I am about to roll out some faster packages in select areas. Calling them 5G speeds... They are same price as the legacy packages just has more speed. Other stipulation to be eleigble for "5G" speeds you need to have LOS to tower and requires a 1 time activation fee (cost of PMP450 license key upgrade on SM)
On Fri, Feb 3, 2017 at 11:42 AM, That One Guy /sarcasm < thatoneguyst...@gmail.com> wrote: > i would venture a guess wendys back end system isnt nearly as simplified > as its front end system > "up to" is not conducive to network preservation at all > having a 25mb plan on epmp with mcs 11 isnt going to give you much > aggregate capacity at the AP when that user is on, so you go from 1 pissed > off customer to 15 and an investment in another access point > Id rather the headache of maintenance occur from the comfort of my couch > than on top of a grain elevator in the winter > > On Fri, Feb 3, 2017 at 10:25 AM, Ken Hohhof <af...@kwisp.com> wrote: > >> Sounds way too complicated. >> >> >> >> This should be like going to Wendy’s. Single, double, triple. Small >> fries, large fries. Pull forward to the first window. >> >> >> >> If that’s still too complicated, do like Frontier, everything’s “up to 6 >> Mbps”. In other words, best effort, it is what it is. If you as the >> customer choose to ignore the “up to”, too bad for you. >> >> >> >> >> >> *From:* Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] *On Behalf Of *That One Guy >> /sarcasm >> *Sent:* Friday, February 3, 2017 10:16 AM >> *To:* af@afmug.com >> *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] Providing Service at Different Rates / in >> Different Markets >> >> >> >> once we edit out the multiples of 1024 to be multiples of 1000 to appease >> fcc they accept them without issue, whether the data is copacetic isnt a >> big concern to me as we way underreport what we actually deliver and >> advertise >> >> I guess alot of it depends on your company mission with FCC. If its >> funding based, or competitor lockout based, then better looking numbers is >> probably more important. Our pprimary purpose is just to get it accepted so >> theyll quit bothering us, so we do accuracy and under reporting. Compared >> to the numbers alot of folks present to the fcc, if there were somebody >> looking at it, they would be like "how the hell are these guys even >> competing" >> >> >> >> these arent our rates, but this is an example: >> >> Tier 1 tier 2 tier 3 >> >> Tiers are the speeds, the customers arent sold a tier >> >> rate 1 (10gb) rate 2 (20gb) rate 3 (30gb/overage) >> >> rates are what the customers are sold (our actual capacities are much >> much higher) the top rate has the overage, and there is an un advertised >> rate we put heavy users on if theyre continually generating high overages >> to bring their costs down if they pay promptly on a historical basis >> >> >> >> so we create >> >> t01-r01 >> >> t02-r01 >> >> t03-r01 >> >> >> >> t01-r02 >> >> t02-r02 >> >> t03-r02 >> >> >> >> t01-r03 >> >> t02-r03 >> >> t03-r03 >> >> >> >> 9 plans on the back end >> >> >> >> the customers are place into groups in powercode based on their tier, so >> customer service can only select the rate correlated to the tier, in this >> example there are only three options >> >> >> >> we have more than 3 tiers, more than 3 rates, and because powercode is >> awful, we have to duplicate everything for our annual discount. Our back >> end, needless to say has a huge number of plans, very few of which are >> selectable on any given account >> >> >> >> the tier (speed) is easy and has a set of criteria based on the site >> installed to and its capabilities, the access point installed to and its >> capabilities, and the final factor being actual performance. >> >> so if we have a 12mb tier and a 6mb tier, if the customer can only >> achieve 10mb, they go on the 6 mb tier. aside from the fsk 900, nobody goes >> on a tier they cant fully achieve consistently, and we can drop tiers if >> there is degradation. Network preservation takes priority over end user >> preference.....so much less headaches. and all our reporting is accurate, >> if we had an fcc audit, we wouldnt get nailed for overreporting like many >> others would >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> On Fri, Feb 3, 2017 at 9:12 AM, Kurt Fankhauser <lists.wavel...@gmail.com> >> wrote: >> >> I thought Powercode FCC 477 export was broken and full of erros as >> another recent thread indicated? Also Powercode needs to have two sets of >> speeds in each plan, one being FCC export reported speed, and the other >> being the actual rate limited speed. Then I wouldn't have to tweak the >> export since I like to rate limit at 110% of their plan speed. >> >> >> >> On Thu, Feb 2, 2017 at 9:49 AM, Cameron Crum <cc...@wispmon.com> wrote: >> >> Christopher, >> >> >> >> FCC basically wants advertised plan rates which makes the whole thing BS, >> but what else are you going to do? I guess they assume you aren't >> advertising more than you can actually deliver. Taking the speed at each >> customer location is somewhat impractical for such purposes unless you just >> do a one time test and call it that forever. The FCC doesn't really have a >> way to report a "variable" rate plan. I have a customer who goes through >> this every year. He runs everything wide open and has data caps. So he lets >> you get as much "speed" as your radio can handle but bills for overages >> every month. He ends up doing a speed test on install and putting that into >> the "baseline" info for the customer and we use those numbers for the 477 >> grouping them together into as few "buckets" as possible. So it can be >> done, but it takes more effort and is certainly not "traditional". >> >> >> >> Cameron >> >> >> >> On Wed, Feb 1, 2017 at 7:01 PM, Christopher Gray < >> cg...@graytechsoftware.com> wrote: >> >> An exported form is only as good as the data entered. I export from Sonar >> with no problem, but I go through a decent amount of effort to define a >> long list of services to match each speed available, and it is getting a >> little out of hand. >> >> >> >> When selling capacity, not speed, how do you rate your speed for your >> 477? The max it could be? The lowest you'd ever expect? How do you define a >> speed in your billing system for the 477 if the speed is variable? >> >> >> >> I see now that my biggest problem seems to be having 2 variables with >> each product (price and speed... my "standard" product has speeds ranging >> from 1.5 to 10 and prices ranging from $50 to $73). I think I just need to >> simplify the product offering by fixing one of the variables, and possibly >> have a zip code entry to view the available products. Half of my network is >> 50% more expensive to operate than the other half, so there are significant >> price differences between some areas. >> >> >> >> >> ------------------------------ >> >> >> >> On Wed, Feb 1, 2017 at 7:36 PM, That One Guy /sarcasm < >> thatoneguyst...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> EXPORT-FORM 477 >> >> LITERALLY THAT SIMPLE >> >> >> >> On Wed, Feb 1, 2017 at 5:33 PM, Christopher Gray < >> cg...@graytechsoftware.com> wrote: >> >> How do you keep track of speeds for your 477? >> >> >> >> >> >> >> On Wed, Feb 1, 2017 at 5:50 PM, Mathew Howard <mhoward...@gmail.com> >> wrote: >> >> We just have the same set of plans (with names, rather than speeds) with >> the same prices everywhere, and the speeds set differently depending on the >> area - so if you're in an area where we can cover you with ePMP 5ghz half a >> mile from our office, you'll get a vastly different speed than if you're >> out in the middle of nowhere where we can only cover you with 900mhz FSK >> from a tower with a grand total of 5 customers on it, but for billing >> purposes the plan is the same. The only way to find out what the actual >> speed is going to be in any given area is to ask us. >> >> >> >> On Wed, Feb 1, 2017 at 12:47 PM, Adam Moffett <dmmoff...@gmail.com> >> wrote: >> >> The other way is to define different service options and say that not all >> options are available in all areas. >> >> >> >> If there's an option that's more money for less speed nobody will >> intentionally choose it, but you can tell them that's the option available >> in their area. This way happens to also work seamlessly with billing >> systems since you have to differentiate the rate options in the system that >> way anyhow. >> >> >> >> One problem you will not avoid no matter how you spell it out is that >> some people will draw their own conclusions about why you're charging them >> more than people in another area. I.E.: They'll say you're a greedy, evil >> person with selfish and petty reasons for discriminating against them. I >> don't have any faith in my fellow humans, so take that with a grain of salt. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> ------ Original Message ------ >> >> From: "Sterling Jacobson" <sterl...@avative.net> >> >> To: "af@afmug.com" <af@afmug.com> >> >> Sent: 2/1/2017 1:37:38 PM >> >> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Providing Service at Different Rates / in Different >> Markets >> >> >> >> Ugh, that is difficult. >> >> >> >> If it were me, at the very least I would just make a pricing page online >> and spell it all out for each ‘area’. >> >> >> >> If you want to be more discreet you could just advertise the lowest >> priced rate/plan and say there are higher speed options to contact you. >> >> >> >> The fancy way would be for them to fill out a form and get an immediate >> response via email or online as to their rate plans per the area. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> *From:* Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] *On Behalf Of *Christopher Gray >> *Sent:* Wednesday, February 1, 2017 11:28 AM >> *To:* af@afmug.com >> *Subject:* [AFMUG] Providing Service at Different Rates / in Different >> Markets >> >> >> >> How do others handle providing service in different markets at different >> rates? >> >> >> >> As I've expanded into different areas, I've found I need to charge >> significantly different rates and have to provide different speeds. I >> adjusted my website to say things like: "...up to" and "...starting at >> $...". It feels a bit misleading. I want to be clear without publishing >> every single service option. >> >> >> >> I'd like some suggestions for more appropriately treating the different >> areas. Perhaps entering a zipcode or town to see price options? >> >> >> >> Thank you - Chris >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> -- >> >> If you only see yourself as part of the team but you don't see your team >> as part of yourself you have already failed as part of the team. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> -- >> >> If you only see yourself as part of the team but you don't see your team >> as part of yourself you have already failed as part of the team. >> > > > > -- > If you only see yourself as part of the team but you don't see your team > as part of yourself you have already failed as part of the team. >
