If I understand correctly, you limit the customer's speed based on the
quality of their connection. Is that right?
That mitigates the impact of weak connections on the system....I just
don't know how I would explain it to consumers.
------ Original Message ------
From: "That One Guy /sarcasm" <thatoneguyst...@gmail.com>
To: "af@afmug.com" <af@afmug.com>
Sent: 8/5/2016 5:16:31 PM
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] is....the price right?
we technically meet the "requirements" because of what is advertised
and our actual deployment per our 477. (our 477 are probably some of
the most accurate deployment numbers the FCC gets from this industry) I
can hop on powercode and change every rate to 73 gigabit and the FCC
will accept that data, we prefer to use our management system to manage
our network more than we prefer to manipulate our numbers to facilitate
better acces to our neighbors taxes. we even had to go back and alter
our data set to lower numbers because the way powercode calculates
speeds is in 1024 not 1000k per mb like the fcc wants to see so our
system is set that every mb is 1024k so speedtests answer in full mbps
rather than partial ones.
we however dont have any intention to suckle the government teat so we
dont jump through hoops to go after the money ourselves
what we do ensures that a customer installed marginally, and accepts
the marginal installation isnt able to come back after the fact and say
theyre not getting the speed theyre paying for, since theyre not paying
for speed. if theyre installed at a tier 1 installation, the radios
wont fight to try to deliver tier 3 speeds, which they cannot do (how
are you going to deliver "broadband" with 900mhz fsk?) the only thing
theyre "guaranteed" from us is 3/1 but they get the maximum tier their
installation would allow, whether they want it or not at the same
price.
honesty is the black sheep in this industry
On Fri, Aug 5, 2016 at 3:57 PM, Josh Reynolds <j...@kyneticwifi.com>
wrote:
So basically what you're telling the list is that the company you work
for doesn't meet the definition of broadband, any anybody and their
brother can come in and get federal subsidies to overbuild you... is
that correct? :P
On Fri, Aug 5, 2016 at 2:42 PM, That One Guy /sarcasm
<thatoneguyst...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 100/50 is really limiting the oversub option, unless youre strictly
> enforcing the business (actual business, as in letterhead or tax id,
> something identifiable as a business)
>
> in illinois, if we go above 25mb right now we move to symmetric DIA
for
> businesses that are rural. If youre competing in town with cable or
fios,
> then thats what youd probably be best served to pricepoint near
without any
> other value adds, just my two cents as the guy who doesnt own a
company.
>
> We went slick, every plan we sell is 3/1, we have three speed tiers
based on
> your performance that open you up to the next potential speed, same
price.
> but we only guarantee(ish) the 3/1. this keeps customers limited by
> powercode to the best case their installation will support, that way
the
> radios arent doing the work of trying to deliver more than the link
will
> support. We want as many customers on the 3rd tier as possible. once
per
> year an account can go through an audit to see if they can tier up.
>
> we also dont sell speed at all anymore, strictly consumption.
>
> On Fri, Aug 5, 2016 at 1:35 PM, CBB - Jay Fuller
<par...@cyberbroadband.net>
> wrote:
>>
>>
>> We're starting to deploy much higher speeds in areas with line of
sight
>> (business areas) than we ever have before in our residential areas.
I am
>> thinking the pricing we are thinking of is way too low. I'm
interested in
>> what you'd charge for these plans and what part of the country you
are in.
>> Thanks!
>>
>> 30 down / 15 up
>> 60 down / 30 up
>> 100 down / 50 up
>>
>> What do you charge per phone line?
>>
>>
>> If you didn't do say 100/50, what do you do?
>>
>> Thanks everyone!
>>
>> IN YOUR RESPONSE - PLEASE INCLUDE WHAT STATE YOU'RE IN
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
> --
> If you only see yourself as part of the team but you don't see your
team as
> part of yourself you have already failed as part of the team.
--
If you only see yourself as part of the team but you don't see your
team as part of yourself you have already failed as part of the team.
