We're considering playing "that game" if we feel the need. Mediacom has trouble doing 10Mbps here, but they get to claim "100-1000Mbps" because they claim a "up to 150Mbps" plan. We're considering listing 10Gbps service on ours because hey, we're offering that for business, so if you really want that for residential who are we to say no? I'll be more than happy to drop them an active port on the EX4500 at the pop, but I dread dealing with 1x1 mobile devices on 2.4ghz trying to use that bandwidth, lol. On Apr 8, 2016 9:05 AM, "Ken Hohhof" <[email protected]> wrote:
> 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 <[email protected]> > *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 <[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> >>> >>> >>> >>> >> >
