Interesting idea. It would have to be structured so the funding was
legally obligated if the network was built to within some performance
parameters. Nobody would take the risk otherwise. And you'd have to
handle situations where two parties built the same area, or they were
adjacent and they overlapped.
On 12/16/2020 4:19 PM, Steve Jones wrote:
im talking about the award, not the check. You shouldnt even be able
to get on the radar without a completed region to ask for an award for
On Wed, Dec 16, 2020 at 3:00 PM Adam Moffett <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
That is how it usually is. I don't know what program is giving out
cash up front, but please sign me up for that.
Proving you built it starts with invoices for all the crap you
bought and ends with physical audit. The terms are not the same
in every program, but typically you get reimbursed based on
invoices you paid. The physical audit comes later. I suppose if
you wanted to take the money and skip town you could produce a lot
of fake invoices from all the vendors, but you'd have to know that
it's a temporary thing and have your permanent vacation to Brazil
already planned.
On 12/16/2020 2:22 PM, Steve Jones wrote:
I wish funding would change to a retroactive award, ie, you build
it, you prove it, you get reimbursed. Reimbursement award chart
can be public per region. Awards have rate cap requirements to
avoid predatory monopolies. You really only need to self fund
your first build, subsequent awards fund subsequent builds if you
choose that model. Keeps things fair and gives opportunity for
small operators to step up their game rather than being over
built with government money and poor quality/customer service.
Funding should also be based on regional polling. We can send
ballots to every address and census workers, we should be able to
verify there is actual demand not being met before we dump cash
into it
On Wed, Dec 16, 2020, 1:09 PM Bill Prince <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
Banana pants for sure. Do bananas burn? Maybe if you soak
dried banana peels in gasoline; then your banana pants could
catch fire.
bp
<part15sbs{at}gmail{dot}com>
On 12/16/2020 11:05 AM, Ken Hohhof wrote:
It’s like all the arguing over how many locations can get
gigabit Internet. That’s a first world problem. Rural areas
would be like pigs in mud if they could get 100M or even
25M. I saw some expert quoted (and I think it was in a
WISPA newsletter) that farms needed gigabit. No backup for
that assertion, I am pretty sure he pulled it out of his ass.
Some rural senator said we are arguing about 4G vs 5G and
his farm had no G.
It’s like the kids who can’t do their Zoom classes, and
people want you to believe they need 25 or 100 or 1000 Mbps
for that. No, they need a little over 1 Mbps for each kid.
I’m not saying they should only get 3M or 5M service, but if
you’re telling people that rural kids can’t do their video
classes unless they get 100M or gigabit, that’s a load of
crap. And the people who say that either have an agenda, or
their pants are on fire.
*From:* AF <[email protected]>
<mailto:[email protected]> *On Behalf Of *Jason McKemie
*Sent:* Wednesday, December 16, 2020 12:01 PM
*To:* AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group <[email protected]>
<mailto:[email protected]>
*Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] SpaceX RDOF boondoggle?
I'm a big fan of letting the market take care of it. If
there is a demand, then a WISP will likely meet it. If not,
either deal with it or move somewhere that has service.
Maybe that is another argument entirely, but I think we're
searching for a solution to a problem that doesn't exist.
On Wed, Dec 16, 2020 at 11:34 AM Adam Moffett
<[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
Is it better to fund Frontier FTTH and risk them being
evil, incompetent Frontier or better to leave rural WV
unserved? It's easy to sit back in our comfy chairs and
say Frontier doesn't deserve that money, but then what
do we do after not giving it to them?
On 12/16/2020 12:24 PM, Jason McKemie wrote:
It should probably be a requirement that you aren't
under bankruptcy protection if you're going to be
getting public money. Plus Frontier is just
generally incompetent, hence the bankruptcy.
On Wed, Dec 16, 2020 at 10:58 AM Adam Moffett
<[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>>
wrote:
I saw the senator's complaint. I can't speak to
Frontier's competency, but Frontier threw their
hat in the ring to voluntarily serve
unprofitable areas with government assistance.
I'm betting the senator's complaint is moot
because nobody else wants that job.
On 12/15/2020 12:50 PM, Ken Hohhof wrote:
I forget who was complaining that SpaceX was
getting RDOF money to serve areas like
universities and airports, but FreePress is
complaining about the same thing.
Keep in mind this is FreePress, which likes
criticizing Internet policy a lot. Also
winners still have to submit their long forms.
https://www.freepress.net/our-response/expert-analysis/insights-opinions/broadband-boondoggle-ajit-pais-886m-gift-elon-musk
<https://www.freepress.net/our-response/expert-analysis/insights-opinions/broadband-boondoggle-ajit-pais-886m-gift-elon-musk>
I also saw that a WV senator was objecting
money to Frontier which she said was not
competent to deliver gigabit service in her
state.
--
AF mailing list
[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com
<http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com>
--
AF mailing list
[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com
<http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com>
--
AF mailing list
[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com
<http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com>
--
AF mailing list
[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com
<http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com>
--
AF mailing list
[email protected]
http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com
