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
