Cool. How do we "call bullshit" for CenturyLink claiming 25Mbps DSL in a block where they struggle to provide 3Mbps? On Apr 8, 2016 9:20 AM, "Chuck McCown" <[email protected]> wrote:
> Here is something a bit more serious to consider: > > If you claim on a 477 that you cover more than 85% of a census block and > you claim that you provide 10/1 or greater service and you claim that you > provide VOIP with LNP with the local exchange area numbers, you will > probably get challenged to prove all of this to the FCC. That includes > drive studies of coverage etc. And you will have to provide all of your > frequencies and AP locations etc if you are challenged. > > Be careful to stick to what you can actually prove on the 477, I think > they may change them so that the CEO has to certify them as 100% accurate > under threat of perjury. > > *From:* Josh Reynolds <[email protected]> > *Sent:* Friday, April 08, 2016 8:01 AM > *To:* [email protected] > *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] FCC wants "nutrition labels" for broadband > > > It's already been approved I thought? I just read about this a few days > ago. Our team has already started on our "broadband label" as we'd LOVE to > be compared to our competition directly like this, where it's harder to > hide between time-triggered contractual pricing. > On Apr 8, 2016 8:51 AM, "Bill Prince" <[email protected]> wrote: > >> 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> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>
