The letter from the state of Oregon (available here in .pdf form from the Baller Herbst Law Group) is excellent because it provides the biographies of the state reviewers and lists both pros and cons concerning all recommended projects.
I understand that some larger states did not have time to provide the level of detail that Oregon did, but I nevertheless feel that Oregon’s letter could serve as a model to the nation on how to get it right.
I also understand that it can be politically difficult to voice any criticism concerning local applications, and I therefore believe that Oregon deserves all the more credit for describing both the upside and the downside of so many applications.
In particular, the letter highlights the fact that many proposals cover area that is already served by a competitor. I wonder whether or not the federal government will ask applicants to redraw their proposals so that they do not replicate competitors’ networks.
There are several proposals with no objections listed and they are all Public Computer Center applications. I agree with Oregon’s assessment and think the state did a great job.
My one fear is that although the state is clearly aware of the location of ILEC networks, it may not be aware of the location of the networks of some of the smaller ISPs.
Tags: oregon, public computer center