On Sep 15, 2009, at 1:48 PM, Tom DeReggi wrote: > Chuck, > > "and you will NOT be able to have a section cut > out of an otherwise qualifying target census set just because you do > cover it." > > I agree that its not possible to protest it simply based on the > protestor > covering part of it. Agreed, "gerrymandering" was incouraged, and I > actually > agree it should be. > > But... I disagree that it wont be an option to carve out a piece of > the > applciation. NTIA/RUS reserved the right to do what ever they want > to do. If > the protestor can conveince NTIA/RUS that it is in the best interest > to all, > to simply cut out the conflicting area, its feasible it could occur.
Okay, but I don't see how you can convince them of this. You're limited to documenting your coverage; you're not otherwise allowed to comment. That's to prevent people from swaying their judgement inappropriately and in a non-public way. > I do not believe protesting a GOOD Strong plan will have any effect or > value. NObody is going to not fund a good plan because of a wining > protestor. But I'm making the statemnet based on the fact that many > applicants may have very poor plans. Right, I do understand where you're coming from. But because they are legally limited by the OMB as to what they can consider, I don't see the mechanism here. All we can do is hope they can see that an application is poor. > "The problem is, it's a fair amount of effort to challenge since *you* > have to challenge it at the census block level, just as they had to > justify it at the census block level" > > I agree that the protestor has to protest at teh block level for the > whole > area, to protest the claim of "underserved" for the defined area, > and that > would be hard for a protestor. > But I disagree, that is always required. Because... You are assuming > that > the reason one is protesting based on qualification of underserved. > And you > are assuming that the protestors proof must be complete. If the > applicant > did a poor job, and their data is incomplete, the protestor's data > may only > have to be as complete as the applicant's data + 1. <nod> I think as long as your data is at least the quality of the applicant's, they should consider it, but if you're saying you cover less than 50% in the first place, they are going to have to reject you out of hand no matter how bad the applicant's data is. They may well say "this is poor documentation" but you're not going to be able to influence that determination except by providing better documentation that proves they don't qualify. In other words, you can't win this just but showing the applicant had poor documentation, you ALSO have to show they don't qualify. Chuck > > > Tom DeReggi > RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc > IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Chuck Bartosch" <ch...@clarityconnect.com> > To: "WISPA General List" <wireless@wispa.org> > Sent: Tuesday, September 15, 2009 12:55 PM > Subject: Re: [WISPA] Searchable Map of Stimulus projects > > > The problem is, it's a fair amount of effort to challenge since *you* > have to challenge it at the census block level, just as they had to > justify it at the census block level. > > And if the area is as the poster describes, it's impossible to > challenge. He might have a very good reason why he can't reach even > 50% of the residents (that's what he said, I'll remind you) in his > area. But, it is irrelevant. They don't care *why* you can't reach the > other households...they just care that you don't. > > If this is a big application then it's going to cover far more than > his territory anyway, and you will NOT be able to have a section cut > out of an otherwise qualifying target census set just because you do > cover it. They went out of their way to encourage "gerrymandering" in > the applications, which included the ability to include covered > territory as long as the total number of already covered households > was under 50% (which it is in this case as it's been explained to us). > > Chuck > > On Sep 15, 2009, at 12:16 PM, Tom DeReggi wrote: > >> 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" <aa...@lo-res.org> >> To: "WISPA General List" <wireless@wispa.org> >> 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: wireless@wispa.org >> >> 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: wireless@wispa.org >> >> Subscribe/Unsubscribe: >> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless >> >> Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ > > -------------- > Chuck Bartosch > Clarity Connect, Inc. > 200 Pleasant Grove Road > Ithaca, NY 14850 > (607) 257-8268 > > "When the stars threw down their spears, > and water'd heaven with their tears, > Did He smile, His work to see? > Did He who made the Lamb make thee?" > > From William Blake's Tiger!, Tiger! > > > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > WISPA Wants You! Join today! > http://signup.wispa.org/ > -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org > > 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: wireless@wispa.org > > Subscribe/Unsubscribe: > http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless > > Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -------------- Chuck Bartosch Clarity Connect, Inc. 200 Pleasant Grove Road Ithaca, NY 14850 (607) 257-8268 "When the stars threw down their spears, and water'd heaven with their tears, Did He smile, His work to see? Did He who made the Lamb make thee?" From William Blake's Tiger!, Tiger! -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
