BOISE, Idaho (AP) - School districts in Idaho should continue securing their own Internet rather than relying on a statewide system, an Internet provider told lawmakers Monday.
However, Syringa Networks CEO Greg Lowe added that the state has the expertise to help school district vet possible vendors.
“School districts have to be able to make that decision, but not all schools really understand what they might be looking for,” Lowe said.
Determining the future of broadband access in Idaho’s public schools has become a top priority in Idaho following a recent district court ruling that deemed the $60 million contract that set up a statewide broadband program invalid. School officials have repeatedly stressed that broadband access is just as important as running water or electricity, but now the question is whether the services should be provided by the state or managed by individual districts.
A 10-member legislative committee has been tasked with finalizing a recommendation to the Idaho Legislature by January. On Monday, the panel listened to several Internet providers offer presentations on what they provide and ideas on how to move forward.
Syringa Networks is the Boise-based company that successfully sued Idaho for wrongly awarding the contract. When the system dissolved, school districts then negotiated individual broadband contracts with vendors across the state.
So far, school districts have been successful in maintaining costs lower than the statewide program. For example, in just four months of reimbursing the individual contracts, schools came in $1.3 million cheaper than the anticipated $3.6 million. That leftover money was reverted back to the state.
Shawn Swanby, president of Post Falls-based Ednetics, advocated that the state could design a statewide broadband program that permitted competitive bidding, which would help keep costs low.
Under his example, the state would own key pieces of broadband equipment but the program would allow multiple vendors to fill in the rest of the system through a competitive bidding process.
“What we’re trying to do is drive competition in a contract model,” he said. “This theory of one throat to choke is not a really good contracting model for the state.”
Please read our comment policy before commenting.