[RTC List] Broadband Associates project

[Larry Goldberg]

Bob,

Thank you for your well-stated position.  I'm glad you had the guts to  
stand up and be counted.  For all the smoke about this project and the  
overall need for redundancy, darned few have anything to say on this  
matter.

I really want to address only a few points at this time (you know my  
position on the rest).  You (and others) make a valid point - if  
there's another option, why hasn't someone already done it?  In fact,  
they have.  Seth with 101 Netlink is one of the answers.  He's been in  
the business over 5 years now - he came before the RTC when he was  
just starting up and many of us rolled our eyes (including me) - it  
seemed too ambitious and far-fetched to bring an independent link up  
to Humboldt via a private microwave network. The problem is that doing  
any undertaking like this takes a LOT of capital and guts to do what  
is necessary and the returns are not guaranteed by any means.  I know  
because I've done it and I have tremendous respect for anyone who  
manages to survive as an independent ISP business today.  The problem,  
as you and I well know, is that it's a VERY risky business and few  
people really want to go into competition with AT&T, Verizon,  
SuddenLink and the likes of them.  Yes, there's a business model, but  
it's very risky, expensive and full of political, regulatory and  
logistical minefields. It's no wonder you have to have millions of  
dollars these days to even think of getting into the business.

In any case, Seth has hung in there, worked like a dog to build a  
market and fought incredible odds to build a successful company.  They  
now own their own mountain-top transmitters, wireless backhaul network  
and large and growing customer base.  He did it without major anchor  
tenants (SuddenLink, etc..) and he did it on his own terms and WITHOUT  
ANY GOVERNMENT ASSISTANCE.  I'm not trying to be a booster for  
101NetLink per se, but to support a LOCAL solution over one brought to  
us by outside interests who have their own agenda.  Seth has yet to  
fill his OC3 pipe (154 MB) and I believe that AT&T has plenty of  
bandwidth they haven't sold either, so I think that the need for a  
second fiber - other than for redundancy (or alternate path) - is a  
red herring.  We should be supporting the likes of Seth - who has  
delivered a true alternate redundant path -  and carefully  
scrutinizing the likes of Broadband Associates who just showed up on  
the scene in July.  I know - "they're here to help" but I think there  
is a lot more to the story that we don't know.

You know from your own experience in the private sector how hard it is  
to make a living up here.  It's hard to raise money.  It's hard to  
build a clientele. It's hard to survive.  Even Charter Communications  
(Crescent City's cable company), a major national cable company, is  
going broke.  I doubt that ANY alternate path can be viably built  
without public financing these days, so that's why it hasn't been done  
yet.  Even IP Networks, a major player in their own right, can't get  
their project financed and they're IN with all the big players.

Also, to think that CASF has any practical smarts, why they would  
eliminate Covelo, a community which has historically been completely  
off the broadband map, and instead only fund Laytonville is totally  
idiotic in my opinion.  I'm convinced that CASF is inept, politically  
motivated and in the pocket of the big telcos.  Their incentives are  
insufficient to truly fund what needs to get done (it will probably  
take close to a 100% subsidy to get broadband to some of the remote  
communities).  If you want to get a good ground-level view of what it  
takes, look at the broadband experience in Orick (and figure out how  
much public money was spend on studying that one community!)  There's  
a good reality check!

In closing, there's a darned good reason why no one has done this  
project before - it doesn't make financial sense and it's way too  
risky.  Why Broadband Associates has found the solution that has  
evaded everyone else (including AT&T) is beyond me.  When something  
seems too good to be true, it usually is.


On Jan 24, 2009, at 9:44 AM, Bob Morse wrote:

> I want to preface this by saying I am not writing on behalf of the  
> RTC board. We have not met nor exchanged email of any substance on  
> this subject, though, of course I am sure everyone is following the  
> discussion closely.
>
> I appreciate everyone who has a quarrel with the BA proposal and the  
> CASF process. These comments are enlightening. Many of the issues  
> raised are over the CASF process and should therefore be addressed  
> to the CPUC. But I think that's been stated before.
>
> As for BA itself, they put together a proposal and it was accepted.  
> Some people commenting here seem to assume that the people at CASF  
> are gullible and incompetent so, therefore, this whole thing must be  
> either a sham being perpetrated by con artists or everyone involved  
> is an idiot, including the people at BA. Is this a correct  
> characterization of your thinking on this project?
>
> I also appreciate all the information you are presenting here about  
> alternatives to the fiber line. I am learning a lot. But it makes me  
> wonder. Larry and others claim that all our broadband issues can be  
> solved for a small fraction of the cost of this project. So, why  
> hasn't this happened? It's a mystery to me. I am not being sarcastic  
> or challenging, I am genuinely curious.  I'm also pretty naive in  
> both politics and networking, so I need it spelled out. Something,  
> someone is holding you back.
>
> What are our realistic options?
>
> Accept the BA project because we don't really have a choice?
> Accept the BA project because it's actually a good solution to at  
> least some existing problems?
> Support this project but with conditions such as accountability and  
> better transparency?
> Challenge the BA project because it's inefficient and/or not viable?  
> If so, how?
> Someone else step up and solve the problems with a better project?
> Don't do anything because there really are no problems that are not  
> already being solved through free enterprise?
> Other options I'm not thinking of?
>
> If RTC is expected to make some policy statement on this issue we're  
> going to need much more information and understanding. Has anyone  
> (besides me) contacted BA about their concerns as I encouraged in my  
> last post?
>
> More below if anyone wishes to continue to read.
>
> Larry Goldberg wrote:
>>
>> 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
> Given that this is a prerequisite for being awarded the funds anyway  
> what are you saying? You will support the project if they meet the  
> requirement the grant demands? I think that's what BA and CASF would  
> say, too.
>> 2) they assure us that the match-funding is committed and they're  
>> for real, and
> Again, the project won't happen without this. So, it doesn't matter  
> whether you support it or not. I don't see your point.
>> 3) they will complete the project in 12 months, as promised, or GET  
>> REAL and tell us how long it will really take.
> Isn't it 11 months from the actual award date? I asked about this of  
> BA's CEO and here he hedged. It's not just about the build itself  
> which has many inherent unknowns. It's also about the regulatory  
> mine field that could appear. I'd also like to know what exactly is  
> expected to be completed in 11 months - another area where  
> transparency is lacking. I think there is a legitimate argument to  
> be made over the fact that we have yet to see real specifics on this  
> proposal. I assume they exist. I don't know why CASF does not make  
> them public.
>>
>> 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.
> This is exactly the point I was trying to make in my post on my  
> conversation with BA's CEO. According to him they have not been  
> trumpeting this award because they have not wanted to raise  
> expectations or build false hopes. This thing is still in process.  
> And while he is excited about the potential, he does not want to  
> over promise and have people disappointed. I don't think he has any  
> control over how CASF presents this thing.
>
>