Its true, Internet is an option.There are lots of people in the valley
here that never want it.
As to billing, paying per bit won't happen except for the Cellular
companys who have per minute everything in place as it is.
You'd think that since telephone service was flat rate some time ago,
you couldn't reverse the trend, but ah ha! If you
have something like cellular for Internet you can. The demand needs to
overcome the view that you are being screwed
if you pay per bit. If its obvious you are being screwed something needs
to be done.. Suspending that belief that's the result of compelling
applications and great marketing and some peer pressure. Do you think 8
to 18 year olds really give a damn if Dad is paying per bit or flat
rate.. no way. IM just has to be there, all the time, and so does
picture and video transfer.. ;-)
The core sales center for cellular isn't you any longer, its 8 to 18
year olds. Its a bit different for fixed wireless.
Tom DeReggi wrote:
Without electricity, you are blind or get heat stroke.
Without gas (propaine /natural), you freeze to death.
Without water, you dehydrate or get desease (no bathing).
All above things considered necessities, up there with food.
People could die without them.
TV, Phone, Internet on the other hand are luxeries, things that people
rely on, but would survive if they did without. I've never seen
someone die from TV/Phone/Internet with drawal, although you never
know it could happen. There is however financial benefits of having
those luxeries, and there are general safety benefits of having the
above.
The way to tell the difference is to see how much someone will pay for
something. Leave someone in the desert heat for a week, and then see
how much they'll pay you for the last bottle of water. If its a
matter of life or death they'd pay thousands. When someones
electricity goes out in the winter, they won't even flinch at going to
a hotel for a night or two at $150 a night.
But then tell a consumer you have a $300 setup fee for their
residential Broadband wireless service and see how quick they hang up
the phone on you! If a consumer doesn't put a high value on a service,
then it is NOT a necessity. NObody has ever refused to pay $150 a
month for an electric bill, why are they so resistent to pay $50 a
month for a residential Internet service? Because it is NOT a
necessity. There is a big difference, it may however become a
"COMMODITY". Something that someone expects to have cheap and widely
available. But a commodity is in no way a necessity.
So I in know believe INternet/phone/and TV should be in the same
catagory as necessities like utilities.. But I do believe that the
world increases its standards as life and technology progresses. Why
settle for the minimum? People WILL demand things basic communication
rights, like TV/Phone/Internet. Not because its a necessity, but
becaues its a luxury that no one should be without based on the high
standard of living that the US life has made possible. A simple
question is asked, why shouldn't every person in America have complete
communications? What barrier could possibly justify not being able to
accomplish it? Withholding something that is easilly deliverable is
just plain evil. The technology is here today to offer universal
broadband and communications, so people will not except not having it.
So yes Charles I agree, in 5-10 years, people will expect to have it
as a commodity, wether it is a necessity such as heat,water,electric,
is irrelevant.
My answer is the battle to to prove to the world it is NOT a
commodity. It is a service that has value and a service worth paying
for. I still remember when I paid $500 a month for my ISDN for a two
man office. I believe broadband is worth as much if not more than a
phone or a television service. Even if someone is poor or on welfare,
they are likely to have a phone, cell phone, or TV, and they are
finding a way to justify paying for it, even though it costs
substantially more than Broadband for residential consumers. Why
should broadband be less valuable? Because there was competition at
one time, that drove the price down. Something there wasn't much of in
local phone or Cable TV services.
So my view is if governement want to fight for universal broadband for
the rich/poor, urban/ rural, no problem, just don't devalue the
service that has value.
I remember when my wife was on bed rest and she had to wear a monitor.
There was no problem for the world to justify (insurance approved) why
a remote monitoring system, was allowed to charge several hundred
dollars a day, for the monitor service. How would that person be able
to do the monitoring without a phone or an internet connection?
Wouldn't you argue that the connection was a significant partner in
delivering the solution? In ten years I can see every elderly person
wearing a broadband enabled monitor of some sort. The applications are
limitless. why shouldn't the connection have a value so much lower
than the applications thatrely on the connection?
Universal coverage, is one issue we have to really be carefull about
supporting. Because then monopolies are going to be expected to serve
those underserved areas. And the markets won't be left open for small
businesses to pursue. ILECs resistence against using USF for its
purpose, is one of the best things for leaving markets open for small
ISPs.
I just read that Yale University was granted some HUGE (hundred
millions) amount, from the governement to grant full scolarship to
graduate level students studying in the music field. The reason was
the music field does not pay enough, to justify the college costs, and
its important that the nation is not without good musicians. Thus
money granted to cure a common problem for universal right to ahve
education in all fields. It become improtant enough for the country to
foot the bill. Whats any different with broadband. You don't see the
colledges lowering the price of colledge tuition down to $19.95 a
month. They keep the va;lue high at $20,000 a year. They don't lower
the value, they jsut expect the country to foot the bill. If the
governement thinks Broadband is so important for EVERYONE, even if
everyone can;'t afford it, then let the governement foot the bill with
grants to broadband providers. Let me charge the $50 a month that
need to be charged to make sure the broadband offered is supported and
delivered with the highest standard that consumers need. Just send me
the grant check!
Tom DeReggi
RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc
Tom DeReggi
RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc
IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband
----- Original Message ----- From: "Charles Wu" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "'WISPA General List'" <wireless@wispa.org>
Sent: Wednesday, November 09, 2005 5:30 PM
Subject: RE: [WISPA] NYCwireless Network Neutrality Broadband Challenge
<snip>
For example, electricity, gas and water are items that are needed for
basic
survival in the city. Granted, these services have not always been
available, but it is expected by all Americans that if they move
somewhere,
they can get those services. Most people would not survive without
these
services. Tell me how internet access fits that description.
</snip>
Is it not generally expected that Internet access be available in a
similar
manner? If not today, what about 5-10 years from now
-Charles
-------------------------------------------
CWLab
Technology Architects
http://www.cwlab.com
--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org
Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
--
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.361 / Virus Database: 267.12.8/163 - Release Date:
11/8/2005
--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org
Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/