I have them at the office, so I can send them when I am back, but I have a better idea. I am getting a quote from a media production company to make a WISP version of these videos, with the ability to throw the logo of a WISP and the url into the video along with a few customized lines of text like, "All of us a XYZ WISP are please to explain to you how our bandwidth management plans work -"
If enough companies signed up, we should be able to make it cheap enough for everyone to have a custom-made video. Daniel Marlon Schafer (509.982.2181) <o...@odessaoffice.com> wrote .. > Do you have a link to some of the videos Daniel? > > Might be helpful for us to send them to our customers or those that call for > information. > > thanks, > marlon > > > -----Original Message----- > From: wi...@metrocom.ca > Sent: Tuesday, October 08, 2013 8:21 PM > To: WISPA General List > Subject: Re: [WISPA] packaging suggestions > > Marlon has the right idea. > > I have been looking at what AT&T is doing to lay the groundwork for > pay-as-you-go bandwidth - you can see some of their 'informational' videos > on YouTube - and essentially they are setting a really high limit on usage > in GB terms, and then billing above that so as to hit the bandwidth hogs. > > They are phasing it in, and giving people usage meters and alerts to show > their usage patterns, but it all leads to having a way for them to tackle > the small minority who take an outsize share of the bandwidth, and I have to > say they do a good job of making that point clear in those videos. > > Next year we will also introduce the same sort of tiered fair-use/flat rate > plans to enable us to segment the customer base, and most likely do that in > the same way as they are. > > Daniel > > > Marlon Schafer (509.982.2181) <o...@odessaoffice.com> wrote .. > > Offer a choice to them. > > > > $100++ for a speed limited but bit “unlimited” (read that to mean high > > threshold) > > plan. > > > > Or, $40 for a lower usage plan with smaller steps for higher than average > > but non > > disruptive customers. > > > > And remember, the high usage customers are costing more than they are > > paying. > > You are better off to loose x% of your customer base than to keep them. > > > > Pass those folks to your competition and let them die trying to figure out > > how > > to support them. > > > > And never forget, we are not the only ones having this problem. The big > > guys are > > feeling it far worse than we are, we just don’t hear about it as much. > > And in > > the next few years the compression mechanisms will get better, AP’s will > > start > > to ship with built in cache systems, more data will fit down the same pipe > > etc. > > We’ll be able to deliver these services to people sooner than later, just > > have > > to stay in business long enough to let the technologies catch up to what > > the markets > > are really asking for. > > > > marlon > > > > > > > > From: Joe Miller > > Sent: Thursday, September 26, 2013 8:18 AM > > To: 'WISPA General List' > > Subject: Re: [WISPA] packaging suggestions > > > > Joe, > > > > > > > > I do agree that usage based billing is the way to go. However, when our > > system > > was originally built 10 years ago, it was done so on the “unlimited” > > platform. > > The customers that we have I believe will respond in a negative way to the > > change. > > So how can we migrate a unlimited system to a UBB system without for a > > better word, > > piss off the existing customer base. I have thought about this for quite > > some time > > and the billing system I have in place can handle running both at the same > > time. > > What would be a good price point per gig of bandwidth? >From looking at > > the current > > customer usage I think using $1.00 per gig would be a good starting point > > for discussion. > > Some customers will see a reduction in monthly cost while most will see an > > increase > > in their monthly service. I can see how we can re coup the cost of > > bandwidth a > > lot easier. > > > > > > > > I would like to come up with an email for my customers to ask them what > > they think > > in regards to having virtually as much bandwidth as they can use in > > exchange for > > billing for that usage. Basically, caped speed with flat rate vs uncapped > > speed > > with metered rate. > > > > > > > > I’m looking at expanding into a new area and using the UBB platform will > > be a > > lot easier to start out with, but changing out the current customer base > > to UBB > > will be a bigger pill to swallow. > > > > > > > > I think that this is a good discussion for a session in Vegas. > > > > > > > > We have hundreds of companies that are members of WISPA, and I think with > > enough > > minds on this that we can come up with a good solution for everyone. > > > > > > > > Regards, > > > > > > > > Joe Miller > > > > www.dslbyair.com > > > > www.facebook.com/dslbyair > > > > 228-831-8881 > > > > > > > > From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On > > Behalf > > Of Joe Fiero > > Sent: Thursday, September 26, 2013 9:17 AM > > To: 'WISPA General List' > > Subject: Re: [WISPA] packaging suggestions > > > > > > > > I believe Fred to be correct. Packages based on speed are not the answer. > > We > > call our connection a “pipe”, so let’s use a related analogy; > > > > > > > > You can have two homes with water service. One is an older home that has > > a ½ > > inch water main, the other is new construction and has a 1 inch service > > main. > > > > > > > > House number 1 has the original fixtures, so the toilet uses 6 gallons per > > flush, > > the shower flow is 7 gallons per minute and the clothes washer uses 40-55 > > gallons > > per load. > > > > > > > > House number two, being built under new codes that promote conservation > > has a low > > flow toilet that will use 1.6 – 2 gallons per flush, a low flow shower > > head that > > restricts flow to 2.5 gallons per minute and a new clothes washer that > > uses 20 > > gallons per load. > > > > > > > > With a family of 5 in each house, it’s easy to see that , despite the > > smaller > > service pipe, that house number 1 will have many times the water usage as > > house > > number 2. A smaller pipe did nothing to control the flow because the flow > > limit > > of the pipe was not reached. > > > > > > > > Those two pipes are exactly like a 3 meg and 5 meg Internet connection. > > Within > > reason, the size of the pipe will do little to limit heavy bandwidth > > usage. It > > only serves to spread it out, creating a longer period of time that it > > puts a demand > > on our networks. > > > > > > > > Like most, we saw our network performance begin to deteriorate as Netflix > > switched > > from a physical to a digital delivery system. The others since then have > > continued > > to slow our once speedy connections. Now we, as an industry, are faced > > with a > > continued rebuild to meet a voracious demand for bandwidth to deliver > > content that > > we never intended, or anticipated. Worse yet, we are being positioned to > > provide > > these improvements to support the business model of companies that barely > > acknowledge > > our existence. > > > > > > > > And they are getting smarter in their use of our pipes. There was a time > > when > > if you didn’t have a good 4.5 meg flow, Netflix would not stream. They > > have > > gone to much more advanced encoding that will adjust to feeds of less than > > 2 megs, > > rendering a 3 meg rate limit useless in defending against them. > > > > > > > > The issue of Net Neutrality somehow became synonymous with no caps. It > > appears > > we are the only service that is viewed by consumers and governments that > > should > > be given away. Services like water, natural gas and electricity are each > > brought > > to a home and metered for actual usage, because it is the only fair way > > for those > > that use these services to pay their fair share. In most locals, the > > billing is > > specifically broken down into two parts. The first addresses the base > > cost of > > the connection to the property, and the second reflects the cost of the > > metered > > usage. > > > > > > > > How is Internet different? We are a service that delivers a commodity to > > be used > > and never recovered. The bits of data we move for our subscribers are no > > different > > than the kilowatt, gallon or therm moved by the others. Could you imagine > > if consumers > > demanded there be no metering on these services? > > > > > > > > We are being restricted by network limits from delivering the full pipe to > > subscribers. > > This limitation is a function of cost. Under our current structures we > > cannot > > justify the cost of building a large pipe to each subscriber. After all, > > we are > > an industry built on contention. This sharing of bandwidth was the > > impetus of > > the WISP business for many years, but that concept has outlived it’s > > usefulness. > > Our subscribers no longer want to surf the web or check email. Most now > > do that > > on their smart phones. No, our pipe has become an unwilling player on the > > next > > pervasive shift in the paradigm, as subscription video shifts to a digital > > delivery > > medium. > > > > > > > > Just as VoIP has been disruptive to POTS, and satellite was to cable, we > > are on > > the cusp of the next trend in consumer electronics. Televisions today are > > being > > built with Ethernet ports and wireless networking. They are coming with > > built > > in apps for all the streaming services. And they want all this to work > > over OUR > > pipes. > > > > > > > > So we need to face reality and understand that if we don’t provide these > > services, > > we have become useless to our subscribers. Our failure to respond to this > > trend > > will throw the doors open for someone to come in to our markets and pluck > > each > > of our hard earned subscribers until we are decimated and a faint memory. > > If you > > think subscribers are satisfied with basic Internet services today, you > > are in > > denial. > > > > > > > > The answer is we need to build out robust networks that can deliver > > copious amounts > > of bandwidth to our subscribers. Our repayment will come by employing the > > time > > proven practice of metering for usage. > > > > > > > > We can divide our subscribers into two groups. The cutting edge-tech > > savvy type > > that is creating our issues, and the rest who will be joining them. I am > > sure > > that most of us have similar network statistics. If I look at one of my > > network > > segments I have the top 4 users consuming 25% of all bandwidth. I hit 50% > > at the > > 13th subscriber. This is a change in trend. It used to be just 8 that > > consumed > > 50%. And yes, bandwidth consumption has increased accordingly. This > > change from > > 8 to 13 subscribers being in the top 50% indicates my high usage > > subscribers have > > increased by 120% in roughly the past 6 months. Post holiday season I > > expect to > > see at least a 300% increase in my high usage subscribers, which without > > changes > > to my network, will bring data flow to a standstill. > > > > > > > > So build and meter. Don’t ignore the elephant in the room referenced > > earlier > > in this discussion. Just look at copper phone lines that peaked at 186 > > million > > in 2004 which today number about 84 million. In just 9 years, pureplay > > VoIP, cable > > VoIP and cellular technologies caused a 55% shift in a once-thought > > untouchable > > market. > > > > > > > > Joe > > > > > > > > > > > > From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On > > Behalf > > Of Fred Goldstein > > Sent: Wednesday, September 25, 2013 5:55 PM > > To: wireless@wispa.org > > Subject: Re: [WISPA] packaging suggestions > > > > > > > > On 9/25/2013 1:00 PM, heith petersen wrote: > > > > I just got off the phone with a customer. I made some adjustments to his > > SM the > > other day to make netflix work. He called back today to tell me it works > > good but > > his direct tv showtime package is OK but not great. I kind of wanted to > > ask him > > what the hell gives dish net the right to sell you a service that rides on > > my back > > bone where I do not make anymore money for your additional use of my > > service. Anyways > > I got that off my chest. > > > > > > > > So our situation has been for years residential customers pay a flat > > rate, we > > have no speed or usage based packages. When the customer calls about > > netflix I > > make throttle adjustments in the SM to make them happy. Well eventually I > > have > > an overloaded AP, then I have to either sectorize or add a different > > frequency, > > add higher capacity BHs out of my pocket, just to keep my customers happy > > at the > > same price we have been charging for 10 years. (We recently, since going > > to new > > billing service, added a $2 paper fee for non emailed invoices and I get > > crucified > > by the same customers every month). Ideally I want to get away from > > mechanical > > throttles. > > > > > > > > We are in the middle running our authentication thru our new billing > > system, > > and converting bridged to fully routed. You know, the things we should > > have been > > doing from day one. Anyways, once we get things squared away, what’s a > > common > > practice on doing packages? If you have basic customers out there that do > > not stream > > or use tons of bandwidth would you keep them at the current rate, or drop > > the rate > > and throttle them tight? I would assume that we would want to offer an > > increased > > package to known streamers, maybe throttle them down to a basic level and > > wait > > to hear from them when they are willing to upgrade their package? I would > > then > > anticipate that making the expenditures to provide them with the service > > would > > be worth the venture. > > > > > > > > Anyways just looking for some suggestions. There is always time to do it > > right > > the second time around > > > > http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless > > > > > > This is a really big problem for WISPs. Streaming high-quality video has > > been > > the potential elephant in the room of the ISP business for a long time. > > It is > > finally starting to show up in the room, thanks to Netflix, Hulu, and > > others like > > them. > > > > Poisoning the well is the public's paranoia about cable companies, who > > usually > > have ample Internet capacity (fiber to a major peering point; high > > capacity HFC > > networks). So if they do anything to limit streaming, it's seen as an > > anti-competitive > > trick, to get people to buy more channels. This may or may not be true, > > but that's > > the public perception, which was a major driver of the "network > > neutrality" kerfuffle > > now in court. > > > > Of course most WISPs are nothing like cable! But the public doesn't see > > the difference, > > and if the FCC gains authority over WISPs (which they shouldn't have, by > > law, but > > what's the law when the public wants their circuses, I mean teevee?), then > > if WISPs > > do anything that selectively blocks video, or even UDP, it might be seen > > as a violation. > > So your legal authority to act is in question. And who is leading the > > appeal against > > the law? Verizon, who is actually behind it (since it hurts Comcast more > > than > > them). Hence their arguments are on the lame side. The only things going > > for > > us in the DC Circuit are that the DC Circuit dislikes the FCC in general, > > and the > > FCC did a really bad job in claiming the authority. > > > > Thus the "neutral" answer is to move towards bandwidth caps. This to me > > makes > > more sense, to a WISP, than a rate-based price tier. Somebody can burst > > at 10 > > Mbps once in a while and put little load on the network, but somebody > > watching > > TV at 3 Mbps all day will clobber you. Gigabytes/month represents a > > monthly average > > load. If you do this, you can raise everyone's base rate to the max. > > Cellular > > does this. > > > > But there are two very different approaches taken even by cellcos when the > > cap > > is reached. If you are on VZ, ATT or Sprint, you are charged extra when > > you exceed > > the cap. A lot extra. This leads people to buy bigger plans than they > > need, just > > to be sure they don't hit the cap. If on the other hand you're on > > T-Mobile, once > > you hit the cap your data is throttled WAY down to EDGE speeds (around 80 > > kbps > > if the wind is from the west), but they don't charge more. > > > > So my gut feeling is that the best strategy for dealing with pink-eyed > > elephants > > is to move to usage-based plans. Look at the actual monthly usage for > > each customer > > and see how many would fall into any given tier, if you draw tiers. Set > > it up > > so that few people pay more than now, but those who watch TV will. > > Something like > > 50 GB/month is probably a typical heavy web surfer who likes YouTube > > (which is > > not streaming) and has their share of Microsoft Updates to deal with, but > > only > > watches a little streaming. It's the 100+ GB users you want to ding. But > > you > > can create a low-cost plan (say, <10 GB) for those who mainly need just > > email and > > web. It still beats mobile. > > > > Throttling T-Mobile style (say, down to 512/256k, not 80/24k) seems more > > friendly > > to me than hitting someone with a big bill. That would be "neutral" but > > block > > TV. And you could even let people "bank" last month's unused quota (AT&T > > does > > this with minutes, right?) for those special occasions (like the Breaking > > Bad finale), > > if your software can handle it. But a bill-based system is easier to > > implement... > > at least if you don't count post-bill customer calls. > > > > I wish there were an easy answer but this is going to be a big issue so > > it's good > > that you're bringing it up for discussion. > > > > -- Fred R. Goldstein k1io fred "at" interisle.net Interisle > > Consulting > > Group +1 617 795 2701 > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > _______________________________________________ > > Wireless mailing list > > Wireless@wispa.org > > http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Wireless mailing list > Wireless@wispa.org > http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless > > _______________________________________________ > Wireless mailing list > Wireless@wispa.org > http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
_______________________________________________ Wireless mailing list Wireless@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
