On high speed fiber optic internet access

"Sometimes pointing out the facts on an issue can be seen as opposition to the issue."

I received an email question/statement regarding my position on access to high speed internet through the NoaNet (Northwest Open Access Network)  fiber optic system.  Apparently, my statements, made to explain the restrictions keeping our PUD from becoming an ISP (Internet Service Provider) were seen as my opposition to, or at least, lack of interest in, having high speed internet service within our county.  I was just sharing the legal facts to avoid confusion and possible disappointment.

 I support High speed internet access here.  I am as frustrated as you in having to deal with internet speed not much better, it seems, than dial-up.  Lack of high speed access to the information superhighway can definately hurt current and future commercial activities here.

As the issue has been raised by my opponent, I have tried to inform our community on the reasons keeping our PUD from offering fiber optic high speed internet directly to homes and businesses.  The limitations do not keep PUD from providing access to "anchor institutions" such as schools, fire departments, libraries and other public agencies, which it does.  The PUD also uses the fiber optic cable system to monitor and control its systems, including electrical substations through SCADA (supervisory control and data acquisition).

On October 21st, to confirm this information, I had a conference call with Chuck Freeman and Mike Henson of NoaNet.  I asked many questions, during the call, which lasted over 30 minutes.  We covered many aspects of the relationship between our PUD and the NoaNet System.

• Grant funding for system expansion:  They said that any extension would have to be paid for by the end user.
• 80% of the cost to install the system within Jefferson County came from a federal grant through the ARRA (American Recovery and Reinvestment Act).
• That the fee schedule for "anchor institutions" was set to cover the cost of system maintenance
• That the legislation that set up NoaNet prevents PUD's from becoming ISP's.  (NoaNet to supply documentation)
• That the Washington State Attorney General has written opinions supporting the legislation preventing PUD's from providing direct service and has issued "findings" against agencies trying to do so.  (NoaNet to supply documentation)
• That nothing on the horizon, satellite, etc. can produce the speed of fiber optics
• That the FCC (Federal Communications Commissioner) contends that PUD's should be able to become an ISP, but, to date, are not willing to override state law on the issue.
• That our PUD has the rate setting authority for bandwidth sold to ISP's, which would allow it to set a rate that may encourage existing ISP's to connect to NoaNet fiber optics.
• Although the PUD would set the rate, NoaNet provides logistical support for the contracts
• That there is currently a redundancy (loop back-up connection) for most of the area other than between Port Hadlock and Port Ludlow. 

I will post he NoaNet documentation when I receive it.

Thank you for asking the questions and sharing your opinions on our PUD.
You can contact me at:

DeLeo4PUD@gmail.com

360 385-6335 (home phone

360 531-3239 (cell)