If you also look at what the label is focused at is mobility not fixed.
PFFT Ill just make my own LOL
On 04/08/2016 08:28 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 <mailto:part15...@gmail.com>
*Sent:* Friday, April 08, 2016 7:34 AM
*To:* Motorola III <mailto: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>
