How so? I thought you said that the ILECs can call out a WISP, but not the other way around.
On Friday, April 8, 2016, Chuck McCown <[email protected]> wrote: > No, part of the latest FCC report and order. The hurt only works one > way. WISPs can hurt the ILECs. > > *From:* Jason McKemie > <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','[email protected]');> > *Sent:* Friday, April 08, 2016 8:54 AM > *To:* [email protected] <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','[email protected]');> > *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] FCC wants "nutrition labels" for broadband > > So this is just a play to hurt competition? > > On Friday, April 8, 2016, Chuck McCown <[email protected] > <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','[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:* javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','[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" < >> javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','[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:* javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','[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" < >>> javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','[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" < >>>> javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','[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" < >>>>> javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','[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> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>
