i would venture a guess wendys back end system isnt nearly as simplified as its front end system "up to" is not conducive to network preservation at all having a 25mb plan on epmp with mcs 11 isnt going to give you much aggregate capacity at the AP when that user is on, so you go from 1 pissed off customer to 15 and an investment in another access point Id rather the headache of maintenance occur from the comfort of my couch than on top of a grain elevator in the winter
On Fri, Feb 3, 2017 at 10:25 AM, Ken Hohhof <af...@kwisp.com> wrote: > Sounds way too complicated. > > > > This should be like going to Wendy’s. Single, double, triple. Small > fries, large fries. Pull forward to the first window. > > > > If that’s still too complicated, do like Frontier, everything’s “up to 6 > Mbps”. In other words, best effort, it is what it is. If you as the > customer choose to ignore the “up to”, too bad for you. > > > > > > *From:* Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] *On Behalf Of *That One Guy > /sarcasm > *Sent:* Friday, February 3, 2017 10:16 AM > *To:* af@afmug.com > *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] Providing Service at Different Rates / in > Different Markets > > > > once we edit out the multiples of 1024 to be multiples of 1000 to appease > fcc they accept them without issue, whether the data is copacetic isnt a > big concern to me as we way underreport what we actually deliver and > advertise > > I guess alot of it depends on your company mission with FCC. If its > funding based, or competitor lockout based, then better looking numbers is > probably more important. Our pprimary purpose is just to get it accepted so > theyll quit bothering us, so we do accuracy and under reporting. Compared > to the numbers alot of folks present to the fcc, if there were somebody > looking at it, they would be like "how the hell are these guys even > competing" > > > > these arent our rates, but this is an example: > > Tier 1 tier 2 tier 3 > > Tiers are the speeds, the customers arent sold a tier > > rate 1 (10gb) rate 2 (20gb) rate 3 (30gb/overage) > > rates are what the customers are sold (our actual capacities are much much > higher) the top rate has the overage, and there is an un advertised rate we > put heavy users on if theyre continually generating high overages to bring > their costs down if they pay promptly on a historical basis > > > > so we create > > t01-r01 > > t02-r01 > > t03-r01 > > > > t01-r02 > > t02-r02 > > t03-r02 > > > > t01-r03 > > t02-r03 > > t03-r03 > > > > 9 plans on the back end > > > > the customers are place into groups in powercode based on their tier, so > customer service can only select the rate correlated to the tier, in this > example there are only three options > > > > we have more than 3 tiers, more than 3 rates, and because powercode is > awful, we have to duplicate everything for our annual discount. Our back > end, needless to say has a huge number of plans, very few of which are > selectable on any given account > > > > the tier (speed) is easy and has a set of criteria based on the site > installed to and its capabilities, the access point installed to and its > capabilities, and the final factor being actual performance. > > so if we have a 12mb tier and a 6mb tier, if the customer can only achieve > 10mb, they go on the 6 mb tier. aside from the fsk 900, nobody goes on a > tier they cant fully achieve consistently, and we can drop tiers if there > is degradation. Network preservation takes priority over end user > preference.....so much less headaches. and all our reporting is accurate, > if we had an fcc audit, we wouldnt get nailed for overreporting like many > others would > > > > > > > > On Fri, Feb 3, 2017 at 9:12 AM, Kurt Fankhauser <lists.wavel...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > I thought Powercode FCC 477 export was broken and full of erros as another > recent thread indicated? Also Powercode needs to have two sets of speeds in > each plan, one being FCC export reported speed, and the other being the > actual rate limited speed. Then I wouldn't have to tweak the export since I > like to rate limit at 110% of their plan speed. > > > > On Thu, Feb 2, 2017 at 9:49 AM, Cameron Crum <cc...@wispmon.com> wrote: > > Christopher, > > > > FCC basically wants advertised plan rates which makes the whole thing BS, > but what else are you going to do? I guess they assume you aren't > advertising more than you can actually deliver. Taking the speed at each > customer location is somewhat impractical for such purposes unless you just > do a one time test and call it that forever. The FCC doesn't really have a > way to report a "variable" rate plan. I have a customer who goes through > this every year. He runs everything wide open and has data caps. So he lets > you get as much "speed" as your radio can handle but bills for overages > every month. He ends up doing a speed test on install and putting that into > the "baseline" info for the customer and we use those numbers for the 477 > grouping them together into as few "buckets" as possible. So it can be > done, but it takes more effort and is certainly not "traditional". > > > > Cameron > > > > On Wed, Feb 1, 2017 at 7:01 PM, Christopher Gray < > cg...@graytechsoftware.com> wrote: > > An exported form is only as good as the data entered. I export from Sonar > with no problem, but I go through a decent amount of effort to define a > long list of services to match each speed available, and it is getting a > little out of hand. > > > > When selling capacity, not speed, how do you rate your speed for your 477? > The max it could be? The lowest you'd ever expect? How do you define a > speed in your billing system for the 477 if the speed is variable? > > > > I see now that my biggest problem seems to be having 2 variables with each > product (price and speed... my "standard" product has speeds ranging from > 1.5 to 10 and prices ranging from $50 to $73). I think I just need to > simplify the product offering by fixing one of the variables, and possibly > have a zip code entry to view the available products. Half of my network is > 50% more expensive to operate than the other half, so there are significant > price differences between some areas. > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > On Wed, Feb 1, 2017 at 7:36 PM, That One Guy /sarcasm < > thatoneguyst...@gmail.com> wrote: > > EXPORT-FORM 477 > > LITERALLY THAT SIMPLE > > > > On Wed, Feb 1, 2017 at 5:33 PM, Christopher Gray < > cg...@graytechsoftware.com> wrote: > > How do you keep track of speeds for your 477? > > > > > > > On Wed, Feb 1, 2017 at 5:50 PM, Mathew Howard <mhoward...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > We just have the same set of plans (with names, rather than speeds) with > the same prices everywhere, and the speeds set differently depending on the > area - so if you're in an area where we can cover you with ePMP 5ghz half a > mile from our office, you'll get a vastly different speed than if you're > out in the middle of nowhere where we can only cover you with 900mhz FSK > from a tower with a grand total of 5 customers on it, but for billing > purposes the plan is the same. The only way to find out what the actual > speed is going to be in any given area is to ask us. > > > > On Wed, Feb 1, 2017 at 12:47 PM, Adam Moffett <dmmoff...@gmail.com> wrote: > > The other way is to define different service options and say that not all > options are available in all areas. > > > > If there's an option that's more money for less speed nobody will > intentionally choose it, but you can tell them that's the option available > in their area. This way happens to also work seamlessly with billing > systems since you have to differentiate the rate options in the system that > way anyhow. > > > > One problem you will not avoid no matter how you spell it out is that some > people will draw their own conclusions about why you're charging them more > than people in another area. I.E.: They'll say you're a greedy, evil > person with selfish and petty reasons for discriminating against them. I > don't have any faith in my fellow humans, so take that with a grain of salt. > > > > > > > > ------ Original Message ------ > > From: "Sterling Jacobson" <sterl...@avative.net> > > To: "af@afmug.com" <af@afmug.com> > > Sent: 2/1/2017 1:37:38 PM > > Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Providing Service at Different Rates / in Different > Markets > > > > Ugh, that is difficult. > > > > If it were me, at the very least I would just make a pricing page online > and spell it all out for each ‘area’. > > > > If you want to be more discreet you could just advertise the lowest priced > rate/plan and say there are higher speed options to contact you. > > > > The fancy way would be for them to fill out a form and get an immediate > response via email or online as to their rate plans per the area. > > > > > > > > *From:* Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] *On Behalf Of *Christopher Gray > *Sent:* Wednesday, February 1, 2017 11:28 AM > *To:* af@afmug.com > *Subject:* [AFMUG] Providing Service at Different Rates / in Different > Markets > > > > How do others handle providing service in different markets at different > rates? > > > > As I've expanded into different areas, I've found I need to charge > significantly different rates and have to provide different speeds. I > adjusted my website to say things like: "...up to" and "...starting at > $...". It feels a bit misleading. I want to be clear without publishing > every single service option. > > > > I'd like some suggestions for more appropriately treating the different > areas. Perhaps entering a zipcode or town to see price options? > > > > Thank you - Chris > > > > > > > > > > -- > > 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.