If teh cell companies can do it, anyone can. On 11/9/05, A. Huppenthal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Its true, Internet is an option.There are lots of people in the valley > here that never want it. > As to billing, paying per bit won't happen except for the Cellular > companys who have per minute everything in place as it is. > You'd think that since telephone service was flat rate some time ago, > you couldn't reverse the trend, but ah ha! If you > have something like cellular for Internet you can. The demand needs to > overcome the view that you are being screwed > if you pay per bit. If its obvious you are being screwed something needs > to be done.. Suspending that belief that's the result of compelling > applications and great marketing and some peer pressure. Do you think 8 > to 18 year olds really give a damn if Dad is paying per bit or flat > rate.. no way. IM just has to be there, all the time, and so does > picture and video transfer.. ;-) > > The core sales center for cellular isn't you any longer, its 8 to 18 > year olds. Its a bit different for fixed wireless. > > > Tom DeReggi wrote: > > > 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'" <[email protected]> > > Sent: Wednesday, November 09, 2005 5:30 PM > > Subject: RE: [WISPA] NYCwireless Network Neutrality Broadband Challenge > > > > > >> <snip> > >> 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. > >> </snip> > >> > >> Is it not generally expected that Internet access be available in a > >> similar > >> manner? If not today, what about 5-10 years from now > >> > >> -Charles > >> > >> ------------------------------------------- > >> CWLab > >> Technology Architects > >> http://www.cwlab.com > >> > >> > >> -- > >> WISPA Wireless List: [email protected] > >> > >> Subscribe/Unsubscribe: > >> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless > >> > >> 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: [email protected] > > Subscribe/Unsubscribe: > http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless > > Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ >
-- -RickG -- WISPA Wireless List: [email protected] Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
