Slashdot Mirror
US Seeks Volunteers To Review Broadband Grant Applications
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.
This is my sig.
Post each application on Slashdot and we'll all vote on it.
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.
What could possibly go wrong?
"A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky dangerous animals and you know it." - K
Not TFA says 'review' and not 'grant'. The volunteers are going to produce reports, not grant funds. Sheesh.
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.
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.
"Who will help me approve these broadband requests?", said the Big Red Government.
"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.
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
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.
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.
Sounds exactly like every PAID gov't employee!
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*
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.
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.
=~ s,(.*),<sarcasm>$1</sarcasm>,g if any_point_you_wish();
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!"
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.
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.
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-modern projects in the cities. Suburbia gets consideration, as not all suburbs have what is available in the cities and the "greater metropolitan" areas. But, RURAL should have first consideration.
Does anyone actually KNOW how much of America has only dial-up available? Improve things out there with government money. The corporations are already smothering the cities and other profitable areas.
"Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
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 improve te quality of their own apps, volunteer specifically to get exposed to more applications so that they get a better understanding of what makes a good application and what is a poor application.I am not going to be critical of the idea of using volunteer grant reviewers, for this program, until I have more information about what kind of qualificaitons they have for reviewers and safeguards against people gaming the system that have been put in place. Note: I have applied for and won over $1,000,000 in grants for my community through the AFG process
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
Should there be a Law?