Yes, It definateately IS appropriate to attempt to BLOCK bad applications. The NTIA/RUS has no way to know if an applcation is innapproriate or in conflict of interest if we dont tell them. Quite honestly, the applicant may not know it is in conflict of interest without telling them.
I specifically hate applacation that just selected 1 HUGE contiguous area. The reason is, they did't take the time that they should ahve to look down to the census block level to determine what blocks really are and aren't underserved areas. If anything it is the LARGE AREA applicants that are attempting to scam the system, to get grant money for served areas, with the hope no one will protest it. There is nothing wrong with competition. But this grant is NOT creating competition. It is giving the applicant a SUPER HUGE advantage over any other pre-existing provider in the area, and that is anti-American,and anti-fair-competition in my mind. To give a new provider a free network, and the existing provider no funds, is a disaster plan to put pre-existing businesses out of business, and to risk throwing away the much investment made by those original entreprenures. What I recommend is that people diligently protest, but with fact, and suggested resolution. The goal should NOT to prevent the party from gaining a grant to serve truely underserved/unserved areas, but to instead incourage NTIA/RUS to force the applicant to revise its applicant to remedy the conflict of Interest. Also note that once an area gets a grant, it very possible that NTIA/RUS may never give another grant to that same area. When this is done at the Census Block level it is no problem, because applicants can narrow down to each area that they serve and dont serve. But when someone lists an ENTIRE County, it risks that future legitimate application for needy census blocks will be denied because of the area being recorded as already served by a grant applicant. Is it right for an Entire county to be given to a new provider? Remember applicants are required to serve ALL customer in an area. That means they will be getting grant money to put you out of business. I also think there is a misconception that the protestor must prove the data that shows its not underserved. I do not believe that is 100% true. I think ther eis a clear valid arguement that if an applicant cant afford to gather the mapping data to file for their own grant, they surely should not be required to spent lots of money to map the errors in other people's application. I believe aprotestor should only have to protest to the level that creates a reasonable amount of doubt about the applicant. The burden to prove coverage is on the applicant's original submission. So if you protest an applicant by saying it is a served area by cable and fios, the applicant's original data should have to prove it FIOS and Cable does not overlap it, not you. If they submitted incomplete documetnation, that is there problem, and should lead to the disqualification of their application. You being a provider in the area with a small market share, will not likely be enough to protest an application on its own, but it should still be possible to build a case. For example, lets say there are three applicants, and two were careful not tto overlap your coverage, but one applicant did overlap you. Simple state that the applicant that overlapped you clearly did not do his homework to isolate which areas are served or not, and that you support the other two applicants that properly identified and avoided conflciting areas. The idea is to develop support for the applications that won't harm you. And give the NTIA/RUS an option to award grants that will create possitive press and not negative press. I beleive the overnment wants this program to besuccessful, and nobody wants an aftermath press stating things like "grant money puts local businesses out of business". Tom DeReggi RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband ----- Original Message ----- From: "L. Aaron Kaplan" <[email protected]> To: "WISPA General List" <[email protected]> Sent: Tuesday, September 15, 2009 8:49 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Searchable Map of Stimulus projects On Sep 15, 2009, at 2:20 PM, Steve Barnes wrote: > Digital Bridge has asked for money for Underserved for the county > that I service, the whole county. > Questions: > 1. Since I am the only WISP in the Rural areas of my county and my > standard is 1024/256 with 2.4 and there is 50% of the clients that I > cant get due to trees. I assume that that will be seen as > Underserved. Is there anything that I can do to get this blocked? Just a quit though - correct me if I am wrong, but... Isnt blocking competition very un-American somehow? Is "blocking" even possible? I hope you also applied for getting thru the trees, no? > 2. Now it appears that they asked for money for all the Census > blocks in the county. ALL the cities have My service, DSL, and > Cable. How can that be labeled as Underserved. If we get one Block > rejected does that stop the one request which would be all my area? --- there's no place like 127.0.0.1, except maybe ::1 (someday) (üäö) -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- WISPA Wireless List: [email protected] Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- WISPA Wireless List: [email protected] Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
