What do you guys make of the following discussion? How can they state one thing in the NOFA, and then put something different on their website? If it is in fact true, that the NOFA did not state this, should the whole mess be started over? I am looking in the NOFA, but not finding the mention of ...provided the existing RUS borrower is providing service at 768 Kbps/200 Kbps or higher..
I guess that I am being sort of a sore loser, but we did not file based on the NOFA saying, "The existing service areas of RUS borrowers in which they provide broadband service are not eligible for BIP funding." Scottie ---------------------------- Original Message ---------------------------- Subject: RE: TN5011-A Twin Lakes Twin Lakes TCC Celina-Moss PFSA From: "Scottie Arnett" <sarn...@info-ed.com> Date: Fri, June 4, 2010 11:18 am To: "Tindall, Anthony - Minneapolis, MN" <anthony.tind...@wdc.usda.gov> -------------------------------------------------------------------------- Thank you for your response. It is odd that I do find this statement on your website: "Changes in the NOFA for this round of funding do not allow funds to go into areas which were: 1) funded by either BIP or BTOP in the first round, and 2) funded by the RUS Broadband or Infrastructure programs (provided the existing RUS borrower is providing service at 768 Kbps/200 Kbps or higher)" but I did not see the ...provided the existing RUS borrower is providing service at 768 Kbps/200 Kbps or higher... in the NOFA. Can you point me to where it states this in the NOFA? We did not apply based on the statement, "The existing service areas of RUS borrowers in which they provide broadband service are not eligible for BIP funding." There will be much controversy raised over these inconsistencies from my company and many others. Scottie Arnett President Info-Ed, Inc. > It is acceptable for RUS borrowers to request funds to upgrade facilities > within their existing exchange boundaries/service areas, as long as less > than 50% of the rural premises located within their PFSA(s) have access to > 5Mbps broadband service, and all other eligibility requirements are met. > In this case, I'm assuming their DSL service does not meet the 5Mbps > threshold. Rest assured however, we will be checking. > > Thanks for your prompt response. > > Anthony J Tindall | Broadband Field Representative > Rural Development > U.S. Department of Agriculture > 4824 E 53rd St. #512 | Minneapolis, MN 55417 > Phone: 612.721.6432 | Fax: 612.721.6432 |Mobile: 859.533.0334 > www.rurdev.usda.gov > > "Committed to the future of rural communities" > "Estamos dedicados al futuro de las comunidades rurales" > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Scottie Arnett [mailto:sarn...@info-ed.com] > Sent: Thursday, June 03, 2010 8:44 PM > To: Tindall, Anthony - Minneapolis, MN > Subject: Re: TN5011-A Twin Lakes Twin Lakes TCC Celina-Moss PFSA > > I am sorry about that, I misunderstood the instructions. We are not > serving the "unserved" area's either, I had mistakenly understood it to > say providing a 768K speed in the proposed area. They already have DSL in > over 90+ percent of clay county. > > If you look a little further they are a rural telco that is already > receiving grants/loans from the USDA and they already offer broadband via > DSL and have been for over 5 years. My understanding and a question to the > USDA about this...is that they are ineligible from applying from the BIP 2 > rules? As are many others around my area that applied for Round 2 BIP > anyway. Do you have any information on this matter? > > From BIP NOFA: "The existing service areas of RUS borrowers in which they > provide broadband service are not eligible for BIP funding. The > communities where these service areas are located can be found by using > the Community Search Tool available at > http://mappingtool.broadbandusa.gov. In addition, the service areas of > awardees under the first round BIP/BTOP combined NOFA are also ineligible > for BIP funding; as these are awarded, these service areas will be > identified on a map available at http://mappingtool.broadbandusa.gov. > > > Scottie Arnett > President > Info-Ed, Inc. > >> Mr. Arnett, >> >> Attached is a map and a census block list, along with your Public Notice >> Response (PNR) filed in conjunction with an ARRA BIP Round 2 application >> submitted by Twin Lakes Telephone Cooperative Corporation in the >> Celina-Moss Proposed Funded Service Area (PFSA). In the PNR, Info-Ed, >> Inc. claims to provide access to broadband service to households (HH) in >> the unserved layer of the PFSA. However, there was no polygon drawn >> using >> the mapping tool, and in the same PNR Info-Ed, Inc. states that there >> are >> actually 0 HH and 0 business establishments capable of receiving >> broadband >> service in the PFSA. Could you please provide an explanation of the >> discrepancy in numbers in your PNR? >> >> Thanks, >> >> Anthony J Tindall | Broadband Field Representative >> Rural Development >> U.S. Department of Agriculture >> 4824 E 53rd St. #512 | Minneapolis, MN 55417 >> Phone: 612.721.6432 | Fax: 612.721.6432 |Mobile: 859.533.0334 >> www.rurdev.usda.gov<http://www.rurdev.usda.gov/> >> >> "Committed to the future of rural communities" >> "Estamos dedicados al futuro de las comunidades rurales" >> >> > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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/
