[RTC List] Some Specific Stimulus Suggestions and Strategies

[Larry Goldberg]

I couldn't have said it better myself.  Well done, Jan!  This is  
exactly the program we need to undertake right now - we have no time  
to waste.  When you consider that we're talking about potentially tens  
of millions of dollars, you would think that EVERYONE would be  
scrambling to get this going.  For all the time and money we've spent  
on studies, research and meetings, this should be a natural outcome of  
all our work.  This may be our best (and hopefully, not last) great  
opportunity to shape the future of our region.  We may never see this  
kind of money available again, so we all need to work together to make  
good decisions and address our rural broadband needs with a holistic  
"big picture" approach.  Count me in!


On Jun 12, 2009, at 2:44 PM, Jan Kraepelien wrote:

> To all the sincere, passionate, and good people trying to improve  
> our area's communications technologies,
>
> I would like to make some specific suggestions regarding the four- 
> county (Humboldt, Mendocino, Trinity, and Del Norte) unified  
> proposal for broadband stimulus funding.  I'm hoping to generate  
> some consensus that would allow us to proceed quickly, smoothly, and  
> to the best advantage for our citizens and the players in our area's  
> broadband technical/communication "great leap forward".  I'm trying  
> to be concise and take the overview approach to look for broad areas  
> of agreement.  Five points:
>
> 1.  Kathy Moxon and Sean McLaughlin become co-executive directors of  
> the "Redwood Broadband Working Group" (or some such name, see  
> below).  They would be a perfect team in both their complimentary  
> fields of expertise and connections.  Each would be half-time for  
> five months, with one month off from these activities to be full- 
> time at their current duties.  Humboldt Area Foundation and Access  
> Humboldt (their current employers) provide an additional first month  
> for them to assist in raising the funds to cover their four-month  
> employment costs.  I am on the board of directors for Access  
> Humboldt and would lobby for, I think successfully, this from our  
> side. A variety of funding sources could be put together so that we  
> would have them in this capacity through December.  They should  
> additionally have a full-time administrative assistant for this  
> period.  The funding is not as tough as some might think and is  
> actually one of the easier things to accomplish on this list.
>
> The co-executive director's duties would include co-ordination of  
> all efforts in the administration, the selection process for  
> projects, and final submission of the four-county unified proposal.   
> They would issue bi-weekly updates to interested parties, provide  
> strong leadership, keep up our connections with state and national  
> policy makers, and start the selection process going (first round -  
> one-page synopsis  of your project).  Everything needs to happen  
> fast and we have to be prepared for very detailed project  
> explanations with projections, costs, technical specifications in  
> the precise terms that will likely be required.
>
> 2.  Form a technical advisory committee from experts in our own area  
> to assist and advise the executive directors and the working group  
> members (see below). Let's take advantage of all that knowledge and  
> innovation,
>
> 3.  Hire a consultant for external expertise who works at the  
> national level.  I would suggest Joanne Hovis from Columbia  
> Telecommunications Corporation in Maryland; the firm specializes in  
> "communications engineering for the public interest".  Joanne is the  
> one who made the excellent presentation at the May 4th meeting at  
> College of the Redwoods on what is happening in Washington DC  
> regarding the stimulus funding.  This firm also was employed during  
> the cable refranchising process in Humboldt County to develop a  
> model for a community INet (fiber, or equivalent, connections  
> between government buildings,libraries, schools, and important  
> community sites).  The 2005 study could be easily updated.
>
> 4.  Immediately start forming the "Proposition-50-type" group (named  
> something like the "Redwood Broadband Working Group") to administer  
> this process, be the final decision makers, and direct the  
> submission of the final unified proposal, including exactly what  
> organization(s) formally submit it.  (It should be noted here that  
> other proposals could be endorsed by this group, for instance those  
> not seeking matching funds from state sources.)  A suggested  
> composition of this group would be:
>
> - County Administrative Officer/County Executive Officer of Del  
> Norte, Trinity, Humboldt, and Mendocino Counties, or their designees.
> - A City Manager from a city in Mendocino and one from Humboldt  
> County, or their designee.
> - Several Information Technology managers from the municipalities  
> (by definition, municipalities includes counties)
> - Tribal representatives in the same manner as the municipalities.
> - Representatives from some school organizations, K-12, community  
> colleges, HSU.  (maybe 4 total)
> - A few community members chosen by the above group very early on.
>
> This group might total 15 or so people and should connect up and  
> start forming via  emails and conference calls in the next few weeks  
> to hopefully have their first full-group conference call early in  
> July.  I could help with this part.  Teleconferencing seems very  
> appropriate for this group with ideally one big face-to-face meeting  
> over the summer.
>
> 5.  Agree and adopt the basic approach suggested by Sean for  
> applying for the $70 million+ that is being discussed currently.   
> This is the 70-10-10-10 model and gives us an initial (and of course  
> modifiable) guide:
>
> - 70% goes to middle mile deployment and initial maintenance.    
> These are the  Hwy 299,  Hwy 36, and other fiber projects.
> - 10% for other solutions for very rural deployment, chiefly  
> wireless like microwave and WiFi.
> - 10% for final mile government projects like completing INets,  
> public safety, and efficiency/cost savings.
> - 10% for pilot project deployment. Telemedicine, tribal area  
> infrastructure development, or clever experiments are some good  
> examples.
>
> This gives us the best proposal for our four-county needs while also  
> being much more likely to be funded than just a middle mile proposal.
>
>
> This is a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to build telecommunications  
> infrastructure in our four counties that can last 30 to 40 years.  I  
> am hoping this is a good plan for proceeding and await comments and  
> suggestions.  Please pass this on to anyone who might be interested.
>
> Jan Kraepelien
>
> _______________________________________________
> List mailing list
> List at redwoodtech.org
> http://redwoodtech.org/mailman/listinfo/list_redwoodtech.org