No, part of the latest FCC report and order. The hurt only works one way. WISPs can hurt the ILECs.
From: Jason McKemie Sent: Friday, April 08, 2016 8:54 AM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [AFMUG] FCC wants "nutrition labels" for broadband So this is just a play to hurt competition? On Friday, April 8, 2016, Chuck McCown <[email protected]> wrote: Only works one way. The ILECs can claim bullshit on WISPs but not the other way around. From: Josh Reynolds Sent: Friday, April 08, 2016 8:23 AM To: javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','[email protected]'); 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" <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','[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 Sent: Friday, April 08, 2016 8:01 AM To: javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','[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" <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','[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" <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','[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" <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','[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>
