The company owner/administrator talking to the government either
believes the incorrect assumptions or is wholly committed to the lie.
So they confidently report that they're delivering 25 Meg like they're
supposed to. Evidence to the contrary is a fluke or an error. The FCC
isn't going to drive around and speedtest your customers. The source of
information saying you're not delivering 25meg is going to be a
disgruntled customer who is aware that you have grant funding, knows
what your requirements were, and knows which agency to complain to.
There will be very few of those, and it's easy to defend yourself from
one complainer by simply saying /they're/ the crazy/wrong one.
There will be financial audits, and in some programs there are
/physical///audits to make sure you bought the things you say you did
and didn't buy yourself a Ferrari instead. I'm sorry to say that people
can and do get away with the lie/wrongness about performance.
On 4/6/2020 3:42 PM, Dev wrote:
But seemingly, if everyone’s lying, won’t the FCC/etc. come down hard
in response? Example A: 477’s, where many I’ve seen have a fabrication
factor, sometimes a very high one.
On Apr 6, 2020, at 12:13 PM, Adam Moffett <dmmoff...@gmail.com
<mailto:dmmoff...@gmail.com>> wrote:
I've seen a number of grant funding proposals based on 25M and 100M
speeds.
In general what they do is lie. Or they're wrong.
First you use the capacity planning tool provided the manufacturer
and remember that you can populate the values however you want to.
Your prediction doesn't have to be perfectly correct, it just has to
be defensible if you're questioned about it.
Also use an 8:1 oversubscription ratio and in your narrative claim
that this is "conservative". It /was /a conservative value in the
pre-Netflix world so this is another one where they might truly
believe it, or they could be lying.
You can also play games with coverage maps. What's the minimum MCS to
get a subscriber at 25meg? Use that signal level to predict
coverage. Most of us will realize that at that signal you can only
have ONE person at 25meg, but using that figure makes it a hell of a
lot easier to show coverage in the entire funding area.
Whether this is actually a lie, or whether they truly believe this
stuff is not always obvious to me. Some of them I'm certain think
it's true, and I think it's a case where their engineering was
informed by the equipment sales channel. Others I think are just
full of crap, but they know what they can get away with.
I'm not advocating any of these "design choices", but I'm telling you
these are things people often do to make their grant funding
applications look defensibly acceptable. In some cases I do believe
the applicant is simply wrong. They're an administrator or a
business person and they're just asking the wrong questions. Some of
them could be liars, but you'll note that each of these lies leaves
the person with the ability to point their finger at someone else and
say "well that guy told me this equipment could do that."
In the case of NY State, they had an independent engineering firm
review the proposals for their technical plausibility and apparently
those guys would look at these applications and not see any problem.
I didn't quite figure out why that was.....but I have some guesses.
My info comes from participating in application processes and talking
to other applicants about what they're doing.
-Adam
On 4/6/2020 2:27 PM, Dev wrote:
So if I understand we’ll have to provide 25/3 to ALL locations that receive
RDOF funding? If so, how would that happen without the 6GHz that isn’t out yet
and won’t be by the time this round funds?
--
AF mailing list
AF@af.afmug.com <mailto: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
