| Author |
Message |
James Knott
Guest
|
 Posted:
Sat Aug 20, 2005 11:22 pm Post subject:
Re: U.S. Broadband Access Falling Behind |
|
|
David Ross wrote:
| Quote: | Here in Raleigh,
3mbps down with 8 static IP blocks costs a small business over $200 a
month from Time Warner.
|
You can't compare residential and business rates. As with the phone
companies, businesses pay more. What does that company charge for a home
user? |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
James Knott
Guest
|
| Posted:
Sat Aug 20, 2005 11:25 pm Post subject:
Re: U.S. Broadband Access Falling Behind |
|
|
Bill M. wrote:
| Quote: | As long as power lines are used, they will radiate the signal and
potentially cause interference. There's no way around that, short of
burying them.
In theory, would it help to string the power lines as twisted pairs?
It's not likely to be practical, I wouldn't think.
|
That's already done, with house connections. However, you'd have to replace
the entire system to eliminate the problem. If you're going that far, you
might as well run in fibre for data. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
David Ross
Guest
|
| Posted:
Mon Aug 22, 2005 4:13 pm Post subject:
Re: U.S. Broadband Access Falling Behind |
|
|
| Quote: | Here in Raleigh,
3mbps down with 8 static IP blocks costs a small business over $200 a
month from Time Warner.
You can't compare residential and business rates. As with the phone
companies, businesses pay more. What does that company charge for a home
user?
|
Home and HOSO users count. I work with both. Plus small businesses. With
Bellsouth (or 3rd party DSL) you can get a static IP for $5 to $10
additional a month. Base rates range from $30 to $50 a month for Res.
With Bellsouth Biz you can get a block of 8 static for $120 total. With
cable you pay a min of about $40 to $45 a month. I don't know if static
IPs are even offered yet to homes. They were not recently. Biz is $80
min for cable but with a static IP block it can get to over $200 quickly.
My point is that they have different accounting and technical limits.
And what is a great deal for one type of user is a terrible choice for
another. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Cyrus Afzali
Guest
|
| Posted:
Tue Aug 23, 2005 4:20 pm Post subject:
Re: U.S. Broadband Access Falling Behind |
|
|
On Thu, 18 Aug 2005 21:39:16 -0500, BR <brodriguez@comcast.net> wrote:
| Quote: | On Thu, 18 Aug 2005 17:51:35 -0700, L Alpert wrote:
Some people just don't get it. There is an "analog" divide. Those that
can afford it will get it. That is what happens in a capitalistic
society. Broadband is not an American birthright.
Well the issue isn't weither technology is a birthright (phones aren't).
|
Actually, phones WERE considered birthrights. That's why for years
when I was in NYC, I had no other option than to pay 10.6 cents for a
local call. That charge was a holdover from the days when that money
went right into the universal service fund to pay for expanding phone
service across the country. Now, God knows what they use it for. It's
much like the various federal taxes that never go away. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
BR
Guest
|
| Posted:
Fri Aug 26, 2005 5:32 am Post subject:
Re: U.S. Broadband Access Falling Behind |
|
|
On Fri, 19 Aug 2005 19:15:48 -0700, L Alpert wrote:
| Quote: | On Thu, 18 Aug 2005 17:51:35 -0700, L Alpert wrote:
Internet access is a prerequisite to having a full and enriched life.
There are those that can and do live without it. If it "grows" or not
matters little.
|
I disagree.
http://www.cross-usa.com/rdc.asp
I believe the above wouldn't be practical without broadband. There's a lot
of rural areas dying, and broadband access would be a boon to their
development. Especially in the face of outsourcing. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ron Hunter
Guest
|
| Posted:
Fri Aug 26, 2005 2:27 pm Post subject:
Re: U.S. Broadband Access Falling Behind |
|
|
Cyrus Afzali wrote:
| Quote: | On Thu, 18 Aug 2005 21:39:16 -0500, BR <brodriguez@comcast.net> wrote:
On Thu, 18 Aug 2005 17:51:35 -0700, L Alpert wrote:
Some people just don't get it. There is an "analog" divide. Those that
can afford it will get it. That is what happens in a capitalistic
society. Broadband is not an American birthright.
Well the issue isn't weither technology is a birthright (phones aren't).
Actually, phones WERE considered birthrights. That's why for years
when I was in NYC, I had no other option than to pay 10.6 cents for a
local call. That charge was a holdover from the days when that money
went right into the universal service fund to pay for expanding phone
service across the country. Now, God knows what they use it for. It's
much like the various federal taxes that never go away.
|
Very true. If you have a $30 a month cell phone rate plan, you will pay
30% more in taxes, service fees, and 'regulatory fees'. Outrageous!
--
Ron Hunter rphunter@charter.net |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
David Ross
Guest
|
| Posted:
Fri Aug 26, 2005 4:20 pm Post subject:
Re: U.S. Broadband Access Falling Behind |
|
|
| Quote: | Internet access is a prerequisite to having a full and enriched life.
There are those that can and do live without it. If it "grows" or not
matters little.
I disagree.
http://www.cross-usa.com/rdc.asp
I believe the above wouldn't be practical without broadband. There's a lot
of rural areas dying, and broadband access would be a boon to their
development. Especially in the face of outsourcing.
But why are they dying? Most all rural towns exist because they made |
economic sense when founded. Any many exist because they are a one day
trip for someone on horseback or with a wagon to get to town, buy
supplies, sell product, and get home in one day. Which is why so many
rural towns are 20 to 40 miles apart. Phone companies in the early to
mid 90s in the plains states faced CO updates to supply current services
and new "dsl" which had paybacks of 20 to 50 years due to low subscriber
density. They did it because they had to by law at the time but what if
that money had gone into infrastructure with a profit potential? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
BR
Guest
|
| Posted:
Fri Aug 26, 2005 4:20 pm Post subject:
Re: U.S. Broadband Access Falling Behind |
|
|
On Fri, 26 Aug 2005 10:10:19 -0400, David Ross wrote:
| Quote: | But why are they dying? Most all rural towns exist because they made
economic sense when founded. Any many exist because they are a one day
trip for someone on horseback or with a wagon to get to town, buy
supplies, sell product, and get home in one day. Which is why so many
rural towns are 20 to 40 miles apart.
|
Well first of all I wouldn't assume they are dying because it's their
fault. There's quite a few that are dying because the principle business
left town. Others when out of business. Sometimes because of competition
with cheaper overseas goods. Or the primary business doesn't make as much
as it use to.
| Quote: | Phone companies in the early to
mid 90s in the plains states faced CO updates to supply current services
and new "dsl" which had paybacks of 20 to 50 years due to low subscriber
density. They did it because they had to by law at the time but what if
that money had gone into infrastructure with a profit potential?
|
That's assuming that if money doesn't go one way, it will go into another
particular direction. That money could have gone to higher CEO salaries.
Anyway that's why companies take long-term risks. It may payoff bigtime
further down the line. 20-50 isn't unusual for infrastructure investments.
The thing to note that turned the car and phone from luxury to necessity
is changing surrounding circimstances. The thing that may change broadband
from luxury to necessity are several. From the governments move to doing
most of it's business online, to businesses doing the same. Telecommuting
may also play a role. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ
Memberlist
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in