there should be another animal farm, give that kid a vip pass, put him up to all kinds of stuff
On Sat, Aug 6, 2016 at 9:25 PM, Ken Hohhof <af...@kwisp.com> wrote: > Maybe you should start a rumor that ISPs are putting rubber restrictors on > broadband connections to throttle the speeds. Get that Youtube kid to make > a video on how to remove it and speed up your Internet. > > https://www.youtube.com/user/ThioJoe > > > *From:* Chuck McCown <ch...@wbmfg.com> > *Sent:* Saturday, August 06, 2016 8:41 PM > *To:* af@afmug.com > *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] is....the price right? > > I took the rubber restrictor out of my showerhead the first time I used > it. Kinda like pulling the tag off the mattress, right? > > *From:* Ken Hohhof <af...@kwisp.com> > *Sent:* Saturday, August 06, 2016 4:14 PM > *To:* af@afmug.com > *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] is....the price right? > > 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. > > [image: att_unlimited_means_22gb] > > 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.