May not be if this proposal is approved.
bp
<part15sbs{at}gmail{dot}com>On 4/8/2016 6:43 AM, Josh Reynolds wrote:
That's been considered proprietary information in the past.On Apr 8, 2016 8:39 AM, "Bill Prince" <[email protected] <mailto:[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] <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>
