My experience has been that income has almost no relationship to whether or
not someone wants and gets high-speed internet.

I know people who drive new trucks and bmw's and won't spring for high speed
internet.   And others who have to scrape it together nickel by nickel who

And, in my area, at least, there's well past 25% who simply don't have a
computer, much less want internet.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ - fast internet for North East Oregon and South East Washington
email me at mark at neofast dot net
Direct commercial inquiries to purchasing at neofast dot net

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Tom DeReggi" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "WISPA General List" <>
Sent: Wednesday, September 20, 2006 3:11 PM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Lack of Competition

> Peter,
> " Other figures from research firms like Forrester
> show that only about 40% of Americans have high-speed connections at
> home, 30% rely on dial-up and 25% don’t have any Internet connections at
> all!"
> I do not disagree with those statistics. I disagree with your statement
> most DialUp users are DialUp users by choice, and that most people that
> don't have Internet are doing so by choice. The facts are, 60% of America
> under served, which is both embaressing for the US, and a call for
> opportunity.  In todays world, there is justification for every home in
> America to have broadband and to have a computer.  Not having a computer,
> no longer a valid arguement. Even the most impoverished homes, can manage
> budget to buy a $300 computer from BestBuy, that includes monitor and
> printer.  Or for that matter to get a FREE used donated computer.  A
> pc, does Broadband fine (although slow and problematic).  The reason
> do not buy broadband, is NOT price. It doesn't need to be cheaper. There
> already cost justification, the end user just doesn't always realize it at
> first.  Understanding that the Average DialUp user is paying $35 a month
> already (line and service).  The problem is that broadband is to cheap.
> large players can't justify expansion into lower profit centers, by
> subsidees of higher paying subs.  The problem is that users DO NOT HAVE
> One of the biggest mistakes I made in this industry, which I am paying for
> now dearly, is I did not recognize the market.  I was bold, ambitious, and
> competitive, and wanted to prove I was good as any one else, and hit the
> competition head on in their prime territory.  Its not about win or loose,
> often won. The issue is its a hard war and a peric victory.  What I didn't
> realize is that the under served market was actually the larger market
> the "tier1 prime market".  60% underserved, 40% served.  Why in the world
> did I decide to go after the smaller market with more competition?  This
> the only reason, that DIAL UP providers still hold half the US's Internet
> traffic, providers are stupid, and don't properly identify the gravy when
> its already stearing them in the face at the table.  In my defense, I have
> the excuse that I live in a Urban Tier 1 market.
> This is why "WIRELESS" is such an exciting play today. We have a
> different economics and different set of limitations and criteria than
> wireline providers. We often can do well what they can't, although limited
> in other areas that they do well.
> Wireless on the other hand, is still to expensive on a individual level,
> replace Dial Up.  The cable isn't already there, we need to actually
> something, and wireless companies do not yet have the same support
> that monopolies and utilities have.  I'd argue that under served America
> NOT the fault or choice of consumers, it is the CLEAR undisputed failure
> Governement officials and legislators and wireless manufacturers.  The
> manufacturers have an excuse, they don't want to risk money on a potential
> business model, when the industry has zero support by the governement.
> important not to confuse what I am saying, this is NOT a request for Muni
> broadband.  The problem is that somewhere along the line, the Governement
> decided that it is no longer necessary to support small business.  Set up
> programs that gives it all to the goliath companies.  They'd rather
> programs to support a super company, than thousands of companies that
> work togeather to create a greater more efficient army.   Everyone wants
> Earthlink.  Yeah, thats going to be fast, as they all wait in line for the
> same company.  Forgetting that the people that want to bring broadband to
> the underserved with a vengence are the ones that live their and know the
> deficiency and market exists.  Any way you slice it, a small local company
> can deliver service more accurately and quickly, and more sincerity for
> quality, for all the advantages that the local provider possesses.
> Sometimes I wish our governement was run by Pre-Schoolers, because even
> get it, and are tought the principles early on.  You don't hire a giant,
> crawl into a tiny crawl space, they don't fit, no matter how big and
> they are. Its OK to be small.
> The truth is a broad statistical survey will never bring out the true
> feelings of all the people needing served. Small samples do not adequately
> find the holes full of frustrated people.
> Your local provider know who these people are.  What the country needs is
> not governements facilitating exclusivity in exchange for incouraging
> party investment in their communities, to put their local community
> professionals in the field out of the business.  What this country needs
> powerful support for the small local company.  Every local government
> be asking themselves, "who is in town" and "how many of them can we help"
> and "in what way".  Because these are the guys that care about their local
> town, and know their towns first hand.
> The day this happens, the politics and public deception will be over.
> It will take a long time for the small independant provider to tackle the
> problem alone. But if the governement had the guts to start spending
> consumers tax dollars to help the army of small providers help the
> consumers, it could happen a lot faster.  They need to stop begging money
> and help from the big companies, and use tax dollars whats it for, helping
> the people.  If they spent just a fraction of what they budget for Public
> Safety and Homeland security, to help small providers, the problem would
> solved.  Dial Users would quickly start to switch to their friendly local
> broadband provider.  The problem today, is the Urban is handled by
> RUS handles the lowest 1% of the market, but the other 59% of them go
> unrepresented.
> If the small providers had the help, they could easilly do the volume that
> is needed to encourage manufacturers to built better cheaper gear.  And
> better cheaper gear, ISPs could develop value propositions to make
> affordable to convert Dial Up from.
> Tom DeReggi
> RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc
> IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: "Peter R." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: "WISPA General List" <>
> Sent: Wednesday, September 20, 2006 9:58 AM
> Subject: Re: [WISPA] Lack of Competition
> > Which stat don't you like Tom?
> >
> > The PEW Report:
> >
> > "As of May-June 2005, 68% of American adults, or about 137 million
> > use the
> > internet, up from 63% one year ago. Thirty-two percent of American
> > or about 65
> > million people, do not use the internet and not always by choice.
> > groups continue
> > to lag in their internet adoption, including Americans age 65 and older,
> > African-
> > Americans, and those with less education."
> >
> > Numbers vary depending on the poll/survey/source.
> >
> > From America's Network:
> >
> > "Some 62 million Americans are still using their telephone lines to dial
> > into the Internet, according to recent figures from the Pew Internet and
> > American Life Project. Other figures from research firms like Forrester
> > show that only about 40% of Americans have high-speed connections at
> > 30% rely on dial-up and 25% don’t have any Internet connections at all!"
> >
> > So how come the US is lagging behind most of the developed world in
> > broadband access? Some analysts cite price as a factor, but that seems
> > doubtful. DSL deals from Verizon and ATT often are priced below monthly
> > dial-up rates, and millions of cable television customers can get
> > cable-modem service packaged at a discount with their TV and phone
> > service. So why stick with slow dialup?
> >
> > The main problem seems to be the free-market telecom frenzy that has
> > enveloped the US (and much of its population) in technology and price
> > uncertainty. With no national broadband policy in place, multiple
> > providers are targeting affluent urban areas, while leaving many poor
> > rural dwellers to fend for themselves. In big cities, that means
> > face daunting broadband choices. Should they sign a contract with their
> > cable provider or telco? Wait for the installation of a Wi-Fi network?
> > Choose an alternate provider like EarthLink? And which broadband
> > technology is the best? Many just stick with what they know best: the
> > but reliable telephone.
> >
> > Even the service providers themselves are confused. A plan by the city
> > West Hollywood, Calif. to install Wi-Fi has stalled for two years
> > the local utility company can’t decide whether to grant a right-of-way
> > the equipment on its lampposts.
> >
> > Inevitably, this is going to change, but the change would come much more
> > quickly if a national policy and direction were put into place,
> > knew what to expect and the service providers better focused their
> > efforts. Until then, Americans will have another reason to worry about
> > rise of China.
> >
> > ---------------------
> >
> > Doesn't matter if you like or believe the numbers. The fact is that
> > Broadband growth has stalled. So ISPs have to find out why (fear, tired
> > PC troubles, too much crap, don't need the internet, no PC to use) in
> > order to have growth in those flattened or no-growth areas.
> >
> > - Peter
> >
> >
> > Tom DeReggi wrote:
> >
> >> Peter,
> >>
> >> I do not agree with those statistics.
> >> Why would anyone prefer DialUp for the same price? Don't think so.
> >> A large part of that 68% are DialUp Users NOT by choice.
> >>
> >> Tom DeReggi
> >> RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc
> >> IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband
> >>
> >>
> >> ----- Original Message ----- From: "George Rogato"
> >> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "WISPA General List" <>
> >> Sent: Monday, September 18, 2006 7:49 PM
> >> Subject: Re: [WISPA] Lack of Competition Leaves U.S.16th Among
> >> IndustrializedNations
> >>
> >>
> >>> Peter R. wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> We are actually at the point where about 68% of the US population has
> >>>> Internet.
> >>>> The rest don't own a computer or do not want Internet.
> >>>>
> >>>> Some of that 68% is still on dial-up. For some it is a price thing.
> >>>> some it is not understanding technology. For some it is to make the
> >>>> experience painful to avoid wasting hours on the internet.
> >>>>
> >>>> So dropping the price - as SBC and VZ have experienced - to sub-$15
> >>>> gets you some dial-up conversions. But when the price returns to
> >>>> normal, some switch back to cheaper dial-up.
> >>>>
> >>>> The dilemma becomes How do you get more internet appliance (PC's,
> >>>> laptops, PDAs, internet terminal) penetration?
> >>>>
> >>>> The marketing question is: What Remarkable & Useful things can you do
> >>>> with broadband (other than entertainment)?
> >>>>
> >>>> That's my 2 cents.
> >>>>
> >>>> Peter @ RAD-INFO, Inc.
> >>>
> > -- 
> > WISPA Wireless List:
> >
> > Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
> >
> >
> > Archives:
> >
> >
> > -- 
> > No virus found in this incoming message.
> > Checked by AVG Free Edition.
> > Version: 7.1.405 / Virus Database: 268.12.5/451 - Release Date:
> >
> -- 
> WISPA Wireless List:
> Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
> Archives:

WISPA Wireless List:



Reply via email to