> > I never said it was cheap ... > [ then, later on in the same paragraph ] > > ... Cable Internet should be dirt cheap for them to provide ... > > Which is it?
Cheap to get started from SCRATCH.. AT&T already has a HUGE setup already in place reselling T's and having peers so they didn't even have to do any of that. > > ... but AT&T didn't build up huge cash reserves by losing money. > > Indeed. So you expect that to change? You expect them to > lose money on their new data services, just because they're > such nice guys? Lose money on what? They already have big fat pipes in place, and running all that is where the real initial cost is.. They do after all own the lines it's not like they're going to charge themselves like they do for anybody else that enters the market... > I'm nowhere near as familiar with CATV as I am with DSL > technology, but I know that CATV is largely a one-way, > broadcast technology. Even digital cable is. You can > duplicate the feed in the downstream direction endlessly. > You can add 10,000,000 more subscribers and all you need are > more repeaters. Digital Cable is very much two way, that's how PPV works.. While it doesn't need the bandwidth (or the spectrum space) to work, it does need a very clean return to work. They needed to run all new line for digital cable to work, just as much as they did for internet service.. Also, don't forget the phone service. > Providing two-way packet-switched unicast data services is > a *completely > different* scenario. And cable over internet is *completely different* then the way DSL works. _______________________________________________ gnhlug-discuss mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss
