You are here

NTIA RUS Joint Request for Information

Date: 
November 16, 2009
Docket Number: 
0907141137-91375-05

Broadband Initiatives Program and Broadband Technology Opportunities Program

Comments

(Late Submission)
Attached please find Alaska Communications Systems' Response to NTIA/RUS' Joint Request for Information. Please contact me if you have any questions or comments. Thank you.

________________________________________
This transmittal may contain confidential information intended solely for the addressee. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that you have received this transmittal in error; any review, dissemination, distribution or copying of this transmittal is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by reply or by telephone at 907-297-3000 and ask to speak with the message sender. In addition, please immediately delete this message and all attachments. Thank you. ACS


(Late Submission)


(Late Submission)

Attached please find comments of the City of Philadelphia submitted in response to the joint Request for Information in the above captioned Docket.



Phillip Bullard, Assistant City Solicitor
City of Philadelphia Law Department
One Parkway Building, 17th Floor
1515 Arch Street
Philadelphia, PA 19102-1595
tel: 215-683-5060
fax: 215-683-5069
email: phillip.bullard@phila.gov

PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL: This message is for intended recipients only. It constitutes or contains attorney work product, is protected by the attorney/client privilege, and may otherwise be protected against public disclosure. If you have received it in error, please notify me and delete it without making or retaining a copy.


(Late Submission)
Please find attached the comments from the Communities Connect Network on the Request for Information on the Broadband Stimulus Program, Docket 0907141137-91375-05. I am submitting these comments on behalf of Betty Buckley, the Executive Director of the Communities Connect Network, who was unavailable to submit these electronically due to travel.

Betty may be reached directly at 509-690-0530.

- David Keyes
206-291-4817


(Late Submission)
November 30, 2009

Broadband Initiatives Program /
Rural Utilities Service
U.S. Department of Agriculture
1400 Independence Avenue, SW
Stop 1599
Washington, DC 20250

Broadband Technology Opportunities Program
National Telecommunications and Information Administration
U.S. Department of Commerce
HCHB Room 4887
1401 Constitution Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20230

Re: Joint Request for Information

To Whom it May Concern:

The original legislation authorizing funds for these two programs
specified non-profit agencies, municipalities and states as the
beneficiaries of these funds.

For-profit corporations were only allowed to participate after the
determination was made that there were not likely to be enough qualified
applicants that met congresses original guidelines.

With $28 Billion in applications in the first round, we believe that the
country would be best served by going back to congress’s original intent.

First priority should be given to funding non-profits, municipalities
and other government entities. For-profit projects should only be funded
after funding has been provided to all of the projects that qualify as
non-profit or government entities.

It is distressing that large corporate entities focused on the bottom
line may receive millions in funding at the expense of non-profits like
us that have been providing free broadband services to low income
families for almost 5 years.

--


The Lawrence Freenet Team
4105 W. 6th St.
P.O. Box 3532
Lawrence, KS 66046
Ph: (785) 371-4214
Fx: (785) 331-2086
contact.lfn@lawrencefreenet.org
http://www.lawrencefreenet.org

Now iPhone Compatible




(Late Submission)

Please see attached comment letter.

Thank you.

John Clarey


(Late Submission)


Gary L. Smith
Lukas, Nace, Gutierrez & Sachs, LLP
8300 Greensboro Drive, Suite 1200
McLean, VA 22102
(703) 584-8691
(703) 584-8696 (fax)
GSmith@fcclaw.com


(Late Submission)
Please substitute the attached for the Washington State law and justice organizations’ original submission.

Brian Backus
Administrative Office of the Courts
360-705-5320
brian.backus@courts.wa.gov




(Late Submission)
Attached are the comments from Lynn R. Merrill, P.E.



(Late Submission)
Our apologies for the confusion. We are now requesting that you accept and use our original letter and its attachment. The original email including both is attached. The only difference was with respect to the Washington Association of Sheriffs and Police Chiefs, who have affirmed their support for the substantive comments that we have filed.

Brian Backus
Administrative Office of the Courts
360-705-5320
brian.backus@courts.wa.gov



From: Backus, Brian
Sent: Monday, November 30, 2009 2:20 PM
To: 'broadbandrfi@ntia.doc.gov'
Subject: Comments on RUS and NTIA Joint Request for Information - Amended Submission

Amended version with the attachment (which was not included in the prior email).

From: Backus, Brian
Sent: Monday, November 30, 2009 2:15 PM
To: 'broadbandrfi@ntia.doc.gov'
Cc: 'Bamberger, James (OCLA)'; Marler, Dirk A.
Subject: Comments on RUS and NTIA Joint Request for Information - Amended Submission

Please substitute the attached for the Washington State law and justice organizations’ original submission.

Brian Backus
Administrative Office of the Courts
360-705-5320
brian.backus@courts.wa.gov


Re: Docket Number 0907141137-91375-05
Broadband Technology Opportunities Program

In response to the NTIA RFI published in the federal register at 74 Fed. Reg. 58940, please find attached the consolidated comments of a broad community of Washington State law and justice related organizations regarding changes and clarifications that we recommend be incorporated into the forthcoming Round 2 Notice of Funding Availability. These comments are designed to give full meaning to the letter and intent of the Recovery Act’s broadband investment authority, consistent with the President’s vision of broadband as an essential component of integrated systems that promote public safety (including the fair and proper administration of the law), enhance quality of life for all, empower communities (including low income and vulnerable communities) and create jobs. We look forward to your favorable consideration of our comments.

Brian Backus
Administrative Office of the Courts
360-705-5320
brian.backus@courts.wa.gov



(Late Submission)

Comments are attached.

--
Tracy Rosenberg
Executive Director
Media Alliance
1904 Franklin Street # 500
Oakland CA 94612
www.media-alliance.org
510-832-9000 x303
510-684-6853 Cell
tracy@media-alliance.org
>>


(Late Submission)
Attached please find the joint comments of Hughes Network Systems, LLC, WildBlue Communications, Inc., EchoStar Satellite Services L.L.C., and ViaSat Inc. (‘ViaSat”)(collectively, the "Broadband Satellite Commenters") in response to the Joint Request for Information (“RFI”) released by the Rural Utilities Service (“RUS”) and the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (”NTIA”) in the captioned docket. For convenience, we are attaching a pdf and a locked Word version of these comments. Please direct any questions regarding these Joint Comments to the undersigned, or to one of the representatives of the Broadband Satellite Commenters, cc'd above.

Respectfully submitted,

Martin L. Stern
K&L Gates LLP
1601 K Street, NW
Washington, DC 20006
Direct Dial: 202-661-3700
Mobile: 202-236-0865
Fax: 202-778-9100
marty.stern@klgates.com
Counsel for Hughes Network Systems, LLC

This electronic message contains information from the law firm of K&L Gates LLP. The contents may be privileged and confidential and are intended for the use of the intended addressee(s) only. If you are not an intended addressee, note that any disclosure, copying, distribution, or use of the contents of this message is prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error, please contact me at marty.stern@klgates.com.



(Late Submission)
I have attached the comments of BendBroadband in response to the RFI.


Paul B. Hudson | Davis Wright Tremaine LLP
1919 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Suite 200 | Washington, DC 20006
Tel: (202) 973-4275 | Direct Fax: (202) 973-4475
Email: paulhudson@dwt.com | Website: www.dwt.com | www.paulhudson.org





(Late Submission)


John Windhausen, Jr.
Telepoly Consulting
(202) 256-9616




(Late Submission)

Please find attached Filling Comments on Joint RUS and NTIA Request for Information. These comments are being filed on behalf of Vantage Point Solutions and Clients.

Leah Richter
On Behalf of Vantage Point Solutions and Clients
605-995-1793






(Late Submission)
Please find attached to this email a PDF containing the official response from the City of Ammon to the RFI submitted by NTIA on 11/16/2009 regarding BTOP. Please do not hesitate to contact us with any questions.
Thank you.
BP




(Late Submission)
Attached are our suggestions and comments related to the second-third rounds of grants for BTOP public computer centers. This document is in MS Word and is three pages long.
Thank you.


Ellen Sue Blakey

Hot Springs Greater Learning Foundation, 305 Buffalo Creek Road, Thermopolis WY 82443

p: 307.864.3391 - f: 307.864.3582 - c: 307.250.4305




(Late Submission)
Dear NTIA & RUS:

We are resubmitting our comments for the RFI originally submitted
before the deadline as they appear only as Base 64 encoding on the
NTIA web site.

The resubmissions are attached in PDF and Word (97-2003) format as
well as embedded in this email.

Thank you for your consideration,

Patrick Coady
--
Executive Director
Eastern Shore of Virginia Broadband Authority
757 787 1390 Office
757 678 7712 (direct)
757 678 5393 (direct fax)
pcoady@esvabroadband.net


Response to RFI BTOP/BIP

Thank you for the opportunity to offer suggestions for improvements
in the NTIA/RUS process for the second round. The following comments
follow the order and lettering of the RFI.
I. A. In general, the application process was very demanding-even
onerous for any firm with a small staff when issued on such a short
timeline. We suggest the following for the second round: Yes,
eliminate or shorten many of the attachments. Ask for the information
in the application but leave most of the verification for the second
step after you have winnowed out the most promising applications;
then ask for all the documentation and supporting engineering.
Applying separately will not reduce the burden, but not asking for
the similar information in a slightly different form twice will. It
should not be necessary to have different justifications for the two
agencies.
Public computer center and sustainable adoption projects should
demonstrate that they either already have or are paired with
infrastructure projects which will provide adequate connectivity to
accomplish their goals.
1. New entities should not have to provide historical financial
statements-but that is not a great burden either, we are one of those
entities and we were able to provide most of our first year funding
and expenditures without problem. The real issue is to not have a
reviewer interpret startup data without revenue as an indication of
lack of long term viability.
2. Consortiums and Public-Private partnerships should provide a clear
presentation of what each is committing to the project and have a
clear statement of support in the application from each partner.
3. Consideration should be given to zip code or phone exchange data
levels as well as census block. We understand that much of Commerce
may be familiar with and have access to census block data but the
rest of us found it hard to even to access Commerce maps down to the
block level let alone have data mapped to the low level blocks. Our
surveys were done by zip code, telephone exchange areas or street
level mapping. For our own application, we were completely unable to
map our survey data back to census block level.
4. It is understandable to have rural applications go to RUS first.
The different rules however meant double work. RUS' emphasis on loans
to increase the "pool" kept many non-incumbent (read not cash flow
proven) entities from applying for RUS directly-they only fully
completed the NTIA requirements while applying to both agencies. We
strongly recommend that our suggestion made before round one be
reconsidered: That NTIA fund grants and RUS fund loans for rural
projects-not dual funding, which is prohibited-but co-operative
funding. That achieves the goal of stretching the RUS funds while
keeping NTIA from funding large grants in areas RUS could have
partially funded.
As to applicants for whom a loan would not be acceptable; any startup
(innovative new provider) is going to be loathe to commit to a large
loan when they have no idea of the terms of the loan and no proven
revenue. Any applicant whose team is capable and experienced in
startups is also going to clearly understand that any startup without
revenue is not going to look like a good loan risk. Add the fact that
RUS permits no overhead or operational funds and you create a startup
which is almost certain to fail unless they also have private sources
of funds. No matter how good the project, if there is no provision
for operating funds then the project will fail before reaching cash
flow positive. In our case, we can support a grant/loan combination,
but we also need to borrow working capital.

B. The public is welcome to any data we have submitted with our
application. We are a public authority and our meetings and books are
open as is our network. The executive summary and areas for which we
are requesting funding can certainly be made available.
C. FAQ could be updated more frequently with questions learned and
answered via the help desk. A guidance manual update from questions
answered would also help.
D. We cannot adequately address this question. We do know that many
highly qualified individuals could not volunteer due to the conflict
requirement that they not only could not work on an affiliated
application but that they were banned from working on any future
application as well. Our staff simply cannot agree to lock out
unknown future work.
II. Proposals that target the greatest percentage of unserved (using
the Congressional intent of 3 meg minimum down) and that provide
connections to public anchors should be given priority. Middle Mile
proposals that have last mile partners or components should likewise
be given priority. The list of metrics given at the end of (II.
Policy issues) are all appropriate and we believe were all addressed
in round-one funding. The increase in adoption rates may be critical
for cash flow for a provider but estimates of take rates and indirect
jobs created are only good guesses at best and therefore not a valid
basis for judging the quality of an application.
1. Yes, give priority to middle mile projects that connect anchors
and communities to the backbone.
Middle mile projects which have last mile components or partners
should be given priority. For our own first application, the census
block definition, the "advertised" 3 meg qualification, and lack of
time to *prove* known lack of coverage in specific small areas
prevented us from applying for both middle mile and last mile-though
we are paired with a last mile wireless provider's application. If
our middle mile application is funded, we intent to apply for funding
in the second round for the last mile so that we may truly serve the
citizens of our two counties.
Projects that reach the greatest territory and unserved population
should be given priority-if they accomplish their goal cost
effectively and in a manner which can be sustained with revenue.
Middle mile projects that reach public anchor institutions should
have continued priority and will help education and their
communities. However, middle mile projects without a means of funding
the build-outs to businesses and residences will not improve the
economic and educational opportunities for all.
Projects whose anchor institutions and/or co-operating public or
sustainable partners show outreach to vulnerable populations should
also receive high consideration.
Demonstrable community support and regional coverage should also
receive high consideration.
Overlap with existing service providers is important, but only if the
existing service is of adequate quality and speed. The current
"secret" no rebuttal PNR process and "advertised 3 meg" makes using
that criteria indefensible as there is no visibility of accuracy of
the challenge.
2. The validation for spending on broadband infrastructure is
basically all for economic development. That said, we don't believe
that there is sufficient time to develop meaningful regional economic
development approaches for the communities not already engaged in the
process. We were formed to provide broadband specifically for
economic development by our two counties-but even we would be hard
pressed to present a defensible comprehensive plan as to exactly how
broadband would lead directly to economic development without it
being a nebulous as "indirect jobs created".
3. The funding cannot target populations beyond the public and
sustainable portions without destroying what should be a
comprehensive and methodical build-out of our broadband
infrastructure-as was done with electrification.
The most efficient way to fund public computer centers and
sustainable adoption is to provide funding for schools and libraries
-not only for hardware but pay for staff to keep the facilities open
to the public for extended hours. Our library parking lot is occupied
on Sundays with citizens "borrowing" the library's WI-FI connection
when the library is closed.
4. The best way to leverage existing infrastructure with this funding
is to have FCC enforce reasonable and prompt interconnection
requirements between incumbents and these new classes of service
providers. It will also be incumbent on RUS in particular to be
diligent in requiring their rural incumbent applicants to be truly
open to service providers on the network portions funded via this
program.



B. Unserved and Underserved qualifying speed definitions.
For the second round of funding, the clear Congressional intent of a
minimum of 3meg and 10meg download speeds should be used as a minimum
for qualifying applications as to un-served and underserved areas.
One must express considerable disappointment and consternation at
Commerce and Agriculture accepting the FCC's horribly out of date
definition of broadband for first round funding. If taxpayer funds
are going to be used to build infrastructure that the regulated
utilities could have and should have already undertaken then that
infrastructure should be designed to provide adequate service for the
public for a long useful life. To spend taxpayer dollars to fund
building of networks that are inadequate from day one is a waste.
More troubling is the mixing and confusion of the qualifying speeds
for the un-served and underserved service areas with the designed
delivery speed of a network funding request for an area. We even
heard Asst. Secretary Strickling make the same mistake in his
testimony before Congress on October 27. We paraphrase Sec.
Strickling: "We didn't want to set the speed threshold so high that
it prevented applications from areas where 768 is all they could
obtain." We see nothing in the Act or the regulations that would
have prevented an applicant from applying for funding for projects
where 3 and 10 meg was not reasonably attainable but the population
was presently totally un-served by broadband. The definition speeds
are to determine the degree of need for a region-not what the design
parameters should be. The confusion of maximum qualifying speeds to
be funded and desirable design minimums should be eliminated for the
second round and the qualifying speed should be raised to at least an
adequate broadband level.
Advertised speeds: Actual speeds should be used for all "hardwired"
connections. Wireless connections need to be measured on a standard
of reasonable and normal performance achieved. The advertised speed
criteria serves no discernible propose but to protect poor DSL and
wireless service offerings from incumbent providers. In our own
case, the incumbent claims 3 meg service for 80% of our two counties.
Not only can they not deliver 3 meg to but a small portion of the
area-they cannot deliver any speed to over 40% of the territory. They
also claim extensive wireless coverage-but that is only expensive,
slow cellular coverage and even voice cellular doesn't work for large
portions.
We concur with an emphasis of funding worthwhile projects in areas
that are totally un-served by broadband services at any speed. Those
areas are truly handicapped in today's world. However, to disqualify
an area for funding on the theory that wireless (cellular) coverage
up to 768 and advertised DSL speeds of up to 3meg are or may be
available is a severe disservice to large areas of this nation and
totally at variance with the stated goal of using this stimulus
funding to bring world class communications to underserved and
un-served areas. The first round qualifying definition encourages the
continued deployment of old technologies that are totally inadequate
for modern demands. To expend taxpayer dollars to reinforce an
inadequate network and wasteful expenditure of taxpayer funds is not
defensible.
The definition for qualifying speeds such should be set to at least
the Congressional minimum of 3 meg for unserved and 10 meg for
underserved. The design speeds for proposals should follow the
technology employed and its appropriateness for the region being
served.
Measurement of speeds should be by sampling. Any incumbent
challenging and application should be required to document their
achieved coverage and speeds realized, at least to BTOP/BIP.
We were not as bothered by the difference between remote rural and
just rural as some-understanding that RUS preferred loan/grant
combinations in any case. However, our region is geographically
remote as well remote by population. Due to the statistical anomaly
of joining Salisbury, MD with all of its surrounding territory,
including miles of woods and farms to include Ocean City, MD , to
create a statistical metro area, we are shown as having an urban area
within fifty miles of most our region-though no one visiting would
consider us anything but remote. Therefore, geographic barriers and
population density should both figure in remote definition.
C. We were not able in the short time period afforded for round one
to gather, at census block level, the data to withstand a "blind"
challenge from an incumbent. Therefore we applied for middle mile
only, as we were not able to defend a full last mile proposal-though
the service is sorely needed. The applicant must have an opportunity
to learn what has been challenged and be afforded an opportunity to
respond. We do not need to see confidential data; however, in our own
case, one incumbent has filed a PNR of which we know nothing but a
claimed "overlap". We know that they offer Internet services in only
two small towns-and those towns are specifically excluded from our
application because they are funded via other sources.
The entity questioning the application must show that they meet the
minimum penetration and speed standards over the area they are
challenging. The applicant needs to know what specific areas are
being challenged and whether that challenge is based on speed or
penetration.
We do not see the state mapping data being available at a high
quality in time. Our own state is one of the few that has attempted a
broadband map for the entire state. In our two counties the resulting
map, produced with the presumed co-operation of the incumbents is
more a map of where they could offer services if they chose to make
the investment rather than one of where service actually exists. It
is so inaccurate as to be laughable if it wasn't being used for
serious purposes. It shows hard wired DSL service over _ mile out
into the Chesapeake Bay and crossing physical barriers.
D. The interconnection and nondiscrimination requirements need to be
maintained and enforced going forward. We do not see where different
entities should have different rules. Projects built with public
monies should be available to all providers and private telcos should
be required to allow access to those portions of the network at
reasonable rates.
E. We do not have an issue with the sale requirements. The length of
"first lien" is more of an issue for us as it precludes getting other
funding based on our assets.
F. Yes, cost effectiveness should be major criteria for selecting a
project for funding. Obviously some areas or methods are going be a
lot more costly than others. Wireless is cheap to deploy but
expensive to maintain. Fiber is expensive to deploy and cheap to
maintain. Cost for value received should be the basis.
Evidence that unnecessary costs have not been added, that should be
determined during the due diligence phase by having the applicant go
through their cost structure and items and defend them
G. The two most substantive changes needed are: 1) to increase the
minimum qualifying speeds to at least the Congressional intent of 3
meg down for unserved and 10 meg down for underserved. 2) provide a
means for the applicant to respond to any incumbent challenge before
unilaterally deciding that the project is duplicitous.


Thank you for the opportunity to offer input,

Patrick Coady
Executive Director
Eastern Shore of Virginia Broadband Authority




(Late Submission)
Please find attached comments from Common Sense Media founder and CEO Jim Steyer regarding the second round of funding for the Broadband Initiatives Program and Broadband Technology Opportunities Program.

Thanks,
Alan

Alan Simpson
Vice President of Policy, Common Sense Media

415.553.6730 (direct)
415.518.4830 (mobile)
asimpson@commonsensemedia.org
www.commonsensemedia.org
650 Townsend Street Suite 375
San Francisco, CA 94103
For information about Common Sense Media's policy efforts, visit www.commonsensemedia.org/about-us/public-leadership


(Late Submission)
Dear NTIA:

Attached (in WORD format) are the Comments of The National EBS Association (NEBSA) on the Joint RFI for BIP and BTOP.

Respectfully Submitted,

Meg
Margaret L. Miller
Attorney at Law

1200 New Hampshire Avenue, NW Suite 800 Washington, DC 20036-6802
T 202-776-2914 M 202-415-3170 F 202-776-4914
E mmiller@dowlohnes.com
www.dowlohnes.com
____________________________________________________


This message from the law firm of Dow Lohnes PLLC may contain confidential or privileged information. If you received this transmission in error, please call us immediately at (202)776-2000 or contact us by E-mail at admin@dowlohnes.com. Disclosure or use of any part of this message by persons other than the intended recipient is prohibited.



(Late Submission)

Good morning,

I enclose a corrected copy of the Iowa Telecommunications Association comments filed on Monday afternoon in response to the Joint Request for Information Relating to Broadband Initiatives Program and Broadband Technology Opportunities Program, Docket No. 0907141137–91375–05.

The only changes in the corrected version are to insert a missing “not” in the last sentence of the first paragraph of page 3 and to delete a “not” from the next to last sentence of the first numbered paragraph of page 5.

Dave Duncan, CAE
President
Iowa Telecommunications Association
2987 100th Street
Urbandale, IA 50322
515.867.2091
www.i-t-a.net




(Late Submission)
To Whom It May Concern:

Please see attached comments of Charter Communications in response to the joint Request for Information (RFI) issued by RUS and NTIA seeking public comment on certain issues relating to the implementation of the Broadband Initiatives Program (BIP) and the Broadband Technology Opportunities Program (BTOP).

Please let me know if you need any further information.

Best,
Megan Delany

Megan M. Delany
Vice President & Senior Counsel
Federal Government Relations
Charter Communications
1919 Pennsylvania Ave., NW
Suite 200
Washington, DC 20006
(o) 202-973-4312
(m) 202-256-2893
(f) 202-973-4499
megan.delany@chartercom.com


E-MAIL CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE:







The contents of this e-mail message and
any attachments are intended solely for the
addressee(s) and may contain confidential
and/or legally privileged information. If you
are not the intended recipient of this message
or if this message has been addressed to you
in error, please immediately alert the sender
by reply e-mail and then delete this message
and any attachments. If you are not the
intended recipient, you are notified that
any use, dissemination, distribution, copying,
or storage of this message or any attachment
is strictly prohibited.







(Late Submission)
Please find enclosed our comment letter in response to the Joint Request For Information (RFI) from the National Telecommunications Information Administration (NTIA ) and Rural Utilities Service (RUS ) on the suggested improvements to the Second Round of Funding under the Broadband Technology Opportunities Program (BTOP).

Kind regards,

Thomas Sachson

Attachments:
-- BTOP RFI Sachson 11-30-2009 (Microsoft Word)


Thomas Sachson
tsachson@gmail.com
415.602.5942
650.240.3865 fax
==============================
==============================
The contents of this message, together with any attachments, are intended
only for the use of the individual or entity to which they are addressed and
contains information that is legally privileged, confidential, and exempt
from disclosure. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby
notified that any dissemination, distribution, or copying of this message,
or any attachment, is strictly prohibited. If you have received this
message in error, please notify the original sender immediately by telephone
or by return E-mail and delete this message, along with any attachments,
from your computer. Thank you.--



(Late Submission)
Attached please find in Word format a copy of the Comments of the Fiber-to-the-Home Council In Response to Request for Information to be filed in Docket No. 0907141137-91375-05.

Thank you,


________________
Elena M. Ionita | Secretary
Kelley Drye & Warren LLP
Washington Harbour, Suite 400
3050 K Street, NW, Washington, DC 20007-5108
202.945.6697 | eionita@kelleydrye.com
www.kelleydrye.com


Pursuant to Treasury Regulations, any U.S. federal tax advice contained in this communication, unless otherwise
stated, is not intended and cannot be used for the purpose of avoiding tax-related penalties.

The information contained in this E-mail message is privileged, confidential, and may be protected from disclosure;
please be aware that any other use, printing, copying, disclosure or dissemination of this communication may be
subject to legal restriction or sanction. If you think that you have received this E-mail message in
error, please reply to the sender.

This E-mail message and any attachments have been scanned for viruses and are believed to be free of any virus or
other defect that might affect any computer system into which it is received and opened. However, it is the
responsibility of the recipient to ensure that it is virus free and no responsibility is accepted by Kelley
Drye & Warren LLP for any loss or damage arising in any way from its use.


(Late Submission)


(Late Submission)
Attached please find the comments of Cricket Communications, Inc. to the Joint Request for Information. The attached version is in Word.

>

*******************************************************************************
To comply with IRS regulations, we advise you that any discussion of Federal tax issues in this
e-mail was not intended or written to be used, and cannot be used by you, (i) to avoid any penalties
imposed under the Internal Revenue Code or (ii) to promote, market or recommend to another party any
transaction or matter addressed herein.

For more information please go to http://www.lw.com/docs/irs.pdf
*******************************************************************************

This email may contain material that is confidential, privileged and/or attorney work product for
the sole use of the intended recipient. Any review, reliance or distribution by others or forwarding
without express permission is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please
contact the sender and delete all copies.

Latham & Watkins LLP




(Late Submission)
Attached please find in Word format a copy of the Comments of XO Communications LLC, in Response to Request for Information to be filed in Docket No. 0907141137-91375-05.

Thank you,


________________
Elena M. Ionita | Secretary
Kelley Drye & Warren LLP
Washington Harbour, Suite 400
3050 K Street, NW, Washington, DC 20007-5108
202.945.6697 | eionita@kelleydrye.com
www.kelleydrye.com


Pursuant to Treasury Regulations, any U.S. federal tax advice contained in this communication, unless otherwise
stated, is not intended and cannot be used for the purpose of avoiding tax-related penalties.

The information contained in this E-mail message is privileged, confidential, and may be protected from disclosure;
please be aware that any other use, printing, copying, disclosure or dissemination of this communication may be
subject to legal restriction or sanction. If you think that you have received this E-mail message in
error, please reply to the sender.

This E-mail message and any attachments have been scanned for viruses and are believed to be free of any virus or
other defect that might affect any computer system into which it is received and opened. However, it is the
responsibility of the recipient to ensure that it is virus free and no responsibility is accepted by Kelley
Drye & Warren LLP for any loss or damage arising in any way from its use.


(Late Submission)
Identical submission attached in both PDF and MS Word format.



(Late Submission)
Attached are comments from the New America Foundation's Open Technology Initiative et al. amended for formatting.

Please let us know if there is any issues in opening the file.

James Losey
202 596 3417
losey@newamerica.net


On Mon, Nov 30, 2009 at 4:54 PM, James Losey wrote:
Please see the attached comments from the New America Foundation's' Open Technology Foundation et al.

Please let us know if there is any issues in opening the file.

James Losey
202 596 3417
losey@newamerica.net


(Late Submission)
To whom it may concern:
Attached, please find Mayo Clinic's electronic submission for the joint Request for Information from the Department of Agriculture, Rural Utilities Service RIN: 0572-ZA01, and Department of Commerce, National Telecommunications and Information Administration RIN: 0660-ZA28, Docket No: 0907141137-91375-05.
Mayo Clinic appreciate the opportunity to provide information regarding this important initiative. Please do not hesitate to contact us with any questions, or if we can be of any further assistance. We look forward to participating in this exciting and transformative endeavor.
>
Best regards,
Michael
Michael J. Kehoe
Research Administrative Services
Mayo Clinic
Plummer 5-31
507-293-3764
kehoe.michael@mayo.edu
Supported by Administrative Assistant - Sandra Penning
507-284-3371
penning.sandra@mayo.edu
Confidential Notice: this email message, including any attachments, is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and privileged information. Any unauthorized review, use disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by email and destroy all copies of the original message.



(Late Submission)
Attached to this email is the Association of Communications Engineers (ACE) response to the Request For Information from the Broadband Initiatives Program and Broadband Technology Opportunities Program. We thank you for the opportunity to response to the request. November 30, 2009

Joel O. Williams P.E.
Mid-States Consultants Inc.
3901 Rose Lake Dr.
Charlotte, NC 28217
P 704/357-0004
Fax 704/357-0025
Cell 704/533-4220
jwilliams@mscon.com
www.mscon.com




(Late Submission)
Please find a MS Word document attached that contains comments submitted on behalf of Oakland County, Michigan on the BTOP RFI.

Thank you,
Tammi Shepherd
Project Manager

Implementation Services
Information Technology
Oakland County
1200 N Telegraph, Building 49 West
Pontiac, Michigan 48341
248.858.4922
shepherdt@oakgov.com




(Late Submission)
Mr. Jonathan S. Adelstein, Mr. Lawrence E. Strickling,

As requested, attached is a response to your "Request For Information" dated November 9, 2009 from Smyth Technology Group, Inc. located in Marion, VA. Thank you for the opportunity to respond to these concerns.

Sincerely,

Karen L. Copenhaver
Project Officer
Smyth Technology Group, Inc.
276-783-3333





(Late Submission)
Good Afternoon,

Attached are RFI comments of the South Carolina Broadband Coalition.

Questions and comments may be forwarded to:

Stacey F. Jones, Ph.D.
Chair
scbroadband@benedict.edu






(Late Submission)
Please find the National Rural Electric Cooperative Association’s corrected attached comments in response to the NTIA and RUS Joint Request for Information regarding their respective 2009 Recovery Act broadband initiatives.

This version contains minor corrections. Thank you.

Sincerely,

David Predmore
Corporate Counsel
National Rural Electric Cooperative Association
4301 Wilson Boulevard
EP11-253
Arlington, Virginia 22203
703-907-5848 (Telephone)
703-907-5517 (Facsimile)




Confidentiality Notice: This e-mail message, including any attachments, is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and privileged information. Any unauthorized review, copy, use, disclosure, or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply e-mail and destroy all copies of the original message.


(Late Submission)

Please find attached our written comments regarding the
“DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Rural Utilities Service

RIN: 0572-ZA01
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Telecommunications and Information Administration

Docket Number: 0907141137-91375-05
RIN: 0660-ZA28


Broadband Initiatives Program and Broadband Technology
Opportunities Program

AGENCIES: Rural Utilities Service (RUS), Department of Agriculture, and
National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA),
Department of Commerce.s

ACTION: Joint Request for Information.”


Donna Luley
City of Westfield Grant Coordinator
2728 E. 171st Street
Westfield, IN 46074
Phone: 317-804-3139 direct
dluley@westfield.in.gov



(Late Submission)
The attached comments are filed on behalf of Frontier Communications in the above-referenced docket.

Christine Burke
National Manager - Funding Programs
Frontier Communications
585-777-6719


(Late Submission)
Pursuant to the NTIA/RUS Request for Information published in the Federal Register on November 16, 2009, attached as Word files are ADTRAN's comments and an ADTRAN White Paper discussed in those comments that addresses in greater detail the issue of defining broadband speeds.

Please let me know if you have any problem with the attachments, or if you have any questions.

Stephen L. Goodman
Butzel Long Tighe Patton, PLLC
1747 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Suite 300
Washington, D.C. 20006
(202) 454-2851 - Office
(202) 607-6756 - Cell



(Late Submission)
Correction: please find Amended Comments attached from FiberTower Corp.
Thank you.

________________________________________
From: Angela Parsons
Sent: Monday, November 30, 2009 4:53 PM
To: broadbandrfi@ntia.doc.gov
Subject: RFI Comments: FiberTower Corp.

Attached please find Comments from FiberTower Corp., responding to the NTIA/RUS Joint Request for Information on the BTOP/BIP programs. Please do not hesitate to contact us with any questions.

Angela C. Parsons
Staff Attorney, Regulatory and Government Affairs
FiberTower Corporation
1667 K Street NW
Suite 250
Washington DC 20006
(P) 202.223.2003
(F) 202.223.9692
www.fibertower.com



(Late Submission)
Hello NTIA/RUS,

Happy Holidays and here is our RFI response:

Please keep this proprietary-not for the website please.

Very respectfully and thank you,

Rick Kunde
President and CEO
ACRT Broad Band Inc.
phone:267-987-0470
email:rick.kunde@acrtbb.net
fax:267-386-1151




(Late Submission)


(Late Submission)
Broadband RFI

Provided in Microsoft Word 2003




Jennie M. Rios
National Account Executive
Communications Consulting Group, Inc.
Corporate Offices
330 Clematis Street, Suite 211
West Palm Beach, FL 33401
Office: (561) 228-8495
Toll Free: (866) 901-0337
Cellular: (561) 420-5481
Fax: (561) 835-9312
www.ccgconsult.com











(Late Submission)

NUBRON INC.
3160 De La Cruz Blvd.
Suite 207
Santa Clara, CA 95054
http://www.nubron.com
408-855-0009

30 November 2009

To: Jonathan S. Adelstein,
Administrator, Rural Utilities Service
U.S. Department of Agriculture
1400 Independence Avenue, SW
Stop 1599
Washington, DC 20250

and

Lawrence E. Strickling,
Assistant Secretary for Communications and Information
U.S. Department of Commerce,
HCHB Room 4887
1401 Constitution Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20230.

Subject: Response to

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Rural Utilities Service
RIN: 0572–ZA01

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Telecommunications and Information Administration
Docket No.: 0907141137-91375-05
RIN: 0660_ZA28

Broadband Initiative Program and Broadband Technology Opportunities Program

e-mail to broadbandrfi@ntia.doc.gov


Dear Sirs:

NUBRON INC. consults for satellite communications and manufacturing and, in response to the above RFI, would like to offer the following comments.

(1) For example, should any steps be undertaken to adjust applications for satellite systems that provide nationwide service, but are primarily intended to provide access in remote areas and other places not served by landline or wireless systems?
[II. Policy Issues Addressed in the NOFA A. Funding Priorities and Objectives. 4. Other Changes.]

NUBRON INC. Comments:

Absolutely. In recent years, a number of satellite broadband systems have been constructed primarily to serve unserved and underserved areas including those in rural areas. The footprints of satellite systems typically cover a large area and, although the initial investment is relatively high, the economy of the scale more than compensates the high initial expense offering the most economical bandwidth to many of those areas. The very fact that in many unserved and underserved areas the only available broadband service today is the satellite service speaks for itself for the economical efficiency of the satellite systems.

Unfortunately the satellite systems have been specifically excluded in the first round of this funding. To exclude the satellite systems and subsidize other less economical systems will actually harm the long term economical efficiencies against the statutory Purposes of the Recovery Act: to provide investments needed to increase economic efficiency by spurring technological advances in science and health; to invest in transportation, environmental protection, and other infrastructure that will provide long-term economic benefits.

Satellite systems are an infrastructure consisting of space assets and ground assets. Only the space assets should typically be replaced every 15 years.


(2) Should they be modified to include a specific factor relating to the affordability of broadband service or the socioeconomic makeup of a given defined service area, and, if so, how should such factors be measured? Should the agencies adopt more objective and readily verifiable measures, and if so, what would they be? How should satellite-based proposals be evaluated against these criteria? [II. Policy Issues Addressed in the NOFA B. Program Definitions]

NUBRON INC. Comments:

Again, absolutely and absolutely. Broadband technologies are still evolving. All proposals must be required to include a metric for affordability. This will help RUS and NTIA to determine which of currently available technologies will survive in the long run consistent with at least two of the statutory Purposes of the Recovery Act: to provide investments needed to increase economic efficiency by spurring technological advances in science and health; to invest in transportation, environmental protection, and other infrastructure that will provide long-term economic benefits.

Affordability (i.e., the economy of a given technical solution) can be easily measured by such metric as $/megabit/user/month when this is estimated without taking the subsidized or grant portion into account.

(3) Mobile platforms such as passenger airplanes and trains must be considered to be unserved or underserved areas.

Broadband to mobile platforms marries the transportation infrastructure to all objectives of broadband technology opportunities program with enormous economic impact. They are consistent with all of the statutory Purposes of the Recovery Act: to assist those most impacted by the recession; to provide investments needed to increase economic efficiency by spurring technological advances in science and health; to invest in transportation, environmental protection, and other infrastructure that will provide long-term economic benefits; and to stabilize state and local government budgets.

In particular, airline passengers must have access to Internet. According to Bureau of Transportation Statistics, in 2008 the United States’ population in transit amassed 811.4 billion passenger miles per year or approx. 270 million passenger hours per year in air without access to Internet. The reason for this is, although some technical means currently exist, the business model with the long term viability of those technologies has never been proven.

Private investment is not enough for this. It is now history that only a few years ago the Boeing Company built a satellite based system with a large investment but failed to materialize it as a viable business. Today, both terrestrial based and satellite based systems vie for some segments of airplane routes, domestic and international. BTOP funding for this purpose will be well spent for a lasting and great economic impact.

To accommodate a program benefiting the population in transit, BTOP must redefine “the geographical areas” to include mobile platforms that serve all population in transit, not only for those inside the geographical U.S. territory but also for those outside the geographical U.S. territory since the U.S. mobile platforms are still the U.S. territory serving the U.S. population whether inside or outside the geographical U.S. territory.

Very Truly Yours,





Brian B.K. Min, Ph. D
General Manager
(408) 855-0009 (W)
(650) 799-1572 (M)


(Late Submission)
Good afternoon:

Please find attached NCTA’s Comments in response to the Joint Request for Information.

Thank you,

Ann Mony
Administrative Assistant, Legal Department
National Cable & Telecommunications Association
25 Massachusetts Avenue, NW - Suite 100
Washington DC, 20001
Phone: 202-222-2458
Fax: 202-222-2446




(Late Submission)


Mitsuko R. Herrera | Cable Communications Administrator | Montgomery County MD
mitsuko.herrera@montgomerycountymd.gov | 240-773-2288 main | 240-777-2928 direct


mjohnson@natoa.org


(Late Submission)
On behalf of the National Cable & Telecommunications Association and the United States Telecom Association, attached is their joint filing in the captioned dockets in response to the Joint Request for Information.


DANIEL BRENNER, PARTNER
HOGAN & HARTSON LLP
Columbia Square, 555 Thirteenth Street, NW, Washington, DC 20004
direct +1.202.637.5532 | tel +1.202.637.5600 | fax +1.202.637.5910
dlbrenner@hhlaw.com | http://www.hhlaw.com
Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail.

"EMF " made the following annotations.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This electronic message transmission contains information from this law firm which may be confidential or privileged. The information is intended to be for the use of the individual or entity named above. If you are not the intended recipient, be aware that any disclosure,
copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information is prohibited.

If you have received this electronic transmission in error, please notify us by telephone (+1-202-637-5600) or by electronic mail (PostMaster@HHLAW.COM) immediately.

==============================================================================


(Late Submission)
Please see the attached. Thank you.

Paul Kenefick
Vice President, Public Affairs
Americas Region
Alcatel-Lucent
1100 New York Avenue, NW
Suite 640
Washington, DC 20005
202-312-5901 (Office)
202-412-4356 (Mobile)




(Late Submission)
Attached please find the comments of the Telephone Association of Maine in response to the BTOP/BIP Request for Information.

-Ben Sanborn




(Late Submission)
Please accept these comments on behalf of the City of Seattle. You can contact Tony Perez at tony.perez@seattle.gov or at 206.386.0070 if you have any questions.

Pages