Regional Broadband

General Information Meeting

August 25, 2009
Humboldt Area Foundation Conference Room
6:00pm-8:30pm

Attending: Kathy Moxon, Steve Karp (Redwood Coast Connect/HSU), Luann Linebur (Rural
Communities United), Forest James (Rural Communities United), Larry Goldberg, Eric Fimbres
(Community Health Alliance), Tina Nerat, Daria Topolous (RTC), Jan Krapelian (Access
Humboldt) , Sean McLaughlin (Access Humboldt) , Harold Horne (United Indian Health
Services), John Wooley (Assemblyman Chesbro’s office), Kirk Girard (Humboldt Co. Planning
Dept.), Paul Romero (Yurok tribe), John Irwin, Scott Joachim (Bear River Band), Shirley Freriks
(Mendocino)

I. Introductions

II. Matrix of Projects Submitted (in Basecamp online)

Del Norte – Yurok tribe submitted community connect broadband grant (RUS – June 19) still
waiting on results ($600K) to do entire reservation. Applied for AB140 match ($50,000) and
received that. See matrix for details. Applying to provide free services to schools

Rural Communities United – 20 year old satellite company handing UK government connections.
Offering a satellite footprint – 2 “end of life” commercial satellite transponders for a pass-off to
mesh offering for last-mile (Curry Co., Del Norte, Humboldt, Mendocino & Trinity Counties). One
frequency band 120 MHz = 140 Mb. (2 way 50 Mb) Private for-profit company (5 year break-even).
“State of Jefferson” middle mile application.
Total $ requested: $25.9 Million

Redwood Telephone, LLC (tribal consortium) – Fiber to home, all un-served and underserved
census blocks from Benbow to Oregon border (13,000 hook-ups potential). Phone company will be
regulated as CLEC and video franchise for 6 county area. Infrastructure for Humboldt and Del
Norte only. Interconnect with AT&T and Verizon (or Charter). Partners: Yurok Tribe, Bear River
Band, Table Bluff and Resighini Rancherias (talking with Elk Valley and Smith River) Public drops
at public safety orgs, schools, libraries. Provide 25% discount to schools and libraries.
Total $ requested $22 Million application combination grant and loan.

Highway 36 (IP Networks) – CASF only (40% match funding). Aerial fiber. Also applying for
Hwy. 299 fiber project- middle mile request, will drop fiber in each community for someone else to
deploy for FTTP. They say that if they get ARRA money they will do 299, if they don’t, they will do
36.
Total $ requested Approx. $11 Million (Hwy 36)
Total for 299, unknown

Hwy. 299 – Broadband Associates – were talking with Hoopa about Hwy. 96, (not included in this
application) Michael has not been available to confirm any info.
Total $ requested (?)
 Hoopa Tribe – submitted a general public wireless infrastructure proposal. Local loop only. Not
much info available.
Total $ requested: ?

Access Mendocino (Rural Broadband now – Mike Ireton) – ALL of Mendocino. All middle-mile,
ADSL last mile.
Total $ requested $47.5 million.

U.S. Cellular – 7 county proposal to upgrade 3G EVDO cell service.

Total $ requested: Unknown

IT service stations and Digital Destinations – schools and libraries (10 computer stations, video-
conferencing & $30K one-time grant) – CR, Humboldt Library and Trinity Library

Digital Pathways project – Access Humboldt media design & production training

III. What we know about next steps

--f or applications that have been submitted

First phase – both RUS and NTIA will process for completeness & technical review. RUS will
choose the ones they are interested in and move forward. NTIA has a second level of review where
they will ask for additional information. At that same time, they will provide the names to state for
comment. NTIA has set Sept. 14th as the earliest date they might announce any names going on to
second review, no guarentees on that date. Applicants will have 30 days to submit additional
information to NTIA – list go to state for comment (20 days?) – publishing of names and territories
for review by ILECs and CLECs (2 weeks review), applicants will have the ability to comment on
challenges by telecos after that – possible beginning Nov. 7th rolling announcements of awardees, but
all dates are contingent on the date the first review is completed.

NTIA hopes to release new NOFA with comment period – by end of year, in the meantime they will
be soliciting input for changes. Unknown at this time how they will do that. first round proposals
may not qualify to be resubmitted as submitted the first time depending on modifications to the
NOFA (they would need to be modified). We may not know which first round proposals will be
approved by the time of the second round.

Kathy has been working to get regional applications high on Governor’s list in case they make it to
NTIA and through the first review. All local applications were required to be submitted to RUS first
due to the rural nature of our region. If RUS chooses not to fund, and the applicant submitted
concurrent applications as of the deadline, NTIA will pick up the application and move it through
their review processes.

-- for next round

Second round – NTIA will have new regulations and Should we start working on new partnerships
now? We need strategic plan! Time to expand and continue networking with regional entities.
IV. Analysis of the process to date
--what worked, what didn’t, how might that be changed
• RCC report – a good starting point, but not sufficient detail (including quantifying actual demand
at the community level, since stats aren’t very useful in these small remote communities.
• No local experts utilized – due to private sector
• Big external companies doing applications—not accountable to communities, and seemed to
come and go out of the picture.
• No “bottom up” view – need to access the community needs
• No regional broadband projections – for potential for demand growth
• Scoring system was not utilized – there was no central review process
• Public peering point – no one applied for one in first round
• Need to have technical consultant involved in process
• County GIS shape files were useful (encourage other counties to do the same)
• Broadband Forum was useful and needs to be continued (it’s been a year since the last one)
• Qualitative information—what local people know and stories about broadband
difficulties/aspirations would have been helpful.
• It would have been helpful to start this process with an “ideal model” of what would meet our
needs for the next…50? 20? 10? years.
• Having a conversation about what we would like to use it for is different than having a
conversation about how it is currently being used. The discussion needs to be seeded with what
other areas, organizations, businesses etc. are using it for in more advanced places.

V. Brief description of similar efforts (to get the discussion rolling)

We need to think about public leverage and public participation. Public ownership is not critical, but
public benefit is.

VI. Best concept/ideas for moving forward from this point

Governance group is connected through basecamp. Reconvene the governance group – need for focal
group with multiple sub-groups to develop implementation strategy. Need to bring counties, cities,
tribes and community service districts into process.

The governance group’s role is to hold the regional vision. they should be disciplined to support
projects that assist the region in progressing on our goals and not just support everyone who asks.

Technical group- develops the vision (the ideal model to meet future needs) and could vet and rank
projects according to the adopted vision of what we are looking for.
Users groups would be helpful to create the vision for what is needed – health services, education &
libraries. Economic development should be at the table.

Cable franchise process is a good planning model (iNet, public build-out, franchise agreements, etc…)
as is the Prop 50 Water Resources group process.

Share experience with other regional groups

Each county might have a broadband task force

This will all take money, which we need to start thinking about—where will it come from?

Set of recommendations and recommended next steps to be drafted by Kathy and circulated.

We need to follow and comment on both the current efforts by FCC to create a national broadband
policy and on the ARRA process which will influence the next set of grant rules.