Forums | MacLife

radarman wrote:

Farmerkev wrote:

Chickenhawk wrote:

Yeah, that's a great idea when many places in the nation only have one or two ISPs to choose from.

If they don't meet customer demand that demand will get filled by someone else.
I've played this game before and where you're seeing a problem I'm seeing another business opportunity.

You do know what a natural monopoly is right?

ISP's aren't presently required to share access to their physical lines. This means the competitor would have to run their own lines, assuming they could even get the permissions and right of way rights. Even if this competitor could lease access, do you really think they are going to be able to charge less than the host? Those days are over. Customers would have to choose between cheap and more limited, or absurdly expensive (if available at all) and less limited.

Aside from that, most markets are controlled by one of a small number of large ISP's.

No, this is a case of where regulation is going to be necessary. The market is NOT going to sort this one out.

Wireless of course. The newly free tv bandwidth will be a part of the expansion in the next few years.
Going WISP removes that last mile line need and makes it quickly deployable as well as dirt cheap.
The more riled up you guys are about it the more $$$$$$$$ I see to be made.
Almost wish I hadn't sold out a few years ago.

Farmerkev wrote:

Wireless of course. The newly free tv bandwidth will be a part of the expansion in the next few years.
Going WISP removes that last mile line need and makes it quickly deployable as well as dirt cheap.
The more riled up you guys are about it the more $$$$$$$$ I see to be made.
Almost wish I hadn't sold out a few years ago.

Sure there's money to be made.  But the regulators / government won't let you make it.  Most consumer ISPs are protected monopolies.

Farmerkev wrote:

radarman wrote:

Farmerkev wrote:

If they don't meet customer demand that demand will get filled by someone else.
I've played this game before and where you're seeing a problem I'm seeing another business opportunity.

You do know what a natural monopoly is right?

ISP's aren't presently required to share access to their physical lines. This means the competitor would have to run their own lines, assuming they could even get the permissions and right of way rights. Even if this competitor could lease access, do you really think they are going to be able to charge less than the host? Those days are over. Customers would have to choose between cheap and more limited, or absurdly expensive (if available at all) and less limited.

Aside from that, most markets are controlled by one of a small number of large ISP's.

No, this is a case of where regulation is going to be necessary. The market is NOT going to sort this one out.

Wireless of course. The newly free tv bandwidth will be a part of the expansion in the next few years.
Going WISP removes that last mile line need and makes it quickly deployable as well as dirt cheap.
The more riled up you guys are about it the more $$$$$$$$ I see to be made.
Almost wish I hadn't sold out a few years ago.

Do you really think WISP's are going to seriously compete with the incumbents? Shoot, they will probably BE the incumbents. There is also the infrastructure issue. It's not like you can have one tower in the middle of town. You are going to have to blanket the town with repeaters. That is not going to be cheap; and it's going to be difficult to get investment.

It's still better to keep the lid on the existing ISP's, rather than depend on an ISP that doesn't even exist yet.

Farmerkev wrote:

JakeTheTall wrote:

Farmerkev wrote:

Wireless of course. The newly free tv bandwidth will be a part of the expansion in the next few years.
Going WISP removes that last mile line need and makes it quickly deployable as well as dirt cheap.
The more riled up you guys are about it the more $$$$$$$$ I see to be made.
Almost wish I hadn't sold out a few years ago.

Sure there's money to be made.  But the regulators / government won't let you make it.  Most consumer ISPs are protected monopolies.

They are?

Most cable ISPs and All DSL ISPs started out as protected monopolies. Enjoying decades of exclusive access to customers.
Deregulation opened things up to competition in theory but when it was ruled that the incumbents did not have to give competitors access to their wires that closed the door to competition.
Expecting a new ISP to build out a cable system without the protection that the incumbents enjoyed while they built out makes laying new pipe economically unfeasible.

I know that where you are, a single tower could service a hundred square miles because it's flat and there isn't more of an obstacle than a cow.

Where I am, there are thick buildings and in fact I have re-wired my home network because there are so many EM transmissions that the wifi performance is degraded and often drops completely.

Going last mile wireless is not realistic.

Tallgeese wrote:

I know that where you are, a single tower could service a hundred square miles because it's flat and there isn't more of an obstacle than a cow.

Where I am, there are thick buildings and in fact I have re-wired my home network because there are so many EM transmissions that the wifi performance is degraded and often drops completely.

Going last mile wireless is not realistic.

No, they can't. 10 mile radius is pushing it in open country on unlicensed and crowded bandwidth is a problem. I've got my choice of 4 wisps plus all the other usual suspects.
The TV bands will of course go farther but it's still unclear if any of that will be left for unlicensed or it will all go to auction and deep pockets will own it all.
The beauty of last mile wireless is how cheap and cost effective it is.
To put it in perspective, for less than the cost of 1/4 mile of copper I could do an entire county with multiple redundancy, frequencies and overlap to eliminate a largest portion of obstacles.
Yes, you are correct, it isn't perfect and won't always work but it's much better than the impression your operating under.

If there is so little competition, how come my service keeps getting better and better?

I suspect, btw, that's why my bt is no longer capped - they no longer need to in order to provide adequate service to everyone because they've improved their networks, which they've done due to competition.

resedit wrote:

D'Eyncourt wrote:

Huh--hardly surprising: resedit uses P2P so the entire world's problems is based on P2P

I gave several opportunities for people to demonstrate where there has bee a problem this would solve that doesn't involve P2P or other servers, and no one came up with a single one.

And you dismiss any forward thinking as paranoia.

You also continue to talk about bandwidth throttling which is irrelevant to net neutrality so stop it, go away, read something, and then come back when you know what the debate is about.

Last edited by Tallgeese (2009-10-28 8:18 pm)

Farmerkev wrote:

Tallgeese wrote:

And you dismiss any forward thinking as paranoia.

And for the people that show some forward thinking on the unintended consequences of Obamacare?

You'll have to be a lot more specific than that.

Farmerkev wrote:

I think your statement was more than nonspecific and all encompassing to cover mine but exactly when does seeing the possibility for future abuse from either business or the government, both of which have ample examples of misdeeds, go from forward thinking to paranoia?

When it goes from wanting to write good legislation to forestall misdeeds to, say, declaring that communism is sure to follow.

But res is the one saying that seeing and wanting to forestall the possibility for future business misdeeds is paranoia.

Yeah, when did the government seize the power to regulate interstate commerce? It's a power grab, I tell ya!

Farmerkev wrote:

Tallgeese wrote:

Yeah, when did the government seize the power to regulate interstate commerce? It's a power grab, I tell ya!

Something is being sold between citizens across state lines?

Here is a question for you.
I haul grain and sell it to an company 12 miles away from the field.
I cross no state lines.
What class of commerce am I engaged in?

What does that has to do with internet regulation, which is both interstate and international commerce and therefore fully under the purview of Congress?