On Wed, 22 Jan 2003, at 9:03pm, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > Because I don't have the billions of dollars in liquid assets that AT&T > has in order to build the infrastructure necessary.
Billions of dollars? Why, that sounds like money! Gee... > I never said it was cheap ... [ then, later on in the same paragraph ] > ... Cable Internet should be dirt cheap for them to provide ... Which is it? > ... but AT&T didn't build up huge cash reserves by losing money. Indeed. So you expect that to change? You expect them to lose money on their new data services, just because they're such nice guys? > They sell broadband Internet using equipment that was in large part > already there, providing cable TV, connected to the Internet via a > pre-existing enormous backbone that AT&T had already built. I'm nowhere near as familiar with CATV as I am with DSL technology, but I know that CATV is largely a one-way, broadcast technology. Even digital cable is. You can duplicate the feed in the downstream direction endlessly. You can add 10,000,000 more subscribers and all you need are more repeaters. Providing two-way packet-switched unicast data services is a *completely different* scenario. -- Ben Scott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> | The opinions expressed in this message are those of the author and do | | not represent the views or policy of any other person or organization. | | All information is provided without warranty of any kind. | _______________________________________________ gnhlug-discuss mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss
