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.<br>Keri<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">
On Thu, May 14, 2009 at 4:22 PM, robert beckerdite <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:robert@beckerdite.com" target="_blank">robert@beckerdite.com</a>></span> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">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<br>
Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry<br>
<div><div></div><div><br>
-----Original Message-----<br>
From: Larry Goldberg <<a href="mailto:larry@northcoast.com" target="_blank">larry@northcoast.com</a>><br>
<br>
Date: Wed, 13 May 2009 20:42:52<br>
To: <<a href="mailto:JDebets@co.humboldt.ca.us" target="_blank">JDebets@co.humboldt.ca.us</a>><br>
Cc: <<a href="mailto:list@redwoodtech.org" target="_blank">list@redwoodtech.org</a>>; <<a href="mailto:wirelessfreedom@willitsonline.com" target="_blank">wirelessfreedom@willitsonline.com</a>>; <<a href="mailto:northcoast-broadband-forum@googlegroups.com" target="_blank">northcoast-broadband-forum@googlegroups.com</a>><br>
Subject: Re: [RTC List] HWY 299 report<br>
<br>
<br>
To all RTC members (and RTC Board of Directors)<br>
<br>
There were several interesting meetings held yesterday which were <br>
attended by several RTC members, including me. I feel they were <br>
productive and a good, honest exchange of ideas resulted. I will be <br>
preparing a report for everyone from my notes and will post them later <br>
today.<br>
<br>
Based on the events of yesterday, I want to present the following <br>
proposal:<br>
<br>
Have the RTC website create a special discussion area (or Google Group <br>
discussion) to solicit input on the broadband plans as they are <br>
quickly evolving. Open a discussion of the RCC report and its <br>
findings (there has NEVER been a public review of this report and <br>
recommendations) and allow technical input and challenges to <br>
proposals. We are assuming that the RCC report is 1) accurate, 2) <br>
valid in its final recommendations and 3) the ultimate report to <br>
determine what the public wants and needs. In other words, how should <br>
the broadband policy for this area be developed:<br>
a) by an consultant's report (while it's a very comprehensive <br>
report, it's just ONE report with its own bias)<br>
b) by a group of self-appointed "experts" - none of which were <br>
elected or appointed by the public<br>
c) the public who is ultimately going to fund this project.<br>
<br>
My challenge to everyone is this: If we had to pass a bond initiative <br>
to pay for what we're proposing in the name of the public, would it <br>
pass?<br>
<br>
With that said, I want to respond to this e-mail from yesterday from <br>
Jacqueline Debets (Humb. Economic Dev. Dept):<br>
<br>
On May 11, 2009, at 10:57 PM, Debets, Jacqueline wrote:<br>
<br>
> Larry and RTC members,<br>
> 1. The reports make all information public to anyone who may want to <br>
> use to bid on a future project implementation. We focused on getting <br>
> the best info available to move the case and the plan for broadband <br>
> deployment forward at the time. Many players have come and gone. Who <br>
> builds and owns this is still in play, so we're making sure everyone <br>
> has access to the info. The information was gathered and provided by <br>
> several sources, which included NeraTech, Velocity Communications <br>
> and Broadband Associates.<br>
<br>
The difference is that this one case (CDBG funded project: "Highway <br>
299 Fiber and Wireless Broadband Business Plan") just happens to be <br>
one-and-the-same plan as one proposed last September to the CPUC and <br>
approved for funding by the CASF (California Advanced Services Fund) <br>
after an exhaustive technical process which required a full business <br>
plan, budget and timeline. All of this work should have been done by <br>
the company PRIOR to receiving the funds. It also just happens to be <br>
a project proposed by a single contractor who stands to reap a huge <br>
reward if this, or any, fiber project gets funded (please note: we've <br>
evolved from a single fiber project to 5 fiber projects now). This <br>
contractor can use this plan for raising private capital and stands to <br>
reap considerable financial reward from the project, if funded. This <br>
is clearly a gift of public resources for a private venture. If this <br>
is an approved CDBG activity, I encourage EVERYONE in the RTC to apply <br>
for CDBG funding to fund their pet projects! As long as you can show <br>
a "public benefit" (if I employ one person in my business, isn't that <br>
a public benefit?) then you're eligible by CDBG rules, according to <br>
you (that is, the Co. Economic Development Dept.)<br>
<br>
I am asking in this public forum, for other examples of individual <br>
companies who have requested Business Plans to be funded by CDBG. The <br>
Economic Fuel Competition should hear about this - a new source of <br>
business plan development at the public's expense! Unless you're <br>
putting this project up for bid (which would be the appropriate <br>
response) then this is NOT a public benefit project but a gift of <br>
public funds to a private contractor.<br>
<br>
At a minimum, I would request that the board of supervisors require <br>
that if this project is ultimately funded by the public (which is very <br>
likely) and Broadband Associates receives the contract (no surprise <br>
there), then at least the cost of the CDBG study be reimbursed to the <br>
public (county or Feds, I don't care). Do you remember that at the <br>
last RTC luncheon, where you were present, Mr. Brinskele of Broadband <br>
Associates "went on record" stating that it was going to be a <br>
*privately* owned and managed project with PRIVATE capital supporting <br>
the capital costs. I have nothing personal against Mr. Brinskele or <br>
Broadband Associates - I would do EXACTLY the same thing if I were him <br>
- get the county to underwrite my development costs, get me a no-bid <br>
contract and pocket the management fees for developing the ensuing <br>
project. I still see this project as a complete conflict for the <br>
county, especially since you don't have a single request for proposals <br>
or even an inquiry into other proposals. At least the CASF had a <br>
competitive process for selecting candidates for funding. Considering <br>
how much PUBLIC money may be at stake, the spotlight should shine on <br>
this whole issue.<br>
<br>
> 2. "Likely become the county's only submission for broadband funding <br>
> for economic stimulus<br>
> money"...on Friday you told me you have a proposal to deliver all <br>
> the middle mile with microwave, and would like it considered for <br>
> county submission along with any other proposal, and get public <br>
> comment. I offered to take your proposal to the BOS to consider for <br>
> stimulus funding submission, along with any other proposal (BTW we <br>
> do not have any yet). You said you'd get it to me Wednesday.<br>
<br>
</div></div><div> I just want to point out for everyone's information, that I first <br>
talked with you (Jacqueline) on Friday afternoon, 5/8. Today is <br>
Wednesday. I'll have a proposal to you today, as promised. Our group <br>
has researched this project at our own expense and time, without any <br>
public assistance. We are proposing this project to be a PUBLICLY <br>
OWNED project and we stand to benefit to the same degree as Broadband <br>
Associates - in other words, only if it's approved for funding and we <br>
come up with required financial match. I am prepared to post my <br>
summary proposal for all the public to see - provide me a public <br>
posting site (RTC?) and everyone can check it out for themselves. We <br>
should post ALL proposals - even if they're just concept papers (e.g. <br>
Digital Redwoods by Access Humboldt) and let's get everyone's honest <br>
feedback. Call the press - let everyone in the community know. Gather <br>
everyone's input to bring to the board of Supes (or whoever makes the <br>
final decision for a proposal). That's a public process.<br>
<br>
</div><div><div></div><div> > It still stands that any proposal of this magnitude to be submitted <br>
> by the county will be considered with public comment.<br>
<br>
Sure - like a public hearing with 3 minute time limits for public <br>
comment. Give me a break. When the county and its consultants have <br>
30 minutes to present their report (based on a single contractor's <br>
proposal) the public gets three minutes to respond. I want to point <br>
out (as I have stated privately to you) there is no public process for <br>
submitting alternate proposals. We have never opened the gates for <br>
alternatives. I'm sure that I'm not alone in saying that we have a <br>
lot of bright people in this area, many of whom have been working on <br>
ingenious, practical solutions, who would love to throw their ideas <br>
out there for consideration. As it stands right now, the only way to <br>
do it today is to submit an unsolicited proposal. When you consider <br>
how much money may be at stake (and given the late hour of this <br>
discussion) we are being increasingly forced into a corner to submit <br>
the only proposal which has a real match for funding - the Hwy. 299 <br>
fiber project - which has never been explained to the public, has <br>
never been fully scrutinized and now the county has funded a business <br>
plan for them to assure their success. You call that democratic?<br>
<br>
I want to close on a positive note. I am fully prepared to endorse a <br>
single proposal, but I think it needs to be fully thought out. I am <br>
not attacking a single individual here (Jacqueline) but I am very <br>
critical of the whole PROCESS which has led us here (and there's <br>
plenty of people responsible for that). Based on the meetings held <br>
yesterday, acknowledgement of these problems have been made and <br>
efforts will be made to include us all in the process (we'll see what <br>
results).<br>
<br>
I have been involved with the RTC since its inception. We have always <br>
been a critical "opinion leader" and advocate for the issues of <br>
technology on the Northcoast. We have been champions for broadband, <br>
public education on technical issues, networking of local IT <br>
businesses and other technology-related issues. We were in the <br>
forefront of fighting for our initial fiber connection (thank you <br>
Tina, Chris, Bob and others who led the charge!) Over the past few <br>
years, however, I feel we have dropped the ball. We've allowed other <br>
groups - self-appointed - to take the lead who answer to NO ONE <br>
publicly elected. Studies have been done (in the name of the public) <br>
with no public scrutiny or discussion. Recommendations have been <br>
made, with no public input or scrutiny. Now proposals are being <br>
developed - all in our name - with little to no public input.<br>
<br>
I don't personally care if we decide to do a "ladder" of fiber <br>
projects up and down the Northcoast. I don't care if we decide that <br>
we should have an major satellite uplink connected to WiMax networks <br>
for mobile Internet distribution. I don't care if we decide that we <br>
need fiber-to-the-home with an all-you-can-eat gigabit feed. What I <br>
care about is that WE DECIDE what we need and want. I don't claim to <br>
have the answers and have nothing to personally benefit from whatever <br>
comes of this or any project, but I am a champion of the right for the <br>
public to decide what they want - especially if they're paying for it!<br>
<br>
<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
</div></div><div> List mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:List@redwoodtech.org" target="_blank">List@redwoodtech.org</a><br>
</div> <a href="http://redwoodtech.org/mailman/listinfo/list_redwoodtech.org" target="_blank">http://redwoodtech.org/mailman/listinfo/list_redwoodtech.org</a> <<a href="http://redwoodtech.org/mailman/listinfo/list_redwoodtech.org" target="_blank">http://redwoodtech.org/mailman/listinfo/list_redwoodtech.org</a>><br>
<div><div></div><div><br>
_______________________________________________<br>
List mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:List@redwoodtech.org" target="_blank">List@redwoodtech.org</a><br>
<a href="http://redwoodtech.org/mailman/listinfo/list_redwoodtech.org" target="_blank">http://redwoodtech.org/mailman/listinfo/list_redwoodtech.org</a><br>
</div></div></blockquote></div><br>