With a typo, that's how!
On 4/8/2016 11:08 AM, Jason McKemie wrote:
How so? I thought you said that the ILECs can call out a WISP, but not
the other way around.
On Friday, April 8, 2016, Chuck McCown <ch...@wbmfg.com
<mailto:ch...@wbmfg.com>> wrote:
No, part of the latest FCC report and order. The hurt only works
one way. WISPs can hurt the ILECs.
*From:* Jason McKemie
<javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','j.mcke...@veloxinetbroadband.com');>
*Sent:* Friday, April 08, 2016 8:54 AM
*To:* af@afmug.com <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','af@afmug.com');>
*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 <ch...@wbmfg.com
<javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','ch...@wbmfg.com');>> 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','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"
<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
*Sent:* Friday, April 08, 2016 8:01 AM
*To:* 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"
<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"
<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"
<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
*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>
