Report Shows Verizon, Cisco Ripped Off West Virginia

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.

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.

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

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.

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.'

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

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.

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.

based on...?

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

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

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.

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2013/02/why-a-one-room-west-virginia-library-runs-a-20000-cisco-router/

Explain this one, then.

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.

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

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

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.]

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.

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

$20k is about right for a router (depending on model and features) at standard state contract discounts.

And in some cases that was true, however the contract was to build to the 2017 standard so determining need 7 years out would require substantially more time to develop the info.

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

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.

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

Yes I can. I've been an enterprise customer, and I know people who are still Cisco Partners today... with an order the size of WV's, 50-80% off list would not be uncommon. 24mil for 1164 devices?

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?

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

Pretty soon. Erate (at least in Cali) is so oversubscribed now that it has caught on, rumor has it they won't have Priority 2 funding (for network equipment) probably after Round 17 (2014-2015).

The lion's share is now going to Priority 1 funding (WAN connections and VOIP services). This won't buy network equipment other than what it costs the ISP for both ends of the WAN link (card in CO, NID at customer's premises).

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.

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.

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.