I am all for this. Our competitors have hidden behind fake pricing with tons of hidden charges for far too long. This new requirement is for fixed, mobile, wireless, everything! Let's see how long it actually takes them all to comply. We have been transparent since day one. The only thing we need to add is average speed and latency. I'm not sure how to break that down. I think we will have to specify line-of-site (5GHZ) vs. nLOS/NLOS (2.4GHz) in our label. Averaging the two of them together would give an unrealistic negative connotation to our line-of-site service.
The only other issue that I have is it will make our pricing page on our website not look nearly as pretty. I think we will be able to keep it in a nice pricing chart though and have the details clickable to popup the label in that 'nutrition' format. Otherwise we would almost need a separate webpage for every speed plan. On Fri, Apr 8, 2016 at 8:54 AM, Jason McKemie < [email protected]> wrote: > So this is just a play to hurt competition? > > On Friday, April 8, 2016, Chuck McCown <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Only works one way. The ILECs can claim bullshit on WISPs but not the >> other way around. >> >> *From:* Josh Reynolds >> *Sent:* Friday, April 08, 2016 8:23 AM >> *To:* [email protected] >> *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] FCC wants "nutrition labels" for broadband >> >> >> Cool. How do we "call bullshit" for CenturyLink claiming 25Mbps DSL in a >> block where they struggle to provide 3Mbps? >> On Apr 8, 2016 9:20 AM, "Chuck McCown" <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> Here is something a bit more serious to consider: >>> >>> If you claim on a 477 that you cover more than 85% of a census block >>> and you claim that you provide 10/1 or greater service and you claim that >>> you provide VOIP with LNP with the local exchange area numbers, you will >>> probably get challenged to prove all of this to the FCC. That includes >>> drive studies of coverage etc. And you will have to provide all of your >>> frequencies and AP locations etc if you are challenged. >>> >>> Be careful to stick to what you can actually prove on the 477, I think >>> they may change them so that the CEO has to certify them as 100% accurate >>> under threat of perjury. >>> >>> *From:* Josh Reynolds >>> *Sent:* Friday, April 08, 2016 8:01 AM >>> *To:* [email protected] >>> *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] FCC wants "nutrition labels" for broadband >>> >>> >>> It's already been approved I thought? I just read about this a few days >>> ago. Our team has already started on our "broadband label" as we'd LOVE to >>> be compared to our competition directly like this, where it's harder to >>> hide between time-triggered contractual pricing. >>> On Apr 8, 2016 8:51 AM, "Bill Prince" <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>>> May not be if this proposal is approved. >>>> >>>> bp >>>> <part15sbs{at}gmail{dot}com> >>>> >>>> >>>> On 4/8/2016 6:43 AM, Josh Reynolds wrote: >>>> >>>> That's been considered proprietary information in the past. >>>> On Apr 8, 2016 8:39 AM, "Bill Prince" <[email protected]> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Oh. How about over-subscription rate, or if there is >>>>> over-subscription. >>>>> >>>>> How about Uber-style congestion pricing? >>>>> >>>>> bp >>>>> <part15sbs{at}gmail{dot}com> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On 4/8/2016 6:36 AM, Josh Reynolds wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Such as, what? >>>>> On Apr 8, 2016 8:34 AM, "Bill Prince" <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Well, to me it looks over-simplified, and does not accommodate some >>>>>> of the realities of broadband service. >>>>>> >>>>>> bp >>>>>> <part15sbs{at}gmail{dot}com> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On 4/8/2016 6:28 AM, Ken Hohhof wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> It looks to me like the format changed somewhat from the last version >>>>>> we saw from the committee, so be sure to get the latest version from the >>>>>> FCC Order. Check the WISPA list for Steve Coran’s posts on this topic. >>>>>> This is a “safe harbor” template meaning it is optional but if you use >>>>>> it, >>>>>> at least you won’t get fined for the format. It does not provide safe >>>>>> harbor for the content. >>>>>> >>>>>> Here is another article that is somewhat critical of the templates: >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> http://gizmodo.com/the-fccs-new-broadband-explainers-just-make-it-more-com-1768948403 >>>>>> >>>>>> I have also seen articles comment along the lines of wouldn’t it have >>>>>> been easier to just require ISPs to advertise their actual prices >>>>>> including >>>>>> all fees, similar to airline tickets. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> *From:* Bill Prince >>>>>> *Sent:* Friday, April 08, 2016 7:34 AM >>>>>> *To:* Motorola III >>>>>> *Subject:* [AFMUG] FCC wants "nutrition labels" for broadband >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> This is, sadly, on topic. >>>>>> >>>>>> The FCC has proposed something akin to "nutrition labels" for >>>>>> broadband that will "clearly" show such things as speed, caps, and hidden >>>>>> fees. This is an ars technica article about the proposal: >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> http://arstechnica.com/business/2016/04/fccs-nutrition-labels-for-broadband-show-speed-caps-and-hidden-fees/ >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> -- >>>>>> >>>>>> bp >>>>>> <part15sbs{at}gmail{dot}com> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>
