Morning Bruce You said: I don't think that Qwest or Comcast is worrying too much about it because they provide something that I can't ADDED VALUE.
I'm curious what you think the added value that Qwest or Comcast adds in this instance. Your neighbors want to surf the Internet for free, you allow that and I assume it is fast and that no ports are blocked. Aside from more available bandwidth per household and respectively unspectacular support desks, what do the likes of Qwest or Comcast offer over and above this? Cheers Nigel Nigel Ballard [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.joejava.com -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Bruce Ehlers Sent: Saturday, April 30, 2005 8:26 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; 'Joe Plotkin' Cc: nycwireless@lists.nycwireless.net Subject: RE: [nycwireless] DSL Prime: Verizon Killing WiFi Wants people You guys are arguing about non-issue... Wifi for profit is a LOOSER without added value. Any Tom, Dick, or Harry can put up an antenna and provide FREE Wifi service to his neighbors, but is that what they really want? I don't think so as a means for a solution. Is it something that they would use? YES when they are in an area away from their main usage. I use the public TV airways when I'm on my boat but when I'm home I use DirecTV because they add value. I don't see where the FREE TV is going to put DirecTV or others out of business, in fact they survive because they provide ADDED VALUE to free TV. Wifi is no different... If you want to make money on it, you have to figure out why someone should pay you for it. It's just that simple. The government argument is an old way to say "I really don't have a point." We as a society can blame everything on government, but it simply doesn't wash. Let local government provide FREE anything because it doesn't really matter. Do you honestly believe that you have control over where you tax dollars are spent? Unless you are at every city council meeting, friends with the mayor, and actively provide input, you really don't have a voice that anyone cares about. Let the city provide free service and figure out why someone should pay you for yours.. You'll be far better off and make a bunch of money while the city provides another inadequate service that no one cares about. It's the American way... By the way I'm still waiting for someone to throw into this argument the "we're at war" statement as an issue for something. I live in MN and provide FREE wifi service to anyone within a mile of my house on the St. Croix river... Everyone can use it from their boat for free, but I'll also bet that they have their own service that they pay for at home. Yep, I'm one of those Tom, Dick, and Harry's and having fun providing a FREE service to my neighbors on the river... I don't think that Qwest or Comcast is worrying too much about it because they provide something that I can't ADDED VALUE. ===================== Bruce Ehlers [EMAIL PROTECTED] -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, April 29, 2005 4:33 PM To: Joe Plotkin Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; nycwireless@lists.nycwireless.net Subject: Re: [nycwireless] DSL Prime: Verizon Killing WiFi Wants people On Fri, 29 Apr 2005, Joe Plotkin wrote: > role of government and our tax dollars in a way I hadnt thought of it > before. Which is: is there only one correct model for muni wifi? > Unfortunately, I think you want to have it both ways, which I do find > problematic. What I mean is this: if a municipality provides free > wifi, then you object because, you say, they give away what you charge > for (another point I'll disagree with later). However, if they put it > out to the highest bidder (NYC lightpoles), which is less onerous on > taxpayers, you decry it as shutting you out. Eh, its just like another monopoly, compare this with cable and phone service. There's no big problem if city-sanctioned (or funded) monopoly is an open service, where anyone can use it with few restrictions. > I agree that the open model (Philly), allowing all ISPs to provide > services is the best model. However, far more urgently, that model > should be applied to all last mile RBOC wireline facilities. > Especially fiber. As Im sure you know too well, the FCC has decreed > otherwise, I believe to the detriment of our economy overall, and ISPs > specifically. That is true lock out from an essential facility and > unfair in the extreme. Because we've allowed private control of public > telecom infrastructure, which was built as regulated monopoly, a > public trust. Oh absolutely. > In contrast to the re-monopolization of the wireline first/last mile, > I dont think muni wireless is a threat to Pilosoft or Bway because > they will not be giving away what we charge for. Will they have full > coverage? Not any time soon, if ever. Tech support? email accounts? > IP address? Despite your valiant arguments, I think my public library > analogy still holds. Yeah, you are right, some rich people will eat > for free (or read every new book for free), when they really should be > our paying customers. But I ask you, how many customers has Pilosoft > lost to free wifi? Now how many to cheap cable or Vz offers? There's no free reliable wifi anywhere in the market area, so this question *now* is premature. I'll tell you that we both will lose a large portion of our market if free reliable wifi becomes standard. > Bway.net has picked up many customers because we encourage free public > wifi sharing of their DSL connection. We haven't lost a single > customer who said they could get their neighbors wifi signal instead. Cable? > Lots. Vz? Lots more. Using neighbours wifi is not the same as using free service maintained by the city. "joe sixpack" wouldn't use their neighbours wifi because of possible security and reliability concerns, but they'd use city-ran wifi in a heartbeat.. > Alternatively, do you have any plans to offer service in NYC as a WISP? > If we gave folks Internet coupons (like food stamps) would you be > building in these under-served nabes? Personally, I dont see a > profitable business model -- so I see an important opportunity for > government, perhaps with help from non-profits like NYCwireless, to > step in and provide basic connectivity. As long as its an open network, I don't have a problem with any new builds funded by my tax dollars. You of all people should recognize danger of building yet another sanctioned closed monopoly. -- NYCwireless - http://www.nycwireless.net/ Un/Subscribe: http://lists.nycwireless.net/mailman/listinfo/nycwireless/ Archives: http://lists.nycwireless.net/pipermail/nycwireless/ -- NYCwireless - http://www.nycwireless.net/ Un/Subscribe: http://lists.nycwireless.net/mailman/listinfo/nycwireless/ Archives: http://lists.nycwireless.net/pipermail/nycwireless/ -- NYCwireless - http://www.nycwireless.net/ Un/Subscribe: http://lists.nycwireless.net/mailman/listinfo/nycwireless/ Archives: http://lists.nycwireless.net/pipermail/nycwireless/