Oh. How about over-subscription rate, or if there is over-subscription.
How about Uber-style congestion pricing?
bp
<part15sbs{at}gmail{dot}com>
On 4/8/2016 6:36 AM, Josh Reynolds wrote:
Such as, what?
On Apr 8, 2016 8:34 AM, "Bill Prince" <[email protected]
<mailto:[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 <mailto:[email protected]>
*Sent:* Friday, April 08, 2016 7:34 AM
*To:* Motorola III <mailto:[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>
