It is therefore no surprise that he took the task of ranking applications to heart and provided a clear, detailed letter (here in .pdf format from the Baller Herbst website) that ranked the various applications involving the state of Vermont.

He chose Vermont CTO Tom Evslin (blog here) to head the stimulus effort of the state of Vermont — a higher profile person than that heading the stimulus effort in many much larger states.

I was surprised, however, to see that the letter says that Fairpoint has done an excellent job of providing broadband to the state of Vermont. At a hearing recently, a Vermont firefighter opposed further sales of lines by Verizon when he said, “In Vermont we once had ‘Ma Bell’ provide our telephone service. Then we had ‘Baby Bell’ service. Sadly, with FairPoint’s acquisition of Verizon’s northern New England properties, we now only have ‘Tinker Bell’ service.”

(The state may soon have power problems too, if nuclear plants are spun off and allowed to go bankrupt.)

The state also claims that the proposals it favors only appear to overlap. I’m certain the federal government will examine that claim.

Proposals not recommended

I think it’s wonderful — and politically courageous — that the state chose to highlight a few proposals it does not recommend. I am particularly pleased that it does not recommend the satellite proposals from EchoStar and Hughes. I agree that they will do little for Vermont.

I agree that Aircell’s proposal for in-flight broadband, while interesting, does not belong in the stimulus.

Vermont expressed some doubts about MegaPath and I have heard similar doubts from others but do not have access to enough information to judge their proposal myself.

I think it’s great that the state criticized so many education proposals as being too expensive or poorly targeted.

Finally, on mapping, the state is justifiably proud of its own mapping project, and of the fact that its mapping project was one of the first to be funded by the federal government.

Art Brodsky has been warning about this outfit for years now, and we’ll get to see whether or not Connected Nation actually produces worthwhile data. It’s particularly sad that Alaska gave away its mapping oppotunity because the broadband stimulus faces special challenges there. An accurate map would reveal a wide variety of unusual technological alternatives in place there, but I’m guessing that Connected Nation will just show that most of Alaska already has broadband.

Brodsky points out that $350 million may be too much. I’m guessing that it could be 100 times the cost or even 10,000 times the cost, but the mapping project I’m thinking of won’t issue its press release until Dec. 6. I will update you then.

Most states (Delaware, Colorado, Louisiana, and so on) that have received mapping money from the NTIA are sending the cash to their own departments of technology. If in fact they get 100 times what they need for the project, the rest of the cash can be put to good use by upgrading the states’ own technology departments.

The grants announced today go to entities in four states, California, Indiana, Vermont, and North Carolina.

The NTIA said that each of the successful applications showed that the state and the agencies were working together, were going to provide verifiable data and not just rely on the telcos for self-reporting, and had resources equal to one-quarter of the grant money received, in an 80/20 grant/cash match.

Winners:

California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC): $2.3 million over five years.

Indiana Office of Technology (IOT): $1.3 million

e-NC (of North Carolina): $2 million over five years

Vermont Center for Geographic Information (VCGI): $1.2 million

This news should dispel fears that Connected Nation would be eligible — according to reports, data produced by Connected Nation is under the copyright of AT&T.

Yet Connected Nation has been chosen by several states, including Florida and Minnesota, to be the sole applicant for mapping funds.

I’m looking forward to this fight. I expect that those states that chose Connected Nation will have to choose again because they’ll have to choose a data provider that will deliver accurate and public data, something Connected Nation is bound by contract to fail to provide.

More recently, Brodsky claimed that bids were rigged in Connected Nation’s favor in the state of Florida, arguing that there was no other explanation why the highest bidder won a broadband mapping contract.

Maps are important. They show where the government should invest money. They say who has broadband and who does not. If the maps are drawn by the phone companies, they could direct stimulus money only to the areas they don’t care about, bypassing wealthy areas they would like to deliver service to but have not yet built out.

Today, NYPIRG is calling out such policies. In its report (available in .pdf format here), NYPIRG says, “Contracts or grants to map data … must include requirements
that the mapping entity disclose any financial or other relationships to broadband providers. If data are self reported by a broadband provider and not independently verified, that should be disclosed and the data should not be considered accurate until independently verified.”

The report does not specifically name Connected Nation, but readers understand that’s the problem that’s addressed by this recommendation — a recommendation that is so obvious that it should not have to be said.

The report contains a massive number of other good ideas, endorsing structural separation, better data collection, an internet literacy curriculum and more.

NYPIRG’s report is a masterpiece.