Rick, I agree with your assessment that the $350 mil number was set based on either Connected Nation being in mind (their lobbying), or using Connected Nation as the only historical data to estimate what it could cost. But to assume all $350 mil would just automatically go to Connect-the-Nation without competitive bid process or considering all applicant's needs, is not likely.
No we should NOT leave these funds alone. Every one wanting to contribute in mapping efforts surely should submit bids for this money. If nobody bids (submits grant apps) on it, it would just be handed over to connected nation on a silver platter. Its more likely that $5 Mil would be allocated to each State, for each State to best define how they want to map their broadband coverage. Mapping coverage and need is clearly the one area that the States undisputedly could be effective in helping out with. I'd argue that because of the few intities capable of providing mapping solutions, the odds are higher of actually gaining a grant. I also argue that if Connected Nation could do it for $8,000,000 for Ohio, they surely could do the whole country for not to much more than that number..... After all, once one State is complete, all the tools, software development, and processes are already there to replicate. I'd argue that it would be "self serving" without justification or basis, to try and continue to get $5 mil per state, on an ongoing basis. If anything, it could be lobbied that economies of scale should be able to be obtained to reduce the cost, in one national project, or replicating for individual states, argueing that there will be additional funds to go around. Surely Connected Nation will ask for the full $350 mil, but its not likely the government will grant it, with other bids on the table, unless they can truly justify it, or there could be huge repercussions on the way the funds were managed after the fact. I'd also argue that at this opens up the door for new entrants that are not greedy, and come up with a more affordable plan. At minimum it should be argued that the money should be spread around to create competiton in Mapping solutions, or at minimum not put all the money in one basket. Solely on the public opinion that Connected Nation is a front for the telco, it could be argued taht a more specialized mapping solution should be made for WISPs, tailered to their market that have different characteristics, or that would tackle the problem from another angle. Lastly, many prominent Wireless Association and/or advocates have suggested and supported ideas of spectrum mapping as needs equal to existing broadband wireless coverage. Based on the technology neutral clauses, it could be argued that a certain percentage of mapping funds at minimum should go to help mapo the needs of the wireless industry. Although, WISPA had been neutral on this topic in its submissions, I'd argue that WISPA should probably also offer support for such concepts and ideas. Don't misunderstand me, I am not against Connected Nation, but they are not the only fish in the sea. Although CN may have some strong supporters politically, that does not over-ride the process the government takes to fairly consider all applications and bids for funding. It would probably be illegal if NTIA/RUS did not fairly consider all applicants and include additional interested parties. What we should do is thank Connected Nation for setting perception that $5million is what it should cost, because that allows a lot of room for applicants to underbid CN's track record, if they want to get into the mappign broadband business. I personally, will include mapping costs in my application. Argueing that they are necessary costs to increase success and speed of installation of plan, that can only be implemented by me, since I hold the confidential information (network details) needed to adequately accurately map my wireless network. And if there are not funds left in the mapping funds portion of the BTOP program that they cover them in the large pool of funds (not specifically allocated for mapping). It could be argued that.... in theNational Broadband strategy, all Americans need to be considered, even the 10% underserved in Urban America. Before allocating more funds to build out wired networks in tehse areas that already have wired networks, it should be determined if these remaining residents can be served with Wireless. The best way to do that is to create wqireless coverage mapps, and build customer awareness of wireless coverage. This is clearly within the goal of the BTOP program, to increase adoption. Expecially to map your already served areas.. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband ----- Original Message ----- From: "Rick Harnish" <rharn...@wispa.org> To: <ccoo...@intelliwave.com>; "'WISPA General List'" <wireless@wispa.org> Sent: Tuesday, April 28, 2009 7:22 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] NTIA mapping > Chris, > > It is my understanding that this bill was specifically written for > Connected > Nation. In a conversation today in Indianapolis I was told that if you > divide $350 million by 50 states you get $7,000,000 per state. This is > approximately 80% of the $9,000,000 contract they recently signed with > Ohio > or Tennessee. The 80% number coincidentally matches up with the current > thinking on the Broadband Stimulus Grants with 20% coming from the > awardees > and 80% coming from the Federal Government. If this assumption is > correct, > it didn't take Connected Nation long to come up with a number to present > to > the legislators that sponsored the bill. > > I'm not saying that this funding won't be allocated to other grantees but > I > have been told that it will be extremely difficult to buck this > legislation > given the current political clout that Connected Nation seems to have. > That > is not to say that the states themselves will get control of the funding > and > will make those decisions separately. > > Respectfully, > Rick Harnish > > -----Original Message----- > From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On > Behalf Of chris cooper > Sent: Tuesday, April 28, 2009 11:01 AM > To: 'WISPA General List' > Subject: [WISPA] NTIA mapping > > There is a $350 million mapping component set aside under BTOP. Will > this funding be available in smaller chunks to successful grantees to > map their expanded networks? Will it be available to all wisps to map > their existing networks in an effort to add to the overall national BB > map? > > > > Chris Cooper > > Intelliwave > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- > ---- > WISPA Wants You! Join today! > http://signup.wispa.org/ > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- > ---- > > WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org > > Subscribe/Unsubscribe: > http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless > > Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ > No virus found in this incoming message. > Checked by AVG - www.avg.com > Version: 8.5.287 / Virus Database: 270.12.4/2082 - Release Date: 04/27/09 > 06:19:00 > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > WISPA Wants You! Join today! > http://signup.wispa.org/ > -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org > > Subscribe/Unsubscribe: > http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless > > Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
