> CO facilities rental. CO equipment. Data link between CO
> and ISP NOC (T1, multiple T1s, or even T3 or other *REALLY*
> high-speed stuff). ISP backbone equipment.
> ISP servers (DNS, mail, etc.). ISP NOC facilities charges.
> Test equipment. Support/service/administrative overhead.
On Wed, 22 Jan 2003, at 9:00pm, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> The exsiting ISP, be it Vitts, MV, Joe Blow local ISP, they should already
> have ISP backbone equipment in place for their dialups.
Just because a business is already in possession of something doesn't mean
you can call it "free". Even
> On Wed, 22 Jan 2003, at 9:00pm, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > The exsiting ISP, be it Vitts, MV, Joe Blow local ISP, they should
> > already have ISP backbone equipment in place for their dialups.
>
> Just because a business is already in possession of
> something doesn't mean you can call it
>> I know that, but I imagine they still need equipment.
>
> But the point you seem to be missing is that the equipment is THE VERY
> SAME equipment which runs the already profitable cable business.
I'm not missing it at all; I'm assuming that isn't true.
Look, to deliver television -- even
On Wed, 22 Jan 2003, at 10:00pm, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> For an EXTREAMLY simple example, if I toss a cat5 cable to my neighbor and
> throw in some cards and a hub after the cost of running the cable and
> buying the cards and the hub what do I have to pay for now if that cable
> doesn't break?
> Are you telling me that they built their entire digital TV
> distribution network to handle symmetric two-way traffic
> before anyone suspected the Internet would hit it big? Why
> the hell would they do that? Don't give me any talk about
> grand visions of packet-switched networking; the
>First off, the government owns the airwaves, and charges high prices
>to purchase rights to them. Or, if you prefer, you can have everyone
>operate in an unlicensed band (like the 802.11b stuff), and deal with
>the inevitable chaos that will result once serious usage picks up.
This article has
On Wed, 22 Jan 2003, [EMAIL PROTECTED] stated in their Email:
bscott> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
bscott> To: Greater NH Linux User Group <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
bscott> Date: Wed, 22 Jan 2003 21:44:30 -0500 (EST)
bscott> Subject: RE: High Speed Internet costs (was: Email hosting)
bscot
> I not sure how this applies to ATTBI (Cable)
> technology, which I thought brought this to the
> surface. I seem to remember hearing once at a
> MediaOne presentation that the cable companies
> had a huge amount of bandwidth available (TV
> used very little), and they actually had their
>
