Id say no from the map: Type of Technology Available <http://www.broadbandmap.gov/source/maps#type-of-technology-available> Data as of: 06/30/14
On Sat, Aug 6, 2016 at 6:02 PM, Ken Hohhof <af...@kwisp.com> wrote: > I still don’t think they’re using the Form 477 data for the National > Broadband Map, are they? > > > *From:* That One Guy /sarcasm <thatoneguyst...@gmail.com> > *Sent:* Saturday, August 06, 2016 5:32 PM > *To:* af@afmug.com > *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] is....the price right? > > I prefer that the FCC took over our mapping through 477. If everybody was > as honest as us with the numbers we give (I would bet the percentage is in > the single digits) and everybody suckling the great teat of democracy were > honest and stewards of the taxpayer economy (probably even a lower > percentage) It would be great, and the original concept would be achieved > (deliver service to those who actually cant be served by others) > > Thats not the case, wont ever be the case, but I sleep better than I would > if I were legally gaming the system. Thats not saying that the vast > majority who do game the system dont sleep well at night, I bet their > thread count alone makes them sleep better than me, but at least Im not > contributing directly to the government bloat. > > On Sat, Aug 6, 2016 at 5:14 PM, Ken Hohhof <af...@kwisp.com> wrote: > >> I think we need to be careful of letting government regulations and >> subsidies determine what services we offer and how we price them, as long >> as we are playing by the rules. >> >> If you think the government knows what consumers want, I invite you to >> come use my newly remodeled bathroom with the low flush toilet and the low >> flow showerhead. So I get to flush twice, and take twice as long in the >> shower rinsing off the soap. Kind of ironic since the FCC wants everyone >> to have the broadband equivalent of high flush toilets and high flow >> showerheads. If the FCC were regulating water use, we would all have fire >> hydrants in our bathrooms. >> >> Also, my impression is the FCC cares a lot more about “transparency” and >> paperwork than the actual speeds delivered. So they are OK with AT&T >> transparently explaining that “unlimited” means 22 GB. >> >> <img> >> >> They also seem to accept “congestion” as a normal occurrence that >> explains not getting the speed you were promised. It sounds better than >> “oversubscription” or “lying”. Congestion is like the mud weasels in >> Elbonia, you can blame anything on congestion. Or mud weasels. >> >> http://dilbert.com/strip/1998-03-11 >> >> So Frontier can market “up to 6 Mbps” and it’s OK if you get <1 Mbps >> because they said “up to”, plus they are just engaging in reasonable >> network management due to mud weasels network congestion. >> >> >> *From:* That One Guy /sarcasm <thatoneguyst...@gmail.com> >> *Sent:* Saturday, August 06, 2016 4:01 PM >> *To:* af@afmug.com >> *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] is....the price right? >> >> font size mostly, not fine print by any means, but >> our rates are capacity based like cellular, only we keep substantially >> raising each rate plans transition consumption (see how we dont say cap?) >> so the majority dont see overages. You actually have to ASK to be put on a >> rate that will incur overages >> >> once you quit talking about speeds, youd be amazed how little the bulk of >> the customers actually care about them. even on the lowest tier, the >> majority of the "slowness" complaints that arent related to a poor wifi >> connection are rate plan related, they hit their transition (see how we >> didnt say cap?" and 90 percent of the time for that issue theyre fine with >> just moving up to the next rate plan, 5 percent are cost conscious and deal >> with basic web/email only til the end of the month. the other 5 percent are >> the regular dicks who take up the bulk of your support time anyway (always >> on the cheapest plan, call in for dropped ping, expecting same day service >> call when they cut their wires at 4:53 pm, etc) >> >> We do have a mechanism that made the transition to this model work really >> well though, so that helps alot. >> >> you have to understand one thing though, that 3/1 thing isnt saying we >> stop trying above that, we want everybody to get the most they can get, but >> not at the expense of the overall network >> >> >> I bitch about the boss about alot of decisions, but this rate migration >> took a long time to come up with and he actually listened regarding how to >> implement it effectively and efficiently (he set the criteria, I told him >> what it would take to happen and defined the real and theoretical >> limitations, and overall impacts, any negative impacts we worked to find >> sustainable solutions) it took a shit ton of back end leg works, we had to >> touch every customer account, build out methods that didnt allow customer >> service staff to have the option to muck it up and roll trucks to address >> outliers, we even have processes in place now to migrate customers out of >> our base when we cant deliver a satisfactory service. He hit the nail >> square on the head as ass backward as our structure sounds. >> >> On Sat, Aug 6, 2016 at 9:33 AM, Adam Moffett <dmmoff...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> 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. >>> >>> >> >> >> -- >> If you only see yourself as part of the team but you don't see your team >> as part of yourself you have already failed as part of the team. >> > > > > -- > If you only see yourself as part of the team but you don't see your team > as part of yourself you have already failed as part of the team. > -- If you only see yourself as part of the team but you don't see your team as part of yourself you have already failed as part of the team.
