[RTC List] Local Broadband Stimulus Money
Jim Carlson
jcarlson at carlsonwireless.com
Mon May 11 11:26:33 PDT 2009
I want to make it clear that Bill is correct and Mr. Goldberg is not speaking for Carlson Wireless in this political discussion.
I know most of the people involved and understand the rush to put the proposal together in extremely short order. I have some minor ideas about it but will bring those to the appropriate people without disruption.
We are quite busy here with the areas where stimulus $ for wireless is urgently needed with other state, county agencies etc.
Please everyone keep up the good work.
Jim Carlson
CEO Carlson Wireless Technologies Inc.
1385 8th St. Arcata CA 95521 USA
+1 707 822 7000 ext 106
-----Original Message-----
From: list-bounces at redwoodtech.org [mailto:list-bounces at redwoodtech.org] On Behalf Of William Van Hefner
Sent: Wednesday, May 06, 2009 8:11 AM
To: list at redwoodtech.org
Subject: Re: [RTC List] Local Broadband Stimulus Money
Chris,
I can't pretend to speak for Larry, but I am fairly certain that his motivations have absolutely nothing to do with his current employer. He has been working for several years on trying to get potential wireless projects in Humboldt County put together. His interest in wireless and WiMax predate his employment at Carlson by a long, long stretch.
To the best of my knowledge, most of Carlson Wireless' customers are in Asia, not North America. They sell hardware, and I have seen no evidence that they intend on getting involved in local wireless issues. Larry can certainly correct me on that if I'm wrong though. If I were in Carlson's position, I don't think that I would waste my time or efforts on the potential wireless hardware market in Humboldt County.
--
William Van Hefner - President
Vantek Communications, Inc.
http://www.humboldtonline.com
e-mail: editor at humboldtonline.com
On Wed, May 6, 2009 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_
> (http://www.humboldt.edu/~rcc) or
> _http://redwoodcoastconnect.humboldt.edu/_
> (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_
> (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.
> (http://yellowpages.aol.com/search?query=florist&ncid=emlcntusyelp0000
> 000
> 6)
> _______________________________________________
> List mailing list
> List at redwoodtech.org
> http://redwoodtech.org/mailman/listinfo/list_redwoodtech.org
>
>
_______________________________________________
List mailing list
List at redwoodtech.org
http://redwoodtech.org/mailman/listinfo/list_redwoodtech.org
More information about the List
mailing list