That's been considered proprietary information in the past.
On Apr 8, 2016 8:39 AM, "Bill Prince" <[email protected]> wrote:
> 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]> 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>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
