On Sep 15, 2009, at 2:21 PM, Tom DeReggi wrote: > Chuck, > > I'm reading from bottom up, and realize in this Email you made some > good > points here that may adequately counter my thought from my last post. > > This is all good information, to understand what is and isn't > approrpiate > ways to protest, and when appropriate. > > I agree that NTIA/RUS is bound by law, specifically to not allow one > applicant to inappropriately sway the judgement for another's > application > consideration. > The purpose in these laws is to prevent preferencial treatment, and > allow > for a fair evaluation process. > > But NTIA/RUS did in fact give the public a method to make comments. > Even the > MAPs have a comment button, for early stage comments to be able to > immediately be made.
Right, but the OMB circular I'm referring to takes effect the moment an application is accepted for submission. The rules are completely different once that happened. > We cant forget that NTIA grants are subjective, and do not have a > clear > evaluation standard to measure applications like RUS applications do. > Decission makers will make decissions based on what they perceive, > which > will be based on input they are exposed to, whether they intentially > mean to > consider it or not. And it will be very hard to prove when a > decission maker > used outside influence to sway their judgement. There will also be > several > stages of different decission makers, that might be influenced. Taking your statement here more broadly than I know you mean it to be, keep in mind that there are legal penalties for trying to influence an evaluator, not just legal restrictions on NTIA and RUS-and ignorance of the law doesn't protect you. I know you're not meaning this in that sense, but you don't want to cross the line either. > I also think its possible to submit a defense regarding underserved, > with > incomplete information, without the basis being one's own coverage or > application. > > For example, it could be stated... "The application covers an area > where > there are X number of providers, and from our experience have found > very few > people unserved, did the applicant submit data referencing the > coverage and > subscription data of companies A,B,C,D,E? If they did not, they > would likely > have incomplete and inaccurate information. ". > > What this boils down to is.... Does a protestor need to prove 100% > conclusively its case, or just enough information to create a > reasonable > amount of doubt, if the applicant did not have a strong case > themselves? > Regardless, the applicant was required to prove that their area is > underserved, if teh applicant did not conclusivel do that, I believe > they > are just as much at risk that the protestor will get consideration. > > I believe NTIA/RUS WILL reach out to applicants, to avoid conflicts, > even > though they dont have to. For example, if a protestor makes a good > case, > and suggests a good resolution, why wouldn't the NTIA/RUS consider > it, and > bring it up to the applicant? Basic logic supports that approach, but I'm not sure their procedures allow for it. But I agree, if I were designing the system, that's how I'd approach it, even though it does raise some collusion issues perhaps. > If I were the applicant, I'd immediately > revise the app, and sacrifice a small amount so I could win the > large big > picture amount. Me too. > I recognize that NTIA/RUS has been given power to make > decissions without talking to applicant, and that decission must be > based on > teh information the applicant provided, but NTIA/RUS reserved the > right to > "work it out" as they deem appropriate. > > In my opinion, at the end of the day, if there are multiple > applications for > the same reason, I belive they'll want to approve the application > that will > gain the most public approval. > Its very possible that an application that serves 100% underserved > areas may > be looked at as more preferencial than one that serves both served and > unserved areas. Except that a subsidiary goal going into the development of the NOFA was to increase competition, not just provide service to unserved residents. Hence the concept of "underserved"-which ended up with a fairly odd definition in the NOTA, when you think about it. Chuck > >> In fact, there's an OMB circular (from July I believe) that >> explicitly >> disallows ANY communication until the evaluation process is over >> about >> individual applications with the grant reviewers OR the agency over >> anything except for contesting an application due to your coverage >> area. > > I guess that will be a very relevent document, and something I need > to read, > as well as anyone else intending to protest an application. > > 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 1:06 PM > Subject: Re: [WISPA] Searchable Map of Stimulus projects > > >> There is no provision in the rules to protest a plan because you >> don't >> think it's a good plan. >> >> In fact, there's an OMB circular (from July I believe) that >> explicitly >> disallows ANY communication until the evaluation process is over >> about >> individual applications with the grant reviewers OR the agency over >> anything except for contesting an application due to your coverage >> area. I don't think I kept a copy of that circular, but I'm sure you >> can find it on line. >> >> The only exception is if they reach out to you-but they are >> instructed >> to ignore and refuse any other input. They are bound by law on this. >> >> Just to be clear here, you *could* talk to them in very general terms >> about how the application process worked. But you cannot talk in any >> form about an individual application, yours or anyone else's. >> >> It might sound like I'm nay-saying here, but I'm just pointing out >> what the law allows you to do-and it doesn't allow the approach >> you're >> suggesting as I understood the circular. >> >> Chuck >> >> On Sep 15, 2009, at 12:28 PM, Tom DeReggi wrote: >> >>> Its also feasible to protest a plan simply because its a poor plan. >>> The >>> NTIA/RUS needs to approve grants for companies that use tax payer >>> money >>> optimally wisely and benefit the public, and >>> adhere to the NOFA rules. If you think you can do a better plan, >>> but didn;t >>> have time to submit it until Round2, why should the ROund1 plan get >>> approved >>> if its less good? >>> And if one doubts the entent of an applicant, we should tell NTIA >>> what we >>> think. We are not only competing providers, but we are also the >>> public that >>> has to pay the taxes 5to fund these projects. >>> >>> I know in my State, there were numerous good applications that >>> targeted >>> truely needy areas, and made an effort to avoid other provider >>> infrastructure. I plan to support those projects. >>> For example only about 20% in my opinion were bad applications that >>> would >>> directly compete with me and other WISPs in their core markets. I >>> plan to >>> protest that 20%. Anyone that was smart would have avoided pre- >>> existing >>> providers or called them a head of time to work benefit for them >>> into the >>> proposal to gain their support. If they didn't do that, they >>> deserve to >>> have their applications protested, in my opinion. >>> >>> As well, if a grant application covers an area that you entended on >>> applying >>> for in Round2, I see no problem in telling NTIA/RUS that, and >>> advising that >>> the Round1 funds are oversubscribed, and Round1 funds should go to >>> projects >>> without alledged conflict of interests first, and at minimum deny >>> the >>> conflcit of interest applicants until round2, where they can be mroe >>> fairly >>> considered, and so there is more time to gain fact on what is and >>> isn't >>> underserved areas, and consider all potential applicants for the >>> areas. >>> >>> 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 9:19 AM >>> Subject: Re: [WISPA] Searchable Map of Stimulus projects >>> >>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Seriously? You would categorize government-subsidized broadband >>>>> expansion >>>>> as capitalistic competition? >>>> >>>> >>>> I should have said - receiving some funds and thus increasing the >>>> speed of biz expansion. >>>> I see nothing un-capitalistic per se about receiving funds in order >>>> to >>>> revive the economy. >>>> >>>> The real question however is, will *only* the big boys get >>>> something >>>> thus driving the smaller boys out of biz! >>>> (maybe that is the case in the original posting and I just did not >>>> know it). >>>> >>>> >>>> *If* the stimulus package would be needed in the first place >>>> however, >>>> is of course a completely different topic. >>>> >>>> But seems like I just put my fingers into a wound. Sorry about >>>> that. >>>> Not intended. >>>> >>>> >>>> --- >>>> there's no place like 127.0.0.1, except maybe ::1 (someday) >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>> 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/
