Sounds like a missed opportunity. Are you leaving the price the same due to competitive pressure?
On Feb 4, 2017 8:02 AM, "Kurt Fankhauser" <[email protected]> wrote: > 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 < > [email protected]> 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 <[email protected]> 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:[email protected]] *On Behalf Of *That One Guy >>> /sarcasm >>> *Sent:* Friday, February 3, 2017 10:16 AM >>> *To:* [email protected] >>> *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 < >>> [email protected]> 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 <[email protected]> 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 < >>> [email protected]> 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 < >>> [email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> EXPORT-FORM 477 >>> >>> LITERALLY THAT SIMPLE >>> >>> >>> >>> On Wed, Feb 1, 2017 at 5:33 PM, Christopher Gray < >>> [email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> How do you keep track of speeds for your 477? >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> On Wed, Feb 1, 2017 at 5:50 PM, Mathew Howard <[email protected]> >>> 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 <[email protected]> >>> 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" <[email protected]> >>> >>> To: "[email protected]" <[email protected]> >>> >>> 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:[email protected]] *On Behalf Of *Christopher Gray >>> *Sent:* Wednesday, February 1, 2017 11:28 AM >>> *To:* [email protected] >>> *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. >> > >
