----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Peter R." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "WISPA General List" <wireless@wispa.org>
Sent: Tuesday, June 20, 2006 7:41 PM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Talking Point: Broadband Scandal book


> Mark Koskenmaki wrote:
>
> >I'd take whatever this says with a LARGE load of salt.
> >
> >For instance, this paragraph:   "New franchises? Verizon's FiOS and
AT&T's
> >Lightspeed are inferior services. We're 16th in broadband because they
> >companies conned the American Public and never delivered. Asia has 100
Mbps
> >services for $40 bucks... and we have?"
> >
> >This is misleading, if you want to be diplomatic and kind to the writer.
> >If you want to be blunt, it's a stupid lie.
> >
> In 1998 Verizon received rate increases when they promised Pennsylvania
> 45MB to the home. That was 1998. Today, you are lucky if you can get
> 30MB to the home - and 85% of that is reserved for IPTV. And you have to
> live in an affluent neighborhood that probably is already lit for cable
> and DSL.
> But consumers in PA have paid for their network to the tune of $2B since
> 1998.

And the consumers in all these other countries are not paying huge money in
taxes to get subsidized services they would not or could not buy if they
were to pay the price voluntarily?

And who says that thier systems ACTUALLY perform as ... claimed?

>
> Yeah, density, geography, rural, blah, blah. Jaguar Comm is rural in
> Minnesota and he is rolling out FTTH to his customers. CavTel in VA has
> already rolled out IPTV. There are 700+ muni BB projects because of
> false promises from RBOCs.  Instead of spending millions on lobbyists
> and litigation, BUILD THE DAMN NETWORK.

Muni BB is just a false promise and it's going to hurt us all.

>
> If you understand redlining and the fact that the numbers say it is less
> than $1000 to pass fiber to a home, you have to wonder how often they
> can lie in print and get away with it.

I don't believe it's under 1000 / home  to deploy fiber, not for a moment.
Heck, just in my tiny town of 275 homes, that would mean it would cost about
300K to deploy?   That seems really, REALLY cheap.   But even worse, at a
40% take rate, it would not provide anywhere NEAR enough revenue to make it
viable unless the cost was at least 100 / mo.



>
> There are a bunch of reasons we are 16th in BB penetration - geography,
> people are happy with dial-up, not everyone has access to a computer,
> libraries offer free access, people get online at work, yadda yadda.
> Doesn't take away from the fact that they are only building the network
> for TV - or we would still be stuck with 3MB DSL.

And this is bad...how?

Other than it provides political fodder for politicians, and rhetoric for
activists, I simply can't see why this is any national concern.


North East Oregon Fastnet, LLC 509-593-4061
personal correspondence to:  mark at neofast dot net
sales inquiries to:  purchasing at neofast dot net
Fast Internet, NO WIRES!
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
-

>
> - Peter
> -- 
> WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org
>
> Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
>
> Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/

-- 
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