No persistence. We objected and they sent someone out almost immediately. This was during CAFII. I assume RDOF will be the same. I've yet to hear of anyone actually providing validation testing. I know the FCC has a couple different methods of remote validation but I haven't seen it personally. We only tested it as a proof of concept prior to the auction. Just be aware that you might get a knock from the FCC who want to test on your network.
On Mon, Apr 6, 2020 at 3:31 PM Adam Moffett <dmmoff...@gmail.com> wrote: > I'm glad they came out and checked. You're probably a more believable > witness than some Internet customers are. How persistent did you have to > be to get someone to come out? > > > On 4/6/2020 4:25 PM, Eric Muehleisen wrote: > > 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 >
-- AF mailing list AF@af.afmug.com http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com
