[Ww-snww-regional-list] Recorder Editorial on MBI and WW

Robbie Leppzer robbie at turningtide.com
Thu Dec 10 14:00:35 EST 2015


Subject: Recorder Editorial on MBI and WW

http://www.recorder.com/opinion/editorials/19931661-95/editorial-dropping-the-baton-on-broadband-network


Editorial: Dropping the baton on broadband network

Wednesday, December 9, 2015 
(Published in print: Thursday, December 10, 2015)
	• Email
	• Print
	• Comments (0)
	• Share on googleShare on facebookShare on twitterMore Sharing Services

WiredWest and the Massachusetts Broadband Institute, two legs in the relay that was supposed to carry Massachusetts communities with little or no broadband access across the finish line for service, have stumbled.

The question now is whether the two can pick up the dropped baton. That, we suspect, isn’t going to happen as quickly as residents would like.

We say this given the recent bombshell dropped by MBI that it had two significant issues with the cooperative’s plans, specifically with WiredWest’s intention to own the fiber-optic network and whether its business plan could work. Until such times as these issues are resolved to MBI’s satisfaction, it is recommending that towns refrain from signing contracts with WiredWest and in the meantime won’t be releasing more state broadband money.

In its letter to towns, MBI said, WiredWest’s approach was “not compatible with the best interests of the commonwealth, the towns, or their residents.”

How could we have reached this point, especially given how WiredWest has tried to provide a clear and complete picture of what it was proposing and the role communities had in building the “final mile” of broadband access for some time?

Therefore, count WiredWest as being blindsided by MBI here. But if WiredWest officials didn’t see this coming, they fired right back.

“Just when the agreement was reaching its final form, with an anticipated signing in January, MBI stepped in to block its implementation,” said Steve Nelson, legal/governance chair of WiredWest. “MBI is trying to control the project, despite the towns providing nearly two-thirds of the funding and repeatedly stating that this is the approach they want to take.” And what MBI has done has “sewn confusion in the towns, thrown the project into chaos, and subjected it to further delays.”

Is it “bureaucratic blackmail” as WiredWest officials are calling it or is it as MBI officials see it as an effort to protect residents and communities from a confining, unworkable and costly plan?

Perhaps a little of both. A number of communities have questioned WiredWest’s financial blueprint, realizing that if enough residents didn’t sign on, individual communities would be held liable for the debt. That is what MBI is saying in part. But what is bothersome here is that WiredWest’s financial proposal hasn’t been kept under wraps. The co-op’s pitch to towns has always presented the formula that it said would work.

It’s tough to square MBI’s timing on going public with its objections, unless the organization was clearly thought there was going to be a point of no return. But that says something about the whole effort to bring hard-wired Broadband Internet service to places where none now exists.

Instead of a state department directly involved — one that took responsibility for the entire project — in its place have been different public and quasi-public entities involved in the various “miles” of the proposed network. In other words, the effort was cobbled together from the very beginning with the one constant being the grants and state money directed toward this work.

Right now, the two sides are trying to galvanize support here. But the goal has to be picking up that baton. It’s likely going to take intervention by the region’s legislators or the Baker administration to resume the race. Eliminating the broadband divide is too important to the region for a breakdown of the connection between MBI and WiredWest.





More information about the ww-snww-regional-list mailing list