first to provide verifiable test results. Would be good to have the regions defined, and you can "claim" them for 90 days or something, self expiring, doesnt give you rights, but lets others know who is prospecting the area
On Wed, Dec 16, 2020 at 3:27 PM Adam Moffett <[email protected]> wrote: > 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]> 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]> 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]> <[email protected]> *On >>> Behalf Of *Jason McKemie >>> *Sent:* Wednesday, December 16, 2020 12:01 PM >>> *To:* AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group <[email protected]> >>> <[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]> >>> 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]> >>> 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 >>> >>> >>> >>> 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] >>> 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 >>> >>> >>> -- >>> AF mailing list >>> [email protected] >>> 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 >> > > -- > AF mailing list > [email protected] > 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
