[RTC List] CASF funding

[Larry Goldberg]

As many of you recall, we were all very excited to hear about CASF  
funding from the PUC last year.  The purpose of this funding was to  
provide "last mile" service to rural "unserved" and "under-served"  
markets.  At the time (last Summer), I worked long and hard on a  
proposal only to find out that we were ineligible - wireless Internet  
companies were not certified to make proposals - you had to have a  
"WIR" number which could only be obtained if you were a mobile  
wireless service (e.g. Verizon) or a Competitive Local Carrier (CLEC)  
- a very time-consuming and expensive process.  Naturally, as a  
result, only the "big guys" submitted proposals.

The process has been fairly confusing trying to find out who has been  
awarded funding.  To this date, all you can find out is the zip codes  
of areas where proposals were submitted and it's nearly impossible to  
find out what the proposals were and who is going to be funded.  We  
did have a bit of good news, however.  As many of you may recall,  
Willits Online (Mike Ireton - who some of you may recall attended the  
last Broadband Summit) submitted a proposal to do Covelo (a  
traditionally un-served area) and Laytonville (an under-served market)  
and they were just notified that they will receive 1/2 of their  
proposal - to to Laytonville only.  No one contacted Mike about this  
change to their proposal and it's anyone's guess why they didn't fund  
the Covelo proposal.  It's a fairly mysterious process and there's  
absolutely no transparency in the selection process (in fact it's  
total opaque), despite the fact that it's technically public money (we  
all pay for CASF in our phone bills).

One of the more curious awards is for a company called Broadband  
Associates to do a large project (redundant fiber with pass-by  
wireless last-mile delivery) between Redding and Humboldt.  As you'll  
see from the award notice (attached) they are being proposed for $7.8  
million in funding.  Since CASF only funds 40% of the project cost  
(equipment costs only - no installation or maintenance can be  
included) then the total project proposed is for $19.5 million.

Among several other local folks, I met with Broadband Associates last  
year when they were invited up here to design a project.  It was  
obvious that they had absolutely no idea about this area (they thought  
Eureka was an hour away from Redding and arrived very late because  
they had no idea of what Hwy 299 terrain was like).  I had the  
distinct impression that this was the first time they had ever made to  
Eureka.  Naturally, they are "well connected" and have excellent  
inside connections (all the key staff come out of major corporate  
telecommunications backgrounds).  Jim Carlson and I had breakfast with  
them and stressed the issue that we just couldn't see the business  
model to pay for a $10+ million second fiber line - we were just  
discussing a "reality check" to ground them in our past hard-won  
experience.  The Broadband Associate people were convinced that they  
could get it funded and that Hwy 299 would present no problem for a  
project.  I hope they're right, but I am still very dubious.

The Broadband Associates proposal is a big one - to provide a second  
fiber line to Humboldt via 299 with off-shoot last-mile access  
provided by Velocity Technologies wireless (Travis Finch - who was  
also partnering with us on our CASF proposal).  While I am fully in  
support of Travis' proposal - which is pretty substantial in its own  
right - I have my doubts that Broadband Associates can raise the  
necessary capital to undertake a $19.5 million project.  Talk about a  
LONG shot - this is it!  As many of you know, there is another pending  
proposal to do redundant fiber to Humboldt by way of PG&E's Hwy. 36  
right-of-way, but that project is dead-in-the-water now.  As many of  
you read in the Northcoast Journal,  IP Networks, a large broadband  
contractor, is hung up on getting the final commitments for broadband  
(see http://www.northcoastjournal.com/issues/2008/12/25/low-speed-broadband/) 
  which is holding up the whole project.  How Broadband Associates is  
going to do any better is a real question.  Do they know something  
none of us know?

I think my biggest concern is the lack of transparency on this whole  
issue.  While the public (primarily RTC members) keep complaining and  
debating the issue of redundancy ("alternative paths"), these  
corporate players are working like busy bees in total secrecy to  
"solve our problems" for us.  As many of us have been saying for years  
- show us the business model!  Just how much are people prepared to  
pay for their broadband Internet service?  We are still waiting to see  
the final RCC report, but according to the initial results (given by  
Tina Nerat at the last Broadband Forum) there are some major issues to  
overcome in these markets.  When the survey was conducted, respondents  
stated that they were willing to pay more for faster broadband, but as  
those of us who have actually worked in this market well know - what  
people say doesn't always match what they DO when offered the  
service.  SHOW ME THE MONEY should be the key phrase that we should ask.

Now, let's FOLLOW THE MONEY.  All the "big guys" (AT&T, SuddenLink,  
Verizon, IP Partners, Charter Communications and now Broadband  
Associates) are all racing to grab the broadband brass ring, but there  
has really been no sensible debate about what is needed, who's going  
to pay for it and who's going to own it.  No one is asking for our  
input on the project - after all this is a truly private sector  
solution - but I'll bet that they're going to ask for public money  
sooner or later.  When that day comes (which probably won't be long)  
we'll basically have a single decision before us - do we want to fund  
this one "anointed" project or get nothing!  We've never held a public  
debate about any other alternatives, what is our real demand and is  
this solution in our best interests?  This whole debate reminds me of  
the wastewater debate back in the '70s which led to the creation of  
the Arcata Marsh.  Is our broadband demand going to grow exponentially  
forever (just like this area is going to grow to double our population  
in the next 20 years?) Given all we've learned about Wall St. smoke- 
and-mirrors, we better consider the alternatives sooner than later.   
That's my two cents worth...

[As a disclaimer - I have no horse in this race.  We have suspended  
our plans for another wireless provider and I work elsewhere, so I  
don't benefit one way or the other from the outcome of this  
discussion.  I'm just a taxpayer and concerned citizen.]

STATE  
OFCALIFORNIA 
                                                                                                          ARNOLDSCHWARZENEGGER 
,Governor

PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION
505 VAN NESS AVENUE
SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94102-3298


January 20, 2009                                             mike at willitsonline.com

NOTICE OF AVAILABILITY

To:    California Advanced Services Fund Unserved Area Applicants and
          Parties of Record inR.06-06-028

The following draft Resolutions will be on the Commission’s February  
20, 2009, meeting:
§        Resolution T-17183 for Approval of Funding for the  
Laytonville Broadband Project of Willits OnLine LLC and its Subsidiary  
Company, Rural Broadband Now! LLC, fromCaliforniaAdvanced Services  
Fund (CASF) Amounting to $54,000
§        Resolution T-17187 for Approval of Funding for the Highway  
299 Broadband Network Project of Broadband Associates International,  
Inc., fromCaliforniaAdvanced Services Fund (CASF) Amounting to  
$7,830,720
§        Resolution T-17195 Approval of Funding for AT&T  
fromCaliforniaAdvanced Services Fund (CASF) Unserved Area Applications  
Amounting to $255,068

These draft resolutions are available at the Commission’s website athttp://www.cpuc.ca.gov 
.  On February 20, 2009, the Commission may vote on these resolutions  
or it may postpone votes until later.  When the Commission votes on a  
draft resolution, it may adopt all or part of it as written, amend or  
modify it, or set it aside and prepare a different resolution.  Only  
when the Commission acts does a resolution become binding on the  
parties. The availability of the conformed resolutions, when adopted  
by the Commission, are available at the same website.

Pursuant to Public Utilities (PU) Code 311 (g), the above-identified  
draft resolutions are available for public comments.  Comments should  
be focused on factual, legal, and/or technical errors in the draft  
resolution.  Comments must be limited to five pages in length and  
shall include a subject index listing the recommendations to the draft  
resolution, a table of authorities, and an appendix setting forth the  
proposed revised findings and ordering paragraphs.

The date of submission is the date the comments are received by the  
Communications Division.  Parties must serve a copy of their comments  
on each party set forth on the service list attached to the draft  
resolutions on the same date that the comments are submitted to the  
Communications Division.

Comments must be received no later than February 4, 2009 (which is 15  
days from the date of this mailing).  Reply comments may be submitted  
on or before February 9, 2009 (5 days after opening comments are  
submitted) and shall be limited to identifying misrepresentations of  
law, fact, or condition of the record contained in the comments of  
other parties.  Replies shall not exceed three pages in length and  
shall be submitted and served in the same manner as opening comments.
Late-filed opening comments and/or reply comments will ordinarily be  
rejected.  However, in extraordinary circumstances, a request for  
leave to submit comments or replies late may be filed together with  
proposed comments/replies.  An accompanying declaration under penalty  
of perjury shall be submitted setting forth all the reasons for the  
late submission.



-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://redwoodtech.org/pipermail/list_redwoodtech.org/attachments/20090119/b7695545/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.gif
Type: image/gif
Size: 3932 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://redwoodtech.org/pipermail/list_redwoodtech.org/attachments/20090119/b7695545/attachment.gif>