[RTC List] HWY 299 report

[Larry Goldberg]

To all RTC members (and RTC Board of Directors)

There were several interesting meetings held yesterday which were  
attended by several RTC members, including me.  I feel they were  
productive and a good, honest exchange of ideas resulted. I will be  
preparing a report for everyone from my notes and will post them later  
today.

Based on the events of yesterday, I want to present the following  
proposal:

Have the RTC website create a special discussion area (or Google Group  
discussion) to solicit input on the broadband plans as they are  
quickly evolving.  Open a discussion of the RCC report and its  
findings (there has NEVER been a public review of this report and  
recommendations) and allow technical input and challenges to  
proposals.  We are assuming that the RCC report is 1) accurate, 2)  
valid in its final recommendations and 3) the ultimate report to  
determine what the public wants and needs.  In other words, how should  
the broadband policy for this area be developed:
   a) by an consultant's report (while it's a very comprehensive  
report, it's just ONE report with its own bias)
   b) by a group of self-appointed "experts" - none of which were  
elected or appointed by the public
   c) the public who is ultimately going to fund this project.

My challenge to everyone is this:  If we had to pass a bond initiative  
to pay for what we're proposing in the name of the public, would it  
pass?

With that said, I want to respond to this e-mail from yesterday from  
Jacqueline Debets (Humb. Economic Dev. Dept):

On May 11, 2009, at 10:57 PM, Debets, Jacqueline wrote:

> Larry and RTC members,
> 1. The reports make all information public to anyone who may want to  
> use to bid on a future project implementation. We focused on getting  
> the best info available to move the case and the plan for broadband  
> deployment forward at the time. Many players have come and gone. Who  
> builds and owns this is still in play, so we're making sure everyone  
> has access to the info. The information was gathered and provided by  
> several sources, which included NeraTech, Velocity Communications  
> and Broadband Associates.

The difference is that this one case (CDBG funded project: "Highway  
299 Fiber and Wireless Broadband Business Plan") just happens to be  
one-and-the-same plan as one proposed last September to the CPUC and  
approved for funding by the CASF (California Advanced Services Fund)  
after an exhaustive technical process which required a full business  
plan, budget and timeline.  All of this work should have been done by  
the company PRIOR to receiving the funds.  It also just happens to be  
a project proposed by a single contractor who stands to reap a huge  
reward if this, or any, fiber project gets funded (please note: we've  
evolved from a single fiber project to 5 fiber projects now).  This  
contractor can use this plan for raising private capital and stands to  
reap considerable financial reward from the project, if funded.  This  
is clearly a gift of public resources for a private venture.  If this  
is an approved CDBG activity, I encourage EVERYONE in the RTC to apply  
for CDBG funding to fund their pet projects!  As long as you can show  
a "public benefit" (if I employ one person in my business, isn't that  
a public benefit?) then you're eligible by CDBG rules, according to  
you (that is, the Co. Economic Development Dept.)

I am asking in this public forum, for other examples of individual  
companies who have requested Business Plans to be funded by CDBG.  The  
Economic Fuel Competition should hear about this - a new source of  
business plan development at the public's expense!  Unless you're  
putting this project up for bid (which would be the appropriate  
response) then this is NOT a public benefit project but a gift of  
public funds to a private contractor.

At a minimum, I would request that the board of supervisors require  
that if this project is ultimately funded by the public (which is very  
likely) and Broadband Associates receives the contract (no surprise  
there), then at least the cost of the CDBG study be reimbursed to the  
public (county or Feds, I don't care).  Do you remember that at the  
last RTC luncheon, where you were present, Mr. Brinskele of Broadband  
Associates "went on record" stating that it was going to be a  
*privately* owned and managed project with PRIVATE capital supporting  
the capital costs. I have nothing personal against Mr. Brinskele or  
Broadband Associates - I would do EXACTLY the same thing if I were him  
- get the county to underwrite my development costs, get me a no-bid  
contract and pocket the management fees for developing the ensuing  
project.  I still see this project as a complete conflict for the  
county, especially since you don't have a single request for proposals  
or even an inquiry into other proposals.  At least the CASF had a  
competitive process for selecting candidates for funding.  Considering  
how much PUBLIC money may be at stake, the spotlight should shine on  
this whole issue.

> 2. "Likely become the county's only submission for broadband funding  
> for economic stimulus
> money"...on Friday you told me you have a proposal to deliver all  
> the middle mile with microwave, and would like it considered for  
> county submission along with any other proposal, and get public  
> comment. I offered to take your proposal to the BOS to consider for  
> stimulus funding submission, along with any other proposal (BTW we  
> do not have any yet). You said you'd get it to me Wednesday.

I just want to point out for everyone's information, that I first  
talked with you (Jacqueline) on Friday afternoon, 5/8.  Today is  
Wednesday.  I'll have a proposal to you today, as promised.  Our group  
has researched this project at our own expense and time, without any  
public assistance. We are proposing this project to be a PUBLICLY  
OWNED project and we stand to benefit to the same degree as Broadband  
Associates - in other words, only if it's approved for funding and we  
come up with required financial match.  I am prepared to post my  
summary proposal for all the public to see - provide me a public  
posting site (RTC?) and everyone can check it out for themselves.  We  
should post ALL proposals - even if they're just concept papers (e.g.  
Digital Redwoods by Access Humboldt) and let's get everyone's honest  
feedback. Call the press - let everyone in the community know.  Gather  
everyone's input to bring to the board of Supes (or whoever makes the  
final decision for a proposal).  That's a public process.

> It still stands that any proposal of this magnitude to be submitted  
> by the county will be considered with public comment.

Sure - like a public hearing with 3 minute time limits for public  
comment.  Give me a break.  When the county and its consultants have  
30 minutes to present their report (based on a single contractor's  
proposal) the public gets three minutes to respond.  I want to point  
out (as I have stated privately to you) there is no public process for  
submitting alternate proposals. We have never opened the gates for  
alternatives.  I'm sure that I'm not alone in saying that we have a  
lot of bright people in this area, many of whom have been working on  
ingenious, practical solutions, who would love to throw their ideas  
out there for consideration.  As it stands right now, the only way to  
do it today is to submit an unsolicited proposal.  When you consider  
how much money may be at stake (and given the late hour of this  
discussion) we are being increasingly forced into a corner to submit  
the only proposal which has a real match for funding - the Hwy. 299  
fiber project - which has never been explained to the public, has  
never been fully scrutinized and now the county has funded a business  
plan for them to assure their success.  You call that democratic?

I want to close on a positive note.  I am fully prepared to endorse a  
single proposal, but I think it needs to be fully thought out.  I am  
not attacking a single individual here (Jacqueline) but I am very  
critical of the whole PROCESS which has led us here (and there's  
plenty of people responsible for that).  Based on the meetings held  
yesterday, acknowledgement of these problems have been made and  
efforts will be made to include us all in the process (we'll see what  
results).

I have been involved with the RTC since its inception.  We have always  
been a critical "opinion leader" and advocate for the issues of  
technology on the Northcoast.  We have been champions for broadband,  
public education on technical issues, networking of local IT  
businesses and other technology-related issues.  We were in the  
forefront of fighting for our initial fiber connection (thank you  
Tina, Chris, Bob and others who led the charge!)  Over the past few  
years, however, I feel we have dropped the ball.  We've allowed other  
groups - self-appointed - to take the lead who answer to NO ONE  
publicly elected.  Studies have been done (in the name of the public)  
with no public scrutiny or discussion.  Recommendations have been  
made, with no public input or scrutiny.  Now proposals are being  
developed - all in our name - with little to no public input.

I don't personally care if we decide to do a "ladder" of fiber  
projects up and down the Northcoast.  I don't care if we decide that  
we should have an major satellite uplink connected to WiMax networks  
for mobile Internet distribution.  I don't care if we decide that we  
need fiber-to-the-home with an all-you-can-eat gigabit feed.  What I  
care about is that WE DECIDE what we need and want.  I don't claim to  
have the answers and have nothing to personally benefit from whatever  
comes of this or any project, but I am a champion of the right for the  
public to decide what they want - especially if they're paying for it!