The FCC won't drive around and test themselves, but they will follow you as you drive around and test. We disputed several locations that had won CAF2 and the FCC sent out two contractors to come out and verify our speeds/claims. We spent 2-3 hours with them one morning testing in various locations. The FCC will also test on network with a Sam Knows whitebox (UK based business). Calix also has testing methods that report to FCC as well. We haven't tested that method yet.
On Mon, Apr 6, 2020 at 3:10 PM Adam Moffett <dmmoff...@gmail.com> wrote: > 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> 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 > 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 >
-- AF mailing list AF@af.afmug.com http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com
