US Seeks Volunteers To Review Broadband Grant Applications 123
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."
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: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.
File under (Score:3, Insightful)
What could possibly go wrong?
Great (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Self-Serving Opportunity, yay! (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 grass them all up. Go for it sonny; you'll be the best.
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.
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 citizen, as well as a privilege many don' get. Why a drug trial? So I can let politicians know victim-less crimes should never have been made crimes to begin with.
Those who want to weasel out of jury duty, or never vote, do not deserve to complain when politicians do something they don't like. I'm sure China or Cuba may want to take them.
Falcon
Re:jury duty (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 laws politicians and drug warriors have been pushing of decades, they'd imprison many of the USA's Founding Fathers as well. Hemp aka marijuana was grown on the farms owned by, or was advocated by, the first three presidents of the USA, George Washington [hempmuseum.org], John Adams [globalhemp.com], and Thomas Jefferson [naihc.org], Jefferson wrote the "Declaration of Independence" on hemp paper. Benjamin Franklin [lakotafriends.org] owned a mill that made hemp paper.
Hemp was never made illegal because it was dangerous or bad, but for other reasons. Hemp or marijuana was called the devil weed from Mexico [wordpress.com], when it was not from there, to stroke racist fears and fear of violence. However there is not one medical or scientific study that has shown it to cause violence or drive user to become violent, at least I have not found any that have not been discredited and I dare anyone to find one. Most studies conclude the opposite. So why was it made illegal? Because wealthy and powerful industrialists thought hemp was a threat to them.