[RTC List] Broadband Associates project
Don Grossman
don at willitsonline.com
Fri Jan 23 17:11:04 PST 2009
Hey Larry and all
As far as the RTC goes I feel it should encourage all projects that
will come to the North coast. If the RTC wants to take an active role
however it should advocate projects that will see the greatest return
for the investment not just in a dollars sense but as to looking at
getting as many people the essential services they need. Also
encourage projects that are going to be sustainable over the long
term, bring the possibility of employment to local communities, and
not just be an asset to the organization receiving the grant but also
to the counties at large.
Once again assuming that the RTC has any say in the matter or contact
with the CPUC the RTC should look to fairness in the decision making.
One flaming example is contained in the CPUC ruling for BA http://docs.cpuc.ca.gov/PUBLISHED/COMMENT_RESOLUTION/96220.htm
> While the project's metrics did not meet the 3 MBPS download and 1
> MBPS upload speed, this project was the only proposal submitted for
> this unserved northern area of the State.
What this says to me is that although BA did not follow the rules and
provide for a 3 MBPS download and 1 MBPS upload the CPUC would bend
the rules for them.
Here is the requirement listed on the CPUC decisions http://docs.cpuc.ca.gov/PUBLISHED/FINAL_DECISION/76947-04.htm#P208_53059
(2) Description of proposed broadband project plan for which CASF
funding is being requested, including download and upload speed
capabilities of proposed facilities. Minimum speed standards targeted
should be 3 MBPS download and 1 MBPS upload.
Now on the other hand our project which was a single project with two
phases was split into two projects and one of the parts was rejected
due to starting the project ahead of the approval. http://docs.cpuc.ca.gov/PUBLISHED/COMMENT_RESOLUTION/96218.htm
8. The Commission will only approve projects on a prospective basis.
Since Willits started acquiring equipment and construction before
approval of the Covelo Willits-Sanhedrin-Covelo project, CD recommends
that only the Laytonville project be considered for CASF funding.
I have not seen anywhere in the CPUC guidelines where it/they prohibit
the start of a project before it is ruled on. In sum imposing a
penalty on us with no basis.
I do hope everyone knows that BA's main focus and clients are
education and government. Not much mention of public, commercial or
residential services.
http://www.broadbandassoc.com
Now that I have gotten completely off track and before I totally pull
their project apart I will get back to Larry's questions.
1) RTC should make some kind of statement regarding the decision yes.
Not being a RTC leader I will leave that up to the power that be.
2) Yes I feel there are concerns and they should be voiced to the
correct powers. I am not going to include them all here due to the
size this email would turn into and would be mostly off topic. I
would be happy if anyone cares to post my opinion on the information
available to me on the BA plan.
3) The BA plan is not the best or most cost-effective way to get
broadband to the North coast. With a cost of almost $3500 per
household in the CBQ area, which when looking at the coverage map,
they may in reality get %10 of that on a good day or roughly $35,000
per customer.
4) There are always alternatives but if we look at just the grant
requests submitted it might have been the only choice for the area in
question.
As for your concerns I would say many of them have standing.
1) Redundant and Alternate are not interchangeable. Subscribers to
the BA system will still have only one path to the internet. The best
networking design for a redundant system would be to have 2 or more
equal paths. They can both be microwave or Fiber but be of equal
capacity to provide uninterrupted service at constant service levels.
The Alternate path could be of unequal paths providing some level of
service below that of the primary service ( dial-up if it would serve
the purpose)
2) I don't have much knowledge of the 299 corridor but it must have a
pretty substantial population to support this kind of project.
3) As previously mentioned it is not really any of our business where
the balance of the project comes from if it is not from another
funding source such as alternate grants or federal funds.
4) The question still begs asking what is most important to the North
coast, initial services, alternate services or redundancy?
5) I have no knowledge of the ties between BA and CENIC but if I were
to put on my conspiracy hat I would say that CENIC approached BA with
a project to connect Shasta COE to Humboldt COE to complete a fiber
ring for CalREN and score another state contract since this is BA's
main market. Below is the map from the BA grant proposal as well as a
part of the CalREN map. Being in the wireless internet business I
have some knowledge of the difficulty working in or around difficult
terrain. As stated before I don't have much knowledge of the 299
corridor but I would guess it does not have much of a resemblance of
Kansas and would require a rather large number of wireless access
locations to cover the 150 miles to get any number of customers. To
make it sustainable they would need the assurance of an anchor tenant
from day one.
Of course all of this is grasping at straws and has no real basis but
Larry asked the question.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: pastedGraphic.tiff
Type: image/tiff
Size: 306040 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://redwoodtech.org/pipermail/list_redwoodtech.org/attachments/20090123/87af9140/attachment-0001.tiff>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Picture 2.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 51954 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://redwoodtech.org/pipermail/list_redwoodtech.org/attachments/20090123/87af9140/attachment-0001.jpg>
-------------- next part --------------
6) You would have to ask CPUC maybe? Or are the grants public
domain? I have not seen ours posted anywhere.
7) Probably way to many alternatives to list here.
8) Not sure the public can show support for any one project. The
public has been taxed and the monies pooled. Decisions are left in
the hands of a few officials and the only thing the public can really
do is make a few comments.
Well Larry, thats my feedback.
On Jan 22, 2009, at 12:29 PM, Larry Goldberg wrote:
> It is now "official" - Broadband Associates have been approved for
> CASF funding of $7.8 million. As per my last "rant" on the RTC
> list, I have serious concerns about this project. I should point
> out, however, that few of you seem to share my concern about this
> project insofar as I received virtually no feedback on my comments.
> As you may know, we have until Feb. 4th to submit comments to the
> CPUC on this proposal, so I urge the RTC to take a position on this
> project. The Board of Supervisors may put this on an upcoming
> agenda and we should be represented and have a public position on
> the issue.
>
> In an effort to solicit honest feedback on this important issue to
> us, I ask for folks to consider the following:
> 1) Should the RTC take an official stand on the project (after all,
> it's technically our single biggest technical infrastructure concern)
> 2) If we have concerns, what are they?
> 3) Is this the best and most cost-effective answer to our concerns?
> 4) Are there other alternatives that should be considered?
>
> I would like to go on record with the following concerns:
>
> 1) I support redundant/alternate paths for broadband. Is it
> essential that they be fiber?
> 2) What are the actual broadband demand projections for the area and
> who made them? Any supporting documentation?
> 3) Where is the rest of the projected $19+ million of the Broadband
> Associates project coming from? Are these hard commitments?
> 4) There is already a redundant/alternate broadband path for fiber
> project pending (IP Networks Hwy. 36 project) which supposedly is
> less costly than the projected Broadband Associates project, yet it
> cannot get sufficient commitments to move forward. Why is there a
> better chance for the Broadband Associates project to be financially
> viable?
> 5) Other than CENIC, who we know is the primary mover on this
> project, who else is committed to funding at this time? Will
> additional public money be required and, if so, where is it coming
> from?
> 6) Can we see the Broadband Associates proposal? What are the
> project specifics?
> 7) What, if any, are the alternatives and what do they cost & who
> will pay for them?
> 8) Does the public need to support one project over another and, if
> so, do we go on record supporting a particular project?
>
> Does anyone else share my concerns or I am totally off-base on
> this? I welcome your feedback.
>
> _______________________________________________
> List mailing list
> List at redwoodtech.org
> http://redwoodtech.org/mailman/listinfo/list_redwoodtech.org
Don Grossman
WillitsOnline LLC
Office 707-459-0824
don at willitsonline.com
More information about the List
mailing list