Re: [AFMUG] is....the price right?

[CBB - Jay Fuller]

A good idea - we'll just have to see what happens...

  - Original Message - 
  From: Ken Hohhof 
  To: af@afmug.com 
  Sent: Sunday, August 07, 2016 12:54 PM
  Subject: Re: [AFMUG] isthe price right?


  You might want to consider something like Procera to limit the bandwidth when 
a whole building full of iPhones tries to download the latest iOS update.  
People bring their personal devices to the workplace, and they use the company 
WiFi.


  From: CBB - Jay Fuller 
  Sent: Sunday, August 07, 2016 12:28 PM
  To: af@afmug.com 
  Subject: Re: [AFMUG] isthe price right?


  ThanksI do expect them to get those speeds (airfiber + rocket ac prism), 
but I don't expect them to do much more than speedtests with those speeds.I 
expect the usage to be signifigantly less than my residential customers as has 
been stated later in this thread

  Thank you for the response!

- Original Message - 
From: Adam Moffett 
To: af@afmug.com 
Sent: Saturday, August 06, 2016 9:39 AM
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] isthe price right?

Jay,

Depends if I expect them to actually get those speeds.  If I do, then quite 
a bit.
Maybe something like $99/month for 30x15.  $199/month for 100x50.   Even at 
that price, there's an assumption that they're not actually using it all.

If it's "up to" and we don't care whether it happens, then maybe somewhat 
less than a lot.

NY State by the way.

Thanks,
Adam


-- Original Message --
From: "CBB - Jay Fuller" <par...@cyberbroadband.net>
To: af@afmug.com
Sent: 8/5/2016 2:35:19 PM
Subject: [AFMUG] isthe price right?


  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 

Re: [AFMUG] is....the price right?

[Ken Hohhof]

You might want to consider something like Procera to limit the bandwidth when a 
whole building full of iPhones tries to download the latest iOS update.  People 
bring their personal devices to the workplace, and they use the company WiFi.


From: CBB - Jay Fuller 
Sent: Sunday, August 07, 2016 12:28 PM
To: af@afmug.com 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] isthe price right?


ThanksI do expect them to get those speeds (airfiber + rocket ac prism), 
but I don't expect them to do much more than speedtests with those speeds.I 
expect the usage to be signifigantly less than my residential customers as has 
been stated later in this thread

Thank you for the response!

  - Original Message - 
  From: Adam Moffett 
  To: af@afmug.com 
  Sent: Saturday, August 06, 2016 9:39 AM
  Subject: Re: [AFMUG] isthe price right?

  Jay,

  Depends if I expect them to actually get those speeds.  If I do, then quite a 
bit.
  Maybe something like $99/month for 30x15.  $199/month for 100x50.   Even at 
that price, there's an assumption that they're not actually using it all.

  If it's "up to" and we don't care whether it happens, then maybe somewhat 
less than a lot.

  NY State by the way.

  Thanks,
  Adam


  -- Original Message --
  From: "CBB - Jay Fuller" <par...@cyberbroadband.net>
  To: af@afmug.com
  Sent: 8/5/2016 2:35:19 PM
  Subject: [AFMUG] isthe price right?


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 

Re: [AFMUG] is....the price right?

[CBB - Jay Fuller]

The area targeted, in fact, is a downtown business district.  Nearly every 
customer/subscriber there has 60/4 from the cable co (charter) and they hate 
it.  in fact, in the last month, it has been riddled with problems - but now 
they seem to have the bugs worked out as i'm not hearing the complaints as much 
anymore.

aside from being local, our next major benefit is we can offer faster upload 
than they can.  our customers 15-20 miles outside of town are surrounded by 
trees and are in a whole different world than the downtown area is.

we're thinking a plan that cost less than the lowest entry plan for the 
competition (and is still more than enough for the customer) that would also 
offer higher upload as well as plans that are similar but also offer higher 
upload.

our customer service guys biggest fear now is someone from our existing network 
will call wanting these speeds.
these speeds are only available in the downtown area where there are no 
trees



  - Original Message - 
  From: That One Guy /sarcasm 
  To: af@afmug.com 
  Sent: Friday, August 05, 2016 2:42 PM
  Subject: Re: [AFMUG] isthe price right?


  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.

Re: [AFMUG] is....the price right?

[CBB - Jay Fuller]

ThanksI do expect them to get those speeds (airfiber + rocket ac prism), 
but I don't expect them to do much more than speedtests with those speeds.I 
expect the usage to be signifigantly less than my residential customers as has 
been stated later in this thread

Thank you for the response!

  - Original Message - 
  From: Adam Moffett 
  To: af@afmug.com 
  Sent: Saturday, August 06, 2016 9:39 AM
  Subject: Re: [AFMUG] isthe price right?


  Jay,

  Depends if I expect them to actually get those speeds.  If I do, then quite a 
bit.
  Maybe something like $99/month for 30x15.  $199/month for 100x50.   Even at 
that price, there's an assumption that they're not actually using it all.

  If it's "up to" and we don't care whether it happens, then maybe somewhat 
less than a lot.

  NY State by the way.

  Thanks,
  Adam


  -- Original Message --
  From: "CBB - Jay Fuller" <par...@cyberbroadband.net>
  To: af@afmug.com
  Sent: 8/5/2016 2:35:19 PM
  Subject: [AFMUG] isthe price right?


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 

Re: [AFMUG] is....the price right?

[That One Guy /sarcasm]

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] isthe 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] isthe 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
> 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] isthe 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

Re: [AFMUG] is....the price right?

[Ken Hohhof]

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 
Sent: Saturday, August 06, 2016 8:41 PM
To: af@afmug.com 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] isthe 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 
Sent: Saturday, August 06, 2016 4:14 PM
To: af@afmug.com 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] isthe 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 
transparently explaining that “unlimited” means 22 GB.



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 
Sent: Saturday, August 06, 2016 4:01 PM
To: af@afmug.com 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] isthe 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 systemI 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] isthe 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 
accu

Re: [AFMUG] is....the price right?

[That One Guy /sarcasm]

good


On Sat, Aug 6, 2016 at 8:45 PM, Chuck McCown <ch...@wbmfg.com> wrote:

> Federal funding got cut a whole bunch this year to all telcos and it is
> going to get additional cuts every year for the next 5 years.  That whole
> federal support mechanism is slowly going away.
>
> *From:* Ken Hohhof <af...@kwisp.com>
> *Sent:* Saturday, August 06, 2016 6:37 PM
> *To:* af@afmug.com
> *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] isthe price right?
>
> I’m not sure we will see yearly iterations of CAF.  Sure, subsidies are
> one factor to consider when offering and pricing services and making
> business plans, but I think you are giving it too much weight.
>
> And don’t lose sight of what the cellcos may come up with for fixed
> wireless, we can laugh at their data caps now, but that may change.  I
> think that’s as much of a competitive threat as the feds funding Frontier
> or Centurylink to run fiber in my area.
>
>
> *From:* Josh Reynolds <j...@kyneticwifi.com>
> *Sent:* Saturday, August 06, 2016 6:46 PM
> *To:* af@afmug.com
> *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] isthe price right?
>
>
> Eh, it's indirect. Either you can provide the speeds the government says
> meets the needs of consumers, or they will be willing to fund an expansion
> in your area. You can either be the one growing your network and providing
> more jobs for your community, or $NationalCorp will, with shittier tech
> support.
>
> On Aug 6, 2016 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
>> 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] isthe 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
>>
>&g

Re: [AFMUG] is....the price right?

[Chuck McCown]

Federal funding got cut a whole bunch this year to all telcos and it is going 
to get additional cuts every year for the next 5 years.  That whole federal 
support mechanism is slowly going away.  

From: Ken Hohhof 
Sent: Saturday, August 06, 2016 6:37 PM
To: af@afmug.com 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] isthe price right?

I’m not sure we will see yearly iterations of CAF.  Sure, subsidies are one 
factor to consider when offering and pricing services and making business 
plans, but I think you are giving it too much weight.

And don’t lose sight of what the cellcos may come up with for fixed wireless, 
we can laugh at their data caps now, but that may change.  I think that’s as 
much of a competitive threat as the feds funding Frontier or Centurylink to run 
fiber in my area.


From: Josh Reynolds 
Sent: Saturday, August 06, 2016 6:46 PM
To: af@afmug.com 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] isthe price right?

Eh, it's indirect. Either you can provide the speeds the government says meets 
the needs of consumers, or they will be willing to fund an expansion in your 
area. You can either be the one growing your network and providing more jobs 
for your community, or $NationalCorp will, with shittier tech support.


On Aug 6, 2016 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 
transparently explaining that “unlimited” means 22 GB.



  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 
  Sent: Saturday, August 06, 2016 4:01 PM
  To: af@afmug.com 
  Subject: Re: [AFMUG] isthe 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, 201

Re: [AFMUG] is....the price right?

[Chuck McCown]

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 
Sent: Saturday, August 06, 2016 4:14 PM
To: af@afmug.com 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] isthe 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 
transparently explaining that “unlimited” means 22 GB.



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 
Sent: Saturday, August 06, 2016 4:01 PM
To: af@afmug.com 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] isthe 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 systemI 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] isthe 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 bec

Re: [AFMUG] is....the price right?

[Ken Hohhof]

I’m not sure we will see yearly iterations of CAF.  Sure, subsidies are one 
factor to consider when offering and pricing services and making business 
plans, but I think you are giving it too much weight.

And don’t lose sight of what the cellcos may come up with for fixed wireless, 
we can laugh at their data caps now, but that may change.  I think that’s as 
much of a competitive threat as the feds funding Frontier or Centurylink to run 
fiber in my area.


From: Josh Reynolds 
Sent: Saturday, August 06, 2016 6:46 PM
To: af@afmug.com 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] isthe price right?

Eh, it's indirect. Either you can provide the speeds the government says meets 
the needs of consumers, or they will be willing to fund an expansion in your 
area. You can either be the one growing your network and providing more jobs 
for your community, or $NationalCorp will, with shittier tech support.


On Aug 6, 2016 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 
transparently explaining that “unlimited” means 22 GB.



  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 
  Sent: Saturday, August 06, 2016 4:01 PM
  To: af@afmug.com 
  Subject: Re: [AFMUG] isthe 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 systemI just don't 
know how I would explain it to consumers. 


-- Origina

Re: [AFMUG] is....the price right?

[Josh Reynolds]

Eh, it's indirect. Either you can provide the speeds the government says
meets the needs of consumers, or they will be willing to fund an expansion
in your area. You can either be the one growing your network and providing
more jobs for your community, or $NationalCorp will, with shittier tech
support.

On Aug 6, 2016 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
> 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] isthe 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 systemI 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 5:16:3

Re: [AFMUG] is....the price right?

[That One Guy /sarcasm]

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] isthe 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
>> transparently explaining that “unlimited” means 22 GB.
>>
>> 
>>
>> 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] isthe 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 

Re: [AFMUG] is....the price right?

[Ken Hohhof]

I still don’t think they’re using the Form 477 data for the National Broadband 
Map, are they?


From: That One Guy /sarcasm 
Sent: Saturday, August 06, 2016 5:32 PM
To: af@afmug.com 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] isthe 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 
transparently explaining that “unlimited” means 22 GB.

  

  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 
  Sent: Saturday, August 06, 2016 4:01 PM
  To: af@afmug.com 
  Subject: Re: [AFMUG] isthe 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 

Re: [AFMUG] is....the price right?

[That One Guy /sarcasm]

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
> 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] isthe 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

Re: [AFMUG] is....the price right?

[Ken Hohhof]

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 
transparently explaining that “unlimited” means 22 GB.



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 
Sent: Saturday, August 06, 2016 4:01 PM
To: af@afmug.com 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] isthe 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 systemI 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] isthe 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 suc

Re: [AFMUG] is....the price right?

[That One Guy /sarcasm]

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 systemI 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] isthe 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,
>> > somethi

Re: [AFMUG] is....the price right?

[Adam Moffett]

Jay,

Depends if I expect them to actually get those speeds.  If I do, then 
quite a bit.
Maybe something like $99/month for 30x15.  $199/month for 100x50.   Even 
at that price, there's an assumption that they're not actually using it 
all.


If it's "up to" and we don't care whether it happens, then maybe 
somewhat less than a lot.


NY State by the way.

Thanks,
Adam


-- Original Message --
From: "CBB - Jay Fuller" 
To: af@afmug.com
Sent: 8/5/2016 2:35:19 PM
Subject: [AFMUG] isthe price right?



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

Re: [AFMUG] is....the price right?

[Adam Moffett]

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 systemI 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] isthe 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.

Re: [AFMUG] is....the price right?

[That One Guy /sarcasm]

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  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
>  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.

Re: [AFMUG] is....the price right?

[Josh Reynolds]

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
 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 
> 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.

Re: [AFMUG] is....the price right?

[That One Guy /sarcasm]

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 
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.