Such as, what?
On Apr 8, 2016 8:34 AM, "Bill Prince" <[email protected]> wrote:
> Well, to me it looks over-simplified, and does not accommodate some of the
> realities of broadband service.
>
> bp
> <part15sbs{at}gmail{dot}com>
>
>
> On 4/8/2016 6:28 AM, Ken Hohhof wrote:
>
> It looks to me like the format changed somewhat from the last version we
> saw from the committee, so be sure to get the latest version from the FCC
> Order. Check the WISPA list for Steve Coran’s posts on this topic. This
> is a “safe harbor” template meaning it is optional but if you use it, at
> least you won’t get fined for the format. It does not provide safe harbor
> for the content.
>
> Here is another article that is somewhat critical of the templates:
>
>
> http://gizmodo.com/the-fccs-new-broadband-explainers-just-make-it-more-com-1768948403
>
> I have also seen articles comment along the lines of wouldn’t it have been
> easier to just require ISPs to advertise their actual prices including all
> fees, similar to airline tickets.
>
>
> *From:* Bill Prince <[email protected]>
> *Sent:* Friday, April 08, 2016 7:34 AM
> *To:* Motorola III <[email protected]>
> *Subject:* [AFMUG] FCC wants "nutrition labels" for broadband
>
>
> This is, sadly, on topic.
>
> The FCC has proposed something akin to "nutrition labels" for broadband
> that will "clearly" show such things as speed, caps, and hidden fees. This
> is an ars technica article about the proposal:
>
>
> http://arstechnica.com/business/2016/04/fccs-nutrition-labels-for-broadband-show-speed-caps-and-hidden-fees/
>
>
> --
>
> bp
> <part15sbs{at}gmail{dot}com>
>
>
>
>
