Re: GAW Miners Paybase Paycoin unofficial uncensored discussion.ALWAYS MAKE MONEY :)

Years later, detractors would use one of the original GAWs biggest scrapes to discredit the second GAW, though it was a textbook example of why major providers avoided rural services. GAW was offered a $40,000 grant to serve Ashfield, Massachusetts, but the city went years without access before Garza gave up in 2012, unable to find a tower location. He never completed the job.

Why am I not surprised, he pocketed the cash. Probably used it for the tummy tuck and breast implants for the wifey

Not to stand behind mr. garza and crew, but the true fact is:

They never received a dollar from the ($40,000) grant they were awarded from the Mass. Broadband Institute.

http://www.recorder.com/home/3333268-95/ashfield-service-speed-internet

Maybe it's because he nor his business were EVER commercially licensed by the FCC as a wireless broadband provider and the money wouldn't have been enough to purchase or lease a license - let alone rack and tower space on any hill.

Anyone can be a grant writer and even on occasion get a grant awarded to them, but if they don't have all their ducks in a row, which is very common for Garza, their project is doomed before it even begins.

Scott-

Just to chime in - a lot of that is flexible. If GAW was just handling the hardware, right-of-way, and peering contracts, AND the broadcast license is provided to the municipality, it's a very different case than if a private operator does it all. Demarcation points and who-owns-what are half the fun of telecom

(that fun is sarcastic, btw)

It looks like (he) they were trying to claim/do it all...

So basically everything after the backhaul. Yeah, that wouldn't happen. Honestly, GAW wouldn't even have enough cash to scratch the surface of a spectrum auction. Now, because it's a rural area the FCC could grant some exceptions, but it's not likely. I wonder how he was actually planning to do it?