[RTC List] HWY 299 report

[Keri]

I just learned today that the Willow Creek Chamber of Commerce is having a
dinner meeting this Saturday night and the speaker is talking about
Broadband internet.  I don't know who the speaker is.
Keri

On Thu, May 14, 2009 at 4:22 PM, robert beckerdite <robert at beckerdite.com>wrote:

> 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>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20090514/0fa614bd/attachment.html>