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
<mailto: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
<mailto: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 <mailto:AF@af.afmug.com>
http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com
--
AF mailing list
AF@af.afmug.com <mailto: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
