It seems like there wouldn't be a good way to guarantee that the funds couldn't be used for whatever they want. If they're getting "free" money to build out their network, then the funds that they previously would have used for that purpose can now be used for said Ferrari, etc.
IMO there are better uses for this money and the government should stay the hell out of it. On Thursday, January 30, 2020, Adam Moffett <dmmoff...@gmail.com> wrote: > I'm betting CEO bonuses weren't an eligible expense for CAF, but I > couldn't say for sure. > > Even if these scenarios went exactly as described, I'm not entirely sure > what the logical conclusion we're supposed to draw is. Is it "Frontier > used public funds inappropriately, therefore we should not make effort to > ensure appropriate use of public funds"? Even if the first part is true, > the second doesn't really follow. > > I'm guessing from your ideas earlier that you're saying the bidder should > be vetted ahead of time rather than audited after the fact. I suspect it > would actually be easier to cheat that way. > > > On 1/30/2020 9:01 PM, Matt Hoppes wrote: > >> Frontier - took CAF funding. >> CEO took huge payouts >> CEO buys Ferrari >> Frontier - Declares bankruptcy >> >> Limitless Mobile - gets 35 million >> Builds multi county “rural” broadband network in the most populated areas >> of the counties. >> Promptly declares bankruptcy >> >> On Jan 30, 2020, at 4:27 PM, Adam Moffett <dmmoff...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>> A clever enough cheater will always find a way to cheat, but you can't >>> make it too easy. >>> >>> For NY BPO "Connect NY" there was physical verification that each piece >>> of equipment you bought actually existed somewhere.....whether in the field >>> or in storage. The auditor seemed satisfied with a list of serial numbers >>> plus photographs of all the installations. We made it very well organized >>> for them: "Rectifier A, Backhaul B, and Base Station C are located at Site >>> X. Here are our installation photos from Site X." >>> >>> You probably wanted good records of what's installed anyway, and if >>> someone takes the time to fake all of that, then maybe they deserve their >>> Ferrari. >>> >>> Can you think of a project where there was blatant fraud like that? I >>> can certainly think of times when they made poor product choices, or ended >>> up with unused equipment due to a design change in the middle of the >>> project, or they bought 20 of the wrong thing and had to go back and buy 20 >>> of the correct thing......or something was otherwise screwed up or >>> mismanaged. I actually can't think of any project where people bought >>> personal toys (like a Ferrari) with public funds, or any other type of >>> fraud along those lines. If you saw something like that, I hope you >>> reported it. I used it as an example of what people would do if there was >>> no auditing. There is auditing and consequently I don't think people are >>> doing that. >>> >>> >>> On 1/30/2020 4:12 PM, Matt Hoppes wrote: >>>> Except that there IS auditing now... and we DO end up with this exact >>>> scenario happening currently. It's not stopping it. >>>> >>>> On 1/30/20 4:08 PM, Adam Moffett wrote: >>>>> I'd rather not stress over audits, but auditing is a necessary evil >>>>> IMO. If there were no auditing then there's someone, somewhere who would >>>>> buy a Ferrari and supply a fake invoice for rectifiers instead. I'm sure >>>>> everyone on this list can think of someone they've dealt with who ought to >>>>> have their homework double checked. >>>>> >>>> > -- > AF mailing list > AF@af.afmug.com > http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com >
-- AF mailing list AF@af.afmug.com http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com
