[RTC List] Broadband Associates project

[Larry Goldberg]

RTC folks & Broadband Forum folks,

Having received a few pieces of e-mail on the Broadband Associates  
project (not nearly as much as you would think the topic deserves) I  
have a couple of points to make:

1) I don't want to be an obstructionist or stand in the way of long- 
sought after broadband access to unserved or under-served markets,  
especially along the Hwy 299 path.

2) My objections are not sour grapes (because my CASF proposal was  
deemed ineligible) but I should point out a couple of facts:
  a)  that we proposed to build 2 separate microwave links (to Redding  
and Crescent City) AND
  b) connect to AT&T fiber AND
  c) serve virtually all the communities served under the BA proposal  
(we had teamed with the same partner as BA, Velocity Technologies Co- 
Op of Weaverville, who is in fact doing the lion's share of the last- 
mile service) AND
  d) the WHOLE PROJECT came in under $500k AND
  e) we served more territory (including the Yurok tribe in Requa and  
Klamath up to Orleans as well as Orick and many other under-served  
markets NOT covered under the BA proposal) AND
   f) we only required $145K of CASF (in other words, PUBLIC MONEY) to  
do it.

Sour grapes, maybe a little, but it just seems like such a rip-off of  
the public treasury given what I know from my own investigation.

3) There is absolutely no transparency in the process.  I would love  
to see the specifics of the BA proposal (after all, it IS public  
money, right?)  Nowhere can you see the actual proposal.

4) Yes, it's private money match so it's none of our business where  
it's coming from.  I hereby affirm the following: I will sing the  
praises of BA if they pull this off (and I mean that!), but I ask  
everyone to call the process a fraud if it turns out that it's a  
treasure hunt with BA coming back to us later hat-in-hand looking for  
more money.  If they can drum up $12 million in this economic climate,  
they're magicians and they deserve all our business and support.   
They'll certainly deserve the respect and admiration of all citizens  
of this community.  If they don't, however, we ought to stop the  
thinking of "hope someone big from the outside can come rescue us" and  
start rolling up our sleeves (and opening our own pocketbooks) to  
figure out how to do it for ourselves - on a scale we can afford  
without breaking the bank.  It may, in fact, take a public-private  
partnership and I have some ideas of an alternative solution if this  
project fails to materialize.

5) There's no free lunch (even if you really want to believe there  
is).  Even if the Obama administration rains money from heaven (don't  
hold your breath) there's not likely to be "free" money to fill in the  
gaps in funding.  Someone is going to have to pay for this project and  
I don't care how you crunch the numbers, I can't see how $12 million  
gets spent without someone passing it along to the consumer.  People  
think we're going to get faster, better broadband without having to  
pay anything extra and I don't believe it.  Prove me wrong - I'll eat  
my words.

6) For too long we've had a "build-it-and-they-will-come" mentality.   
I don't care how much broadband we have here (a Gigabit network?), I  
don't believe it's going to attract any major new business players.   
Yes, there will be many more "lone eagles" and small mom-and-pop  
businesses who will find it useful to have reliable broadband, but  
let's not get ahead of ourselves.  We are no Silicon Valley, Silicon  
Forest or other economic island divorced from the market conditions of  
the world.  It's always been tough to make it up here and it's not  
going to change anytime soon.  Reliable high-speed broadband is  
essential to our growth, but we're not going to see any major influx  
of new enterprise as a result of more broadband.  Yes, it's essential  
to the future growth, but don't expect it to create an economic  
miracle.  Gamers at home will like it, credit card processors will  
like it, web servers will like it, but I just think we should be  
thinking APPROPRIATE and SUSTAINABLE growth in our broadband plans.   
We need projects that can sustain themselves and don't require Wall  
Street financing to make them work (and that applies to the railroad,  
port development and other economic development too).

7) If you think the State of California (and school districts, local  
governments and other government entities) are going to pick up the  
slack in the funding for this project, I would like some of whatever  
you're smoking.  This state is BROKE and local school districts will  
be lucky to just stay open.  Need I say more?

8) If someone offered to build a 12-lane broadband superhighway from  
Redding to Blue Lake, should we refuse it?  On the other hand, do we  
really need it?  You be the judge.

In closing, I will support the Broadband Associates project on three  
conditions:

1) Broadband Associates come up the performance bond which the CPUC is  
requiring to assure completion of the project, and
2) they assure us that the match-funding is committed and they're for  
real, and
3) they will complete the project in 12 months, as promised, or GET  
REAL and tell us how long it will really take.

I want to support our efforts for ubiquitous broadband to the far  
reaches of our community - I just want us to be realistic and remember  
Charlie Brown and Lucy and the football.  Please don't promise us that  
you'll hold the football and then just pull it away at the last  
minute.  We've had altogether too many of those plays in the recent  
past and we won't be fooled again.