[RTC List] Local Broadband Stimulus Money

Wed May 6 17:16:38 PDT 2009

Chris,

Thanks for your reply.  I respect your opinion, but respectfully  
disagree.  This is not a conspiracy - it's pure and simple hard-ball  
politics.  There has never been a public vetting of proposals (at  
least the CASF allowed anyone to apply and they selected the qualified  
proposals that met their criteria).  This is a self-appointed group  
(since when did HSU & Rural Action become anointed as the leading  
technical agent for developing broadband stimulus proposals?)  Please  
remember one important fact - THIS IS PUBLIC MONEY!!!  You and I  
didn't elect ANY of them and I don't understand why anyone would  
expect them to be the final filter for all things broadband.  If  
anything, the RTC should be leading the charge and we're sitting on  
our hands!  Let the RTC hold a workshop and let anyone with a proposal  
give their presentation like the Broadband Associates got their  
opportunity at the luncheon several months ago.  Now is our time to be  
counted - get up and make a stand.  We did it for AT&T, don't you  
think it's time to get involved again for ourselves?  If the RTC  
believes that a $50 million proposal to do fiber everywhere is the  
best use of stimulus money (and most likely to get funded) then let's  
take a vote and go on record in support (hear that, RTC board?)

If there is any self-serving advocacy on this project is that of the  
consultant(s) who developed and wrote the RCC report (by the way,  
despite the fact that local groups contributed to this effort, the  
CETF ran the project and called all the shots).  I attended one of the  
RCC public meetings and participated in their online surveys and  
nowhere did the question come up whether we needed fiber to every  
community (I think that most un-served markets would be really happy  
with 3/1 service NOW and not Gigabit service someday in the future).   
I am very suspect of the RCC report findings and don't believe it is  
the final word on anything (frankly, it's a big disappointment for all  
the money spent on it).  The greatest beneficiary of this whole effort  
is Broadband Associates who specializes in - guess what - fiber  
installations!  Why do one highly leveraged project when you can do  
five!

I am suggesting that this process, if it was truly democratic, would  
be that of any block grant application.  Let anyone prepare an  
application, submit it for review (hopefully which would include  
technical, cost-benefit and economic development impact analysis) and  
bring the proposals before the board of supervisors for their review  
and final action.  That would be a transparent, democratic process.   
As it stands, I think the proposal for one mega-proposal is doomed to  
failure and that would be the biggest tragedy of all.  Let the sun  
shine in!

On May 6, 2009, at 7:29 AM, CrawfordCA at aol.com wrote:

> Larry, et al ...
>
> While I am not a proponent of the various mad dashes for stimulus  
> money, I see nothing sinister in this ambitious plan to shore up our  
> regional "middle mile" telecommunications infrastructure. Moreover,  
> given our topography and the future-proof nature of fiber versus  
> wireless, the plan to do so with a fiber optic makes perfect sense.
>
> Let's not look for conspiracies under every rock and at least begin  
> with the premise that this is a legitimate, forward looking proposal  
> that attempts to solve very real regional problems in a  
> collaborative way involving several stakeholder groups. For more  
> information, visit www.humboldt.edu/~rcc or http://redwoodcoastconnect.humboldt.edu/ 
>  or Google Redwood Coast Connect.
>
> If we do as you suggest and turn this into rounds of public hearings  
> in three counties and several tribal governments in an effort to  
> gain some sort of consensus on a plan of action, we'll have to wait  
> for Barack Obama's grandchildren to vote for a new stimulus bill to  
> fund it.
>
> I am a huge fan of Carlson Wireless and their terrific connectivity  
> solutions worldwide. Your critical analysis of this development  
> makes it sound like some sort of special interest advocacy on behalf  
> of your employer, which I am certain is not the case. However, it  
> looks just as bad no matter the intent.
>
> Why don't we give this prospect the benefit of the doubt and hope it  
> produces its intended outcome? There are plenty of other fights in  
> our community, let's not add this one to the already enormous pile  
> of them.
>
> Chris Crawford
>
>
> ``````````````````````````
> In a message dated 5/5/2009 8:39:19 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time, larry at northcoast.com 
>  writes:
> RTC members and interested parties:
>
>
>
> This morning I attended a very interesting meeting of the Business  
> Partners Roundtable at HSU.  This is a group of local businesses,  
> non-profit community based organizations and HSU personnel who meet  
> quarterly to discuss topics related to local economic development.   
> Today we heard a summary report from Connie Stewart who is currently  
> working with the Redwood Rural Action organization  (with the  
> blessing of HSU President, Rollin Richmond) on the development of a  
> comprehensive broadband plan for application for stimulus broadband  
> money.   While I don't have all the details, the overall project  
> came as a complete surprise to me (and I think will be to many of  
> you).  Here's what I heard:
>
>
>
> Redwood Rural Action is trying to organize all the local governments  
> (primarily four counties of the region, the Yurok tribe and several  
> school districts) into submitting a "comprehensive" proposal for  
> broadband.  What they've decided on is a proposal for addressing the  
> "most critical issue" which they've defined as the middle mile/ 
> backhaul problem and they want a middle-mile only proposal to do  
> five (!!) separate fiber projects (yes, that's what they're  
> planning!) which include:
>
>  - Hwy. 299 (Broadband Associates)
>
> -  Hwy. 101 to Crescent City (to satisfy the Yurok Tribe)
>
>  - Hwy. 36 (I don't know who that's for)
>
>  - Mendocino Coast (which may make sense given how little  
> connectivity they currently have)
>
>  - Hwy 3 (Trinity Co.)
>
>
>
> They will be issuing an RFP (I'm not sure who's funding this, but I  
> know they've asked for funding from several counties to help with  
> the effort) and they plan to hire a high-power consultant (do you  
> think they have anyone in particular in mind?) who has an "inside  
> track" to stimulus money, is technically savvy and will select the  
> final projects for submission.  By the way - this all has to be done  
> within the next 30 days because RUS and NTIA broadband proposals  
> will be announced in early June.  Also - a private meeting was held  
> recently with county, municipal and tribal representatives with no  
> public input and no private sector invited to discuss this issue.
>
>
>
> According to Connie, this project will most likely be publicly owned  
> (with 80% public money being requested), they are not open to any  
> other broadband solutions (fiber is the chosen solution) and she  
> claims the findings are completely based on the RCC report (please  
> see http://redwoodcoastconnect.humboldt.edu/?content=docs  for the  
> final report and "peer review" which I recommend reading).  She  
> further claims that this will stimulate competition insofar as their  
> goal is 3 providers per community, thus lowering prices (they hope).
>
>
>
> She only entertained a few questions before she had to leave for  
> another meeting so we really couldn't discuss it at length.  I have  
> so many concerns, as you can imagine, so I'm a little at a loss  
> (imagine that!) but here are just a *few* of my concerns:
>
>
>
> 1)   What was the decision/selection process for determining the  
> scope & design of the RFP?
>
> 2)   What are the roles of Redwood Rural Action and Redwood Coast  
> Connect in deciding broadband projects for stimulus funding?
>
> 3)   Why has the middle mile/backhaul issue become the primary  
> driver for stimulus money?  What happened to "last mile" delivery  
> services?
>
> 4)   Why is fiber the only technology being considered for middle- 
> mile? (and why do we need fiber EVERYWHERE?)
>
> 5)   What is the role of local governments (counties,  
> municipalities, tribes and community service districts) in this  
> process?  Why are they proposing a single application for stimulus  
> money?
>
> 6)   Who are the evaluation committee members for the RFP?
>
> 7)   Who is the technical expert reviewing proposals?  Will there be  
> a technical vetting process for proposals?
>
> 8)   What are the criteria for reviewing projects?
>
> 9)   Why wasn’t ANY public input considered for this process?
>
> 10)  What is the vetting process for projects?  How will they be  
> prioritized?  Is there any cost-benefit analysis? (This is public  
> money, remember?)
>
> 11)  When, if ever, will there be a public airing of the projects?   
> Is there any opportunity for public input?
>
> 12)  If funding is limited, how will a project be selected as the  
> top priority for the region?
>
> 13)  If a project has over 60% public money invested, will it be  
> considered a publicly owned project?
>
> 14)  What considerations are being made for operations?  Who is  
> going to operate and maintain these projects?
>
>
>
> I would be interested in your input.  Are any of you as concerned as  
> I am about this whole process?  Please let me know how you feel and  
> we can organize a response.
>
>
>
> Thank you.
>
>
>
> Remember Mom this Mother's Day! Find a florist near you now.
> _______________________________________________
> List mailing list
> List at redwoodtech.org
> http://redwoodtech.org/mailman/listinfo/list_redwoodtech.org

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://redwoodtech.org/pipermail/list_redwoodtech.org/attachments/20090506/5e7f1f5f/attachment.html>