So this is just a play to hurt competition?
On Friday, April 8, 2016, Chuck McCown <ch...@wbmfg.com> wrote:
> Only works one way. The ILECs can claim bullshit on WISPs but not the
> other way around.
>
> *From:* Josh Reynolds
> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','j...@kyneticwifi.com');>
> *Sent:* Friday, April 08, 2016 8:23 AM
> *To:* af@afmug.com <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','af@afmug.com');>
> *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] FCC wants "nutrition labels" for broadband
>
>
> 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" <ch...@wbmfg.com
> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','ch...@wbmfg.com');>> 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
>> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','j...@kyneticwifi.com');>
>> *Sent:* Friday, April 08, 2016 8:01 AM
>> *To:* af@afmug.com <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','af@afmug.com');>
>> *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" <part15...@gmail.com
>> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','part15...@gmail.com');>> 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" <part15...@gmail.com
>>> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','part15...@gmail.com');>> 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" <part15...@gmail.com
>>>> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','part15...@gmail.com');>> 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
>>>>> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','part15...@gmail.com');>
>>>>> *Sent:* Friday, April 08, 2016 7:34 AM
>>>>> *To:* Motorola III <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','af@afmug.com');>
>>>>> *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>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
