BobB-nw writes with this excerpt from Network World: "The US National Telecommunications and Information Administration, scheduled to distribute $4.7 billion in broadband deployment grants over the next 15 months, will count on volunteers to review grant applications. The NTIA, in a document released this week, asks for people to apply to become volunteer reviewers of the broadband grants. The NTIA's broadband grant program is part of $7.2 billion that the US Congress approved for broadband in a huge economic stimulus package approved earlier this year. ... It's 'a little scary' that volunteers will have the power to accept and reject broadband applications, said Craig Settles, an analyst and president of consulting firm Successful.com. Volunteers may have limited expertise, or they may have biases that aren't evident to the NTIA, he said."
If you are one the people behind the scenes in power. But I think elitist statements like this tend to be against the truth. The fact is, most people who are concerned enough about these issues to look at them are, actually, educated about them.
At least the ratio of honest criticism to paid shill will be lower than the current system.
Do you have any evidence to support that claim? I ask because although there are plenty of problems with the current processes federal agencies use to review proposal submissions, corruption is seldom one. Most agencies use either staffers, who have little incentive towards the kinds of corruption you imply are rampant, or peer reviewers, who often have to be wrangled into the work.
I thought about it - they are quite specific about who they want to review the applications - I'm probably on the margin, having mostly worked in text search related internet stuff. If I thought I had more relevant experience (eg networked game design) I would have gladly offered to review.
"To be considered as a reviewer you must have significant expertise and experience in at least one of the following areas: 1) the design, funding, construction, and operation of broadband networks or public computer cente
The fact is, most people who are concerned enough about these issues to look at them are, actually, educated about them.
When you are on the wrong end of a jury... Just remember these are the people too stupid to find an excuse to get out of it.
I was summoned to show up for jury duty twice. Both tymes I was hoping to be picked to serve on a jury preferably involving drugs, but wasn't even questioned either tyme. Why would I want to serve on a jury? Because it's one of the most important duties of a citize
Seen enough families having to put up with that one guy whose stoned all the time, stealing money for dope, to say that drugs are not a victimless crime.
Stealing is the crime that causes victims, drugs use is not. And drug prices are high because of the fake War on Drugs, which is really a war on liberty. If drugs were legal then most of the profit would be out of drugs reducing drug related violence as well, with a lot of it being between gangs trying to control the distribution of the drugs.
Don't be insane! They can't have technically minded, well informed people making decisions! If this goes through, whose going to pay the lawyer's and lobbyist's welfare, that's what I want to know.
There are levels of bias. If you want people to wallow through pages and pages of grant applications for free, the only people who will volunteer will be the ones that have a vested interest in making sure certain applications are accepted or rejected. There are only three types of people who I can think of that would be interested in doing this:
1.) Industry insiders who want to make sure their grants are accepted or their competitors' are rejected.
2.) Crusaders trying to bend the process to whatever their particular ideology is.
3.) Unemployable losers with nothing better to do.
I can't see how letting any of these groups participate would result in good results. We're talking about billions of dollars here...surely the government could toss in a couple hundred thousand to pay people to do the job.
Sure, but when people aren't being paid for the job, their only motivation to do the job is to make sure it gets tilted toward their bias. A guy in the article also brings up a pretty good point that it's silly for the government to ask people to work for free to distribute money that's designed in part to create paying jobs.
The point is, there is no one who meets the basic definitions of human or informed without there being bias. Arguing about how not being paid creates a particular bias, as you are doing, is meaningless. The person who is paying out for the service also has biases. Paying someone may give the recipient a reason to do the job besides tilting the situation towards their own bias, but it also gives them a reason to tilt the situation towards the payer's bias. You're promogulating a myth, that the powerful inter
2.) Crusaders trying to bend the process to whatever their particular ideology is.
What other type of person is there? Can anyone review this and submit a decision without taking one's ideology into account? What would be the purpose of a review if you don't want someone to judge that application? But I agree that for this amount of money a paid staff to review the apps seems prudent.
This is what they should have been doing years ago. If the government is going to spend my money, I would rather have average Joe deciding who gets it than people who are paid by this corporation or that one. Granted there is the chance of shills, at least this way there is hope for an honest person influencing decision.
The Federal Assistance to Firefighters Grant Program uses volunteer grant reviewersOf course, the program was designed by the fire service. Reviewers are pulled from fire departments across the country. Volunteers are not allowed to review applications from their part of the country.Very view criticisms of the program are critical of the grant reviewers. In fact, it is considered to be a program that is very good at getting money to where it is most needed with little overhead.Many people trying to imp
I'll be happy to admit right up front that I'm biased. I read about people in L.A. New York and Chicago enjoying unbelievable speeds, both wired and unwired. College kids have it all, the fastest speeds in the world again, both wired and unwired.
Jethro Beaudien and I suffer with less than a single MB of bandwidth - often shared between us. I thought the whole idea was to expand internet service. So, I'm going to approve any project that brings real broadband to rural America, and disapprove of ultra-mod
Sweet. Just what we need, a bunch of/b/tards, trolls, and the dregs of society decideding where the money is going to go. I hope you like fast speeds for torrents, pron, and videos of Hitler.
You are not that far off. From TFA: Volunteer reviewers will be required to have some connection to the broadband industry, although the volunteers will have to comply with rules from NTIA parent agency the U.S. Department of Commerce on conflicts of interest and confidentiality, the NTIA document said. Reviewers must have "significant expertise and experience" in either designing and building broadband networks, educating or training consumers about broadband, or working in programs to increase demand for
This is an unusual tactic but one that makes a certain amount of sense: the amount of money going through many federal agencies right now is somewhat like the proverbial alligator being digested by a python. My family's business does grant writing for nonprofit and public agencies, and we've been writing about these kinds of logistical problems for a while; see for example, this post [seliger.com], or, if you want an alligator's worth of general stimulus posts, all these [seliger.com].
The upshot is that too many agencies have too much money to cover regulation reviews, RFP development, technical support once RFPs have been issued, reviewers once RFPs have been received, and program officers to oversee awards once they've been made. These problems have been fairly well-known among nonprofits and grant writers for some time; that they're now making it to/. can't help but warm my heart, especially since I think we're writing a BTOP and BIP.
Nearly all "extramural" science/medicine/health grants funded by NIH, NSF, (even parts of DOD), are "peer reviewed" by a similar mechanism, basically VOLUNTEER experts in the field. One gets a tiny "honorarium" and it is ALOT of work. The peer review system in science/medicine is full of problems, but it is also better than any other system yet tried or conceived...
In order to qualify as a "volunteer" for this service you need to be an employed member of the business community relevant to the topic. So-- No, Homeless Bill, and/or Sergi the Special Needs Bus Attendant will not qualify for the program.... *sigh*
In order to qualify as a "volunteer" for this service you need to be an employed member of the business community relevant to the topic.
Wrong. Per the announcement [usda.gov] linked in TFA, current employment in the field is not require, but "[t]o be considered as a reviewer you must have significant expertise and experience in at least one of the following areas: 1) the design, funding, construction, and operation of broadband networks or public computer centers; 2) broadband-related outreach, training, or education;
There are two issues here that argue in favor of the government's approach: who says hiring people will be any better or quicker, and whatever happened to the idea of open source? No one gets paid for committing code to an open source project, and no one should suggest that those who do are "losers." You'd need to implement the same kind of safeguards against cronyism with paid people as with volunteers, you'd still have to train them, and they'd still have a nearly impossible task. The issue isn't money (C
It's 'a little scary' that volunteers will have the power to accept and reject broadband applications, said Craig Settles, an analyst and president of consulting firm Successful.com
It's a little scary that someone who runs something called "Successful.com" is considered credible enough to quote.
So, did anyone RTFA? Did they go and take a look at Mr. Settles web site and notice what he does for a leaving? Well, he helps people deploy broadband setups! And one of his big draws is helping people through the grant process.
Hmm....could his criticism be tied to the fact that this is going to make his job of "influence peddling" a bit more difficult?
There is a strong tradition in the US of volunteers stepping up and doing as good, if not better, job as the so called Pros. Of course these "amateurs" (literally those who do it because of love or passion, check your Greek) are scorned by the "professionals" (literally those who do it solely for money, check you Greek again). And for good reason: the amateurs usually ask awkward questions.
Now, Mr. Settles throws up juries as a strawman to attack this setup. Well, if criminal and civil juries worked the way they did at the founding of our country, or the way Grand Juries do now in many locales, I say, "Sign me up." But if you want to treat me like a mushroom, I this thinking person says, "No thank you!"
It's 'a little scary' that volunteers will have the power to accept and reject broadband applications, said Craig Settles, an analyst and president of consulting firm Successful.com.
If Settles had read the NTIA announcement, he would have noted that volunteer reviewers will not have the power to accept and reject applications, but instead that instead their "evaluations will be an important factor considered by NTIA in determining whether to award grant funding". Either Settles didn't read the announcement and should have some idea what he is talking about before he shoots his mouth off, or he did read it and he's being deliberately dishonest. Settles then goes on to complain:
Volunteers may have limited expertise, or they may have biases that aren't evident to the NTIA, he said.
This is no more true of volunteers than paid reviewers; relevant to these issues, on the expertise issue, the announcement states: "To be considered as a reviewer you must have significant expertise and experience in at least one of the following areas: 1) the design, funding, construction, and operation of broadband networks or public computer centers; 2) broadband-related outreach, training, or education; and 3) innovative programs to increase the demand for broadband services. In addition you must agree to comply with Department of Commerce policies on conflict of interest and confidentiality." (emphasis added)
Essentially, this are the same kind of requirements that would be put into place for paid reviewers, but Settles real problem is revealed when he says this:
I think you'd want the best people stimulus money can acquire influencing who the winners are.
The real problem is that he is that Successful.com is a broadband consulting firm, and that the decision to seek volunteers rather than paid consultants for this task means less total business for broadband consulting firms resulting from the stimulus bill, and more for actual broadband services.
Now where to I apply for the money, and where do I apply to vote? I'm looking forward to approving my $4B project involving laughing all the way to the bank (no need to be greedy, I'll leave a little for the others).
That's a good point. If even half of the people here on Slashdot that were eligible to volunteer would do so, the Slashdot community could have a very powerful impact on the US government's broadband policy.
Not necessarily. You can only seriously call yourself an Open Source developer if you've written and released some code. While some bad programmers still get that far, this process alone with get rid of a lot of chaff. The same may or may not be true of government volunteers.
It's this level of innocent happiness that makes Slashdotters such suitable people for this job. He'll be the only person who actually demands a technical installation (they companies selected will be horrified by the idea of having to actually build enough of a network to supply one location with broadband) at the same time, when he realises all he got was free WiMax and everyone else on his committee got at least a Hawaiian island, if not a cruise liner to go with it, he would probably freak out and gras
Democracy can be a little scary... (Score:2, Insightful)
If you are one the people behind the scenes in power. But I think elitist statements like this tend to be against the truth. The fact is, most people who are concerned enough about these issues to look at them are, actually, educated about them.
Re:Democracy can be a little scary... (Score:4, Interesting)
You really think that educated volunteers are going to outnumber paid plants?
Parent
Re:Democracy can be a little scary... (Score:5, Informative)
At least the ratio of honest criticism to paid shill will be lower than the current system.
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
Do you have any evidence to support that claim? I ask because although there are plenty of problems with the current processes federal agencies use to review proposal submissions, corruption is seldom one. Most agencies use either staffers, who have little incentive towards the kinds of corruption you imply are rampant, or peer reviewers, who often have to be wrangled into the work.
In any event, if you actually dis
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not sure these are those kind of grants.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
I thought about it - they are quite specific about who they want to review the applications - I'm probably on the margin, having mostly worked in text search related internet stuff. If I thought I had more relevant experience (eg networked game design) I would have gladly offered to review.
"To be considered as a reviewer you must have significant expertise and experience in at least one of the following areas:
1) the design, funding, construction, and operation of broadband networks or public computer cente
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
I applied with feds to help with the DTV switch last month as well.
'Didn't even get a phone call...
Re: (Score:2)
The fact is, most people who are concerned enough about these issues to look at them are, actually, educated about them.
When you are on the wrong end of a jury... Just remember these are the people too stupid to find an excuse to get out of it.
jury duty (Score:3, Insightful)
The fact is, most people who are concerned enough about these issues to look at them are, actually, educated about them.
When you are on the wrong end of a jury... Just remember these are the people too stupid to find an excuse to get out of it.
I was summoned to show up for jury duty twice. Both tymes I was hoping to be picked to serve on a jury preferably involving drugs, but wasn't even questioned either tyme. Why would I want to serve on a jury? Because it's one of the most important duties of a citize
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Seen enough families having to put up with that one guy whose stoned all the time, stealing money for dope, to say that drugs are not a victimless crime.
Stealing is the crime that causes victims, drugs use is not. And drug prices are high because of the fake War on Drugs, which is really a war on liberty. If drugs were legal then most of the profit would be out of drugs reducing drug related violence as well, with a lot of it being between gangs trying to control the distribution of the drugs.
With the law
Many eyes... (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Post each application on Slashdot and we'll all vote on it.
That would probably lead to CowboyNeal getting all the money...
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Or at least some wicked-fast broadband.
Re: (Score:2)
Don't be insane! They can't have technically minded, well informed people making decisions! If this goes through, whose going to pay the lawyer's and lobbyist's welfare, that's what I want to know.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Okay, have it your way. We'll post the applications on Digg instead.
Re: (Score:2)
o_0 What slashdot are YOU reading, and can I have the URL, please?
Re: (Score:2)
I think they've been reading the Japanese Slashdot.
Biases (Score:2)
they may have biases
Yeah, because there is never any biased decisions made by government agencies!!
Re:Biases (Score:5, Insightful)
1.) Industry insiders who want to make sure their grants are accepted or their competitors' are rejected.
2.) Crusaders trying to bend the process to whatever their particular ideology is.
3.) Unemployable losers with nothing better to do.
I can't see how letting any of these groups participate would result in good results. We're talking about billions of dollars here...surely the government could toss in a couple hundred thousand to pay people to do the job.
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
The point is, there is no one who meets the basic definitions of human or informed without there being bias. Arguing about how not being paid creates a particular bias, as you are doing, is meaningless. The person who is paying out for the service also has biases. Paying someone may give the recipient a reason to do the job besides tilting the situation towards their own bias, but it also gives them a reason to tilt the situation towards the payer's bias. You're promogulating a myth, that the powerful inter
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
We're talking about billions of dollars here...surely the government could toss in a couple hundred thousand to pay people to do the job.
It's not like as if they haven't done this before :-/ The $200 Billion Broadband Scandal [tispa.org]
Re: (Score:2)
2.) Crusaders trying to bend the process to whatever their particular ideology is.
What other type of person is there? Can anyone review this and submit a decision without taking one's ideology into account? What would be the purpose of a review if you don't want someone to judge that application? But I agree that for this amount of money a paid staff to review the apps seems prudent.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I'll be happy to admit right up front that I'm biased. I read about people in L.A. New York and Chicago enjoying unbelievable speeds, both wired and unwired. College kids have it all, the fastest speeds in the world again, both wired and unwired.
Jethro Beaudien and I suffer with less than a single MB of bandwidth - often shared between us. I thought the whole idea was to expand internet service. So, I'm going to approve any project that brings real broadband to rural America, and disapprove of ultra-mod
File under (Score:3, Insightful)
What could possibly go wrong?
Come on, now... (Score:3, Informative)
Not TFA says 'review' and not 'grant'. The volunteers are going to produce reports, not grant funds. Sheesh.
Great (Score:2, Insightful)
Bedtime Story (Score:5, Funny)
"I will! I will!", said the Comcast manager.
"I will! I will!", said the Time Warner CEO's wife.
"I will! I will!", said Rupert Murdoch's 2nd cousin.
And they did.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Volunteer reviewers will be required to have some connection to the broadband industry, although the volunteers will have to comply with rules from NTIA parent agency the U.S. Department of Commerce on conflicts of interest and confidentiality, the NTIA document said. Reviewers must have "significant expertise and experience" in either designing and building broadband networks, educating or training consumers about broadband, or working in programs to increase demand for
I knew a Craig Settles once... (Score:2)
A novel ploy: (Score:5, Interesting)
The upshot is that too many agencies have too much money to cover regulation reviews, RFP development, technical support once RFPs have been issued, reviewers once RFPs have been received, and program officers to oversee awards once they've been made. These problems have been fairly well-known among nonprofits and grant writers for some time; that they're now making it to /. can't help but warm my heart, especially since I think we're writing a BTOP and BIP.
Six of one, half-dozen of the other (Score:2)
Guess what that is how science is funded, NIH, NSF (Score:5, Interesting)
Nearly all "extramural" science/medicine/health grants funded by NIH, NSF, (even parts of DOD), are "peer reviewed" by a similar mechanism, basically VOLUNTEER experts in the field. One gets a tiny "honorarium" and it is ALOT of work. The peer review system in science/medicine is full of problems, but it is also better than any other system yet tried or conceived...
... Did any of you read the article? (Score:2, Informative)
In order to qualify as a "volunteer" for this service you need to be an employed member of the business community relevant to the topic. So-- No, Homeless Bill, and/or Sergi the Special Needs Bus Attendant will not qualify for the program. ... *sigh*
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Wrong. Per the announcement [usda.gov] linked in TFA, current employment in the field is not require, but "[t]o be considered as a reviewer you must have significant expertise and experience in at least one of the following areas: 1) the design, funding, construction, and operation of broadband networks or public computer centers; 2) broadband-related outreach, training, or education;
Volunteers not such a bad idea (Score:2)
There's a reason analysts have big opinions (Score:4, Funny)
It's 'a little scary' that volunteers will have the power to accept and reject broadband applications, said Craig Settles, an analyst and president of consulting firm Successful.com
It's a little scary that someone who runs something called "Successful.com" is considered credible enough to quote.
Re: (Score:2)
Notice what the critic does for a living? (Score:4, Insightful)
So, did anyone RTFA? Did they go and take a look at Mr. Settles web site and notice what he does for a leaving? Well, he helps people deploy broadband setups! And one of his big draws is helping people through the grant process.
Hmm....could his criticism be tied to the fact that this is going to make his job of "influence peddling" a bit more difficult?
There is a strong tradition in the US of volunteers stepping up and doing as good, if not better, job as the so called Pros. Of course these "amateurs" (literally those who do it because of love or passion, check your Greek) are scorned by the "professionals" (literally those who do it solely for money, check you Greek again). And for good reason: the amateurs usually ask awkward questions.
Now, Mr. Settles throws up juries as a strawman to attack this setup. Well, if criminal and civil juries worked the way they did at the founding of our country, or the way Grand Juries do now in many locales, I say, "Sign me up." But if you want to treat me like a mushroom, I this thinking person says, "No thank you!"
"Waah! Their not hiring consultants like us" (Score:5, Insightful)
If Settles had read the NTIA announcement, he would have noted that volunteer reviewers will not have the power to accept and reject applications, but instead that instead their "evaluations will be an important factor considered by NTIA in determining whether to award grant funding". Either Settles didn't read the announcement and should have some idea what he is talking about before he shoots his mouth off, or he did read it and he's being deliberately dishonest. Settles then goes on to complain:
This is no more true of volunteers than paid reviewers; relevant to these issues, on the expertise issue, the announcement states: "To be considered as a reviewer you must have significant expertise and experience in at least one of the following areas: 1) the design, funding, construction, and operation of broadband networks or public computer centers; 2) broadband-related outreach, training, or education; and 3) innovative programs to increase the demand for broadband services. In addition you must agree to comply with Department of Commerce policies on conflict of interest and confidentiality." (emphasis added)
Essentially, this are the same kind of requirements that would be put into place for paid reviewers, but Settles real problem is revealed when he says this:
The real problem is that he is that Successful.com is a broadband consulting firm, and that the decision to seek volunteers rather than paid consultants for this task means less total business for broadband consulting firms resulting from the stimulus bill, and more for actual broadband services.
Happy to help (Score:2)
Tread lightly, act forcefully. (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Not necessarily. You can only seriously call yourself an Open Source developer if you've written and released some code. While some bad programmers still get that far, this process alone with get rid of a lot of chaff. The same may or may not be true of government volunteers.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
It's this level of innocent happiness that makes Slashdotters such suitable people for this job. He'll be the only person who actually demands a technical installation (they companies selected will be horrified by the idea of having to actually build enough of a network to supply one location with broadband) at the same time, when he realises all he got was free WiMax and everyone else on his committee got at least a Hawaiian island, if not a cruise liner to go with it, he would probably freak out and gras