Sometimes I think it’s easy, with the concentration of federal politics on the East Coast, to forget that Western states house among the most spread-out rural populations in the country. That means a lot of communities here only get dial-up or satellite Internet access, and often have just one landline provider. Same goes for wireless.

So it was nice this week to attend a symposium focused on bridging the digital gap in five Western states. The event was held by the Coalition for a Connected West here in Phoenix.

First up was Larry Irving. Irving, whom I met for the first time, is one of the big guns, as they say. (He’s scheduled to speak at COMPTEL in about two weeks, too.) He runs his own consulting firm now but was a key figure in the Clinton administration. He was assistant secretary of commerce for communications and information, and also served as administrator of the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA).

Irving’s main message this week was that broadband infrastructure has to accommodate the Exaflood, or volumes of information going on the Internet that will never get smaller. There’s fear the Internet will become less efficient (although not that it will ever hit a ceiling). Western states have an interest in this growth because they want to be part of the information economy.

Diane Smith, another guest speaker, seemed to me the perfect example of how rural communities can take that center technological stage. Smith founded Auroras Entertainment, a Montana-based IPTV company that was one of the larger venture capital-backed startups last year ($30 million is no shabby number). Auroras employs about 50 people in Whitefish, Mont. – not exactly the first place you think of when you picture IPTV innovation. Impressive.

Overall, the coalition’s luncheon was a worthwhile event for policymakers, journalists, carriers and consumers, as well. Larry Irving also was kind enough to spend quite a bit of time with me before the symposium, discussing the upcoming elections and tech policies in general. I’ll share more on the discussion soon.

Gotta say, I don’t recall having a week like this in a long, long time. The fun started on Monday, with Wall Street’s collapse. That bled over into Tuesday. (Read more.) I barely saw sunshine those two days, and the weather was mockingly great here in Phoenix.

Then came Wednesday’s news. (And was it just me or did everyone hear the heads snap to simultaneous attention when Zafirovski dropped the bomb?) Nortel announced it wants to sell the Metro Ethernet Networks (MEN) unit. There went plans for accomplishing anything else that day. But more importantly, why, why, why would Nortel even consider shedding its profitable, its very well-respected Ethernet and optical branch?

Nortel has a $1.5 billion market cap, Rick Malone of Vertical Systems Group told me. Combine that with solid performance within the MEN division (plus the fact that it contributed $300 million of Nortel’s $378 million 2Q revenue) and you’ve got a bunch of confused onlookers and analysts.

A sampling for you:

“I don’t know what they see that I don’t. To me it’s a mystery why they chose to unload this division.”
– Michael Howard, Infonetics Research principal analyst and co-founder

“Maybe now’s the time [Zafirovski] thinks he can sell the division for the most money. ... They always have more information on the inside than they're letting on." –Jeff Ogle, Current Analysis senior analyst

“I don’t have an answer as to why. It’s something they believe they can sell for a reasonable amount ... and that’s really why.” – Jimmy Yu, Dell’Oro Group optical analyst

“There’s got to be some rationale that wasn’t detected in the public pronouncements. ... It looks odd to me.” – Rick Malone, Vertical Systems Group principal and co-founder

So there you have it. Only the Nortel inner sanctum knows what’s going on in Ottawa.

All I can say is, I’m pretty sure I’m not the only telecom junkie desperate for Friday. This has been one crazy week and I am tired.

Seven years after the 9/11 terror attacks, we still don’t have an interoperable public safety network for first responders.

Inexcusable.

We had a shot at it with the FCC’s 700MHz spectrum auction earlier this year, but the agency imposed such ridiculous requirements on the D Block that no one placed a serious bid on it. The situation could change if FCC commissioners agree with Chairman Kevin Martin’s proposal to loosen the rules. That’ll be decided Sept. 25, if the agency keeps the item on the agenda.

There’ve been all sorts of proposals for how to get a public safety network up and running. The technology is there. The money? Debatable. The support? Also debatable. Obviously there are lawmakers in Congress who want this network as much as the people do. But when there’s all talk and little action, one wonders when anything will get done. What’s the solution? Has the private sector take over? That’s a prospect about as appealing as privatizing Social Security. It does seem, though, that there needs to be cooperation between government and business to get this thing done, some sort of middle ground to be attained. I don’t know what the holdup is beyond red tape and failure to make the D Block attractive, so it’s hard to proffer suggestions for progress.

It just seems a huge disservice to the first responders and other citizens who died in the attacks, to their families, and to the rest of us, not to have had an interoperable network in place long ago.