I think you would cover that in your typical peak time speed numbers. If you throttle specific applications or heavy users, you can bury that in the linked network management practices, but if your 50 Mbps plan bogs down to 10 Mbps at peaks times, what you are SUPPOSED to do it state 10 Mbps for the typical speed. No need to talk about oversubscription numbers or other technical explanations for why you can’t deliver the advertised speed at peak times.
What I think will interesting is how much liars like Frontier are willing to continue lying about their actual speeds. The “Broadband Facts” disclosures are also supposed to be one for each plan you offer, and also geographically specific. I don’t know how that will work out for DSL. If the “up to 6 Mbps” DSL is 6 Mbps in town and 1 Mbps for customers 3 miles away, will they say the average for their 6 Mbps tier is 5 Mbps? And will they admit their system slows down in the evening and report an honest typical peak time speed of less than 1 Mbps? Somehow I suspect they will find a way to avoid this. From: Bill Prince Sent: Friday, April 08, 2016 8:51 AM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [AFMUG] FCC wants "nutrition labels" for broadband 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]> 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 Sent: Friday, April 08, 2016 7:34 AM To: Motorola III 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>
