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'" <wireless@wispa.org>
> > 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: wireless@wispa.org
> >>
> >> 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: wireless@wispa.org
>
> Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
>
> Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
>


--
-RickG
--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

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

Reply via email to