Re: [WISPA] Internet Packages regarding geography
I assume the same would apply if you introduce new plans to existing customers as well? I assume customers that cannot get that service will beat on you to make some sort of change to get it to them, like a closer site. From: Matt Hoppes Sent: Monday, December 30, 2013 8:34 PM To: WISPA General List Cc: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Internet Packages regarding geography What we have done is offer the same packages across the board. If you can't get at least the package you want we don't install you. On Dec 30, 2013, at 21:11, heith petersen wi...@mncomm.com wrote: We are getting to the point in a lot of our markets that we need to offer different speed packages. Issue being some markets, being 900 or slightly sub-par infrastructure, we wouldn’t be able to promote these packages across the board. Was curious if others are offering packages to different areas that would not be possible in some? And if so, do you get any backlash from those who cannot get those packages? Is it appropriate to offer extended packages to users on one tower when another tower down the road wouldn’t be capable of these packages? Its bad but we just offer a residential rate, no matter if that customer can get 1 meg down via Canopy 900 or close to 10 meg on a UBNT SM. I have caught a little heat in an area where we fired up 900 about 4 years ago to a market that had only satellite. Then we hooked up a tower in a small town 4 miles away with UBNT M2 and news spread like wild fire. We went from 40 900 subs to about a dozen, and a pile of radios I don’t want to deploy again. Shame on me for not offering the extended packages at that time for those wanting more bandwidth. I also have the area outside my home town that Century Link offers what they claim is 12 meg service, but it never gets close. I am constantly adding more sectors in these areas, Im getting to the point where I am adding UBNT to offload Canopy, then adding more UBNT to offload the UBNT that was offloading the Canopy, it gets to be a vicious circle. I am already $20 per month more than CL, not sure if a lot of customers would stay if I were to charge them more for what they are getting now. Once again shame on me. The bosses think the prices should be the same across the board, but technically performances cannot be matched across the board, plus Im running ragged satisfying existing customers when I should be looking at new areas, and start the vicious circle all over again LOL. thanks heith ___ Wireless mailing list Wireless@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless ___ Wireless mailing list Wireless@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless ___ Wireless mailing list Wireless@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
Re: [WISPA] Internet Packages regarding geography
Customer are always going to beat on you for more... regardless of what you give them... after all, all they see on TV is ads and news reports of 50Mbps to Gigabit services in the cities. The idea is simple, noone can guarentee every single customer that thier Plan 3 at 4Mbps is going to be exact everytime they run a speed test, but that is what they are told when they bought the plan, from website information to pamphlet to salesperson... Plan 3 is xMbps. So why not sell the product as it really is Plan 3 is 3-4Mbps? If they do not want to pay for Plan 3 when it is only 3.4Mbps, then they can go to Plan 2, 2-3Mbps... where they will get 3Mbps. We will even throw in that we add bursting which means it may be a little faster at times of low network usage. On Tue, Dec 31, 2013 at 10:19 AM, heith petersen wi...@mncomm.com wrote: I assume the same would apply if you introduce new plans to existing customers as well? I assume customers that cannot get that service will beat on you to make some sort of change to get it to them, like a closer site. *From:* Matt Hoppes mhop...@indigowireless.com *Sent:* Monday, December 30, 2013 8:34 PM *To:* WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org *Cc:* WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org *Subject:* Re: [WISPA] Internet Packages regarding geography What we have done is offer the same packages across the board. If you can't get at least the package you want we don't install you. On Dec 30, 2013, at 21:11, heith petersen wi...@mncomm.com wrote: We are getting to the point in a lot of our markets that we need to offer different speed packages. Issue being some markets, being 900 or slightly sub-par infrastructure, we wouldn’t be able to promote these packages across the board. Was curious if others are offering packages to different areas that would not be possible in some? And if so, do you get any backlash from those who cannot get those packages? Is it appropriate to offer extended packages to users on one tower when another tower down the road wouldn’t be capable of these packages? Its bad but we just offer a residential rate, no matter if that customer can get 1 meg down via Canopy 900 or close to 10 meg on a UBNT SM. I have caught a little heat in an area where we fired up 900 about 4 years ago to a market that had only satellite. Then we hooked up a tower in a small town 4 miles away with UBNT M2 and news spread like wild fire. We went from 40 900 subs to about a dozen, and a pile of radios I don’t want to deploy again. Shame on me for not offering the extended packages at that time for those wanting more bandwidth. I also have the area outside my home town that Century Link offers what they claim is 12 meg service, but it never gets close. I am constantly adding more sectors in these areas, Im getting to the point where I am adding UBNT to offload Canopy, then adding more UBNT to offload the UBNT that was offloading the Canopy, it gets to be a vicious circle. I am already $20 per month more than CL, not sure if a lot of customers would stay if I were to charge them more for what they are getting now. Once again shame on me. The bosses think the prices should be the same across the board, but technically performances cannot be matched across the board, plus Im running ragged satisfying existing customers when I should be looking at new areas, and start the vicious circle all over again LOL. thanks heith ___ Wireless mailing list Wireless@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless -- ___ Wireless mailing list Wireless@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless ___ Wireless mailing list Wireless@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless -- -- SCS Clay Stewart CEO, Tye River Farms, Inc., DBA Stewart Computer Services 434.263.6363 O 434.942.6510 C cstew...@stewartcomputerservices.com “We Keep You Up and Running” Wireless Broadband Programming Network Services ___ Wireless mailing list Wireless@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
Re: [WISPA] Internet Packages regarding geography
We are suppose to make a profit? On 12/30/2013 09:51 PM, Phil Curnutt wrote: Granted that our model is way different then yours, we are a non-profit member owned, volunteer operated, coop, but we give everybody 2 up and 2 down (now that we have an AirFiber backhaul) and are still scrambling to keep up with the members usage (400 members covering 600 square miles). And, they always want more. Charging $30 a month. Of course we only have one paid employee. The folks here in NM are happy to get that as their only alternative is dial-up or satellite. When CenturyLink finally moves into a neighborhood we actually encourage new inquires to go with them as we still have tons of folks with no options other then us. It cost us about $30K every time we have to upgrade the backbone and back haul and APs, but luckily we have enough time between upgrades to bank the funds. I don't know how you guys can make a profit. Phil On Mon, Dec 30, 2013 at 8:00 PM, Matt Hoppes mhop...@indigowireless.com mailto:mhop...@indigowireless.com wrote: It's cut down in confusion. Oh yeah. 5 meg is x in town a but y in town b. And we don't do the upto game. So if you want 5 and can only get 3 we won't install you unless you'll take 3. We don't charge for packages folks can't get. Likewise this keeps our network happy since most links are pretty clean. On Dec 30, 2013, at 21:48, CBB - Jay Fuller par...@cyberbroadband.net mailto:par...@cyberbroadband.net wrote: That is a good idea Sent from my wy too expensive android mobile vzw 4gish device. - Reply message - From: Matt Hoppes mhop...@indigowireless.com mailto:mhop...@indigowireless.com To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org mailto:wireless@wispa.org Cc: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org mailto:wireless@wispa.org Subject: [WISPA] Internet Packages regarding geography Date: Mon, Dec 30, 2013 9:34 PM What we have done is offer the same packages across the board. If you can't get at least the package you want we don't install you. On Dec 30, 2013, at 21:11, heith petersen wi...@mncomm.com mailto:wi...@mncomm.com wrote: We are getting to the point in a lot of our markets that we need to offer different speed packages. Issue being some markets, being 900 or slightly sub-par infrastructure, we wouldn't be able to promote these packages across the board. Was curious if others are offering packages to different areas that would not be possible in some? And if so, do you get any backlash from those who cannot get those packages? Is it appropriate to offer extended packages to users on one tower when another tower down the road wouldn't be capable of these packages? Its bad but we just offer a residential rate, no matter if that customer can get 1 meg down via Canopy 900 or close to 10 meg on a UBNT SM. I have caught a little heat in an area where we fired up 900 about 4 years ago to a market that had only satellite. Then we hooked up a tower in a small town 4 miles away with UBNT M2 and news spread like wild fire. We went from 40 900 subs to about a dozen, and a pile of radios I don't want to deploy again. Shame on me for not offering the extended packages at that time for those wanting more bandwidth. I also have the area outside my home town that Century Link offers what they claim is 12 meg service, but it never gets close. I am constantly adding more sectors in these areas, Im getting to the point where I am adding UBNT to offload Canopy, then adding more UBNT to offload the UBNT that was offloading the Canopy, it gets to be a vicious circle. I am already $20 per month more than CL, not sure if a lot of customers would stay if I were to charge them more for what they are getting now. Once again shame on me. The bosses think the prices should be the same across the board, but technically performances cannot be matched across the board, plus Im running ragged satisfying existing customers when I should be looking at new areas, and start the vicious circle all over again LOL. thanks heith ___ Wireless mailing list Wireless@wispa.org mailto:Wireless@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless ___ Wireless mailing list Wireless@wispa.org mailto:Wireless@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless ___ Wireless mailing list Wireless@wispa.org mailto:Wireless@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless ___ Wireless mailing list Wireless@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
Re: [WISPA] Internet Packages regarding geography
I wouldn't be doing this if we didn't make a profit. -- On 12/31/2013 1:57 PM, Sam Tetherow wrote: We are suppose to make a profit? On 12/30/2013 09:51 PM, Phil Curnutt wrote: Granted that our model is way different then yours, we are a non-profit member owned, volunteer operated, coop, but we give everybody 2 up and 2 down (now that we have an AirFiber backhaul) and are still scrambling to keep up with the members usage (400 members covering 600 square miles). And, they always want more. Charging $30 a month. Of course we only have one paid employee. The folks here in NM are happy to get that as their only alternative is dial-up or satellite. When CenturyLink finally moves into a neighborhood we actually encourage new inquires to go with them as we still have tons of folks with no options other then us. It cost us about $30K every time we have to upgrade the backbone and back haul and APs, but luckily we have enough time between upgrades to bank the funds. I don't know how you guys can make a profit. Phil On Mon, Dec 30, 2013 at 8:00 PM, Matt Hoppes mhop...@indigowireless.com mailto:mhop...@indigowireless.com wrote: It's cut down in confusion. Oh yeah. 5 meg is x in town a but y in town b. And we don't do the upto game. So if you want 5 and can only get 3 we won't install you unless you'll take 3. We don't charge for packages folks can't get. Likewise this keeps our network happy since most links are pretty clean. On Dec 30, 2013, at 21:48, CBB - Jay Fuller par...@cyberbroadband.net mailto:par...@cyberbroadband.net wrote: That is a good idea Sent from my wy too expensive android mobile vzw 4gish device. - Reply message - From: Matt Hoppes mhop...@indigowireless.com mailto:mhop...@indigowireless.com To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org mailto:wireless@wispa.org Cc: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org mailto:wireless@wispa.org Subject: [WISPA] Internet Packages regarding geography Date: Mon, Dec 30, 2013 9:34 PM What we have done is offer the same packages across the board. If you can't get at least the package you want we don't install you. On Dec 30, 2013, at 21:11, heith petersen wi...@mncomm.com mailto:wi...@mncomm.com wrote: We are getting to the point in a lot of our markets that we need to offer different speed packages. Issue being some markets, being 900 or slightly sub-par infrastructure, we wouldn't be able to promote these packages across the board. Was curious if others are offering packages to different areas that would not be possible in some? And if so, do you get any backlash from those who cannot get those packages? Is it appropriate to offer extended packages to users on one tower when another tower down the road wouldn't be capable of these packages? Its bad but we just offer a residential rate, no matter if that customer can get 1 meg down via Canopy 900 or close to 10 meg on a UBNT SM. I have caught a little heat in an area where we fired up 900 about 4 years ago to a market that had only satellite. Then we hooked up a tower in a small town 4 miles away with UBNT M2 and news spread like wild fire. We went from 40 900 subs to about a dozen, and a pile of radios I don't want to deploy again. Shame on me for not offering the extended packages at that time for those wanting more bandwidth. I also have the area outside my home town that Century Link offers what they claim is 12 meg service, but it never gets close. I am constantly adding more sectors in these areas, Im getting to the point where I am adding UBNT to offload Canopy, then adding more UBNT to offload the UBNT that was offloading the Canopy, it gets to be a vicious circle. I am already $20 per month more than CL, not sure if a lot of customers would stay if I were to charge them more for what they are getting now. Once again shame on me. The bosses think the prices should be the same across the board, but technically performances cannot be matched across the board, plus Im running ragged satisfying existing customers when I should be looking at new areas, and start the vicious circle all over again LOL. thanks heith ___ Wireless mailing list Wireless@wispa.org mailto:Wireless@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless ___ Wireless mailing list Wireless@wispa.org mailto:Wireless@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless ___ Wireless mailing list Wireless@wispa.org mailto:Wireless@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless ___ Wireless mailing list
Re: [WISPA] Internet Packages regarding geography
This last year, we finished unification of all our rate plans so that we would have consistency across our network. At this time last year, we had several plans that had overlap and different sets of services as part of the plans. For example, a 2meg plan for $49.95/month that included dialup and a public IP address sold next to a $49.95/month 4meg plan that did not have the dialup or public IP. Most of the customers did not use public IP addresses or dialup, and we were starting to get 2meg customers complaining about the 4meg plan on our website that was 2x the speed for the same price. At the same time, we still had a lot of 384k and 640k plans with people who were complaining about YouTube not working, but they were reluctant to upgrade to the next package because our prices were not as competitive on the lower end with the 1.5meg dsl bundles. What we ended up doing was this: 1) Replace the 384k and 640k plans with 1meg and 1.5meg speeds at the same prices 2) Bump up all existing 1meg and 2meg customers to 2meg and 3meg speeds for the same prices 3) Eliminate public IP addresses being included with plans, made them a separate monthly charge and adjusted customers to have a new speed package with the public IP added to it 4) Later in the year we established a maintenance fee package that was automatically added to each customer account, but customers were given the choice of opting out of the plan After doing all of this, we ended up having a much more competitive service on the low end, fewer customer complaints about YouTube and other sites from low end customers, and our revenue went up - mostly because of the addition of the maintenance package. Any plan inconsistencies between customers and areas were also resolved. The toughest part of this plan was the pre-planning that was involved to make it happen. We did a ton of customer data cleanup and plan adjustment over the summer, but that was work that needed to be done anyway because of a lot of random, nonstandard plan changes that employees had been doing as shortcuts.We also had to take a really strong look at oversub ratios on our access points and what the resulting oversub ratios would be with the plan changes, since the ratios would generally double. In doing so, we identified a bunch of places where we needed to add capacity or just needed to move higher bandwidth customers to other access points. There were a lot of radio swaps and service calls involved in that process, but the end result was better network performance and higher customer satisfaction. We set a 4:1 bandwidth ratio as our preferred point of upgrade on access points - meaning we can sell 40meg of customers plans on an AP that has approximately 10meg of capacity (such as a 2.4ghz 802.11g on 10mhz channel). When the process started, we had about 27 APs that would have been overloaded with the new plans. As of today, we have eight APs that are over 4:1, and six of those are just barely over. When it comes to the speeds that we offer in any particular area, we decided to make all speeds available, as long as the oversell ratio on the access point was not exceeded. Going into next year, my plan is to replace all of our remaining StarOS access points with either Airmax or Mikrotik, swap out as many old Tranzeo radios as possible and add sectors and microcells in places where capacity starts to get overloaded. I am not looking forward to the pricetag on this work, but it is the right thing to do and it will keep us competitive for the next few years. Happy New Year everyone, and have a great 2014! Matt Larsen Vistabeam.com On 12/31/2013 8:19 AM, heith petersen wrote: I assume the same would apply if you introduce new plans to existing customers as well? I assume customers that cannot get that service will beat on you to make some sort of change to get it to them, like a closer site. *From:* Matt Hoppes mailto:mhop...@indigowireless.com *Sent:* Monday, December 30, 2013 8:34 PM *To:* WISPA General List mailto:wireless@wispa.org *Cc:* WISPA General List mailto:wireless@wispa.org *Subject:* Re: [WISPA] Internet Packages regarding geography What we have done is offer the same packages across the board. If you can't get at least the package you want we don't install you. On Dec 30, 2013, at 21:11, heith petersen wi...@mncomm.com mailto:wi...@mncomm.com wrote: We are getting to the point in a lot of our markets that we need to offer different speed packages. Issue being some markets, being 900 or slightly sub-par infrastructure, we wouldn't be able to promote these packages across the board. Was curious if others are offering packages to different areas that would not be possible in some? And if so, do you get any backlash from those who cannot get those packages? Is it appropriate to offer extended packages to users on one tower when another tower down the road
Re: [WISPA] Internet Packages regarding geography
Your customers don't get a public IP? I'll never understand why people do this. - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com - Original Message - From: Matt Larsen - Lists li...@manageisp.com To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Tuesday, December 31, 2013 1:09:48 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Internet Packages regarding geography This last year, we finished unification of all our rate plans so that we would have consistency across our network. At this time last year, we had several plans that had overlap and different sets of services as part of the plans. For example, a 2meg plan for $49.95/month that included dialup and a public IP address sold next to a $49.95/month 4meg plan that did not have the dialup or public IP. Most of the customers did not use public IP addresses or dialup, and we were starting to get 2meg customers complaining about the 4meg plan on our website that was 2x the speed for the same price. At the same time, we still had a lot of 384k and 640k plans with people who were complaining about YouTube not working, but they were reluctant to upgrade to the next package because our prices were not as competitive on the lower end with the 1.5meg dsl bundles. What we ended up doing was this: 1) Replace the 384k and 640k plans with 1meg and 1.5meg speeds at the same prices 2) Bump up all existing 1meg and 2meg customers to 2meg and 3meg speeds for the same prices 3) Eliminate public IP addresses being included with plans, made them a separate monthly charge and adjusted customers to have a new speed package with the public IP added to it 4) Later in the year we established a maintenance fee package that was automatically added to each customer account, but customers were given the choice of opting out of the plan After doing all of this, we ended up having a much more competitive service on the low end, fewer customer complaints about YouTube and other sites from low end customers, and our revenue went up - mostly because of the addition of the maintenance package. Any plan inconsistencies between customers and areas were also resolved. The toughest part of this plan was the pre-planning that was involved to make it happen. We did a ton of customer data cleanup and plan adjustment over the summer, but that was work that needed to be done anyway because of a lot of random, nonstandard plan changes that employees had been doing as shortcuts. We also had to take a really strong look at oversub ratios on our access points and what the resulting oversub ratios would be with the plan changes, since the ratios would generally double. In doing so, we identified a bunch of places where we needed to add capacity or just needed to move higher bandwidth customers to other access points. There were a lot of radio swaps and service calls involved in that process, but the end result was better network performance and higher customer satisfaction. We set a 4:1 bandwidth ratio as our preferred point of upgrade on access points - meaning we can sell 40meg of customers plans on an AP that has approximately 10meg of capacity (such as a 2.4ghz 802.11g on 10mhz channel). When the process started, we had about 27 APs that would have been overloaded with the new plans. As of today, we have eight APs that are over 4:1, and six of those are just barely over. When it comes to the speeds that we offer in any particular area, we decided to make all speeds available, as long as the oversell ratio on the access point was not exceeded. Going into next year, my plan is to replace all of our remaining StarOS access points with either Airmax or Mikrotik, swap out as many old Tranzeo radios as possible and add sectors and microcells in places where capacity starts to get overloaded. I am not looking forward to the pricetag on this work, but it is the right thing to do and it will keep us competitive for the next few years. Happy New Year everyone, and have a great 2014! Matt Larsen Vistabeam.com On 12/31/2013 8:19 AM, heith petersen wrote: I assume the same would apply if you introduce new plans to existing customers as well? I assume customers that cannot get that service will beat on you to make some sort of change to get it to them, like a closer site. From: Matt Hoppes Sent: Monday, December 30, 2013 8:34 PM To: WISPA General List Cc: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Internet Packages regarding geography What we have done is offer the same packages across the board. If you can't get at least the package you want we don't install you. On Dec 30, 2013, at 21:11, heith petersen wi...@mncomm.com wrote: blockquote We are getting to the point in a lot of our markets that we need to offer different speed packages. Issue being some markets, being 900 or slightly sub-par infrastructure, we wouldn’t be able to promote these packages across the board. Was curious
Re: [WISPA] Internet Packages regarding geography
Why would you give customers a public IP? That is nuts as far as I am concerned. Private IPs are easier to manage across multiple towers, you can setup routing properly so that subnets are completely separate for each AP, you can pick and choose how and where to route edge traffic to multiple backbone providers, you can move between backbone providers without having to re-ip all customers, customers are not exposed to external virus traffic... I mean I could go on and on about why carrier-NAT is awesome. I see no reason to mess with public IPs unless forced to. Matt Larsen vistabeam.com On 12/31/2013 12:17 PM, Mike Hammett wrote: Your customers don't get a public IP? I'll never understand why people do this. - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com *From: *Matt Larsen - Lists li...@manageisp.com *To: *WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org *Sent: *Tuesday, December 31, 2013 1:09:48 PM *Subject: *Re: [WISPA] Internet Packages regarding geography This last year, we finished unification of all our rate plans so that we would have consistency across our network. At this time last year, we had several plans that had overlap and different sets of services as part of the plans. For example, a 2meg plan for $49.95/month that included dialup and a public IP address sold next to a $49.95/month 4meg plan that did not have the dialup or public IP. Most of the customers did not use public IP addresses or dialup, and we were starting to get 2meg customers complaining about the 4meg plan on our website that was 2x the speed for the same price. At the same time, we still had a lot of 384k and 640k plans with people who were complaining about YouTube not working, but they were reluctant to upgrade to the next package because our prices were not as competitive on the lower end with the 1.5meg dsl bundles. What we ended up doing was this: 1) Replace the 384k and 640k plans with 1meg and 1.5meg speeds at the same prices 2) Bump up all existing 1meg and 2meg customers to 2meg and 3meg speeds for the same prices 3) Eliminate public IP addresses being included with plans, made them a separate monthly charge and adjusted customers to have a new speed package with the public IP added to it 4) Later in the year we established a maintenance fee package that was automatically added to each customer account, but customers were given the choice of opting out of the plan After doing all of this, we ended up having a much more competitive service on the low end, fewer customer complaints about YouTube and other sites from low end customers, and our revenue went up - mostly because of the addition of the maintenance package. Any plan inconsistencies between customers and areas were also resolved. The toughest part of this plan was the pre-planning that was involved to make it happen. We did a ton of customer data cleanup and plan adjustment over the summer, but that was work that needed to be done anyway because of a lot of random, nonstandard plan changes that employees had been doing as shortcuts.We also had to take a really strong look at oversub ratios on our access points and what the resulting oversub ratios would be with the plan changes, since the ratios would generally double. In doing so, we identified a bunch of places where we needed to add capacity or just needed to move higher bandwidth customers to other access points. There were a lot of radio swaps and service calls involved in that process, but the end result was better network performance and higher customer satisfaction. We set a 4:1 bandwidth ratio as our preferred point of upgrade on access points - meaning we can sell 40meg of customers plans on an AP that has approximately 10meg of capacity (such as a 2.4ghz 802.11g on 10mhz channel). When the process started, we had about 27 APs that would have been overloaded with the new plans. As of today, we have eight APs that are over 4:1, and six of those are just barely over. When it comes to the speeds that we offer in any particular area, we decided to make all speeds available, as long as the oversell ratio on the access point was not exceeded. Going into next year, my plan is to replace all of our remaining StarOS access points with either Airmax or Mikrotik, swap out as many old Tranzeo radios as possible and add sectors and microcells in places where capacity starts to get overloaded. I am not looking forward to the pricetag on this work, but it is the right thing to do and it will keep us competitive for the next few years. Happy New Year everyone, and have a great 2014! Matt Larsen Vistabeam.com On 12/31/2013 8:19 AM, heith petersen wrote: I assume the same would apply if you introduce new plans to existing customers as well? I assume customers that cannot get
Re: [WISPA] Internet Packages regarding geography
Private IPs are only easier to manage if you don't have proper BGP setup. If you do it's trivial to move between carriers. Plus running publics allows the customer to run VoIP and game systems without issue. Don't put the customers computer on the public. Just their router. We do a 1:1 NaT at the CPE. This keeps the customer computer off the Internet and off our network. In this day you'd be crazy not to have public IPs on customers. But that just my opinion. If privates work for you I guess keep doing it. On Dec 31, 2013, at 15:09, Matt Larsen - Lists li...@manageisp.com wrote: Why would you give customers a public IP? That is nuts as far as I am concerned. Private IPs are easier to manage across multiple towers, you can setup routing properly so that subnets are completely separate for each AP, you can pick and choose how and where to route edge traffic to multiple backbone providers, you can move between backbone providers without having to re-ip all customers, customers are not exposed to external virus traffic... I mean I could go on and on about why carrier-NAT is awesome. I see no reason to mess with public IPs unless forced to. Matt Larsen vistabeam.com On 12/31/2013 12:17 PM, Mike Hammett wrote: Your customers don't get a public IP? I'll never understand why people do this. - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com From: Matt Larsen - Lists li...@manageisp.com To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Tuesday, December 31, 2013 1:09:48 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Internet Packages regarding geography This last year, we finished unification of all our rate plans so that we would have consistency across our network. At this time last year, we had several plans that had overlap and different sets of services as part of the plans. For example, a 2meg plan for $49.95/month that included dialup and a public IP address sold next to a $49.95/month 4meg plan that did not have the dialup or public IP. Most of the customers did not use public IP addresses or dialup, and we were starting to get 2meg customers complaining about the 4meg plan on our website that was 2x the speed for the same price. At the same time, we still had a lot of 384k and 640k plans with people who were complaining about YouTube not working, but they were reluctant to upgrade to the next package because our prices were not as competitive on the lower end with the 1.5meg dsl bundles. What we ended up doing was this: 1) Replace the 384k and 640k plans with 1meg and 1.5meg speeds at the same prices 2) Bump up all existing 1meg and 2meg customers to 2meg and 3meg speeds for the same prices 3) Eliminate public IP addresses being included with plans, made them a separate monthly charge and adjusted customers to have a new speed package with the public IP added to it 4) Later in the year we established a maintenance fee package that was automatically added to each customer account, but customers were given the choice of opting out of the plan After doing all of this, we ended up having a much more competitive service on the low end, fewer customer complaints about YouTube and other sites from low end customers, and our revenue went up - mostly because of the addition of the maintenance package. Any plan inconsistencies between customers and areas were also resolved. The toughest part of this plan was the pre-planning that was involved to make it happen. We did a ton of customer data cleanup and plan adjustment over the summer, but that was work that needed to be done anyway because of a lot of random, nonstandard plan changes that employees had been doing as shortcuts.We also had to take a really strong look at oversub ratios on our access points and what the resulting oversub ratios would be with the plan changes, since the ratios would generally double. In doing so, we identified a bunch of places where we needed to add capacity or just needed to move higher bandwidth customers to other access points. There were a lot of radio swaps and service calls involved in that process, but the end result was better network performance and higher customer satisfaction. We set a 4:1 bandwidth ratio as our preferred point of upgrade on access points - meaning we can sell 40meg of customers plans on an AP that has approximately 10meg of capacity (such as a 2.4ghz 802.11g on 10mhz channel). When the process started, we had about 27 APs that would have been overloaded with the new plans. As of today, we have eight APs that are over 4:1, and six of those are just barely over. When it comes to the speeds that we offer in any particular area, we decided to make all speeds available, as long as the oversell ratio on the access point was not exceeded. Going into next year, my plan
Re: [WISPA] Internet Packages regarding geography
You can do all the routing magic with PPPoE (has it's own cost). Or with dynamic routing (OSPF and BGP). You can easily firewall the customers so they look just like a NATed IP (basically drop all !related !established traffic). I give publics because I got tired of users complaining about strict NAT on their gaming consoles and issues with crappy VPNs. Also go tired of managing 1-1 NATs for the ever growing list of customers with security cameras, remote light controls and other home automation/security products. It still boggles my mind that I have customers that have home security systems and cameras installed, but they don't lock their doors. On 12/31/2013 02:09 PM, Matt Larsen - Lists wrote: Why would you give customers a public IP? That is nuts as far as I am concerned. Private IPs are easier to manage across multiple towers, you can setup routing properly so that subnets are completely separate for each AP, you can pick and choose how and where to route edge traffic to multiple backbone providers, you can move between backbone providers without having to re-ip all customers, customers are not exposed to external virus traffic... I mean I could go on and on about why carrier-NAT is awesome. I see no reason to mess with public IPs unless forced to. Matt Larsen vistabeam.com On 12/31/2013 12:17 PM, Mike Hammett wrote: Your customers don't get a public IP? I'll never understand why people do this. - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com *From: *Matt Larsen - Lists li...@manageisp.com *To: *WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org *Sent: *Tuesday, December 31, 2013 1:09:48 PM *Subject: *Re: [WISPA] Internet Packages regarding geography This last year, we finished unification of all our rate plans so that we would have consistency across our network. At this time last year, we had several plans that had overlap and different sets of services as part of the plans. For example, a 2meg plan for $49.95/month that included dialup and a public IP address sold next to a $49.95/month 4meg plan that did not have the dialup or public IP. Most of the customers did not use public IP addresses or dialup, and we were starting to get 2meg customers complaining about the 4meg plan on our website that was 2x the speed for the same price. At the same time, we still had a lot of 384k and 640k plans with people who were complaining about YouTube not working, but they were reluctant to upgrade to the next package because our prices were not as competitive on the lower end with the 1.5meg dsl bundles. What we ended up doing was this: 1) Replace the 384k and 640k plans with 1meg and 1.5meg speeds at the same prices 2) Bump up all existing 1meg and 2meg customers to 2meg and 3meg speeds for the same prices 3) Eliminate public IP addresses being included with plans, made them a separate monthly charge and adjusted customers to have a new speed package with the public IP added to it 4) Later in the year we established a maintenance fee package that was automatically added to each customer account, but customers were given the choice of opting out of the plan After doing all of this, we ended up having a much more competitive service on the low end, fewer customer complaints about YouTube and other sites from low end customers, and our revenue went up - mostly because of the addition of the maintenance package. Any plan inconsistencies between customers and areas were also resolved. The toughest part of this plan was the pre-planning that was involved to make it happen. We did a ton of customer data cleanup and plan adjustment over the summer, but that was work that needed to be done anyway because of a lot of random, nonstandard plan changes that employees had been doing as shortcuts.We also had to take a really strong look at oversub ratios on our access points and what the resulting oversub ratios would be with the plan changes, since the ratios would generally double. In doing so, we identified a bunch of places where we needed to add capacity or just needed to move higher bandwidth customers to other access points. There were a lot of radio swaps and service calls involved in that process, but the end result was better network performance and higher customer satisfaction. We set a 4:1 bandwidth ratio as our preferred point of upgrade on access points - meaning we can sell 40meg of customers plans on an AP that has approximately 10meg of capacity (such as a 2.4ghz 802.11g on 10mhz channel). When the process started, we had about 27 APs that would have been overloaded with the new plans. As of today, we have eight APs that are over 4:1, and six of those are just barely over. When it comes to the speeds that we offer in any particular area, we decided to make all speeds available, as long
Re: [WISPA] Internet Packages regarding geography
I like to assign a /24 to each access point to cover all of the IP addresses needed for customers and CPE radios. No need to have public IP addresses on a CPE. So if you use publics for customers, you have to setup another subnet of privates for the CPE radios. More complexity. If you do publics, that means a minimum of two IPs on each end user subnet. That is kind of a waste. PPPoE is another point of failure and complexity both at the core and at the customer. No desire to go there. Plus, if someone wants a public IP for their gaming or VPN or security system, I charge an extra $9.95/month for it. More cheddar! Matt Larsen vistabeam.com On Tue, 31 Dec 2013 14:55:05 -0600, Sam Tetherow tethe...@shwisp.net wrote: You can do all the routing magic with PPPoE (has it's own cost). Or with dynamic routing (OSPF and BGP). You can easily firewall the customers so they look just like a NATed IP (basically drop all !related !established traffic). I give publics because I got tired of users complaining about strict NAT on their gaming consoles and issues with crappy VPNs. Also go tired of managing 1-1 NATs for the ever growing list of customers with security cameras, remote light controls and other home automation/security products. It still boggles my mind that I have customers that have home security systems and cameras installed, but they don't lock their doors. On 12/31/2013 02:09 PM, Matt Larsen - Lists wrote: Why would you give customers a public IP? That is nuts as far as I am concerned. Private IPs are easier to manage across multiple towers, you can setup routing properly so that subnets are completely separate for each AP, you can pick and choose how and where to route edge traffic to multiple backbone providers, you can move between backbone providers without having to re-ip all customers, customers are not exposed to external virus traffic... I mean I could go on and on about why carrier-NAT is awesome. I see no reason to mess with public IPs unless forced to. Matt Larsen vistabeam.com On 12/31/2013 12:17 PM, Mike Hammett wrote: Your customers don't get a public IP? I'll never understand why people do this. - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com *From: *Matt Larsen - Lists li...@manageisp.com *To: *WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org *Sent: *Tuesday, December 31, 2013 1:09:48 PM *Subject: *Re: [WISPA] Internet Packages regarding geography This last year, we finished unification of all our rate plans so that we would have consistency across our network. At this time last year, we had several plans that had overlap and different sets of services as part of the plans. For example, a 2meg plan for $49.95/month that included dialup and a public IP address sold next to a $49.95/month 4meg plan that did not have the dialup or public IP. Most of the customers did not use public IP addresses or dialup, and we were starting to get 2meg customers complaining about the 4meg plan on our website that was 2x the speed for the same price. At the same time, we still had a lot of 384k and 640k plans with people who were complaining about YouTube not working, but they were reluctant to upgrade to the next package because our prices were not as competitive on the lower end with the 1.5meg dsl bundles. What we ended up doing was this: 1) Replace the 384k and 640k plans with 1meg and 1.5meg speeds at the same prices 2) Bump up all existing 1meg and 2meg customers to 2meg and 3meg speeds for the same prices 3) Eliminate public IP addresses being included with plans, made them a separate monthly charge and adjusted customers to have a new speed package with the public IP added to it 4) Later in the year we established a maintenance fee package that was automatically added to each customer account, but customers were given the choice of opting out of the plan After doing all of this, we ended up having a much more competitive service on the low end, fewer customer complaints about YouTube and other sites from low end customers, and our revenue went up - mostly because of the addition of the maintenance package. Any plan inconsistencies between customers and areas were also resolved. The toughest part of this plan was the pre-planning that was involved to make it happen. We did a ton of customer data cleanup and plan adjustment over the summer, but that was work that needed to be done anyway because of a lot of random, nonstandard plan changes that employees had been doing as shortcuts.We also had to take a really strong look at oversub ratios on our access points and what the resulting oversub ratios would be with the plan changes, since the ratios would generally double. In doing so, we identified a bunch of places
Re: [WISPA] Internet Packages regarding geography
To each their own, especially if they can get an extra $9.95 out of it ;) I run CPE as router so only 1 IP per customer, traffic DMZed to customer router. I agree on PPPoE but I haven't tried it in a long time so it may work better now that I'm not using CB3s and 802.11b (I did say it was a long time ago :) On 12/31/2013 03:03 PM, li...@manageisp.com wrote: I like to assign a /24 to each access point to cover all of the IP addresses needed for customers and CPE radios. No need to have public IP addresses on a CPE. So if you use publics for customers, you have to setup another subnet of privates for the CPE radios. More complexity. If you do publics, that means a minimum of two IPs on each end user subnet. That is kind of a waste. PPPoE is another point of failure and complexity both at the core and at the customer. No desire to go there. Plus, if someone wants a public IP for their gaming or VPN or security system, I charge an extra $9.95/month for it. More cheddar! Matt Larsen vistabeam.com On Tue, 31 Dec 2013 14:55:05 -0600, Sam Tetherow tethe...@shwisp.net wrote: You can do all the routing magic with PPPoE (has it's own cost). Or with dynamic routing (OSPF and BGP). You can easily firewall the customers so they look just like a NATed IP (basically drop all !related !established traffic). I give publics because I got tired of users complaining about strict NAT on their gaming consoles and issues with crappy VPNs. Also go tired of managing 1-1 NATs for the ever growing list of customers with security cameras, remote light controls and other home automation/security products. It still boggles my mind that I have customers that have home security systems and cameras installed, but they don't lock their doors. On 12/31/2013 02:09 PM, Matt Larsen - Lists wrote: Why would you give customers a public IP? That is nuts as far as I am concerned. Private IPs are easier to manage across multiple towers, you can setup routing properly so that subnets are completely separate for each AP, you can pick and choose how and where to route edge traffic to multiple backbone providers, you can move between backbone providers without having to re-ip all customers, customers are not exposed to external virus traffic... I mean I could go on and on about why carrier-NAT is awesome. I see no reason to mess with public IPs unless forced to. Matt Larsen vistabeam.com On 12/31/2013 12:17 PM, Mike Hammett wrote: Your customers don't get a public IP? I'll never understand why people do this. - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com *From: *Matt Larsen - Lists li...@manageisp.com *To: *WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org *Sent: *Tuesday, December 31, 2013 1:09:48 PM *Subject: *Re: [WISPA] Internet Packages regarding geography This last year, we finished unification of all our rate plans so that we would have consistency across our network. At this time last year, we had several plans that had overlap and different sets of services as part of the plans. For example, a 2meg plan for $49.95/month that included dialup and a public IP address sold next to a $49.95/month 4meg plan that did not have the dialup or public IP. Most of the customers did not use public IP addresses or dialup, and we were starting to get 2meg customers complaining about the 4meg plan on our website that was 2x the speed for the same price. At the same time, we still had a lot of 384k and 640k plans with people who were complaining about YouTube not working, but they were reluctant to upgrade to the next package because our prices were not as competitive on the lower end with the 1.5meg dsl bundles. What we ended up doing was this: 1) Replace the 384k and 640k plans with 1meg and 1.5meg speeds at the same prices 2) Bump up all existing 1meg and 2meg customers to 2meg and 3meg speeds for the same prices 3) Eliminate public IP addresses being included with plans, made them a separate monthly charge and adjusted customers to have a new speed package with the public IP added to it 4) Later in the year we established a maintenance fee package that was automatically added to each customer account, but customers were given the choice of opting out of the plan After doing all of this, we ended up having a much more competitive service on the low end, fewer customer complaints about YouTube and other sites from low end customers, and our revenue went up - mostly because of the addition of the maintenance package. Any plan inconsistencies between customers and areas were also resolved. The toughest part of this plan was the pre-planning that was involved to make it happen. We did a ton of customer data cleanup and plan adjustment over the summer, but that was work that needed to be done anyway because
Re: [WISPA] Internet Packages regarding geography
How about just assign the public to the CPE? Then NAT at the CPE to the customer - only one IP. On Dec 31, 2013, at 16:32, Sam Tetherow tethe...@shwisp.net wrote: To each their own, especially if they can get an extra $9.95 out of it ;) I run CPE as router so only 1 IP per customer, traffic DMZed to customer router. I agree on PPPoE but I haven't tried it in a long time so it may work better now that I'm not using CB3s and 802.11b (I did say it was a long time ago :) On 12/31/2013 03:03 PM, li...@manageisp.com wrote: I like to assign a /24 to each access point to cover all of the IP addresses needed for customers and CPE radios. No need to have public IP addresses on a CPE. So if you use publics for customers, you have to setup another subnet of privates for the CPE radios. More complexity. If you do publics, that means a minimum of two IPs on each end user subnet. That is kind of a waste. PPPoE is another point of failure and complexity both at the core and at the customer. No desire to go there. Plus, if someone wants a public IP for their gaming or VPN or security system, I charge an extra $9.95/month for it. More cheddar! Matt Larsen vistabeam.com On Tue, 31 Dec 2013 14:55:05 -0600, Sam Tetherow tethe...@shwisp.net wrote: You can do all the routing magic with PPPoE (has it's own cost). Or with dynamic routing (OSPF and BGP). You can easily firewall the customers so they look just like a NATed IP (basically drop all !related !established traffic). I give publics because I got tired of users complaining about strict NAT on their gaming consoles and issues with crappy VPNs. Also go tired of managing 1-1 NATs for the ever growing list of customers with security cameras, remote light controls and other home automation/security products. It still boggles my mind that I have customers that have home security systems and cameras installed, but they don't lock their doors. On 12/31/2013 02:09 PM, Matt Larsen - Lists wrote: Why would you give customers a public IP? That is nuts as far as I am concerned. Private IPs are easier to manage across multiple towers, you can setup routing properly so that subnets are completely separate for each AP, you can pick and choose how and where to route edge traffic to multiple backbone providers, you can move between backbone providers without having to re-ip all customers, customers are not exposed to external virus traffic... I mean I could go on and on about why carrier-NAT is awesome. I see no reason to mess with public IPs unless forced to. Matt Larsen vistabeam.com On 12/31/2013 12:17 PM, Mike Hammett wrote: Your customers don't get a public IP? I'll never understand why people do this. - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com *From: *Matt Larsen - Lists li...@manageisp.com *To: *WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org *Sent: *Tuesday, December 31, 2013 1:09:48 PM *Subject: *Re: [WISPA] Internet Packages regarding geography This last year, we finished unification of all our rate plans so that we would have consistency across our network. At this time last year, we had several plans that had overlap and different sets of services as part of the plans. For example, a 2meg plan for $49.95/month that included dialup and a public IP address sold next to a $49.95/month 4meg plan that did not have the dialup or public IP. Most of the customers did not use public IP addresses or dialup, and we were starting to get 2meg customers complaining about the 4meg plan on our website that was 2x the speed for the same price. At the same time, we still had a lot of 384k and 640k plans with people who were complaining about YouTube not working, but they were reluctant to upgrade to the next package because our prices were not as competitive on the lower end with the 1.5meg dsl bundles. What we ended up doing was this: 1) Replace the 384k and 640k plans with 1meg and 1.5meg speeds at the same prices 2) Bump up all existing 1meg and 2meg customers to 2meg and 3meg speeds for the same prices 3) Eliminate public IP addresses being included with plans, made them a separate monthly charge and adjusted customers to have a new speed package with the public IP added to it 4) Later in the year we established a maintenance fee package that was automatically added to each customer account, but customers were given the choice of opting out of the plan After doing all of this, we ended up having a much more competitive service on the low end, fewer customer complaints about YouTube and other sites from low end customers, and our revenue went up - mostly because of the addition of the maintenance package. Any plan inconsistencies between customers and areas were also resolved. The toughest part of this plan
Re: [WISPA] Internet Packages regarding geography
Wow, I just ran across this old post about how the old timers used to do it before xbox live was invented. Back in those days, nothing was dynamic J Happy 2014 Y'all! Jim From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Matt Larsen - Lists Sent: Tuesday, December 31, 1997 2:09 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Internet Packages regarding geography Why would you give customers a public IP? That is nuts as far as I am concerned. Private IPs are easier to manage across multiple towers, you can setup routing properly so that subnets are completely separate for each AP, you can pick and choose how and where to route edge traffic to multiple backbone providers, you can move between backbone providers without having to re-ip all customers, customers are not exposed to external virus traffic... I mean I could go on and on about why carrier-NAT is awesome. I see no reason to mess with public IPs unless forced to. Matt Larsen vistabeam.com On 12/31/2013 12:17 PM, Mike Hammett wrote: Your customers don't get a public IP? I'll never understand why people do this. - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com From: Matt Larsen - Lists li...@manageisp.com mailto:li...@manageisp.com To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org mailto:wireless@wispa.org Sent: Tuesday, December 31, 2013 1:09:48 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Internet Packages regarding geography This last year, we finished unification of all our rate plans so that we would have consistency across our network. At this time last year, we had several plans that had overlap and different sets of services as part of the plans. For example, a 2meg plan for $49.95/month that included dialup and a public IP address sold next to a $49.95/month 4meg plan that did not have the dialup or public IP. Most of the customers did not use public IP addresses or dialup, and we were starting to get 2meg customers complaining about the 4meg plan on our website that was 2x the speed for the same price. At the same time, we still had a lot of 384k and 640k plans with people who were complaining about YouTube not working, but they were reluctant to upgrade to the next package because our prices were not as competitive on the lower end with the 1.5meg dsl bundles. What we ended up doing was this: 1) Replace the 384k and 640k plans with 1meg and 1.5meg speeds at the same prices 2) Bump up all existing 1meg and 2meg customers to 2meg and 3meg speeds for the same prices 3) Eliminate public IP addresses being included with plans, made them a separate monthly charge and adjusted customers to have a new speed package with the public IP added to it 4) Later in the year we established a maintenance fee package that was automatically added to each customer account, but customers were given the choice of opting out of the plan After doing all of this, we ended up having a much more competitive service on the low end, fewer customer complaints about YouTube and other sites from low end customers, and our revenue went up - mostly because of the addition of the maintenance package. Any plan inconsistencies between customers and areas were also resolved. The toughest part of this plan was the pre-planning that was involved to make it happen. We did a ton of customer data cleanup and plan adjustment over the summer, but that was work that needed to be done anyway because of a lot of random, nonstandard plan changes that employees had been doing as shortcuts.We also had to take a really strong look at oversub ratios on our access points and what the resulting oversub ratios would be with the plan changes, since the ratios would generally double. In doing so, we identified a bunch of places where we needed to add capacity or just needed to move higher bandwidth customers to other access points. There were a lot of radio swaps and service calls involved in that process, but the end result was better network performance and higher customer satisfaction. We set a 4:1 bandwidth ratio as our preferred point of upgrade on access points - meaning we can sell 40meg of customers plans on an AP that has approximately 10meg of capacity (such as a 2.4ghz 802.11g on 10mhz channel). When the process started, we had about 27 APs that would have been overloaded with the new plans. As of today, we have eight APs that are over 4:1, and six of those are just barely over. When it comes to the speeds that we offer in any particular area, we decided to make all speeds available, as long as the oversell ratio on the access point was not exceeded. Going into next year, my plan is to replace
[WISPA] Internet Packages regarding geography
We are getting to the point in a lot of our markets that we need to offer different speed packages. Issue being some markets, being 900 or slightly sub-par infrastructure, we wouldn’t be able to promote these packages across the board. Was curious if others are offering packages to different areas that would not be possible in some? And if so, do you get any backlash from those who cannot get those packages? Is it appropriate to offer extended packages to users on one tower when another tower down the road wouldn’t be capable of these packages? Its bad but we just offer a residential rate, no matter if that customer can get 1 meg down via Canopy 900 or close to 10 meg on a UBNT SM. I have caught a little heat in an area where we fired up 900 about 4 years ago to a market that had only satellite. Then we hooked up a tower in a small town 4 miles away with UBNT M2 and news spread like wild fire. We went from 40 900 subs to about a dozen, and a pile of radios I don’t want to deploy again. Shame on me for not offering the extended packages at that time for those wanting more bandwidth. I also have the area outside my home town that Century Link offers what they claim is 12 meg service, but it never gets close. I am constantly adding more sectors in these areas, Im getting to the point where I am adding UBNT to offload Canopy, then adding more UBNT to offload the UBNT that was offloading the Canopy, it gets to be a vicious circle. I am already $20 per month more than CL, not sure if a lot of customers would stay if I were to charge them more for what they are getting now. Once again shame on me. The bosses think the prices should be the same across the board, but technically performances cannot be matched across the board, plus Im running ragged satisfying existing customers when I should be looking at new areas, and start the vicious circle all over again LOL. thanks heith ___ Wireless mailing list Wireless@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
Re: [WISPA] Internet Packages regarding geography
What we have done is offer the same packages across the board. If you can't get at least the package you want we don't install you. On Dec 30, 2013, at 21:11, heith petersen wi...@mncomm.com wrote: We are getting to the point in a lot of our markets that we need to offer different speed packages. Issue being some markets, being 900 or slightly sub-par infrastructure, we wouldn’t be able to promote these packages across the board. Was curious if others are offering packages to different areas that would not be possible in some? And if so, do you get any backlash from those who cannot get those packages? Is it appropriate to offer extended packages to users on one tower when another tower down the road wouldn’t be capable of these packages? Its bad but we just offer a residential rate, no matter if that customer can get 1 meg down via Canopy 900 or close to 10 meg on a UBNT SM. I have caught a little heat in an area where we fired up 900 about 4 years ago to a market that had only satellite. Then we hooked up a tower in a small town 4 miles away with UBNT M2 and news spread like wild fire. We went from 40 900 subs to about a dozen, and a pile of radios I don’t want to deploy again. Shame on me for not offering the extended packages at that time for those wanting more bandwidth. I also have the area outside my home town that Century Link offers what they claim is 12 meg service, but it never gets close. I am constantly adding more sectors in these areas, Im getting to the point where I am adding UBNT to offload Canopy, then adding more UBNT to offload the UBNT that was offloading the Canopy, it gets to be a vicious circle. I am already $20 per month more than CL, not sure if a lot of customers would stay if I were to charge them more for what they are getting now. Once again shame on me. The bosses think the prices should be the same across the board, but technically performances cannot be matched across the board, plus Im running ragged satisfying existing customers when I should be looking at new areas, and start the vicious circle all over again LOL. thanks heith ___ Wireless mailing list Wireless@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless ___ Wireless mailing list Wireless@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
Re: [WISPA] Internet Packages regarding geography
That is a good idea Sent from my wy too expensive android mobile vzw 4gish device. - Reply message - From: Matt Hoppes mhop...@indigowireless.com To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Cc: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Subject: [WISPA] Internet Packages regarding geography Date: Mon, Dec 30, 2013 9:34 PM What we have done is offer the same packages across the board. If you can't get at least the package you want we don't install you. On Dec 30, 2013, at 21:11, heith petersen wi...@mncomm.com wrote: We are getting to the point in a lot of our markets that we need to offer different speed packages. Issue being some markets, being 900 or slightly sub-par infrastructure, we wouldn’t be able to promote these packages across the board. Was curious if others are offering packages to different areas that would not be possible in some? And if so, do you get any backlash from those who cannot get those packages? Is it appropriate to offer extended packages to users on one tower when another tower down the road wouldn’t be capable of these packages? Its bad but we just offer a residential rate, no matter if that customer can get 1 meg down via Canopy 900 or close to 10 meg on a UBNT SM. I have caught a little heat in an area where we fired up 900 about 4 years ago to a market that had only satellite. Then we hooked up a tower in a small town 4 miles away with UBNT M2 and news spread like wild fire. We went from 40 900 subs to about a dozen, and a pile of radios I don’t want to deploy again. Shame on me for not offering the extended packages at that time for those wanting more bandwidth. I also have the area outside my home town that Century Link offers what they claim is 12 meg service, but it never gets close. I am constantly adding more sectors in these areas, Im getting to the point where I am adding UBNT to offload Canopy, then adding more UBNT to offload the UBNT that was offloading the Canopy, it gets to be a vicious circle. I am already $20 per month more than CL, not sure if a lot of customers would stay if I were to charge them more for what they are getting now. Once again shame on me. The bosses think the prices should be the same across the board, but technically performances cannot be matched across the board, plus Im running ragged satisfying existing customers when I should be looking at new areas, and start the vicious circle all over again LOL. thanks heith ___ Wireless mailing list Wireless@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless___ Wireless mailing list Wireless@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
Re: [WISPA] Internet Packages regarding geography
It's cut down in confusion. Oh yeah. 5 meg is x in town a but y in town b. And we don't do the upto game. So if you want 5 and can only get 3 we won't install you unless you'll take 3. We don't charge for packages folks can't get. Likewise this keeps our network happy since most links are pretty clean. On Dec 30, 2013, at 21:48, CBB - Jay Fuller par...@cyberbroadband.net wrote: That is a good idea Sent from my wy too expensive android mobile vzw 4gish device. - Reply message - From: Matt Hoppes mhop...@indigowireless.com To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Cc: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Subject: [WISPA] Internet Packages regarding geography Date: Mon, Dec 30, 2013 9:34 PM What we have done is offer the same packages across the board. If you can't get at least the package you want we don't install you. On Dec 30, 2013, at 21:11, heith petersen wi...@mncomm.com wrote: We are getting to the point in a lot of our markets that we need to offer different speed packages. Issue being some markets, being 900 or slightly sub-par infrastructure, we wouldn’t be able to promote these packages across the board. Was curious if others are offering packages to different areas that would not be possible in some? And if so, do you get any backlash from those who cannot get those packages? Is it appropriate to offer extended packages to users on one tower when another tower down the road wouldn’t be capable of these packages? Its bad but we just offer a residential rate, no matter if that customer can get 1 meg down via Canopy 900 or close to 10 meg on a UBNT SM. I have caught a little heat in an area where we fired up 900 about 4 years ago to a market that had only satellite. Then we hooked up a tower in a small town 4 miles away with UBNT M2 and news spread like wild fire. We went from 40 900 subs to about a dozen, and a pile of radios I don’t want to deploy again. Shame on me for not offering the extended packages at that time for those wanting more bandwidth. I also have the area outside my home town that Century Link offers what they claim is 12 meg service, but it never gets close. I am constantly adding more sectors in these areas, Im getting to the point where I am adding UBNT to offload Canopy, then adding more UBNT to offload the UBNT that was offloading the Canopy, it gets to be a vicious circle. I am already $20 per month more than CL, not sure if a lot of customers would stay if I were to charge them more for what they are getting now. Once again shame on me. The bosses think the prices should be the same across the board, but technically performances cannot be matched across the board, plus Im running ragged satisfying existing customers when I should be looking at new areas, and start the vicious circle all over again LOL. thanks heith ___ Wireless mailing list Wireless@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless ___ Wireless mailing list Wireless@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless ___ Wireless mailing list Wireless@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
Re: [WISPA] Internet Packages regarding geography
Granted that our model is way different then yours, we are a non-profit member owned, volunteer operated, coop, but we give everybody 2 up and 2 down (now that we have an AirFiber backhaul) and are still scrambling to keep up with the members usage (400 members covering 600 square miles). And, they always want more. Charging $30 a month. Of course we only have one paid employee. The folks here in NM are happy to get that as their only alternative is dial-up or satellite. When CenturyLink finally moves into a neighborhood we actually encourage new inquires to go with them as we still have tons of folks with no options other then us. It cost us about $30K every time we have to upgrade the backbone and back haul and APs, but luckily we have enough time between upgrades to bank the funds. I don't know how you guys can make a profit. Phil On Mon, Dec 30, 2013 at 8:00 PM, Matt Hoppes mhop...@indigowireless.comwrote: It's cut down in confusion. Oh yeah. 5 meg is x in town a but y in town b. And we don't do the upto game. So if you want 5 and can only get 3 we won't install you unless you'll take 3. We don't charge for packages folks can't get. Likewise this keeps our network happy since most links are pretty clean. On Dec 30, 2013, at 21:48, CBB - Jay Fuller par...@cyberbroadband.net wrote: That is a good idea Sent from my wy too expensive android mobile vzw 4gish device. - Reply message - From: Matt Hoppes mhop...@indigowireless.com To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Cc: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Subject: [WISPA] Internet Packages regarding geography Date: Mon, Dec 30, 2013 9:34 PM What we have done is offer the same packages across the board. If you can't get at least the package you want we don't install you. On Dec 30, 2013, at 21:11, heith petersen wi...@mncomm.com wrote: We are getting to the point in a lot of our markets that we need to offer different speed packages. Issue being some markets, being 900 or slightly sub-par infrastructure, we wouldn’t be able to promote these packages across the board. Was curious if others are offering packages to different areas that would not be possible in some? And if so, do you get any backlash from those who cannot get those packages? Is it appropriate to offer extended packages to users on one tower when another tower down the road wouldn’t be capable of these packages? Its bad but we just offer a residential rate, no matter if that customer can get 1 meg down via Canopy 900 or close to 10 meg on a UBNT SM. I have caught a little heat in an area where we fired up 900 about 4 years ago to a market that had only satellite. Then we hooked up a tower in a small town 4 miles away with UBNT M2 and news spread like wild fire. We went from 40 900 subs to about a dozen, and a pile of radios I don’t want to deploy again. Shame on me for not offering the extended packages at that time for those wanting more bandwidth. I also have the area outside my home town that Century Link offers what they claim is 12 meg service, but it never gets close. I am constantly adding more sectors in these areas, Im getting to the point where I am adding UBNT to offload Canopy, then adding more UBNT to offload the UBNT that was offloading the Canopy, it gets to be a vicious circle. I am already $20 per month more than CL, not sure if a lot of customers would stay if I were to charge them more for what they are getting now. Once again shame on me. The bosses think the prices should be the same across the board, but technically performances cannot be matched across the board, plus Im running ragged satisfying existing customers when I should be looking at new areas, and start the vicious circle all over again LOL. thanks heith ___ Wireless mailing list Wireless@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless ___ Wireless mailing list Wireless@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless ___ Wireless mailing list Wireless@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless ___ Wireless mailing list Wireless@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
Re: [WISPA] Internet Packages regarding geography
We do it. We manage our entire WISP network like a giant Hotspot. People can choose all sorts of different plans that are tailored for the particular tower, town, or marina they are at. The most speed offerings we currently have at any one location is 2, although we could have many. We can also have those broken down into multiple versions of a cap (we call it a fair-use quota). The most time periods we have at any one location is about 7 (hourly, daily, weekend, week, month, quarter, year). This is because of the seasonal nature of our customers. Marinas have residents more in the Spring, Summer, and Fall. Although we have one marina with giant boats and many of them live aboard year round. Doing it this way, the Mikrotiks control speeds, bursting, and throttling and we never have to bill or collect any money from anyone. If a user moves around on the lake between different marinas, the centralized RADIUS lets him take his settings with him. We have a some APs on a couple of marinas that have sectors pointing to public and State campgrounds, so we pick up that business too. Outdoor UniFis are great for all of this, and we use lots of them on sectors like this. When Wireless Orbit closed its doors, we scrambled to find a back end portal to do all this and we finally settled on one. They are doing some customization for us now to get things the way we want. It is so nice now to be able to see/change all the user data in the SQL database. Wireless Orbit stunk in that respect. If you would like to see our progress, and what the users see, visit http://tinyurl.com/ksqn7zq From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of heith petersen Sent: Monday, December 30, 2013 9:11 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: [WISPA] Internet Packages regarding geography We are getting to the point in a lot of our markets that we need to offer different speed packages. Issue being some markets, being 900 or slightly sub-par infrastructure, we wouldn’t be able to promote these packages across the board. Was curious if others are offering packages to different areas that would not be possible in some? And if so, do you get any backlash from those who cannot get those packages? Is it appropriate to offer extended packages to users on one tower when another tower down the road wouldn’t be capable of these packages? Its bad but we just offer a residential rate, no matter if that customer can get 1 meg down via Canopy 900 or close to 10 meg on a UBNT SM. I have caught a little heat in an area where we fired up 900 about 4 years ago to a market that had only satellite. Then we hooked up a tower in a small town 4 miles away with UBNT M2 and news spread like wild fire. We went from 40 900 subs to about a dozen, and a pile of radios I don’t want to deploy again. Shame on me for not offering the extended packages at that time for those wanting more bandwidth. I also have the area outside my home town that Century Link offers what they claim is 12 meg service, but it never gets close. I am constantly adding more sectors in these areas, Im getting to the point where I am adding UBNT to offload Canopy, then adding more UBNT to offload the UBNT that was offloading the Canopy, it gets to be a vicious circle. I am already $20 per month more than CL, not sure if a lot of customers would stay if I were to charge them more for what they are getting now. Once again shame on me. The bosses think the prices should be the same across the board, but technically performances cannot be matched across the board, plus Im running ragged satisfying existing customers when I should be looking at new areas, and start the vicious circle all over again LOL. thanks heith ___ Wireless mailing list Wireless@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
Re: [WISPA] Internet Packages regarding geography
We offer two different sets of rate plans in different areas of our network based on the equipment we have on those towers. We offer our standard service everywhere and where we have overbuilt with 5Ghz APs we also offer a 5G service which is faster speeds at the middle and higher tier prices. So for $50 in some areas you can get 3/256 and others you get 5/1. We do not clearly define this as geographic boundaries but more along the lines of whether or not the customer has clear LOS to a tower with 5Ghz APs on it. Overall it's been well received, only a little friction from people angry that they can only get the slower speeds because of their location. We have thought about trying to do different plans by area (mainly to compete more on price with cable/DSL) and came to the conclusion that we might do it via a promotion that is only run in one area, but not by adding permanent cheaper service plans in town - that just didn't seem fair. On Mon, Dec 30, 2013 at 10:51 PM, Phil Curnutt pcurn...@gmail.com wrote: Granted that our model is way different then yours, we are a non-profit member owned, volunteer operated, coop, but we give everybody 2 up and 2 down (now that we have an AirFiber backhaul) and are still scrambling to keep up with the members usage (400 members covering 600 square miles). And, they always want more. Charging $30 a month. Of course we only have one paid employee. The folks here in NM are happy to get that as their only alternative is dial-up or satellite. When CenturyLink finally moves into a neighborhood we actually encourage new inquires to go with them as we still have tons of folks with no options other then us. It cost us about $30K every time we have to upgrade the backbone and back haul and APs, but luckily we have enough time between upgrades to bank the funds. I don't know how you guys can make a profit. Phil On Mon, Dec 30, 2013 at 8:00 PM, Matt Hoppes mhop...@indigowireless.comwrote: It's cut down in confusion. Oh yeah. 5 meg is x in town a but y in town b. And we don't do the upto game. So if you want 5 and can only get 3 we won't install you unless you'll take 3. We don't charge for packages folks can't get. Likewise this keeps our network happy since most links are pretty clean. On Dec 30, 2013, at 21:48, CBB - Jay Fuller par...@cyberbroadband.net wrote: That is a good idea Sent from my wy too expensive android mobile vzw 4gish device. - Reply message - From: Matt Hoppes mhop...@indigowireless.com To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Cc: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Subject: [WISPA] Internet Packages regarding geography Date: Mon, Dec 30, 2013 9:34 PM What we have done is offer the same packages across the board. If you can't get at least the package you want we don't install you. On Dec 30, 2013, at 21:11, heith petersen wi...@mncomm.com wrote: We are getting to the point in a lot of our markets that we need to offer different speed packages. Issue being some markets, being 900 or slightly sub-par infrastructure, we wouldn’t be able to promote these packages across the board. Was curious if others are offering packages to different areas that would not be possible in some? And if so, do you get any backlash from those who cannot get those packages? Is it appropriate to offer extended packages to users on one tower when another tower down the road wouldn’t be capable of these packages? Its bad but we just offer a residential rate, no matter if that customer can get 1 meg down via Canopy 900 or close to 10 meg on a UBNT SM. I have caught a little heat in an area where we fired up 900 about 4 years ago to a market that had only satellite. Then we hooked up a tower in a small town 4 miles away with UBNT M2 and news spread like wild fire. We went from 40 900 subs to about a dozen, and a pile of radios I don’t want to deploy again. Shame on me for not offering the extended packages at that time for those wanting more bandwidth. I also have the area outside my home town that Century Link offers what they claim is 12 meg service, but it never gets close. I am constantly adding more sectors in these areas, Im getting to the point where I am adding UBNT to offload Canopy, then adding more UBNT to offload the UBNT that was offloading the Canopy, it gets to be a vicious circle. I am already $20 per month more than CL, not sure if a lot of customers would stay if I were to charge them more for what they are getting now. Once again shame on me. The bosses think the prices should be the same across the board, but technically performances cannot be matched across the board, plus Im running ragged satisfying existing customers when I should be looking at new areas, and start the vicious circle all over again LOL. thanks heith ___ Wireless mailing list Wireless@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo
Re: [WISPA] Internet Packages regarding geography
Put a lot of thought into this topic as many have I am sure. I ended up with set plans for everyone across the board and like Matt says, if they cannot get it, we do not sell it. But, I have been thinking of changing our marketing to be different with this issue in mind... the issue of diversity of delivery technologies and environments within our network. We have always marketed four home plans with specified U/D and softcap data amounts. Such as todays plans: Plan 1: 1/.5Mbps Plan 2: 3/1Mbps Plan 3: 4/1.5Mbps Plan 4: 6/2Mbps I have been thinking that we will market either Up To or a specific range like: Plan 1: 1-1.5Mbps Plan 2: 2-3Mbps Plan 3: 3-4Mbps Plan 4: 4-6Mbps In this way, for a customer that tests at 2.5Mbps, they can be sold Plan 2 just like a person in another area could be sold Plan 2 when they test at 3 or more Mbps. The thought is it could solve some issues in marketing and support in that the customer is made aware of that the plan can vary in speed possibly due to network load, weather, or availability. Since our 2014 goal is to have these four home plans at 2, 4, 6 and 8Mbps respectfully (due to fiber upgrades and Gig PtPs), the ranges will be easy to articulate... such as Plan 2 is 2-4Mbps, Plan 2 is 4-6Mbps. Upload speeds would remain static since the smaller ratio is achievable for given download speed 99% of the time. I would also not apply this to business plans, and keep them static with a 'we can or we can not' marketing and sells policy. On Dec 30, 2013 9:35 PM, Matt Hoppes mhop...@indigowireless.com wrote: What we have done is offer the same packages across the board. If you can't get at least the package you want we don't install you. On Dec 30, 2013, at 21:11, heith petersen wi...@mncomm.com wrote: We are getting to the point in a lot of our markets that we need to offer different speed packages. Issue being some markets, being 900 or slightly sub-par infrastructure, we wouldn’t be able to promote these packages across the board. Was curious if others are offering packages to different areas that would not be possible in some? And if so, do you get any backlash from those who cannot get those packages? Is it appropriate to offer extended packages to users on one tower when another tower down the road wouldn’t be capable of these packages? Its bad but we just offer a residential rate, no matter if that customer can get 1 meg down via Canopy 900 or close to 10 meg on a UBNT SM. I have caught a little heat in an area where we fired up 900 about 4 years ago to a market that had only satellite. Then we hooked up a tower in a small town 4 miles away with UBNT M2 and news spread like wild fire. We went from 40 900 subs to about a dozen, and a pile of radios I don’t want to deploy again. Shame on me for not offering the extended packages at that time for those wanting more bandwidth. I also have the area outside my home town that Century Link offers what they claim is 12 meg service, but it never gets close. I am constantly adding more sectors in these areas, Im getting to the point where I am adding UBNT to offload Canopy, then adding more UBNT to offload the UBNT that was offloading the Canopy, it gets to be a vicious circle. I am already $20 per month more than CL, not sure if a lot of customers would stay if I were to charge them more for what they are getting now. Once again shame on me. The bosses think the prices should be the same across the board, but technically performances cannot be matched across the board, plus Im running ragged satisfying existing customers when I should be looking at new areas, and start the vicious circle all over again LOL. thanks heith ___ Wireless mailing list Wireless@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless ___ Wireless mailing list Wireless@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless ___ Wireless mailing list Wireless@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
