Without electricity, you are blind or get heat stroke.
Without gas (propaine /natural), you freeze to death.
Without water, you dehydrate or get desease (no bathing).
All above things considered necessities, up there with food.
People could die without them.

TV, Phone, Internet on the other hand are luxeries, things that people rely on, but would survive if they did without. I've never seen someone die from TV/Phone/Internet with drawal, although you never know it could happen. There is however financial benefits of having those luxeries, and there are general safety benefits of having the above.

The way to tell the difference is to see how much someone will pay for something. Leave someone in the desert heat for a week, and then see how much they'll pay you for the last bottle of water. If its a matter of life or death they'd pay thousands. When someones electricity goes out in the winter, they won't even flinch at going to a hotel for a night or two at $150 a night.

But then tell a consumer you have a $300 setup fee for their residential Broadband wireless service and see how quick they hang up the phone on you! If a consumer doesn't put a high value on a service, then it is NOT a necessity. NObody has ever refused to pay $150 a month for an electric bill, why are they so resistent to pay $50 a month for a residential Internet service? Because it is NOT a necessity. There is a big difference, it may however become a "COMMODITY". Something that someone expects to have cheap and widely available. But a commodity is in no way a necessity.

So I in know believe INternet/phone/and TV should be in the same catagory as necessities like utilities.. But I do believe that the world increases its standards as life and technology progresses. Why settle for the minimum? People WILL demand things basic communication rights, like TV/Phone/Internet. Not because its a necessity, but becaues its a luxury that no one should be without based on the high standard of living that the US life has made possible. A simple question is asked, why shouldn't every person in America have complete communications? What barrier could possibly justify not being able to accomplish it? Withholding something that is easilly deliverable is just plain evil. The technology is here today to offer universal broadband and communications, so people will not except not having it.

So yes Charles I agree, in 5-10 years, people will expect to have it as a commodity, wether it is a necessity such as heat,water,electric, is irrelevant.

My answer is the battle to to prove to the world it is NOT a commodity. It is a service that has value and a service worth paying for. I still remember when I paid $500 a month for my ISDN for a two man office. I believe broadband is worth as much if not more than a phone or a television service. Even if someone is poor or on welfare, they are likely to have a phone, cell phone, or TV, and they are finding a way to justify paying for it, even though it costs substantially more than Broadband for residential consumers. Why should broadband be less valuable? Because there was competition at one time, that drove the price down. Something there wasn't much of in local phone or Cable TV services.

So my view is if governement want to fight for universal broadband for the rich/poor, urban/ rural, no problem, just don't devalue the service that has value.

I remember when my wife was on bed rest and she had to wear a monitor. There was no problem for the world to justify (insurance approved) why a remote monitoring system, was allowed to charge several hundred dollars a day, for the monitor service. How would that person be able to do the monitoring without a phone or an internet connection? Wouldn't you argue that the connection was a significant partner in delivering the solution? In ten years I can see every elderly person wearing a broadband enabled monitor of some sort. The applications are limitless. why shouldn't the connection have a value so much lower than the applications thatrely on the connection?

Universal coverage, is one issue we have to really be carefull about supporting. Because then monopolies are going to be expected to serve those underserved areas. And the markets won't be left open for small businesses to pursue. ILECs resistence against using USF for its purpose, is one of the best things for leaving markets open for small ISPs.

I just read that Yale University was granted some HUGE (hundred millions) amount, from the governement to grant full scolarship to graduate level students studying in the music field. The reason was the music field does not pay enough, to justify the college costs, and its important that the nation is not without good musicians. Thus money granted to cure a common problem for universal right to ahve education in all fields. It become improtant enough for the country to foot the bill. Whats any different with broadband. You don't see the colledges lowering the price of colledge tuition down to $19.95 a month. They keep the va;lue high at $20,000 a year. They don't lower the value, they jsut expect the country to foot the bill. If the governement thinks Broadband is so important for EVERYONE, even if everyone can;'t afford it, then let the governement foot the bill with grants to broadband providers. Let me charge the $50 a month that need to be charged to make sure the broadband offered is supported and delivered with the highest standard that consumers need. Just send me the grant check!

Tom DeReggi
RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc

Tom DeReggi
RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc
IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband

----- Original Message ----- From: "Charles Wu" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "'WISPA General List'" <wireless@wispa.org>
Sent: Wednesday, November 09, 2005 5:30 PM
Subject: RE: [WISPA] NYCwireless Network Neutrality Broadband Challenge

For example, electricity, gas and water are items that are needed for basic
survival in the city.  Granted, these services have not always been
available, but it is expected by all Americans that if they move somewhere,
they can get those services.  Most people would not survive without these
services.  Tell me how internet access fits that description.

Is it not generally expected that Internet access be available in a similar
manner?  If not today, what about 5-10 years from now


Technology Architects

WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org


Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/

No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.361 / Virus Database: 267.12.8/163 - Release Date: 11/8/2005

WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org


Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/

Reply via email to