[RTC List] HWY 299 report

Wed May 13 14:16:54 PDT 2009

Just to offer a bit of a contrasting view from someone with no stake in the
process but potentially a large stake in the outcome.

I see this as a small part of a big national initiative that's playing out.
The Public already decided to pay for it when Congress (or, for more of a
"we", Mike Thompson) passed the stimulus. This isn't something the Redwood
Coast is doing. It's something that's being done to us. This is a good thing
to me, because I think this means it will actually get done.

I'm the biggest proponent of transparency in the world, and there's a grand
tradition of non-ideal market conditions around infrastructure construction
and utility provision. Time was, the government just did this stuff
directly. That was unfair to local enterprise too.

I think getting more widespread public attention on this process is smart,
but given the parameters I don't expect a huge amount of local control over
what is essentially a national initiative, and especially one which a
specific mandate for rapid implementation. If this were actually the county
or state spending its own money, things would undeniably be different. But
they're not. From someone who values outcomes, I also think that's good.

The goal here IMHO shouldn't be the perfect plan (which no one will ever
agree on), or the RTC or other local plan (who cares about authorship?), but
merely a Good plan that can be actualized and succeed. Eyes on the prize, as
they say.

-j

On Wed, May 13, 2009 at 1:42 PM, Larry Goldberg <larry at northcoast.com>wrote:

> 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
>

-- 
--------------------
Josh Koenig, Partner & CTO
http://www.chapterthree.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://redwoodtech.org/pipermail/list_redwoodtech.org/attachments/20090513/24d3cd96/attachment.html>