dslreports logo
site
spacer

spacer
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


view:
topics flat nest 
Comments on news posted 2013-02-26 08:50:42: West Virginia is one of the worst connected states in the nation, something that was supposed to be helped by a $126.3-million federal stimulus grant intended to improve state broadband. ..


WireHead
I drive to fast
Premium
join:2001-05-09
Muncie, IN

LOL

Well they elected these people, they must like the way it feels in the arse or the way the d|ck tastes. Either way truer words were never spoke; "Stupid is as stupid does." It's not really conceivable to believe that this is the first time they have been screwed by their politicians.

They are probably too stupid to figure out how to prosecute any of them.
--
Retired BBR Team Starfire Team Q III Host
Live by chance. Love by choice. Kill by profession.

XANAVirus
Premium
join:2012-03-03
Lavalette, WV
Reviews:
·Callcentric

Re: LOL

said by WireHead:

Well they elected these people, they must like the way it feels in the arse or the way the d|ck tastes. Either way truer words were never spoke; "Stupid is as stupid does." It's not really conceivable to believe that this is the first time they have been screwed by their politicians.

They are probably too stupid to figure out how to prosecute any of them.

That isn't really funny, or even a very good joke at all. I'm not even sure where *you* are supposed to laugh.

Though, I'm sure you will probably claim somewhere down the line that, by writing 'LOL' as the subject, you are completely immune from any and all criticism because 'it was just a joke.'

It's not necessarily the voters who accepted these awful 'bids' by Verizon and Cisco, is it?

We pay the price for having an republic - whereupon we rely on our elected representatives to go through all those policies and procedures - and as we can see, they (our representatives) failed in doing so.

The problem is that politicians may be good at politics (and that is not completely certain either), but they are frequently technologically-incompetent and they don't want to have to take the time, either, to learn.

You see, there is no way ahead of time to determine how they will act or react in any given situation (e.g. using the stimulus funds in a fair way), and we simply have to trust them (which didn't work this time), but as such I highly doubt anything will really come out of this.

Most people in West Virginia already have broadband, or at least *a* connection to the 'Net (going by the FCC definition), and as such they don't really see WV as a place where there aren't readily available connections.

There's lots of free WiFi around here, even if you aren't at home to enjoy your own connection.
itguy05

join:2005-06-17
Carlisle, PA

Re: LOL

said by XANAVirus:

It's not necessarily the voters who accepted these awful 'bids' by Verizon and Cisco, is it?

We pay the price for having an republic - whereupon we rely on our elected representatives to go through all those policies and procedures - and as we can see, they (our representatives) failed in doing so.

The problem is that politicians may be good at politics (and that is not completely certain either), but they are frequently technologically-incompetent and they don't want to have to take the time, either, to learn.

By voting these people in (and possibly re-electing them) you did accept them. What should happen is these people all get voted out. That would send a message loud and clear. But, most likely it will not happen.

This should also be done at the Federal level. If people truly are upset at the direction of this country, the solution is simple. For the next 4 years go vote and if the person is in office now, vote for the other person. If enough do that, we will clean house. It will also remind the politicians who they work for (us).
silbaco
Premium
join:2009-08-03
USA
Technology is all around us. If Politicians don't understand it, they should not be politicians.
moonpuppy

join:2000-08-21
Glen Burnie, MD

Re: LOL

said by silbaco:

Technology is all around us. If Politicians don't understand it, they should not be politicians.

Politicians need to know when they are over their heads and hire the right people to guide them.
cramer
Premium
join:2007-04-10
Raleigh, NC
kudos:9

Re: LOL

And that's 99.999% of the problem... they asked Cisco "what do we need" -- never a good idea, btw -- and they came back with what everyone in the tech world knows they would... the most obscenely over designed, expensive bunch of shit they think can be reasonably justified. And the state government either blindly excepted it (Cisco being the experts) or didn't care about it.

They didn't have their own experts to design their network, so they hired (the wrong) "experts" to do it. Never ask a vendor to design your network. And never, EVER agree to list price for anything. (esp. on a contract this large.)

kontos
xyzzy

join:2001-10-04
West Henrietta, NY
said by XANAVirus:

We pay the price for having an republic - whereupon we rely on our elected representatives to go through all those policies and procedures - and as we can see, they (our representatives) failed in doing so.

What are you talking about "Failed".

Those guys went out and got $24 MM in free money, and brought "advanced" Internet access to some of the most remote areas of our country.

I thought that was what we wanted: The gov't should just go and build out the next-generation of consumer Internet access. That will solve all of our broadband problems.

Simba7
I Void Warranties

join:2003-03-24
Billings, MT

1 recommendation

Re: LOL

said by kontos:

What are you talking about "Failed".

Those guys went out and got $24 MM in free money, and brought "advanced" Internet access to some of the most remote areas of our country.

Buying a $20K router and only hooking a T1 to it isn't bringing "advanced" internet access anywhere.

WireHead
I drive to fast
Premium
join:2001-05-09
Muncie, IN
said by XANAVirus:

Though, I'm sure you will probably claim somewhere down the line that, by writing 'LOL' as the subject, you are completely immune from any and all criticism because 'it was just a joke.'

Nope, not a joke. I was serious. I know you might find it odd, but people laugh at things that are not jokes but still dang funny.

I think Verizon and Cisco have no fault in this from what I can see, and there may be other circumstances in this, the blame clearly lay at the feet of the politicians. Even the consultant is in the clear, who was hired by the politicians, unless guilty of a crime other than 'sales'. I'm in the business of making myself money, you send me a laundry list of stuff and that's what you'll get. Happy to sell it to you.

Oh, there will be a 30% restocking fee and you pay return shipping. Damaged and opened containers will be refused.
--
Retired BBR Team Starfire Team Q III Host
Live by chance. Love by choice. Kill by profession.

N3OGH
Yo Soy Col. "Bat" Guano
Premium
join:2003-11-11
Philly burbs
kudos:2
It's not just the people of WV who pay. Federal money went into the project.

We all pay.....

BTW, how is the FASTING going?
--
Petty people are disproportionally corrupted by petty power

jjoshua
Premium
join:2001-06-01
Scotch Plains, NJ
kudos:3
The real LOL is on all of us for paying outrageous USF fees every month so the money can be wasted on crap like this.

Twaddle

@sbcglobal.net

And they 're still investigating?

Again nothing will happen here to Verizon CISCO et.. al.. because a lot of well place bribes and pay-offs will ensure that no justice will be served.This ranks up there with the 420 million spent on the California DMV computer system that didn't work. No one paid any penalties and taxpayer money was gobbled up by parasites called "corporations", non-existent "people" who can't be prosecuted evidently by state or Federal AG's.

cdru
Go Colts
Premium,MVM
join:2003-05-14
Fort Wayne, IN
kudos:7

1 recommendation

Re: And they 're still investigating?

said by Twaddle :

Again nothing will happen here to Verizon CISCO et.. al..

So at which point is Cisco at fault here? When the state asked for features that it didn't need? Or equipment for locations that couldn't use it? Or to be unnecessarily identical across the state?

If I go buy a 1-ton pickup it's not the salesman's job to try to sell me a sub-compact instead when I say I'm only hauling groceries with it. He might

From the report, it sounds like Cisco on multiple times sent spreadsheets of capabilities, requirements, pricing, etc back and forth. If the state was stupid enough to buy them as the state requested and signed off on, Cisco shouldn't be at fault for selling them.

tshirt
Premium,MVM
join:2004-07-11
Snohomish, WA
kudos:5
Reviews:
·Comcast

Re: And they 're still investigating?

I don't see either cisco or Verizon being the bad guys here.
The state picked a consultant and then rushed ahead before existing resources and infrastructure was fully verified or understood.
Cisco sold it's routers and services at a fairly standard price as did Verizon the state and it's consultant were aware that delays were LIKELY and should have negotiated the delivery timing to better fit the real world deployment.

gaforces
United We Stand, Divided We Fall

join:2002-04-07
Santa Cruz, CA

Re: And they 're still investigating?

said by tshirt:

I don't see either cisco or Verizon being the bad guys here.
The state picked a consultant and then rushed ahead before existing resources and infrastructure was fully verified or understood.
Cisco sold it's routers and services at a fairly standard price as did Verizon the state and it's consultant were aware that delays were LIKELY and should have negotiated the delivery timing to better fit the real world deployment.

Yah $512,000 for (1)consultant and $20,000 for (1)router is standard pricing for fleecing the whole country. Who cares about the deficit and our children in the future. Whoooo-hooo free money now!

WV should try and get some of the money back to deploy high speed broadband since the whole process was illegally rigged.
Since its fed tax money wasted that needs to be scrutinized as well.
--
Let them eat FIBER!

tshirt
Premium,MVM
join:2004-07-11
Snohomish, WA
kudos:5
Reviews:
·Comcast

Re: And they 're still investigating?

The consultant was the states choice NOT cisco or Verizon's and that price would not be unusual for a contract that size IF by consultant, you meant a team of coordinated highly trained project supervisors carefully assuring the deployment met the planned purpose on budget and on time. It doesn't appear the state hired the correct person, but that is not the vendors fault.

Apparently you have no experience with enterprise level network equipment, $20k per router with a 5year services contract is no where near the top end.
This isn't some off the shelf best buy special.

Simba7
I Void Warranties

join:2003-03-24
Billings, MT

3 edits

Re: And they 're still investigating?

said by tshirt:

Apparently you have no experience with enterprise level network equipment, $20k per router with a 5year services contract is no where near the top end.

No, but most of the locations didn't need a Cisco 3945. Even several Cisco technicians said it was beyond overkill.

All they needed to get were 1921's.

tshirt
Premium,MVM
join:2004-07-11
Snohomish, WA
kudos:5
Reviews:
·Comcast

Re: And they 're still investigating?

when a customer walks in to a Mcdonald's and orders 4 big macs just for himself, does McD's say that's too many calories?
No, they provide what the customer orders, particularly if the customer is being coached by his/her own private consultant.
Remember about the time these grants were handed out, there was a big stink about backdoors found in Lenovo laptop the feds ordered, and that we should support our domestic tech businesses instead of the chinese, including MAYBE a cash stimulus payment to keep them alive, so cisco winning a big money contract wasn't questioned much then, and broadband NOW advocates cheered rather than whipping out their sliderules.

It's really easy to jump on the whiner wagon NOW, where were you in 2009-10?

tubbynet
reminds me of the danse russe
Premium,MVM
join:2008-01-16
Chandler, AZ
kudos:1
said by Simba7:

No, but most of the locations didn't need a Cisco 3945. Even several Cisco technicians said it was beyond overkill.

All they needed to get were 1921's.

based on...?

its always easy to armchair quarterback or look at a single requirement for a piece of information -- but unless you were given the full list of requirements as provided by the state of wv to cisco -- how do you know that this wasn't in-line with the plan?

its easy to look at throughput/pps numbers and say "yep -- its too much" -- but its another thing to take into consideration refresh cycles, expandability options, etc.
the 1921 has two ehwic slots. [0]

the 3945 has four ehwic slots, but four sm slots [1]. it also has a removable/upgradable 'routing engine' that can scale throughput as needed. who is to say that there wasn't a requirement for 'branch in a box' type connectivity for density of switchports? who is to say that they needed to spec in up to 100% growth potential on an upgrade lifecycle of 5 years? who is to say that they didn't need the ability to handle legacy handoffs from the carrier (subrate atm ds3 or so) that is *only available* in the 3900-series chassis[2]? what if there was a requirement to deliver application servers to the branch via ucs-e -- while maintaining switchport density? you *don't* know those things so you *can't* judge whether or not the bill of materials were scoped correctly.
just because the 'technicians' said it was "overkill" doesn't mean anything. i've had plenty of deployment/engineering folks look at half the story and criticise a design or bom -- *until* they hear the full story and they shut right up.

[0] »www.cisco.com/en/US/prod/collate···389.html

[1] »www.cisco.com/en/US/prod/collate···924.html

[2] »www.cisco.com/en/US/prod/collate···3807.pdf

q.
--
"...if I in my north room dance naked, grotesquely before my mirror waving my shirt round my head and singing softly to myself..."

Simba7
I Void Warranties

join:2003-03-24
Billings, MT

Re: And they 're still investigating?

said by tubbynet:

based on...?

Everyone who has a CCNA, CCNP, or CCIE. We are quite familiar with routers, switches, and networking in general.

This was overkill. They don't even have the fiber optic network built and planned on using T1 lines until it was finished. Will it be finished? Doubtful. Do you need a 3945 for a single T1 line? No. I wouldn't be surprised if the 3945's were idle 99% of the time.

These routers are for large enterprise networks consisting of *THOUSANDS* of users per router on multiple 10GigE (or 40GigE) links.. not T1 lines.

It's like buying one to handle your Cable Modem connection. Overkill, yes. Expensive as hell, yes. Under-utilized? Definitely.

But it's not like they paid for them in the end. It was paid by our tax dollars, so who cares? By the time they actually utilize the gear, it'll be obsolete and unsupported.
--
Bresnan 30M/5M | CenturyLink 5M/896K
MyWS[PnmIIX3@3.2G,8G RAM,500G+1.5T+2T HDDs,Win7]
WifeWS[A64@2G,2G RAM,120G HDD,Win7]
Router[2xP3@1G,2G RAM,18G HDD,Allied Telesyn AT2560FX,2xDigital DE504,Sun X1034A,2xSun X4444A,SMC 8432BTA,Gentoo]

tubbynet
reminds me of the danse russe
Premium,MVM
join:2008-01-16
Chandler, AZ
kudos:1

Re: And they 're still investigating?

said by Simba7:

These routers are for large enterprise networks consisting of *THOUSANDS* of users per router on multiple 10GigE (or 40GigE) links.. not T1 lines.

every single performance metric out there says otherwise.
c3945 is rated at 982kpps [0]. absolute max. marketing numbers (so you know they're inflated). at standard imix -- thats ~732mbps. no nat. no firewall. no services. and no routing protocols. this is straight routed port to routed port.
the isr line is a strict software platform. anything you slap on the box drops those numbers. need to run an igp or bgp -- thats a process that takes cycles. want to nat? here's a 25% performance hit.
don't believe me? slap a cisco 2811 on your 15/2 cable line. tell me what the cpu utilization is on that thing running a torrent. i have. the thing hits 90% utilization just to keep track of the nat table and pass the packets.
in fact -- to be comfortable -- i have a 2821 as my edge on my 15/2 line. its how these boxes perform.

in a real life setting -- for a customer -- these boxes handle small edge peering or serve up services. if you're running routing protocols, classification and marking, and shaping/policing on these boxes -- you're not going to want them much above a 100meg line -- if that. if you're expecting them to handle other things (voice, crypto, etc) that number drops.

[0] via routerperformance.pdf

q.
--
"...if I in my north room dance naked, grotesquely before my mirror waving my shirt round my head and singing softly to myself..."

Simba7
I Void Warranties

join:2003-03-24
Billings, MT

Re: And they 're still investigating?

BGP? Software. IGP? Software. Routing? Software. NAT? Software.
Everything is done in software now-a-days.

I'll tell you what my CPU utilization is running a Compaq ProLiant ML370 w/2GB RAM running Gentoo Linux on a 30/5 cable line (my home router/server) while my laptop is downloading a Linux torrent. Answer? Almost nada.

%Cpu0 : 0.3 us, 0.7 sy, 0.0 ni, 95.3 id, 0.0 wa, 0.3 hi, 3.3 si, 0.0 st
%Cpu1 : 0.0 us, 0.0 sy, 0.0 ni, 96.0 id, 0.0 wa, 0.3 hi, 3.7 si, 0.0 st

I can only imagine what my main router would do (Poweredge 1750 w/4GB RAM and dual Intel Quad Port Pro/1000+ cards) fully loaded.

I'm running Gentoo Linux an old AMD K6-233 with 256MB of RAM and a pair of 3c905's and can do ~67mbps at 50% CPU utilization (mostly SI). I'm going to retest this with a pair of Intel Pro/100+ cards soon. I'm also going to see how well OpenBSD runs on this.

So, you're telling me that they need high powered equipment just to properly route packets? I call bullsh*t.

..and as for BGP and IGP, I'd expect that at the headend, not in every damn router. OSPF is a possibility to make it easier, but honestly, you'd need the 3945's at the headend.. and you sure don't need thousands of them.

..now.. if they were routing traffic for the entire nation.. well..
--
Bresnan 30M/5M | CenturyLink 5M/896K
MyWS[PnmIIX3@3.2G,8G RAM,500G+1.5T+2T HDDs,Win7]
WifeWS[A64@2G,2G RAM,120G HDD,Win7]
Router[2xP3@1G,2G RAM,18G HDD,Allied Telesyn AT2560FX,2xDigital DE504,Sun X1034A,2xSun X4444A,SMC 8432BTA,Gentoo]

tubbynet
reminds me of the danse russe
Premium,MVM
join:2008-01-16
Chandler, AZ
kudos:1

Re: And they 're still investigating?

said by Simba7:

BGP? Software. IGP? Software. Routing? Software. NAT? Software.
Everything is done in software now-a-days.

control-plane is done in software. even then -- its hardware assisted through lookups within the asics and optimized tcam banks attached nearby.

packet forwarding on high-end platforms is done in hardware. once the cef table (fib) is formed -- it will cause no appreciable difference if you forward 1pps or 100kpps.

isr routers aren't this way. all packet forwarding is done in software. sure -- cef optimizes this -- but the cpu still has to heft the packet across. there's no specialized forwarding engine that offloads this.

So, you're telling me that they need high powered equipment just to properly route packets? I call bullsh*t.

google routerperformance.pdf
you'll be enlightened.

..and as for BGP and IGP, I'd expect that at the headend, not in every damn router. OSPF is a possibility to make it easier, but honestly, you'd need the 3945's at the headend.. and you sure don't need thousands of them.

you've obviously never had to deal with a large multi-site (i.e. state or region-wide) ip-vpn through your provider. you get two options (unless you pay a metric load of money of ospf pe-ce links) -- static routing or bgp. if you want to have *any* control over your network -- you peer via bgp. simple as that.

q.
--
"...if I in my north room dance naked, grotesquely before my mirror waving my shirt round my head and singing softly to myself..."

Simba7
I Void Warranties

join:2003-03-24
Billings, MT

Re: And they 're still investigating?

»arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2013···-router/

Explain this one, then.

tubbynet
reminds me of the danse russe
Premium,MVM
join:2008-01-16
Chandler, AZ
kudos:1

Re: And they 're still investigating?

said by Simba7:

»arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2013···-router/

Explain this one, then.

there's nothing to explain. i don't work, nor have i ever worked for cisco systems, nor do i represent them (or any company, for that matter) in a public forum. these are my postings and thoughts.
that being said, you're asking me to do exactly what everyone else is doing -- and what i was commenting against -- explain and judge what went on.

do i feel that what happened was overkill? yes. does that mean that the vendor (cisco) is at fault? its possible either way. if they weren't given the requirements or population served or any specific demographic information, or if the customer said "make all sites the same" -- what else is there to do? you don't know what was given to cisco for information -- so its impossible to say if they are in the right or the wrong.

q.
--
"...if I in my north room dance naked, grotesquely before my mirror waving my shirt round my head and singing softly to myself..."
cramer
Premium
join:2007-04-10
Raleigh, NC
kudos:9
"That's the edge case" Sadly, that's likely much more common than anyone is letting on. They did a really poor job sizing their buildout -- claiming "uniformity" as the driving reason.

Steve
I know your IP address
Consultant
join:2001-03-10
Foothill Ranch, CA
kudos:5
Click for full size
A library
said by tubbynet:

in a real life setting -- for a customer -- these boxes handle small edge peering or serve up services. if you're running routing protocols, classification and marking, and shaping/policing on these boxes -- you're not going to want them much above a 100meg line -- if that. if you're expecting them to handle other things (voice, crypto, etc) that number drops.

Wow, you're sure sporting a mighty fine bulge of Cisco knowledge in your pants - you must be so proud!

The above library got one of these spendy routers; you were saying?

tubbynet
reminds me of the danse russe
Premium,MVM
join:2008-01-16
Chandler, AZ
kudos:1

Re: And they 're still investigating?

the jargon for cisco is no different than juniper, alcatel-luncent, force10/dell, or brocade.
i work with cisco kit. i know their products. this is no different than you talking about what you do in the common language. i'm not going to get into a phallus measuring contest. you want to insult me for my knowledge, please go right ahead.

i've answered your snarky remark already.
i also think its overkill -- but cannot say whether or not cisco did this with the intent to scam/defraud/waste money -- and neither can anyone else unless they have specific knowledge of the requirements as presented to cisco. to claim otherwise is disingenuous.

q.
--
"...if I in my north room dance naked, grotesquely before my mirror waving my shirt round my head and singing softly to myself..."

tshirt
Premium,MVM
join:2004-07-11
Snohomish, WA
kudos:5
Reviews:
·Comcast
But that's the point... We know the WV gov't didn't even have the numbers/estimates. Yet when cisco said" lets go with these, the person who they had been negotiating with said "GOOD! Let's go with those"
And the bills got paid so cisco had no idea that the person was or wasn't authorized.

The dysfunction was within the WV gov't and rushing ahead with a project that was still in the planning/needs discovery phase.
cramer
Premium
join:2007-04-10
Raleigh, NC
kudos:9

don't believe me? slap a cisco 2811 on your 15/2 cable line. ...

As with all things, it will vary wildly. Up until a year or so ago, my home network was a 1760, and I had no problems with traffic overloading the router. It was replaced because a WIC-1ENET was too slow for an 8Mbps (or faster) cable modem. My Bellsouth DSL Xtreme 6.0 service is still going through a 1720 with zero issues. (even when people were doing stupid dns things causing thousands of udp nat entries... never slowed down.)

On the other hand, at work a few years ago, I re-purposed the 2851 in place of the 3mil year old PIX520. I couldn't get it above 28Mbps with NAT. Revert it back to pure routing with the PIX, and *bam* 45Mbps all day long. (pix cpu between 3 and 6%, router: 0%) [Yes, I know it's rated for full-rate DS3. It wasn't supposed to be full rate took verizon over a year to find the magic number. there was much sadness in the office that day.]

Simba7
I Void Warranties

join:2003-03-24
Billings, MT

Re: And they 're still investigating?

said by cramer:

It was replaced because a WIC-1ENET was too slow for an 8Mbps (or faster) cable modem.

You could have swapped out the WIC-1ENET with a WIC-1FE.
said by cramer:

On the other hand, at work a few years ago, I re-purposed the 2851 in place of the 3mil year old PIX520. I couldn't get it above 28Mbps with NAT. Revert it back to pure routing with the PIX, and *bam* 45Mbps all day long. (pix cpu between 3 and 6%, router: 0%) [Yes, I know it's rated for full-rate DS3. It wasn't supposed to be full rate took verizon over a year to find the magic number. there was much sadness in the office that day.]

Yep. The PIX 520 was running a Pentium II and it routed 45Mbps of DS3 traffic? Nice.

I get weird looks when I say the lab's router specs. They're amazed something that old (yes, it's an old Digital PC 3100) can route that much traffic.
--
Bresnan 30M/5M | CenturyLink 5M/896K
MyWS[PnmIIX3@3.2G,8G RAM,500G+1.5T+2T HDDs,Win7]
WifeWS[A64@2G,2G RAM,120G HDD,Win7]
Router[2xP3@1G,2G RAM,18G HDD,Allied Telesyn AT2560FX,2xDigital DE504,Sun X1034A,2xSun X4444A,SMC 8432BTA,Gentoo]
cramer
Premium
join:2007-04-10
Raleigh, NC
kudos:9

Re: And they 're still investigating?

There's no such thing as a WIC-1FE -- there's an HWIC-1FE. The limitation is not the 10M ethernet interface. It's the PQUICC high speed serial interface of the WIC slots. (I have a WIC-4ESW. Trust me, the slow part is the WIC interface.)
cramer
Premium
join:2007-04-10
Raleigh, NC
kudos:9
I'd like to see WV's requirements, too. Interestingly, Cisco was unable to provide documentation for a number of their requirements. (translation, they made 'em up. or at best, read well beyond what anyone intended.)

I don't doubt your designs... But I would take a guess you (and I) a) know what we're doing, b) have a clear set of requirements that we aren't making up as we go, and c) (and this is the key) aren't blinded by the size of a commission.

I've dealt with Cisco and their wild-ass designs. Never, EVER ask the manufacturer to design your network. It will always be many orders of magnitude beyond overkill. (even our in-house system integrator group pass out laughing at what Cisco designed.

tubbynet
reminds me of the danse russe
Premium,MVM
join:2008-01-16
Chandler, AZ
kudos:1

Re: And they 're still investigating?

said by cramer:

Interestingly, Cisco was unable to provide documentation for a number of their requirements. (translation, they made 'em up. or at best, read well beyond what anyone intended.)

i've been in this position. as a consultant -- you're left with one of two options: (a) an incomplete/inadequate design for the customer who will yell at you and get you to fork over the difference out of pocket or (b) you overdesign the solution and the same customer will complain that you spent extra money when it wasn't warranted.
generally -- given the two options -- i'm going to pick (b). at least what was bought/installed/configured/tested works to what the requirements were. its the free market at work.

I don't doubt your designs... But I would take a guess you (and I) a) know what we're doing, b) have a clear set of requirements that we aren't making up as we go, and c) (and this is the key) aren't blinded by the size of a commission.

i'd dispute the commission part.
i work for a very large cisco partner. we do a lot of state business. the thing about state work -- is that the prices are all dictated by the contract. to sell to the state -- you have to be on the contract. to be on the contract -- you have to agree to consistent and common pricing. generally -- the margins on such orders (from a hardware perspective) aren't as fat as you'd imagine. i'm not sure about cisco proper -- but we don't make much from those types of deals. where we make the money is from services and consulting when sold to the state. its entirely possible to make some extra coin by overselling -- but its not like a few extra routers is going to throw the commission checks over the roof.
by the way -- you give me too much credit. i just troll the cisco forum.

I've dealt with Cisco and their wild-ass designs. Never, EVER ask the manufacturer to design your network. It will always be many orders of magnitude beyond overkill. (even our in-house system integrator group pass out laughing at what Cisco designed.

much like with anyone -- you get good and bad. i've worked with some top-notch cisco teams, both in sales and engineering. i've also worked with my share of crappy ones. it all depends on who you get. but thats like it is with anyone, from plumbers, to mechanics, to daycare providers. there are good and bad -- and certs don't mean they're any better.

q.
--
"...if I in my north room dance naked, grotesquely before my mirror waving my shirt round my head and singing softly to myself..."

tubbynet
reminds me of the danse russe
Premium,MVM
join:2008-01-16
Chandler, AZ
kudos:1
said by gaforces:

Yah $512,000 for (1)consultant and $20,000 for (1)router is standard pricing for fleecing the whole country.

you've obviously never bought from cisco before.
$512k is in-line with cisco a/s. $20k is about right for a router (depending on model and features) at standard state contract discounts.

q.
--
"...if I in my north room dance naked, grotesquely before my mirror waving my shirt round my head and singing softly to myself..."

••••

Steve
I know your IP address
Consultant
join:2001-03-10
Foothill Ranch, CA
kudos:5
said by gaforces:

WV should try and get some of the money back to deploy high speed broadband since the whole process was illegally rigged.

The "illegal rigging" was done by state employees, not the vendors.

cdru
Go Colts
Premium,MVM
join:2003-05-14
Fort Wayne, IN
kudos:7
said by gaforces:

Yah $512,000 for (1)consultant and $20,000 for (1)router is standard pricing for fleecing the whole country. Who cares about the deficit and our children in the future. Whoooo-hooo free money now!

Here's a little news: It's not Verizon, Cisco, or the consultant's problem other than any ultimate effect on the economy.

WV should try and get some of the money back to deploy high speed broadband since the whole process was illegally rigged.
Since its fed tax money wasted that needs to be scrutinized as well.

WV bought it. While Cisco allowing returns or refunds may ultimately be the ideal solution for all involved it wasn't Cisco that was operating illegally from the sounds of it. If WV skirted the sealed bidding issue that's the state employees problem, not Cisco.
cramer
Premium
join:2007-04-10
Raleigh, NC
kudos:9

Cisco sold it's routers and services at a fairly standard price...

Bullshit. I can go to CDW right now, and without talking to a single human or negotiating anything, buy a top of line C3945E security bundle for $13k. They were buying over a thousand of the damned things; they got ZERO f'ing discounts from Cisco, and as it appears, paid more than list price for them. Everyone involved in this stink has walked away with buckets of taxpayer money.

•••
itguy05

join:2005-06-17
Carlisle, PA
said by cdru:

So at which point is Cisco at fault here? When the state asked for features that it didn't need? Or equipment for locations that couldn't use it? Or to be unnecessarily identical across the state?

Sounds like Verizon and Cisco wanted sealed bids that only they would know about. That only they would bid on. And then they probably speced Cisco rather than a router with a specific feature set. That would ensure Cisco's overpriced and clunky stuff would be used rather than more capable equipment from other vendors (often at a cheaper cost).
cramer
Premium
join:2007-04-10
Raleigh, NC
kudos:9
Ah, but you didn't ask for anything that specific. You walk in and say "I need a truck" and slap $8m on the table, you'll be walking out of there with an $8m truck.

Their audit turned up a number of "requirements" that Cisco apparently just made up -- they cannot prove anyone ever asked for a number of the requirements to which the equipment was spec'd. As best I can tell, they were charged greater than list price for everything -- when every enterprise customers get deep discounts from list.
tpkatl

join:2009-11-16
Dacula, GA

While I believe this, why is it news?

The whole Universal Service Fund for schools and libraries has been a money-sucker for 15 years or more. The Bells got the lions share of government money to do what they were already doing, and equipment makers went to the bank with all of the money they were raking in.

This has been happening for a decade or more. Why is this considered report-worthy in 2013?

NOYB
St. John 3.16
Premium
join:2005-12-15
Forest Grove, OR
kudos:1

Re: While I believe this, why is it news?


Because people are finally getting feed up with it.
decifal

join:2007-03-10
Bon Aqua, TN
kudos:1

If

If we started holding politicians accountable for their actions this crap wouldn't happen.. Our tax dollars are basically machine gunning into the wild and everyone just keeps on grazing like nothing happened.. They have no reason to stop doing crap like this until people start going to jail (not the pampered martha stewart kind), or swinging from a rope...

NOYB
St. John 3.16
Premium
join:2005-12-15
Forest Grove, OR
kudos:1

Re: If

The reason politicians are not held accountable for nonsense like this is because there are more voters than tax payers. Too many people without skin in the game but still afforded the same say. They live under my roof and expect to make the rules.

--
Be a Good Netizen - Read, Know & Complain About Overly Restrictive Tyrannical ISP ToS & AUP »comcast.net/terms/ »verizon.net/policies/
Say Thanks with a Tool Points Donation
majortom1029

join:2006-10-19
Lindenhurst, NY
kudos:1

1 whole district.

I gather in west Virginia the whole state is 1 whole library district?

I am a network admin in a library on long island and each library district matches up with the school district. I wish NY state would just hand us computer equipment.

skeechan
Ai Otsukaholic
Premium
join:2012-01-26
AA169|170
kudos:2

Government in inept and corrupt...

...say it ain't so Joe. I'm shocked!

The obviously solution to all of this is more government spending! It is the solution to every problem.

NOYB
St. John 3.16
Premium
join:2005-12-15
Forest Grove, OR
kudos:1

OPM

This is what happens when people are allowed to play with OPM.

If it where their own money you know they would be diligent to make sure they are not only getting what is needed but at a good price too.

That money should have been used to create demand. Not supply.

--
Be a Good Netizen - Read, Know & Complain About Overly Restrictive Tyrannical ISP ToS & AUP »comcast.net/terms/ »verizon.net/policies/
Say Thanks with a Tool Points Donation
kevinds
Premium
join:2003-05-01
Calgary, AB
kudos:3
Reviews:
·Shaw

Cisco?

I have seen nothing to indicate Cisco 'ripped off' West Virginia,

Cisco gets an order, it gets filled

Verizon ordering Cisco gear (and taking a markup?) sure but I doubt Cisco was part of it other than fufilling an order.
--
Yes, I am not employed and looking for IT work. Have passport, will travel.

Steve
I know your IP address
Consultant
join:2001-03-10
Foothill Ranch, CA
kudos:5

Re: Cisco?

said by kevinds:

but I doubt Cisco was part of it other than fufilling an order.

You'd doubt it a lot less if you read the actual report.
tmc8080

join:2004-04-24
Brooklyn, NY
Reviews:
·ooma
·Optimum Online
·Verizon FiOS

?

So, corporations are people when they can give unlimited amounts of money in freedom of speech by the federal courts to corrupt the legal & political process, but they have IMMUNITY from jail sentences for individuals because they are a company?!? Jeez.. what hypocrisy!!
elray

join:2000-12-16
Santa Monica, CA

Report shows USF rips off ratepayers

When will we retire this program?

••••

Simba7
I Void Warranties

join:2003-03-24
Billings, MT

Confiscate them

I think the U.S. Government should confiscate them and distribute them to all the states to improve the backbone infrastructure to all educational buildings and campuses.

That would immediately improve things nationwide. Of course, you'd have alot of leftover routers.. so distribute them with the rural IT personnel that want to improve their small towns. Heck, just one would be able to run a small city.
tmc8080

join:2004-04-24
Brooklyn, NY
Reviews:
·ooma
·Optimum Online
·Verizon FiOS

Re: Confiscate them

You need the fiber links and backbone hubs/data centers to establish more routes into secondary markets. Every time there's a fever for this happening, the telco lobbyists stamp it out.. nobody telco wants 3rd party (NOT owned by AT&T or Verizon) tier-1 ISPs running fiber routes that another company could leverage to deliver last mile. You're lucky google had the deep pockets to push into Ks & Mo and you see how much grief they were given about that! IMO, the next markets which are ripe for google fiber are CenturyTel's southwest region and select AT&T markets with ZERO dsl infrastructure, also WV, MI, IL, GA. You'd be surprised how many states have massive fiber optics running through them, but people less than 1 mile from the routes can't get access to that fiber, not coax, dsl, or fiber... nothing!

Deregulation of telecom (declaring all state laws designed to block new entrants illegal) to give tier-1 isps access to last mile might put a fire under some of these markets. Afterall, selling tier-1 data at $10 per unlimited gigabit per month isn't as lucrative as $50 for 100/100 megbits per month on a residential fiber line. Heck, even some of the foreign owned TIER-1 companies can get involved in adopting a city/metro suburban area for last mile deployment.. their revenues would skyrocket rather than sitting on tons of dark fiber. Why should google have all the long-term ROI?
HELLFIRE
Premium
join:2009-11-25
kudos:18

Read the Report... Lessons learnt

Had a case of insomnia, so I decided to download and read over the PDF. Here's some salient points
I pulled out as a takeaway from this fuster cluck -- cuz truth to tell, there's no other way to describe
it, and alot of people / groups are going to either walk away with alot of s**t on their faces, or the
lawyers are going to be laughing all the way to the bank... WHEN the dust settles from this.

quote:
A capacity and a users need survey, prior to the procurement of the routers, would have
determined the appropriate router size for the CAIs; but, such surveys were not conducted by the
GIT or the OT.

MAJOR fail on the socalled "project managers" of this thing, be it from the government,
Verizon, Cisco, etc. I'm sure most if not all commenters come from some sort of IT background,
and nearly the first thing you do on a project like this is FIGURE OUT WHERE YOU ARE AND
WHERE YOU NEED TO BE.


Seriously people, who was at the bloody wheel of this gongshow?

Cisco recommended the State purchase the Cisco 3945 routers because the DOE required that the
routers have internal dual power supplies.

However, Mr. Williamson was unable to provide the Legislative Auditor with any emails or
other documentation from the Department of Education employees showing that they asked for
dual power supplies in the routers.

The meetings with Dept. of Education on June 14, 2010 and with Office of Technology on
June 15, 2010 resulted in a series of Spreadsheets that were created, and reviewed by the
State. The dual power supplies, along with the NAM, EtherSwitch, etc. were listed on
every revision of those Spreadsheets that were submitted for review. This review process
was done to insure that the configuration shown met their requirements. The first of
those spreadsheets, created on June 16 2010 is attached. We always conduct this type of
review when working with our Customers and Partners, to confirm that they are ordering
exactly what they want.

OT did not participate in any of the meetings that lead up to this decision. The first I saw
of this purchase order was when it was sent to OT for approval. That’s when I sent it
back to John Dunlap for additional review. That’s also when I went to (former Secretary
of the Department of Administration) Ferguson with our concerns that many of these
devices may be oversized based on their designated locations.

MAJOR FAIL number 2... again, speaking only to the technological aspect of it, if no one
had a written sheet of "this is what we need," and "this is what we'd like," then who's at fault for
that not existing in the first place?
The report didn't attach said spreadsheet by Cisco, but to me
that's documentation RIGHT THERE that all parties should have been reviewing and updating
all along, saying "yes, this is what we want and all agree to." No different than when you go thru the
checkout at the line or review your monthly statements...

Without the supporting documentation from any side, this is just another case of he said, she said,
and I think we know how well those go over...

Since a site assessment has not been conducted for the 1064 locations, the Office of
Technology is concerned that this equipment may be grossly oversized for several of the
facilities in which it is currently slated to be installed. As a result, the Office of
Technology would like to evaluate these facilities and make recommendations to deploy
the 3900 series routers where it may be better utilized . . . .

In fact, Mr. Dunlap expressed OT’s concerns on July 12, 2010 in an email to Mr. Gianato
and Colonel Todorovich with the routers proposed. Mr. Dunlap’s email states:
Since a site assessment has not been conducted for the 1064 locations, the Office of
Technology is concerned that this equipment may be grossly oversized for several of the
facilities in which it is currently slated to be installed. As a result, the Office of
Technology would like to evaluate these facilities and make recommendations to deploy
the 3900 series routers where it may be better utilized . . . .
Mr. Schafer then met with Kelly Goes, Secretary of Commerce, on July 13, 2010. On
July 13, 2010, Mr. Dunlap emailed Mr. Todorovich that “The Office of Technology will proceed
with the purchase order to acquire 1064 routers…” However, Mr. Schafer’s formal approval to
purchase the routers is dated July 6, 2010.

So the plot thickens. Again, while the original spreadsheets from Cisco aren't attached available,
SOMEone in WV knew about them as of Jun 16th 2010. Come July 12th (less than a month later)
red flags were tingling in WV that what was being ordered may not be right, but less than a day
later -- and STILL no formal capacity planning, SOMEone pushes the button and signs the final
paperwork saying, "get us this, this, and this by Y." The backdating of the formal approval DEFINATELY
raises some red flags all around... again, WHO is accountable for this, and I suspect only a criminal
investigation will be the only way to look into this.

Otherwise, as far as WV's vendors are concerned it's a done deal, and VZ / Cisco like any other
good vendor, is putting things together. NO ONE in WV said otherwise... at least based on the report.

quote:
Unfortunately, no studies were ever conducted. Furthermore, according to the State
Supreme Court of Appeals and the State Police, no one from the BTOP grant implementation
team ever contacted them until after the routers were purchased. Furthermore, according to the
Library Commission, there were no written communications with GIT or OT regarding a need
for routers.

Emphasis mine, and a facepalm moment for WV if I ever saw one. Again, I reiterate, "Who was
at the wheel of this ship?"

Finally, inappropriately sized routers were purchased because the State Purchasing
Division allowed the Office of Technology to use a purchasing process unauthorized by either
statute or legislative rule. This purchasing process, as discussed in Issue 2, prevented other
vendors such as HP, Brocade, Juniper, and Alcatel-Lucent from bidding on this statewide
project.

The Legislative Auditor believes that the Cisco sales representatives and engineers had a
moral responsibility to propose a plan which reasonably complied with Cisco’s own engineering
standards. It is the opinion of the Legislative Auditor that the Cisco representatives showed a
wanton indifference to the interests of the public in recommending using $24 million of public
funds to purchase 1,164 Cisco model 3945 branch routers.

...know what that sound is? That's the lawyers on all sides ringing up the potential damages
they're gonna claim. Followed closely by their hourly billable rates, expenses, overtime, etc.
Three guesses who's going to be footing the bill, and the first 2 don't count...

Attaching the following chart for the various prices of equipment that was shipped out to WV.

Data Paper Pak $540,512
T1 Card $1,081,024
ENCHD EtherSwitch $1,431,814
IP Services License Upgrade $1,438,305
Power Supply with power over $270,256
Power Supply with POE $540,512
Console cable – USB $16,215
Voice Security Bundle $1,348,577
Total $6,667,215
 

I admit what others take away from this is up to the individual reader themselves, especially those who
seem to have a hateon for Verizon and/or Cisco, or are now lighting torches and sharpening pitchforks
for a good ol' lynchmob.

To end this with alittle humor... anyone taking bets how soon WV will be offering this stuff for cutrate prices
at auction, et al. when it becomes clear they don't have a way to use this gear and/or space to store this stuff?
I for one wouldn't mind a still-boxed 3945E for my home network :D

Regards