[RTC List] HWY 299 report

[robert beckerdite]

All is there interest in a survey to collect input from the broader ausience of the RTC? If the board would support it I could setup a survey for this topic though I woud need some help quantifying the breadth of perspectives
Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry

-----Original Message-----
From: Larry Goldberg <larry at northcoast.com>

Date: Wed, 13 May 2009 20:42:52 
To: <JDebets at co.humboldt.ca.us>
Cc: <list at redwoodtech.org>; <wirelessfreedom at willitsonline.com>; <northcoast-broadband-forum at googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: [RTC List] HWY 299 report


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!
 
 
 _______________________________________________
 List mailing list
 List at redwoodtech.org
 http://redwoodtech.org/mailman/listinfo/list_redwoodtech.org <http://redwoodtech.org/mailman/listinfo/list_redwoodtech.org>