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."
Self-Serving Opportunity, yay! (Score:1)
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
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?
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.
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)
We learned a few days ago that the healt
Re: (Score:2)
NTIA is accepting applications for its first round of BTOP grants from July 14, 2009 until August 14, 2009
Thank you for your interest in applying. Since you failed to read, understand, and follow basic directions, we are informing you that you are not qualified to serve on a panel.
Director NTIA
Re: (Score:2)
I think that the actual announcement sets out the same kind of rules that would be applied to paid employees or contractors doing this kind of work, both as regards qualifications and conflict rules, so I don't see how having volunteers makes it any worse than any other possible way of doing first line review (note, also, that contrary to the complaints of the broadband consulting-firm president quoted in TFA that seems upset that
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
At least it will make it a lot harder. Instead of bribing one "consultant", you'd now have to bribe a lot of people, making the whole endeavour of reaching your goals by bribery instead of quality rather inefficient.
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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:2)
So I can let politicians know victim-less crimes should never have been made crimes to begin wit
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.
But, I agree with you about jury nullification as a fundamental right.
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
Re: (Score:2)
MJ making anyone violent? Fuck, I'd rather be in the presence of 10 stoned people than in the presence of 10 drunk.
If anything, MJ makes you very passive. Old joke, why are there no pro-hash marches? Try to organize one! "Hey, dude, let's go on a demo for dope." "Naaah... not now..."
Re: (Score:2)
MJ making anyone violent? Fuck, I'd rather be in the presence of 10 stoned people than in the presence of 10 drunk.
Yeap, I've never seen someone who was just high being violent. But I've seen a number of people drunk who were violent.
If anything, MJ makes you very passive.
I read somewhere that's why Russia, the Soviets. made it illegal. They couldn't risk soldiers smoking wanting to kick back and relax and not wanting to fight.
Falcon
Re: (Score:2)
Stealing is the crime that causes victims, drugs use is not
No, its not just that. It's the emotional neglect that comes from being the party impaired all the time. It's the random behavior because their body chemistry is all whacked. To be fair, all of this happens with booze as well, but, to say that drug or drink abuse is victimless is simply not true. When you are getting your buzz out of a bottle and not your family, you are shortchanging your family.
victims (Score:2)
It's the emotional neglect that comes from being the party impaired all the time.
The one who's neglected by a drug user can move on. Otherwise my sister's a victim of a crime as well. I was hit by a moving van after my classes in college that caused a disability. Now my sister has to deal with my finances. So she should be able to sue the employer of the person who hit me too. Actually my whole family has suffered so they all should be able to sue.
Sounds ridiculous doesn't it? Not any more that what
Re: (Score:2)
But, I agree with you about jury nullification as a fundamental right.
This may be, but you still shouldn't be allowed in a jury if your mind is already made up on your verdict, or you are unwilling to listen to the facts of this individual case. A jury verdict shouldn't be about your single opinion on an issue.
Re: (Score:2)
This may be, but you still shouldn't be allowed in a jury if your mind is already made up on your verdict, or you are unwilling to listen to the facts of this individual case. A jury verdict shouldn't be about your single opinion on an issue.
Wrong, juries are a check on an overbearing government.
Here are a couple of quotes from some Founding Fathers of the USA:
Thomas Jefferson: [blogspot.com]
"I consider trial by jury as the only anchor yet imagined by man by which a government can be held to the principles of its const
Re: (Score:2)
As stated, I'm not disagreeing, jury nullification is important and should be protected.
But in the case of someone who automatically hears the word "drug" and decides to nullify, this is just dumb. As a prosecutor I wouldn't allow in the jury (rightly so, too). Also this person basically wants to completely disregard the facts in the case because of pre-existing bias, which makes them ill suited to be a juror.
Now if the parent decided to nullify AFTER the facts were presented, and in the course of the pre
Re: (Score:2)
As stated, I'm not disagreeing, jury nullification is important and should be protected.
But in the case of someone who automatically hears the word "drug" and decides to nullify, this is just dumb.
Well I didn't say what the charge was, and I wouldn't automatically nullify crime just because drugs were involved. Simple possession or dealing yes, but where someone is harmed I wouldn't. If a person is killed by someone on drugs, then I'd vote guilty for murder. If another person were charged with robbery f
Re: (Score:2)
Why a drug trial? So I can let politicians know victim-less crimes should never have been made crimes to begin with.
That's good if your jury system isn't broken. When I got 'called' I was told that not following the judges orders on how to interpret the law could get a juror held in contempt of court.
Plus there's the whole conscription aspect to be adverse to. Volunteer juries FTW.
That's good if your jury system isn't broken (Score:2)
When I got 'called' I was told that not following the judges orders on how to interpret the law could get a juror held in contempt of court.
Yea, unfortunately some judges try to prevent jury nullification. One of the questions I ask someone running for judgeships is if they support it. I will tell them point blank that I will vote against anyone who opposes the right of citizens to tell politicians a law is bad by using jury nullification, if they don't want citizen jurists judging the merits of laws then
Re: (Score:2)
Kudos on your support for nullification.
I consider jury duty to be one of the most important things citizens can do, and want to serve on a jury myself
I think that's terrific, and I see no reason to prevent you from doing so as often as a random drawing process would allow your name to be picked from a pool of the willing.
Since one can 'get out of work' indiscriminately for jury duty and one was allowed to pick the time of jury service, I suspect there would be competition for the slots, especially if State
Re: (Score:2)
I suspect there would be competition for the slots, especially if States such as mine (NH) followed their Constitutions and compensated jurors as mandated ('fully' in our case).
When I was summoned about 20 years ago, twice within a couple of years, the pay was only $20 a day which if you need your pay from work doesn't cut it. I was a student then so I would have missed class, but not work. As it was I only had to show up 2 days each tyme, then sit around waiting. But at least I got some homework done.
Re: (Score:2)
if you need your pay from work doesn't cut it
Right. It hits the self-employed especially hard, which is at least one reason why our Constitution says:
but currently they only compensate for mileage, which is 1/3. Yes,
I hated reading proposals as a government employee (Score:1)
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:1)
Okay, have it your way. We'll post the applications on Digg instead.
As long as it ain't YouTube...
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.
Re: (Score:1)
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.
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
when people aren't being paid for the job (Score:2)
their only motivation to do the job is to make sure it gets tilted toward their bias.
Which may mean getting hired by one of the companies if they aren't already working for one.
Falcon
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:1)
Re: (Score:2)
A couple hundred thousand wouldn't hire enough people at any meaningful pay for the kind of qualifications you are looking for; at any rate, sure, they could hire either government employees or contracted consultants, and the exact same biases you suggest for volunteers would exist. Either (a) they would be hiring short term government employees for the job, who would eith
Re: (Score:2)
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.
...surely the government could toss in a couple hundred thousand to pay people to do the job.
On the other hand, I'm tempted to question how much it improves your situation to pay people to do the job. Mightn't you end up with the same group of people whether you pay or not-- well, ok, if you're paying then you might argue that the unemployed losers cease to be unemployed.
And there's the other side of the argument, which is that if people are working on something because they have an interest, they might do a better job than someone just doing it for a paycheck. Use someone with an interest, they
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
Re: (Score:2)
In all fairness HughesNet (and other satellite providers) is available in most of the USA. Any place with Verizon Wireless phone service also has EVDO Rev B service. I don't know how much of Sprint or AT&T networks have EDGE or EVDO. I understand this is not what most people would call "broadband". I sure love my cablemodem, but when I lived in a rural area (Verizon was the only cell provider with service, 13 miles from the
Re: (Score:2)
The corporations are already smothering the cities and other profitable areas.
Unfortunately, they're not exactly "smothering" us. I live in NYC, and the fastest upload rate I can get is 512kbps, unless I want to pay to have a T1 run to my apartment. Yeah, that's much better than dialup, but it's hardly "smothering" us with fast Internet. Technically they're offering FIOS in NYC, but generally you can't get it, and they've put a halt on rolling it out "until the economy gets better".
So my point here is that all the arguments about population density and whatnot are BS. These comp
competition (Score:2)
These companies just don't have a motivation to invest in upgrades because there isn't real competition.
Yeap! That's the problem. There is no competition. Either allow anyone and everyone to use the right of ways or separate ownership of infrastructure from ownership of the services the infrastructure can deliver. I don't thing that that many businesses would be willing to pay to lay fiber, but even if a bunch were willing to how many fibers could be laid down in one place? The problem with one busines
Re: (Score:2)
This won't become reality unless you'll accept a fairly "socialist" model where cities subsidize rural areas.
Let's be honest here. Connecting a skyscraper apartment building with 50+ parties living there is a lot cheaper than connecting a single farm in the middle of nowhere where you may, with some luck, connect a single family. Both are extreme examples, granted, but I guess you get the idea. It simply pays better to connect people where they are packed tightly together.
So unless you find a way to make co
Tread lightly, Slashdot users (Score:1)
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:2)
It's not that you're not right as far as you went, but the same may or may not be true of paid government contractors, people in private industry, or just people in general. There are many areas of work where selection pressure is low.
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)
Re: (Score:1, Offtopic)
Just what we need, a bunch of /b/tards, trolls, and the dregs of society decideding where the money is going to go.
I think that's the definition of "democracy".
Re: (Score:2)
What else would you need fast speed for other than to torrent porn videos of Hitler?
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
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
So, to translate it to plain English, to quality you must be a broadband company shill?
Re: (Score:2)
Correction: This is an instance of fascism (government being run by corporations), not communism (corporations being run by the government). If you want a current example of communism, it would be the government takeover of General Motors.
That's right, current U.S. government has elements of both fascism and communism. Just like the rest of the G8.
Re: (Score:2)
This was a rip of the story "The Little Red Hen"
http://www.bres.boothbay.k12.me.us/wq/nnash/WebQuest/little_red_hen.htm [k12.me.us]
Re: (Score:2)
Either they all will be rejected, or rubberstamped approved. If they talk among themselves, the gov. will go all Martha Stewart on them.
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.
Problem is much worse (Score:1)
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*
The article misleads... (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Yeah, it does. But I think my point was that it's not as dire as the teeming masses of commenters suggest it to be.
Streissand effect, etc.
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;
Re: (Score:2)
Probably no one, but what you need to have been in the past to have gained the qualifications needed to be considered is different from what you must be to be considered. There's a mile of difference between requiring (as the call for volunteers does) that applicants have expertise and experience in the broadband field and requiring (as was GGP falsely claimed was the case) that applicants be employed in the field.
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!"
Outsourcing at it's best (Score:1)
"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)
I hope they take into consideration (Score:1)
That there truly is a certain level of knowledge and expertise that should be a requirement for the "volunteers" to participate. I would hate to think someone like my dad, who is the technological equivalent of a sloth, would have any kind of say over this kind of issue.
I do understand that just the knowledge of the opportunity to volunteer would gleen out quite a large portion of the people you wouldn't want making these kinds of decisions, but all the same, it would be frightening if there was no over-sig
Re: (Score:2)
You know, you could read the official government announcement of the volunteer opportunity linked in TFA, which specifies the prerequisites for volunteering.
Re: (Score:2)
I would hate to think someone like my dad, who is the technological equivalent of a sloth, would have any kind of say over this kind of issue.
Yea, we can't have taxpayers having a say in how their money is spent.
Falcon
Commented too early! (Score:1)
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 broadband, the NTIA document said.
This is a lot more reassuring, though reading further on below this part of TFA, they make a valid point in that who would volunteer their time for this, with no personal gain involved? I think that quite a few people would because I would hope that people feel passionate about helping to disseminate broadband to their communities, however people are naturally elusive in regards to their time spent away from their families/friends/moms, especially people in a long work day intensive industry like Telecommun