Slashdot Mirror
Sprint ION's $100/mo, 8Mbps Home Service Tanks
Dr. Zowie writes: "In the current gloomy high speed connection market, a ray of light was Sprint's ION service. For $100/month, they would provide local phone service, long distance service, and 8mbps down, 1mbps up DSL-like digital connection. I've been waiting for the service to turn on to write a review about it -- but the service has been discontinued and all orders are being cancelled. Too bad -- ION was like a geek dream come true." ION was only available to a relative handful of people, but it sure sounded good. Anyone have suggestions for this sort of combination service?
I get 8Mbps down/1Mbps up with their new cable modem service in Brooklyn, NY. Why would I want to pay almost 3 times that for Sprint's service?
Uhm.. Well, where I live, I pay $90 for 1.5 down/384 up for DSL. I also pay an additional $20 for phone and $15 for long distance.
But what is this 8Mbps? or 8mpbs? or what? Someone want to fix the caps on that? If I could get 8Mbps/1Mbps for $100, HELL YEAH that would be a good deal.
$100 for more bandwidth vs $135 for less.
Where's the question?
Okay, under my current set up I pay:
$89/month for 1.5/384 DSL
$30/month or so for phone service
$5-10/month for long distance service
So for $100/month I could get:
8Mb/1Mb data
local calling
500 minutes long distance included (and rest being at like 7-10 cents/minute)
For a power user it was definitely a deal because you get more bandwidth and a consolidated bill.
This sig has been temporarily disconnected or is no longer in service
I don't want this to sound like an obituary, but ION really was a great idea. Though it never came to my area, it was just like some of the other FTTH services that we saw earlier in the 90's - voice, data, and eventually video all on one line, through one provider. Admittedly, ION had issues, but overall, the service was good, with plenty of bandwidth, and you got everything from one provider. Plus, as I recall, their TOS/AUP was not as bad as most DSL providers - that is, you could run servers, and add routers/home networks.
In short, it was spectacular service with high prices and low demand. So, it died. Oh well.
Nice play with semantics.
Now, seriously.. Not many people really need this 'service'. Sure, it's nice to have less-than-zero ping times for Q3A (or whatever massively multiplayer game thou hast the time to waste playing), or for *loading kernels, but outisde Silicon Valley in the more 'traditional business' areas, not too many people would really need it.
The worst part is that those bandwidth would have to be peak bandwidths, as that much pipe costs an awful lot of money. (Have you priced T3's and OC's lately?)
The dot-bomb implosion, the fall of Nasdaq, the recessionary economy, and the 11-9 aftermath killed 'em. People with the money to spend started to cut their personal costs, and this sort of service went poof.
I believe that the only way to get reliable fat pipe for the forseeable future is from the established telcos, and it's going to be a little more expensive.
I used to be someone else. Now I'm someone better.
Real life is underrated.
http://www.ftthcouncil.com/
This is in early field test now in Palo Alto,
also I think in a couple of countries in Europe.
Subscription prices being mooted are in the
$40/mo range. A shakedown test rig simulating
live TV feeds through it is running in a lab here.
Getting the content providers on board is the
biggest if at the moment...
But I refuse to do business with Sprint because they screwed us up once, and caused a lot of damage to my credit history.
Two years ago, we moved to a new house, and thought that we had notified our long distance carrier. But after a month, we figured that Sprint long distance jumped in to take our account, without our consent, and charged us $2.71/min to call NYC. The total charge was about $70. After 6 months of phone calls and tons of frustrations, Sprint even dare to give that to a collection company. And that put a nasty spot on my credit history. Eventually, we tried to get over it and paid the god-damned amount.
However, we swear not to give any business to Sprint anymore. We immediately cancelled all our PCS accounts (two of them, and at an average fee of $180/mo, as we were always over the limit) which we had for more than 2 years.
And we discover Sprint did this to a lot of people, including their long-time customers.
So, even if Sprint can provide any high-speed access at a low cost, and even if I don't have any other alternative, I'll give shit to Sprint.
This ION thingy is born dead, and good for them.
MMDS is a superior wireless technology that has been around for over 30 years. It's currently used mostly for wireless analog CATV service, but all sorts of manufacturers (ie Cisco) are making gear that uses this spectrum. It sits right above that unlicensed 2.4Ghz stuff at 2.5Ghz. MMDS BTA's are generally include a 35-mile radius from a central POP.
We're a small rural ISP in New Mexico and we're looking at teaming up with an MMDS CATV provider to combine our services to provide digital cable along with digital wireless internet at speeds up to 45mbits/s. There is also gear to do VoIP, so we can eventually team up with a CLEC or become one and provide dialtone as well. All over the same pipe. Neat eh?
Abstainer: a weak person who yields to the temptation of denying himself a pleasure.
--Ambrose Bierce
Hello all, ;-) Anyway, we all used to hear how advanced we would be in the 21st century, and how we would look back at the 80s and think of how primative we were. Well, except for mullets, I don't think we've really hit that techno-evolutionary stage yet. Sure, we have GHz processors, and terrabit networks, but we don't make use of them, and therein lies the problem.
;-)
I have been thinking of this problem for quite some time. Pondering what consumers would pay for, while also pondering what is feasible. I don't know of any answer for the right now, but maybe for the future.
Here we are, in the 21st century, and where's Duck Dodger? He's only got 50 years till show-time.
I look at the Apple Macintosh. Great piece of hardware. I personally use PCs, simply because I'm a super-nerd, and I like it that way. If I had the money, I'd own one of each. Now, look at how Apple has evolved over the years. Their processor architecture, their software, everything. Every time Apple comes out with something new, it _replaces_ the technology that came before it. They don't spend all their time with backward compatability all the way back the the Lisa. Now, compare that to Intel/MS. They spend a tremendous ammount of time and resources doing just that. The latest p4 can still run apps from the original 8086 chips. This has stopped them from making an efficient and high-performance chip architecture for years, and will continue to do so until they give up the effort.
Now, you're probably wondering what the H-E-double-hockey-sticks this has to do with the topic at hand. Well, quite a bit actually. You see, the telco companies are trying to build tomorrows networks with hardware that has been in place since the sixties, and possibly even earlier. Yes, they have made some changes (i.e. electronic switches), but for the most part, things are the same. You pick up the phone, and hear a dial tone. So, what do they need to do? Surely they can't just stop using the current system. That would leave many outer-limits towns without service. Enter data networks.
Data networks have been around for decades. Nearly as long as the telephone system. The difference is, in thet networking industry, there have been _major_ revolutions. We have come from coupler-type modulators/demodulators (modems for those that don't know their heritage) to terra-bit fibre networks at the bottom of the English channel. Quite a difference, let me tell you. We have gone from transfering a few bytes ber second to transfering the library of congress in a few seconds. That's what I call revolution.
So, what I feel the phone companies need to do is get together, define a standard, easily upgradable, fault tollerant network that they can all share the cost of operation, implementation, and repairs. Kinda sounds like the U.S. Power pool, doesn't it?
Fibre Optic networks make for high speed, and expandability, and they're getting cheaper by the minute, leaving little doubt that an initiative such as this would breathe new life ino the industry.
Additionally, this would mean fewer switches required to keep low latency, and fewer "lines" for the same number of customers. What's more is the fault tollerance. Most OC-x networks have a sort of loop-back, which is the way the internet was supposed to work. This allows for an entire segment to dissappear from the network and not interrupt service on either "side" of the anomolie.
Fibre optic networks would also mean more services to the home. For instance, one "wire" truly could serve video, data, and voice to a home wothout even flinching, which is a far cry to the pairs that run telephone to homes these days. Additionally, bandwidth is limited only to the light spectrum, which fibre optic lines can carry, so as advancements are made, only the physical hardware needs to be replaced, allowing for an extended life span for the lines on the poles.
I plan on writing a paper on this matter, which will look at several technical and financial challenges, not that I have any "industry say", but I do have consumer push. So, keep an eye out for it if this topic interests you. Anyway, that's just my $0.02US.