to get on as much of a fast track for services as is possible in their area. Does this mean tasking court clerks with information and referral duties? How else might a fast track come about? Thinking about these realities should be a critical part of deciding how to expand digital equity throughout the state. Here, RantWoman herself is having a little bit of an "ewww" reaction about getting someone who needs to come to court for a DUI on a fast track for internet access. However, as an opinionated non-driver RantWoman definitely encourages people forced even temporarily not to drive to take advantage of all the ways good telecomm services can save needing to drive in the first place.  

Text of RantWoman's written testimony after the hearing.

Thank you to Rep. Gregerson and other sponsors of HB 1723. Thank you also to the legislature for ongoing support of opportunities for remote testimony, a very important step to make participation in many kinds of civic activities feasible for many people with disabilities and people throughout our state who would be burdened by heavy travel demands.  HB 1723 can absolutely increase access to this mode of participation for many Washingtonians.

My name is (RantWoman). I wear several hats including chair of the Advocacy committee for the WA Council of the Blind and membership in a public housing resident self-advocacy organization called the Resident Action Council as well as volunteer project developer and outreach for a community technology center by and for people with disabilities called the STAR Center. Today I am speaking for myself both based on personal experience and based on experiences of communities I am a part of.

 

I am strongly in favor of measures to provide training and ongoing support as people’s participation in the digital world increases. In many cases though increased access to digital resources depends first on in-person services. For example although the Department of services for the Blind has been able to make their service dollars go much further as clients increase digital capacity, an initial in-person component is critical.

 

Likewise, I enthusiastically endorse DSHS efforts to get people signed up for broadband benefits they are eligible for. However, many DSHS clients will struggle for a long time to learn enough to be fully effective and will need ongoing training and tech support.  Also, although this bill does not particularly address DSHS operations, I am hearing a number of gripes about problems with DSHS getting contracts with services providers done.  As an anchor institution I ardently hope some of the provisions of this bill will also help the agency improve functions such as contracting with the many kinds of service providers who serve DSHS clients. Better connectivity, access to information and resources also provides people with similar lived experiences to provide valuable peer support.

 

As I said in oral testimony I think the provision of the bill inviting other funding sources to participate in a state broadband fund creates important pathways for services such as telehealth or philanthropic projects.  For instance telecomm providers could have a voluntary pathway to develop customer base in specific communities, to provide in-language training, educational and promotional materials and job opportunities. In turn individual communities grow capacity to develop content and services relevant for their members.

 

I am not an expert on federal telecommunications issues, I hope WA state can help promote collaboration to ensure that both mobile and other broadband service is ubiquitous, affordable and robust throughout WA. I think families have some capacity to judge tradeoffs on their own about savings in time and travel if they have adequate internet. One speaker spoke of broadband service as a public utility. For me though adequate access includes mobile services as well as the services people tend to think of as broadband.  So I would mix a definition of adequate mobile service into the picture. I spoke a few years ago to someone running a summer youth program with youth whose discount cell plans all ran out of minutes in the middle of the month..

 

A few more comments about myself and experiences during the pandemic

 

I became involved in digital equity and transportation work in midlife. I have worn strong glasses since age 2 and became legally blind in my mid-40’s. I have worked in technical support and data analysis but needed to switch from writing code to other roles after becoming legally blind. Access to the internet has been crucial both for my own adaptation and for my ability to leverage my experience to advance opportunities for other people, low income people, people with disabilities, and people in different language communities.

 

A number of speakers testified about the impact of the pandemic and people’s needs for digital equity in their own homes.  Many people who previously found home internet services unaffordable relied on libraries, community centers, and places like the STAR Center. It is becoming harder and harder to manage all the parts of life now dependent on internet service  in the hour or hour and a half people have at libraries, assuming they can get to the library during its hours anyway. When the pandemic hit all of these services shut down and many people have been left without any kind of connectivity at all. Closing the digital equity gap is vital for pandemic recovery.

 

Vote yes on HB 1723. Make it stronger and reward measurable results!