Re: [AFMUG] CAF-II lack of bidders?
Cheaters gunna cheat cheat cheat cheat. I think we need to make it easier for small companies and hold criminal those who do cheat. Did Limitless have to pay the 35 mil back? I don’t think so. And they are bankrupt anyway. But they continue operating a world wide network after stiffing the USDA. > On Jan 31, 2020, at 12:28 AM, Jason McKemie > wrote: > > It seems like there wouldn't be a good way to guarantee that the funds > couldn't be used for whatever they want. If they're getting "free" money to > build out their network, then the funds that they previously would have used > for that purpose can now be used for said Ferrari, etc. > > IMO there are better uses for this money and the government should stay the > hell out of it. > >> On Thursday, January 30, 2020, Adam Moffett wrote: >> I'm betting CEO bonuses weren't an eligible expense for CAF, but I couldn't >> say for sure. >> >> Even if these scenarios went exactly as described, I'm not entirely sure >> what the logical conclusion we're supposed to draw is. Is it "Frontier used >> public funds inappropriately, therefore we should not make effort to ensure >> appropriate use of public funds"? Even if the first part is true, the second >> doesn't really follow. >> >> I'm guessing from your ideas earlier that you're saying the bidder should be >> vetted ahead of time rather than audited after the fact. I suspect it would >> actually be easier to cheat that way. >> >> >>> On 1/30/2020 9:01 PM, Matt Hoppes wrote: >>> Frontier - took CAF funding. >>> CEO took huge payouts >>> CEO buys Ferrari >>> Frontier - Declares bankruptcy >>> >>> Limitless Mobile - gets 35 million >>> Builds multi county “rural” broadband network in the most populated areas >>> of the counties. >>> Promptly declares bankruptcy >>> On Jan 30, 2020, at 4:27 PM, Adam Moffett wrote: A clever enough cheater will always find a way to cheat, but you can't make it too easy. For NY BPO "Connect NY" there was physical verification that each piece of equipment you bought actually existed somewhere.whether in the field or in storage. The auditor seemed satisfied with a list of serial numbers plus photographs of all the installations. We made it very well organized for them: "Rectifier A, Backhaul B, and Base Station C are located at Site X. Here are our installation photos from Site X." You probably wanted good records of what's installed anyway, and if someone takes the time to fake all of that, then maybe they deserve their Ferrari. Can you think of a project where there was blatant fraud like that? I can certainly think of times when they made poor product choices, or ended up with unused equipment due to a design change in the middle of the project, or they bought 20 of the wrong thing and had to go back and buy 20 of the correct thing..or something was otherwise screwed up or mismanaged. I actually can't think of any project where people bought personal toys (like a Ferrari) with public funds, or any other type of fraud along those lines. If you saw something like that, I hope you reported it. I used it as an example of what people would do if there was no auditing. There is auditing and consequently I don't think people are doing that. > On 1/30/2020 4:12 PM, Matt Hoppes wrote: > Except that there IS auditing now... and we DO end up with this exact > scenario happening currently. It's not stopping it. > >> On 1/30/20 4:08 PM, Adam Moffett wrote: >> I'd rather not stress over audits, but auditing is a necessary evil IMO. >> If there were no auditing then there's someone, somewhere who would buy >> a Ferrari and supply a fake invoice for rectifiers instead. I'm sure >> everyone on this list can think of someone they've dealt with who ought >> to have their homework double checked. >> >> -- >> 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 -- AF mailing list AF@af.afmug.com http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com
Re: [AFMUG] CAF-II lack of bidders?
It seems like there wouldn't be a good way to guarantee that the funds couldn't be used for whatever they want. If they're getting "free" money to build out their network, then the funds that they previously would have used for that purpose can now be used for said Ferrari, etc. IMO there are better uses for this money and the government should stay the hell out of it. On Thursday, January 30, 2020, Adam Moffett wrote: > I'm betting CEO bonuses weren't an eligible expense for CAF, but I > couldn't say for sure. > > Even if these scenarios went exactly as described, I'm not entirely sure > what the logical conclusion we're supposed to draw is. Is it "Frontier > used public funds inappropriately, therefore we should not make effort to > ensure appropriate use of public funds"? Even if the first part is true, > the second doesn't really follow. > > I'm guessing from your ideas earlier that you're saying the bidder should > be vetted ahead of time rather than audited after the fact. I suspect it > would actually be easier to cheat that way. > > > On 1/30/2020 9:01 PM, Matt Hoppes wrote: > >> Frontier - took CAF funding. >> CEO took huge payouts >> CEO buys Ferrari >> Frontier - Declares bankruptcy >> >> Limitless Mobile - gets 35 million >> Builds multi county “rural” broadband network in the most populated areas >> of the counties. >> Promptly declares bankruptcy >> >> On Jan 30, 2020, at 4:27 PM, Adam Moffett wrote: >>> >>> A clever enough cheater will always find a way to cheat, but you can't >>> make it too easy. >>> >>> For NY BPO "Connect NY" there was physical verification that each piece >>> of equipment you bought actually existed somewhere.whether in the field >>> or in storage. The auditor seemed satisfied with a list of serial numbers >>> plus photographs of all the installations. We made it very well organized >>> for them: "Rectifier A, Backhaul B, and Base Station C are located at Site >>> X. Here are our installation photos from Site X." >>> >>> You probably wanted good records of what's installed anyway, and if >>> someone takes the time to fake all of that, then maybe they deserve their >>> Ferrari. >>> >>> Can you think of a project where there was blatant fraud like that? I >>> can certainly think of times when they made poor product choices, or ended >>> up with unused equipment due to a design change in the middle of the >>> project, or they bought 20 of the wrong thing and had to go back and buy 20 >>> of the correct thing..or something was otherwise screwed up or >>> mismanaged. I actually can't think of any project where people bought >>> personal toys (like a Ferrari) with public funds, or any other type of >>> fraud along those lines. If you saw something like that, I hope you >>> reported it. I used it as an example of what people would do if there was >>> no auditing. There is auditing and consequently I don't think people are >>> doing that. >>> >>> >>> On 1/30/2020 4:12 PM, Matt Hoppes wrote: Except that there IS auditing now... and we DO end up with this exact scenario happening currently. It's not stopping it. On 1/30/20 4:08 PM, Adam Moffett wrote: > I'd rather not stress over audits, but auditing is a necessary evil > IMO. If there were no auditing then there's someone, somewhere who would > buy a Ferrari and supply a fake invoice for rectifiers instead. I'm sure > everyone on this list can think of someone they've dealt with who ought to > have their homework double checked. > > -- > 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
Re: [AFMUG] CAF-II lack of bidders?
I'm betting CEO bonuses weren't an eligible expense for CAF, but I couldn't say for sure. Even if these scenarios went exactly as described, I'm not entirely sure what the logical conclusion we're supposed to draw is. Is it "Frontier used public funds inappropriately, therefore we should not make effort to ensure appropriate use of public funds"? Even if the first part is true, the second doesn't really follow. I'm guessing from your ideas earlier that you're saying the bidder should be vetted ahead of time rather than audited after the fact. I suspect it would actually be easier to cheat that way. On 1/30/2020 9:01 PM, Matt Hoppes wrote: Frontier - took CAF funding. CEO took huge payouts CEO buys Ferrari Frontier - Declares bankruptcy Limitless Mobile - gets 35 million Builds multi county “rural” broadband network in the most populated areas of the counties. Promptly declares bankruptcy On Jan 30, 2020, at 4:27 PM, Adam Moffett wrote: A clever enough cheater will always find a way to cheat, but you can't make it too easy. For NY BPO "Connect NY" there was physical verification that each piece of equipment you bought actually existed somewhere.whether in the field or in storage. The auditor seemed satisfied with a list of serial numbers plus photographs of all the installations. We made it very well organized for them: "Rectifier A, Backhaul B, and Base Station C are located at Site X. Here are our installation photos from Site X." You probably wanted good records of what's installed anyway, and if someone takes the time to fake all of that, then maybe they deserve their Ferrari. Can you think of a project where there was blatant fraud like that? I can certainly think of times when they made poor product choices, or ended up with unused equipment due to a design change in the middle of the project, or they bought 20 of the wrong thing and had to go back and buy 20 of the correct thing..or something was otherwise screwed up or mismanaged. I actually can't think of any project where people bought personal toys (like a Ferrari) with public funds, or any other type of fraud along those lines. If you saw something like that, I hope you reported it. I used it as an example of what people would do if there was no auditing. There is auditing and consequently I don't think people are doing that. On 1/30/2020 4:12 PM, Matt Hoppes wrote: Except that there IS auditing now... and we DO end up with this exact scenario happening currently. It's not stopping it. On 1/30/20 4:08 PM, Adam Moffett wrote: I'd rather not stress over audits, but auditing is a necessary evil IMO. If there were no auditing then there's someone, somewhere who would buy a Ferrari and supply a fake invoice for rectifiers instead. I'm sure everyone on this list can think of someone they've dealt with who ought to have their homework double checked. -- AF mailing list AF@af.afmug.com http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com
Re: [AFMUG] CAF-II lack of bidders?
Frontier - took CAF funding. CEO took huge payouts CEO buys Ferrari Frontier - Declares bankruptcy Limitless Mobile - gets 35 million Builds multi county “rural” broadband network in the most populated areas of the counties. Promptly declares bankruptcy > On Jan 30, 2020, at 4:27 PM, Adam Moffett wrote: > > A clever enough cheater will always find a way to cheat, but you can't make > it too easy. > > For NY BPO "Connect NY" there was physical verification that each piece of > equipment you bought actually existed somewhere.whether in the field or > in storage. The auditor seemed satisfied with a list of serial numbers plus > photographs of all the installations. We made it very well organized for > them: "Rectifier A, Backhaul B, and Base Station C are located at Site X. > Here are our installation photos from Site X." > > You probably wanted good records of what's installed anyway, and if someone > takes the time to fake all of that, then maybe they deserve their Ferrari. > > Can you think of a project where there was blatant fraud like that? I can > certainly think of times when they made poor product choices, or ended up > with unused equipment due to a design change in the middle of the project, or > they bought 20 of the wrong thing and had to go back and buy 20 of the > correct thing..or something was otherwise screwed up or mismanaged. I > actually can't think of any project where people bought personal toys (like a > Ferrari) with public funds, or any other type of fraud along those lines. If > you saw something like that, I hope you reported it. I used it as an example > of what people would do if there was no auditing. There is auditing and > consequently I don't think people are doing that. > > >> On 1/30/2020 4:12 PM, Matt Hoppes wrote: >> Except that there IS auditing now... and we DO end up with this exact >> scenario happening currently. It's not stopping it. >> >>> On 1/30/20 4:08 PM, Adam Moffett wrote: >>> I'd rather not stress over audits, but auditing is a necessary evil IMO. >>> If there were no auditing then there's someone, somewhere who would buy a >>> Ferrari and supply a fake invoice for rectifiers instead. I'm sure everyone >>> on this list can think of someone they've dealt with who ought to have >>> their homework double checked. -- AF mailing list AF@af.afmug.com http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com
Re: [AFMUG] CAF-II lack of bidders?
From FCC announcement Re: RDOF: The first phase of the Rural Digital Opportunity Fund will begin later this year and target census blocks that are wholly unserved with fixed broadband at speeds of at least 25/3 Mbps. This phase would make available up to $16 billion to census blocks where existing data shows there is no such service available whatsoever. Funds will be allocated through a multi-round reverse auction like that used in 2018’s Connect America Fund (CAF) Phase II auction. FCC staff’s preliminary estimate is that about six million rural homes and businesses are located in areas initially eligible for bidding in the Phase I auction. So will this be useful for us? > On Jan 29, 2020, at 2:02 PM, Mark Radabaugh wrote: > > CAF-II bidding is long since over, and RDOF isn’t out yet. The rules for > both programs, while available to WISP’s have significant hurdles that keep > smaller entities from bidding on them - audited financials, letters of > credit, PE sign off, telephone service offerings, CLEC status, etc. While > it’s theoretically possible to apply for these as a small WISP the reality is > it’s very difficult unless you are a couple million/year company to start > with. > > Mark > >> On Jan 29, 2020, at 1:07 PM, Dev wrote: >> >> Got a question from an elected official type about why bids have been slow >> to come in for CAF-II, and also looking at RDOF and the satellite "lock up”. >> I’m sure there are some opinions here, any you wish to relate? -- AF mailing list AF@af.afmug.com http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com
Re: [AFMUG] CAF-II lack of bidders?
A clever enough cheater will always find a way to cheat, but you can't make it too easy. For NY BPO "Connect NY" there was physical verification that each piece of equipment you bought actually existed somewhere.whether in the field or in storage. The auditor seemed satisfied with a list of serial numbers plus photographs of all the installations. We made it very well organized for them: "Rectifier A, Backhaul B, and Base Station C are located at Site X. Here are our installation photos from Site X." You probably wanted good records of what's installed anyway, and if someone takes the time to fake all of that, then maybe they deserve their Ferrari. Can you think of a project where there was blatant fraud like that? I can certainly think of times when they made poor product choices, or ended up with unused equipment due to a design change in the middle of the project, or they bought 20 of the wrong thing and had to go back and buy 20 of the correct thing..or something was otherwise screwed up or mismanaged. I actually can't think of any project where people bought personal toys (like a Ferrari) with public funds, or any other type of fraud along those lines. If you saw something like that, I hope you reported it. I used it as an example of what people would do if there was no auditing. There is auditing and consequently I don't think people are doing that. On 1/30/2020 4:12 PM, Matt Hoppes wrote: Except that there IS auditing now... and we DO end up with this exact scenario happening currently. It's not stopping it. On 1/30/20 4:08 PM, Adam Moffett wrote: I'd rather not stress over audits, but auditing is a necessary evil IMO. If there were no auditing then there's someone, somewhere who would buy a Ferrari and supply a fake invoice for rectifiers instead. I'm sure everyone on this list can think of someone they've dealt with who ought to have their homework double checked. -- AF mailing list AF@af.afmug.com http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com
Re: [AFMUG] CAF-II lack of bidders?
Except that there IS auditing now... and we DO end up with this exact scenario happening currently. It's not stopping it. On 1/30/20 4:08 PM, Adam Moffett wrote: I'd rather not stress over audits, but auditing is a necessary evil IMO. If there were no auditing then there's someone, somewhere who would buy a Ferrari and supply a fake invoice for rectifiers instead. I'm sure everyone on this list can think of someone they've dealt with who ought to have their homework double checked. -- AF mailing list AF@af.afmug.com http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com
Re: [AFMUG] CAF-II lack of bidders?
One thing I'd want the program managers to incorporate is an idea that there are rules and there are rules. You should be able to request a waiver on anything. There maybe be things they won't budge on, but other areas where they should be flexible if it makes sense. For example, if you have that "must be in operation for 5 years rule", then consider what happens if two companies pool resources for a project. Chances are they'll form an LLC to make the application, but that LLC will have existed since only yesterday. They might not have the resources to apply separately, but they would become ineligible if they apply together. .I use that example because it's a real one from a project in NY. I'm not sure of the value (to the public) of a bidder size limit. If Verizon or Comcast are well positioned to hit a certain area, then why not let them? Just a devil's advocate position I guess. I'd rather not stress over audits, but auditing is a necessary evil IMO. If there were no auditing then there's someone, somewhere who would buy a Ferrari and supply a fake invoice for rectifiers instead. I'm sure everyone on this list can think of someone they've dealt with who ought to have their homework double checked. If I'm wishing for ponies I'd want all the cash up front when my plan is approved. That would be great for the grantee, but if I'm being honest it's a very risky thing for the State. That guy from above might buy his Ferrari and then drive off to Mexico with the rest of the money in a suitcase full of small, non-consecutive bills. One reason the programs end up with the rules they do is to protect the people's tax money from being stolen or abused, and I definitely understand that. What I hope regulators will remember is if the rules get too onerous that nobody will want the money. They need to find a healthy balance. -Adam On 1/30/2020 3:05 PM, Matt Hoppes wrote: I know a local company that got 35 million and declared bankrupcy after putting in the last tower... days after. So I guess that auditing is working well? On 1/30/20 12:48 PM, ch...@wbmfg.com wrote: I would disagree on the financials. A copy of good financials, even 5 years worth, gives you a very clear picture as to the health of your company. If they are handing out public money (not really sure as to the source of funds, if USF generated it is not truly public money), they have a fiduciary duty to the public to award the money to healthy companies that truly have the ability to use it properly. That said, I know one WISP early on in the community grants that bought a truckload of towers and very large flooded cell C.O. batts and they sat and rotted away in the desert. He never did use the batts. -Original Message- From: Matt Hoppes Sent: Thursday, January 30, 2020 10:37 AM To: AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group ; Dev Subject: Re: [AFMUG] CAF-II lack of bidders? Here's my dream "funding process". I've seen too much money used for things that didn't end up being the projected end-goal. Company must have been in existence for 5 years. Company must show competency and growth organically. Company must show business plan that will work (no fluff.. an actual business plan which will be audited). Who cares about your financials? This isn't about financials, this is about funding and running broadband. A visit to your facility by a funding representative is required. Meet with you, talk with you, see what you are doing. Talk with some of your existing customers to determine if you actually provide quality services. No companies with more than 10,000 subscribers are allowed to bid on some funding, and no more than 150,000 subscribers on other funding. Money is presented to the provider who provides the most sound, reasonable business plan, which will turn a profit on its own in 3-5 years. A feasibility interest study must be performed by the provider taking survey requests from end users to determine if there is actually a need AND desire for internet at the area. -- AF mailing list AF@af.afmug.com http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com
Re: [AFMUG] CAF-II lack of bidders?
I know a local company that got 35 million and declared bankrupcy after putting in the last tower... days after. So I guess that auditing is working well? On 1/30/20 12:48 PM, ch...@wbmfg.com wrote: I would disagree on the financials. A copy of good financials, even 5 years worth, gives you a very clear picture as to the health of your company. If they are handing out public money (not really sure as to the source of funds, if USF generated it is not truly public money), they have a fiduciary duty to the public to award the money to healthy companies that truly have the ability to use it properly. That said, I know one WISP early on in the community grants that bought a truckload of towers and very large flooded cell C.O. batts and they sat and rotted away in the desert. He never did use the batts. -Original Message- From: Matt Hoppes Sent: Thursday, January 30, 2020 10:37 AM To: AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group ; Dev Subject: Re: [AFMUG] CAF-II lack of bidders? Here's my dream "funding process". I've seen too much money used for things that didn't end up being the projected end-goal. Company must have been in existence for 5 years. Company must show competency and growth organically. Company must show business plan that will work (no fluff.. an actual business plan which will be audited). Who cares about your financials? This isn't about financials, this is about funding and running broadband. A visit to your facility by a funding representative is required. Meet with you, talk with you, see what you are doing. Talk with some of your existing customers to determine if you actually provide quality services. No companies with more than 10,000 subscribers are allowed to bid on some funding, and no more than 150,000 subscribers on other funding. Money is presented to the provider who provides the most sound, reasonable business plan, which will turn a profit on its own in 3-5 years. A feasibility interest study must be performed by the provider taking survey requests from end users to determine if there is actually a need AND desire for internet at the area. -- AF mailing list AF@af.afmug.com http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com
Re: [AFMUG] CAF-II lack of bidders?
I would disagree on the financials. A copy of good financials, even 5 years worth, gives you a very clear picture as to the health of your company. If they are handing out public money (not really sure as to the source of funds, if USF generated it is not truly public money), they have a fiduciary duty to the public to award the money to healthy companies that truly have the ability to use it properly. That said, I know one WISP early on in the community grants that bought a truckload of towers and very large flooded cell C.O. batts and they sat and rotted away in the desert. He never did use the batts. -Original Message- From: Matt Hoppes Sent: Thursday, January 30, 2020 10:37 AM To: AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group ; Dev Subject: Re: [AFMUG] CAF-II lack of bidders? Here's my dream "funding process". I've seen too much money used for things that didn't end up being the projected end-goal. Company must have been in existence for 5 years. Company must show competency and growth organically. Company must show business plan that will work (no fluff.. an actual business plan which will be audited). Who cares about your financials? This isn't about financials, this is about funding and running broadband. A visit to your facility by a funding representative is required. Meet with you, talk with you, see what you are doing. Talk with some of your existing customers to determine if you actually provide quality services. No companies with more than 10,000 subscribers are allowed to bid on some funding, and no more than 150,000 subscribers on other funding. Money is presented to the provider who provides the most sound, reasonable business plan, which will turn a profit on its own in 3-5 years. A feasibility interest study must be performed by the provider taking survey requests from end users to determine if there is actually a need AND desire for internet at the area. -- 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
Re: [AFMUG] CAF-II lack of bidders?
Here's my dream "funding process". I've seen too much money used for things that didn't end up being the projected end-goal. Company must have been in existence for 5 years. Company must show competency and growth organically. Company must show business plan that will work (no fluff.. an actual business plan which will be audited). Who cares about your financials? This isn't about financials, this is about funding and running broadband. A visit to your facility by a funding representative is required. Meet with you, talk with you, see what you are doing. Talk with some of your existing customers to determine if you actually provide quality services. No companies with more than 10,000 subscribers are allowed to bid on some funding, and no more than 150,000 subscribers on other funding. Money is presented to the provider who provides the most sound, reasonable business plan, which will turn a profit on its own in 3-5 years. A feasibility interest study must be performed by the provider taking survey requests from end users to determine if there is actually a need AND desire for internet at the area. -- AF mailing list AF@af.afmug.com http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com
Re: [AFMUG] CAF-II lack of bidders?
I think it’s a confusing landscape to navigate and small operators sort of give up because: 1. We can’t afford to dedicate an employee to checking all the boxes and doing all the steps year round to MAYBE get funded. 2. Regulations favor larger carriers with more wherewithal, which is the same group that’s caused a lot of the problems to begin with. 3. Banks don’t like small carriers, audited books or otherwise. Maybe Live Oak is the exception? They say they are, who knows? The danger, or course, is that you get snuffed out by someone with "free money", and otherwise no intention of serving the customers in your service area - the big carriers who caused the problem now get paid to put us out of business, when we were the most likely to serve high-cost underserved areas. Meanwhile they starve us for spectrum needed to make it happen. If any of you suddenly got your wish and ran the funding machine, what would be the most effective way to fund the stated broadband goals? -- AF mailing list AF@af.afmug.com http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com
Re: [AFMUG] CAF-II lack of bidders?
I am just saying that RLECs always have a winning situation with CAF. Price caps will benefit by helping to pay for OSP but it does not guarantee that there is a rate of return. Some times they are under compliance deadlines and a CAF award would reduce their cost of compliance. -Original Message- From: Adam Moffett Sent: Thursday, January 30, 2020 9:56 AM To: af@af.afmug.com Subject: Re: [AFMUG] CAF-II lack of bidders? Verizon did most of the CAF stuff around here. I don't usually think of them as a "rural" LEC. But I suppose with dozens of corporate entities under their name they can be whatever type of LEC they feel like being today. On 1/30/2020 11:47 AM, ch...@wbmfg.com wrote: Yes, more specifically non price cap LEC or RLEC. Even better if they are a non ACAM RLEC. -Original Message- From: Adam Moffett Sent: Thursday, January 30, 2020 9:37 AM To: af@af.afmug.com Subject: Re: [AFMUG] CAF-II lack of bidders? So basically CAF bidder == LEC? On 1/30/2020 11:25 AM, ch...@wbmfg.com wrote: That is why the system only works for regulated rate of return carriers. They don't have to make the normal business case pencil out because they are guaranteed to cover their costs and get a return on the investment. -Original Message- From: Matt Hoppes Sent: Thursday, January 30, 2020 8:41 AM To: AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group ; Dev Subject: Re: [AFMUG] CAF-II lack of bidders? Maybe it's because the low hanging fruit has been taken and the rest doesn't work? I just finished a proposal for fiber to the home for two rural communities here in Pennsylvania. I knew it would cost money and grants would be needed, but what I didn't realize until after I finished the presentation for the County Commissioners was that the system would operate a a nearly $2,500/month ongoing deficit once installed - and that was assuming a 100% take rate of about 300 end-users. On 1/29/20 1:07 PM, Dev wrote: Got a question from an elected official type about why bids have been slow to come in for CAF-II, and also looking at RDOF and the satellite "lock up”. I’m sure there are some opinions here, any you wish to relate? -- 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
Re: [AFMUG] CAF-II lack of bidders?
Verizon did most of the CAF stuff around here. I don't usually think of them as a "rural" LEC. But I suppose with dozens of corporate entities under their name they can be whatever type of LEC they feel like being today. On 1/30/2020 11:47 AM, ch...@wbmfg.com wrote: Yes, more specifically non price cap LEC or RLEC. Even better if they are a non ACAM RLEC. -Original Message- From: Adam Moffett Sent: Thursday, January 30, 2020 9:37 AM To: af@af.afmug.com Subject: Re: [AFMUG] CAF-II lack of bidders? So basically CAF bidder == LEC? On 1/30/2020 11:25 AM, ch...@wbmfg.com wrote: That is why the system only works for regulated rate of return carriers. They don't have to make the normal business case pencil out because they are guaranteed to cover their costs and get a return on the investment. -Original Message- From: Matt Hoppes Sent: Thursday, January 30, 2020 8:41 AM To: AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group ; Dev Subject: Re: [AFMUG] CAF-II lack of bidders? Maybe it's because the low hanging fruit has been taken and the rest doesn't work? I just finished a proposal for fiber to the home for two rural communities here in Pennsylvania. I knew it would cost money and grants would be needed, but what I didn't realize until after I finished the presentation for the County Commissioners was that the system would operate a a nearly $2,500/month ongoing deficit once installed - and that was assuming a 100% take rate of about 300 end-users. On 1/29/20 1:07 PM, Dev wrote: Got a question from an elected official type about why bids have been slow to come in for CAF-II, and also looking at RDOF and the satellite "lock up”. I’m sure there are some opinions here, any you wish to relate? -- AF mailing list AF@af.afmug.com http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com
Re: [AFMUG] CAF-II lack of bidders?
Yes, more specifically non price cap LEC or RLEC. Even better if they are a non ACAM RLEC. -Original Message- From: Adam Moffett Sent: Thursday, January 30, 2020 9:37 AM To: af@af.afmug.com Subject: Re: [AFMUG] CAF-II lack of bidders? So basically CAF bidder == LEC? On 1/30/2020 11:25 AM, ch...@wbmfg.com wrote: That is why the system only works for regulated rate of return carriers. They don't have to make the normal business case pencil out because they are guaranteed to cover their costs and get a return on the investment. -Original Message- From: Matt Hoppes Sent: Thursday, January 30, 2020 8:41 AM To: AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group ; Dev Subject: Re: [AFMUG] CAF-II lack of bidders? Maybe it's because the low hanging fruit has been taken and the rest doesn't work? I just finished a proposal for fiber to the home for two rural communities here in Pennsylvania. I knew it would cost money and grants would be needed, but what I didn't realize until after I finished the presentation for the County Commissioners was that the system would operate a a nearly $2,500/month ongoing deficit once installed - and that was assuming a 100% take rate of about 300 end-users. On 1/29/20 1:07 PM, Dev wrote: Got a question from an elected official type about why bids have been slow to come in for CAF-II, and also looking at RDOF and the satellite "lock up”. I’m sure there are some opinions here, any you wish to relate? -- 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
Re: [AFMUG] CAF-II lack of bidders?
So basically CAF bidder == LEC? On 1/30/2020 11:25 AM, ch...@wbmfg.com wrote: That is why the system only works for regulated rate of return carriers. They don't have to make the normal business case pencil out because they are guaranteed to cover their costs and get a return on the investment. -Original Message- From: Matt Hoppes Sent: Thursday, January 30, 2020 8:41 AM To: AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group ; Dev Subject: Re: [AFMUG] CAF-II lack of bidders? Maybe it's because the low hanging fruit has been taken and the rest doesn't work? I just finished a proposal for fiber to the home for two rural communities here in Pennsylvania. I knew it would cost money and grants would be needed, but what I didn't realize until after I finished the presentation for the County Commissioners was that the system would operate a a nearly $2,500/month ongoing deficit once installed - and that was assuming a 100% take rate of about 300 end-users. On 1/29/20 1:07 PM, Dev wrote: Got a question from an elected official type about why bids have been slow to come in for CAF-II, and also looking at RDOF and the satellite "lock up”. I’m sure there are some opinions here, any you wish to relate? -- AF mailing list AF@af.afmug.com http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com
Re: [AFMUG] CAF-II lack of bidders?
That is why the system only works for regulated rate of return carriers. They don't have to make the normal business case pencil out because they are guaranteed to cover their costs and get a return on the investment. -Original Message- From: Matt Hoppes Sent: Thursday, January 30, 2020 8:41 AM To: AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group ; Dev Subject: Re: [AFMUG] CAF-II lack of bidders? Maybe it's because the low hanging fruit has been taken and the rest doesn't work? I just finished a proposal for fiber to the home for two rural communities here in Pennsylvania. I knew it would cost money and grants would be needed, but what I didn't realize until after I finished the presentation for the County Commissioners was that the system would operate a a nearly $2,500/month ongoing deficit once installed - and that was assuming a 100% take rate of about 300 end-users. On 1/29/20 1:07 PM, Dev wrote: Got a question from an elected official type about why bids have been slow to come in for CAF-II, and also looking at RDOF and the satellite "lock up”. I’m sure there are some opinions here, any you wish to relate? -- 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
Re: [AFMUG] CAF-II lack of bidders?
There is also that we looked several times and decided there was way too much red tape and string for us to bother with it. On 1/29/20 1:38 PM, Adam Moffett wrote: We had an opportunity to bid on CAF via the New York State BPO in 2018. Nobody involved like the strings attached. At this point I can't remember what the "strings" were, just that they sounded like a nuisance. Perhaps the bigger issue was that the public contributions seemed to be structured over a 10 year period. A 10 year payback means it's fiber optic or nothingperhaps that's by design. More importantly, the private equity partners were not happy with the idea of a >10 year return. We ended up building only in areas with NY State broadband funding and skipping around the CAF areas. I can put you in touch with people who are still involved in that project if you hit me offlist. Frankly the way the NY BPO has structured their current program is a lot more attractive than CAF. So attractive that they've overwhelmed the capacity of engineering, make-ready, and line contractors with the amount of broadband construction ongoing in NY State for the past several years --I mean that in a good way. Everyone is struggling to build more and build faster into rural markets because NY BPO made it viable for them to do so. You might talk to them about what they've done. -Adam Moffett On 1/29/2020 1:07 PM, Dev wrote: Got a question from an elected official type about why bids have been slow to come in for CAF-II, and also looking at RDOF and the satellite "lock up”. I’m sure there are some opinions here, any you wish to relate? -- AF mailing list AF@af.afmug.com http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com
Re: [AFMUG] CAF-II lack of bidders?
Maybe it's because the low hanging fruit has been taken and the rest doesn't work? I just finished a proposal for fiber to the home for two rural communities here in Pennsylvania. I knew it would cost money and grants would be needed, but what I didn't realize until after I finished the presentation for the County Commissioners was that the system would operate a a nearly $2,500/month ongoing deficit once installed - and that was assuming a 100% take rate of about 300 end-users. On 1/29/20 1:07 PM, Dev wrote: Got a question from an elected official type about why bids have been slow to come in for CAF-II, and also looking at RDOF and the satellite "lock up”. I’m sure there are some opinions here, any you wish to relate? -- AF mailing list AF@af.afmug.com http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com
Re: [AFMUG] CAF-II lack of bidders?
Most of those are achievable by a small wisp. But CLEC status is not so easy. -Original Message- From: Mark Radabaugh Sent: Wednesday, January 29, 2020 3:02 PM To: AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group Subject: Re: [AFMUG] CAF-II lack of bidders? CAF-II bidding is long since over, and RDOF isn’t out yet. The rules for both programs, while available to WISP’s have significant hurdles that keep smaller entities from bidding on them - audited financials, letters of credit, PE sign off, telephone service offerings, CLEC status, etc. While it’s theoretically possible to apply for these as a small WISP the reality is it’s very difficult unless you are a couple million/year company to start with. Mark On Jan 29, 2020, at 1:07 PM, Dev wrote: Got a question from an elected official type about why bids have been slow to come in for CAF-II, and also looking at RDOF and the satellite "lock up”. I’m sure there are some opinions here, any you wish to relate? -- 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 -- AF mailing list AF@af.afmug.com http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com
Re: [AFMUG] CAF-II lack of bidders?
CAF-II bidding is long since over, and RDOF isn’t out yet. The rules for both programs, while available to WISP’s have significant hurdles that keep smaller entities from bidding on them - audited financials, letters of credit, PE sign off, telephone service offerings, CLEC status, etc. While it’s theoretically possible to apply for these as a small WISP the reality is it’s very difficult unless you are a couple million/year company to start with. Mark > On Jan 29, 2020, at 1:07 PM, Dev wrote: > > Got a question from an elected official type about why bids have been slow to > come in for CAF-II, and also looking at RDOF and the satellite "lock up”. I’m > sure there are some opinions here, any you wish to relate? > -- > 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
Re: [AFMUG] CAF-II lack of bidders?
We had an opportunity to bid on CAF via the New York State BPO in 2018. Nobody involved like the strings attached. At this point I can't remember what the "strings" were, just that they sounded like a nuisance. Perhaps the bigger issue was that the public contributions seemed to be structured over a 10 year period. A 10 year payback means it's fiber optic or nothingperhaps that's by design. More importantly, the private equity partners were not happy with the idea of a >10 year return. We ended up building only in areas with NY State broadband funding and skipping around the CAF areas. I can put you in touch with people who are still involved in that project if you hit me offlist. Frankly the way the NY BPO has structured their current program is a lot more attractive than CAF. So attractive that they've overwhelmed the capacity of engineering, make-ready, and line contractors with the amount of broadband construction ongoing in NY State for the past several years --I mean that in a good way. Everyone is struggling to build more and build faster into rural markets because NY BPO made it viable for them to do so. You might talk to them about what they've done. -Adam Moffett On 1/29/2020 1:07 PM, Dev wrote: Got a question from an elected official type about why bids have been slow to come in for CAF-II, and also looking at RDOF and the satellite "lock up”. I’m sure there are some opinions here, any you wish to relate? -- AF mailing list AF@af.afmug.com http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com
[AFMUG] CAF-II lack of bidders?
Got a question from an elected official type about why bids have been slow to come in for CAF-II, and also looking at RDOF and the satellite "lock up”. I’m sure there are some opinions here, any you wish to relate? -- AF mailing list AF@af.afmug.com http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com
