One thing I'd want the program managers to incorporate is an idea that
there are rules and there are rules. You should be able to request a
waiver on anything. There maybe be things they won't budge on, but
other areas where they should be flexible if it makes sense. For
example, if you have that "must be in operation for 5 years rule", then
consider what happens if two companies pool resources for a project.
Chances are they'll form an LLC to make the application, but that LLC
will have existed since only yesterday. They might not have the
resources to apply separately, but they would become ineligible if they
apply together. .....I use that example because it's a real one from a
project in NY.
I'm not sure of the value (to the public) of a bidder size limit. If
Verizon or Comcast are well positioned to hit a certain area, then why
not let them? Just a devil's advocate position I guess.
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.
If I'm wishing for ponies I'd want all the cash up front when my plan is
approved. That would be great for the grantee, but if I'm being honest
it's a very risky thing for the State. That guy from above might buy
his Ferrari and then drive off to Mexico with the rest of the money in a
suitcase full of small, non-consecutive bills.
One reason the programs end up with the rules they do is to protect the
people's tax money from being stolen or abused, and I definitely
understand that. What I hope regulators will remember is if the rules
get too onerous that nobody will want the money. They need to find a
healthy balance.
-Adam
On 1/30/2020 3:05 PM, Matt Hoppes wrote:
I know a local company that got 35 million and declared bankrupcy
after putting in the last tower... days after.....
So I guess that auditing is working well?
On 1/30/20 12:48 PM, [email protected] wrote:
I would disagree on the financials. A copy of good financials, even
5 years worth, gives you a very clear picture as to the health of
your company.
If they are handing out public money (not really sure as to the
source of funds, if USF generated it is not truly public money), they
have a fiduciary duty to the public to award the money to healthy
companies that truly have the ability to use it properly.
That said, I know one WISP early on in the community grants that
bought a truckload of towers and very large flooded cell C.O. batts
and they sat and rotted away in the desert. He never did use the batts.
-----Original Message----- From: Matt Hoppes
Sent: Thursday, January 30, 2020 10:37 AM
To: AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group ; Dev
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] CAF-II lack of bidders?
Here's my dream "funding process".
I've seen too much money used for things that didn't end up being the
projected end-goal.
Company must have been in existence for 5 years. Company must show
competency and growth organically. Company must show business plan
that will work (no fluff.. an actual business plan which will be
audited).
Who cares about your financials? This isn't about financials, this is
about funding and running broadband.
A visit to your facility by a funding representative is required. Meet
with you, talk with you, see what you are doing. Talk with some of your
existing customers to determine if you actually provide quality
services.
No companies with more than 10,000 subscribers are allowed to bid on
some funding, and no more than 150,000 subscribers on other funding.
Money is presented to the provider who provides the most sound,
reasonable business plan, which will turn a profit on its own in 3-5
years.
A feasibility interest study must be performed by the provider taking
survey requests from end users to determine if there is actually a need
AND desire for internet at the area.
--
AF mailing list
[email protected]
http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com
